Exactly!!! I'm not saying that there's no opportunity for abuse by the vendor, but as stated, this change in production makes it easier for both me AND Intel.
They get a more consist fabrication process where they can more easily match price points with market demand for certain CPU capacity, and I get to purchase power I need today at a cost I like today AND be able to increase it relatively cost effectively later. *ASB *(My XeeSM Profile) <http://XeeSM.com/AndrewBaker> *Exploiting Technology for Business Advantage...* * * On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 12:29 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > Similarly, suppose you later wish to upgrade to 4 cores. Which would you > prefer: > > a - shut down the server, pull it from the rack, remove the cooling units, > pull the CPU, replace (etc), and update the BIOS? > > b - boot off a piece of media which enables the other two cores, updates, > the BIOS, etc? > > Personally, I like "b" > -- > richard > > "Andrew S. Baker" <[email protected]> wrote on 09/21/2010 11:24:37 AM: > > > > Crippled relative to what: Maximum capacity that you have no > > intention of paying for? > > > > > How is it "crippled" if it accomplishes the work you paid for it to > > accomplish? > > > > If Intel sells one model of CPU with 2 cores for $100, and another > > with 4 cores for $175, and you decide to purchase the 2-core product > > because it has an appropriate cost/benefit ratio for you, then how > > is it suddenly a problem if they sell a 4 core product with 2 cores > > locked for the same $100? > > > > How is that crippled? > > > > ASB > > > > On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 11:42 AM, John Aldrich < > [email protected] > > > wrote: > > 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 2ยข. > > > > > > > > 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
