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 : 3Com Corporation (COMS) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Steve Porter who wrote (21250)	9/6/1998 11:06:00 PM
From: joe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 45548

Steve, >>Sorry for ranting and raving, but I had a lot to say.. << You're the network expert, so you should be ranting and raving about these technical aspects to us. I still have a lot to learn. >>One of the reasons COMS says the don't want to compete is easy. Lul the enemy into believing that you aren't a threat. Then you hit them with a big bomb...<< This is the impression I've been coming to lately. Since I'm not a networking expert, I was Luled somewhat myself. But, the CSCO folks can't be lulled too much. All they need to do is go to the COMS web site and look at the products, right? Of course, their "killer" products haven't been web posted yet...but people in the know can tell. BTW...Did you notice that acquisition that FORE made was for a company that is into the Gigabit Ethernet Lans? This is COMS strong suit coming up stongly in the next year. FORE wants to integrate their WAN ATM with the Gig. Eth. LAN systems. Interesting. I read that they stated the demand in this area is driving them there, and there is a need to have more proficiency in linking the WAN and LAN areas together when the speeds get up into the Gigabit levels. Plus, FORE has to have a better product variety to survive. ATM is not enough. Seems like lots of folks eventually follow COMS strategic moves: 1) Small and Medium size enterprises 2) Cable Modems and xDSL 3) Gigabit Ethernet LAN systems 4) Switch Routers 5) VOIP in the LAN system 6) Videoconferencing Tell me if I'm wrong, but IMO COMS has been touting these things the longest and most forcefully. I'm sure I've missed a few more also. >>They have top of the line ATM and ethernet solutions.<< ATM is one area I've noticed COMS getting into, but I don't think I've heard them described as "tops" in this area. I thought they're just trying to have a presence. FORE I have heard described as "tops"...but problem with FORE is they depend on ATM to much, it seems. Also, how sure are you that ATM is the de facto protocol of the next generation backbones for VOIP? I get the impression that there is still some time for decision makers to make up their minds and possibly something better comes along? Either way, COMS is right to have to have a toe hold in there, plus they have the knowledge of bridging the WAN with the LAN areas which is what FORE is trying to do as far as I understand things. >>I have heard many people wonder why IPv6 is so wide (something like 80 billion valid addresses)...<< Not too long after IPv6 gets in the swing of things, they will need an IPv8. 80 IP addresses won't be enough for me. I myself, will need a few hundred:-), and there will be more than 1 Billion users in 10-20 years. I related it going from 16 to 32 to 64bit microprocessors. Intel/HP 64 bit chips will be great when they come out (YR2000), but by 2010, we will need the 128bit MPUs.:-) (I know I will:-) ). >>Every COMS product is better that every CSCO product I have used (where direct comparisons are possible) by a factor of 2 or 3. Easier to setup, easier to maintain, fewer failures, better support, cheaper price. What more is there to offer.<< Do you think this might be because of the "John Chambers" leadership? I think he's a great CEO, but he doesn't come from a computer networking background. He's an MBA Lawyer with high level executive experience at IBM and elsewhere's. He's great at creating relationships and serving customers. But somebody has to be around to have the vision of where the technology is going to be in 5 years from now. Eric B. though could use some of Chamber's ability to rack up Billion $ contracts. I think he's developing it, but the sooner the better, or get some help on this. joe