Perhaps so. But when I think about how far I've seen computing come..........
My first computer was an Atari 400 computer (followed quickly by the Atari 800). Tape driven, my first great app was a cardfile. Then it was a custom modified IBM PC XT and an AT&T 6300 - with a whopping 256 KB of ram and a 10 MB hd. MultiMate was the word processor and I used Fastback to backup the systems to 5 1/4" floppy discs. So yeah, from my perspective it's absolutely amazing how far we've come in my 28 years of using computers 
28 years is more than a lifetime.
Well, from my perspective, since my lifetime is 22 years. haha.
anyway the most amazing thing is that today you can get quad core PCs with 8GB of RAM and super mega fast video cards and sound and other features, and back in the day a IBM PC could cost upwards of 5,000 dollars (probably more, that's certainly a conservative estimate)... that's not even to mention the fact that even that IBM PC was thousands of times faster then multi-million dollar mainframes in the 50's. All thanks to the magic of the transistor. Considering we've only really gone through two physical manifestations (one using vacuum tubes, and now we're still using transistors) it's rather interesting to consider how much farther we have to go; it is often cited that there is research being done with a base in quantum mechanics that may yield a new technology like the transistor.
the major stumbling block now would simply be the installed base of users that are now using the transistor based technology.... I would imagine using some sort of quantum based design would more then likely possibly be a clean break from what we have today; if people thought Vista/7 was a "totally different" from Windows XP consider for a moment using a unit to measure space that isn't measured in bits or bytes but rather using some new unit based entirely on the core architecture of the new technology that might be used in a future CPU.
Considering that when I first got "into" computers it was 2002-2004 it's pretty awkward to note that the first computer I had was a 286. I literally zoomed through all the architectures up to today, learning "new" stuff as I went. (for example, the pentium and later processors, as well as other processors, can literally run two instructions simultaneously(on a single core), which is today being erroneously used as the definition for a multi-core/CPU machine) All part of optimized Assembly language (put these four instructions in the right order, and A and B will execute simultaneously and so will C and D; taking two cycles, put them in the "wrong" order and it could take four or even longer cycles, that sort of stuff...
And yet the more the PCs changed- the more they remained the same. Almost everything back to some of the earliest Microcomputers had the same basic system layout- motherboard, daughterboards, processor, etc.
