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 : TAVA Technologies (TAVA-NASDAQ) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: C.K. Houston who wrote (7994)	12/29/1997 2:34:00 PM
From: Gurupup	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 31646

These are some random musings gathered from a meeting I attended in South America last week. In attendance at a cocktail party were senior people from the wolrd's largest oil company, the largest oil company in SA, and an investor, who runs over $20 billion in investments. These people started talking of the impact of the Year 200o, as it pertained to them. Being very nosy, I asked a lot of questions, and I really could not believe some of the answers. The chap from the world's largest oil company told me that they were up to their eyeballs with the problem, and were suprised that Wall Street didn't really understand the problem. The chap from SA, couldn't care less about Wall Street, but said that the problem with his firm were a very important concern, and it was occupying a large amount of his time. The chap running large pool of capital said over and over again, that most of the firms that he was involved with would not comment publicly on their position vis a vis Y2K, but due to the lack of budgeting at the beginning of 1997, you will see the floodgates open very wide in 1st and 2nd qtr next year. He also mentioned that his firm had done massive DD on this problem, and that they had found 6-7 firms which were household names, who would not have the problem solved by 12/31/99, and he was speculating on what would happen when the time came. It was a pretty scary scenario from a very bright chap. He has instructed his various managers, that every company in the portfolio should have an assesment compiled by his firm by 3/98 on exactly where they stand, or they would take action. I mentioned my interest in TPRO, and the reaction was very interesting from 2 of the gentlemen who were very aware of TPRO. I did try to get specific, but to no avail, as I had not gotten that much wine into them at that moment in time. I did get together the next day with the chap running the large pool of capital, and he went into specifics of the problem in some detail. He mentioned that the other 2 gentlemen would not talk in front of me concerning their problems in their firms, but they were significant. He strongly suggested owning a portfolio of Y2K stocks, as part of an insurance package, because his feeling was that the problem is going to get much more publicity, and it will happen in a hurry when it does, and Wall Street, being a bunch of lemmings, will take the whole group when it really gets going. His feeling was that the group will be a market leader in 1998, and a package approach would be the snesible way of playing it. We spent over an hour on TPRO, and he took a lot of notes, and had his firm pull down all the research notes from this board. The bottom line to me was that these were 3 very bright, big people, and they convinced me that this problem is VERY REAL.

To: C.K. Houston who wrote (7994)	12/30/1997 7:45:00 AM
From: C.K. Houston	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 31646

