Intel calls Windows 8 "not ready" remarks "unsubstantiated"

On Tuesday, Bloomberg reported that Intel CEO Paul Otellini, in a private meeting with employees in Taiwan, said that Windows 8 was not yet ready. The report quoted Otellini as saying,  "Improvements still need to be made to the software."

The report was based on unnamed sources, and today Intel said in a statement that the story was "unsubstantiated." News.com reports that in Intel's full statement, the company said:

Intel has a long and successful heritage working with Microsoft on the release of Windows platforms, delivering devices that provide exciting experiences, stunning performance, and superior compatibility. Intel fully expects this to continue with Windows 8. Intel, Microsoft, and our partners have been working closely together on testing and validation to ensure delivery of a high-quality experience across the nearly 200 Intel-based designs that will start launching in October. Intel CEO Paul Otellini is on record as saying "Windows 8 is one of the best things that ever happened to Intel," citing the importance of the touch interface coming to mainstream computing and the huge wave of exciting new ultrabook, tablet, and convertible device innovations coming to the market.

The remarks come a day before Intel is scheduled to hold a press event in San Francisco. The company is expected to show off a number of Windows 8-based, Intel-powered tablets at the event, including offerings from HP, Dell, Acer, Lenovo, Asus, Samsung, and ZTE.

Source: News.com

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Google Docs dumping some older Microsoft Office formats

Next Story

Dell: Microsoft Surface will have "limited" impact on Dell

32 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Intel just simply can't get anything right. They screw up EVERYTHING they touch these days. They're embarrassing. Used to be a great company but now ARM are running rings around them - and it shows.

And when it comes to software Intel are simply hopeless. They can't do it. Whatever happened to Intel supported MeeGo? Dead on arrival. Tizen? Dead on arrival. They should stick to making big old fat chips and leave the low power stuff to the Brits.

Major Plonquer said,
Intel just simply can't get anything right. They screw up EVERYTHING they touch these days. They're embarrassing. Used to be a great company but now ARM are running rings around them - and it shows.

I would like to know what you've been smoking. I would like to try it too.

S3P€hR said,
I think what bothers Intel is not Windows 8, is the Windows RT which is ARM based. they are watching their empire ending...

While there will be a large market for RT tablets, I think that Intel tablets/hybrids with a full desktop will be pretty popular too.

I know which I'd rather have.

S3P€hR said,
I think what bothers Intel is not Windows 8, is the Windows RT which is ARM based. they are watching their empire ending...

I have to laugh here at the notion that an ARM processor would replace an x64 CPU for anything more than simple tablet tasks.

@Leo said,

I have to laugh here at the notion that an ARM processor would replace an x64 CPU for anything more than simple tablet tasks.

You only have to look at the netbook fad to see that the average user doesn't need a whole lot of computing power. If ARM processors offer the functionality that people need but at a lower price then they will sell.

theyarecomingforyou said,

You only have to look at the netbook fad to see that the average user doesn't need a whole lot of computing power. If ARM processors offer the functionality that people need but at a lower price then they will sell.


Why is it then that the netbook is all but forgotten in favor of larger, more havy "ultrabooks", with much superior specifications?

You will see, when people attempt to use Office RT, how disappointing it will be.

@Leo said,

You will see, when people attempt to use Office RT, how disappointing it will be.

Hmm care to explain why? No other ARM tablet OS are able to offer half of what Microsoft is offering

PmRd said,

Hmm care to explain why? No other ARM tablet OS are able to offer half of what Microsoft is offering


How did you come to this conclusion?
Microsoft has compiled its operating system and office suite for ARM. I am sure a lot of work has been put into it, and from a technological standpoint, it's impressive, I will give you that. But just because you can, doesn't mean you should. ARM is a very weak arcitecture, designed with power efficiency in mind. Take a look at the several Windows RT videos out there; everything simple, such as the metro UI and metro apps works smooth, because most of the rendering is offloaded to the GPU. But once they go to the desktop and open office applications, you see stuttering and slowdowns. Now, slowdowns happen even on the Atom CPUs because they are weak, and they are faster for general processing by oders of magnitude than ARM CPUs.
So not that any other tablet OS is able to, but more like no other OS wishes or attempts to, with good reason.
My guess is, someone will make a heavily simplified Metro UI version of Office, and people would hail that as much better (just like the Apple office apps on iOS), never realizing how different the two products are.

