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: Fred Fahmy who wrote (40053)	11/11/1997 6:34:00 PM
From: Ibexx	Respond to of 186894

Fred and thread, The following is from Bloomberg Business News: ________ Intel Corp. (INTC) stock rose 1 1/8 to 76 1/4 as the world's largest computer chipmaker was reiterated a ''buy'' by analyst Vincent Glinski at Rodman & Renshaw Inc., and by analyst Jeffrey Maxick at Madison Securities Inc. Ibexx

To: Fred Fahmy who wrote (40053)	11/11/1997 6:54:00 PM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 186894

FF Your Pinto analogy is really stupid. The chip is not "defective" if it is used as intented. You mean getting rear ended is the way Pinto was inteded to operate? Also, why do you think we have protected mode, operating systems that have various security levels? Do you think all that work was done just for fun? No. It was done to turn personal computers into serious business tools, not just toys. This bug is a step back. It is a loss of credibility. Let's see if Intel can regain it. Joe

To: Fred Fahmy who wrote (40053)	11/11/1997 7:36:00 PM
From: Paul Merriwether	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

<<Your Pinto analogy is really stupid. The chip is not "defective" if it is used as intented. I suppose you consider all PC's inherently "defective" since they can all be damanged by viruses. >> I think the "Pinto analogy" is OK. Ford did not design Pinto as a "rear end test vehicle" but rather as an automobile for regular usage. It had an unfortunate charactersitic that it caused fatal accidents if "rear ended" or "used incorrectly". It did not prevent a debacle even though the Pinto was being used "incorrectly". All I am saying is that the situation has a parallel in F0 0F bug and since I am long on intc, I resent your snide comments. As I said in my earlier post, imho, the overall impact on intc wuld be small since (thankfully) their ppro and above do NOT have this problem. Their future is secure and I hope that they handle the current generation pentium investors. good luck -P