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 : All About Sun Microsystems -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: uu who wrote (8789)	4/3/1998 5:07:00 PM
From: cfimx	Respond to of 64865

>>In my humble opinion as long as PCs continue to decline in prices, NCs will not be popular. It is as simple as that<< funny...I said the same exact thing a year ago..but I was just about crucified. addi, somehow, i don't think that will be your fate around here. but welcome. it's nice to have the sunw perma bull firmly in MY CAMP. I couldn't DISAGREE with you more, however, on sunw's opportunites in the server space. But hey, in a few months, you may start to see it my way-just like you did with NCs.

To: uu who wrote (8789)	4/3/1998 5:19:00 PM
From: Charles Tutt	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 64865

If I had the choice between a PC and an NC at the same price, I'd take the NC. It should be smaller and consume less power (so run cooler), and hence should be more reliable; it also should be more secure and easier to administer. Theft or failure of an NC doesn't result in data loss, but how many people regularly back up their PC's? Of course, I'm assuming that the NC would perform whatever tasks I needed to do (i.e. software and any needed accessories, like modems, must be available), that the flexibility/expandability of the PC would not outweigh the benefits of of the NC (but note that the "flexibility/expandability" of PC's, and especially those competing at NC price levels, is questionable anyway -- how many businesses are modifying their 486's to meet current needs rather than buying whole new machines?), and that hidden costs are accounted for (e.g. the possible need for more robust servers and networks in the case of the NC, and the extra work needed to install, secure, and maintain PC's along with probable increased downtime due to higher complexity of PC's over NC's). JMHO, of course.

To: uu who wrote (8789)	4/3/1998 5:24:00 PM
From: cheryl williamson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 64865

Addi, Right. The PC makers bring down the price of their hardware until it approaches the price of an NC. Just how low do you think thes clowns can go & still make money? Intel's gross margin on an MMX is about $20 per unit vs +$500 per unit on a Pentium (300mhz). They can outfit the cheap PC's any way they want, but someone has to PAY for the hardware. The concept of FAT technology is that there is lots & lots of stuff inside your PC that will give you all the bell & whistles on your own desktop. History has shown that manufacturing efficiencies have reduced the cost of components. But the PCs, up until recently, have remained around $2000 or so. Why? You get more computing power for the same money, right? For PC makers to continue to make money & charge LESS for their machines, they have to thin them out or use older technology. Both of those solutions are loaded with minefields when you consider MSFT's bloatware. CPQ is already feeling the squeeze, as are disk driver, semiconductor manufacturers, & semiconductor equipment makers. NC's are partly responsible for this. Now that they are on the market, the days of expensive FAT clients doing simple tasks in business are numbered. The terminal market alone is estimated at more than 30 million seats & SUNW's JavaStation is just out of the box. As software becomes available, NC's will become increasingly popular. People who want their own personal nuclear power plant at home can continue to buy ever-bigger & ever-more-powerful gatesmobiles. IT managers, however, are looking for good value. They'll see cheap hardware attached to powerful, reliable servers, low m&e costs, and scalable applications that they can run from their MVS/XA machines all the way down to their JavaStations. It's a more efficient technology, Addi. That's why it will succeed.

To: uu who wrote (8789)	4/4/1998 6:28:00 AM
From: JDN	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 64865

Dear Addi: I have been in SUNW a long time and I have read your very informative posts over much of that time. I have a question for you as my memory isnt clear on this. I seem to recall that when the NC concept etc. was first announced everyone was saying no big deal to SUNW as low margins etc etc. If I am correct, then why if it appears the NC concept is likely to fade away is everyone taking it out on SUNW by running the stock price down? I have always felt it was the Server side and the Java language that was going to be SUNW's claim to fame. JDN