We Are There

Oh my! Look what ARMed processors/SoCs they’re putting into smartphones for 2016:

  • 8 to 10 cores,
  • a variety of clocks from 1gHz or so to 2.5gHz,
  • a variety of cores for different loads: A53, A57, and A72,
  • 14-20nm details, and
  • FinFETs

Every player has something wonderful in the pipe but MediaTek has a super-computer shipping today. i.e. It’s already out there being benchmarked and put into smartphones.

I’d thought the current technology (2015) was definitely good enough to replace Beast. It’s possible I will now have to wait a few months for this kind of stuff to come out on server-boards to replace Beast or this could drive down the prices for “old” systems that will do the job. The smartphone chips aren’t optimal for desktops unless you need your desktop to be a phone and can get by with <4gB RAM but they are very close. The server-boards are definitely useful to me and mine.

Are we there yet? Yes. This kind of technology makes the desk-loading PC of decades past almost obsolete. There are plenty of use-cases that don’t need huge local storage, displays, keyboard/mouse and processing power and the smartphone of a few years ago can do the jobs we do. The current wave of new products definitely can do whatever desktop machines did and will make nifty servers too, with a bit of a different configuration, more networking, RAM and storage. 2016 is the year that this hardware makes everything (almost) possible.

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.
This entry was posted in technology and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

67 Responses to We Are There

  1. DrLoser says:

    If it’s OK by you, Robert, btw, I shall henceforth refer to the denizens of this blog as “Flunkies.”

    As opposed to the meretricious and risible appellation of “slaves.”

    Flunkies, as defined by me, are FLOSS junkies. And to be entirely fair to the Flunkies, there’s plenty of junk to share.

  2. DrLoser says:

    In news that has for some reason escaped the omnivorous link-searching of Mr Pogson, btw, it appears that (contrary to Dougie’s bald assertion that Microsoft is irrelevant in the mobile sphere) the Surface 4 is off to a stonkingly good start.

    Note that I am picking a reference to The Register, which is not noted for M$ fanboi astro-turfing. Also note that I pick an article that is critical — read, honest — about the teething problems of the device.

    And yet, with all that, the market opened with Microsoft at 45%, Apple at 17%, and the rest — presumably Android — grubbing around at the bottom-feeding end of the market with razor-thin margins.

    I don’t see this as any sort of evidence that Microsoft is “irrelevant” in the sector, Dog-Brain.

  3. DrLoser says:

    Seriously??

    You are going to harp over a phone released in late 2011? LMAO…

    Harp? Well, not everybody has the luxury of being both unemployed and also cash-rich enough to swap out a perfectly functional mobile phone (for which they may have paid upwards of $200) every three years or so, Dougie.

    Why, the owner of this very blog — who is at least in receipt of one or more pensions — can’t even afford $99 for a kangaroo. Even though it’s the sort of small smart thin client thingie that he dreams about and lusts after.

    Actually I have a lot of sympathy for Robert’s aversion to opening his wallet in such cases. If one can make do with a repurposed bit of dumpster-dived ten year old kit as a thin client, I can see the attraction. The reason I do not act similarly is that I actually like beefed up real PCs, not thin clients … and even I am running a five year old machine (with a free OS upgrade from Windows 7 to Windows 10).

    But if we’re going to argue for holding on to obsolescent hardware even for complex use cases such as the PC — which everybody on this site does, all the time — then it’s hard not to make the argument a fortiori that something as trivial as a smart phone should have an equivalent life-span.

    Apparently Google, as Kurks points out with justification and copious detail, doesn’t buy this argument.

    But then as always Google is to be given a free pass. Why should FLOSS junkies care that Google doesn’t follow their rules?

  4. kurkosdr says:

    Hey, Dougie, what’s up with Linux’s great ability to empower one use its old hardware?

    It does, but only if it’s done in an unofficial, unsupported, CheerfulOverFunctionalityLoss(tm) manner. In other words, done only using third-party ROMs with quirks, bugs and outright broken hardware support sometimes. But if we are talking about official patches, which don’t require manual flashing of buggy ROMs and phone wiping, then it’s “you don’t get any patches after 3.5 years” (Android-Galaxy Nexus).

    Google are left with their ads, cheap smartphones, and cheap tablet-like portable devices.
    I wouldn’t call the Galaxies, Sony Xperia Z’s and LG G’s people buy cheap. In fact, after the Nexus 4 and maybe the Nexus 5, even Nexus devices stopped being remotely cheap. The problem with Android is that the software support is cheap.