S3P€hR said,
I think what bothers Intel is not Windows 8, is the Windows RT which is ARM based. they are watching their empire ending...

There is also the history of Intel hating Microsoft.

When Microsoft Windows supported AMD, and VIA CPUs in the early 90s, it angered Intel.

When NT was showcased on Alpha and when NT 4.0 was released on PowerPC, Alpha, and several other CPU architectures, it angered Intel even more.

Intel was hoping their deal with Apple would allow them to be colder to Microsoft, and all that did was ensure the XBox 360 would not be Intel based, again angering Intel.

Intel hates the GPU requirements that Windows has pushed since Vista, making most of their GPU-like technology obsolete.

Intel hates that Microsoft Hardware Engineers was the first to tackle the desktop level SoC architecture, that Intel regretfully uses in the newer integrated GPU-CPUs.

Intel hates that Microsoft embraced AMD64, as Intel did NOT want to do EMT64 and was wanting to break from x86, so they could hold the entire licensing with their Itanium processors that would have prevented AMD and others from using a similar technology.

Intel has been red faced over Microsoft compiler technology substantially besting Intel's compilers on their own hardware, not only in performance, but in code quality and security.


Oh, and like you mention, Intel also hates the ARM aspect of WP8, and Windows RT.

Intel plays nice, but they bite their tongue when it comes to Microsoft.

thenetavenger said,

Intel has been red faced over Microsoft compiler technology substantially besting Intel's compilers on their own hardware, not only in performance, but in code quality and security.

OK, I wasn't sure if you were talking nonsense or sarcastically trolling, but that quoted bit assured me of the latter.

@Leo said,

I have to laugh here at the notion that an ARM processor would replace an x64 CPU for anything more than simple tablet tasks.

There are some interesting strides being made with ARM technology. Bundled with higher end GPU performance, and less worry about battery/power consumption, they are could be pushing out some interesting devices that could rival x64.

Microsoft pushed for Intel to redevelop their Atom CPUs several years ago, wanting them for low powered server farms. At the time Intel was like 'meh', and Microsoft then suggested that maybe using ARM servers would fill the gap.

This got Intel to jump, finally, and newer low end CPUs from Intel are now hitting performance and power levels that are reasonable.

However, Microsoft has NOT stopped talking about ARM servers in the near future, or even desktops with 64 or 256 ARM CPUs shoving past the performance of an equal cost/power consumption based x86 system.

I don't see any of this for a year or two, but don't be surprised for Intel mess up and some ARM maker give them a run.

@Leo said,

I have to laugh here at the notion that an ARM processor would replace an x64 CPU for anything more than simple tablet tasks.

Yeah too bad x64 processors aren't all that popular I think you meant x86-64.

And keep in mind there are tens of millions (if not hundreds) that just use their computers to browse facebook, email and read some news sites. They don't need an x86 processor for that so if Windows 8 RT devices are cheap enough they can sell quite well.

Sure when it comes to performance nothing can beat Intel (not even AMD) but when it comes to low cost, low power devices Intel is in last place. Note I'm not only talking ARM vs x86, the AMD Fusion line of processors are far better than the Intel Atoms.

And btw thenetavenger knows a lot more about hardware and Microsoft than you probably do.

Edited by -Razorfold, Sep 27 2012, 3:00am :

-Razorfold said,

Yeah too bad x64 processors aren't all that popular I think you meant x86-64.

And keep in mind there are tens of millions (if not hundreds) that just use their computers to browse facebook, email and read some news sites. They don't need an x86 processor for that so if Windows 8 RT devices are cheap enough they can sell quite well.

Sure when it comes to performance nothing can beat Intel (not even AMD) but when it comes to low cost, low power devices Intel is in last place. Note I'm not only talking ARM vs x86, the AMD Fusion line of processors are far better than the Intel Atoms.

And btw thenetavenger knows a lot more about hardware and Microsoft than you probably do.


Haha, of course I meant the extension.

The things you mention - browse facebook, email and read some news sites - can be done much more effortlessly on an iPad. That's why iPads have been so successful while Android reception has been lukewarm. None of these things require Windows. With Windows RT desktop and Office, Microsoft is attempting to wink at the business market, trying to convince them that a Windows RT is better for businesses. I don't see how that is the case, as there is no domain services support, no Outlook, etc. Plus, it's on ARM, so the whole thing will choke once you open a presentation with more than three slides or an Excel spreadsheet with more than two rows of data.

thenetavenger may have convinced you that he knows, but claiming that Apple's transition to Intel architecture in 2006 was the cause of 360 having an IBM CPU (the 360 has been in development since the early 2000s) or that Microsoft's VC compiler is faster than ICC is either very ignorant or trolling. As I said before, I think he's trolling here.

