Scali wrote:

PCBONEZ wrote:

Yes you did and I'm only one of 4+ people that don't agree with you.

Quote or it didn't happen.

Don't need to anyone here can read back.

Scali wrote:

PCBONEZ wrote:

None of that means they don't make mistakes and everyone except you knows they do. Some big ones in fact.

Heck, the whole x86 architecture is one big mistake.

The glue fumes in that building must be intense.

Scali wrote:

I just pointed out that people are listing some things that *aren't* mistakes, and explained what things really are like.

You are the only one that agrees with you.

Scali wrote:

To somehow paint me as some kind of Intel-fanboy because of that says a lot more about you than it does about me.

That is your own doing.

Scali wrote:

As for the AL-1, see here: http://www.computerhistory.org/revolution/dig … gic/12/282/2291
The 4004 was the first microprocessor to be sold as a component.

That is not what you said.
You tried to say/imply that Intel was more advanced than anyone else because they made the first processor.
Not true. - And I don't care what the AL-1 was I just knew Intel was not first.
.

I have no reasonable argument against the relevance of Intel's contribution, but I'll praise the beauty of 68K above it.

Skyscraper wrote:

Threads about Microsoft, Intel or both have with time a 100% probablity of ending up in hilarious offtopic discussions.

Im just going to namedrop Netburst, Vista, Atom and Clippy to see if things get even better! 😀

They also end up getting locked sooner or later when they devolve into a flame war or go too far off topic.

Tetrium wrote:

gdjacobs wrote:

IA64 and the RAMBUS saga, two prime examples. Unlike many other companies, Intel had enough runway to recover.

Perhaps you should just get your facts straight before making wild statements which are simply not even true, it would help a lot I think as the way you present your arguments isn't really helping here.

Hey, I thought I was pretty conservative in picking examples where the results of Intel's decisions weren't so rosy.

Tetrium wrote:

gdjacobs wrote:

I'm going to bow out of this before the discussion degenerates further. It's strayed far enough from the original assertion (Microsoft's interests and Intel's interests don't necessarily coincide with consumer's interests) that I don't see any real hope of it circling back.

^same
This was actually the main reason I didn't respond in this thread in the first place 🤣

Weird that the idea of being an informed consumer and asking questions of suppliers would be controversial.

Tetrium wrote:

... I think clippy is very preshott 😁

🤣 🤣 🤣

TELVM wrote:

:lol: :lol: :lol: […]
Show full quote

Tetrium wrote:

... I think clippy is very preshott 😁

🤣 🤣 🤣

🤣!

Please someone remind me never to install the office assistant!

Tetrium wrote:

Please someone remind me never to install the office assistant!

Since we're on a retro site, maybe everyone should take a look at Microsoft Bob.

gdjacobs wrote:

Hey, I thought I was pretty conservative in picking examples where the results of Intel's decisions weren't so rosy.

Ow, just read your reply, so I read back my own reply which you quoted, I was basically answering to scali and used one of your quotes, but the way my reply was structured, does make it seem a bit like I was answering to you instead of scali which wasn't my intent.

My apologies if it seemed that way to you 😊

gdjacobs wrote:

Tetrium wrote:

Please someone remind me never to install the office assistant!

Since we're on a retro site, maybe everyone should take a look at Microsoft Bob.

I'm actually quite curious about it 😁

Scali wrote:

Sell? You mean give away for free. If you already have a Windows 7/8 license, you can get a free upgrade to Windows 10, which wi […]
Show full quote

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:

Is Microsoft really that desperate to sell Windows 10?

Sell? You mean give away for free.
If you already have a Windows 7/8 license, you can get a free upgrade to Windows 10, which will work on your future CPU.
So if you wanted to install Windows 7/8 on new hardware, apparently you have such a license, and you are entitled to the free upgrade. Microsoft will not make any sales from this action.

I think the question is more: how desperate are people to cling to outdated OSes?
I think Microsoft's position is obvious: they don't want another Windows XP. They want to periodically upgrade their OS, and shorten the support term on older versions.
Which is more or less what other OS vendors have been doing anyway.

Not to mention that it would incur additional expenses for them to support legacy editions. I'm sure they're sick and tired of people still clinging to good ol' XP, though they made an exception with certain organisations i.e. certain US Armed Forces branches who continue on using legacy OSes for their terminals.

TELVM wrote:

:lol: :lol: :lol: […]
Show full quote

Tetrium wrote:

... I think clippy is very preshott 😁

🤣 🤣 🤣

Hey Clippy, I got somethin' for ya 😈

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxcmoLKVd60

Tetrium wrote:

gdjacobs wrote:

Tetrium wrote:

Please someone remind me never to install the office assistant!

Since we're on a retro site, maybe everyone should take a look at Microsoft Bob.

I'm actually quite curious about it 😁

Are you sure you want this?

(And no, I don't have it)

huckleberrypie wrote:

though they made an exception with certain organisations i.e. certain US Armed Forces branches who continue on using legacy OSes for their terminals.

They don't "make an exception". Those organisations pay through the teeth to continue to receive updates for their legacy systems.

SquallStrife wrote:

huckleberrypie wrote:

though they made an exception with certain organisations i.e. certain US Armed Forces branches who continue on using legacy OSes for their terminals.

