Technology

59587 readers

5370 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

Intel’s Anti-Upgrade Tricks Defeated With Kapton Tape (hackaday.com)

submitted 5 months ago by Wilshire@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

19 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] bappity@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago (2 children)

ANTI UPGRADE?? WHAT THE FUCK

[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago (2 children)

They've been pulling this shit since the early days. Similar tricks were employed in the 486 days to swap out chips, and again in the Celeron days. I think they switched to the slot style intentionally to keep selling chips to a point lol

[–] turmacar@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

It's been at least since the "big iron" days.

Technician comes out to upgrade your mainframe and it consists of installing a jumper to enable the extra features. For only a few million dollars.

[–] bappity@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

me when capitalism

[–] tal@lemmy.today 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000498114.pdf

Soviet Computer Technology: Little Prospect for Catching Up

We believe that there are many reasons why the Soviets trail the United States in computer technology:

The Soviets' centrally-planned economy does not permit adequate flexibility to design or manufacturing changes frequently encountered in computer production; this situation has often resulted in a shortage of critical components

especially for new products.

[–] GeneralVincent@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Thanks for the link to the unbiased study by... the CIA? Huh. Yeah I trust them.

[–] olympicyes@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The paper was from 1985. Was the CIA correct?

[–] ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works 0 points 5 months ago

Marginally. The paper analyzes the capabilities as they existed in the 1980s, but doesn't draw strong conclusions as to why that may be. It does demonstrate how reliance on central planning results in inadequaciea when said central planning is not operating well, though.

The paper doesn't really mention it but the central planning of the USSR was actively reeling from Brezhnev dying, Andropov dying, and Chernenko either dying or about to die at the time the CIA thing was written. So yeah, correct is an accurate if imprecise way to put it.

[–] aard@kyu.de 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Intel is well known for requiring a new board for each new CPU generation, even if it is the same socket. AMD on the other hand is known to push stuff to its physical limits before they break compatibility.

[–] neo@lemy.lol 0 points 5 months ago (2 children)

But why? Did Intel make a deal with the board manufacturers? Is this tradition from the days when they build boards themselves?

I thought they just didn't care and wanted as little restrictions for their chip design as possible, but if this actually works without drawbacks, that theory is out the window.

[–] A_Very_Big_Fan@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago

Just another instance of common anti-consumer behavior from multi billion dollar companies who have no respect for the customers that line their pockets.

[–] FiskFisk33@startrek.website 0 points 5 months ago

guess who sells the chipsets to the motherboard manufacturers