Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 19th Sep 2010 20:32 UTC, submitted by sawboss
Intel On a Windows Vista or Vindows 7 disk, all versions of the operating system are present, from Starter to Ultimate, and everything in between. So, if you want too upgrade to a more capable version of Windows down the road, all you need to do is pop the Windows disk in, let Windows Anytime Upgrade do its thing, and you're done. It seems like Intel is experimenting with a similar technology... For its processors.
Thread beginning with comment 441743
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Unpleasant experience?
by nt_jerkface on Mon 20th Sep 2010 04:58 UTC in reply to "RE: Unpleasant experience?"
nt_jerkface
Member since:
2009-08-26

Where is the scam? The consumer is being told what he is buying up front.

The level of power provided at the default level is more than adequate for typical use.

You may not like the idea of an artificial limitation but as with software it makes sense from an economical point of view.

They have been doing this with cpus and video cards for years. There are single core AMD cpus that can be unlocked into dual core cpus with a hack. It often makes economic sense to produce a single die and then place an artificial limitation on it to meet low-end demand without cutting into high-end margins. Sure it would be nice if NVIDIA made one high-end gpu and sold it to everyone for $50 but that would mean far less R&D for future products.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Unpleasant experience?
by Morgan on Mon 20th Sep 2010 05:14 in reply to "RE[2]: Unpleasant experience?"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

They have been doing this with cpus and video cards for years. There are single core AMD cpus that can be unlocked into dual core cpus with a hack. It often makes economic sense to produce a single die and then place an artificial limitation on it to meet low-end demand without cutting into high-end margins.


The problem with that argument is that the customer pays more up front for the full featured chip and reaps the benefits immediately. There is no bait-and-switch involving activation codes purchased at almost pure profit. If you're okay with lower performance, you pay less. If you want more performance, you pay more. Either way, you get what you paid for the first time around.

The scam is in the fact that the hardware is deliberately crippled so as to force the customer to pay $50 for what is essentially a string of text in order to unlock what they already paid for once. And, as others have pointed out, this scam is possibly limited to Windows based machines, and perhaps is even a pure software switch so that if you have to reinstall the OS you lose your performance and must shell out another $50 to get it back. I'm sorry, but I'd feel much more comfortable knowing that my hardware's raw performance is not a variable based on a highly volatile software switch.

To put it another way, it's being forced to pay twice (or more) for one physical purchase. It's dirty and underhanded. Didn't Intel follow the Sony debacle?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Unpleasant experience?
by WorknMan on Mon 20th Sep 2010 07:30 in reply to "RE[3]: Unpleasant experience?"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

The scam is in the fact that the hardware is deliberately crippled so as to force the customer to pay $50 for what is essentially a string of text in order to unlock what they already paid for once.


Well, this all depends on how it works. I mean, if the chip with all features unlocked is $100, but you can buy it crippled for $75 with an option to unlock the rest for $50 later on, then just buy it for $100 and be done with it.

In other words, I guess I don't have a problem with it, so long as there's an option to pay for it all up front and spend less than you would getting it piecemeal.

And, as others have pointed out, this scam is possibly limited to Windows based machines


Citation needed.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Unpleasant experience?
by Brendan on Mon 20th Sep 2010 12:59 in reply to "RE[3]: Unpleasant experience?"
Brendan Member since:
2005-11-16

Hi,

The scam is in the fact that the hardware is deliberately crippled so as to force the customer to pay $50 for what is essentially a string of text in order to unlock what they already paid for once. And, as others have pointed out, this scam is possibly limited to Windows based machines, and perhaps is even a pure software switch so that if you have to reinstall the OS you lose your performance and must shell out another $50 to get it back. I'm sorry, but I'd feel much more comfortable knowing that my hardware's raw performance is not a variable based on a highly volatile software switch.


I've been looking into it a little, and (at http://www.intel.com/technology/product/ius/howitworks.htm?iid=ius_... ) Intel say:

"The upgrade enables changes to the firmware (driven by the Intel Active Management Technology Management Engine in the chipset) that in turn modify the hardware."

From this I'd assume that changing/reinstalling the OS won't cause the "$50 unlock" to disappear. A firmware upgrade might (or might not) cause the "$50 unlock" to disappear (but I'm not too sure which firmware is modified - the normal/system firmware, or the Active Management Technology Management Engine's firmware).

I'm also unsure if only Windows can be used to unlock, or if you can use any OS to unlock. Intel say (same web page) that it's "architected to be highly flexible and should be compatible with most third-party management consoles"; but I'm not familiar with Active Management Technology and I'm not sure which management consoles exist for which OS/s; and to be perfectly honest, every time I try to unravel what "Active Management Technology" actually is I drown under a sea of seemingly unrelated buzz-words.

- Brendan

Reply Parent Score: 2

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26


The scam is in the fact that the hardware is deliberately crippled so as to force the customer to pay $50 for what is essentially a string of text in order to unlock what they already paid for once.


I bought a cpu before that was deliberately clocked low by Intel to encourage sales of high-end models. Was I scammed?

Early AMD triple core cpus were actually quad cores with the L3 cache and one core disabled. Was this a scam?
http://www.cpu-world.com/news_2010/2010041501_Unlocking_fourth_core...

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Unpleasant experience?
by lemur2 on Mon 20th Sep 2010 06:35 in reply to "RE[2]: Unpleasant experience?"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

You may not like the idea of an artificial limitation but as with software it makes sense from an economical point of view.


This is very much dependent on your viewpoint.

Buisness interests will very much like to push the viewpoint that increased sales figures is better for everyone ... they will say "better profit, better returns on investment, more jobs, etc, etc". From this view derives the notion that the price should be set at "the highest price that the market is prepared to pay".

Everyone else, which is the vast majority of people, would naturally have the opposite point of view. It is better for them to lower their costs. From this view derives concepts such as "value for money".

Being a person myself who does not make or sell silicon chips, but rather one who simply uses them, let me tell you that from my point of view (which aligns with the vast majority of people who are also in the category of not being makers of chips) that the second concept, one of "value for money", makes vastly more economic sense than the concept of buying something priced at "the highest price that the market is prepared to pay".

This is especially the case where there is a tendency in a market to believe (against the actual facts) that only one supplier can deliver. For example, there is a belief in this market that only Intel can deliver on "binary compatibility", when in actual fact there are other options from totally different manufacturers who don't deliver binary compatibility at all, but who still deliver far better value for money because the customer didn't actually need binary compatibility.

Edited 2010-09-20 06:36 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

bolomkxxviii Member since:
2006-05-19

"Where is the scam? The consumer is being told what he is buying up front."

Like most PC buyers have any idea about specs? Wait until the Marketing department gets hold of this. The "upgrade" feature will be buried or left out of the advertising. Once they get the PC home and open the box they will be confronted with a friendly little note saying "Get the most out of your PC for only $50!". This is basically only hiding the true cost of the machine in order to have a competitive advantage at time of sale.

Reply Parent Score: 3