    As regards tablets, Google never managed to evolve Android beyond the 7-incher sub-segment, with total lack of split-screen and a meh landscape support even in their own apps sometimes, so it’s not suprising that any hardware efforts trying to take android beyond the 7-incher sub-segment are failing, and other OS vendors are providing a better experience.

    But I would buy to an iPad if I bought a 10-incher. The whole deal with tablets is availability and a perfect experience, and Windows 10, with it’s forced reboots and 2-hour update marathons (like that big one a while ago) which you can’t postpone, and the occasional Intel driver glitch (just go to Intel’s own forums and see how many games have glitches and occasionally video problems) doesn’t scream neither availability nor perfect experience to me. Sure, on paper the Surfaces do more, but the iPad does those fewer things it does in a way that’s practically perfect.

  5. Deaf Spy says:

    Hey, Dougie, what’s up with Linux’s great ability to empower one use its old hardware? I mean, hey, wasn’t Linux / Android supposed to let you use your old hardware and not force you to spend money to upgrade your CPU and RAM every few years?

    Robert, what is your stance on this interesting phenomenon?

  6. Deaf Spy says:

    In the other news, “Android simply doesn’t offer a compelling tablet experience in any regard”
    http://www.anandtech.com/show/9972/the-google-pixel-c-review/10

    In comparison, Windows 8.1 and even 10 (after the November update) offer a rather sweet tablet experience. You have multi-tasking, well supported in the UI. Your old x86 apps are treated well in tablet mode, and you can even align them side-by-side with “modern” apps.

    Apple won the smartphones. Microsoft is winning the tablet, convertible and mini pc wars.

    Google are left with their ads, cheap smartphones, and cheap tablet-like portable devices.

  7. kurkosdr says:

    Hell, M$ use to only offer 18-month support for mobile and since version 8, they now offer 36-month support.

    Ahem… that’s for upgrades, not security patches.

  8. kurkosdr says:

    Considering the life expectancy of any smartphone is 2-3 years,

    The Samsung Galaxy S3 (not the S3 Neo) is the most-used device out there http://www.appbrain.com/stats/top-android-phones

    Launched in mid-2012

    Please tell me how you got that “2-3 years” number. It may be true for $140 throwaway phones, but not for phones like the Galaxy Nexus, or the S3, or anything not in the throaway price range.

    Anyway, thanks for the new TMs: TheDisposableFlagship(tm) and 2or3YearsOfServiceLifeForFlagships(tm).

    Okayy…

  9. dougman says:

    Considering the life expectancy of any smartphone is 2-3 years, expecting an update after its normal service life is asinine.

    Hell, M$ use to only offer 18-month support for mobile and since version 8, they now offer 36-month support. At the very minimum version 10 offers 24-month support’ seems M$ is tired of that extra 12-month support?

    So again, you’re blowing smoke and I find it humorous that you single out one old smartphone as to the basis and foundation of your argument that Android/Google/Linux are POS, not to be trusted, only idiots use them and et cetera.

  10. kurkosdr says:

    Comparing smartphones to PC’s? How about we compare trains to buses, or what about tractors to automobiles.

    SmartphonesDontNeedSecurityPatches(tm)

    Whatever, kiddo.

    Anyway, the point is, the Galaxy Nexus is a Nexus device receiving updates directly from Google and stopped receiving security patches just 3.5 years after launch. That’s the whole point. Android security patching is broken even for Nexus devices, and an OS that has broken security patching has broken security! Plain. And. Simple.

    No point in trying to weasel out of this.

  11. dougman says:

    Not only are you Deaf, you are blind!

  12. Deaf Spy says:

    What’s up Doguie? Trying to escape the argument, eh?

  13. Deaf Spy says:

    Fifi, quiet, please. You still need to explain your wrong ways about writeln(). And about duck-typing. And about OS design and architecture. And about OS memory management. And about Unicode.

  14. oiaohm says:

    kurkosdr yo IDIOT. Galaxy Nexus uses hardware video acceleration in the google and maker provide roms so one of the devices that was never effected by Stage-fright in provided so never need a patch for it. Now third party roms having trouble getting hardware decoding working then you required stagefright fix.

    Basically those running 5.0 and greater Android on a Galaxy Nexus using third party rom sites need to worry about that but that is not general consumers.

    Now if you had said some other fault you might have had a story.

    Somethings don’t get particular patches because in reality they are never effected by that problem.

  15. dougman says:

    Re: Question to the reader: Which company really cares about the security of their customers, old and new ones? And… which company sells $600 “flagships” whose security patch support expires in (less than) 4 years?

    Why engage anyone else, we’re having a discussion and now you want to drag someone else into the mix, for what? To what end? Are you so weak in your rhetorical skills that you have to engage other people to back yourself up?

    WEAK. BORING. LAME.

