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.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : Patriot Scientific - PTSC -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Marshall who wrote (4492)	3/11/1998 10:07:00 PM
From: Pilgrim	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 8581

Benedict (or anyone) - I'm trying to understand some of the cost tradeoffs in a company adopting a new chip, using a "homegrown" operating system (I forget the official name for this), or using a 3rd party supplied operating system. Maintainance and upgrade costs should are also being considered. What I'm not sure of is the costs of bringing in and maintaining a new chip. I know circumstances may be unique, but I'm under the impression that adopting & maintaining the new chip will cost less than the operating system (OS) costs. The primary reason for this is that the OS will have many more changes over time than the chip (or the development facilities associated with the chip). For the different OSs, what I've seen is that there is usually some point where it becomes more costly to support a "homegrown" OS than going with a 3rd party version (assuming that there is a need to stay current with the 3rd party's "new features"). Licensing costs for the OS can also impact the decision, e.g., a vendor plans to have 2-3 billion appliances in the field (of course these will have the Patriot chip in them) and is faced with paying to license the OS. ... this doesn't cover all issues, but I would appreciate any thoughts on the hardware costs ... Thanks, Pilgrim