In my personal opinion, if certain "features" are disabled and the CPU is not capable of running at it's full potential (barring any manufacturing defects which would cause it to be sold as a lower performing chip, as is common these days) then I, personally, would consider it "crippled" or "hamstrung" if you prefer. That's my personal opinion and I think it's a lousy way to do business.
Now, if you're willing to buy hardware that has been *artificially* "dumbed down" with the knowledge that you can undo that by paying Intel a fee, then by all means, feel free to do that. Personally, if I have the option of buying a CPU that is NOT artificially "dumbed down" or has some features disabled strictly so Intel can charge me to unlock those features, I will opt for the competitor's CPU that doesn't have those artificial restrictions. That's just my 2¢. From: Andrew S. Baker [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 11:32 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Intel wants to charge to unlock features already on your CPU >>That being said, I think it's a crappy way to do business... sell a "crippled" product then charge to "fix it." Please show me in that article what language led you to conclude that the product being sold is "crippled" As an example, should you pay for a two core processor, and the price you pay you deem reasonable for a two-core processor, and then Intel makes it possible for you to pay an incremental price to unlock two more cores (for a total that you deem is appropriate for a four-core processor), then what specifically is the problem? You appear to be engaging in a philosophical debate which lacks any practical pain. ASB (My XeeSM Profile) Exploiting Technology for Business Advantage... On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 11:21 AM, John Aldrich <[email protected]> wrote: I agree... if you modify your Windows 7 install and it violates the EULA, Microsoft has every right to say "sorry... you violated the EULA, we're not supporting it." Same goes for a "bricked" iphone. I also would not expect Intel to support a "hacked" CPU. That being said, I think it's a crappy way to do business... sell a "crippled" product then charge to "fix it." -----Original Message----- From: Mayo, Bill [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 10:30 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Intel wants to charge to unlock features already on your CPU If you applied a hack to your Windows 7 installation that allowed you to bypass some of the security controls (e.g. product activation), would you expect Microsoft to support it? The ruling says, "It's your hardware, so you can do what you want with it." Apple says, "If you modify the operating system, don't call us if you have problems with it." As far as I know, there would be nothing to prevent you from restoring the factory iOS to your phone and contacting Apple for support if the problem persisted (was hardware related). If you bricked your iPhone trying to jailbreak it, then all bets are off. -----Original Message----- From: John Aldrich [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 10:20 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Intel wants to charge to unlock features already on your CPU I wonder if it wouldn't be something similar to the recent ruling that a phone owner can legally "jail-break" their iPhone, but Apple can then refuse to support it??? From: Jonathan Link [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 9:58 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Intel wants to charge to unlock features already on your CPU Typically, that involved the single issue of illegal possession of some physical item. There's a whole area of new law that needs to be made on this area. We're now in the situation where I legally own something, have legal physical possession, but you're retaining certain rights in relation to that item, and we've signed no agreement to that effect. We have 3,400+ years of, if it's mine, I can do what I want with it, too. We have case law to that effect. Are we now putting EULAs on hardware? On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 9:43 AM, Raper, Jonathan - Eagle <[email protected]> wrote: Isn't stealing illegal in most countries? IIRC, that concept goes all the way back to the days of Moses...about 3,400 years ago, give or take a century ;-) Jonathan L. Raper, A+, MCSA, MCSE Technology Coordinator Eagle Physicians & Associates, PA [email protected] www.eaglemds.com -----Original Message----- From: Ben Scott [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 9:00 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Intel wants to charge to unlock features already on your CPU On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 10:51 PM, Ken Schaefer <[email protected]> wrote: > You are getting what you paid for. And if you then decide you need something better, you can unlock those features without having to replace your CPU. It wouldn't bother me so much except that you're actually getting the hardware, and then these companies inevitably try to enforce their business model through legislation which makes "unapproved activation" illegal. -- Ben ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to [email protected] with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to [email protected] with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