  16. dougman says:

    “LeChiffre is not your typical ransomware and works only if launched into execution manually. The hacker managed to infiltrate the networks of all companies, and then escalated his access to other computers via unprotected Remote Desktop ports.

    Once he gained access to a computer, the hacker would download the ransomware from his server and then double-click it to start the encryption process.”

    Starkly opposite of what KUKU states as the ONLY way Windows can become infected. “users download exe’s from untrustworthy sources despite security warnings not to, how is this MS’s fault. Because running unsigned exe’s is the ONLY way a Windows system with default security and updating settings can get infected…”

    https://blog.malwarebytes.org/intelligence/2016/01/draft-lechiffre-a-manually-run-ransomware/

  17. dougman says:

    Comparing smartphones to PC’s? How about we compare trains to buses, or what about tractors to automobiles. Your an idiot for even trying to compare them, and in doing so makes your story weak.

    Actually the best thing to do is compare smartphone to smartphone, say like Android device to a Windows mobile device, oh wait..a what? Ya, a Windows mobile device, something that barely even sells and no one ever wants.

    LOL…

  18. kurkosdr says:

    So, as per Dougie admission, $600 Nexus “flagships” have security patch support for only 4 years (stagefright got officialy patched in summer 2015 but the Galaxy Nexus didn’t receive the patch, so it’s actually less than 4 years), while anyone who bought a cheap $400-500 Vista PC in 2008 or so still has full security patch support.

    Question to the reader: Which company really cares about the security of their customers, old and new ones? And… which company sells $600 “flagships” whose security patch support expires in (less than) 4 years?

  19. dougman says:

    Seriously??

    You are going to harp over a phone released in late 2011? LMAO…

    “The Galaxy Nexus was unveiled jointly by Google and Samsung on 19 October 2011 in Hong Kong. It was released in Europe on 17 November 2011….By 29 October 2012, the Galaxy Nexus was no longer available for sale on the Google Play Store, following the release of its successor, the LG Nexus 4.”

    You bitch about a graphic I used and insinuate that it was only for XP, but cry woe is me on a phone sold from 2011 – 2012? WTF are you smoking??

    Google has stopped supporting older Nexus products, the same as M$ has done with older versions of the Windows OS. There is nothing to see here…*rolls eyes*

  20. kurkosdr says:

    In all sense “Stagefright” was never that serious to begin with. Google has already provided patches and for the older versions that do not have it, you can protect yourself doing the following.

    Missing the point dougie, as always. The point is, again: The Galaxy Nexus doesn’t get security patches, even though it’s a Nexus less than 4.5 years old and even though no OEMs are involved in the patch-sending process. Hence, Google doesn’t care about the security of Nexus users, otherwise they would have bothered sending a patch to Galaxy Nexus users.

    Got it? Good.

    But, anyway, let’s have a look at Stagefright:

    1. Disable the auto-retrieval of MMS, as the vulnerability relies on modified videos embedded in MMS messages.

    2. If you’re particularly worried about this issue, don’t open MMS messages from unknown numbers.

    Depending on whether the browser you use has been patched to use it’s own software-decoding libraries in stagefright-happy devices or not, just browsing into a website with the wrong multimedia file could also trigger it. But even if you use the right browser, you still have a risk because Android allows all files to download without asking and stagefright can be triggered by trying to play multimedia files stored in internal storage.

  21. dougman says:

    Silent? Obviously you’re missing a few cans in a six-pack.

  22. kurkosdr says:

    …aaand i made dougie go silent again…

  23. dougman says:

    Re: Also you didn’t mention how old the chart you linked is, which you based your “30% of windows systems have malware” smear.

    LOL…smear?? Fucking truth my dear. You’re trying to explain away the issue and saying that the image is old, is ignorant.

    Here is the original article: http://anti-virus-software-review.toptenreviews.com/how-infected-are-we.html

    HO.LEE.FUK…NEXUS.BE.DOOMED!

    In all sense “Stagefright” was never that serious to begin with. Google has already provided patches and for the older versions that do not have it, you can protect yourself doing the following.

    1. Disable the auto-retrieval of MMS, as the vulnerability relies on modified videos embedded in MMS messages. Some apps auto-retrieve MMS content before you open it – you don’t want that, because that can get your phone infected without you even knowing it.

    2. If you’re particularly worried about this issue, don’t open MMS messages from unknown numbers.

  24. kurkosdr says:

    running all files = running apk files

  25. kurkosdr says:

    . Google has always quickly developed a patch for Android and shared it with device manufacturers.

    Where. Is. The. Patch. For. The. Galaxy Nexus?

