Breaking News
The Engineering Life - Around the Web

Sinofsky: Ambitious, abrasive, out of work

Did Intel help push Sinofsky out?
Sylvie Barak,
11/14/2012 00:41 AM EST

 7 comments   post a comment
NO RATINGS
< Previous Page 2 / 2
View Comments: Threaded | Newest First | Oldest First
Bert22306
User Rank
Author
re: Sinofsky: Ambitious, abrasive, out of work
Bert22306   11/14/2012 1:23:29 AM
NO RATINGS
Great article, getting to the meat of the matter, as it were. Having read this, even more so than in my response to the other Sinfosky article in EE Times, I'm curious about the future direction of Windows 8. I guess that giving priority to the WinRT version of the Surface tablet was done to please the casual users soonest. But from my point of view, the x86 Surface is the one that would be most interesting and most distinguished from all the other tablets out there.

SylvieBarak
User Rank
Blogger
re: Sinofsky: Ambitious, abrasive, out of work
SylvieBarak   11/14/2012 3:32:08 AM
NO RATINGS
I agree with you, Bert, and I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft now did a fair bit of bridge building with Intel. I think the Surface Pro, the x86 version, will ultimately end up being a winning device, and I can't help but feel that those who opt for the RT version will be disappointed. The apps they want won't work, and they'll wonder why they didn't just go Android. If you want a Windows tablet, it has to run windows apps properly. The Intel version will. I believe that by ousting Sinofsky, Microsoft will move closer to Intel again.

resistion
User Rank
Author
re: Sinofsky: Ambitious, abrasive, out of work
resistion   11/14/2012 3:45:35 AM
NO RATINGS
Windows RT is a must for Microsoft to not be bound by x86, which is very limited, almost nonexistent, currently in mobile non-PC markets. Windows 8 did not exclude Intel, so I don't know the big deal there.

Bert22306
User Rank
Author
re: Sinofsky: Ambitious, abrasive, out of work
Bert22306   11/14/2012 7:59:51 PM
NO RATINGS
The big deal is, WinRT won't run the apps that people buy Windows for. The most obvious being, the Office version that people actually use at work and at school.

resistion
User Rank
Author
re: Sinofsky: Ambitious, abrasive, out of work
resistion   11/14/2012 11:52:03 PM
NO RATINGS
It's true, I'd only consider it for office, but there's Office 2013.

Duane Benson
User Rank
Author
re: Sinofsky: Ambitious, abrasive, out of work
Duane Benson   11/14/2012 7:28:44 AM
NO RATINGS
From my perspective, Microsoft took a few things that tablets do well: reading, browsing and light weight gaming, without really understanding why the tablet has those features, and stuffed them into a PC OS. The 1985 era single application up at a time is largely due to the limitations of processing power in tablets. It's not there because people want to exclusively operate that way. On a PC, it feels awkwardly hacked on without much thought for useability. It smells of a product designed based on the vision of an out of touch person. If Sinofsky was that out of touch person providing the vision, then Microsoft and most of their customers will be better off with him being someplace else.

WKetel
User Rank
Author
re: Sinofsky: Ambitious, abrasive, out of work
WKetel   11/17/2012 1:10:38 AM
NO RATINGS
Microsoft is going in a new direction and putting their own way of doing things in areas that they really should stay out of. Who wants to have a buggy smartphone that needs constant updates? And what company needs a top officer in any area who does not understand about having all parts of the company work together at least a bit. So it is just as well to dump him, he certainly won't starve, or suffer any real hardship, no matter how long he is out of work.

Most Recent Comments
michigan0
 
SteveHarris0
 
realjjj
 
SteveHarris0
 
SteveHarris0
 
VicVat
 
Les_Slater
 
SSDWEM
 
witeken
Most Recent Messages
9/25/2016
4:48:30 PM
michigan0 Sang Kim First, 28nm bulk is in volume manufacturing for several years by the major semiconductor companies but not 28nm FDSOI today yet. Why not? Simply because unlike 28nm bulk the LDD(Lightly Doped Drain) to minimize hot carrier generation can't be implemented in 28nm FDSOI. Furthermore, hot carrier reliability becomes worse with scaling, That is the major reason why 28nm FDSOI is not manufacturable today and will not be. Second, how can you suppress the leakage currents from such ultra short 7nm due to the short channel effects? How thin SOI thickness is required to prevent punch-through of un-dopped 7nm FDSOI? Possibly less than 4nm. Depositing such an ultra thin film less then 4nm filum uniformly and reliably over 12" wafers at the manufacturing line is extremely difficult or not even manufacturable. If not manufacturable, the 7nm FDSOI debate is over!Third, what happens when hot carriers are generated near the drain at normal operation of 7nm FDSOI? Electrons go to the positively biased drain with no harm but where the holes to go? The holes can't go to the substrate because of the thin BOX layer. Some holes may become trapped at the BOX layer causing Vt shift. However, the vast majority of holes drift through the the un-dopped SOI channel toward the N+Source,...

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)
Like Us on Facebook
EE Times on Twitter
EE Times Twitter Feed