> I'm pretty sure Intel already has test chips running at least that fast,
> probably faster. Speeds like that only become mainstream when it's
> affordable to mass produce such chips (higher yields) and people are willing
> to pay more. I think they'd prefer to milk as much out of us as they can by
> slowly introducing improvements, forcing us to upgrade every so many years.
> Heck, if they just came out with a super fast ultra chip twice as fast as
> what's out there now for about the same price, they wouldn't make as much
> money in the long haul.
And let me add that slowing the pace of mainstream release, to a certain
degree, is actually a good thing. Think of it this way. No one can predict
innovation. If Intel doesn't have the resources to support its innovation,
then we don't get any more innovation. If Intel slows things down to a
consistent pace and gets its money's worth out of it's past innovations
(Heck, there's even a market still for 386 processors, they make darn good
small office routers), then they can afford to support more research...
It's a never ending cycle that's supported by the consumer, who is also
its secondary beneficiary (The first being the stock-holders). Don't get
me wrong, it's all about money and capitalism, we just see the benefit of
it because our desire for more speed drives the capitalists...
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
: WWW: http://www.silverlink.net/poke :
: E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] :
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
: Ask Mike! Aviation's response to Dear :
: Abby. http://www.avstarair.com :
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
________________________________________________________________
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
