Microsoft says Intel’s Windows 8 Statements Were ''Factually Inaccurate and Unfortunately Misleading''
Intel at its Investor Meeting 2011 in Santa Clara, California spoke about Windows 8 and how it would run on x86 and ARM architectures. Now Microsoft is refuting the information that Intel provided about Windows 8, calling them "factually inaccurate."
To recap, Intel senior vice president and general manager of the Software and Services Group Renee James told people at the meeting that Intel chips would be the most widely compatible for running Windows 8.
"[Windows 8 traditional] means that our customers, or anyone who has an Intel-based or an x86-based product, will be able to run either Windows 7 mode or Windows 8 mode," she said. "They'll run all of their old applications, all of their old files – there'll be no issue."
"There will be four Windows 8 SoCs for ARM," she said. "Each one will run for that specific ARM environment, and they will run new applications or cloud-based applications. They are neither forward- nor backward-compatible between their own architecture – different generations of a single vendor – nor are they compatible across different vendors. Each one is a unique stack."
Microsoft is unhappy with the information that Intel presented, but is not picking any particular point to clarify.
BusinessInsider quoted the following as the Microsoft denial:
"Intel’s statements during yesterday’s Intel Investor Meeting about Microsoft’s plans for the next version of Windows were factually inaccurate and unfortunately misleading. From the first demonstrations of Windows on SoC, we have been clear about our goals and have emphasized that we are at the technology demonstration stage. As such, we have no further details or information at this time."
Hopefully Microsoft with clarify soon.
(Get software for your Windows PC, from our downloads section)

LOL
This still doesn't change the fact that what Intel said is correct but just not all the details!
Yes Windows 8 will work, maybe not as efficiently as x86!
It shouldn't have been an option at all with Vista. Nip it in the bud, nahmean? The RAM demands of Vista should have triggered some moral or ethical issues at MS with that one.
Sounds fair.
Fixed that for ya!
Although when MS presented it they said that it is the same thing and a "full windows experience"
That's why.
Sounds like a guarantee Microsoft is not ready to offer right now.
All I see is that MS hasn't finalized how Win8 will work on ARM, and they don't want bad info out there. It may turn out that Intel is right, but you never know what breakthroughs will happen between now and Win8 launch.
So...., what´s your opinion on Bush administration?
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.
The future of x86 is on shaky ground.
Did you ever run Vista on that machine? If Microsoft had set the bar earlier, you wouldn't be talking about Win7 on your P4.
I agree Microsoft, a software vendor, would be foolish to ignore 32-bit processors. Still, it's more Intel's fault for continuing to produce 32-bit processors so long after the 64-bit technology existed (maybe they were upset Microsoft chose AMD's implementation?).
I think Microsoft could have easily shifted the market to 64-bit, if Intel would have played along. If Intel had simply been including 64-bit in most of their processors like AMD was, Intel would have happily done so (you think Intel gives a crap about your 32-bit P4, they already got your money for that processor). Remember how Microsoft had to revise their Vista-Ready/Vista-Capable marketing because Intel's GMA chipsets didn't have the graphics power to drive the Aero interface (led to a lawsuit if I recall)? Intel (and OEMs like HP) moaned and complained that too many of their offerings wouldn't be Vista-Ready, so Microsoft created Vista-Capable, and Intel was able to continue selling the 5-year old crap they couldn't bother to modernize. Imagine the uproar from Intel if Microsoft had necessitated 64-bit processors on top of that!