    Google can’t even be bothered to patch devices that are their own responsibility and no OEMs are involved, which means they do not care about security.

    Also, certificates can be revoked. And are.

    Also, running unsigned .exe files is like running all files from non trusted sources. BUT Windows at least gets patches for exploits, google won’t even be bother to patch some of their own nexus devices.

    Also you didn’t mention how old the chart you linked is, which you based your “30% of windows systems have malware” smear.

    any other truth-bending I can help with?

  26. dougman says:

    Re: Now go silent about that topic too, you probably don’t have an answer for it either.

    LOL…. shall we review this again?

    Google has always quickly developed a patch for Android and shared it with device manufacturers. However, it might take weeks for device makers to start releasing firmware updates that include the fix, but that’s not a huge problem since, according to Google’s assessment, the flaw doesn’t affect many Android devices to begin with.

    “If your phone is not listed below, you can still protect yourself from Stagefright by disabling auto-retrieve for MMS.”

    http://www.androidcentral.com/list-devices-stagefright-patches

    So it seems your making a much ado about nothing.

    Re: Because running unsigned exe’s is the ONLY way a Windows system can get infected.

    This still doesn’t change reality, as “signed” executables are still around and routinely infect Windows OS. This is going back a ways, but do recall that “Flame” malware that was signed by a rogue M$ certificate, or what about “Stuxnet” malware that was digitally signed with certificates stolen from semiconductor manufacturers Realtek and JMicron.

    So again, you are talking with hand and foot in mouth.

  27. Wizard Emeritus says:

    “Now go silent about that topic too, you probably don’t have an answer for it either.”

    Now, Now Mr. K., Dougie always has some snarky adolescent comeback up his sleeve. But at least he has more testicular fortitude than the blog owner, who has gone silent on this topic long before…

  28. kurkosdr says:

    Google does indeed push updates to it’s NEXUS devices.

    Then WHERE is the google-supplied patch for stagefright 1 and 2 for the Galaxy Nexus, a device launched less than 5 years ago, dear Dougie? Does Google think Nexuses are supposed to be disposed every 4 years or something?

    Now go silent about that topic, you probably don’t have an answer.

    —–
    How old is the graph you present? Let me guess… XP was still a big deal back when the graph was made, right? It’s been a long long time my friend since then.

    Also if users download exe’s from untrustworthy sources despite security warnings not to, how is this MS’s fault. Because running unsigned exe’s is the ONLY way a Windows system with default security and updating settings can get infected, IN CONTRAST to a Galaxy Nexus or lots of non-Nexus Androids, where all it takes is a stagefright2-crafted audio file. You are welcome again.

    Now go silent about that topic too, you probably don’t have an answer for it either.

  29. dougman says:

    Wow. Talking about being kicked in the nuts! That’s ok though, as Linux has your back and is always readily available for you to download and use.

    I recommend Linux Mint.

    “Microsoft makes this full-of-fail “clarification” to its Windows support policy. With zero notice, older versions of Windows lose their support status on the latest PC hardware—your downgrade rights have effectively been wrenched from your hands.

    The way it’s always been up until now is this: Enterprises could buy today’s hardware, but put their current image on it, only upgrading when it made sense. But with this move, Microsoft changes everything—and with no warning!”

    http://www.computerworld.com/article/3023533/microsoft-windows/microsoft-support-windows-10-new-hardware-itbwcw.html

    https://www.thurrott.com/podcasts/64015/what-the-tech-292-windows-10-skylake-fiasco

    http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2498097,00.asp

  30. Wizard Emeritus says:

    “But ahem…you do and constantly attempt, in vain I might add, offer up some BS rebuttal. ”

    This still doesn’t change reality, but whatever Dougie…

  31. dougman says:

    Re: And we are not obligated to pay any attention to your diatribe, Dougie.

    But ahem…you do and constantly attempt, in vain I might add, offer up some BS rebuttal.

    Your words are about as useful as the words on toilet paper, but again at least toilet paper serves a purpose doesn’t it?

  32. dougman says:

    Malware on Android is overhyped idiot, you’re more likely to contract Ebola or be struck by lightning than suffer an infection on your Android device.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/ga-damballa-idUSnBw225019a+100+BSW20150422

    In reality, only one percent of Android devices catch malware and when you count only devices that download exclusively from Google’s own Play store, the number drops to 0.15 percent. WHOAA!… thats a huge problem!

    https://static.googleusercontent.com/media/source.android.com/en/us/devices/tech/security/reports/Google_Android_Security_2014_Report_Final.pdf

    Now when you look at Windows and its clusterfuck, 32% of computers around the world are infected with viruses and malware.

    https://i.imgur.com/wKenXSE.jpg

    But what do you care, I bet neither of you use Android at all.

