Miscellaneous Operating Systems/Hardware

http://www.engadget.com/2010/09/18/inte ... already-d/
Would've thought you guys would have a thread about this up and going already, what do you guys think?

Every enterprise house ever has done this for ages with mainframes, fibre channel fabric switches, etc. - IBM being the most glaringly obvious example with all of their mainframe gear.

I don't think it'll work for Intel as I don't think many (or any) of the kind of people who buy a low-end janky CPU will care about unlocking its potential, but who knows, there could be a secret hidden market of people who don't know what they want when they buy a PC, then suddenly want to upgrade and know enough to hunt down an upgrade card.

However, while I do think it's a completely idiotic idea I don't think it's "immoral" like various pundits have been claiming - you still buy exactly what's on the sticker, and the fact you can upgrade it is really just icing on the cake. If they were claiming the higher-end spec and then requiring the card to unlock, *that* would be immoral, but that's not what's happening.

Given manufacturers sell some better parts as low end parts because there is higher demand for them, it makes sense to do some money on unlocking them. Until now it was always a gamble - you could unlock some chips, but there was a possibility that they were locked because of QA, now you pay for it but you can be sure of the results. It's easy for the customer, because they don't even have to open the chassis to change the CPU, it's good for Intel, because customers don't buy cheap second-hand CPUs for upgrades (and I guess *THIS* is the target - Intel haven't got its share when people bought used CPUs).

GL1zdA wrote: .... I guess *THIS* is the target - Intel haven't got its share when people bought used CPUs).

Why a company should think it should be able to profit from an item twice? Oh, yeah, the entire recording industry.

Perhaps instead of selling CPUs as hardware they could be treated as something you never own, but merely license to use...... Given the amount of microcode in the beasts I'm sure somebody could claim they are more software than hardware.

Scratch and sniff cpu cards. You think nobody will figure out the gimmick and sell the cards cheap from china? Everyone makes a dumb mistake the first time out, so tis only a matter of time, unless the upgrades are poor value.

I heard some VAXes had a microcode upgrade that simply removed no-ops that you had to pay for. Is that true?

And skywriter, I have no clue what you're talking about. Slot 1 to Socket 370 converters?

ritchan wrote: And skywriter, I have no clue what you're talking about. Slot 1 to Socket 370 converters?

the upgrade requires three things:
1) a CPU to upgrade
2) a number on a card that can be used on any CPU from number 1
3) some 'data' of some sort that is transferred between Intel and the CPU through the consumers hands.

anytime you have 2 and 3 there is the possibility of perpetrating fraud. it highly unlikely that intel has unique data other than a serial number of the cpu. it is only a matter of time, if the price is right, that this system breaks down. since it is the first time out for intel, it's quite likely there is a simple loophole they missed in the implementation.

now if these were high end cpu's to begin with...

@ritchan ,why do you mention sockets?

I think it is all about the pricing. If I'm on a budget I could imagine buying a low-end CPU with the prospect of upgrading it when one of two things happens:

1) I get more money
2) The price of upgrading goes down (which I would expect it to do)

I'm currently considering upgrading my LGA775 CPU. The price/performance ratio is a bit high so it would be smarter to buy a newer motherboard, CPU and memory, but that's beyond my budget. Having the option of unlocking an extra core or the ability to overclock would be nice. I was very much on a budget when I bought the system so it fits the scenario I proposed above.

ritchan wrote: http://www.engadget.com/2010/09/18/intel-wants-to-charge-50-to-unlock-stuff-your-cpu-can-already-d/
Would've thought you guys would have a thread about this up and going already, what do you guys think?

There is a rumor that the only difference between a professional graphics card (NVidia Quadro, ATI FireGL) and
a consumer-card is the BIOS.

So, theoretically, you could upgrade a cheap Geforce-card to an expensive Quadro card just by
changing the BIOS.

Personally I am against these artificial upgrades. It just shows, that Intel could have sold the same features unlocked at the first place with a lower price. Either way it costs the same to manufacture, and actually the cheaper processor may cost more as parts of it have to be disabled.

Martin Steen wrote: So, theoretically, you could upgrade a cheap Geforce-card to an expensive Quadro card just by
changing the BIOS.

This worked for cards until at least GeForce 4, though I'm not sure if there might have been licensing issues if you softmodded a card.

theinonen wrote: Personally I am against these artificial upgrades. It just shows, that Intel could have sold the same features unlocked at the first place with a lower price. Either way it costs the same to manufacture, and actually the cheaper processor may cost more as parts of it have to be disabled.

But it's the same with software - you have all these Standard/Premium editions to be flexible - you buy features you need or can afford. Intel gives you the same - you might use it if you desire - if not, it won't cost you anything. It's nothing new - when buying networking hardware you often will be able to upgrade licenses to service addition workstations, even if the hardware was always capable of servicing them.

Judging by the comments on engadget people still think about computer hardware as a piece of metal instead of thinking in terms of processing power, time etc.

This practice bothers me, although I realize the benefits, and understand that logically it makes sense.

With software, there's the idea that I don't really own it - I simply paid for the license to use it. With hardware it's different. I own it. If I want to hack it, modify it, set it on fire - whatever - it's my prerogative because it's mine . And it's this (irrational, I'll admit) feeling that gets offended by what Intel is doing.

But whatever. It's not like I'm going to start buying AMD because of it.

bigD wrote: This practice bothers me, although I realize the benefits, and understand that logically it makes sense.

With software, there's the idea that I don't really own it - I simply paid for the license to use it. With hardware it's different. I own it. If I want to hack it, modify it, set it on fire - whatever - it's my prerogative because it's mine . And it's this (irrational, I'll admit) feeling that gets offended by what Intel is doing.

But whatever. It's not like I'm going to start buying AMD because of it. :)

it is still yours, you can smash it, etc... all you like.

In this case you just haven't figured out how to make the machine do something worthwhile on your own, which is programming. So, intel will rent you a sequence of operations, and access to arbitrary data that can help you in a specific way. it's no different.

so, if you really think you own all the ability to stimulate a piece of hardwares total possible state transitions, go for it. get that cpu upgrade. but, if you're not smart enough to do it, or lack the resources, intel to the rescue!


or better yet, wait or those smart chinese guys to do it for you.

skywriter wrote: or better yet, wait or those smart chinese guys to do it for you.

Your just trying to wake hamei up, aren't you

kshuff wrote:

skywriter wrote: or better yet, wait or those smart chinese guys to do it for you.

Your just trying to wake hamei up, aren't you ;)

i wish i could. but that ship has sailed :(

eMGee wrote: You mean that it enables, or incites , hackers?

I'd say it's more the possibility of doing it. The same sort of thing that gets people to wedge 600MHz R7ks in their O2s and wonder how you'd put a 250MHz R4k in an Indigo1. The difference is that now Intel will go after people using the DMCA, and chances are they'll be more careful to not make a "mistake" that can be "exploited" in the way that the MP Celeron hack was.

Well then. I'll look to AMD for a spiffy , powerful 64-bit server/render solution. Where these guys fail, AMD always cleaned up afterwards.
Oh and err.. epic FAIL Intel, epic FAIL.

Do you really have to use Blue fonts?

Seriously. I hate to be a dick, but it's just annoying.

mattst88 wrote: Do you really have to use Blue fonts?

Switch to italics , just for SkyWriter

bri3d wrote:

mattst88 wrote: Do you really have to use Blue fonts?

Switch to italics , just for SkyWriter

Oh god. That too.