Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > Intel quietly adds DRM to new chips

Reply
Thread Tools

Intel quietly adds DRM to new chips

 
 
H.O.G
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-30-2005
On Tue, 31 May 2005 01:19:36 +1200, Bling-Bling
<(E-Mail Removed)> spoke these fine words:

>On Mon, 30 May 2005 20:12:13 +1200, H.O.G wrote:
>
>>>Yeah - then there are email servers (sendmail, postfix, etc), nntp
>>>servers, X-servers, database servers, and all manner of servers that are
>>>made with Open Source software - most of which are commonly implemented.
>>>

>> Look, I've got absolutely nothing against Linux - I use it myself (best
>> tool for the job in certain circumstances). However, there's absolutely no
>> benefit in making incorrect ascertions and implying they are fact.
>>
>> Linux machines do NOT make up 30% of the server market. Whilst it would be
>> great if that was the case, it is simply comical.

>
>Are you suggesting that MySQL, Sendmail, etc, servers only run on Linux?
>

Um, no. Are you?

And are you honestly suggesting that, in the real world, mySQL is used
for anything but as a "lite" DBMS to feed websites?

There is a heck of a lot more network servers, file servers, database
servers, etc around than web servers.

Apache is the most popular webserver. No doubt about it. We always
implement Apache when we don't need an integrated solution. However,
anyone who puts Linux in as standard network servers is a little
silly, unless they have good reason to (and, in a professional
environment, perceived cost is not a good reason).
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
FreedomChooser
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-30-2005
On Tue, 31 May 2005 01:19:36 +1200, Bling-Bling
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Mon, 30 May 2005 20:12:13 +1200, H.O.G wrote:
>
>>>Yeah - then there are email servers (sendmail, postfix, etc), nntp
>>>servers, X-servers, database servers, and all manner of servers that are
>>>made with Open Source software - most of which are commonly implemented.
>>>

>> Look, I've got absolutely nothing against Linux - I use it myself (best
>> tool for the job in certain circumstances). However, there's absolutely no
>> benefit in making incorrect ascertions and implying they are fact.
>>
>> Linux machines do NOT make up 30% of the server market. Whilst it would be
>> great if that was the case, it is simply comical.

>
>Are you suggesting that MySQL, Sendmail, etc, servers only run on Linux?


Where in any of your posts is there evidence that supports your claims
about numbers of Linux servers
LOL

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
thing
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-30-2005
H.O.G wrote:
> On Mon, 30 May 2005 19:29:12 +1200, Bling-Bling
> <(E-Mail Removed)> spoke these fine words:
>
>
>>On Mon, 30 May 2005 14:11:45 +1200, H.O.G wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Mon, 30 May 2005 09:38:13 +1200, thing <(E-Mail Removed)> spoke these
>>>fine words:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Now take a huge slice of the server market, ie around 30% is Linux
>>>>Server, doing hardware CPUs that wont run OSS means you are handing 30% +
>>>>to AMD and writing off Itanium, I dont think Intel can be that dumb.
>>>
>>>Whilst it would be great if 30% of the server market were Linux servers,
>>>that is simply not true.
>>>
>>>Or are you just looking at Web Servers? Remember that Web Servers only
>>>make up a small proportion of the actual server market.

>>
>>Yeah - then there are email servers (sendmail, postfix, etc), nntp
>>servers, X-servers, database servers, and all manner of servers that are
>>made with Open Source software - most of which are commonly implemented.
>>

>
> Look, I've got absolutely nothing against Linux - I use it myself
> (best tool for the job in certain circumstances). However, there's
> absolutely no benefit in making incorrect ascertions and implying they
> are fact.
>
> Linux machines do NOT make up 30% of the server market. Whilst it
> would be great if that was the case, it is simply comical.



I believe the new servers shipped is around 26~27%, then add a % for
servers converted to Linux...

30% could actually be quite low.

regards

thing





 
Reply With Quote
 
BrianM
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-30-2005
On Mon, 30 May 2005 19:45:36 +1200, FreedomChooser wrote:

> On Sun, 29 May 2005 21:34:19 +1200, -=rjh=- <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>Bling-Bling wrote:
>>> On Sun, 29 May 2005 17:23:37 +1200, Peter wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Microsoft and the entertainment industry's holy grail of controlling
>>>>>copyright through the motherboard has moved a step closer with Intel
>>>>>Corp. now embedding digital rights management within in its latest
>>>>>dual-core processor Pentium D and accompanying 945 chipset.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/artic...,121027,00.asp
>>>>
>>>>and at the same time, it can be used to force everyone to only use
>>>>Micro$oft software - what a happy coincidence. Palladium is coming at
>>>>last.
>>>
>>>
>>> Who in their right mind would pay money for hardware and proprietary
>>> closed-source software that were deliberately designed to prevent them
>>> from doing whatever they want to do with their computer?
>>>
>>> What better reason do you need for walking away from Micro$oft and
>>> Intel?
>>>

