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: Mike Winn who wrote (8124)	12/31/1997 7:19:00 AM
From: C.K. Houston	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 31646

Mike, <I also think that TPRO has expertise only in manufacturing factories. TPRO does not have the capability to fix embedded systems for electric utilities, telephone companies, nuclear plants, etc. That kind of code is too complex and can only be fixed in house or by companies such as GE, Westinghouse,Honeywell, Fluor, etc. who specialize not only in embedded systems but also in building whole electric plants, manufacturing plants, or chemical plants.> Whoops ... you sure about that? Then why did PacifiCorp Energy Services form a marketing alliance with TPRO (July '97) to offer products and services to electric utilities to optimize automation and information systems in substations and distribution facilities? PacifiCorp is the third largest electric utility west of the Mississippi River, and a major wholesale provider of power in the western U.S. They also operate one of the largest open access, high-voltage transmission systems in the United States, connecting to more than 50 other utilities. techstocks.com Cheryl

To: Mike Winn who wrote (8124)	12/31/1997 8:05:00 AM
From: TokyoMex	Respond to of 31646

I will come back and will respond to your narrow view of what TPRO is or not... And I will respond sooner than your later... For a start, embedded chip issue as amply described by Cheryl on previous post does not run across the automation line.. You forgot to mention MIS to factory , inbeteween set of instructions.. the critical part that issues date sensitive commands that controls events. The part TPRO specialises as well as the automation line... As for WIND, RSYS and INTS, you just proved, where TPRO valuation will be.. worth about 3 times more .. Thanx for reminding us.. More to come as I get supporting data together.. As far as your lame excuse for B-Tree comments of other day.. for calling VP a smooth scam and secretary coming up with the codes... Its an insult to readers on this board.... Joe TPRO

To: Mike Winn who wrote (8124)	12/31/1997 8:25:00 AM
From: Richard S. Schoenstadt	Respond to of 31646

Mike please check this link out and explain this away. sunday-times.co.uk There are quite a few others like this. I don't see how you can explain away these posts where the company says they have a problem with embedded systems. RS

To: Mike Winn who wrote (8124)	12/31/1997 8:29:00 AM
From: TokyoMex	Respond to of 31646

I am finding out as I am preparing this,, that you got kicked off SI for same @%#$ you pulled on SNDK,, over a VP over there,, besides having made all the wrong projections on stock momentum.. hurt quite a people I hear as well.. Wait for my last reponse to your TPRO BS, for that will be my last reponse and waste of time.. By the way B-Tree says they have so much work coming their way it will last them about 6 - 8 years on embedded stuff alone,, they are choosing the clients and only the big guys.. in tight with TPRO...;-D Joe TPRO

To: Mike Winn who wrote (8124)	12/31/1997 8:30:00 AM
From: C.K. Houston	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 31646

Mike, <As I stated before, I doubt that there is much Y2K problems in factories.> WHOOPS ... you better re-think your position. A shop floor audit of a major US auto manufacturer showed more than half of the 1700 embedded systems failed. Contact Jim West, project manager for Deloitte and Touche. techstocks.com Manufacturers may be the least prepared for third-party year 2000 failures. They depend on parts built and assembled by suppliers, who in turn rely on other suppliers. A supply-chain failure could occur if just one supplier cannot produce a part because of a systems failure. Programmable logic controllers, robotics, paint and steel mixing, production scheduling, bill of material, and just-in-time inventory systems control synchronized production environments. A system failure could result in multiple plant closures and massive layoffs. techweb.com "Heavy-duty users of embedded systems such as the manufacturing & process industries are in for a tough time: "You can't just turn off a steel plant" techstocks.com Industry's embedded systems to be hit hard by Year 2000. It is thought that industry will be hit hard by the millennium problem as entire manufacturing planning systems will have to be replaced as well as thousands of embedded control systems.Upgrades are not possible in many cases as systems have been heavily customised... tagish.co.uk Control systems in power plants,T&D, and offices all depend on "embedded software" that might fail at the turn of the century. This "Year 2000 Problem" is quite different from the well-publicized Y2K problem in utility business software applications running on mainframe computers. The impact of embedded systems failure, while not known, could potentially be severe and widespread. epri.com One in five embedded systems responsible for running critical processes in UK oil, petrochemical, power and aviation manufacturing firms will fail in the year 2000. "It's small and medium-sized factories and firms that we're really worried about," ... Some may not even be aware of the problem or if they are, they lack the financial and technical resources to put it right. EXPLOSION! ... Read the example of what will happen at this one plant if it's fixed. computerweekly.co.uk Embedded Industrial Control Systems and the Year 2000 Problem compinfo.co.uk Instrument Society of America's Industrial Computing Magazine October cover story on Year 2000 embedded technology on the factory floor *Countdown to 2000:* isa.org *Behind the Year 2000 Myth:* isa.org WONDERWARE WHITE PAPER: techstocks.com Manufacturing Systems Magazine: Special Year 2000 Supplement (9/97) Stories: 1 - Something short of disaster 2 - Century crisis 3 - In with the new 4 - The means fit the ends 5 - When 2000 hits the floor 6 - The quicker the better 204.243.31.27. Manufacturing System On-Line Magazine: Info Technology for Mfg Managers: *Main Site:* manufacturingsystems.com *Y2K Specific:* manufacturingsystems.com Cheryl

