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: AK2004 who wrote (5022)	3/18/1998 5:56:00 PM
From: StockMan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6843

Bert, Re -- a better performance for $$$. Right now I think it is cyrx and amd. And you are in charge of R&D in an investment firm. Can you tell me what firm, I'd like to make fun of it. Stockman

To: AK2004 who wrote (5022)	3/18/1998 11:16:00 PM
From: Kenith Lee	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 6843

Albert, In respond to why AMD need 3D. Take a look at the price structure between Intel's and AMD's CPU offerings. Whatever AMD does not have, the price jump significantly. This has been Intel's ploy since the 386 days. By having 3D and higher performance under same clock speed, Intel will have to raise the bar higher (400-450mhz). Have you wonder why those 400-450 are so pricy? The yield on these really sucks! The yield distribution curve is not that wide. I think AMD can also match Intel's speed but at the expense of lower total revenue. -KL

To: AK2004 who wrote (5022)	3/19/1998 1:35:00 AM
From: Paul Engel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6843

albert - Re: "Considering that amd is aiming at substantially larger market share while having almost none right now" WOW! Twelve months of K6 production and AMD has almost no market share! Yep - AMD sure has a lot of potential! AT this rate, they will ALWAYS HAVE A LOT of potential! K6 - take a bite out of albert's wallet! regards -Paul

To: AK2004 who wrote (5022)	3/19/1998 9:05:00 AM
From: Burt Masnick	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6843

Hi - On AMD and INTC we agree to disagree politely. On Kurlak, I am simply amazed that his batting average doesn't bother people. He has had some good calls, but, as the saying goes, even a stopped watch is correct twice a day. Elaine Garzarelli built a whole career on one good call (though I saw one market pundit say in print that if Elaine Garzarelli said that the sun would rise in the east tomorrow, he would be tempted to bet against it). Photoshop is a competitor of Kai's Photosoap (Adobe would put it the opposite way). Photoshop has more image manipulation capability but at 10 times the price. Also Photoshop is rather complex to use and a cottage industry has sprung up writing books about how to actually use some of the potential capabilities of Photoshop. I saw a whole shelf of such books at Barnes and Noble. Photoshop does not compete with MS Publisher. The professional capacity competitor to Publisher is Adobe PageMaker. PageMaker is the gold standards and it's used by major professional publishers like ad agencies, newspapers and magazines for layout, but again sells for 10 times the cost of Publisher. The differences between Publisher and PageMaker are extremely subtle and you would have to be doing some REALLY, REALLY sophisticated stuff to need PageMaker. The algorithm to date has been that whatever features were in PageMaker 2 years ago are in Publisher today. I publish a Family Tree Newsletter (I'm big into genealogy) with MS Publisher that will knock your socks off in terms of visual appeal, photo images and use of shapes and colors. There is a lower cost competitor to Publisher called Printshop, put out by Broderbund that is OK, but I am more impressed with Publisher. Broderbund does publish some great collections of ClipArt and a top notch genealogy program called Family Tree Maker. By the way, I also like the Epson 600 color printer, though it's a bit slow on color pages (but so is everything else, until you spend big bucks). With Epson's Photo Quality paper (about 12 cents a sheet) I get awfully close to Photo Quality (you still get the best photo quality from professionally developed and printed film). For $229 it's a steal. Best regards and good investing, Burt