It's already been pointed out that the car analogies aren't helping... *>>** I think that most folks **who go to the electronics store or Wal-Mart are going to say "heck, if this **isn't the top of the line, I don't want it." *
You really think that people are going to Walmart for *Top Of The Line*products?!? Alrighty, then... -ASB On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 8:59 AM, John Aldrich <jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com>wrote: > I'm thinking it's more like you go to the local GM dealership and they sell > you a Cadillac, and you drive out off the lot with one of those "Kiddy" > Cadillacs and then the sales rep tells you, "Oh, for an additional $1500 > you > can upgrade to a 'real' car." Based on who this seems to be marketed to > (i.e. BestBuy Non-Geek users) I don't see the Best Buy sales associate > saying "Oh, yeah... buy this, and it'll do great...and if you want more > performance, I can sell you an 'upgrade' for $75." I think that most folks > who go to the electronics store or Wal-Mart are going to say "heck, if this > isn't the top of the line, I don't want it." I think this model is going to > end up backfiring and causing confusion. > > The info on the display model says "15 Ghz CPU" but it probably isn't going > to say "For an additional $75 you can get 17 Ghz." That would be confusing > to the end user, I think. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:scaes...@caesare.com] > Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 10:28 PM > To: NT System Admin Issues > Subject: RE: Intel wants to charge to unlock features already on your CPU > > How would you feel if the car lived up to it's performance specs disclosed > at the time it was sold to you? > > -sc > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: John Aldrich [mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 12:56 PM > > To: NT System Admin Issues > > Subject: RE: Intel wants to charge to unlock features already on your CPU > > > > Ok... back to the automotive example... you buy a car that's got a > governor > > on it, limiting it to 45 mph. You want to be able to drive 65 Mph. The > car > is > > completely capable of going that speed. The manufacturer has been selling > > the same *exact* car, without the governor for the same price as they are > > asking you to pay now, only now you have to pay to remove the governor. > > > > > > > > From: Andrew S. Baker [mailto:asbz...@gmail.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 12:34 PM > > To: NT System Admin Issues > > Subject: Re: Intel wants to charge to unlock features already on your CPU > > > > 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