@Leo said,

I have to laugh here at the notion that an ARM processor would replace an x64 CPU for anything more than simple tablet tasks.

Why? Research shows that people who own a quality tablet on average drop their desktop PC usage with 80%. It makes sense as well, searching the web, checking your emails, reading the news and all those other basic tasks make up most of our computer usage. For many that is 100% of it.

Windows RT is also supports software such as Office, so 'tablet PCs' are ready to replace desktop PCs in the consumermarket . Not right away of course, but once there are ARM-based apps for other household tasks such as Quicken then it will only be a matter of time. ARM is more power efficient (battery last much longer) and it runs lighter (less heat generated).

Your notion that its just for 'simple tablet tasks' isn't supported by facts. Just look at the Apple crowd, they want their iPads to be productivity platforms. Apple hasn't been very supportive of this (both with regards to hardware and softwarwe) but Microsoft is supporting this and the Windows brand will see developers releasing (modern) productivity apps that run on both x86 and ARM.

@Leo said,

The things you mention - browse facebook, email and read some news sites - can be done much more effortlessly on an iPad. That's why iPads have been so successful while Android reception has been lukewarm. None of these things require Windows. With Windows RT desktop and Office, Microsoft is attempting to wink at the business market, trying to convince them that a Windows RT is better for businesses. I don't see how that is the case, as there is no domain services support, no Outlook, etc. Plus, it's on ARM, so the whole thing will choke once you open a presentation with more than three slides or an Excel spreadsheet with more than two rows of data.

Yes they can be done on an iPad but look at the Surface RT, its rumored to be cheaper than an iPad PLUS gives you support for MS Office and other apps that the Windows store will be sure to get.

And as for ARM sucking go look at Windows Phone 7 my HD7 has a processor that's 4 years old and I can easily open powerpoint presentations and excel spreadsheets. Considering that quad core ARM processors are out and that Windows RT is extremely well optimized for ARM means you are just talking out of your ass. MS have already demonstrated Office RT on old ARM devices so maybe you should take a look.

thenetavenger may have convinced you that he knows, but claiming that Apple's transition to Intel architecture in 2006 was the cause of 360 having an IBM CPU (the 360 has been in development since the early 2000s) or that Microsoft's VC compiler is faster than ICC is either very ignorant or trolling. As I said before, I think he's trolling here.

He never said that. He said that Intel was angry that MS chose to use to an IBM cpu instead of one of their own. If MS had chosen Intel that's almost 90 million CPUs that Intel could have shipped, giving them a nice revenue increase.

@Leo said,

I have to laugh here at the notion that an ARM processor would replace an x64 CPU for anything more than simple tablet tasks.

I agree that in term of performance ARM still have nothing to say but its catching up very quickly. in fact in some cases they are now competitive with entry level processors such as atom. remember they are just starting. forgot to mention ARM A64 (64 bit) is on the way too. The most important thing is ARM is not owned by anyone. In the past a single company like intel used to produce the entire processors of planet. and the only reason AMD was around was because It was against the law that Intel was running in a monopoly so they made AMD kind of underdog processor maker in such an envy that they couldn't see them grow. and still the same way.

Edited by trojan_market, Sep 27 2012, 4:13am :

Ronnet said,

Your notion that its just for 'simple tablet tasks' isn't supported by facts. Just look at the Apple crowd, they want their iPads to be productivity platforms. Apple hasn't been very supportive of this (both with regards to hardware and softwarwe) but Microsoft is supporting this and the Windows brand will see developers releasing (modern) productivity apps that run on both x86 and ARM.

Apple crowd wants their iPads to be productive, yet they simply cannot. Have you tried using Photoshop Touch? It is so slow on images even 2048x2048 in size. Guess what, that's the ARM CPU at work. What productivity "apps" will Windows 8/RT see exactly? Do you honestly believe Adobe will create Metro versions of the full Photoshop? Premiere? Illustrator? Or maybe Microsoft will release Visual Studio on RT?
Metro "productivity" apps will be just as limited as the iOS or Android counterparts, because 1) the ARM CPU and 2) touch interface is not precise enough to have a Photoshop or Illustrator or Visual Studio.

