will MIcrosoft's sinking drag down Intel ??

many reviewers of Win8 have been very negative.
even suggesting that Microsoft will drop to a distant
third behind Apple and Google.
that the tablets will take over
there may be a blip as businesses upgrade to Win7 before
it disappears, then doom
and ubuntu linux has failed to convert granma
so sales of the x86 CPU will decline
what means this for Intel?
(AMD will surely implode...)

Nomen Nescio wrote:

> many reviewers of Win8 have been very negative.
> even suggesting that Microsoft will drop to a distant
> third behind Apple and Google.

And you had to post this through an anonymous re-mailer?

Odd.

On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 08:21:37 -0400 Intel Guy <> wrote in
Message id: <>:

>Nomen Nescio wrote:
>
>> many reviewers of Win8 have been very negative.
>> even suggesting that Microsoft will drop to a distant
>> third behind Apple and Google.
>
>And you had to post this through an anonymous re-mailer?
>
>Odd.

Not really... Trolls love anonymous re-mailers.

Trent wrote:

> >> many reviewers of Win8 have been very negative.
> >> even suggesting that Microsoft will drop to a distant
> >> third behind Apple and Google.
> >
> > And you had to post this through an anonymous re-mailer?
> >
> > Odd.
>
> Not really... Trolls love anonymous re-mailers.

But - the post didn't seem particularly troll-ish.

How much of Intel's business is in some way tied to a Microsoft OS?

On 10/06/2012 7:01 AM, Intel Guy wrote:
> But - the post didn't seem particularly troll-ish.
>
> How much of Intel's business is in some way tied to a Microsoft OS?

Probably 99%.

Yousuf Khan

LOL... sadly true.

But Windows 8 is a gamble by Microsoft. If it does suck, it'll suck, and
people will just keep Windows 7. Microsoft will eventually had to follow
demands.

Besides, Windows 8 is more focused for embedded devices. PCs will still
live on. Intel will live on. Haven't you see "The Last Mimzy"?


Yousuf Khan <> wrote in news:4fd58077
@news.bnb-lp.com:

> On 10/06/2012 7:01 AM, Intel Guy wrote:
>> But - the post didn't seem particularly troll-ish.
>>
>> How much of Intel's business is in some way tied to a Microsoft OS?
>
> Probably 99%.
>
> Yousuf Khan

I think Windows 8 will be generally successful on the tablets (both ARM
& x86), not entirely sure there is anything compelling about it on
traditional PC's though. I'm sure there will be a few upgraders to
Windows 8, or most likely most people will just get it preinstalled with
their latest PC's and they won't have any choice on the matter. Windows
8 actually looks like it may be going backwards on the PC vs. Windows 7,
as it's going to be removing the Aero interface.

However, Microsoft has made one giant move towards embracing ARM by
making its own ARM-based tablet:

Microsoft's Surface Tablets Raise the Bar for PC Pals - Businessweek
http://www.businessweek.com/articles...-for-pc-rivals

There's supposed to be a bigger tablet which will likely be x86
announced in a couple of months though. It may either be AMD or Intel,
no word yet.

Yousuf Khan

On 12/06/2012 11:14 PM, JJ wrote:
> LOL... sadly true.
>
> But Windows 8 is a gamble by Microsoft. If it does suck, it'll suck, and
> people will just keep Windows 7. Microsoft will eventually had to follow
> demands.
>
> Besides, Windows 8 is more focused for embedded devices. PCs will still
> live on. Intel will live on. Haven't you see "The Last Mimzy"?
>
>
> Yousuf Khan<> wrote in news:4fd58077
> @news.bnb-lp.com:
>
>> On 10/06/2012 7:01 AM, Intel Guy wrote:
>>> But - the post didn't seem particularly troll-ish.
>>>
>>> How much of Intel's business is in some way tied to a Microsoft OS?
>>
>> Probably 99%.
>>
>> Yousuf Khan

On Monday, June 11, 2012 1:23:58 AM UTC-4, Yousuf Khan wrote:
> On 10/06/2012 7:01 AM, Intel Guy wrote:
>
> > But - the post didn't seem particularly troll-ish.
>
> >
>
> > How much of Intel's business is in some way tied to a Microsoft OS?
>
>

Hardly. About 50% of Intel's profits were coming from notebook chips the last time I looked, which was a while ago. It's fairly safe to assume that most of those notebooks, which may itself be a threatened species, run Windows. That's a scary number, but it's not 99%, and there are an awful lot of server, enterprise, and technical computers running x86 from Intel using some OS other than Windows.

Robert.

On 28/09/2012 6:10 PM, Robert Myers wrote:
> On Monday, June 11, 2012 1:23:58 AM UTC-4, Yousuf Khan wrote:
>> On 10/06/2012 7:01 AM, Intel Guy wrote:
>>
>>> But - the post didn't seem particularly troll-ish.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> How much of Intel's business is in some way tied to a Microsoft
>>> OS?
>>
>>
>
> Hardly. About 50% of Intel's profits were coming from notebook chips
> the last time I looked, which was a while ago. It's fairly safe to
> assume that most of those notebooks, which may itself be a threatened
> species, run Windows. That's a scary number, but it's not 99%, and
> there are an awful lot of server, enterprise, and technical computers
> running x86 from Intel using some OS other than Windows.

More than half of the Intel-based servers are also running Windows,
followed by Linux. Besides the entire server market by volume wouldn't
even amount to 1% of their overall consumer business. They're talking
hundreds of thousands of servers per year, vs. hundreds of millions of
consumer PCs.

Yousuf Khan

On Sunday, September 30, 2012 1:11:12 PM UTC-4, Yousuf Khan wrote:
> On 28/09/2012 6:10 PM, Robert Myers wrote:

>
> >
>
> > Hardly. About 50% of Intel's profits were coming from notebook chips
>
> > the last time I looked, which was a while ago. It's fairly safe to
>
> > assume that most of those notebooks, which may itself be a threatened
>
> > species, run Windows. That's a scary number, but it's not 99%, and
>
> > there are an awful lot of server, enterprise, and technical computers
>
> > running x86 from Intel using some OS other than Windows.
>
>
>
> More than half of the Intel-based servers are also running Windows,
>
> followed by Linux. Besides the entire server market by volume wouldn't
>
> even amount to 1% of their overall consumer business. They're talking
>
> hundreds of thousands of servers per year, vs. hundreds of millions of
>
> consumer PCs.
>
>
If you will take the time to read my post carefully, you will notice that Italked about Intel *profits*. Server chips are much more profitable (for the moment, at least) than consumer chips. If the consumer business goes away, that will leave Intel with an awful lot of amazing foundry capacity tofind a use for, which is probably why Intel has made (limited) efforts to sell foundry services.

Robert.