I think ASB and I are in broad agreement. As long as there is competition in the CPU market place, I don't see a problem. If some kind of monopolistic supply develops, then I do see (additional) problems above and beyond a traditional monopoly market. Intel can capture all the economic benefits of this initiative (by increasing pricing), and consumers will get nothing.
As long as there is competition, then Intel will get some benefit (whatever cost reductions they can achieve, so as to maximise their profits at the prevailing market price for CPUs), and we can gain benefit by saving on operational costs, and CAPEX Cheers Ken From: Andrew S. Baker [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, 22 September 2010 12:34 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Intel wants to charge to unlock features already on your CPU 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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]<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]<mailto:[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." ~ 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
