CNET asked Intel's CEO Paul Otellini about his opinion regarding Windows Vista but Otellini stayed quite mum, possibly revealing that Intel isn't too wild about Vista:
Noting that Bill Gates had said during his Monday keynote speech that there are now 100 million people using Vista, we wanted to know whether Intel consider Vista a success in driving PC upgrades--or was 100 million installs simply a reflection of the market's growth rate? In other words, after five years in development, was Vista having any impact on moving hardware, and by extension Intel processors?
Before the question could even be finished, Otellini shook his head and said, "no," he was not getting into any discussion about Vista.
We considered that not just odd, given Otellini's history of taking on all questions, but a sign that Intel is seriously displeased with Vista. If that weren't true, why couldn't the CEO muster even a lukewarm response like, "We certainly think Vista a superior OS, but after five years in development we would have hoped it had more of an impact on creating a demand for PC upgrades."
We followed up by asking if he preferred Apple's approach to OS development--rolling out an upgrade every 18 months or so--versus Microsoft's multiyear process. Otellini responded that he had heard that Gates said a day earlier that there could be one more monolithic Windows upgrade. "If that's true," Otellini paused before continuing, "I would rather have them move a lot faster and keep up with silicon technology."
Use Disqus to post new comments, the old comments are listed below.
Re: Intel refuses to talk about Vista by Anonymous on Monday, January 14 2008 @ 03:56:06 CET
Vista is good and bad. Nice that we finally have a good foundation on a 64 bit operating system. But it's bad in that you get far too many user interactions and limitations that foul up simply using the system.
Microsoft failed hugely. Not just in a small way but in what, to any other company with lesser resources, would be a toss your CEO out on the street kind of way (oh wait they did that). They failed to make things easier and simpler to the end user. They spent billions investing in DRM schemes that the entire recording industry is going to dump in less than the OS's lifetime. They horribly complicated the end users life and gave them nothing but token concepts of simplification in return.
If the Apple OS was available for all X86 machines and ran all the software (primarily games) that Windows runs, Vista would be already dead. It moves forward by momentum only, which is their only saving grace.
It's slower, more difficult to use, and turning off all those "are you sure you want to do this" messages cripples the core thing it was at least supposed to deliver, a more secure environment.
The Pentagon got more for their money building $1000 coffee pots than MS did in building Vista.