Intel vs Microsoft

To break up the redundant lithany of Intel vs AMD threads, I'm going to start a new discussion. Intel vs Microsoft. Which company has made more contributions to the computer era? While both have been the cornerstone of computers everywhere, I think Intel has been more innovative in driving computing forward. Microsoft for the most part plays copycat to Apple.

Well, for consumers more contributed IBM and Apple (first PCs) and Microsoft (brought PCs for the masses on the shoulders of IBM). Intel is major driving force in cpu market today, but it may as well have been AMD, IBM, whatever. Intel havent contributed major way in any inovation which lead to massive adoption of PC. You can view Intel as Texas (TI), HP, etc.

Intel, no question about it.

They designed the worlds first microprocessor, pioneered x86, the first of the Pentium line where one of the most revaltionary CPUs of their time, without Intel AMD would probably just be a distant memory by now since their partnership led to AMD designing their own processors. Without Intel computers would probably still take up entire rooms, and Big Blue would be the leading computer entity. All Microsoft has done is snatched the computing crown from Apple with Windows. And they couldnt have done that if Intel hadnt designed the 4004, cant have software without hardware.

Get you facts straith, 4004 was not unique there were other similar cpu's back then and x86 wasn't originaly invented by intel, it's an extension to the 8008 instruction set originaly invented by CTC.

Inte's wasn't the only chip producing company and if you think without Intel computers would still ocupy entire rooms you need to read up on computer history because you are way off.

Not quite! Any software company leverages what the hardware can offer and make the appropriate software product.

Btw, if Intel and AMD are so indispensable and all the recognitions seems to go their way why do other architectures exit like PowerPC or Sparc? Do you thing PC's could not be build using those CPU's? Think again! (and they could potentially be faster for some taks using CPU with a RISC architecture too)

Not quite! Any software company leverages what the hardware can offer and make the appropriate software product.

Btw, if Intel and AMD are so indispensable and all the recognitions seems to go their way why do other architectures exit like PowerPC or Sparc? Do you thing PC's could not be build using those CPU's? Think again! (and they could potentially be faster for some taks using CPU with a RISC architecture too)

Nah, we would just use powerful C2Ds on Macs instead of PCs (even though I like MS, I think that Intel has contributed much more).

PS: By the way, you wouldn't happen to be a programmer, would you? Cause you are very much pro software I reckon...

VIA FTW!!!

Here is the way I see it.
Sure Intel wasn't the first processor. Over the years, Intel has developed new processors that did things that have never been done before. New mirco arcs and such like SSE and other ideas.

I don't think Microsoft did the same thing. They never were first with their major products. All of the major products they make were developed by other people first.
Look at their list:
DOS - they bought the rights from another guy and named it MS-DOS. Heck, MS-dos didn't evene exist when IBM dreamed up the PC. Their first choice for dos fell through. Bill saw an oppertunity and ran with it.
Windows - Apple did it before, and Xerox did it before Apple.
I.E. - Netscape did it before. I forget who did it first.
Office - Lotus, Wordperfect did it before, and others were before them.

Intel has made some inovative processors, Windows doesn't seem to inovate, they seem to wait until someone has a great idea, and then borrow it and make a competing product, then push their compitition out of the leader position.

Oh, and back on topic...

Microsoft has driven software innovation

Intel created the first microprocessor.

Software standardization

Hardware standardization

You can't really give either company the crown for where we are now with computers. It's a combination of them, plus many other companies. Think of the gaming industry...that pushed a lot of innovation IMO.

I think you both Gneisenau and wolverinero79 are right There is no question MS creates loads if codes every year, but still the fact is, B.Gate is better marketer than programer. He sold "OS" for 1 mln. without having anything in the hands, and then bought DOS for 50k just to deliver something. "Borrowed" ideas from every source possible, a lot of times on the edge of legitimacy. Then bullied competition with every means possible as well. Thats why rarely who likes MS. Still the fact remains, Gates delivered first all arround user-friendly software system for customers to work with.

I agree with those who say IBM! x86 never really was anything special. And certainly Windows was nothing special back in the 80s.

It was the "IBM PC" psuedo-standard that allowed both Intel and M$ to rake in the money.

everyone who has a pc has windows

not everyone who has a pc as an intel processor

'nuff said

Yeah, but they hog all the capabilities too. Man I could swear my hard disk is gonna blow in there.

Still, I agree that new OSes leverage hardware capabilities, making my previous post useless. Oh well...

Linux? You know, that free thingy.

true but most people dont use linux, and people who have a linux machine most likely also have a windows machine