Quad core or i7? And homebuilt PC forums

[Rod Speed]

David Brown wrote

YKhan wrote

I hadn't thought of this use of "trusted" computing for Dell, but it's
certainly a possibility. However, Dell actually provide a very wide
range of OS's at the moment - pretty much all current versions of
Windows, in multiple languages, along with Linux on some laptops and desktops, a variety of Linuxes on servers, and
are also happy to
supply systems without any OS (at least to corporate customers). It
would be a challenge to keep this flexibility and lock it down at the same time.

And the much more fundamental point is that an operation that supports
more OSs than most do, isnt going to be locking anything down anyway.

There are certainly niches where that /would/ be useful (from the manufacturer's viewpoint, not the customer's) -
PC-based media centres for example.

Why would that be useful from the manufacturer's point of view ?

The reason I think Microsoft /would/ care is that it could open the way to forcing users to buy Windows with their
systems, and have a stronger lock on what version of Windows they run. It would make it much harder to buy a machine
with a cheapo "Home Basic" installation, and upgrade it with a "borrowed" "Ultimate" version,

But its in their interest for it to be possible for the user
to upgrade the OS version to a better legal version.

It if wasnt they wouldnt sell upgrades.

it would be harder to buy non-windows machines,

No it wouldnt.

and it would be harder for manufacturers in certain countries to pre-install the same Windows license on all their
machines.

Like hell it would be. They can circumvent anything in the
bios just as easily as they circumvent anything in the OS.

However, even the "big business can do no wrong" American legal system

Thats a mindlessly silly claim.

would frown upon deals between MS and motherboard/EFI BIOS suppliers that restricted systems to "approved" OS's only.
The trick for them would be to convince the RIAA and MPAA that this is the only way to ensure that no one "steals"
media any more.

And that wouldnt even be possible.

EFI is, I believe, historically related to OpenBoot. OpenBoot is/was
popular on a number of different platforms (SPARC, PPC, MIPS, etc.),
but I don't think it ever caught on in the x86 world. The x86 world
has always been hampered by compatibility with previous generations,
right back to the initial design flaws of the 8086 and the original PC,

Thats just plain wrong, most obviously with OS/2.

and thus even modern machines normally have a traditional BIOS
(or an EFI BIOS which can emulated traditional BIOS functions). Part of this is due to other platforms being mainly
used in the *nix
world, where re-compilation of software to run on a new platform is standard practice, while in the x86 world a modern
machine is still expected to be able to run unmodified 16-bit DOS binaries.

That last is just plain wrong and hasnt been true for a long time now.

 

[Rod Speed]

David Brown wrote

Andrew Hamilton wrote

With modern drives, you have to do something odd in your partitioning
setup to end up with a C drive that will not cover all your needs for OS and software. If you are happy with putting
large data on a different drive, it's hard to see why you would need to replace the C drive.

The most obvious reason to go that route is because it simplifys things.

The EFI can run many types of internal software, including custom
bootloaders. It's an easy task to write a bootloader that will only
load OS's that match a particular digital signature, or that don't
contain the string "Linux".

And trivial to replace that boot loader.

 

[Andrew Hamilton]

Out of curiosity, what OS are you thinking of installing?

Initially, Windows 7 Pro or Ultimate. Maybe even two copies - one for
production use and one for experimental stuff and trial installs. But
for "scratching around," probably a NFR Server 2008 that I friend can
pass along to me, maybe even a Linux or two.

If I really want to go crazy, there is always the Hercules emulator
for System/360. Then I would need a partition for something like MVS.

I don't know, and the ASUS website gave no obvious answers (presumably
you wouldn't be asking if it did ...). But again, as long as your boot

No it didn't. I appreciate and respect the time of the people who
respond to my questions, so I don't post stuff that I can find easily
on the ASUS site.

drive isn't over 2 TB, then it probably doesn't matter.

For now, it doesn't matter. Hitachi just announced a 5-platter 2 TB
Deskstar, with "relaxed" bit densities, at list price $270 (IIRC). I'm
sure that in about a year, there will be the 3-platter replacement,
and in about 18 months, it will be under $100.

So it's easy enough to imagine a 4 TB drive being announced in about 2
years.

-AH

 

[Yousuf Khan]

However, even the "big business can do no wrong" American legal system
would frown upon deals between MS and motherboard/EFI BIOS suppliers
that restricted systems to "approved" OS's only. The trick for them
would be to convince the RIAA and MPAA that this is the only way to
ensure that no one "steals" media any more.

Actually, I think Microsoft has already pitched this, and the media
mafia is buying. That's what Vista was all about, anything they could do
to make Big Brother happy. However, it looks like it backfired on them,
and that's why Vista was the one OS the least uptake of any by
Microsoft. The only people I know that have Vista are the ones who
bought a computer with it already pre-installed. Windows 7 is an attempt
by Microsoft to relax some of the restrictions of Vista.

EFI is, I believe, historically related to OpenBoot. OpenBoot is/was
popular on a number of different platforms (SPARC, PPC, MIPS, etc.), but
I don't think it ever caught on in the x86 world. The x86 world has
always been hampered by compatibility with previous generations, right
back to the initial design flaws of the 8086 and the original PC, and
thus even modern machines normally have a traditional BIOS (or an EFI
BIOS which can emulated traditional BIOS functions). Part of this is
due to other platforms being mainly used in the *nix world, where
re-compilation of software to run on a new platform is standard
practice, while in the x86 world a modern machine is still expected to
be able to run unmodified 16-bit DOS binaries.

Un-recompilable software is the original form of trying to lock people
in. Today they are trying the same thing with "Trusted Computing". But
even in the Unix world, you see that they have to maintain backward
compatibility of their processors. All 64-bit Sparcs (Sparcv9) have to
maintain backware compatibility with 32-bit versions (Sparcv8), for
example.

In the x86 world, they maintained immaculate compatibility between
16-bit and 32-bit x86. Now with 64-bit x86, they maintain immaculate
compatibility with 32-bit x86, but only staged compatibility with
16-bit; you have to enter a certain processor state to obtain 16-bit
compatibility, but then you lose 64-bit compatibility.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Rod Speed]

Yousuf Khan wrote

David Brown wrote

Actually, I think Microsoft has already pitched this, and the media mafia is buying. That's what Vista was all about,
anything they could do to make Big Brother happy.

Nope, it works fine as a media PC.

However, it looks like it backfired on them, and that's why Vista was the one OS the least uptake of any by Microsoft.
The only people I know that have Vista are the ones who
bought a computer with it already pre-installed.

That was mostly true of XP too when you allow for the fact that few
ever install anything other than what came with the system anymore.

Windows 7 is an attempt by Microsoft to relax some of the restrictions of Vista.

Un-recompilable software is the original form of trying to lock people
in. Today they are trying the same thing with "Trusted Computing". But
even in the Unix world, you see that they have to maintain backward
compatibility of their processors. All 64-bit Sparcs (Sparcv9) have to
maintain backware compatibility with 32-bit versions (Sparcv8), for example.

In the x86 world, they maintained immaculate compatibility between
16-bit and 32-bit x86. Now with 64-bit x86, they maintain immaculate
compatibility with 32-bit x86, but only staged compatibility with 16-bit; you have to enter a certain processor state
to obtain 16-bit
compatibility, but then you lose 64-bit compatibility.

Thats not so true at the OS and driver level tho. Nothing like immaculate.