| reply to Snowy
Re: Intel's walled garden plan to put A/V vendors out of busines said by Snowy:EDIT: Giving it some thought, Intel could be looking at offering a product that appeals to the market share that is totally clueless about bits & bytes. Just like they did with WiMAX.
So, what is wrong with a read only OS that is thawed only when you intend to install or change something ? There is plenty of that already available right now, and it is not yet being used by the masses. |
|
 SnowymIRC unix.ro UnderNetPremium
join:2003-04-05
Kailua, HI
kudos:6
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·Clearwire Wireless
| said by 38632383:So, what is wrong with a read only OS that is thawed only when you intend to install or change something ? There is plenty of that already available right now, and it is not yet being used by the masses. I don't believe there's anything wrong about running with limited rights, more folks should do it.
My guess is that Intel is trying to eliminate the need for that via an app store that they hold the keys to.
Tasks such as updating will no longer be an option for an end user. It will be automatic & transparent.
Access to the registry will become history etc..., me thinks.
When you think about someone who doesn't know what the registry is, I doubt they'll care about not having access to it.
There's an enormous segment of the user community that is seen as nothing more than low laying fruit.
Someone is eventually gong to own them.
Having Intel do the owning isn't as bad the current alternatives. |
|
Mele20Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
kudos:4 | IF the rest of us don't get caught in Intel's plans then I would be ok with it. But look what has happened with Windows. Those of us who don't need or want UAC, etc. have it forced on us because the majority rules and the majority of computer users want the OS to be like a toaster so Microsoft feels compelled to comply and we end up with awful OSes like Vista and Win 7. Intel's vision may be the beginning of the end (as far using Windows goes) for many who don't need or want Intel's vision foisted on them instead of something that could just help out the ignorant of computers users.
--
When governments fear people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. Thomas Jefferson |
|
 AVDRespice, Adspice, ProspicePremium
join:2003-02-06
Onion, NJ
kudos:1 | reply to 38632383
said by 38632383:said by Snowy:EDIT: Giving it some thought, Intel could be looking at offering a product that appeals to the market share that is totally clueless about bits & bytes. Just like they did with WiMAX. So, what is wrong with a read only OS that is thawed only when you intend to install or change something ? There is plenty of that already available right now, and it is not yet being used by the masses. most cell phones and gadgets
--
standard disclaimers apply. |
|
|
|
 neochu
join:2008-12-12
Windsor, ON
4 edits | said by AVD:said by 38632383:said by Snowy:EDIT: Giving it some thought, Intel could be looking at offering a product that appeals to the market share that is totally clueless about bits & bytes. Just like they did with WiMAX. So, what is wrong with a read only OS that is thawed only when you intend to install or change something ? There is plenty of that already available right now, and it is not yet being used by the masses. most cell phones and gadgets •Being told how and what, when and why software chosen by a money hungry company is only allowed to run or be installed by you (by hardware or BIOS) on your computer.
•Having financial and not performance be the reasons (aka software a over software b because company a paid the hardware vendor more). Even though your an advanced power user and know better your treated like a child by a parent whom hates you.
•Having your computer "bricked" because you went outside of that or sued under the DCMA and similar provisions. Or you face constant bugginess and terrible performance
•Being told how when and why to have your computer set up in a certain way (colour, sound, speeds, hardware, peripherals, fonts, choice of email, service providers, etc), and being sued or "bricked" if you go out of those bounds.
•Having no control over a 2000 dollar piece of equipment that you have spent 3 months of salary on because some poeple are too lazy to bother to actually think at times what they could do.
(I can understand this under locked cell phone contracts but not for hardware you pay FULL price on. Even that though is controversial)
•Having said computer "bricked" because its too old and your not "profitable" to said vendor anymore. They want another 2 grand from you so they just "brick" your machine.
Should I go on as to why the "Iphone model" is not realistic for PC's? :P
Isn't this total control model what nearly sent IBM out of business in the 70s and 80's? |
|
 Khaine
join:2003-03-03
Australia | said by neochu:•Being told how and what, when and why software chosen by a money hungry company is only allowed to run or be installed by you (by hardware or BIOS) on your computer. •Having financial and not performance be the reasons (aka software a over software b because company a paid the hardware vendor more). Even though your an advanced power user and know better your treated like a child by a parent whom hates you. •Having your computer "bricked" because you went outside of that or sued under the DCMA and similar provisions. Or you face constant bugginess and terrible performance •Being told how when and why to have your computer set up in a certain way (colour, sound, speeds, hardware, peripherals, fonts, choice of email, service providers, etc), and being sued or "bricked" if you go out of those bounds. •Having no control over a 2000 dollar piece of equipment that you have spent 3 months of salary on because some poeple are too lazy to bother to actually think at times what they could do. (I can understand this under locked cell phone contracts but not for hardware you pay FULL price on. Even that though is controversial) •Having said computer "bricked" because its too old and your not "profitable" to said vendor anymore. They want another 2 grand from you so they just "brick" your machine. Should I go on as to why the "Iphone model" is not realistic for PC's? :P Isn't this total control model what nearly sent IBM out of business in the 70s and 80's? This is more then likely aimed at the corporate world, where they do want to restrict what people can and can't do. |
|
neochu
join:2008-12-12
Windsor, ON | said by Khaine:This is more then likely aimed at the corporate world, where they do want to restrict what people can and can't do. Well the computer used in a corporate environment isn't _EXACTLY_ your machine is it :P
Firmware based use restrictions in that kind of environment could prove interesting. e.g how my employer thanks to abuse has disabled the right click on all the mice used by non supervisor level staff....
On consumer level devices though yeah, my argument applies. That includes consumer equipment used by work at home employees who own their equipment... |
|
