I was figuring that MS would treat the CPU as it would any other integrated hardware. i.e. unless NOT updating will cause a conflict (graphics), then it would probably get the same treatment as controller hubs, sound, Gb LAN etc...that is to say, update at your leisure with said update requiring some input from the user to do so.
As for positive PR from publicizing the patch, it wouldn't surprise me if this whole episode eminated from MS. PR in this case is relative I think - miniscule pool of affected people (who should be largely "tech savvy" in any case), and a captive audience...what ya gonna do, game on Linux? Really wouldn't surprise me if MS (under-) delivered in any case; " Well, working the scheduling fix into the existing Windows 7 kernal is a very complicated blahblah..[ ]..but our all new Windows 8 ***SEE our FREE BETA DOWNLOAD HERE*** has built in compatibility PRE-ORDER NOW! etc, etc.."
"Up to 43%" must have been an extreme case I would think. There are already optimizations available in the wild (MS and Linux) that would suggest that number might be closer to the call sign of the NWO's Black Helicopters than attainable gain. I can't remember an instance where a CPU's performance gained 43% from a software revision offhand, and would have thought that if numbers like that were able to be demonstrated then the info would have gained traction on the net....surely Intel couldn't have gagged every BD related software developer?

AFAIW, people like Dave Kanter were talking about scheduling in Win7/Vista at launch if not before. A few people posting on forums (noteably XS, OCN, Anand etc) tried to raise the issue with John Fruehe and others only to be shot down or ignored until lighter threaded benches started surfacing, so I'm not entirely sold on the revelatory aspects of prospective patches. Would seem to be more a natural progression once BD was measured independently against Phenom II.

And so you should be. Any performance gain is a winner in this case.