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 : Dell Technologies Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: rudedog who wrote (80939)	11/17/1998 10:43:00 AM
From: Lee	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 176388

Morning Rudy,..Re:<<RMBS vs DSL technology>> This is probably a stupid question but here goes. It is my understanding that rambus (RDRAM) is the equivalent of the cu backplane or old hardware bus in the old days. But upon looking up some data, the data state that it is a memory management device, not a bus device. Now the question is, if DSL technology has chips (including xcvrs and switches) that route data in multiples of the Ethernet bandwidth, how is rambus comparable considering the latency problem? Maybe I need to do some more research! <g> But it already looks like DSL is a bus technology and RMBS states it's a memory performance enhancer (more bandwidth per pin). Is this a serial versus parallel data transfer issue? Sure would appreciate a simplified explanation. Thanks in advance, Lee

To: rudedog who wrote (80939)	11/17/1998 11:46:00 AM
From: BGR	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 176388

Rudedog, Thank you very much for the explanations. I got confused by your statement that the difference between low and high end UNIX is really imaginary. CPQ's common component for developers across UNIX and VMS seem beneficial, but is it worth the development effort given the future predicted market share of OpenVMS and OSF1? My personal feeling is that more and more application development will switch to NT servers. Is CPQ planning to port these components to the NT environment as well? I believe that DEC was selling triple boot ALPHA servers (OpenVMS, OSF1 and NT) for a long time. Also, how is this going to affect CPQ's relationship with MSFT (NT) and INTC (MERCED)? Also, does CPQ have the necessary internal culture for engineering development components? My understanding is that their focus has primarily been on hardware and systems engineering and services. (The same perhaps goes even for DEC.) Maybe they will provide an API foundation and let others development the front end tools used in development but I am not sure how that will pan out given the market share issue and how many tools developers would be interested. Seems to me that they run a major risk of losing focus as well as angering present development partners. And that will be on top of displeasing channel partners as well. Don't get me wrong though. I think that the ALPHA is a great chip and OSF1 is a very robust OS (OpenVMS too). I have developed and ported applications in both as well as in HP-UX and Solaris and OSF1 had the best performance. It's just that I haven't seen too many customers using it. Perhaps I should take this to the CPQ thread. -Apratim.