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 : Dell Technologies Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Eddie Kim who wrote (39456)	4/29/1998 10:30:00 AM
From: Meathead	Respond to of 176387

Eddie, did you actually read and understand Paul's post? MEATHEAD

To: Eddie Kim who wrote (39456)	4/29/1998 10:44:00 AM
From: SecularBull	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 176387

Eddie, this is ABSOLUTE BS: >>The fact is Compaq, LAST YEAR, made more money per employee<< Where did you read this? You are SO wrong on this. Business Week reported that Dell bested Compaq 2:1 on this very point. Get your facts in line. Your credibility is seriously strained. LoD

To: Eddie Kim who wrote (39456)	4/29/1998 10:46:00 AM
From: SecularBull	Respond to of 176387

Eddie, >>DELL will do just fine whether you rah rah for it or not.<< Are you trying to add credibility to your posts by adding these little truths to the endings? LoD

To: Eddie Kim who wrote (39456)	4/29/1998 12:35:00 PM
From: Chuzzlewit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 176387

Eddie, first let me correct an error I made in a previous post. Dell currently has greater profits per employee than Compaq. Sig posted the information some time back and I unfortunately forgot about it. Sorry for the factual error. Nevertheless, the point remains that this is a poor metric. I assume saying Compaq is too fat is NOT misleading. Right? I never said it was too fat. That is a subjective conclusion that someone else drew. You said in a previous post practically in all areas except for percent growth Compaq beats Dell. And I responded to that. Your statement was factually incorrect and your analysis faulty. Other than that it was fine. You have repeatedly posted information that is at variance from the truth and you have repeatedly misunderstood or misinterpreted some very rudimentary accounting data and have drawn incorrect conclusions from them. And in a fit of pique, when you are corrected you claim that I have dished out "mumble-jumble", and then you say "Why is it that you have to instantly get so defensive?" Eddie, I deal in analysis. I am not attacking Compaq. I am simply drawing conclusions based on the information available to anyone taking the time to check it out. I doubt that my opinion matters to anyone but my clients and family (although I'm not too sure of some of them <VBG>). Compaq's performance (or lack thereof) speaks for itself. TTFN, CTC