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: Paul Engel who wrote (82052)	5/29/1999 2:23:00 PM
From: Jim McMannis	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 186894

RE:"That is the future. And Intel is positioning itself to get to the future before anyone else." --- Maybe "a" future. OTOH, the great fallacy I see in the PCOAC concept is the lack of flexibility. Somewhere there is a weak point. Either the CPU core, speed, audio, video. Now, if Intel can develop a manufacturing and design process where the individual components can be replaced easily that would be the key. Otherwise, the PCOAC will always be the dregs. With the two chip solution, ie. i810 chipset + CPU, there is a lot more flexibility. I thought this was Intels original thinking. Considering the $ premium you can get for the faster, more up to date, two chip solution over the PCOAC I'm wondering if the PCOAC is really any more profit effective. If Intel can find a way...more power too them. What I really feel is that Intel is covering their behind in case the PCOAC takes off. Jim

To: Paul Engel who wrote (82052)	5/29/1999 2:30:00 PM
From: Cirruslvr	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Paul - RE: "Thus, Timna will prove out the concept of a nearly FULL PC on a chip" Are the designers working with the P6 core, or a new core?

To: Paul Engel who wrote (82052)	5/29/1999 3:14:00 PM
From: Jacques Newey	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 186894

Paul and Intel Investors, RE:"Thus, Timna will prove out the concept of a nearly FULL PC on a chip" A few questions/comments: 1. Where does one plug in the monitor and keyboard? I noticed from the new ads that the new Pentium III has several plug-in adapters :?). 2. Might this alienate Intel's current clients, the Dells, IBMs, Compaq's and Gateways of the world? After all, if there is nothing left to sell WITH the chip, how will the box makers claim they add value? Why wouldn't Intel just start selling direct to PC buyers (over the net)? Could this drastically reduce the cost of the PC at the same time protect/improve Intel's margins? Why should Dell get all the credit for Intels' hard work and precious R&D just by putting the CPU in a non-descript box?. I know this sounds simplistic, but the thought has intrigued me for a while now. I am curious to know what you and others think.

To: Paul Engel who wrote (82052)	5/29/1999 4:03:00 PM
From: Amy J	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Re: Timna Hi Paul, Thanks for taking the time to write this. Very interesting. Amy J

To: Paul Engel who wrote (82052)	5/29/1999 7:12:00 PM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Paul, excellent post, and it reminds me of an issue I've been thinking about. Intel could have done what most large successful corporations have done and abandoned it's lower margin, difficult to please customers base. However, and this is where the brilliance of Intel management plays in, by meeting the needs of the difficult to please customers in the low end and challenging their systems. Intel was forced to stress their systems of manufacture, quality, and delivery to the point of almost guaranteeing they will exceed their other higher margin, less difficult customer base. The challenge of finding a solution with regard to the Celeron, was a gift to Intel and it's shareholders. It has kept Intel management on their toes, continuously looking for way's to improve their systems of manufacturing and management. The culture of Andrew Grove's "only the paranoid survive" still appears deeply rooted within Intel. All too often successful companies take the easy way out. Intel never content on where they are today, does not. Michael

To: Paul Engel who wrote (82052)	5/29/1999 8:12:00 PM
From: Scumbria	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Paul, When Cyrix introduced the MediaGX, Intel figured they (Cyrix) would meet the same fate - but they didn't. Compaq - which had balked at Intel's earlier approach - sucked up the MediaGX. Of course, having Gary Stimac on the CYrix board (Stimac was a long time Compaq Engineer and VP) certainly "helped", as well as the fact that the Cyrix name did not contain the letters I N T E L . Gray Stimac was not on the Cyrix board until well after the MediaGX launch. Cyrix had no advantage with Compaq beyond a great new technology. The 486SL and MediaGX are not a good comparison, because the MediaGX also includes audio, graphics, PCI controller, and south bridge functions. Cyrix did a great job with MediaGX. Since then, their performance has stunk. Maybe they lost some key people? Scumbria

To: Paul Engel who wrote (82052)	5/29/1999 10:23:00 PM
From: Gary Ng	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Paul, Re: And Intel thereby becomes even more a part of the overall SYSTEM COMPONENT provider That is what 'Intel Inside' really means. In the 486 days, even the FPU may not be Intel. Soon, it will be CPU(and FPU) , L2 cache, chipset, graphic(for mass market machines). I am expecting network as well. It will soon be 'Intel Inside out'. Gary

To: Paul Engel who wrote (82052)	5/30/1999 1:17:00 AM
From: Process Boy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Paul - Excellent Timna post Paul, IMHO. EOM.