Microsoft says Intel’s Windows 8 Statements Were ''Factually Inaccurate and Unfo

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.
[citation][nom]captaincharisma[/nom]you mean there are still 32-bit computers out there that can really run the latest software and hardware?[/citation]While I agree that Vista should have been the last 32-bit OS, you don't need the latest hardware to run Win7 well.
 
[citation][nom]mrmez[/nom]So...... Intel is wrong because M$ have no idea how W8 will work.Sounds fair.[/citation]
Intel is wrong because they can't compete with ARM by telling everyone the truth about ARM's RISC architecture....or the fact that the same code will run properly on every RISC chip designed by ARM, and do so more efficiently than it will on Intel's CISC based architecture....which gets more complex and less efficient every few years...
 
[citation][nom]sykozis[/nom]Intel is wrong because they can't compete with ARM by telling everyone the truth about ARM's RISC architecture....or the fact that the same code will run properly on every RISC chip designed by ARM, and do so more efficiently than it will on Intel's CISC based architecture....which gets more complex and less efficient every few years...[/citation]
I hope so.
 
[citation][nom]memadmax[/nom]Guys, the shift to 64bit has more to do with grandma's computer than anything else. If most of the grandma's puters out there are still running Pentium 3's, well, we have to wait till those go away....[/citation]
Not true at all. The shift was made from 16bit to 32bit while most computers were only 16bit. When Windows95 came along, there were more 16bit 386SX and 486SX based systems in use than there were 32bit Pentium based systems. Fact is, developing around old technology, prevents innovation.
 
Maybe windows 8 for ARM will only run ARM compatible programs for now since it’s still under development, but the end product will feature an embedded emulator to run legacy software.
 
[citation][nom]fir_ser[/nom]Maybe windows 8 for ARM will only run ARM compatible programs for now since it’s still under development, but the end product will feature an embedded emulator to run legacy software.[/citation]


microsoft is looking ahead by leaving the legacy behind.. no more supporting of legacy softwares.. how could market analyzers think like that? intel is right on other way.. MS have no idea 😉
 
[citation][nom]jojesa[/nom]Doesn't factually inaccurate = accurate?[/citation]
WTF?? I think you need to go back to your remedial English class.
 
Intel's Itanium instruction set is much more efficient than ARM's. Unfortunately, nobody wanted to see an Itanium processor on a desktop PC because its compatibility with x86 software was total crap. DEC's Alpha processor was the most technologically advanced processor ever created. It had full backwards compatibility with x86 software too despite being a totally different hardware architecture. The perceptible performance difference of running x86 software on Alpha and running it natively on Intel was negligible.
 
Is that the actual bootscreen? Because that's the same as Windows 7's. At least it's not like Vista's, which was very plain unfortunately.

Also, who still uses a 32-bit only Pentium 4 CPU? They can still run Windows 7. But by now, there's no point in Microsoft making a version of Windows 8 for that - all new machines have 64-bit Windows. Many older ones can too. If yours can't, chances are that it can't run Windows 7 too well (maybe basically though) and it's not worth the upgrade. I have 3 Windows 7 machines, 2 about a year old, one very new. All run Windows 7 64-bit (1 I built myself). There's only one XP system in the house, a Pentium 4 with 1GB RAM, and I'm thinking of replacing it anyway since performance isn't that great. Chances are that by the time Windows 8 comes out in 2012 I'll replace it. That system was built in 2004. It's due for a replacement anyway.
 
[citation][nom]hixbot[/nom]Are you mad? Do you know how many 32bit CPUs are in use right now? Why would MS ignore 32bit hardware and all those sales? I'm running Windows 7 32bit on a Pentium 4. Performance is great. If you had your way, I'd be stuck on XP.[/citation]
All the current hardware is 64-bit. How many of those 32-bit only, Pentium 4 (most likely) machines are running Windows 7? How many are running XP? Look, it's time for 32-bit Windows to die anyway. Seriously.
 
