 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tor Olav Kristensen wrote:
> What I am wondering about is how many critical bugs
> these Intel Quad-Core Xeon processors have...
Few enough that nobody has noticed them yet. ;-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v3 wrote:
> Tor Olav Kristensen wrote:
>
>> What I am wondering about is how many critical bugs
>> these Intel Quad-Core Xeon processors have...
>
> Few enough that nobody has noticed them yet. ;-)
Or that Intel hasn't told anybody about them yet =)
Related articles:
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2007/06/28/core_2_duo_errata/
http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=118296441702631
--
Tor Olav
http://subcube.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> What I am wondering about is how many critical bugs
>>> these Intel Quad-Core Xeon processors have...
>> Few enough that nobody has noticed them yet. ;-)
>
> Or that Intel hasn't told anybody about them yet =)
...or that, yes. ;-)
> Related articles:
>
> http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2007/06/28/core_2_duo_errata/
"Part of security exploitation is being able to crash a system reliably."
Wow. "Crash a system reliably." Now *there* is a concept! :-D
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v3 wrote:
>>>> What I am wondering about is how many critical bugs
>>>> these Intel Quad-Core Xeon processors have...
>>> Few enough that nobody has noticed them yet. ;-)
>>
>> Or that Intel hasn't told anybody about them yet =)
>
> ...or that, yes. ;-)
>
>> Related articles:
>>
>> http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2007/06/28/core_2_duo_errata/
>
> "Part of security exploitation is being able to crash a system reliably."
>
> Wow. "Crash a system reliably." Now *there* is a concept! :-D
http://www.google.no/search?q=define:denial+of+service
=)
--
Tor Olav
http://subcube.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> "Part of security exploitation is being able to crash a system reliably."
>>
>> Wow. "Crash a system reliably." Now *there* is a concept! :-D
One of the bugs is a branching instruction that may, or may not
jump to the intended address +1. For the moment it's being
worked around in the compilers by putting a few NOP's at
spots that require such branching. Since there may be such
sets of NOP's in the code, a hacker might replace the NOP's
with a jump code of their own in order to execute their virus
code, then jump back to continue execution of the original
program. However, because of the bug itself, the hackers
jump instruction would fail with an invalid instruction quite
often, making this not really a security issue now, the security
issue will arise when the bug is fixed in hardware, but old
code still has the NOP's. I don't see the security aspect of
this being a big deal, if a hacker already can modify the code
then they'll be able to take over a thread anyways elsewhere.
The bigger deal is that if a compiler uses this instruction it'll be
3 times slower than intended because of the workaround.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Fredrik Eriksson <noo### [at] nowhere com> wrote:
> As I understand it, XP Home supports multiple cores but is limited to a
> single processor. XP Pro supports multiple cores and is limited to two
> processors.
How that makes any sense is anybody's guess.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
>> As I understand it, XP Home supports multiple cores but is limited to a
>> single processor. XP Pro supports multiple cores and is limited to two
>> processors.
>
> How that makes any sense is anybody's guess.
It makes perfect sense. M$ charge you more money this way. ;-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gail Shaw <initialsurname@sentech sa dot com> wrote:
> Isn't Vista Enterprise just the bulk-licence version? Asfaik, Vista Ultimate
> is the top for features.
The sad thing is that people are just content with these braindead greedy
limitations MS puts in their OS.
Basically what they do is: Disable support for multiple processors and
sell it at the regular price. Sell the version without the disabled features
at a higher price.
Of course this is marketing. However, it's sad that people are just content
with this.
Compare it to Apple: *One* OS, with full features. No marketing tricks.
When you buy it, you get everything, not a crippled version.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:46e3bca5@news.povray.org...
> Compare it to Apple: *One* OS, with full features. No marketing tricks.
> When you buy it, you get everything, not a crippled version.
So I'd use the same OS on a laptop, a desktop and a 36 processor 64 GB
memory server?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> The sad thing is that people are just content with these braindead greedy
> limitations MS puts in their OS.
> Basically what they do is: Disable support for multiple processors and
> sell it at the regular price. Sell the version without the disabled features
> at a higher price.
> Of course this is marketing. However, it's sad that people are just content
> with this.
Realistically, what ya gonna do about it? If the product you need
requires Windoze, you must pay whatever unreasonably price M$ demands of
you. And there is a *lot* of important software which won't work without
it. M$ made sure of that...
> Compare it to Apple: *One* OS, with full features. No marketing tricks.
> When you buy it, you get everything, not a crippled version.
*cough* One?
Mac OS X + Mac OS X Server?
I'll agree with you on the "crippled" point though; surely no sane
person could argue that it's more expensive to write an OS that handles
multiple seperate CPU dies when it already handles multiple cores.
(Handling multiple cores is pretty tricky, but once that's done...)
Similarly with memory capacity. And "maximum number of SMB connections".
(Oh, that's really cute!)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
