Compatibility damages innovation so suck it.
Intel laptops are far superior to AMD, AMD notebook/laptops have the worst reliability issues ever, there's a reason Intel costs more, core for core intel destroy AMD every time AMD rely on the mid range gaming market to stay alive where intel has it's hands in both, if you want mid range get a cheaper i3/i5 for gaming if you wan't high end buy an i7.
AMD's issue is it's naming convention no one knows what any of it means so people often take it at face value often getting an inferior product as a result thinking they have bought a 5500MHz CPU because the number is bigger.
There is a reason intel wont lower price and thats because AMD is no competition to them anymore, and to be honest they probably havent made that much money out of these console deals, it's all just free advertising.
The PS3 launched with backwards compatibility, first by having the PS2 CPU and GPU physically on the motherboard, then via software emulation. They later axed it to reduce production cost, and by then the library of available games was starting to mature. Sony pushed it as backwards compatible later to remove the feature saying it wasn't important, or some bs like that.
Also I have to point out that this AMD Jaguar chip is actually x86-64 so its compatible with both, did no one put together the fact that it has 8GB of RAM and a 32bit architecture can only address 3.5GB. Or did no one actually research this APU... In theory there should be a way to achieve backwards compatibility, but that; A cost money and B negatively effects new game sales.
Because you've spent money on them, continue to play them, and do not want to pay again for the same game?
I have a Sandy Bridge i7 in my laptop; 2 colleagues have an i7 on their laptop too with a lot of heat problems, lag peaks, etc. I don't have problems with mine except with some buggy drivers in graphics and Turboboost (eating up all your RAM after a lot of use in a same session).
One year ago, a neighbor bought a nb with SB i3 and a classmate a notebook with an AMD APU and both felt well in use; being the AMD more balanced in performance/multimedia than the i3. The APU could handle Command & Conquer 3 fine in high preset [very low, low, normal, high, very high]; the i3 barely on normal preset; I have switchable graphics and I can choose when to run on the integrated graphics or NVIDIA GT540M, my HD 3000 graphics looses in high preset against the AMD.
Both using it for over a year and the AMD APU still kicking in with XCOM, Diablo 3 and Warface with not the maximum but nice graphics; while my neighbor with the i3 can barely play most games in low quality. Besides, drivers updates for AMD are released more often than the ones of Intel.
4 months ago I recommended an aunt a nb with AMD APU and for her teacher's use is fine and cheap; while my little cousin can casually play the games she likes without worrying about the graphics. AMD is more balanced in all aspects, not brute force, but average performance balanced. I have nothing against Intel, I own only Intel and I'm not complaining about it; is just that AMD deserves sales for the good of the market and all of us.
NOBODY IS ASKING YOU TO BUY THEM AGAIN! You can still play them on the console you purchased. Don't even try and complain about "mess" if your old games are still out, whether a new console has come out or not, those games will still be on, say, your shelf, the only space you'll need is for the old console, which isn't a big ask...
Well I can safely say I've had nothing but the opposite, all the AMD laptops we had here from HP have all but melted themselves to death and we get on average 300-400 laptops a year and they have performed terribly compared to their intel counter part, intel systems last longer in my opinion an i3 with a graphics card added will out perform an AMD APU but my i5 has been nothing but bliss and has already outlasted my HP AMD laptop, we get many different brands a year and it's been the same storie over and over for the last 8 years.
Of course a graphics card added will probably beat (depending what vs what) integrated; I wrote about my [i7] integrated vs i3 integrated vs AMD APU; I said I have NVIDIA too in my laptop, obviusly I play with it, but while the NVIDIA [GT 540M] can run XCOM at highest, HD 3000 can't run it well at low [tryed it 2 weeks ago].
The other two mentioned i7's [colleagues] with the heat issues, etc. are HP too; and they heat bad. And in laptop the i3 and i5 are basically the same processor but the latter with more cache and Turboboost enabled; both 2 core-4 threads.
Out of the box, same price vs same price; the AMD APU is surprisingly more balanced in everything; Intel graphics are honestly targeting 2D graphics while failing a lot in my opinion for casual gaming in 3D, even titles before 2008.
And now that you mention HP there's a strong conspiracy theory about it being "programmed to fail"; my father's laptop HD fatally failed -detected but without capacity, unable to format- 13 months after it was bought; my colleague [previously mentioned] with HP and i7 started heating like hell after 1 year and a week of owning it, similar with a cousin. But that's another topic.
