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: fastpathguru who wrote (259368)	4/2/2009 5:28:39 PM
From: Mahmoud Mohammed	Respond to of 275872

Mr Guru, Re: "Why does Elmer, who's worldview is so obviously warped, post these diatribes? I suggest:" You're just a "sore loser" ... INTC has developed better performance CPU's than AMD. AMD is losing market share because of failures like Bark-y-lounger and now we see that AMD is continuing to slip their new product schedules (or will admit to that very soon). Why do Dear Pete, Dan3 and Mr Guru continue to support this loser (AMD) and have such an AMD religious fervor, I suggest: en.wikipedia.org Mahmoud

To: fastpathguru who wrote (259368)	4/2/2009 7:17:40 PM
From: Elmer Phud	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

SUN, Microsoft and Samsung are not accused by AMD of any wrongdoing. I guess I need to spell it out for you. Nobody said AMD was accusing them of anything. It was the motion by MicroSoft to keep their confidential information from going public that caused some here to claim MicroSoft was afraid of having it's conspiracy with Intel exposed. That must go for Dell and HP as well because they don't want their confidential information to go public either. That means they are either involved in the conspiracy or fearful of retribution. Either way it fits the delusion. That takes care of Microsoft, HP & Dell. IBM, Dell and Toshiba (and to a lesser extent, HP) did glaringly reduce/exclude AMD, just as AMD came out with a product that seriously challenged Intel's, i.e. didn't "screw up." Good. Now you've shown how IBM and Toshiba were involved in the conspiracy (or intimidated) along with Dell and HP for a second time. You're doing all my work for me. Incorrectly characterizes AMD's allegations as requiring "willing cooperation" by OEMs, who could not possibly have been "forced" (i.e. coerced), implicitly denying that Intel could possibly have monopoly power in the PC cpu market (a fact that is glaringly obvious to anyone with a rational brain). This is just too easy. Did someone put you up to this? This shows how the intimidation theory has Intel forcing these industry giants into knuckling under. I can't help but wonder why, if Intel has such power, they don't charge more? I want to thank you for relieving me of the need to dig up links. BTW, which do you prefer, lemon/lime or strawberry?