-Razorfold said,

Yes they can be done on an iPad but look at the Surface RT, its rumored to be cheaper than an iPad PLUS gives you support for MS Office and other apps that the Windows store will be sure to get.

And as for ARM sucking go look at Windows Phone 7 my HD7 has a processor that's 4 years old and I can easily open powerpoint presentations and excel spreadsheets. Considering that quad core ARM processors are out and that Windows RT is extremely well optimized for ARM means you are just talking out of your ass. MS have already demonstrated Office RT on old ARM devices so maybe you should take a look.


You bringing your WP7 device into this conversation does not prove anything. I can open Numbers on an iPhone 3GS that can also open a spreadsheet. You must agree with me, however, that neither are anything near what Excel offers. That is why they function somewhat OK on these devices, because they are very limited. As I said, look at The Verge's video of Windows RT. They show the Office there, see how slow and unresponsive it is. They added the animations in Office to mask as much as possible for the slow CPU response.

PmRd said,

Hmm care to explain why? No other ARM tablet OS are able to offer half of what Microsoft is offering

My guess is that he means that the way Windows RT on ARM Tablets will not satisfy the needs of many users....... and I agree with him.
X86 all the way here.

S3P€hR said,

I agree that in term of performance ARM still have nothing to say but its catching up very quickly. in fact in some cases they are now competitive with entry level processors such as atom. remember they are just starting. forgot to mention ARM A64 (64 bit) is on the way too. The most important thing is ARM is not owned by anyone. In the past a single company like intel used to produce the entire processors of planet. and the only reason AMD was around was because It was against the law that Intel was running in a monopoly so they made AMD kind of underdog processor maker in such an envy that they couldn't see them grow. and still the same way.

Catching up is one way of looking at it. A quad-core ARM CPU is slower than or comparable to a single-core Atom. So either all software has to become impossibly multithreaded to utilise the ARM quad-core, or it will still be substantially slower. iPhone and iPad are dual-core for a while now, yet the vast majority of AppStore software is still heavily single-threaded. That's why Apple opted to go with again a dual-core on the iPhone 5, but in turn made it very efficient performance-per-clock CPU. In fact, Apple's implementation is indeed the fastest available ARM CPU in the mobile phone/tablet market.

They show the Office there, see how slow and unresponsive it is.

You mean that video using a prototype tablet that didn't even have proper/final drivers installed? One hint, the accelerometer didn't work.

They added the animations in Office to mask as much as possible for the slow CPU response.

Those very same animations exist on the x86 version of Office too. Going to claim my i7 is too weak to handle office too? MS have already explained that the animations are there to give you a more fluid experience while typing and using office.

Apple crowd wants their iPads to be productive, yet they simply cannot. Have you tried using Photoshop Touch? It is so slow on images even 2048x2048 in size. Guess what, that's the ARM CPU at work. What productivity "apps" will Windows 8/RT see exactly? Do you honestly believe Adobe will create Metro versions of the full Photoshop? Premiere? Illustrator? Or maybe Microsoft will release Visual Studio on RT?

Productivity doesn't have to mean Visual studio, premiere, illustrator and photoshop. You should learn what the word means.

-Razorfold said,

Productivity doesn't have to mean Visual studio, premiere, illustrator and photoshop. You should learn what the word means.

In order to be productive, you need the proper tools.

@Leo said,

In order to be productive, you need the proper tools.

And for the vast majority of people those tools are a web browser, and word. Windows RT and ARM aren't for people trying to use photoshop, premier, illustrator and visual studio. They're for people who need computers for simple / basic / easy tasks.

My wife (and her parents) just use their expensive laptops to browse sites, type the occasional document, view photos, chat to their friends etc. They don't need an i3/i5/i7 computer for that. An ARM one would be perfect since they're cheap, they have a long battery life, they're light and portable. Sure they can get a netbook, but let's face it the Atom line of processors really really suck (Windows 7 basic lags to hell on an Atom processor). So why spend tons of money on an ultrabook when a simple ARM tablet would suffice?