I didn't like myself AMD laptops for similar reasons; but the AMD APU is a good step forward. Just understand there's no good in having a monopoly without competition -because Intel is a monopoly with competition.
AMD fanboys will say wonders about their PC's with AMD and Intel fanboys will do the same; during the Athlon vs P4 era the AMD fanboys would say exactly your arguments, because sincerely Netburst sucked -I owned Pentium 4 SK775 @3.4 GHz and a Pentium D SK775 @3.4 GHz, regret buying them and were HOT and noisy. Super-deeping the pipeline and rising the frequency wasn't the solution for performance; you can see that with Core processors and in that era in the laptops with Pentium M (P6 architecture) vs Pentium 4: the latter running hotter, eating battery and not being that fast.
I can also backup this claim, HP are our main supplier and we are also a reseller of there's. Over the fast 5 years I've worked at my company We have ordered around 40 AMD laptops and well over 100+ Intel's for ourselves. It must be in the thousands per year of actual laptop orders for our clients etc.. Anyway...
Pretty much every single Intel laptop (Mixture of Corei3's and i5's) run superbly, ever since Sandy Bridge not a single one has failed or had any significant failure due to hardware (except for a few people pouring drinks over there's but even then, HP's Sink hole systems seem to work pretty well most the time).
Now the AMD laptops, I can safely say as of late last year every single one has been thrown in the bin or melted, or are just unused. They are first and foremost, slower, I don't know what it is but even the higher end AMD's just can't get close to an i5 when using something like VMware workstation all day.
Second, battery life pretty much sucked on every single AMD laptop, would be lucky to get 2 hours, maybe 2 and a half, all Intel laptops could get 3+.
Finally, the heat generated from the AMD's were intense, I mean really intense, they just got very hot, after a BIOS update on a few of them it sorted out a few but then they were constantly loud as the fan was working harder.
The reason we got the AMD's though were more of a test, if they were able to cope with what we needed them for they were a much cheaper alternative, unfortunately it was a costly mistake, we will not make that mistake again.
Some of our clients have had AMD laptops exclusively, one client hated them, every single one they ordered (60+) had a bug whereby the screen would be completely covered in grey and black stripes, this was due to a firmware / heat issue, even after updating all the laptops, some still had the issue.
Another client though with AMD laptops seem to be quite content, maybe its pot luck if you get a decent AMD system perhaps?
We've had the grey screen and lines issue too, and GPU's melting with them, I just don't know if it's the design of the laptops that doesn't do the AMD's any favours but the design always works with intel based laptops, we've had our fair share of bad intel ones don't get me wrong, core2duo's used to be terrible at times, but like for like I've never had it nearly as bad as I do with AMD.
Sounds good to me, AMD have decent performance and don't cost as much as Intel. Also shouldn't be any driver problems and having the GPU and CPU made by the same company can't help but improve performance. I don't care about backwards compatibility really. Its a shame I won't be able to download the Xbox live titles I purchased over the last few years on the new console but then again my 360 has been switched off for the last year and I am still paying an Xbox Live Gold sub. Maybe I have more money than sense but I don't really care. I will buy it and play. When I am not playing my 216 steam games on my i7 Macbook Pro with its 360 controller. Or going outside and doing stuff. Or working. I can see why the kids would be pissed off tho.
I don't care about backwards compatibiity . I'd rather it didn't have it if it moves the technology on more and makes it cheaper.
Just how does compatibility damage innovation and what, exactly, is 'innovation'?
I don't think he was thinking it through completely when stating this, however, I have to admit, when you look at Wii and Wii U, they both have backwards compatibility and both have dreadful specs and (in particular the Wii) a lot of devs just ignore them. I don't know if the backwards compatibility is causing the low specs on the consoles or what but it really doesn't put Nintendo's consoles on the forefront of modern (or even multi-platform) games.
Sure, the Wii has some fancy controllers, Sure, Wii U has a fancy screen, but what use are they when game devs just don't care? The only good games (not always of course, but generally) that get released on Nintendo consoles since the Wii were first party games.
Interesting points but perhaps developers ignored the Wii U because Nintendo's consoles have never been seen as 'hardcore' in the same way as Sony's and Microsoft's. Whenever I think of Nintendo I think of Mario and Donkey Kong; when I think of the Xbox 360 or the PlayStation 3 Call of Duty and Tekken come to mind respectively.