nvidia causing instability

the reason they have too much stock is they are releasing refreshes and new products to quickly, this is causing buyers to be unsure weather to buy now or next year, I bought a 640mb 8800, and 3 months later a G92 core was released and offered 10% improvment at most, now more models have been released since then, and the consumer doesnt know what to do, slow it down Nvidia, a refresh every 8 months or so would be fine not every 4-6 like you have been doing, it doesnt offer any product life what soever

That's because they don't want to fall behind

@Stewart

They've managed to hold a lead over ATI for some time now really, and don't want to lose it. Reality also shows that you're sucking and blowing at the same time here:

"I bought a 640mb 8800, and 3 months later a G92 core was released and offered 10% improvment at most"

Then

"a refresh every 8 months or so would be fine not every 4-6 like you have been doing, it doesnt offer any product life what soever"

So which is it? Either theres a real difference or there isn't. If there isn't, then your statement of product life is laughable. If there is then your performance estimate is laughable. You can't claim both with a straight face.

I'm sorry to say this, but AMD and ATI (or together DAAMIT) just suck right now. All the fanboy denial in the world won't change that. AMD had a great run with the 64's and the initial X2's, but that's over FOR NOW. They might release a new kick-a$$ chip tomorrow that will retake the crown, but I don't deal in maybes. ATI had a great run with the 9700/9800 series, but the same applies: it's in the hole now. They've come close a couple times (a lot closer than AMD did with Intel) but have not managed to pull the rabbit out of the hat yet.

Inqky english

Author amazingly articulate at alliteration:
"petulant people poking at predicted performance."