Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

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

By - Source: Tom's Hardware US | B 40 comments

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)

Discuss
Display all 40 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
  • 1 Hide
    apache_lives , May 20, 2011 5:20 AM
    Microsoft: Its Not Not True

    LOL
  • -4 Hide
    billj214 , May 20, 2011 5:25 AM
    Would have been better for Microsoft to ask Intel to clarify, this sounds like a bunch of kids fighting and not two large corporations!
    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!
  • -1 Hide
    Raid3r , May 20, 2011 5:53 AM
    HAHA since when were they "adults"?
  • 2 Hide
    JOSHSKORN , May 20, 2011 6:06 AM
    32-bit needs to die already with Windows 7. It should've died with Vista.
  • -1 Hide
    Assmar , May 20, 2011 6:42 AM
    JOSHSKORN32-bit needs to die already with Windows 7. It should've died with Vista.

    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.
  • 1 Hide
    randomizer , May 20, 2011 6:45 AM
    You are wrong but we can't tell you why. Guilty until proven guilty?
  • -2 Hide
    mrmez , May 20, 2011 7:11 AM
    So...... Intel is wrong because M$ have no idea how W8 will work.

    Sounds fair.
  • 5 Hide
    back_by_demand , May 20, 2011 8:22 AM
    mrmezSo...... Intel is wrong because Intel have no idea how W8 will work

    Fixed that for ya!
  • 0 Hide
    bv90andy , May 20, 2011 10:26 AM
    MS should just have said that they won't comment.
    Although when MS presented it they said that it is the same thing and a "full windows experience"
  • 1 Hide
    cyb34 , May 20, 2011 10:45 AM
    "...there'll be no issue."

    That's why.
    Sounds like a guarantee Microsoft is not ready to offer right now.
  • -3 Hide
    jojesa , May 20, 2011 12:38 PM
    Doesn't factually inaccurate = accurate?
  • -4 Hide
    reggieray , May 20, 2011 1:03 PM
    I don't know who lies more, government or MS. Well with Obozo it's government, i meant a respectable government who is not out to destroy the USA or Israel.
  • 1 Hide
    osserc , May 20, 2011 1:36 PM
    I'm inclined to agree with you Reggie, but to be fair, what is the MS lie here?

    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.
  • 2 Hide
    godnodog , May 20, 2011 1:45 PM
    ReggieRayI don't know who lies more, government or MS. Well with Obozo it's government, i meant a respectable government who is not out to destroy the USA or Israel.

    So...., what´s your opinion on Bush administration?
  • 2 Hide
    hixbot , May 20, 2011 4:02 PM
    JOSHSKORN32-bit needs to die already with Windows 7. It should've died with Vista.

    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.
  • 0 Hide
    milktea , May 20, 2011 4:17 PM
    The long term partnership between the two giants, Intel and M$, goes down the drain... :D 
    The future of x86 is on shaky ground.
  • 1 Hide
    hellwig , May 20, 2011 5:13 PM
    hixbotAre 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.

    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!
  • -2 Hide
    lewbaseball07 , May 20, 2011 5:21 PM
    My load is very compatible with faces...
  • 0 Hide
    SteelCity1981 , May 20, 2011 5:30 PM
    LOL Microsoft to Intel "Since that statement your crappy Intel Atoms will no longer be supported in Windows 8. Instead we will now only support micro processors that can acutally perform decently." LOL
  • -1 Hide
    f-14 , May 20, 2011 6:11 PM
    ha, microsoft doesn't want to make drivers for arm. it's like telling the ceo to get off the golf cart and do some work.
Display more comments