Ron Parker wrote in message <36b99e5e.0@news.povray.org>...
>The concern is that some software manufacturers and e-commerce
>sites will require you to have a CPUID to use their software
>or site (though what that does to people with AMD processors or
>P-IIs I don't know) and that someone who uses such software or
>sites regularly will be forced to leave the ID on whether they
>want to or not.
>

It is somewhat doubtful if many companies choose to do so at all, both
because they'd lose the customers using AMD-s, Cyrixes, Macs etc. All those
together constitute quite a large part of the market and I have not heard
that they're planning to incorporate CPUID. Also, the huge unpopularity of
the feature may prompt such companies to distance themselves from CPUID.

>And I didn't hear too many people complaining about overclocked
>CPUs.  It seems Intel would be the one hurt the most by that,
>except in the cases where a CPU is overclocked at the factory.
>That case is easy enough to solve by going back to stamping the
>intended clock frequency on the case, as they did with 486en.
>

...You mean stamp sth. like "i486-66MHz" on the chip? This was overcome by
"chiselling" off a thin layer together with the stamp and applying a new
stamp. The only difference was a slightly shinyer surface.
Intel is also said to be considering "bus locking" (i.e. the chip will
operate only on a specified motherboard frequency). This would essentially
rule out overclocking - even at home and for your own use. That would really
SUCK, since I consider it to be my inalienable right to overclock
(burn/shoot/electrocute/shower/whatever) my personal computer. Even
multiplier locking pisses me off. But Intel profits yet some more...
BTW, to Markus, I know pretty well what I want and this ID code was never on
my wishlist. And I've never said the opposite. Who's this "everybody" you're
referring to? Certainly nobody I know.

Aaahhhh, sorry about the rambling. Needed to vent here.

Margus

Post a reply to this message