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: rudedog who wrote (44576)	5/23/1998 1:47:00 PM
From: Mr. Aloha	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 176387

You obviously have a good understanding of the purchasing environment in today's large corps. Another important factor is.. If you pay top dollar to purchase a machine that will be norm in 6-8? months and then transfer that machine to replace a 233Mhz that will replace a 166Mhz that will replace a 66Mhz you have alot of transfer costs? Tech's would love to bill a company for all that. If the company buys a large quantity of 266Mhz right now and uses that to replace the 133Mhz machines of the past with the same monitor they could significantly reduce transition costs and use the donation of the 133Mhz as a tax write-off etc.. (school etc, if possible based on depreciation etc..) This is how Schwab just upgraded machines. They bought affordable and replaced them all. If you're on a network you don't want someone slowing you down (a different topic). Regarding the comment someone made about retraining individuals based on the computer manufacturer and sticking to the company. I don't think this is the norm anymore. Companies are smarter and quicker now than ever. They will call around to Dell, Compaq, Micron, Gateway, HP, IBM etc.. and ask them, "I want a 266Mhz with.... and I need 200.. how much to deliver at my door...bottom line"? They will look at the figures and decided what's best. An IBM compatible is an IBM compatible and anyone that needs retraining to upgrade different brands should find another occupation. That's pretty simple isn't it? Aloha

To: rudedog who wrote (44576)	5/23/1998 4:25:00 PM
From: Chuzzlewit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 176387

Rudedog, I am in no position to defend Meathead's projected costs -- he can do that. I have no idea of what the true costs are. I am a financial analyst, not a computer specialist. I was simply illustrating how one goes about minimizing costs using the data generated by IT folks such as you and Meathead. Meathead said he was oversimplifying for the purpose of making some points. I used those numbers as a starting point for analysis. Bear in mind that costs to install, operate and maintain anything (highways, plastic injection molding machinery, computers -- it doesn't matter) vary from organization to organization -- this is not a one size fits all argument. You said one thing in your post however that does not ring true to my naive ears. You said that the technology curve is continuous, by which I take to mean that it progresses by minute amounts. But it seems to me that that is not the case. For example, isn't it safe to say that the migration from DOS based software to Windows based software is a quantum leap? How about the changeover from 286-based machines to 386 processors? Aren't these examples of technological discontinuities? TTFN, CTC

To: rudedog who wrote (44576)	5/25/1998 1:00:00 AM
From: Meathead	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 176387

Rude, your analysis is pretty much right on. The 5 to 1 ratio is darn close as well. I'm not a financial analyst or IT manager but do work with those guys and have a strong sense of the complexities involved with asset management. Needs are diverse. You don't necessarily gain a competitive advantage waiting 6 mos for prices to drop by 30% or by buying something cheaper/slower with reduced functionality for your company-wide intranet server or mechanical engineering department workstations. My argument is/was with those who don't understand why anybody would purchase leading edge technology. Their argument being it's "stupid" to pay those ridiculous prices.. people are wising up and they are not gonna buy it anymore cause all they need is a 200Mhz machine to do WP/Email... therefore Dell is doomed. All predicated on their own usage model. Talk about narrow mindedness and ignorance about how these machines in the hands of others, are re-shaping their lives... Those of use who work in the industry know the bear argument is flawed. There are plenty of acceptance drivers for power. Price of the box is not as huge a deal to a corporation as it is to price sensitive individuals when all other costs are factored in . Heck, less than two years ago we bought Sun Ultra2 workstations for 25k a piece. Now, we can get more powerful Wintel boxes for about 5K. At the time however, we had no choice but to upgrade and stay with Unix as none of our CAE vendors had successfully ported to NT. Now they have. I contend that Unix growth is dead, will shrink and Wintel workstations will experience healthy growth and tremendous profitability. I personally like Unix however. Another statement you made, "The demand curve is not flat and peaks at technology that is 12 to 18 months old.." is right on the money. It's interesting to note that at the leading edge of the demand curve where volumes are lowest, profits are the highest. Dell focus is marginally skewed from their competitors in that they focus more intensely on the left side of that curve. Where technologies are completely mature, they are not as aggressive. This strategy is the only logical choice as long as Moore's law remains intact. When innovation and advancement slows waaay down or stops then this game is over. PC's become commodities and the pricing structure will collapse. Unfortunately for the bears, the technology roadmaps I'm working with paint a different picture. If anything, the rate of hardware advancement is accelerating... driven by none other than our friends at INTEL. New bus structures, signaling levels, clocking schemes etc. are providing the means to design beasts that will blow away peoples current concept of PC power. Moores law states that speed/power doubles every 18 months. 24 months from now, leading edge PC's will be roughly 3-4 times more powerful than todays hottest offerings. That's acceleration. It's not just speed mind you, which in and of itself is only a moderate enticement, but capabilities and standards that are non-existent or exclusive today. Are we going to need/want machines that much more powerful that soon? Some of us will, we always will... there are'nt enough MIPS in the universe to satisfy us for the work we have to do. There are many more like us who design everything consumers use that is electronic or has a moving part. Simulating thousands of permutations of design possibilities before comitting dollars to physical prototype... that's where you'll find most early adopters. How much power and what kind of software does it take to design one of those new, high-tech ergonomically friendly fancy toothbrushes on the market today?? I think the bears would be quite surprised to how important simulation and 3D modeling is to the development of just about everything we come into contact with daily that we don't give a second thought. The rate of innovative change in everything from diapers to satellites is accelerating by virtue of the power of our beloved PC. One final point however. Some are under the assumption that the IT department or finance guys make these hardware purchasing decisions at all the big corporations for all departments. This is not the always case. In newer/leaner organizations, the department manager owns the budgetary responsibilities and makes the call as to what gets purchased and when. If the ECAD manager decides the department will need 30 new workstations in 98 then it's budgeted for, the budget is approved at the beginning of the year and the money gets spent at some agreed upon window of time during the year. Generally, there can be budgetary concessions with finance but rarely are purchases of less capable hardware an option because no intelligent individual would compromise the efficiency and productivity of their department. After all, their review is tied to departmental performance and when you spend that kind of dough, you want every last ounce of power to justify the purchase for as long as possible. You also want happy CAD engineers right? Just one example of autonomy and how some of these bad boy machines sneak their way into a company. IT has only a minor influence on a decision like this and it's generally concerned with networkability and managability. Speed, power and price are not their concern. Servers however, that's another story. So to summarize, the bears are WRONG. There IS a market for leading edge, it's healthy, it's the most profitable and it's not going to shrink or go away. MEATHEAD