Tim,
re: Yeah, I agree. For a lot of corps with 500 MHz machines sitting on the desktops of their secretaries (excuse me, "human interface engineers") and purchasing agents and all, it's not a compelling decision that they upgrade all of these machines to 1 GHz and beyond...
While I admit that a 40 MHz non-PPC Mac is just too sluggish to me (I'm now working on a 400 MHz PPC Mac, a G4 Tower), his point probably applies to tens of millions or more cases. Once a machine is fast enough to handle all reasonable intended uses, many users have little interest in upgrading...
What I'm saying is that all of us, including the bean counters within small businesses and larger corporations, have to decide when it makes sense to upgrade existing systems. For my friend the noted PC architecture consultant, his 40 MHz 68030 or 68040 is apparently "fast enough." For many others, including some SI subscribers I know here, 400-800 MHz Pentium 3s are "fast enough."
_____________________
If anyone were to agree with your opinion that there will not be an upgrade cycle in the future, they would be wise to sell their Intel position. If there is no added value to increased processor speed, if less than 1 GHz is all that folks will need in the future, the cpu product will very quickly degenerate into a pure commodity with gross margins closer to 10%-20% than the current 45%-60% range. There will be very few IAG profit dollars to offset the multi-$Billions Intel is losing in "other businesses". Intel stock, my guess, would be worth somewhere south of $5.
I believe you said in a previous post that most of your portfolio is in Intel stock. Why?
John |