To: Mike Winn who wrote (8124)	12/31/1997 10:27:00 AM
From: JDN	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 31646

Dear Mike: Thank you for your write up. It is obvious to me that you know enough about embedded systems to scare the wits out of those less informed. Your purpose in doing this is something that escapes me. However, I do not intend to argue with you. I only would like to make a couple of points. 1. TPRO never indicated they manufacture anything. The are FACTORY INTEGRATORS, meaning for others benefit (I know you know) they take equipment from possible many vendors and assist in hooking it up to run effeciently. Likely they are in on the design phase also. 2. TPRO has never hyped itself in any way that I can see. For the longest time Jenkins didnt even want anyone to use the Y2K description as he felt it demeaning and of a short duration whereas TPRO has been and will be around for a long time. 3. Jenkins himself said in the last conference call, we are not yet up to speed with Utility companies but we are working closely with Pacific and expect to have the expertise soon. Or words to that effect 4. If this company is "managing" its stock price they are doing a really SHITTY job of it. Everyone knows that they desperately needed more cash due to the huge jump in business. The easiest way would have been to keep the stock price up over 6 3/8 for 20 lousy days and so far they have been UNABLE to do that. 5. This company backs up every Press Release with a filing under 8-k. That means that they consider it a MATERIALLY IMPORTANT EVENT. Labelling it as such greatly exposes them to litigation if it is misleading or false. Even more important filing a materially FALSE statement with the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT opens themselves PERSONALLY to CRIMINAL prosecution over and above any civil problems. In my long career with MANY public companies I have NEVER seen this done before which makes me believe that Mr. Jenkins insists that every word said for the public be absolutely true. I could go on but I promised to be brief. For those of you who are worried, I would suggest that Mike has used his knowledge to try and twist TPRO into something they never said they were and then attack them. I advise you to look at the business they have done in the past, the reputation of top management, the press releases and SEC filings they have made and make up your own mind. If you are still worried, sell. If you are satisfied that this stock, though speculative as is nearly any small cap under funded company, has great promise to realize substantial gains then hold. Its really that simple. Frankly, I dont give a heap what anyone on this thread does as I am a long term holder. JDN

To: Mike Winn who wrote (8124)	12/31/1997 10:45:00 AM
From: Stuart Schreiber	Respond to of 31646

Mike, I have "one" question that I'm sure is shared by many on this thread. You're not long or short TPRO and you're very busy. Why, then, are you here? I'll even save you some time. You could just complete this sentence. "I am posting on this thread because................................................. Please, do not construe this as anything disrespectful. Just think many of us are very curious. Thanks, stu

To: Mike Winn who wrote (8124)	12/31/1997 11:05:00 AM
From: M. Frank Greiffenstein	Respond to of 31646

WindRiver Systems, Inc... Mike, I brought up the issue of embedded chip makers making money off the y2k issue when I first came on this board. And Wind River was the example I gave. CK Houston should remember because she becane annoyed with me. Anyway, I went through the trouble of contacting WindRiver and got an e-mail response "WindRiver is not in the Year 2000 business, we have no consultancy in that area." This was last October. The same thing with Radisys. Nobody on this board (except for you) has ever beleived that TPRO makes or programs embedded chips. You treat this like a weakness or the sign of a scam. I truly do not understand your reasoning. The majority of y2k companies on the IT side are "low tech" integration centers where hourly "grunts" look for date code. And their stocks are climbing to new highs while "very high tech" companies such as MOT and INTC and ZITL are struggling to avoid touching their 52 weeks lows. My point is this: What do your obvervaitons of high tech and low tech in embedded chips have to do with investment choices? The answer is in your hands, you even said the right words, but you didn't take the next logical step: You said that most of the 19 names on the list of embedded chip low tech integrators are crappy little ccompanies, or words to that effect. PRECISELY!!! That means low supply but big demand for this "low tech" services. DocStone

