Not meaning to argue with anybody (everyone has made valid points on a number of the issues here), I'd like to provide a little extra food for thought.

The choice to 'burn/waste' someone elses money is rarely the decision of IT professionals. In most cases, the IT staff has a modest operating budget and the really big purchases are made via 'capital appropriations' that must be approved by the management structure.

Before capital appropriations are granted, IT staff are usually required (and rightfully so) do justify the expenditure. The IT staff should be able to demonstrate that the proposed expenditure will do one of two things (or both):

1. Provide the customer with a better product or service (ie. give the customer a reason to do more business with the company)

2. The technology being purchased will streamline operations that will ultimately result in savings that outweigh the price of the technology. Accounting types often refer to this as 'picking money up off the floor'.

Does this mean that spending tons of money is right for everyone? No. It means that the purchase must be evaluated on several levels to ensure that the expenditure will benefit the company enough to offset the price associated with it.

As 'Techies', it is human nature for us to want the bleeding edge technology. It's toy value. But as it has been pointed out elsewhere, that's not our money that gets spent on the technology. It is important that the technology that we recommend serve the people that will be spending the money.

In many cases, it pays to be on the bleeding edge. Lets take the example of the recent advances in hard drive technology that are being discussed here. Would you like to know one of the major industries that will benefit from this technology? Turn on your radio. Many radio stations today are in the process of transferring all their older tapes and CD collections into a large array of hard disks using MP3 and similar codecs. They have a demonstratable need for larger, faster drives that consume less energy and office space.

As for people who cannot themselves afford the bleeding edge; who find themselves spending $550 for a SCSI subsystem that is only worth $100 after two years, you're right. It isn't very smart to try to stay on the bleeding edge if you don't absolutely need to. You can and will waste a lot of money if you try. But look on the flip side. As the bleeding edge advances, todays highest tech products that cost a fortune will sell for pennies on the dollar, often in less than a year.

If you are making an arguement that bleeding edge is beyond your needs and that it is wasteful to stay on it, then wait 6 to 12 months. By then, the techology will become affordable and your needs may grow to need it after all.