    Concerning Google and updates, Google does indeed push updates to it’s NEXUS devices, but the dam in the process are the OEM’s that had the phone’s built with along with the networks, not Google.

    Speak to them about this issue, in all honesty how many people actually see malware on their Android devices? Next to none..

    Eh.

  33. Wizard Emeritus says:

    “Please explain? I’m not obligated to explain anything to you…”

    And we are not obligated to pay any attention to your diatribe, Dougie.
    Besides, all the snarky comments don’t change The simple reality that at this point in time Android based technology has more serious security issues than the latest versions of windows.

  34. kurkosdr says:

    Funny you mention this as wasn’t it Google, yes Google that discovered exploitable flaws in Windows?

    For the USER, it doesn’t matter who discovered the vulns. Will Microsoft send patches to all users (who have not messed around with the security and update settings)? YES!

    Will Google do the same? NO!

    The fact Google knows about security (as you say in your post) but do not send patches to all the Android userbase means thet don’t care, which is worse than not knowing.

    cheers.

  35. dougman says:

    Please explain? I’m not obligated to explain anything to you, what’s the matter your Google prowess is lacking? Or is it perhaps BING is sucking these days?

    “Microsoft is more responsible than Google when it comes to security”….HAHAHA.

    That’s the funniest thing I have read this year to date! Funny you mention this as wasn’t it Google, yes Google that discovered exploitable flaws in Windows?

    http://googleprojectzero.blogspot.com/

    http://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-fumes-google-discloses-another-windows-security-flaw/

    Also since we are discussing flaws, let’s not overlook about “Hot Potato”.

    https://github.com/foxglovesec/Potato

  36. kurkosdr says:

    Please explain how such a malware infection happened (aka the entry point). Year 2006 or something? Yeah, it’s being a decade, that card got old. = Please explain how such a malware infection happened (aka the entry point). When it happened? Year 2006 or something? Yeah, it’s being a decade, that card got old.

    The point of my post is that Microsoft is more responsible than Google when it comes to security updates. They will update your device no matter if it was made by themselves, Samsung, HP, LG, Asus, DilbertCorp or whatever. That’s responsibility.

    Sure, sometimes MS distribute stuff that’s not security-related using the security channels, BUT, and this is the thing that makes them more responsible than Google, they distribute the security-related updates to all devices running the OS. Meanwhile, Google won’t even be bothered to patch their own Galaxy Nexus (released in November 2011). But no FOSSie mentions that. They are busy whining about Windows XP, an OS which was superseded in 2007, not getting patches.

  37. kurkosdr says:

    Countless years of malware and nefarious misgivings

    Lolol, I love it when FOSSies wax lyrical about Android while at the same time dare to play the security card on Windows. Windows is an OS which auto-patches itself by default, gives warnings when unsigned binaries are run and even auto-patches the plugins of it’s default browser like Flash Player.

    Meanwhile, Android phones have open security problems in many devices, stagefright and stagefright 2 (the one with crafted mp3 files) being the most dire. Those vulnerabilities combine like sodium and water with the fact some Android devices have an “Internet” app as a browser which cannot be updated using the Play Store and does have serious vulnerabilities in some versions (and some users use it anyway because Samsung wants to mess with Google and keep bunding the Internet app), or with Android’s habit of letting all the files to download without asking if you want to download that file.

    Anyway, answer the following question: What’s the last time you saw someone getting Windows malware without 1)messing around with security and update settings or 2) running unsigned exe’s from untrustworthy sources (which are like .apk files from untrustworthy sources). Please explain how such a malware infection happened (aka the entry point). Year 2006 or something? Yeah, it’s being a decade, that card got old.

  38. dougman says:

    and what BS do you infer, Wizard Emeritus…?

    I mean, it’s not like Robert makes up stuff, everyone knows Windows 10 stinks, no one enjoys using it and M$ phone offerings suck as well. Android and ChromeOS is set to merge and M$ has just Windows and Office, which coincidentally is the same damn thing M$ has been offering for the past twenty years!

    Countless years of malware and nefarious misgivings, with Bill and Ballmer laughing their asses off at the expense of the rest of the planet. So, color me skeptical that the future of M$ is rather dim.

  39. Wizard Emeritus says:

    “And your purpose is, Wizard Emeritus…?”

    To point out the BS that Robert Pogson posts when I deem it appropriate.

    And your purpose here is dougie..?

  40. Wizard Emeritus says:

    “Wizard Emeritus is definitely a troll.”

    And ram is…?

  41. ram says:

    Wizard Emeritus is definitely a troll.

  42. dougman says:

    “That is the purpose of a troll, to waste your time.”

