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: Tony Viola who wrote (76193)	4/2/2002 3:45:18 PM
From: tcmay	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Leaders make blunders, followers just follow "If it weren't for Intel (and IBM and Microsoft) doing an excellent job establishing the PC with X86 inside, AMD might still be making op amps and sense amps. AMD is still a follower and they need to be shown what types of products to make. I don't think would get anywhere if they had to actually take the lead in anything. Who'd follow them with the leadership they have? Nobody, in an architectural sense. " Precisely so. The companies you named have all made some very big blunders...blunders which are part and parcel of exploring and innovating. Some examples: * IBM. "FS," or Future System. Begun in the 1960s as the ultimate replacement for System/360. Elements of FS included: capability-based (object-oriented) architecture, advanced packaging, automated factories, new approaches to compilation, etc. Eventually, around 1974, IBM decided that too much was being risked with this, that customers would not make the switch, and FS was cancelled. Much of innovation turned up in other products, including the 370 line: the System/38 capability-based machine, the thermoconduction modules in the Sierra/3081/3091/H-Series machines, the Quick Turnaround Line for prototypes, and even the Josephson Junction work being done (some say) for a future implementation of FS. Billions of dollars gone. No doubt the AMDroids of that time, the "Univacuous" and the "Burrowingheads," were laughing at the "mistakes" IBM was making. IBM recovered from this mistake, learned from it, retooled the 370 line, and went on to new heights. * Microsoft. Remember the mistakes they made with palm-based computers? Remember Bob, the helper? Remember the deal with IBM which went awry? And now, an audacious program called ".NET" (BTW, let's hope they don't start suing people with ".net" in their domains!). And they probably made other large mistakes never made public. No doubt the Novelldroids were laughing. They're not laughing now. * Intel. The 432, aka the 8800. Later, Gemini and BiiN, the joint venture to market a transaction-oriented ssystem with Siemens. (BiiN was dubbed "Billions invested in Nothing" by some wags.). The 432 project started in the mid-70s, with some excellent innovations: the XMOS process (later HMOS, part of Intel's bread-and-butter during critical years), barrel shifters which MOS made feasible, object-oriented architectures, and "very large die" problems which had to be solved (yield, packaging, testing). And work on compilers. But it turned out to be a failure. Much has been written about it. Parts of it were salvaged for other projects, including the 960CA. Was it a mistake to make this mistake? Sure, in hindsight. And many of the Intel haters love to call attention to this expensive mistake. Better, they think, to take the route AMD has taken: "Copy Exactly." Successful companies pretty much have to "bet the company at least twice." The first big bet puts the company onto the map. Boeing, for example. Intel. The second bet, if it works, catapults them into the lead. The Boeing 7x7 series, for example. (Arguably the 747 deserves its own special listing...perhaps it was Boeing's _third_ bet. Rare indeed.) Leaders have to bet their companies a third and sometimes even a fourth time. Few make it. The air is rare up there. AMD has only bet their company _once_, with the "Copy Exactly" Athlon strategy. Hammer is a sort of half-bet, a MOS (more of the same) tact. But this doesn't stop the AMDroids from hooting and howling at all of the "mistakes" they think IBM, Microsoft, and Intel are making. Must explain why their stock price is below what it was 20 years ago. I'm laughing, too. --Tim May

To: Tony Viola who wrote (76193)	4/2/2002 3:56:49 PM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Tony, If it weren't for Intel (and IBM and Microsoft) doing an excellent job establishing the PC with X86 inside. AMD might still be making op amps and sense amps. As if PC with x86 inside was the only path to wide scale availability of computers we have today. If PC with x86 did not emerge, something else would, and we would be posting on boards of entirely different companies today etc. Joe

To: Tony Viola who wrote (76193)	4/2/2002 3:57:16 PM
From: AK2004	Respond to of 275872

Tony re: If it weren't for Intel (and IBM and Microsoft) doing an excellent job establishing the PC with X86 inside, are not we forgetting (twisting) our history. IBM is the company that promoted pcs in business which lead to personal use as well. Intel is something that was considered as an alternative to mot under condition that amd would be there. re: I don't think would get anywhere if they had to actually take the lead in anything. what a strong statement, care to prove it or join the ranks of FUDsters. Sorry, I forgot that you joined long ago.....