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 Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Paul Engel who wrote (56599)	6/2/1998 2:42:00 AM
From: blankmind	Respond to of 186894

Microsoft not moved by Merced delay Although Intel says its 64-bit Merced processor won't be available until mid-2000, Microsoft is developing both 64-bit NT Workstation and 64-bit NT Enterprise Edition Server implementations and still expects shipment to coincide with general availability of Merced systems. Follow the link below for details. zdnet.com

To: Paul Engel who wrote (56599)	6/2/1998 9:52:00 AM
From: Jules B. Garfunkel	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 186894

Paul, Your hypothesis, "a contributing "cause " for the delay are the CAD (Computer Aided Design) TOOLS used to design, simulate, and verify the design as well as perform physical layout of the circuitry." .......and, "Indications are (not 100% confirmed) that some of these tools weren't completed on time or at least weren't up to the job, necessitating further development of the specific CAD tools before certain Merced design/verification/simualtion functions could be completed.". For me, this does not explain the timing of the announced Merced delay. It is difficult for me to comprehend, and buy, how on one day someone at Intel wakes up and realizes that the CAD processors aren't going to be enough to make the Merced schedule on time. Can you imagine, if this were true, someone at Intel saying, "Oh! we better announce a delay of 6 months on Merced immediately". One would think, if your hypothesis were correct, that we would have had much earlier warning signs. The delay therefore would have evolved over time, rather than slip 6 months plus, all at once. No, I feel there is a lot more significant reasons for this delay than we understand, or are being told, at this point in time. My guess is, if Intel is operating as it has in the past, the delay is being made for Intel's benefit. And while it is just my opinion, I would bet, (and I have), that the delay has something to do with improving Intel's near term earnings. Eventually, I believe, we will see this as a positive and timely action. Regards, Jules