Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Scumbria who wrote (47096)	1/23/1999 1:58:00 PM
From: Jim McMannis	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571365

Is this ID thing already programmed into the P-III chip? Can it easily be completely removed at this point or would it cause a delay? What is a "Clipper II"? Jim

To: Scumbria who wrote (47096)	1/23/1999 6:11:00 PM
From: Elmer	Respond to of 1571365

Re: "When Intel came up with slot 1, the main idea was to create a proprietary bus which would force AMD out of the x86 business. " This is nonsense. AMD was already forced out of using Intel's P6 bus interface and protocol when Intel released the PPro and socket8 over a year earlier. Get your facts straight. EP

To: Scumbria who wrote (47096)	1/23/1999 6:36:00 PM
From: Paul Engel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571365

Scumby - Re: " When Intel came up with slot 1, the main idea was to create a proprietary bus which would force AMD out of the x86 business. " You are really smoking dope today ! AMD thought so highly of the Slot 1 concept that they copied the basic ideas and incorporated the EV6/Alpha bus into AMD's PROPRIETARY Slot A CPU interface. So not only are you completely wrong about the technological advantages of Intel's Slot 1 concept, you are completely wrong as to its commercial value. Why aren't WHINING AWAY about the K7 and the fact that current AMD owners will be "locked out" of an upgrade path ? Paul

To: Scumbria who wrote (47096)	1/24/1999 9:35:00 AM
From: gnuman	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1571365

Scumbria, Intel ID questions? "Intel announced its technology earlier this week at a security conference in San Jose, Calif. Its new Pentium III chip, to be sold early this year, will by default transmit its unique serial number internally and across the Internet to help verify the identity of users...... Intel said the technology is needed to encourage trust in online sales and also can be used to prevent piracy by preventing a single copy of a software program from being installed on several machines." Looks like the ISV's, (MSFT?), had a hand in developing this feature. The software piracy issue raises a number of questions. PLATFORM INDEPENDENCE: Considering the 100's of millions of legacy systems, it's unreasonable to believe an ISV would develop software dedicated only to PIII. Would the new software search for a PIII before invoking the ID function? If so, it would seem to be many years, (conversion of legacy systems to PIII), before this has any major impact. PIII UPGRADE If a PIII owner has an installed base of ID specific software, how does he port the software to a new PIII system? Will there need to be a database of ID registrations? (Intel claims not). If there is a method of accomplishing this, how do you prevent piracy to other PIII based machines? MULTIPLE PC'S It's not unusual for a home consumer to own more than one PC. In the past it has been general practice to install new software on each of the consumers PC's. Is this practice illegal? If not, how is it accomplished under the new initiative? If it is illegal, (but normal practice), what impact will it have on the sale of PIII based systems? And there are internet issues. Since Intel claims, ....will by default transmit its unique serial number internally and across the Internet to help verify the identity of users...... it seems safe to assume many individuals will not want this feature. While contending the feature can be turned off, it needs to be done on every boot-up, and the PC challenged may be wary. FUD AND AMD Given the Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt created by the above questions, wouldn't this actually be in AMD's favor? I've tried to find the Intel press release on this issue they were supposed to publish Friday. Does anyone have a source, or more data on this subject?