Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 14th Sep 2012 22:30 UTC
Intel You'd think this sort of stuff belonged to the past - but no. Apparently, Microsoft is afraid of Android on its Windows 8 tablets, because Intel has just announced that it will provide no support for Linux on its clover Trail processors. Supposedly, this chip is "designed for Windows 8". What?
Thread beginning with comment 535123
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by ilovebeer
by ilovebeer on Fri 14th Sep 2012 23:12 UTC
ilovebeer
Member since:
2011-08-08

This is absolutely not a regression what-so-ever. If Intel wants to produce a chip line specifically designed or intended for use with Windows 8, it has every right to do so. It has no affect on any of their other chips and there is zero evidence there's anything to panic over. Rather than attempting to spread FUD, how about "we" look at this from a sensible standpoint. Or would that be asking too much?

Reply Score: -1

RE: Comment by ilovebeer
by JoeBuck on Fri 14th Sep 2012 23:27 in reply to "Comment by ilovebeer"
JoeBuck Member since:
2006-01-11
RE: Comment by ilovebeer
by TechGeek on Fri 14th Sep 2012 23:36 in reply to "Comment by ilovebeer"
TechGeek Member since:
2006-01-14

Yes, lets look at this from a sensible standpoint. Intel has a monopoly on chips in the x86 market. Microsoft has a monopoly on OS's in the x86 market. All anti trust problems I am aware of have specifically targeted the x86 marketplace. Now the main CPU maker is making a CPU that only works with the main OS. How could anyone possibly have any concerns around that fact?

Reply Parent Score: 8

RE[2]: Comment by ilovebeer
by ilovebeer on Sat 15th Sep 2012 01:04 in reply to "RE: Comment by ilovebeer"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

Yes, lets look at this from a sensible standpoint. Intel has a monopoly on chips in the x86 market. Microsoft has a monopoly on OS's in the x86 market. All anti trust problems I am aware of have specifically targeted the x86 marketplace. Now the main CPU maker is making a CPU that only works with the main OS. How could anyone possibly have any concerns around that fact?

So what.. This is one product out of many and it doesn't render any of the other products incapable or incompatible. If Intel and Microsoft want to partner together to build a system, fine by me as long as other options exist, which they do. If you want people to panic, give them good reason accompanied with actual evidence in support of it.

How many times has peoples initial reaction been to crap their pants and cry foul, only to look foolish when the sky never fell and armageddon never ensued. Too many to count.. And how many times has it all come crashing down? ....never.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by ilovebeer
by bassbeast on Sat 15th Sep 2012 02:52 in reply to "RE: Comment by ilovebeer"
bassbeast Member since:
2007-11-11

/looks at CPU-Z, Authentic AMD/...LOL Wut?

In this case you have an easy and clear choice, AMD has opened up their specs, Intel has chosen to not support Linux on this chip. Unless you are building a supercomputer (which you certainly wouldn't be using Atom chips for) then all you have to do is walk across the street, AMD has the Bobcat I and soon the Bobcat II quads, tada!

Intel has the right to choose who they want to support, remember that is what we are talking here, no software locks, simply not supporting an OS, and YOU have the right to shop somewhere else.

It's called the free market and voting with your wallet. try it, you might like it. I know I'm quite happy with my AMD E350 netbook and my Thuban X6 desktop.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by ilovebeer
by MollyC on Sat 15th Sep 2012 09:43 in reply to "RE: Comment by ilovebeer"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

Microsoft has a monopoly on OS's in the x86 market.


OSX runs on x86, so how does Microsoft have a monopoly in the "x86" OS market? Note that in the DOJ/MS case, Macs still ran on PPCs, so the judge was able to rule out Macs from the "x86" market, but today Macs run on x86. The "monopoly" that the judge declared back then isn't in effect today. Also note that the MS/DOJ settlment expired, so MS is no longer under any anti-trust monopoly regulations, not in the US anyway.

If someone is going to bring some "anti-trust" law suit, they are going to have to prove, all over again, that Windows is a monoply OS TODAY, not yesterday, but TODAY. That means that they're going to have to deal with the fact that OSX runs on x86, and LOTS of people use it (on TV, all you see are Mac Books anymore). The idea that Microsoft has monopoly control on x86 OSes today is laughable.

Reply Parent Score: -1