Haswell model specs leaked

[Idontcare]

Originally Posted by ShintaiDK

Never said Windows 7 wasnt more popular. That happend last summer. But when almost 40% of your user base still uses an 11 year old product. Then you did something terrible wrong. And the motivator to change is due to no more support, not because they wish to. Also explains why Windows 7 got a large increase lately.

http://www.netmarketshare.com/operat...11&qpcustomb=0

Microsoft's situation exemplifies Intel's when we say "Intel competes with itself, not with AMD".

Microsoft is not competing with Linux, it is competing with the former shadow of itself that seeded the world with XP installs. If present-Microsoft can't outcompete past-Microsoft then future-Microsoft will suffer the consequences.

Win8 is competing with existing installations of XP, Vista and Win7. And the fact that MS is doing poorly in providing a compelling reason for folks to upgrade is their own fault.

Intel will face a similar issue if they slow-down their R&D and tick-tock cadence. Haswell was not designed to compete against Steamroller (there is no competing on that front), it is being designed to be a compelling upgrade product to displace existing Sandy Bridge chips that are already sitting in people's homes.

[ShintaiDK]

Originally Posted by Idontcare

Microsoft's situation exemplifies Intel's when we say "Intel competes with itself, not with AMD".

Microsoft is not competing with Linux, it is competing with the former shadow of itself that seeded the world with XP installs. If present-Microsoft can't outcompete past-Microsoft then future-Microsoft will suffer the consequences.

Win8 is competing with existing installations of XP, Vista and Win7. And the fact that MS is doing poorly in providing a compelling reason for folks to upgrade is their own fault.

Intel will face a similar issue if they slow-down their R&D and tick-tock cadence. Haswell was not designed to compete against Steamroller (there is no competing on that front), it is being designed to be a compelling upgrade product to displace existing Sandy Bridge chips that are already sitting in people's homes.

Exactly. Unlike Intel tho, Microsoft is plagued by bad decisions and a ever increasingly more inefficient corporate culture. Microsoft inside cant even communicate with one another properly. I had several cases that felt on the floor between some of the application groups and the core group. And we talk major issues only Microsoft can fix. Those issues that are classified as emergency with highest escalation and support.

Both companies boosts record R&D budgets. But only one of them actually gets something worthwhile out of it.

Originally Posted by Homeles

Steam suffers from pretty massive selection bias. You think all the corporate computers are running the steam client? Didn't think so.

With that said, I have no idea how people failing to ugrade from XP is Microsoft's fault. I can see hesitation to upgrade because of the failure that Vista was at launch; other than that, the only other thing I can think of is that they were a victim of their own success. It's not that they can't come up with anything new -- it's that there isn't anything new to come up with. Or at least not until Windows 8.

Keep in mind, these people that aren't upgrading their OS are also not upgrading their systems. Those systems will die eventually. XP just happened to be a cult classic, and a lot of ignorant consumers and management are holding onto it.

In nearly case that I've heard of, it's being phased out. Where it isn't being phased out, the IT department wants it to be, but can't because of bureaucracy.

Look at the Apple users. They happily upgrade, simply because Apple gives them the incentive.

Microsoft on the other hand uses the hammer method. All companies wish for something better that can increase their efficiency at work. But Microsoft is not giving them it. Microsoft releases are haunted by the 1 step forward, 2 steps back results.

[podspi]

I think a lot of people on these forums forget that for the majority of people computers are tools, nothing more.

The last time I purchased a hammer was a long time ago, because the hammer I have now still works (I swing it at stuff and it hits it... usually ). For many people, particularly businesses, the same applies. If the computer does what you need it to do, then no need to replace it. Windows Vista, 7, and 8 add a lot of features that I, as someone who uses the computer a lot (for productive use no less!) find very useful. But I've had jobs where the value-add of anything above Windows XP was zero.

As IDC points out above, both Microsoft and Intel face this issue. And how many of those machines running Windows XP do you think are running 3570Ks, etc? Chances are they are older Athlon/Pentium 4 /C2D-based machines that were never upgraded because there was no reason to.

[ShintaiDK]

Originally Posted by frozentundra123456

You also didnt mention the x-box, which although it took away from pc gaming, I think it would have to be called a success.

http://www.edge-online.com/news/micr...s-229-million/

Sure about that?

[ShintaiDK]

Originally Posted by podspi

I think a lot of people on these forums forget that for the majority of people computers are tools, nothing more.

The last time I purchased a hammer was a long time ago, because the hammer I have now still works (I swing it at stuff and it hits it... usually ). For many people, particularly businesses, the same applies. If the computer does what you need it to do, then no need to replace it. Windows Vista, 7, and 8 add a lot of features that I, as someone who uses the computer a lot (for productive use no less!) find very useful. But I've had jobs where the value-add of anything above Windows XP was zero.

As IDC points out above, both Microsoft and Intel face this issue. And how many of those machines running Windows XP do you think are running 3570Ks, etc? Chances are they are older Athlon/Pentium 4 /C2D-based machines that were never upgraded because there was no reason to.

If you work 8 hours a day with your hammer. And you can get a new hammer that offers you 5% higher efficiency. Is ti a good or bad decision not to buy a new hammer?

Microsofts problem is that they dont do what customers wish. Instead they are essentially trying to sell you a hammer again. Maybe even a hammer thats 5% less efficient than the one you are using now.

Remember almost all these companies dont own XP. They simply use the Microsoft leasing model. They can freely choose any OS they like, yet they pick XP. The leasing model is also what keeps Microsoft alive.

