DVR service....argh tired brain.
----- Original Message -----
From: James Kerr
To: NT System Admin Issues
Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 4:45 PM
Subject: Re: Intel wants to charge to unlock features already on your CPU
I have a DVR at home for cable TV. I don't pay for DVD service so I don't
have access to that function. If I wanted to I could add that feature with just
a phone call.
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
~ 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
