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 : CYRIX / NSM -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Paul Engel who wrote (27512)	6/17/1998 2:59:00 PM
From: Scumbria	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 33344

RE:"Why is NSM bleeding money if the MediaGX is such a success?" Paul, Apparently MediaGX sales could not compensate for the pounding NSM is taking in their core business. BTW: When I suggested last week that slot 1 was on it's way out for the desktop, you were "somewhat negative." Maybe you owe me an apology? Come on, you can do it. Scumbria

To: Paul Engel who wrote (27512)	6/17/1998 5:11:00 PM
From: Craig Freeman	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 33344

Paul, congratulations are in order. About a month ago we discussed how "it isn't which stock you buy but when you buy it". Well ... Intel started looking like a "value" stock so I bought my first 100 shares. But before you gloat too much about how I've given up on NSM, note that I also bought some cheap NSM calls today. IMHO, the market bottom may not have arrived yet but, at least for semis, we're pretty close. Happy investing and good fortune to us all. Craig

To: Paul Engel who wrote (27512)	6/17/1998 10:38:00 PM
From: Eugene F Mauser	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 33344

"Intel said it was looking at integrating functionality onto a processor but doesn't see the demand changing its business model. "We're just climbing out of our infancy in terms of what processors can do for us," said Gordon Grayling, marketing director for Intel Architecture." I try to stay impartial to the P*ssing contest you and other members of this thread have. BUT, don't you think that by this statement Intel is basicly still in denial that they are behind and may have severly hurt themselves by not pursuing the pcoac earlier? I mean, come-on.... anybody at this point can see that pcoac is the future EXCEPT for dedicated hardware.