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: Steve Porter who wrote (32147)	5/6/1999 3:11:00 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 33344

Thanks for the post.....i belong to thestreet.com but missed it this am. I understand where you are at but in my experience in business you fight the battles you can win. I have only been trading for a while but it seems that intc has been able to execute more successfully than nsm or amd, not that i think intc is the master by any means. But they have developed better margins and are sitting on a whole load of cash. It makes it hard for a nsm or amd to compete and lets face it, nsm in this race is a distant third. Steve, i would feel the same as you if this were about stopping child abuse or finding the cure for cancer but we are talking about a company making a change (yes, a fairly radical change) to its business plan. Its not what you and a lot of other people including me may have wanted but frankly we do not know all the negatives halla was facing and again frankly i did not believe nsm had much of a chance. So hopefully making a short term profit will blunt some of your unhappiness. And if that doesn't work, there always crack (bought with your profits) and using it to fry your brain.....that's always guaranteed to work IMHO. ted

To: Steve Porter who wrote (32147)	5/8/1999 6:49:00 PM
From: grok	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 33344

The link you posted says: "When Intel was fooling around with such dead-end products as the 80286, National was jumping way ahead with more far-seeing, more innovative products." I would like to point out that the 80286 was a hugely successful chip which made a ton of money for Intel. It was link 2 in a continuous chain of massively profitable PC chips that has brought Intel to its current dominance. Although spurned for its architecture (yes, it was hideous), the 286 implementation provided higher performance than any of its peers and its die size was small enough to support the volumes which were quite large for any logic chip in those days. It became the most profitable non-memory chip in the world until that honor was taken away by the 386 about three years later. The 32032 had a good architecture (of course it had no compatibility constrains) but poor implementation which caused it to miss the market since they just didn't get it debugged and yielding. I think that Seymore meant to say the Intel 432 was a deadend product.