[Ti] Intel shows off 64-bit dual core processors for mobile, desktop, and servers

[~flipper]

Hi Shawn,

Just a couple things:

Shawn King wrote:

>On 8/24/05 1:26 PM, "~flipper" <lord.flipper at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Intel also has a history of broken promises,
>
>And IBM doesn't?

Any citations on that? IBM didn't promise the 3 gig G5, Apple did.

>
>> and is in league with a company
>> that exemplifies the opposite of user 'ownership' and 'control' of boxes and
>> software.
>
>And IBM isn't?

IBM obviously sees protection of content copyright as a 'given', and has supported it. But there's a huge difference between that, and using Palladium, DRM, and the Trusted Computing chip, together, to, in effect allow any company, at any time to switch the terms of a 'sale' into a 'rental'. Things are bad enough as it is. Why do you suppose many large firms and governments have switched to Linux? And of the firms that haven't 'switched', a large percentage are still running pre-XP systems, precisely to avoid the extra, non-owned by the end user/'buyer' lock-in.

IBM has their TCPA chip, a version, non-proprietary in that the specs are available to anyone (meaning Linux can't be 'locked-out' as with Micosoft/Intels SCP chip.

IBM lets their chief engineers, specifically David Safford, go 'off the record' in opposing DRM, as envisioned by MS, on grounds of its being both easily-defeatable, and that it 'takes away existing rights of the consumer".

TCPA is user-controlled, to great extent, and allows one to have 'keys' to protect an entire system, or net from worms, viruses, and other 'bad' stuff. Nobody argues that it is a bad idea. It's the hardcooded, backed by a chipset, 'bundling' that already appears on the motherboard of Apple's 'loaners', that has some folks up in arms, or at least, alarmed.

There's a huge difference between a user-controlled protection from external software 'attack' (the IBM methodology), and remote control over everything, from boot process to what kind of monitor will playback user-owned media on previously-compatible hardware (The MS/Intel approach).

>
>> Meanwhile Apple announces a platform abandonment, what (?), 18 months before
>> the 'rollout'?
>
>12 at most.

I'm on a Powerbook that is one year old, so I couldn't care less if the set-top 'Mini' or the iMac has an incremental speed boost next year. So, barring Apple going with the freescale, or buying into the dual-core IBM chip (and the alti-vec support, etc)...it looks like a good 18 months. Not so hot for a company that normally sets the pace for cutting edge, powerful portability.

Is that enough reason to make grandiose (and empty) threats to go to uhuntu on a Dell? I should think not. I'm not crazy...hell, I'm not even angry (what's to be 'angry' about, at this stage, right?). But I am concerned.

>
>> That's not good business. And the simultaneous announcement
>> that they are banking on 'promises' and tossing in with the advocates of
>> reduced fair use, lack of true 'ownership', etc...
>
>And Apple doesn't do those things already? Look at the iTMS.

They have a right to protect their material that they are basically shepherding for the companies that actually own the material. I don't buy from iTunes, for my own reasons, but the minor ideological 'rift', for me, doesn't stop me from giving my daughter a gift card from the iTunes store. Besides, someone who really wants to circumvent the 'protections', can do it, anyway. I don't. The fact that the majors rob their 'for hire' artists doesn't morally justify robbing them.

Anyway, I'm not 'taking sides', only expressing concern. A friend at IBM sent me  Safford's paper, it was in 2002, so not easy to find. IBM writes white papers more often than even the compulsive types change socks. The paper I referred to was entitled, "Clarifying Misinformation on TCPA". Might be available on IBM's extensive research site. Before reading it, I was under the impression that the TCPA, DRM, and Palladium were all the same, with same objectives. I was wrong, plain and simple.

I have a Ti-Book, and a newer Aluminum 15 that I take better care of, in view of the uncertainties ahead. All I can do is reiterate that I hope the doomsayers are wrong, and that everything works out, in the end, for us, the buyers and users. It's a simple case of wait and see, with a bit of nail-biting (and moments of paranoia, a dash of 'who cares') tossed in for good measure.

When this thread blows over (and it will), I have more relevant questions for the list... until then...

All the best,
Brian S
aka ~flipper ( i suppose, in view of the replies here and there)