4 ms·
Rationally speaking, yeah, it doesn't mean much more than that they won't work with it, independent of who's to blame, but I did initially still read it as if i
by Sylos 10y ago
Rationally speaking, yeah, it doesn't mean much more than that they won't work with it, independent of who's to blame, but I did initially still read it as if it was Intel's and AMD's fault, and I'm obviously not alone with that either.
Better would have been like I've already used it: "Intel's and AMD's chips won't work with Windows 7/8"
Then it's completely open why that is and the reader can make up their own mind.
- infodroid 10y agoI agree with you that "won't work with" is even more neutral than "won't support". But I think only the mods can change the title at this point.
- regularfry 10y ago"Fault" is one way of looking at it. However, another way is to say that it's apparently not commercially worth while to the chip makers to support generation N-1 of Microsoft's OS. That says something interesting about the market.
- geezerjay 10y ago> Better would have been like I've already used it: "Intel's and AMD's chips won't work with Windows 7/8" A much more appropriate description would be that Microsoft won't support Intel's and AMD's newer chips in the company's earlier OSs.