They don't "make an exception". Those organisations pay through the teeth to continue to receive updates for their legacy systems.

"The Cloud" simply means using servers out on the Internet as part of an infrastructure. It's not even anything new.
MS could not be happier if your home/office PC was nothing but a terminal running off their cloud based servers.
They are trying to evolve their business model into one where they bill for services vice just selling software.
(That is well publicized. Go read if you didn't know it.)
They have essentially already done this with Office 365 and Azure. (Guess what. You stuff is on an MS owned machine.)
Windows 10 is simply a step (a big one) toward making Windows a Cloud based OS.
- And that is why MS is pushing it so hard.

About the time Military, Government, R&D departments, Banks and similar institutions realize that "The Cloud" means their sensitive information is continually being sent back forth through the Internet and is stored on some server managed (and kept secure) by who-knows-who they will look for other solutions.
If Windows 10(up) does not have a legitimately Cloud free configuration then Windows 10(up) won't be an option to anyone that needs more than rudimentary security. (Or that prefers to tightly control their own data security.)

I would not be the least bit surprised to see company/military/government directives that say "Do not use Windows 10" coming out in the future.

I've thought for a very long time that the world would be safer if the governments and militaries were using custom versions of Linux based OSs and this move by MS may force that to happen.
.

That's some nice musing, but what does that have to do with what I said?

No organisation worth its brass is using "the cloud" without knowing the implications. Maybe some are, but I doubt you'd find them on the Fortune 500 list, and rightfully so if they're that haphazard with information management.

SquallStrife wrote:

No organisation worth its brass is using "the cloud" without knowing the implications. Maybe some are, but I doubt you'd find them on the Fortune 500 list, and rightfully so if they're that haphazard with information management.

I'm going to restate once more that size and past success don't preclude any organization from making poor decisions. To assume otherwise is nothing more than blind faith.

gdjacobs wrote:

I'm going to restate once more that size and past success don't preclude any organization from making poor decisions.

Poor business decision like backing a platform that doesn't work out. Sure.

Bad business decision like using "the cloud" without knowing what "the cloud" is? Sorry, but if you're this foolhardy then you deserve to lose your money.

His suggestion is that these large organisations somehow function and succeed with CIO's that have no idea what they're doing. Which while not impossible, it's a bit of a stretch.

SquallStrife wrote:

That's some nice musing, but what does that have to do with what I said?

If you were paying attention - everything.
You were responding to huckleberrypie. Look at what he said to which you responded.
I quoted that too. Should have been obvious.

SquallStrife wrote:

No organisation worth its brass is using "the cloud" without knowing the implications. Maybe some are, but I doubt you'd find them on the Fortune 500 list, and rightfully so if they're that haphazard with information management.

Any military or government office I've ever been in (and I was military) uses MS OSs and they automatically (without engaging brain) upgrade to the the next-latest every time one comes around. Many companies do the same and the bulk of business done in the world is not Fortune 500.
.
In the last 3 years I've had CC numbers stolen 4 times by way of brick-mortar businesses so stupid they use the cloud for accounting.
It's already a problem.
.

SquallStrife wrote:

Poor business decision like backing a platform that doesn't work out. Sure.

Bad business decision like using "the cloud" without knowing what "the cloud" is? Sorry, but if you're this foolhardy then you deserve to lose your money.

His suggestion is that these large organisations somehow function and succeed with CIO's that have no idea what they're doing. Which while not impossible, it's a bit of a stretch.

Knowledge is never complete and purely technical decisions can be heavily influenced by the needs of other business units.

PCBONEZ wrote:

If you were paying attention - everything.
You were responding to huckleberrypie. Look at what he said to which you responded.
I quoted that too. Should have been obvious.

What?

Whatever you're smoking, I want some of it.

PCBONEZ wrote:

Any military or government office I've ever been in (and I was military) uses MS OSs and they automatically (without engaging br […]
Show full quote

SquallStrife wrote:

No organisation worth its brass is using "the cloud" without knowing the implications. Maybe some are, but I doubt you'd find them on the Fortune 500 list, and rightfully so if they're that haphazard with information management.

Any military or government office I've ever been in (and I was military) uses MS OSs and they automatically (without engaging brain) upgrade to the the next-latest every time one comes around. Many companies do the same and the bulk of business done in the world is not Fortune 500.
.
In the last 3 years I've had CC numbers stolen 4 times by way of brick-mortar businesses so stupid they use the cloud for accounting.
It's already a problem.
.

I'm really not a fan of cloud storage. And personally I really don't like where information/data technology is going these days. I know the large corporations wanted this earlier, but it wasn't easy to implement till smartphones got very popular. Heck, even some flashlight apps seem to come with "legal spyware" these days, they want to know everything.
The fact that the gathering of client information security seems to have a higher priority than it's actual and factual security is something I really don't understand why so many people aren't too bothered with this.

Lo Wang wrote:

I have no reasonable argument against the relevance of Intel's contribution, but I'll praise the beauty of 68K above it.

Exactly.
I guess we could say that Intel wasn't very good at developing instruction sets, but in manufacturing they have always been the undisputed king.
Their manufacturing compensated for the lack of refinement in their ISAs.