To: wanna_bmw who wrote (80730 ) 5/26/2002 8:24:01 PM From: tejek Respond to of 275872 Ted, Re: "a former Intel employee puts forth a premise that's not new but the fact that he worked at Intel and presumably is knowledgeable about PCs makes the premise just that more real. If there is some truth to it, both AMD and Intel could be in a world of hurt." I'll agree that over time, PC performance has slowly turned from trailing application requirements to leading them. This is not a positive trend, but the good news is that people still don't buy their computers with the sole intention of running their current generation of applications, but rather with the expectation that applications in the future will require more from their computers than the bottom of the line can deliver. Avoiding obsolescence is still something that both consumers and corporations know how to do. Obviously, some upgrade cycles are longer than others, but I'm sure that very few people out there are under the false impression that the power of their computer is all they'll need for any application they'll ever choose to run. BMW, I tend to disagree. I rarely run more than two programs at any given time. And I think that's typical of the average user. He/she has a particular task to perform on a regular basis which probably gets handled by one program, maybe two at the most. I am talking about users in the average corporate office. Furthermore, if other users out there are typical of me, then their primary purpose for upgrading CPUs and RAM was to get more speed. However, I think DSL pretty much turns that into a moot issue. Of course, to say that this is the way it is to be forever is to be stupid. Like you suggested, someday in the future, processor speeds may once again trail application needs. ted