    And your purpose is, Wizard Emeritus…?

  43. DrLoser says:

    And as so often recently Robert, I am compelled to direct you to the Kangaroo.

    A mere $99 for a Small Smart Thingie with a Docking Station, forsooth.

    If you had the slightest interest in exploring opportunities for “thin clients” in 2016, Robert, then you would acquire one of these, or at least a similar product, and test them.

    Regrettably, you have no such interest. You are not capable of testing them. And, even worse than this …

    … you want to prevent the rest of the world from using Intel or Microsoft products. Based purely on personal spite, as far as I can see.

    Shoddy, Robert, shoddy. You’re not going to convince the world this way. Try again.

  44. DrLoser says:

    DrLoser wrote, “There’s no possible way that you would spend money on their product.”

    I have a house filled with AMD and Via and Samsung CPUs [etc etc can I sell you a straw-man argument etc etc.]

    Nope, sorry, Robert, that is pitiful.

    You have no intention at all of even examining a product from Intel, let alone M$. Your heart is full of hate and your head is full of loosely-fitting gravel.

    You’ll find any excuse at all, no matter how specious, to avoid what roughly 90% of the IT world would consider “the bog standard option.”

    And with each and every pathetic evasion, Robert, you merely show yourself up as a pathetic miserabilist whose chosen concern is to pare off two or three dollars here or there.

    Now, I happen to believe that this is a sincere and very fine thing.

    Shave off that two or three dollars, Robert! Shave them! Spend them on more important things … whatever your little heart desires!

    Just don’t expect the rest of us to give a damn.

  45. Wizard Emeritus says:

    “That is the purpose of a troll, to waste your time.”

    And your purpose is, Dougie…?

  46. dougman says:

    Re: Quit wasting my time.

    That is the purpose of a troll, to waste your time.

  47. ram says:

    Intel certainly has that documentation download site screwed up. I think it is just an outright mistake. The license is supposed to be for software supplied to systems integrators and basically consists of agreeing the software is Intel’s property and that you won’t sue them if it doesn’t do what you want. Not unreasonable terms for semi-experimental developer software, but totally wrong for documentation.

    Very likely if you informed them about it they would fix it.

  48. DrLoser wrote, “There’s no possible way that you would spend money on their product.”

    I have a house filled with AMD and Via and Samsung CPUs. I was interested in the competitiveness of Intel’s products which was the challenge YOU made. Quit wasting my time.

  49. DrLoser says:

    No, it separates those whose time is precious and not to be wasted reading EULAs.

    Possibly, Pog. Possibly.

    But not what you were claiming here.

    There’s a very good reason why these people don’t give a rat’s ass about you, Robert.

    There’s no possible way that you would spend money on their product. Which was, basically, my point.

  50. Wizard Emeritus wrote, “” Instead it charges what the market will bear. ”
     
    And that is a problem Robert Pogson, because…?”

    Because it distorts the free market where goods and services are exchanged for the cost of production/replacement cost plus a small profit. This harms other potential suppliers and their employees who are excluded. This harms consumers/users because they have to pay too much for IT.

    ie. A monopolist takes over all the groceries in your area, within convenient driving distance. He immediately triples all prices in order to “get value” from his investment. In this case, volume of sales will plunge as people will shop less so the monopolist will have fewer employees on the payroll than the diverse market previously had. Consumers obviously will have to eat less or pay more. Producers will likely have to earn less either through reduced volumes and/or prices dictated by the only game in town. That’s what M$ and Intel did to IT for decades. It’s ending, thank Goodness.

  51. DrLoser wrote, “the EULA in question separates the Goats from the Sheep”.

    No, it separates those whose time is precious and not to be wasted reading EULAs. Imagine Walmart posting a guard on the PC aisle in their stores:
    “Guard: You many not look at these products without signing this agreement with Intel, M$, Lenovo and every Tom, Dick and Harry who make parts for PCs.
     
    Customer: [profanity removed – rp] “

    You see, that’s the difference between monopolists and competitive businesses. The competitors have to behave properly and respect the people with whom they deal. Monopolists just say “My way or the highway, Bub!”.

  52. DrLoser says:

    As always, I endeavor to help those less fortunate than myself. It is a calling, of sorts.

    Now then, Robert, if you are seriously considering this Intel motherboard for Beast Mark II, then I would suggest that you don’t waste your time with the EULA and, rather, read the reviews:

    Having many users / family members sharing a home connection. I needed a device to pack a little more punch than the average home router. I needed to throttle some users, block some sites, save one some bandwidth (squid proxy) but didn’t want to slap up an old power guzzling Pentium box lying around or dish out some extra cash for an embedded setup like an Alix board.

