>>So comptuers have not been commodities in the past? <<
not anywhere close to now. the prices of computers and components have collapsed. folks REFUSE to pay up for computers. $2k+ computers were common a few years ago. not now.
>>If computers are commodities, then you better tell Intel and Microsoft they are screwed<<
microsoft had it first DOWN earnings q in its history. they don't need me to tell them they are already screwed as their bubble pe falls in the grip of rational market gravity. intel has had it WORSE than msft.
>>Again, if Intel wants RDRAM as the standard, that's what people will buy<<
you are wrong. intel tried to dictate another memory standard and they LOST b/c the market drives intel, not the other way around. perhaps bilow will recall the name of the memory intel foisted on an unwanting market. this has happened before.
when you are proven wrong, please be man enough to admit it to me on this thread. IF rmbs dominates dram then i will provide you the same courtesy.
>>. Second, when did people give a flip about what kind of RAM is inside their computer (the majority of people don't care. Only nerds like yourself do.).<<
they don't. never said they do. what they care about IS THE PRICE OF THE COMPUTER. how you got off on such a tangent, i don't know.
>>And for your comment that RDRAM might not provide any increase in speed, then explain the reports I've read that a 1.5GHz P4 with RDRAM out does a 1.7GHz P4 with SDRAM, yet costs less?<<
please provide some links to these reports and the pricing. i've already said that under certain circumstances, rdram performs better. under others, i've read it doesn't. tell me, how much faster can i type this note with rdram? you see the tree, but not the forest.
>>again, RDRAM adds like 40-60 dollars to the cost of a computer. If you are buying a $2,000 dollar machine, it doesn't really matter. Granted, if you are buying a 600 dollar machine, then it probably does.<<
tech, please show me where the same company sells an rdram box for $40 more than a ddr box when each is configured as close as possible to the same. wrt $600 computers, guess what kind of computers make up the bulk of sales in 2001? not $1k+. so, we agree, it does matter. so does the market b/c they could buy rdram enabled boxes in droves... but aren't....
>>oh, i keep forgetting. People buy computers because of the type of ram inside them.<<
tech, i said "the price is right" not to highlight dram content but to highlight "the price is right." i understand we all have slow days, but did you get it this time?
>>Again, i think you are providing trash. At least Bilow offers some original reasons backed up with facts.<<
you are entitled to disregard basic economic decision making. it is, and has been, at your own risk. facts will follow the basic economics here. i predicted rmbs' troubles quite a few years ago, on this thread, based on a quick, albeit basic (basic was ALL that was needed), economic analysis. my view panned out. just like my declaration after micron filed their suit that said rmbs committed fraud at jedec - here on this thread. common sense is not common b/c it is not understood by all. especially folks who have a financial and emotional interest.
now, we all eagerly await the facts to back up your assertions...
1. show us all equally rdram boxes within $40 of equally configured ddr boxes.
2. show us all the information behind the tests that showed rdram outperformed ddr. |
