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: Scumbria who wrote (78053)	4/8/1999 11:32:00 AM
From: Paul Fiondella	Respond to of 186894

Here I differ with you a bit Price doesn't determine the sale into the enterprise as much as reliability. There will be a great deal of resistance to replacing known INTC quantities with AMD ones for servers etc. Especially given the track record of some of the AMD MB chipset manufacturers. Less so perhaps with workstations. My bet is that AMD will go after the workstation market with the K7 with the lower price higher performance argument. It won't work with servers. ============== Incidentally a funny thing happened to me with Win98 and a 128MB K6-2-333 1 MB cache system. I crashed it with 5 programs and 30 processes open. Its been so long since I crashed a system on a daily basis I had forgotten that it even happens. AT DEC we used to crash the system like some people play slot machines. This tells you something about Microsoft OS's. I had to kill the power manager crap and the poorly written serial port modem fax crap. Software is so badly written today. I opened one dialup modem program this AM and it used nearly 100% of the CPU. I can't conceive of how a program could be written that poorly. ============ So if you build a good CPU, you still have to deal with Microsoft crap in an OS.

To: Scumbria who wrote (78053)	4/8/1999 11:49:00 AM
From: Duker	Respond to of 186894

Duker, I don't see how the consumer gets hurt by price cuts. Scumbria, It is simple economics (i.e., the allocation of scarce resources). Lower prices clearly impact the consumers disposable income. All other things being equal (ceterus paribus, for our Latin friends), lower prices for PCs will increase the consumers discretionary income. This increase will surely be followed by one of two things: 1) increased savings and/or investment, or 2) increased consumption of alternative goods. The former is highly unlikely given the US consumer's unwillingness to meaningfully increase his savings rate. This leaves us to ponder the latter. Clearly, increased consumption of an alternate good, is by definition, damaging to the consumer. For example, if homoeconomicus were endowed with incrementally more purchasing power, he would be forced to make the difficult decision as to which good he should consume. In our case, homoeconomicus is deciding whether or not to extend his Nantucket vacation by one more day. This will, of course, be based on his marginal propensity to consume an incremental unit of leisure -- since, in ecomomics, every decision is made at the margin. In our example, homoeconomicus may very well have to consume that incremental day of rest and relaxation, which is clearly damaging to his long-term utility. The alternative approach to this (espoused by a few leading-edge researchers at MIT -- see Working Papers, Prof. Forbes at the Sloan School) is the Price-Utility Inversion Theory of Consumption (fondly known J.B. Martin Theory of Consumption -- for the Baker Scholar in Economics at Williams College ... a small school, nestled in the heart of the Berkshires ... who is credited with the pioneering work in this area ). This theory would hold that one's utility for both consumable and durable goods increases in direct relation to the price of the good --irrespective of the tangible gains in quality. The implications of this theory are far-reaching if it proves to be true. However, at this point, the data are inconclusive. --Duker Scumbria, I was just kidding with my original post. Did not think I needed to <g> it.