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 : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (176366)	1/2/2004 3:32:48 PM
From: Robert O	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

The example you site is not a hearsay problem. RO

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (176366)	1/3/2004 7:58:35 AM
From: brushwud	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 186894

...a lot of legitimate media is really bad. For example look at this article dated october 23 this year. Can AMD Get Off This Treadmill? It's a perennial also-ran to Intel in microprocessors, and that's not likely to change. That is arguably an objective, if not absolutely true statement (note the qualification in it), and I must be in at least the 80th percentile of rabid AMD partisans. If AMD would just get to 30% market share, I'll be very well rewarded. But that's not the point (in fact there are at least two). First of all, as a Cal gal, you ought to be able to distinguish between fact and opinion. If a reporter writes, "According to Hector Ruiz, AMD is #1 in Poland", then I'd like to believe the guy really said that, even if AMD is #2. Or if he wrote merely, "AMD is #1 in Poland", then I'd like to know what is the source. Secondly, there is an axiom in journalism that the reporter always knows less than the people involved. If the house next door burned down and you read about it in the paper, you'd probably see that some errors were made in the reporting. Similarly, if you know about a product and you read the reports in the paper, you'll probably realize that they simultaneously exaggerate the benefits of it and disparage its prospects. With respect to Amy J's beliefs and anecdotes, she seems to think that encouraging "startups" like her employer is what might make California and the U.S. great. Intel was founded in '68 and went public in '72 when they were already profitable and highly successful. I've been reading Amy J's postings for more than four years and her company never made a dime. They're a leftover from the excesses of the late 1990s and seem to be in the 40% of "walking dead" investments that VCs talk about (which don't go out of business, yet never succeed). Just because her CFO can spring for a 3 GHz Pentium 4 because she says she needs it doesn't mean her chances for cashing in her stock options are any better than my daughter's when she looks for the pony on the lawn on Christmas morning.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (176366)	1/3/2004 11:36:21 AM
From: hueyone	Respond to of 186894

Hi Lizzie, Having read both articles in their entirety that you provided, I don't believe those two articles are nearly as inconsistent in their theme and conclusions as your snips imply. That is why I think it is very important to include the links to articles like this, so we can read the entire article and make our own judgments regarding the conclusions. Thanks for including the links. You said there was no mention of AMD 64 which was already on fire, when referring to the first article. This is untrue; there is an entire section devoted to the 64 bit question, appropriately titled "The 64 bit Question". I found that first article quite informative, and imo, many of the author's conclusions still hold true: 1. That AMD 64 bit technology has been successful in the server market, but that 2. Most desktop software doesn't take advantage of 64 bit technology yet, and, 3. That Intel's production facilities are much more efficient than AMD's (Intel is already moving to 300 mm), 4. That Intel will continue with a great cost advantage in producing microprocessors, and 5. That historically, AMD has always struggled to be very profitable. JMHO, Huey

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (176366)	1/3/2004 12:14:46 PM
From: hueyone	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 186894

OT: Buying a new desktop and 64 bit technology P.S. I am looking to buy a new computer this month. As near as I can tell, there is no reason for me to wait for 64 bit technology processors. Are there some reasons I might want 64 bit technology for my desktop? Basically, I run three small companies with MS Office, and I plan to just keep my old MS Office 2000 for quite awhile. It is my understanding that 64 bit technology will have zero impact on my running of MS Office. Is this correct? By the way, I have an older computer now with an Athlon chip, and I have never had any problems with it. But I am considering going with Dell this time around for the service, and I don't suspect I will have any problem with a Dell small business computer with an Intel Pentium 4 either. Any comments on this matter would be appreciated. Regards, Huey