PLEASE, as tempting as it is ... let's not flame Mike. He obviously wrote that teaser post to get a reaction from all of you who already know him. And he's successful. He already got a couple of reactions. I'm REAL curious to see what he's gonna come up with. Take a breath, count to 10, before you post. If anyone disagrees with him, try to rebut with facts and links. OR ... ignore him. Cheryl BACKGROUND ============================================================= From: Mike Winn Monday, Dec 29 1997 9:37PM EST Anyhow, many thanks for those of you who supply info for me for my writeup on TPRO. I am still at work right now and I haven't started it yet. But I will do very late tonight, I promise it will very long. There are too many comical things in the fiction and fantasy created by our beloved TPRO. Thanks TPRO for giving me a good comic relief. From: Mike Winn Monday, Dec 29 1997 12:24PM EST I will do on the TPRO thread tonight, Al. I didn't want to post on the TPRO thread at the beginning because I don't want to carry a war of words on that thread as I don't have time to respond and I have absolutly no interest in that stock. But I guess I couldn't avoid it, so I will post there may be once and for all, you guys can leave or take it. After all, it's not my money. BMY didn't get duped, first it's a work assessment, not a contract yet. Secondly, it's about factory automation work, nothing to do with Y2K problems, but TPRO just hyped it that way. Anyhow, you will know the details tonight. Time for me to get back to work. From: Mike Winn Monday, Dec 29 1997 11:39AM EST Raju, Geez, you sold this little gem SYNT to buy a lemon TPRO :-) And you got friends working at SYNT. Gosh, I got flamed badly on the TPRO thread just expressing my honest opinion about TPRO on this thread. I will have to expose the story on TPRO tonight when I have time. It's a company full of hot air! From: Mike Winn Friday, Dec 26 1997 12:36PM EST I read the CSGI, ALYD, and TPRO daily for my entertainment. Those stocks are purely speculative and people are arguing daily whether or not the contracts will come. But there are cheap Y2K companies that are already making money and getting contracts, so I don't understand why folks like to speculate. There are also a lot of cheap tech stocks that are off to 1/3, 1/4 of its high. But I hate to go to the CSGI, ALYD, and TPRO threads and tell people so. I know for sure I will get flamed (and I don't have time to respond), and people won't listen to me anyhow. To each his/her own way to make money. 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. _______________________________________________________________________ [CK SIDEBAR] <not a contract yet> Looks like a contract to me "Topro ... signed an agreement with Bristol-Meyers Squibb Company (NYSE: BMY - news) to provide Year 2000 tools and compliance support for all Non-Information Technology systems at approximately 125 sites worldwide." <nothing to do with Y2K problems, but TPRO just hyped it that way> Hmmmmmm ... Looks like BMY thinks it has something to do with Y2K problems. James Ham, vice-president, Information Management at Bristol-Meyers Squibb stated, ''We believe we are a leader in addressing year 2000 compliance throughout our organization. Our relationship with TAVA is an important step in addressing our Non-Information Technology systems around the world.'' Message 3057433 From: Raju Ramaswamy Friday, Dec 26 1997 1:06PM EST 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. From: JDN Friday, Dec 26 1997 6:56PM EST 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 From: CYBERKEN Saturday, Dec 27 1997 2:25PM EST <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. From: Josef Svejk Saturday, Dec 27 1997 6:29PM EST Humbly report, Mike, The Institution of Electrical Engineers (IEE): iee.org.uk Embedded Systems and Y2K Table of Contents: iee.org.uk Embedded Systems Compared With Commercial Systems: iee.org.uk Embedded Systems: Industrial Functions: iee.org.uk Date Problems In Embedded Systems: iee.org.uk Choosing Consultants: iee.org.uk From: Al Dorsa Monday, Dec 29 1997 12:13PM EST Geez Mike, Apparently the whole embedded chip Y2K problem is a fiction. Perhaps you should offer your expertise to BMY. They obviously have been badly duped. Please post your "expose" on the TPRO thread. This group is about SYNT. Talk about "hot air"... From: Steve Rubakh Monday, Dec 29 1997 8:20PM EST Mike, here is more info for your report on TPRO: <Manufacturing shops with Just-In-Time systems are especially dependent upon timely deliveries and are particularly vulnerable toY2K-related production lapses. Any type of software that electronically transmits part demands, production queues, or delivery schedules relies on precise times and dates. If a delivery is slated for 15 days on 12/22/99, what will happen on 01/06/00? Not a delivery, most likely.> manufacturing.net *Here's some more research material for Mike* ================================================================ WHERE ARE EMBEDDED SYSTEMS? - Why should I care? compinfo.co.uk If a chip has its program embedded into it, the program cannot be revised by software. It has to be replaced by a chip that is 2000 compliant. No one knows how many non-compliant chips there are. Nobody knows which 5% to 10% is non-compliant. All chips must be tested, one by one, system by system. Assume that testing identifies bad chips. They must be replaced, (assuming that compliant chips for each application have come onto the market). *One by one, bad chips must be carefully removed and replaced.* The real problem with embedded systems is just that - they're embedded ... BURNED into the chip's ROM memory, so it cannot be altered. It will require somebody with expertise in the product (the vendor or manufacturer) to get at the system to test for and fix Year 2000 problems. Each embedded system must be treated as if it were a different programming language, which only a few people know. state.id.us WORSE ... Electrical engineers & experienced, trained plant personnel are required for this fix ... we do NOT have enough skilled people here or abroad. =============================================================== PROBLEMS & FAILURES: dpweb1.dp.utexas.edu techstocks.com There's a LOT more than what's being made public, but in US, everyone's afraid of litigation and/or negative impact on stock prices. CEO'S, CFO'S, BUSINESS OWNERS SHOULD READ THIS: Message 2977753 *WHAT EXACTLY* ARE EMBEDDED SYSTEMS? techstocks.com MANUFACTURING & PROCESS CONTROL:** techstocks.com GOVERNMENT Read House Testimony on Embedded Systems!!! techstocks.com UTILITIES & POWER PLANTS: Message 2977481 BANKING: techstocks.com MEDICAL: Message 2977238 OIL INDUSTRY: techstocks.com JOINT POSITIONING STATEMENT: 10 National User Groups (inc New York) techstocks.com Check out their extensive list of links after positioning statement. TECHNICAL INFORMATION FOR ENGINEERS & PROJECT MANAGERS Message 2977133 OSHA - No action taken yet techstocks.com MODERATED DISCUSSION GROUPS (EMBEDDED SYSTEMS): techstocks.com WHERE ARE EMBEDDED SYSTEMS? - Why should I care? compinfo.co.uk GARY NORTH'S EMBEDDED CHIPS LINKS garynorth.com Excellent site. Constantly updated with new articles in date sequence. Links are after his editorial. ROLEIGH MARTIN'S LINKS FOR EMBEDDED CHIPS (scan down to correct section): ourworld.compuserve.com LIGHT READING That 'Year 2000' Bug May Hit Appliances, Cars techstocks.com Aug 19 '97 *Stunned, larger, uglier, unexpected, more costly:* techstocks.com