[citation][nom]livebriand[/nom]All the current hardware is 64-bit. How many of those 32-bit only, Pentium 4 (most likely) machines are running Windows 7? How many are running XP? Look, it's time for 32-bit Windows to die anyway. Seriously.[/citation]
I have a P4 of the non LGA type, with 2 GB RAM, and a C2Q with 4 GB of RAM; both running XP 32 bit. Would not bother upgrading the P4, the operating system cost makes it not worth while. But have weighted the pros and cons getting a nice 64 bit Windows7 for the 4 core. So far the balance, cost of OS included, has not gone towards W7.
If I get a nice deal for the OS on my next build, I will probably upgrade the C2Q too.
 
i think most of you people here here MISS THE POINT.

MS didn't refute this this be "bad guys" quite teh oposite , Intel was trying to paint to investors as windows 8 being areason to go intel which is unethical on several levels. first it is misrepresenting a buisness aprtner's software. 2 if the statments are heard by intel's competitors it could damage relations between MS and that competitor. and lastly it is general lying to cusomter and false advertisment.

and not to forget childish , imagine three children on a play ground

Jimmy , Suzy , and billy

Jimmy just got a new toy that he brought to school

well billy then goes out and tells suzy about jimmy's noew toy , tells her it does this and this (which it doesnt do ) and then then tells suzy that jimmy wont let suzy play with the toy and will only let him play with it.

granted this sia bit of an exagerated scenario , but this si bassicaly what is going on here , if i was intel i'd be ashamed now.
 
again people miss the point. back in the days of 16 bit computing , the PC market was not even a 4th the size it is today, back then it didnt matter that most the market was on 16 bit , because most the market then had about 1 million users that would likely have a 90% upgrade ratio not to mention the market was stil growing and MS could make the diference up with new buyers particularly when pcs would start moving to main stream and 16 bit was never main stream any one that thinks it was , has their heads in rich man's la la land.

fast forward to todays PC market ,

Every thing is main stream now ,
powerusers make up the smallest section of the market at this point as opposed to them being "the market"
most people that make up the market are low end to middle end users that msotly browse the internet or do light work on PC's they see little reason to go out and buy new hardware , and the vast majority of them don't even understand the technological difference between 32 bit and 64 bit . most of them want a pc that works , and that's all they care about they don't care for the latest and greatest and they certainly are concerned about upgrades that may cause them more problems
the pc market now has a whopping 50-100 million consumers now the larger portion of which are the main stream guys /girls mentioned above.
granted the "hardcore" crowd still consist of roughly 1-2 million of those people it is a tiny percentage of the market when you look at the numbers.

now imagine if MS made win 7 64 only the vast majority of that market, does NOT want to uopgrade not for a new OS when thier old Win XP works just fine for them , and it doesn't require new hardware. this would equate to MS having a massive hemorage of money going into an OS that few people would buy. however they release a 32 bit version and advertise the bells and whistles of the OS to every one and at least half the 32 bit users wil decide to get the new OS also if for no other reason than to just check it out since they can get a flavor that doesn't require a new PC purchase. throw in a general economical crisis ,and 32 bit version of the OS makes more sense because even fewer consumers wil be willing to buy all new hardware.


so you can say 32 bit is holdign the industry back or you can say MS is holding it back , but in truth you are jsut an idiot that is talking out your anal cavity and you have no clue. the MARKET drives innovation or lack thereof not the companies Ms is trapped in this as much as us power users are if MS doesn't porvide backward compatibility at this point THEY will loose Millions if not billions of dollars from both loss of sales , as well as loss of investors for being so stupid as to ignore a hefty chunk of thier consummer base.

and lastly i'd like to add that you guys (or gals) that think the market should pander only to you because your a rich ass kid with rich ass parent have your heads stuck up your ass for not realizing that the whoel world is not as rich as you are. sure newer computers are "only 500 dollars" but for most consumers 500 dollars is NOT chump change . so grow the f--- up already and stop expecting the world to evolve around your minority bursting wallets.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.