Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Joe NYC who wrote (73779)	3/6/2002 7:27:49 PM
From: wanna_bmw	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

Joe, Re: "In fact, Intel stated that they had nothing but Rambus on their roadmap, definitely not DDR on desktop. This is the phase when Intel was lying about their roadmap to get people to buy RDRAM based solution (since in some segments, Intel had no alternative), while they were secretly working on SDR and DDR alternatives." Link please. Re: "Ok, so are you admitting that it was a mistake to try to RAM the RAMbus down the throat of the industry, withholding support for PC-133 (later reversed) and withholding support for DDR (later reversed as well)." "Withholding" implies that Intel had chipsets that could support the memory, but they were unwilling to launch them. That's silly, and you know it. Clearly, Intel made the commitment to go Rambus, and at the time, they had no hedge plan. Therefore, they had to scramble to make solutions when RDRAM wasn't competitive. Right now, RDRAM is very competitive, but it's too late. The industry wants nothing to do with it. Re: "I wonder if 2 to 3 years from now you will also agree than Intel is making the right decision by going to x86-64, abandoning than IA-64?" If that comes to pass, then why wouldn't I admit that I am wrong? Am I closed to the possibility? No. Am I doubtful? You betcha! Re: "Will Intel be making the right decision when they decide to forgo multiplier locks? Is Intel ever making bad decisions in your mind? Or you have to defend every single decisions Intel makes." Now that's just unfair. I have been critical of Intel many times. Most recently, I have been critical of Intel's megahertz myth, which they seem to be propagating when they now have the chance to do something about it. AMD hasn't been able to get TPI off the ground, and instead they are relying on QuantiSpeed. It's the best chance for Intel to come up with a meaningful metric instead, which would both give them a large amount of credibility in the industry, and prevent them from falling in the megahertz trap farther down the road. Otherwise, I am always under the impression that decisions made, even from top executive offices, have a rhyme and reason for being. I usually give Intel the benefit of the doubt with their decisions, because I believe that many very intelligent people work there. After listening to them in public, both at IDF, MPF, financial conference calls, etc, I have to say I am very pleased with Intel management. I feel quite differently about Jerry "loud mouth" Sanders, and that just happens to strengthen my bias. Re: "I have been AMD shareholder on this board, and I have questioned probably half of the decisions AMD made. You seem to be content with every single decision Intel makes, until Intel makes a reversal, and then you support the new decision, keeping you 100% in sync with Intel PR operation." Come now, Joe. You shout the Jerry Sanders Party Line more often than not. Are you so blind that you can call me 100% biased, and you 0%? Re: "If you think this is an unfair portrayal of you, maybe you can list instances of current Intel policies, actions, direction or decisions that you just absolutely hate or even things that upset you or you are annoyed by." I already have, and if you stay tuned, you're sure to hear more. wbmw

To: Joe NYC who wrote (73779)	3/6/2002 7:30:13 PM
From: Ali Chen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Joe, please take easy on him ;-) Since we don't have access to Intel's PR scripts, at least some interpretation is still helpful to gain bits of visibility:) - Ali

To: Joe NYC who wrote (73779)	3/7/2002 6:16:01 AM
From: andreas_wonisch	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 275872

Joe, Re: I have been AMD shareholder on this board, and I have questioned probably half of the decisions AMD made. You seem to be content with every single decision Intel makes, until Intel makes a reversal, and then you support the new decision IMO this sort of thinking can be seen with most Intel investors. That's probably because Intel made some very good decisions in the past (otherwise they wouldn't have become the number one semiconductor company) and for those that held the stock for ten years or more it was very profitable. If you are an Intel investor you expect that development to continue (although for the last two or three year it hasn't), so there's no reason to question Intel decisions. After all they have done almost everything right in the past, so why should this change now? If you are an AMD investor the situation is completely different: AMD screwed up so many times that you have to permanently question every decision they made if you want to made money with the stock. If you don't, your investment is going nowhere. That explains IMO the different thinking of Intel and AMD investors (of course, there are always exceptions). Intel investors usually trust the management and expect them to act in the shareholder's interest. AMD investors have to be a lot more cautious. My opinion is that you should be constantly question management and decisions on every stock you are holding. The biggest problem is to "get in love" with a stock and ignore certain (negative) developments. Andreas

To: Joe NYC who wrote (73779)	3/7/2002 1:13:44 PM
From: hmaly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Jozef Re..I have been AMD shareholder on this board, and I have questioned probably half of the decisions AMD made. You seem to be content with every single decision Intel makes, until Intel makes a reversal, and then you support the new decision, keeping you 100% in sync with Intel PR operation.<<<<<<<< What does you questioning half of AMD's decisions have to do with how many of Intel's decisions BMW questions. Isn't that for him to decide? I can see questioning some people, but BMW? PE, if you wanted to question his motives, fine. All he did was insult people for no reason. When has BMW done that? What is the purpose for the accusation that BMW is not only working for Intel (which we all know), but that he is being paid specifically by Intel to just spread FUD. Is it to drive BMW off of the board as we seen to have done to Tench. A lot of times the reason is for pride. Well BMW reasoning is too good to defeat, so I will win my argument by devaluing the source. Sort of like politics. I can't beat the other guys ideas, so I will attack him personally, so I will look better by comparison. Do we on this board really want to go down that road. Isn't that the main reason why Mani started this board. Now I am not accusing you or TWY or anyone else of insulting BMW, but one can discredit someone without insulting him. AND the end result is that, you wind up discrediting both of you. How? By conceding that BMW's arguments can only be beaten by discrediting the person, you are conceding the argument. Don't do that. Beat the argument. And if you do, both sides will look good. There is a proverb or joke going around that has a lot of truth to it. A sort of Dilbert joke Nerver argue with an idiot. He will just drag you down to his level and beat you with experience. <<<<<<<< I am not saying you are calling BMW an idiot. But the same rule applies. Why argue with someone you believe to be a company stooge; when you know you will never convince him of the merits of your argument? And why try to convince us that, except for BMW being an Intel stooge, you had the better argument. Why not let us decide on the merits of your argument. Finally, what difference does it make if BMW is, as you claim, an Intel stooge. Does that disqualify BMW from making the argument in the first place. No. So, why bring it up then? Whether BMW is a company stooge or not, hardly validates the merits of your argument that IA-64 is a subpar system. IA-64 will survive or fall based on its merits, not whether BMW is an Intel stooge, so what does it matter?