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: John Carragher who wrote (66986)	10/18/1998 2:36:00 PM
From: Barry Grossman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

John, From the article, << Drew Peck, an analyst with Cowen & Co., said he did not believe Intel will be the profit and growth machine it once was. "For Intel to sustain this quarter's level of growth and profit requires a strong step up in PC demand," he said. >> I think that analyst comments like this tend to underestimate the demand that is occurring from the millions of 486 and earlier era pc owners who can no longer resist the low prices for even the currently available highest end systems. When this segment purchased pc's, system prices were comparable to the today's high-end of the market. Many of this segment, and I include myself in that category, push current system usage to the max before reaching a need-to-upgrade point. When they finally buy, they tend to repeat their previous pattern and buy high-end systems, wanting to use the system as long as possible without needing to upgrade again. My own personal example is a case in point. In my business, I have been using a 486-66 with a 2.1 MB HD since 1993 - the monitor was 13 in. Laser printer a NEC Silentwriter 95. This combination has served me extremely well over that period. It has allowed me to compete head to head even against the biggest companies in my business – companies with billions in sales. Computerization back in 1988 freed me from the constraint of information overload, which is where I was at that time. Being able to manipulate information better than my competitors was and still is an important factor in my ability to survive in the world of business. For what I paid in 1993, I just upgraded to a 450 PII with a 14.3 MB HD and a 19-in. monitor. The NEC still works fine – no need to replace it. Last I remember reading, there were about 100 million more like me out there. JMHO, FWIW. Barry

To: John Carragher who wrote (66986)	10/18/1998 4:28:00 PM
From: exhon2004	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

John: Thanks for posting NY Times article. The author makes the following claim: But the climate has changed. The big demand drivers are the Internet and electronic commerce, which are limited less by microprocessor power than by bandwidth. And on most of today's real world applications, there is little benefit in upgrading from a 166-megahertz Pentium to a 300-megahertz Pentium II. Windows 98 does not require more power than Windows 95. I would argue that this is currently priced into the stock. I also do not agree with the argument. Many PC buyers will buy what they consider state of the art at the time to push out future obsolescence of their purchase. I bought a 450Mhz PII for around $1,900, before upgrades. While not arguing that other buyers would emulate me, one compelling reason I went with more computing power than what my current needs dictate is to be prepared for whatever power hungry apps I may want to run in the near future. If a killer app emerges that does push the performance envelope, holders of Intel stock will get a jump in the value of their holdings. When I bought my P90 in 1995 there were 486's that would run windows 3.1 just fine. Today my kids are running interactive educational cd's on the P90. The 486 would not have been fast enough to hold their interest. By buying, what was then, state of the art, I'm getting extra years out of the machine at the end of it's useful life. Best Regards, Greg Gimelli