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 : SYNTEL (SYNT) - Upcoming Year 2000 IPO -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mike Winn who wrote (543)	12/26/1997 1:01:00 PM
From: Narotham Reddy	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 2761

Finally IBD gives SYNT an "A"(Accumulation) As we all wished, SYNT has finally made it to the top. It is all over in today's Investor's Business Daily. Was mentioned at as many as three places in today's IBD including in NASDAQ stocks with greatest % Rise Volume Narotham

To: Mike Winn who wrote (543)	12/26/1997 1:07:00 PM
From: Raj Ramaswamy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2761

Hello, Mike, So you think Bristol-Meyers is stupid to enroll TPRO for fixing thier Y2K sites..? Ha,Ha. May be you can teach a lesson or two to BMY on falling prey before the ink dries out on the contract. Raj

To: Mike Winn who wrote (543)	12/26/1997 6:57:00 PM
From: JDN	Respond to of 2761

Dear Mike: I will keep this short as OFF TOPIC. But you made some serious accusations about TPRO which I believe to be UNTRUE. I will only say this to the readers. Bristol Meyers just signed a huge contract with TPRO for reviewing and fixing their WORLD WIDE imbedded systems. Are they idiots and Mike knows it all? Case closed. JDN

To: Mike Winn who wrote (543)	12/27/1997 10:09:00 AM
From: patrick gillis	Respond to of 2761

OFF TOPIC Mike, I am long tpro, and I invite you to express your thoughts about embedded systems at the tpro thread. Lately, there has been numerous articles about Y2k and embedded chips. According to some press articles there seems to be serious concerns about embedded chips. If you could take a moment and share your insights, I would appreciate it. Thanks Patrick

To: Mike Winn who wrote (543)	12/27/1997 10:34:00 AM
From: P. Ramamoorthy	Respond to of 2761

Mike - Talked to a few people about the embedded systems. They seem to agree with your assessment: >>>...revolves around the power up time and not the clock time. But if there is any problem in embedded systems, it would have to be fixed by the company itself and it cannot be contracted out as the code is very complex and cryptic.<<< Still trying to understand more about this problem. Ram

To: Mike Winn who wrote (543)	12/27/1997 2:26:00 PM
From: CYBERKEN	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2761

<<In the case of TPRO, the company makes money on factory automation but the Y2K stuff is purely hype. I couldn't contain myself laughing when I read what are posted on that thread. I work in embedded systems for a living and I know for sure for most of the part, embedded systems don't depend on the clock. Everything revolves around the power up time and not the clock time. But if there is any problem in embedded systems, it would have to be fixed by the company itself and it cannot be contracted out as the code is very complex and cryptic>> Mike, I sure hope you're right. Most of my investments are not in the Y2K field and I'd prefer not to see a world-wide economic disaster of any proportion. But here's the problem: This Y2K problem is not innovative, nor is it offering any way to improve anyone's standard of living in the next century. It's a big accident caused by tech people (like yourself) spending too many decades saying "Oh, that's minor. That can be fixed. This thing will be long gone by 2000. MOST of the devices won't be affected."... ...until we have arrived at where we are now. I spend most of my time in the biotech area. BMY, like other Big Pharmas has much better things to do with $36 million. They are faced with an ageing product mix and a mediocre internal R & D effort (by today's standards). There are 3 dozen or more companies they could spend that 36 mil on that would improve their business prospects for the next several years-but instead they allocate it to TPRO and their embedded systems offerings. Don't you wonder why? There are very smart people at BMY, and they just want to continue to prosper in the pharmaceutical business, not tear up their factories, or spend resources on this kind of testing. They must have gone through quite a bit of agony before deciding that this was necessary. With your background in embedded systems, maybe you should at least try to find out what has them so scared. If TPRO tests out BMY and several other companies they are about to contract with and finds nothing, that's most likely the end of the embedded question. TPRO will have made some money, and will have to use it wisely in other pursuits. I find this scenario very unlikely. You said "most" embedded systems won't have a Y2K problem. I believe you're right about that, but it's quite irrelevant, isn't it? Which of the millions (or is it billions) of embedded systems out there DO have a problem? What percentage world-wide will have to be tested? How much potential revenue is there just in diagnostics alone? Perhaps you are convinced that the potential is very small. But Bristol Meyers Squibb just committed $36 million betting that you are wrong.