Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Comments

top

Intel Wants To Charge $50 To Unlock Your CPU's Full Capabilities

JamesSharman Re:It's not bad idea in principle (832 comments)

It's an interesting argument. Exactly the same argument could be made on both sides for commercial server software that is locked to given number of users. The comparison is very similar and I'm sure there are many people who would make the same counter argument in that case.

An early poster pointed out that it's common for cpu manufactures to hard lock features out (either because of defect or purely to create bigger range of product), do you object to this as well?

You argument that every cost that goes along with locked cores is already paid however just doesn't fly for me. The R&D costs of chip development are astronomical and it's exactly this portion of it that Intel are offering a compromise over.

more than 4 years ago
top

Intel Wants To Charge $50 To Unlock Your CPU's Full Capabilities

JamesSharman It's not bad idea in principle (832 comments)

The physical difference between your uber cpu and a z80 is half a teaspoon of sand and some subtlety in the arrangement. You don't think you actually paying that much for the physical material in your processor are you? If a cpu manufacturer just sold their top cpu design at it's best configuration with the development costs spread evenly then they would find themselves priced out of the entry level market (sell far less chips and the top ones would end up being far more expensive). All the variations in cpu's are a way to spread those design costs around while not forcing people to pay for what they don't need. What's being proposed here is brilliant in principle, put the extra stuff on the chip (Which doesn't cost them much) and give people the upgrade opportunity, which should be far cheaper for all concerned than stamping out another piece of nearly identical silicon when the customer discovers the new generation of games aren't quite fast enough. My primary concern is that if this is a boot time driver update then Intel's "upgrade" only applies to whatever operating systems they deem fit to support.

more than 4 years ago
top

UK Government Plans 10-Year Database of Citizens' Travel

JamesSharman Re:Police State (289 comments)

We lost the right to remain silent some time ago.

more than 5 years ago
top

Heavy Japanese Support for Xbox 2

JamesSharman Re:Resistance is futile... (75 comments)

Surely if Microsoft ruled the console market and stopped developing and investing some new console maker would rise and teach them the error of there ways.

But it's just a theory, not like there is president or anything. ( cough... Atari, Nintendo, Sega)

more than 9 years ago

Submissions

JamesSharman hasn't submitted any stories.

Journals

JamesSharman has no journal entries.

Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?