To: Charlie Tuna who wrote (4621 ) 11/5/1997 6:24:00 PM From: Rob S. Respond to
This is a good, objective article. As consumers are faced with an increasing number of choices they will gain an increasing sense of indiference to the manufacture of the parts inside. Surveys show that most retail customers consider their dealers' recommendations the most important decision criteria. The second most important criteria is brand. The third most important criteria are product reviews. We should start seeing more third tier vendors offering the WinChip over the next several days leading up to Comdex. Over half of all PCs sold are marketed through 2nd and third tier accounts. IDT's biggest immediate problem may well be ramping up production to the level needed to support 2nd tier and then 1st tier accounts.From the December 1997 Issue of PC World The result: an average 3 percent performance difference on business applications between the slowest--Centaur's and Intel's--and the fastest--AMD's and Cyrix's (see the performance chart) . So for mainstream Win 95 business apps, all four 200-MHz Pentium-compatible processors are created about equal. But price/performance is a different story (see "New Centaur C6-Based PC Delivers Great Value"). That Pentium MMX-200 system that gives you the same performance as the C6 costs on average a whopping 50 percent more. In other words, every dollar that you spend for "Intel Inside" costs just 66 cents for "Centaur Instead." . . . Intel charges $604 for its notebook chip and $252 for the desktop version .
