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 : ACLY- ACCELR8. Year 2000 Stock -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (1339)	4/28/1998 4:40:00 PM
From: Bob Trocchi	Respond to of 1518

Jeffrey... >>Bob, read Intel's SEC Y2K disclosure statement and then tell me if you feel the same way. (gg)<< I have not had the time today as I have been having fun watching ZITL. You have an excellent point and I indeed will look it up. If I agree I will take back what I said and tip of the hat to you. Bob T.

To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (1339)	4/29/1998 4:05:00 PM
From: Bob Trocchi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1518

Jeffrey... >>Bob, read Intel's SEC Y2K disclosure statement and then tell me if you feel the same way. (gg)<< You sure know how to make a person work <G>. I searched high and low for a reference in INTEL's last 10K report and unfortunately I could not find any Y2K reference. I am sure it must be there. If you could shed some light on where it is I would appreciate it. Nonetheless I have some opinions, subject to change when I can read what Intel said, regarding their Y2K problem. I am quite certain that Intel has a large number of VAX systems in their world wide manufacturing plants. When I was at DEC, manufacturing was a big market, DEC was very successful in that market thus most likely Intel has a large number of Vaxes. However, seldom did DEC sell a system to a manufacturer without an application partner supplying the customized manufacturing SW. I would expect a manufacturer, like Intel, would look to these application providers for updates to correct the date problem. It is very traditional for suppliers of applications to sell warranty and update support for their packages. It is also common for these application providers to drop warranty and support if someone other than themselves make changes to "their" SW applications. If I were Intel, I would DEMAND that these providers provide the fixes. I would also assume that Intel did some development work and would be responsible for those fixes however I would expect that the majority of date fixes will be the responsibility of the application providers. If the application providers were to announce a partnership with ACLY or if ALCY announced some major contracts with significant manufacturing application SW developers, then I would consider that a major win and VERY beneficial to ACLY. I have not seen any announcement of this type or any announcement that ACLY is doing work for Intel. Jeff, I respect your opinions and your DD on this. Again I would appreciate your help in finding the Intel statement to the SEC and maybe I will change my opinion. Until then, my opinions are ACLY is a good company, appears well managed and is doing a good job in Y2K. Time however is running out, I still do not see any concrete after Y2K plans and their market cap is too high. I surely have been wrong before and I will be wrong again but hopefully for me, not this time. Regards Bob T.