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 : AMD:News, Press Releases and Information Only! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: greg nus who wrote (3972)	1/20/1998 5:25:00 AM
From: greg nus	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6843

Wang, OT* I take it from your comments you would not consider a subscription. I'll scratch your name from the e-mail list. Last year I out performed "THE BUFFET"! How did you do?

To: greg nus who wrote (3972)	1/20/1998 6:20:00 AM
From: Gary Ng	Respond to of 6843

greg, Re: What is your explaination. I don't know John Wang's explaination, mine is simple. You get it wrong. Check again. Gary

To: greg nus who wrote (3972)	1/20/1998 11:01:00 PM
From: Buckwheat	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6843

Greg,,, [RE: How did Intel revenue increase from $20 billion 96 to $25 billion 97 with flat (no incremental) earnings? What is your explaination.] I think maybe the perceived threat from AMD, Cyrix/IBM/NSM, and IDT helped them reach the point of diminishing returns with some products much quicker than they might have liked. The bizarre part is that it was self inflicted (deep price cuts) since Intel is superior and sells well by name recognition alone. Maybe they should have just thrown some of those CPUs in the trash can (as some of the INTELligentbees suggested with the abundant K6 166s at one time). I guess they could start with those 3 million that the Orient backed out on, and then they could follow-on with the PII 233s that don't seem to be moving very well. Regards Buckwheat