>>Realistically, apart from a few people who read newsgroups and Slashdot,
>>*most people won't care*. People will spend a lot of money on a
>>cellphone and they never consider DRM issues, or even how the pricing
>>model works (ie, a subscription subsidises the initial cost of the
>>phone). MS Office activation seems to have settled into being accepted
>>by the mainstream, and in fact is generally preferred despite there
>>being perfectly good alternatives, why should DRM be any different?
>>
>>Suppose this DRM allows MS to tie a "lite" windows for home use tightly
>>into the hardware they sell it on and control the installation of any
>>other software. Most people just see they are getting a reliable, secure
>>and very cheap computer from a good and trusted brand name, and they'll
>>buy them. If subsidised by some kind of subscription model, they'll even
>>change them as often as they change cellphones. They'll sell by the
>>millions. If MS and Intel can get people away from being focussed on
>>processor speed, they'll even be able to downgrade hardware without
>>anyone noticing, and make hardware even cheaper.
>>
>>How many people know what speed processor their cellphone, Xbox or Ipod
>>has in it? PCs will become just the same. Even now, people only have a
>>vague idea that bigger numbers are better.

>
> Well
> At least you have an idea by now that the nerds dont rule the world


Yes we do

;=)

grandad_the_geek
-----------------------------------------
to err is human, to moo is bovine
 
Reply With Quote
 
Chris Wilkinson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-31-2005
Hi there,

FreedomChooser wrote:
> On Sun, 29 May 2005 21:34:19 +1200, -=rjh=- <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>
> Well
> At least you have an idea by now that the nerds dont rule the world


Depends on what you call a 'nerd'...

Are you a nerd?...

--
Kind regards,

Chris Wilkinson, Brisbane, Australia.
Anyone wishing to email me directly can remove the obvious
spamblocker, and replace it with t p g <dot> c o m <dot> a u

Software patents are killing YOUR freedom, STOP THEM NOW!
http://swpat.ffii.org/ http://nosoftwarepatents.com/

 
Reply With Quote
 
H.O.G
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-31-2005
On Tue, 31 May 2005 06:27:10 +1200, thing <(E-Mail Removed)> spoke
these fine words:

>H.O.G wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 May 2005 19:29:12 +1200, Bling-Bling
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> spoke these fine words:
>>
>>
>>>On Mon, 30 May 2005 14:11:45 +1200, H.O.G wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 30 May 2005 09:38:13 +1200, thing <(E-Mail Removed)> spoke these
>>>>fine words:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Now take a huge slice of the server market, ie around 30% is Linux
>>>>>Server, doing hardware CPUs that wont run OSS means you are handing 30% +
>>>>>to AMD and writing off Itanium, I dont think Intel can be that dumb.
>>>>
>>>>Whilst it would be great if 30% of the server market were Linux servers,
>>>>that is simply not true.
>>>>
>>>>Or are you just looking at Web Servers? Remember that Web Servers only
>>>>make up a small proportion of the actual server market.
>>>
>>>Yeah - then there are email servers (sendmail, postfix, etc), nntp
>>>servers, X-servers, database servers, and all manner of servers that are
>>>made with Open Source software - most of which are commonly implemented.
>>>

>>
>> Look, I've got absolutely nothing against Linux - I use it myself
>> (best tool for the job in certain circumstances). However, there's
>> absolutely no benefit in making incorrect ascertions and implying they
>> are fact.
>>
>> Linux machines do NOT make up 30% of the server market. Whilst it
>> would be great if that was the case, it is simply comical.

>
>
>I believe the new servers shipped is around 26~27%, then add a % for
>servers converted to Linux...
>
>30% could actually be quite low.
>

Have you got any actual facts to back this up?

To be honest, I'd be surprised if they had hit the 5% mark.
 
Reply With Quote
 
AD.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-31-2005
On Mon, 30 May 2005 09:38:13 +1200, thing wrote:

> Maybe, or maybe not, at present Windows is not written/optimised for
> Itanium, only Linux is, so in effect virtually all Itanium's sold have
> Linux OSes, Intel desperately needs linux and OSS to keep their crappy
> "enterprise" chip alive.


You reckon?

I'd say Linux has a lower usage share on Itanium compared to x86 based
systems.

Windows on IA64 is pretty mature and scalable. The next biggest OS on IA64
would probably be HP-UX which is also very mature and scalable. Apart from
HPC stuff (compute clusters), I can't see why anyone would put Linux on
IA64. If anything the weird compiler optimisation required by IA64 would
put Linux at a disadvantage compared to Windows or HP-UX.

The kind of customers that buy into Itanium (eg keen on proprietary
lock in) aren't generally the type of customers that would buy into Linux
(not so keen on proprietary lock in). Typically Linux users strike me as
far more likely to go for an Opteron (as opposed to Itanium) than the rest
of the market.

I imagine Itanium customers to either have very specific niche
requirements, or to be pretty easily led by marketing.

