Jean,
re: "Long story but PC's are now a low-margin commodity and with the net, within a certain limit, you do not need 1.1 GigaHertz, at least until it has come down in price 6 months later when the 1.5 has come out , for example.
A 128 MB RAM, 30Gig Hard Disk, 17" monitor , 56K Modem or Cable, 600 Mhz + PC is MAPLE for most people, yet look at the difference in price comparing a 600 Mhz vs a 1.1 GigaHertz.
A Vus speed of 100, 133 is more than enough and shows only very, very modest differences for the price.."
Maybe you are right. Maybe we've finally reached the speed barrier on PC's, and there will be no new functions forward that need faster PC's. I've heard that for years, but maybe it's finally true. Intel has been growing revenues and earning pretty well this year, it appears things slowed down towards the end of the second quarter, maybe that's it for the old-fashioned PC. No voice recogintion, no video downloads, nobody will want that stuff.
re: "Finally, I have read tons of articles in IT magazines, Electronics magazines to show that Intels Comms acquisitions have not given it much for the price, ie DSP (?) and Level One.
Intel is suing BroadCom as once the latter is winning, it is trying to slow it down. Broadcom & PMCS design wins in the comms space are massively outdistancing mighty Intel,"
I suspect you might be right, but I haven't seen any hard information. If you come across any links to confirm that Intel is losing in that space, I would appreciate it if you would post them. I'm more than a little worried.
As far as your saying Intel has lost it, I hope you are wrong. It's a great company that has done a hell of a lot over the last 10-15 years for the economy and the technology industry. I don't think we would be where we are today (good or bad) without Intel.
Thanks,
John |
