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" <asbz...@gmail.com> 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 <jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com > > 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:asbz...@gmail.com] > 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 > <jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com> 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:bem...@pittcountync.gov] > 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:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com] > 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:jonathan.l...@gmail.com] > 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 > <jra...@eaglemds.com> 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 > jra...@eaglemds.com > www.eaglemds.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ben Scott [mailto:mailvor...@gmail.com] > 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 <k...@adopenstatic.com> 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 listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com > 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 listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com > 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 listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com > 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 listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