    Thanks to the other review by Tirso and the transaction with MCS (a seller on Amazon). This board has been great and quite happy with my decision to go with this device.

    Being able to slap this thing into a Mini ITX case with a PicoPSU and SSD drive with PFSense. (Shameless plug —> pfsense.org)
    This device puts the beatdown on my older Tomato/DD-WRT router while consuming only 16-17 Watts.
    Needless to say, I’m quite happy with this board and definitely recommend it to to others as a great alternative to those who want a little more ‘umph’ to their setup.

    The only con I could see is the above review as well. Mini PCIe should have been able to be able to play with mSata. I went for the SSD as an alternative but mSATA would have been fun to have played with.

    That one was, I think five stars from 2012! Sounds like a splendid option to replace Beast.

    Now then. I have $1500 lined up. I will build a server based on that — hardware and software.

    You, Robert? You won’t even be able to cobble up an equivalent.

    Go for it, kid!

  53. DrLoser says:

    For those out there who perhaps do not quite understand statistical qualifications:

    In this particular case, I am not accusing Robert Pogson of being a raving nutter.

    Taken in context, I am merely pointing out that, from the point of view of the Intel Marketing Department — you know, the ones issuing this “EULA from Hell” that has successfully dissuaded Robert from a purchase that he was never in a million years going to make in the first place …

    … From this, rather sad, purely data-driven, Marketroid analysis of potential customers based upon a statistical model, there are people out there who evidently believe that Robert is essentially self-qualified as a cheapskate raving nutter who is not worth even five seconds of attention by even a junior sales guy.

    Difficult to disagree with that assessment, Robert. Fairly obviously, the EULA in question separates the Goats from the Sheep.

  54. DrLoser says:

    I don’t think I’ve ever seen a business that so wanted to offend a potential customer.

    Now then, Robert, here’s the interesting thing. (Trust me, I am not using a metaphor or a simile or an analogy. This is how Marketing, aka selling to people, works.)

    You’d think that a Nigerian Prince Scam, for example, would be written in an entirely convincing way, wouldn’t you? I mean, the more people who are convinced, the more the scammer makes! Except that it doesn’t work that way.

    Think of it from the point of view of the scammer. You want true positive leads. You don’t have the time to deal with thousands of false positive leads. Now, interestingly, this leads you to a strategy that practically eliminates false positive leads.

    In the case of our Nigerian spammer, they will actually seed their marketing collateral on purpose with things like mis-spellings, minor insanities, and recommendations by Peter Dolding. Why? Weirdly, this turns out to eliminate 99% of false positives … although even more weirdly, there are individuals on this site who are still prepared to give Peter Dolding credence.

    The result of this is that the bloke offering the service or sale or whatever does not have to deal with some raving nutter who will only cause him grief.

    Sadly, Robert … in the case of this Intel EULA download thing you talk of …

    … It would seem, for good or ill, that Intel regard you as a raving nutter. Apparently their EULA filter is working rather well!

    Out of mild interest, and ignoring small details such as profit margins and so on …

    … What gargantuan Mountain O’Loons were you prepared to “invest” before this awful EULA thing cut the ground out from under your feet?

    I’d imagine that the top end of such an investment might be, ooh, CA$200?

    There’s a help-line for this sort of thing, Robert. It’s not Intel. It’s not even Technical.

    It’s the Samaritans.

  55. Wizard Emeritus says:

    ” Instead it charges what the market will bear. ”

    And that is a problem Robert Pogson, because…?

  56. Deaf Spy wrote, “This fails to meet the definition of a monopoly”.

    See Wikipedia: ” A competitive company has a perfectly elastic demand curve meaning that total revenue is proportional to output. Thus the total revenue curve for a competitive company is a ray with a slope equal to the market price. A competitive company can sell all the output it desires at the market price. For a monopoly to increase sales it must reduce price. Thus the total revenue curve for a monopoly is a parabola that begins at the origin and reaches a maximum value then continuously decreases until total revenue is again zero.”

    Intel has rarely competed on price. Instead it charges what the market will bear. When I was building ATX PCs, Intel processors usually cost ~$100 more than a similar AMD CPU. One rare exception was that AMD briefly held the market for AMD64 CPUs. Intel lost huge share of the mobile market and now is beginning to lose share of desktop/server markets, but it’s still a monopoly in desktop/server CPUs, especially if you define a CPU to be an Intel CPU.

  57. Deaf Spy says:

    When they had more than 50% of the desktop and server CPU markets which was from about 1980 until now.

    This fails to meet the definition of a monopoly, Robert.

