Jump to content



Photo

Sony Raids Hacker's Home; Hacker Shares All Known HV Info


  • Please log in to reply
132 replies to this topic

#121 iamawesomewicked

iamawesomewicked

    Neowinian Senior

  • 6,161 posts
  • Joined: 01-September 09

Posted 28 February 2011 - 20:36

I'm guessing none of you would have an issue then if Microsoft and Intel/AMD teamed up to lock out all non-Windows operating systems from the x86 platform?

All 3rd party x86 software must now be approved by Steve Ballmer (For a small fee). Kiss goodbye to your 3rd party browsers guys, IE6 for everyone!


Your analogy is fail for one, because if they locked out x86 then someone would make something else and then they'd have other OS's to run on that and then Windows would lose market share and then it would die.

They would never do it.


#122 Athernar

Athernar

    ?

  • 3,022 posts
  • Joined: 15-December 04

Posted 28 February 2011 - 20:38

Right. I'll be waiting for those results.


Nuh uh! The burden of proof is on YOU!

That wasn't my logic nor my point. This is very extreme that you're going to compare an open computing platform with proprietary hardware connecting to a closed network.

My point was that Sony had every right to protect its network from people looking to exploit it. They didn't brick everyone's console that was running Linux. They released an update to disable the OtherOS. If you were using your PS3 primarily for OtherOS, you did not have to update. You'd just not be able to connect to their closed network.

What was your point again?


Open computing platform? Hahaha. This might come as a surprise to you, but the PC platform is just as proprietary as the PS3; ever heard of the x86 instruction set? It's Intel's property. ;)

Intel and Microsoft should lock down the PC and only allow approved code to run. Doing so would impede piracy and hacking; according to you, this is all the justification needed.

Your analogy is fail for one, because if they locked out x86 then someone would make something else and then they'd have other OS's to run on that and then Windows would lose market share and then it would die.

They would never do it.


"someone would make something else"

Yes, I'm sure. :rofl:

#123 HawkMan

HawkMan

    Neowinian Senior

  • 21,938 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 04
  • Location: Norway
  • Phone: Noka Lumia 1020

Posted 28 February 2011 - 20:54

Actually, OtherOS IS a consideration in all this. I was going to get my son a PS3 so that he had a decent console in his room AND a desktop computer he could use for schoolwork etc. Then Sony took OtherOS away and I changed my mind about getting him one.



sorry, but those 3 are not compatible. The PS3 is not and will NEVER be, a decent desktop OS. The processor isn't very good at the task, and it has to little memory.

#124 NeoTrunks

NeoTrunks

    King-ding-A-Ling

  • 2,285 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 01

Posted 28 February 2011 - 20:59

Nuh uh! The burden of proof is on YOU!


Good to see this little game is fun to you.

Open computing platform? Hahaha. This might come as a surprise to you, but the PC platform is just as proprietary as the PS3; ever heard of the x86 instruction set? It's Intel's property. ;)

Intel and Microsoft should lock down the PC and only allow approved code to run. Doing so would impede piracy and hacking; according to you, this is all the justification needed.


They designed it, but they have not been keeping it to themselves. Other companies have added to x86, in fact. x86-64 comes to mind. AMD created that.

#125 Athernar

Athernar

    ?

  • 3,022 posts
  • Joined: 15-December 04

Posted 28 February 2011 - 21:09

They designed it, but they have not been keeping it to themselves. Other companies have added to x86, in fact. x86-64 comes to mind. AMD created that.


AMD hold a license to x86 granted to them by Intel at a time where AMD only essentially made cheap replicas, AMD's success with the Athlon 64 gave them enough leeway to force Intel to take up AMD64 over IA-64. Anyone else? Nah, you're screwed.

If the PC platform was really as open as you say it is, then nVidia would of entered the CPU market a long time ago now. So yes, they have been keeping it to themselves; otherwise x86 would be an open standard.

#126 NeoTrunks

NeoTrunks

    King-ding-A-Ling

  • 2,285 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 01

Posted 28 February 2011 - 21:15

Anyone else? Nah, you're screwed.


IBM/Cyrix come to mind from back in the day. I am sure VIA is also making their own x86 based chipsets. There are probably countless others that you or I haven't even heard of.

#127 Athernar

Athernar

    ?

  • 3,022 posts
  • Joined: 15-December 04

Posted 28 February 2011 - 21:30

IBM/Cyrix come to mind from back in the day. I am sure VIA is also making their own x86 based chipsets. There are probably countless others that you or I haven't even heard of.


And where are their competing product lines? How many x86 licenses has Intel negotiated in the last few years? Fact of the matter is, x86 isn't open by any stretch of the word; if it was, we would have at least three different brands of CPU to choose from when we spec out our new PCs.

#128 HawkMan

HawkMan

    Neowinian Senior

  • 21,938 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 04
  • Location: Norway
  • Phone: Noka Lumia 1020

Posted 28 February 2011 - 21:32

AMD hold a license to x86 granted to them by Intel at a time where AMD only essentially made cheap replicas, AMD's success with the Athlon 64 gave them enough leeway to force Intel to take up AMD64 over IA-64. Anyone else? Nah, you're screwed.

If the PC platform was really as open as you say it is, then nVidia would of entered the CPU market a long time ago now. So yes, they have been keeping it to themselves; otherwise x86 would be an open standard.



you need to read up on your actual CPU history. you have some (very few) facts right, and some very wrong and a lot of factoids.

