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 : Intel Strategy for Achieving Wealth and Off Topic -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sonny McWilliams who wrote (19627)	5/28/1998 6:36:00 PM
From: Tony Viola	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 27012

Sonny, from the other thread, although I know you read it also, my comments on some CNBC talking heads about Intel. Why do most have to constantly put a negative spin on Intel? techstocks.com Jacob, all: Talking about Intel on CNBC just now, several subjects: 1. FTC investigation, or worse, of course. Said the problem was Intel "leaning on" the PC makers. Is that like Intel threatening to bump companies down the priority chain re delivery if they talk to a competitor, like AMD? I though the FTC's perceived problem was Intel pounding the crap (unfairly?) out of any competition, like AMD and Cyrix. 2. More vigorous competition from AMD and Cyrix. No mention of Celeron as a counter. I know, not until Mendocino (4Q98) does Intel again have a product that absolutely will dominate in this segment. I guess these analysts don't look beyond today. Not only that, but aren't AMD and Cyrix losing market share today anyway? This one really cracked me up: 3. The guy says 'AMD came out with a new chip today, K6-me-2', as Paul says. The guy then said that Intel does not come out with their Merced until next year, so they have a couple of Qtrs to struggle. Now I know what our retired members(who have more time to watch CNBC than I do) mean when they describe CNBC's analysts as talking heads, or worse. This guy is comparing a 32 bit Pentium family clone with a 64 bit powerhouse workstation/server CPU. Also, somebody tell this fool about Xeon, already out with Deschutes and all the other...I give up. We're still getting rain out here...all day today (because I took a day off to do some things around the house?). Remember this Neil Diamond Golden Oldie?...Got on board a westbound 747...it never rains in California...At least hardly ever after May 1. Maybe I ought to consider moving back to the East Coast. Naaaaagh. Tony

To: Sonny McWilliams who wrote (19627)	5/29/1998 5:19:00 AM
From: Frank Ellis Morris	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27012

Good Morning Sonny, Hope you had a nice trip and welcome back. Yes It is probably smart of Intel to keep a low profile while the investigations are going on. Thanks for all those articles and life is never boring. Had a feature story on my music album Destiny yesterday and a caption made the front page. The full story was on page three and it was written so that anyone who read The Chronicle in my area could not have missed it. Hope that stocks will explode soon and not be blown up by all those nuclear bombs that are now disturbing the clean air atmosphere. Best Regards Frank

To: Sonny McWilliams who wrote (19627)	5/31/1998 7:55:00 PM
From: David M Gambs	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27012

Sonny, From one of your articles, MSFT VP states: "In no way will our company restrict user's choice. Our products are open products that people can add value on quite widely, and we're very proud of that," Ballmer said. I would disagree with this statement. If I, as a consumer, wish un-integrated products, products that do not have Internet Exploder in them or based on it or requiring any part of it, then MSFT is not delivering what I, the consumer, wish. My choice is being limited to what MSFT wishes to provide me. Mr Ballmer states that their products are open. This is again false. Time and time again, MSFT uses undocumented features to gain an edge. Further, open products adhere to *Standards. MSFT products do not. I can point to Internet Exploder 4.0. It will handle an unknown file type being served to your system in the manner that the OS - not the standard HTTP - has defined. As an example, if you have .log associated with .txt at the OS level, IE 4.0 (perhaps others as well) will treat the file as text even if the file is actually binary. We discovered this recently at work. Needless to say it has caused problems. Now I am not saying that anyone would create a non-text .log file however this could happen on other extensions. The Standard* calls for the browser to handle the information as the Server indicates. If the server does not tell the browser how to handle the file, the browser is to do nothing and ask the user. The only way that a browser should display a file as text is if it has been defined in both the browser and server the same way and the server tells the browser. That is the Internationally defined protocol and MSFT is not following it. That means their product(s) is not 'open' but proprietary. As mentioned to Ann, I came out of Software Engineering and have spent too much time ensuring that developed products meet standard or definitions. From what I have learned, current MSFT internet products do not properly implement the Internationally agreed upon standards. Regards, dmg (Go INTeL® Go to $200 [post all splits: past, present & future])