MyPC8MyBrain

i believe these are sales executives directly tied to profit cuts from ASML very lucrative sales cake, they don't need ambassadors or high end specialty sales connections anymore, all and any possible market players simply come directly to them now. cutting these high paid executives with direct huge cuts off the ongoing sales parade is cruel but its just a textbook play for greedy corrupt corporations. (seen it first hand too many times)

OpenAI will go down in the history pages in the very near future, despite the arrogance displayed and passed as false confidence. similar historical events teach us important lessons if we choose to use the data when evaluating the current landscape, the good news are they will not disappear completely, case and point https://myspace.com NVIDIA is also about to be put in its place imho https://notebooktalk.net/topic/2901-the-madness-has-begun/page/2/#comment-64434

Thinking out loud, the AI buildup toward 2025 feels like it triggered a delayed realization at the top of the major CPU vendors like Intel, AMD, and ARM. For decades, Intel, AMD, ARM, and others built their market share through platform control. OEM relationships, ecosystem lock-in, and incremental architectural leverage made the CPU the anchor of the system. Then, almost overnight, they found themselves paying billions to accelerate someone else’s technology, reshaping entire systems around it, and effectively handing over slices of the very market they spent decades carving out. That is a reversal of logic. Instead of defending the platform, they subsidized the erosion of their own leverage. Value migrated away from the CPU and toward an external accelerator that began defining how systems are built, priced, and scaled. At some point, executives notice when they are funding their own displacement. What seems to be happening now is a quiet correction. Rather than continuing to pour capital into accelerating a smaller player’s dominance, money appears to be flowing back inward. Into their own roadmaps. Their own architectures. Their own standards and system-level control. This is not something you see announced in press releases. You see it in behavior, hesitation, and shifting priorities. You also see it in the market. Intel and AMD are no longer acting like companies resigned to becoming feeder components. At the same time, NVIDIA’s stock is not following the straight-line hype trajectory you would expect if total platform capture were inevitable. That divergence suggests reassessment behind the scenes, not universal buy-in. If the AI story were as simple as the headlines claim, capital flow would be one-directional. It is not. This does not mean NVIDIA goes away. It means the assumption that the entire industry will continue financing its expansion indefinitely is likely wrong. Platform owners eventually defend platforms. The AI boom did not just create demand. It exposed a power imbalance that incumbents tolerated for too long. What we are likely seeing now is the early phase of that imbalance being corrected quietly, deliberately, and before it becomes irreversible. The solution is simple, but overlooked: eliminate the silo. Unified, coherent memory allows CPUs and accelerators to operate on the same data without costly copies. Once that bottleneck is gone, the perceived GPU advantage evaporates. CPUs retain their performance, and accelerators return to their intended role: augmenting the platform, not defining it.

or simply a properly debloated, tweaked and tuned system.

I think the issue is deeper than AI specifically. When you enter a building, do you take the stairs or the elevator by default? When you travel somewhere unfamiliar, do you use a paper map or Google Maps? When you need to remember a phone number or an address, do you commit it to memory or store it on your phone? No matter how we frame it, our cognitive and physical habits have been eroding for decades. It happens gradually and mostly without us noticing. I grew up in a time when elevators were rare. You took the stairs because there was no alternative. When you needed a phone number or an address, you used the yellow pages or asked around. Your brain was the address book. I carried hundreds of numbers and locations in my head and could recall them instantly. Navigation worked the same way. You learned your surroundings by observing them. You placed mental markers along the way. Physical maps mattered. An atlas was a normal household item. Many kids today have never even seen one. AI is not the beginning of this shift. It is just the latest step in a long process where convenience replaces effort and external tools quietly take over functions we used to exercise ourselves. The problem is not using technology. The problem is forgetting what we give up when we stop exercising those abilities altogether.

the erosion of our brains started long time ago when PDA's and Smartphone first arrived on the scenes over 2 decades ago.

as they should be, Substrate Lithography next-generation semiconductor foundry - https://substrate.com/

its much simpler to answer this question from the other direction, when was the last time Microsoft did something right? the answer to that is simple, since XP. everything since has been an ongoing lame attempt after another in converting PC's as in personal computers into public money grabbing kiosks.

No, AI is not what is causing the damage (Jensen). What is causing the damage is deliberate market manipulation that was planned years in advance (Jensen). Decisions like removing NVLink from workstation-class hardware (Jensen) were not technical necessities. They were strategic moves designed to ensure the hardware could only be used properly in the specific ways that extract the most value from customers (Jensen). That is not AI hurting society. That is vendors engineering artificial constraints to maximize rent extraction. Blaming AI is a convenient deflection (Jensen). The damage comes from choices made by people who were trusted with the keys to the ecosystem (Jensen). Over two decades, that trust was built carefully. The moment leverage became absolute, it was abused (Jensen). This is no longer about innovation. It is about control, segmentation, and rent-seeking behavior disguised as progress. History is unforgiving to this pattern. Companies at the peak of perceived indispensability (Jensen) convince themselves the fall cannot happen. It always does. The bigger the pedestal, the harder the landing. Today’s industry heroes (NVIDIA) have a habit of becoming tomorrow’s cautionary tales. AI is just the excuse. The real problem is greed dressed up as inevitability, Mr. Huang.

CES is over, and look at what actually showed up. One low-tier new Intel CPU. One mildly boosted AMD SKU. No new GPUs. No real platform shifts. No meaningful architectural progress. For an industry supposedly in the middle of the biggest computing revolution in decades, this was a staggeringly thin showing. If this were a classroom, you would not call it cutting edge. You would call it remedial at best. Lots of repetition, very little advancement, and an uncomfortable sense that everyone is stalling for time. That is not because innovation suddenly got harder. It is because the market is locked into monetizing what already exists. When margins come from scarcity, price control, and segmentation, there is no urgency to move fast. So instead of bold platforms, we get SKU shuffling. Instead of new architectures, we get minor frequency bumps. Instead of GPUs, we get silence. This is what an industry looks like when it is more focused on managing demand than pushing capability. What makes this year stand out from previous is not that the products were underwhelming. It is that there was no clear sense of direction. Even going back to the 1980s and early 1990s, CES consistently showed forward motion. The hardware was primitive, but the trajectory was visible. New buses, new form factors, new categories, and clear signals about where platforms were heading next. This year did not feel like that. This felt like a strategic pause. An industry more focused on managing inventory, pricing, and segmentation than on moving the platform forward. When margins are being extracted from scarcity and control, there is little incentive to accelerate change. So instead of architectural shifts, we get SKU reshuffles. Instead of new GPUs, we get silence. Instead of platform evolution, we get minor bumps that preserve the status quo. That is not how CES has historically behaved, even in slower decades. There may have been weaker products in the past, but there has rarely been a show with so little visible intent to move computing forward. And that ties directly back to everything above. When markets are optimized for monetization over progress, innovation slows. Not because it is impossible, but because standing still has become more profitable than moving ahead.

I’m still skeptical. It remains to be seen how close they’ll actually get to “back to their roots.” So far, the messaging only references XPS and implicitly Precision via the new naming convention. Both lines have earned multi-generation followings, but after the recent roller coaster, there’s real ground to make up to regain trust. And that trust isn’t tied to a name. It’s tied to a philosophy one they’ve been slowly eroding over the past few years.

Facts!

they could just used Pro for the latitude equivalent and leave Precision as Precision for the higher tier up as it already was, so essentially the logical rename would be Latitude to Pro if a name change was so necessary, what is the equivalent entry point Inspirons named now?