Intel and AMD had a cross licensing deal. intel had to give AMD all their x86 licenses (simplifed, but basically). this is also the only reason why intel is using A64(x64). because it was a cross licensing, intel had to share all their licenses and AMD had to share all theirs.

and no, not everyone can just make x86 chipsets, they need to be licensed, which isn't entirely straight forward, especially since x86 isn't just x86. This is also why all other x86 implementations sucks. they are weak copies and they miss a lot of what modern intel and AMD cpu's have added to the x86 instruction set.

#129 NeoTrunks

NeoTrunks

    King-ding-A-Ling

  • 2,285 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 01

Posted 28 February 2011 - 21:45

And where are their competing product lines? How many x86 licenses has Intel negotiated in the last few years? Fact of the matter is, x86 isn't open by any stretch of the word; if it was, we would have at least three different brands of CPU to choose from when we spec out our new PCs.


http://www.via.com.t...cts/processors/

IBM is out of the consumer sector now, as far as I know.

It's open enough that if you wanted to develop your own x86 based processor, it wouldn't be impossible to do. You're arguing semantics.

This is also far off topic.

#130 Athernar

Athernar

    ?

  • 3,022 posts
  • Joined: 15-December 04

Posted 28 February 2011 - 21:51

you need to read up on your actual CPU history. you have some (very few) facts right, and some very wrong and a lot of factoids.

Intel and AMD had a cross licensing deal. intel had to give AMD all their x86 licenses (simplifed, but basically). this is also the only reason why intel is using A64(x64). because it was a cross licensing, intel had to share all their licenses and AMD had to share all theirs.

and no, not everyone can just make x86 chipsets, they need to be licensed, which isn't entirely straight forward, especially since x86 isn't just x86. This is also why all other x86 implementations sucks. they are weak copies and they miss a lot of what modern intel and AMD cpu's have added to the x86 instruction set.


Uh, you just echoed what I said? AMD had a license to x86 (At the time circa 2001), Intel slowly tries to push the incompatible IA-64 as a eventual replacement, AMD develops AMD64 aka x86-64 or EM64T and grabs the market; Intel licenses AMD64 creating a new cross-licensing MAD situation. I'm pretty sure the 2001 agreement had no bearing on future developments.

Ultimately CPU history is irrelevant, all that matters is that x86 is closed and proprietary, which you indicated nicely.

And yes, this is off topic. (Quickly; Those VIA chips aren't really in the consumer segment either)

#131 HawkMan

HawkMan

    Neowinian Senior

  • 21,938 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 04
  • Location: Norway
  • Phone: Noka Lumia 1020

Posted 01 March 2011 - 16:56

Uh, you just echoed what I said? AMD had a license to x86 (At the time circa 2001), Intel slowly tries to push the incompatible IA-64 as a eventual replacement, AMD develops AMD64 aka x86-64 or EM64T and grabs the market; Intel licenses AMD64 creating a new cross-licensing MAD situation. I'm pretty sure the 2001 agreement had no bearing on future developments.

Ultimately CPU history is irrelevant, all that matters is that x86 is closed and proprietary, which you indicated nicely.

And yes, this is off topic. (Quickly; Those VIA chips aren't really in the consumer segment either)


revisioning again.

IE64 was NEVER a replacement for x86. it was a server based pure 64 bit architecture, and Intel repeatedly said they would never use it for consumers.

And intel never needed to license A64, when AMD made it, intel effectively already had a license to it.

in fact the long time scale of everything that happened makes your story fall in on itself.


If A64 happened right after IA64, and A64 was on the market for a logn time and AMD was actually taking a large chunk of the market threatening intels position before intel adopted it, then yes yoru story would have merit, but non of that is what happened.


- AMD makes unlincensed x86 cpu's
- Intel uses legal power to force AMD to license x86, due to intels dominance they manage to slap on a cross license deal that means for amd to license x86, Intel will automatically be given license to use past and future AMD technology (I think it's expired by now)
- Intel makes IA64 for the server and high end workstation market. low adoption in workstatiosn due to being pure 64 and little available software. intel has no interest in mass market adoption of 64 bit at all, much less pure i64
- many years later, AMD makes the A64 extension. A64 has slow adoption among the high end tech crowd, the OS support is lacking and software is lacking even more. the technology is recognized as being a great option for home adoption of 64 bit, as it's essentially 32 and 64 bit.
- intel releases their x64 version of A64. again these where even in development before A64 was released to the public which is why intel could release them so (relatively)shortly after AMD. due to cross licensing intel already had the license to use this tech and there was no new cross licensing written. Intel was no threatened by the slow adoption of AMD's A64 cpu's

in fact adoption of 64 was still slow after this, and only picked up because all CPU's eventually because A64/x64. and even then the 64 bit OS adoption was low and few actually used the 64 bit extention. only today with 7 and the last year of vista before 7, are we seeing higher adoption into A64/x64

(Quickly; Those VIA chips aren't really in the consumer segment either)


actually VIA developed their latest x86 chipsets specifically for consumer usage, more specifically the low power low performance segment. the one that Atom took over and killed the competition in.

#132 sidroc

sidroc

    The critic

  • 4,944 posts
  • Joined: 25-October 03
  • Location: Somewhere

Posted 01 March 2011 - 17:01

I own the software on MY PS3. {As stated before I have an xbox, but I don't recommending adding neon lights, it didn't turn out so well).


The Duke is absolutely right here, you do not own the software at all.

#133 +Audioboxer

Audioboxer

    Hermit Arcana

  • 36,347 posts
  • Joined: 01-December 03
  • Location: UK, Scotland

Posted 01 March 2011 - 17:06

The Duke is absolutely right here, you do not own the software at all.


Yup, you do not own the software at all, the correct term I think is you license the software from Sony?