To: Mike Winn who wrote (8124)	12/31/1997 11:54:00 AM
From: Norman Stone	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 31646

Mike, a few comments on your "in-depth" analysis: <...embedded systems for load dispatch or remote switchyard inside an electric utility that perform certain function at a predetermined time schedule...are rare and account for may be less than 5% of all embedded systems.> Is 5% insignificant? <...TPRO needs to find some free space inside the ROM or EPROM to insert the new code. In assembly language, sometime programmers use absolute addressing, so TPRO better be careful in moving the code around.> This is not a TPRO role. As you yourself noted: "all potential Y2K issues are marked, counted and assigned complexity factors that allows for the automatic evaluation of the repair effort." <...So for God sake, TPRO will do a textual search of the code. Typically in the old day, the code in embedded systems was written in assembly language.> Wrong again. As you also noted: "Search Y2kOne allows the user to select the types of search required for the specific software that was used to produce the suspected runtime applications." They are focusing on code-generating code, not the burnt-in code itself. This may reduce the number of uses for the Search Y2KOne process, but as a self-touted expert, you should at least get your diagnostic levels straight! etc., etc. Your simplistic analysis smacks of someone with a simplistic agenda. Granted, there are serious issues and limitations with embedded systems analysis and repair, but that is called the real world. You've had your say. Come back when you can tell us something we don't already know.

To: Mike Winn who wrote (8124)	12/31/1997 2:41:00 PM
From: Bonzo	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 31646

Mike thanks for taking the time to post some of your research on TPRO and Embedded Systems. My apologies if my initial response was less than cordial. There have been too many of late who have bashed TPRO without a single element of truth or fact. I was formerlly in Electronic Test for 25 years (having recently sold to my partner). Functional Test Programming (worked for GenRad years ago), application support, sales and marketing etc. My experience had been primarily focused at the Circuit Board (CCA) level and not at the system level. Having read your write-up, frankly, there isn't a great deal that I disagree with, except perhaps the perception of the overall magnitude of the problem. A couple of things you said I question: "Embedded systems don't depend on the clock" I assume you mean a Real Time Clock (RTC) and not the system (xtal osc.) clock. Generally speaking I would agree that this is true. However, we have tested MicroController boards (Embedded) with an RTC function incorporated in the design. As to whether the complete system actually used the RTC for time/date functions was less obvious in most cases. Depends on the application software written for the system and controlled and monitored by the Host. btw, we normally use CRC checks for Firmware verification (EEPROMs, internal ROM etc.), Normally a MicroController based board design would be emulated based on functional descriptions, theory of operation etc. Input stimulus applied expected output functions validated. You also said: "Everything revolves around the power up time and not the clock time" I don't fully understand or agree with that. The Power Up time is certainly a reference point for the initialization sequence to begin; Self-test diagnostics, reset functions etc. However, I wouldn't categorically state that every Controller function is referenced to that initial event. Subsequent events may initiate other tasks or routines to be performed - this has nothing to do with the power up time but is more a function of a sequence of timed events or completed tasks. You said: "TPRO does not have expertise with Assembly Language programming." Extremely unlikely. Most of thier Engineers are EE's, with expertise in Manufacturing, Process Control, Test. Assembly is a low level language but is important when working within these environments - it would make no sense for a company who prides themselves in providing "turnkey" Systems Integration support. Overall, I agree that the problems in the factory should not be as widespread as the IT side of the Y2K issue. However, they do exist. And regardless of how many years you have with Embedded Systems you cannot possibaly come accross every unique application that exists in Factory Automation and Process Control Systems - there are thousands. I agree there may be more problems with the application program controlled by the Host than the Embedded system itself. However, I believe TPRO has the expertise to remediate this side of the factory also - "turnkey" remember? If 95% of the factories and utilities are date compliant or date insensitive that does not mean that a Company would simply say: "I'm 95% sure we will not have a problem at rollover" and wait for the rollover with thier fingers crossed and attornies at thier doorstep. They MUST perform at least a complete Assessment in order to be 100% certain. TPRO will perform some of this and will license thier CD and toolset to Mfgs., and other SI houses who will perform the rest - WORLDWIDE. Remember the quick cash flow is in CD sales which will leverage thier core SI business. Look forward to your posts in the future. You are the first bonafide, at least imo, qualified dissenter that I have come accross on this board. Technically you are correct in what you have said but I don't think you have considered all the possibilities and ramifications of the Y2K Embedded Controller problem and how TPRO's business will benefit from this in several ways; The critical production processes that exist in many plants and the litigation potential, basically forces plant mgrs. to perform at least the Assessment phase because if they are one of the unlucky 5% they are in deep "Kimshee".