[cytg111]

Originally Posted by ShintaiDK

If you work 8 hours a day with your hammer. And you can get a new hammer that offers you 5% higher efficiency. Is ti a good or bad decision not to buy a new hammer?

- Bad. You imply that you should invest in a new hammer everytime performance improves 5% .. by that rate you'll be buying a new hammer every week. Hammers be expensive you know, specially those top performing ones.

[frozentundra123456]

Originally Posted by ShintaiDK

http://www.edge-online.com/news/micr...s-229-million/

Sure about that?

I dont have the figures or time to look them up whether the overall x-box and associated licensing, etc lost or made money over the entire life of the console. However, if you read further down the article, you can see that this was one bad quarter, and overall it was the best selling console for many months. However, it is getting old now, and they seem to have not been very efficient in getting the new model to market.

[ShintaiDK]

Originally Posted by cytg111

- Bad. You imply that you should invest in a new hammer everytime performance improves 5% .. by that rate you'll be buying a new hammer every week. Hammers be expensive you know, specially those top performing ones.

How much is your wage?

[Homeles]

Originally Posted by cytg111

- Bad. You imply that you should invest in a new hammer everytime performance improves 5% .. by that rate you'll be buying a new hammer every week. Hammers be expensive you know, specially those top performing ones.

You can stick with your old hammer, while I have fun with exponential growth. I'll borrow money for new hammers, if need be. Maybe hire more hammer swingers.

[ShintaiDK]

Originally Posted by frozentundra123456

I dont have the figures or time to look them up whether the overall x-box and associated licensing, etc lost or made money over the entire life of the console. However, if you read further down the article, you can see that this was one bad quarter, and overall it was the best selling console for many months. However, it is getting old now, and they seem to have not been very efficient in getting the new model to market.

Xbox had 1 good year and that was 2011.

The entire Xbox lifespan gives Microsoft -3B$. Sony in the same timeframe -5B$. Nintendo is running in the red too now. Else Nintendo was essentially the only console maker that actually made money.

Kinda hillarious when you consider the statements about consoles killing PC gaming.

[MightyMalus]

Originally Posted by ShintaiDK

It actually covers laptops too.

And by looking at the mobile section in that site, it is obvious that it only covers the U.S.A since iOS is increadibly dominant.

Originally Posted by ShintaiDK

http://www.edge-online.com/news/micr...s-229-million/ Sure about that?

I don't know what page you read but that obviously shows how good Xbox has been for them. They lost some revenue, so what? They got revenue. And the most of all consoles, in that time.

[ShintaiDK]

Originally Posted by MightyMalus

I don't know what page you read but that obviously shows how good Xbox has been for them. They lost some revenue, so what? They got revenue. And the most of all consoles, in that time.

Oh yes, -3B$ as direct loss in its lifespan is really great.

/sarcasm

[Idontcare]

Originally Posted by podspi

And how many of those machines running Windows XP do you think are running 3570Ks, etc? Chances are they are older Athlon/Pentium 4 /C2D-based machines that were never upgraded because there was no reason to.

I've got five XP boxes, each with Q6600, that I am in the process of upgrading to Win8 solely because I'm not comfortable running XP without continued security updates going forward.

I don't want my boxes turned into spambots. So I'll upgrade to Win8 for absolutely no other reason. Win8 provides me with no additional productivity for my app of interest, but MS does via the effective service contract one acquires alongside their license for a still-supported OS like Win8.

The company that my wife works at, 19000 employees, only just recently authorized the acquisition of systems with Win7 installed, everything else was XP, because of the nightmare they claimed the security handshaking would introduce. Concerns over lost productivity with databases not seeing each other, employees in China not being able to login and access data in Europe, etc, compelled them to insist on just sticking with what was known to work.

Better the devil you know than the devil you don't know.

[MightyMalus]

Originally Posted by ShintaiDK

Oh yes, -3B$ as direct loss in its lifespan is really great. /sarcasm

Companies take hits doing everything. If game consoles were really bad. We would not see a next gen Xbox or Playstation.

EDIT: How much has Intel lost because of Tablets, Smartphones and everything else? There's a reason why they getting on that market, right?

"The division's revenue was down 16.5 per cent, to $1.6 billion (£1bn)."

I still see revenue.

[ShintaiDK]

Originally Posted by MightyMalus

Companies take hits doing everything. If game consoles were really bad. We would not see a next gen Xbox or Playstation.

EDIT: How much has Intel lost because of Tablets, Smartphones and everything else? There's a reason why they getting on that market, right?

We aint talking about a year or two here. We are basicly talking a decade.

Xbox and Playstation only runs in the hope that the competition goes belly up so that they can gain there share and turn it into a profitable business. Else both would most likely have been axed now.

Its no different than what many memory makers did in the past. Only profit for the last standing.

Atom runs in the plus for example. Payed itself back multiple times. Mainly also due to the slow development cycle. So thats silly to compare with.

[MightyMalus]

Originally Posted by ShintaiDK

Xbox and Playstation only runs in the hope that the competition goes belly up so that they can gain there share and turn it into a profitable business.

Its been like that for awhile(since what? PS2?), no? Sell for a loss to get market share. Typical game console/handheld business.

Still, as a whole they are making money.

[ShintaiDK]

Originally Posted by MightyMalus

Its been like that for awhile(since what? PS2?), no? Sell for a loss to get market share. Typical game console/handheld business.

Still, as a whole they are making money.

Just not on consoles or anything related to them. You can see that in the financial records of the companies. And Sony, unlike Microsoft is also in the red as a company.

Playstation and Xbox is nothing more than a money drain in hopes for the future for both companies.