+100
*ASB* * * On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 1:08 PM, Jon Harris <jk.har...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 < > jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com> 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:jk.har...@gmail.com] >> 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 <asbz...@gmail.com> >> 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, <richardmccl...@aspca.org> 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" <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
