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 535128
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Comment by ilovebeer
by TechGeek on Fri 14th Sep 2012 23:36 UTC 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[3]: Comment by ilovebeer
by Morgan on Sun 16th Sep 2012 22:22 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by ilovebeer"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

You're right in a sense. I remember the big fiasco over the processor serial number in Pentium IIIs, that ended up being fixed with a simple BIOS patch for the ones shipped before Intel backpedaled. I can see something similar happening here, with the specs eventually released or perhaps reverse engineered and rolled into a future kernel update.

Also, if folks are going to call this out as an egregious offense, they better be ready to call out Sony because their proprietary media buttons on my laptop only work under Windows and in fact cause weird bugs under GNU/Linux and Haiku. When is someone going to stand up for my right to have fully working buttons, with FOSS drivers built by Sony programmers to my own personal satisfaction? (For the obtuse, this is sarcasm on my part. I don't care about those buttons.)

But all that said, I do feel that this is some shady stuff being that it's coming from Microsoft and Intel, the two heavy players in the desktop computing world. I think Intel is trying to secure a solid footing in the tablet market with this move, but they are going about it wrong and are going to piss off FOSS fans who have remained loyal to Intel for years. It may not be a particularly large group of people, but they have a loud voice and the power to sway others towards AMD on the desktop and even mobile devices when it comes to x86.

So my take? Intel sucks for this, but in the grand scheme of things it will only serve to tarnish their reputation and nothing more. The world will go on, zombies will remain in the grave and people who give a shit will avoid this particular run of processors, giving their money to Intel's competitors.

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[3]: Comment by ilovebeer
by dsmogor on Sat 15th Sep 2012 12:01 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by ilovebeer"
dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

AMD doesn't have products in this space (arm area of power effiviency) and they clearly stated they don't intend to compete there. This leaves Intel as the sole x86 solution. This is really strange bc they have received great support from Google.

Reply Parent Score: 2

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

RE[3]: Comment by ilovebeer
by WereCatf on Sat 15th Sep 2012 12:02 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by ilovebeer"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

"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.
"

I tried to mod you up, but OSNews claims I have already modded you o_o Someone seems to have modded you down just because they don't like you or your message, behaviour that I do not condone of.

Anyways, you are indeed correct: the verdict about Microsoft's monopoly status has expired and therefore going through antitrust lawsuits would require enormours amounts of effort. Microsoft would probably still fulfill the requirements for it to be re-declared a monopoly even with Apple around -- after all, Apple only sells their OS for their OWN hardware, not for general consumption, and their market share is still barely a blip in the radar -- and would possibly face some sanctions, but it doesn't look like there is enough incentive for anyone to sue them on antitrust-grounds. Also, even in theory if Microsoft were re-declared a monopoly and faced some sanctions I doubt they would be sanctioned for what Intel did here: the CPU can and does run Linux just fine, Intel is only saying they do not provide official support for it nor do they plan to add support for the advanced features to the Linux-kernel, and as it is not against the law not to support every possible OS out there... well, you get the drift.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by ilovebeer
by TechGeek on Sat 15th Sep 2012 18:05 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by ilovebeer"
TechGeek Member since:
2006-01-14

MollyC
Microsoft has over 80% of the desktop market. Microsoft recently forced OEMs to add secure boot to their motherboards to support what is currently only a Windows technology by threatening them with the loss of their advertising budgets. With 80% market share, Microsoft is still able to sway the industry to its benefit. Depending on market conditions, these current actions could be considered anti competitive. If this new Atom processor will only run Windows, it is effective locking Linux out of this portion of the market. Intel is also constantly under scrutiny by the DOJ due to its market share. So maybe it will be Intel that gets investigated, instead of Microsoft.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by ilovebeer
by Morgan on Sun 16th Sep 2012 22:27 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by ilovebeer"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

I wish I hadn't already commented or I would have modded you up as well. As I posted above, this really isn't a big deal. Those of us who actually care enough to get offended should just buy AMD or some ARM based tablet and get their Android/Linux jones that way. At some point Intel will get the message and will play ball again, or else they will continue to appease Microsoft and turn the FOSS world towards AMD. I don't see a world-ending catastrophe either way.

Reply Parent Score: 2