This is related, though. While the final leaps of performance often come from using more memory to make CPU work less, in my experience, most of the performance-problematic code wastes both CPU and memory, and meaningfully faster alternatives end up using less of both.

Either way, from the end-user perspective, I tentatively agree with the article I mentioned (but don't have a link handy, sorry) - most of the software I end up using, or see people around me using, is clearly CPU-bound, briefly network I/O-bound (mostly web apps), and rarely local I/O-bound.

EDIT: I guess the caveat is that end-user software is often spending 99% time doing nothing at all, just waiting for user input. But that bit doesn't matter - what matters is how fast it reacts to the input once the user starts providing it. This is where a lot of software suddenly gets CPU-bound (or net IO-bound, if doing something stupid).