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 : CYRIX / NSM -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Robert G. Bianchi who wrote (21835)	12/6/1997 2:11:00 AM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 33344

Bob, Bob G. said that NSM will include Cyrix Sep. - Nov. months, rather than Cyrix Q3 (Jul. - Sep.). Since practically all 6x86 were sold in CYRX Q3 and the overlap is only 1 month, we have 2 new months where only MX and GX chips were sold. So I think Cyrix may contribute positively to the earnings amount. The question is if addition of Cyrix shares and Cyrix earnings (if there were any) will increase or decrease earnings per share of new blended NSM/Cyrix shares. Anyway, we should get some indication of how Cyrix performed in the 2 new reporting months. Joe

To: Robert G. Bianchi who wrote (21835)	12/6/1997 2:14:00 AM
From: Jeff Kirk	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 33344

Bob , Intel's 100 million is only .04% of NSM's gross income {if I figured correctly} . I bought Jan 99 $40 leap today :-) . JK

To: Robert G. Bianchi who wrote (21835)	12/6/1997 2:01:00 PM
From: Robert Florin	Respond to of 33344

As far as National earnings: National does about 100 Million dollars worth of business with Intel, could Intel now decide to go shopping elsewhere, now that National competes with Intel directly? I think so! Do you think Intel may hold a grudge, since it was Cyrix that helped make the sub $1000 dollar PC possible! This is an interesting observation, but Intel really has to look to their own marketing and pricing tactics in assessing responsibility for the under $1000 PC. Intel made it so impossible for Cyrix to establish a beachhead with a technologically equal or superior chip that Cyrix was forced to discount and find a more efficient, competitive product. Had they allowed Cyrix some decent margins, and decent marketshare, they would have saved their own skin in the long run. Whatever their current tactics, I don't think that they will be successful because the technology is now obviously marketable, and the success of the GX, 6x86 and K6 make the Intel Inside campaign and logo less and less compelling. Even if Intel does try to blackmail NSM with reduced orders, if NSM can get its act together, the MXi will be the next combined computer/home entertainment center MPU of choice. On another note, a moderately computer literate acquaintence of mine was trying to decide whether to buy the Global put your own computer together for $1000 kit with a Pentium 200 or Pentium 233. She uses a number of Intel based machines at her work because the companies her work site uses as vendors only offer Intel based machines. I suggested that she might consider the Cyrix offering. Despite initial hesitance she went ahead and ordered the Cyrix PR 233MX. However when Global could not get an adequate enough supply of the MX (ugh!), she got the 200+ for about $200 less. After putting the system together (32 meg dram) she was totally flabbergasted at the real world speed differences she experienced between her "equivalent" Intel office products and the speedy Cyrix chip. It is this story that summarizes the tale of Cyrix's failure. They were unable to get the message out, the vendors in line, and the supply matched to the demand. Part of this was the result of Intel's clever, but ultimately self destructive monopolistic practices. Part of this was the problem with capitalization at Cyrix. Part was the failure of Cyrix marketing and sales. Finally, part was the problem of just needing more time for people to experience the Cyrix quality.