Amen to cable TV doing that but to some very limited degree it does. Just not the way most of us want those features. Personally I have little use for most of the trash I am forced to purchase to get what I want at a fair price. I would gladly give up the radio features for more educational programming.
Jon On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 2:55 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > For me it comes down to purchased intent. Did I buy the hardware with the > features I wanted. Yes. Can it do more.. Doesn't matter. If it can, > great I can upgrade when I want..BUT I GOT what I paid for. > > Would you buy the computer that cost 2500.00 because it has 8 cores, and 8 > gig ram or buy the exact same system hard locked to 4 core and 4 gig ram for > 1500.00. > > Would you rather buy a second system for 2500.00 and be out the 1500 again > when you need the upgrade? > > I don't see a problem with the business logic of applying software based > licensing to hardware as long as all of the features are disclosed before > the purchase. Especially if the application of such licenses lowers my cost > to buy what I need and not more. What REALLY ticks me off is when I have to > buy a certain model to get an included feature, but I get 10 things I don't > want.. > Touring edition of a CAR for example. I want the rear camera, but I have > to pay 5k worth of upgrades for navi, in dash DVD, etc..because its all > bundled. > > Give me hardware that can do it all, and turn off what I am not paying > for..Anyone wish CABLE TV did this.. Sound me AN AMEN!! > > Whether it feels like you are being rubbed or not, is irrelevant. Did you > get what you paid for and just complaining that you didn't get something you > didn't pay for free? > > Greg Sweers > CEO > ACTS360.com > P.O. Box 1193 > Brandon, FL 33509 > 813-657-0849 Office > 813-758-6850 Cell > 813-341-1270 Fax > > > -----Original Message----- > From: John Aldrich [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 1:19 PM > To: NT System Admin Issues > Subject: RE: Intel wants to charge to unlock features already on your CPU > > All's I can say is that it *feels* different to me. Different type of > machinery. I guess we've gotten used to paying for license upgrades for new > features on routers and firewalls, where with servers and PCs, we've become > accustomed to buying hardware upgrades if we want newer, better, faster > machines. > > > > From: Jon Harris [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 1:08 PM > To: NT System Admin Issues > Subject: Re: Intel wants to charge to unlock features already on your CPU > > After doing a bunch of those physical upgrades I grew to really dislike > doing them. I would have much preferred the software upgrade. As for the > firewalls, how is that different? The hardware will do more. In the case > of the 5505 it was NOT a software upgrade. It was a simple license code > install. There was no disk or downloaded software to upgrade. > > Jon > On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 1:01 PM, John Aldrich < > [email protected]> > wrote: > I see your point WRT the routers/firewalls. That being said, that's a > SOFTWARE upgrade, not a hardware/firmware upgrade. I still bristle at the > idea of paying, essentially the same price for a "crippled" CPU that I paid > for a similar, non-crippled CPU. > > As for the old Math Co-processors, I remember those days too. I killed a > Math Co-processor by not verifying how it was supposed to go in. But I > guess > I'm of the opinion that I'd rather do a hardware upgrade myself, than buy > an > "unlock" code. That feels, to me, like you're getting cheated and being > asked to pay for the something you already own. > > > > From: Jon Harris [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 12:45 PM > To: NT System Admin Issues > Subject: Re: Intel wants to charge to unlock features already on your CPU > > Just to add a little here, maybe, but the Cisco firewalls currently work by > this subscription model. You buy a 5505 and want more than one or two > VPN's > live you have to "upgrade" the IOS with the Security Pak. I would think > other firewall or router manufactures are doing the same to some degree. > Basic firewall service but for extra money you can "expand" the features > available. The Linksys home routers/firewalls can be "upgraded" but not by > Cisco but by WW-DRT or something similar. This is not a big change from > current business models. I seem to remember that 80386 processors that > Intel sold back in the day had a separate Math Coprocessor which was a pain > to deal with. You had to physically verify the MB would take it and then > install it. I did enough of those installs to wish that it would have just > been a simple add a boot disk and run a BIOS update. > > Jon > On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 12:33 PM, Andrew S. Baker <[email protected]> > wrote: > 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) > 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 > > ~ 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 > > ~ 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 > > > ~ 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
