To: Mason Barge who wrote (6005 ) 6/26/1998 12:40:00 AM From: Michael Sphar Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 10921
By gawd I hope you are right. You have no idea how deeply and fervently my hope is on this point. However I think you may be stating the case a bit over-optimistically. Granted that NT will need more memory. But what's gonna drive conversion ? Upgrading the OS is a big deal to os geeks (self included) but one must have killer apps that demand this painful conversion, else the inertia factor will freeze things just as they are. Where are these apps ? 2nd, a lot of current PCs are running with 64Meg already. Some of this is usable when upgrading to 128Meg and beyond so not as much 64Meg will be needed possibly. 3rd, existing capacity can produce 64 and 256M parts in glut producing quantities already, and the DRAMers are heavily concentrated in countries struggling with austere economic realities, they are not gonna be 1996-style eqp buyers. These potential buyers having been burnt already may be reluctant to dive in whole hog again, realizing the pain of profitless prosperity, especially if they look beyond the next cycle up, then what ? 4th, businesses who have been through several PC upgrade cycles are becoming much more sensitive to demanding a reason. Spreadsheets, email, a wordprocessor and a new net browser aren't good enough. Not all PCs across the corporate body will be upgraded. No compelling reason exists to abandon en masse present generation PC operating systems. Lastly, NT is not there yet, not by a long shot. Frankly I see MSFT fiddling with NT while the PC/DRAM market burns. DRAM fabbers are playing economic chicken on a world-wide nationalistic scale, looking for the first country to blink.