--
Cheers
Anton

 
Reply With Quote
 
Andrew
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-31-2005
H.O.G wrote:
> On Tue, 31 May 2005 06:27:10 +1200, thing <(E-Mail Removed)> spoke
> these fine words:
>
>
>>H.O.G wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 30 May 2005 19:29:12 +1200, Bling-Bling
>>><(E-Mail Removed)> spoke these fine words:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 30 May 2005 14:11:45 +1200, H.O.G wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 30 May 2005 09:38:13 +1200, thing <(E-Mail Removed)> spoke these
>>>>>fine words:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Now take a huge slice of the server market, ie around 30% is Linux
>>>>>>Server, doing hardware CPUs that wont run OSS means you are handing 30% +
>>>>>>to AMD and writing off Itanium, I dont think Intel can be that dumb.
>>>>>
>>>>>Whilst it would be great if 30% of the server market were Linux servers,
>>>>>that is simply not true.
>>>>>
>>>>>Or are you just looking at Web Servers? Remember that Web Servers only
>>>>>make up a small proportion of the actual server market.
>>>>
>>>>Yeah - then there are email servers (sendmail, postfix, etc), nntp
>>>>servers, X-servers, database servers, and all manner of servers that are
>>>>made with Open Source software - most of which are commonly implemented.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Look, I've got absolutely nothing against Linux - I use it myself
>>>(best tool for the job in certain circumstances). However, there's
>>>absolutely no benefit in making incorrect ascertions and implying they
>>>are fact.
>>>
>>>Linux machines do NOT make up 30% of the server market. Whilst it
>>>would be great if that was the case, it is simply comical.

>>
>>
>>I believe the new servers shipped is around 26~27%, then add a % for
>>servers converted to Linux...
>>
>>30% could actually be quite low.
>>

>
> Have you got any actual facts to back this up?
>
> To be honest, I'd be surprised if they had hit the 5% mark.

3 years ago they were at about 16%
i doubt they would have gone down....
 
Reply With Quote
 
Impossible
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-31-2005
"Andrew" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> H.O.G wrote:
>> On Tue, 31 May 2005 06:27:10 +1200, thing <(E-Mail Removed)> spoke
>> these fine words:


>>>>
>>>>Look, I've got absolutely nothing against Linux - I use it myself
>>>>(best tool for the job in certain circumstances). However, there's
>>>>absolutely no benefit in making incorrect ascertions and implying
>>>>they
>>>>are fact.
>>>>
>>>>Linux machines do NOT make up 30% of the server market. Whilst it
>>>>would be great if that was the case, it is simply comical.
>>>
>>>
>>>I believe the new servers shipped is around 26~27%, then add a %
>>>for servers converted to Linux...
>>>
>>>30% could actually be quite low.
>>>

>>
>> Have you got any actual facts to back this up?
>>
>> To be honest, I'd be surprised if they had hit the 5% mark.


> 3 years ago they were at about 16%
> i doubt they would have gone down....


According to the latest (2005 Q1) IDC survey, Linux servers account
for 10.3% of total server revenue (an all-time high). No data provided
on unit sales by OS.

http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2005/May/1149066.htm



 
Reply With Quote
 
-=rjh=-
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-31-2005
Richard wrote:
> -=rjh=- wrote:
>
>> Suppose this DRM allows MS to tie a "lite" windows for home use
>> tightly into the hardware they sell it on and control the installation
>> of any other software. Most people just see they are getting a
>> reliable, secure and very cheap computer from a good and trusted brand
>> name, and they'll buy them. If subsidised by some kind of subscription
>> model, they'll even change them as often as they change cellphones.
>> They'll sell by the millions. If MS and Intel can get people away from
>> being focussed on processor speed, they'll even be able to downgrade
>> hardware without anyone noticing, and make hardware even cheaper.

>
>
> Cellphones havent being subsidised for a very long time. If anything,
> the local importers are making a killing on the markup on them, Look at
> the razr - $667 at parallel improted, and a grand from a vodafone shop
>

I see in a random flyer delivered today: Nokia 1100 + plan $99.00,
handset only $129.00.

In anycase, cellphones certainly were subsidised until the market matured.

MS is going to have to respond to initiatives like this:

http://argentina.indymedia.org/news/2005/05/295338.php

and since software is a major cost of a PC these days, and MS control
the software, the only way they are going to compete is to do the whole
lot themselves.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New Intel chip to include DRM G. Morgan Computer Support 2 01-03-2011 06:14 PM
Another Intel 915 scam? Some Intel chips don't support Windows 7 'XP mode' H1B Stings Computer Support 0 05-09-2009 09:08 AM
Especially for Woger? Karen?? AMD chips faster than Intel! Seagull NZ Computing 9 08-28-2004 07:43 AM
Intel P4 celeron chips tim Computer Support 11 12-08-2003 06:13 AM
Intel 3Ghz chips rfdjr1@optonline.net Computer Support 2 11-16-2003 04:31 PM



Advertisments