If Intel wasn't scared of ARM they wouldn't be promoting their clover trail processor line (the new version of atom) as much as they are. Sorry but that's just fact. It doesn't matter that Intel makes some of the most powerful CPUs out there when 50% of the world (at least) have no use for it. For the people that need it, Intel will always be king (unless AMD manages to get their act together). For the people that don't it's increasingly looking like ARM will take over.

-Razorfold said,

And for the vast majority of people those tools are a web browser, and word. Windows RT and ARM aren't for people trying to use photoshop, premier, illustrator and visual studio. They're for people who need computers for simple / basic / easy tasks.

My wife (and her parents) just use their expensive laptops to browse sites, type the occasional document, view photos, chat to their friends etc. They don't need an i3/i5/i7 computer for that. An ARM one would be perfect since they're cheap, they have a long battery life, they're light and portable. Sure they can get a netbook, but let's face it the Atom line of processors really really suck (Windows 7 basic lags to hell on an Atom processor). So why spend tons of money on an ultrabook when a simple ARM tablet would suffice?

If Intel wasn't scared of ARM they wouldn't be promoting their clover trail processor line (the new version of atom) as much as they are. Sorry but that's just fact. It doesn't matter that Intel makes some of the most powerful CPUs out there when 50% of the world (at least) have no use for it. For the people that need it, Intel will always be king (unless AMD manages to get their act together). For the people that don't it's increasingly looking like ARM will take over.


Your wife (and her parents) hardly need Windows RT either or Office RT either. In fact, they'll find Word hard to use with the touch interface, because it is not well done - she'll have to connect it to a monitor and a mouse+keyboard to work properly. She'd be much better off with an iPad or Android. Once someone makes a Metro word processor, then it becomes a matter of taste for the interface and design.

@Leo said,

Your wife (and her parents) hardly need Windows RT either or Office RT either. In fact, they'll find Word hard to use with the touch interface, because it is not well done - she'll have to connect it to a monitor and a mouse+keyboard to work properly. She'd be much better off with an iPad or Android. Once someone makes a Metro word processor, then it becomes a matter of taste for the interface and design.

Its not well done according to a Verge presenter who didn't even realize the drivers, device and software weren't final? He even states oh its disappointing that the device doesn't have an accelerometer when it does (but it isn't enabled because the drivers aren't ready).

And the Surface (as well as other tabs from iOS and Android) can easily connect to an external keyboard. Not to mention Live docs (and Google docs) exists too.

-Razorfold said,

Its not well done according to a Verge presenter who didn't even realize the drivers, device and software weren't final? He even states oh its disappointing that the device doesn't have an accelerometer when it does (but it isn't enabled because the drivers aren't ready).

And the Surface (as well as other tabs from iOS and Android) can easily connect to an external keyboard. Not to mention Live docs (and Google docs) exists too.


How many times are you going to bring up the stupid accelerator driver? Touch works, and that's all that matters with Office and this discussion. Have you tried Office on a Windows 8 tablet? I have, and it's horrible touch experience. At least it works fast on i5.

While they can easily connect to external devices, that makes them bad tablets. Not once have I felt the need to connect my iPad to a keyboard or mouse. On the other hand, on Windows 8 I feel like half the experience is there and more often than not, I find myself needing to go to the desktop to do something, and that's horrible for touch.
Bad tablet experience + bad desktop experience = awesome operating system.

@Leo said,

How many times are you going to bring up the stupid accelerator driver? Touch works, and that's all that matters with Office and this discussion. Have you tried Office on a Windows 8 tablet? I have, and it's horrible touch experience. At least it works fast on i5.

Do you remember how bad Vista was when drivers are incomplete / non existent?

That wasn't a final device by any means and without proper final drivers the experience is going to suck, regardless of whether or not its a touch device or a laptop. I bring up the accelerometer because it proves that one the device isn't in its final state and two that the drivers are poor or non-existent. Not to mention it proves how idiotic the verge presenter is (then again the article was by Tom Warren, who if you didn't know used to be a reporter and an admin for this site but got fired).

Dot Matrix said,
Bullet, meet foot. Foot, meet bullet.

Or the claim based on a rumour could be a load or crap or someone not giving the full context of what was actually said. For example, he could have said that Microsoft have left some opportunities open for third parties to to provide any improvements needed for the software which is an entirely different thing than claiming that the software itself is deficient in any way. End of the day any reports not form the source can be from people getting it third/forth hand information, someone disgruntled, someone just making up stuff for the lulz - to believe everything said it just silly.