  58. Deaf Spy wrote, “when exactly were Intel a monopolist?”

    When they had more than 50% of the desktop and server CPU markets which was from about 1980 until now. They went through a stage where they were ~90% by paying OEMs not to install AMD’s stuff.

  59. Deaf Spy says:

    That’s the kind of attitude that monopolists get

    Tell us, Robert, when exactly were Intel a monopolist? Ever since 80386 came out, there were alternative CPUs on sale, and AMD even produced the fastest 386 chip ever. (For the record, AMD had even an analogue for 286, but that never got quite popular.) In the P4 era, AMD even undisputedly beat the crap of P4 in terms of performance.

  60. Deaf Spy says:

    So Microsoft is pretty much screwed

    How that, when this has never been a green field for Microsoft to graze in?

  61. I followed one of the links and tried to download a file documenting one of the products. Intel insisted on me accepting a EULA from Hell before doing so. I declined. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a business that so wanted to offend a potential customer. That’s the kind of attitude that monopolists get, I guess.

  62. ram says:

    “…Atom is just Intel’s way of clinging to the new market for small cheap computers”

    Sold alone they are considered “end of life”:

    http://ark.intel.com/products/series/49428/Intel-Desktop-Boards-with-Intel-Atom-Processors

    As a Linux cluster, which includes a cluster on a chip, they have alot of grunt and a favorable “grunt/power consumption” ratio:

    http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/processors/xeon/xeon-phi-detail.html

    Of course, they are Linux based:

    http://www.intel.se/content/dam/www/public/us/en/documents/product-briefs/high-performance-xeon-phi-coprocessor-brief.pdf

    So Microsoft is pretty much screwed 😀

  63. DrLoser says:

    You are comparing apples to oranges. There is no comparable x86/amd64 CPU to some of the ARMed systems I’m examining. ARM is superior in performance/dollar and such, stuff I care about.

    Fair enough, Robert. I seem to have around about $1,500 to spend on hardware. I’m intending to build myself a decent server (I shall allocate a relevant chunk of money for a direct DNS connection, for which I shall account separately).

    I am quite prepared to insist on a degree of quality that will cost … simple things like a case that doesn’t have jagged edges and will not rip my fingernails off. Solid RAM. Stuff like that.

    And at the moment the only game in town is Intel. Therefore I shall buy an Intel motherboard.

    I imagine I can do a rather nice little comfortable job on this one, Robert. I’ll see what I can do about the iniquitous cost of the EULA for Microsoft Server 2012, but I think I can wangle that one in as well.

    Mano a mano, old man. You build your $1,500 bit of kit … I build mine.

    Fair challenge?

  64. Deaf Spy wrote, “I will be curious to see you spend more for an ARM than you could have should you had chosen x86.”

    You are comparing apples to oranges. There is no comparable x86/amd64 CPU to some of the ARMed systems I’m examining. ARM is superior in performance/dollar and such, stuff I care about. Even an Atom is just Intel’s way of clinging to the new market for small cheap computers. It’s unconvincing. ARM continues to be better priced for buyers every year while Intel has bottomed out.

  65. Deaf Spy says:

    A wonderful thing happens when software is not entangled with an EULA from Hell. You get to run it on anything.

    Well, the same goes for x86.

    At the end of the day, Robert, I will be curious to see you spend more for an ARM than you could have should you had chosen x86. But hey, don’t pay Intel tax, pay the higher ARM tax! 🙂

    It may work for you, Robert, and you will be fine. The rest 99% of the world will keep their desktops on x86.

  66. wizard emeritus wrote, “x86-64 is entrenched for a reason, Robert pogson. Of counse you could just dive into compiling your own linux distro and applications.” as if there were no applications available for ARM.

    Let’s see. There are ~1million Android/Linux apps, and thousands of GNU/Linux apps, so what am I missing?

    Debian GNU/Linux works for me. There are 45712 packages for ARM64 in Debian testing at the moment. That’s a few more than in AMD64, so it’s virtually the whole distribution. I only use a few packages outside the distro: latest LibreOffice, VLC, and FireFox. I’m OK. They are all in Debian.

    A wonderful thing happens when software is not entangled with an EULA from Hell. You get to run it on anything.

  67. wizard emeritus says:

    Almost only counts in horseshoes hand grenades and tactical nukes. Lets see when you actually get a phone let alone a motherboard that you are willing to spring for. And that does noteven take into account when a fully supported versions of your favorite foss applications ontop of a linux distribution that supports this supercomputer you salivate over would be available.

    x86-64 is entrenched for a reason, Robert pogson. Of counse you could just dive into compiling your own linux distro and applications.

    it shouldnt be too hard for an expert like you…

Leave a Reply