Slashdot Mirror

IPMI is very powerful. An IPMI session starts with a Presence ping Any machine with IPMI hardware should answer a "presence ping" on UDP port 663. This identifies an IPMI-capable machine, and returns some vendor info. Anyone can send this. This should work even if the machine is "turned off", as long as it has standby power and is on a LAN.

Then, there's a challenge-response authentication sequence. More on this later.

Once you're in, here are some of the things you can do:

• Power up the system. Power it down. Force a hard reset. Force a power cycle. Force a phony overtemperature condition (in hopes of getting a clean OS shutdown.).
• Disable front panel controls (power off, reset, and standby buttons.) Yes, that's really in the protocol. See section 28.6 of the specification. Remote control can also lock out the keyboard and blank the screen.
• Set system boot options Or, what OS do we want to run today? These include useful tools like "bypass user password".

There's more. Much more. Basically, you can remotely take over the machine, turn it on, inventory the hardware, load an operating system, boot it up, and talk to it.

IPMI's back channel can do more than this. With some help from the operating system (and yes, it's supported in Windows) you can do more remote administration functions. This is great for administering your data center remotely. But it has darker implications.

Supposedly, most machines are shipped with IPMI mostly turned off, unavailable until a program is run on the machine to load in the keys that enable it. Supposedly.

Thus, all it takes for IPMI to be a "backdoor" is for a set of secret challenge/response keys to be preloaded into the IPMI chip. There's no way to read those keys. Short of taking the chip apart, gate by gate, there's no way to tell if there's a backdoor in there. Or a set of keys might be loaded by the system integrator before shipping the system. You can't tell. So that's where to put a backdoor, where no one can find it.

There's an open source, OpenIPMI, for sending IPMI commands on Sourceforge. Send "Presence pings" to the machines you have and see if they answer.

I have the same chipset in my HP S7320 slimline PC

The HP Pavilion s7320n Slimline Media Center PC has a GMA 900 in it (and either the 910 or 915 chipset) . The new Mac mini has a more capable GMA 950 in it and the more capable 945 chipset (not to mention a better processor).

I have the same chipset in my HP S7320 slimline PC

The HP Pavilion s7320n Slimline Media Center PC has a GMA 900 in it (and either the 910 or 915 chipset) . The new Mac mini has a more capable GMA 950 in it and the more capable 945 chipset (not to mention a better processor).

The article says Oracle compares its US$15G/yr revenue to MySQL's US$30M/yr. But as Paul Graham says, it is OK to shrink a US$30G/yr industry to US$30M/yr, if your absolute share of the new US$30M is bigger than the one on US$30G was. Or in other words, MySQL will laugh to the bank on growing from US$30M, while Oracle will strive to keep their US$15G.

Also, IBM, Oracle and Intel did not make Linux. Richard Stallman created GNU, Linus used GNU and complemented it with Linux, and now IBM, Oracle and Intel help Linus with Linux and RMS with GNU.

I wonder how long will IBM and Oracle continue think they can sell proprietary servers on free platforms, without facing significant competition from free servers too. And how long Intel think they can sell proprietary machines to run free software without facing competition from free (think 'open') hardware? Now they are winning, IBM and Oracle using GNU/Linux to face competition from Microsoft, and Intel to crush proprietary RISC (think they ignoring OpenFirmware); but how long before we are running PostgreSQL (or better yet, Rel) on some OpenCores system booting with OpenFirmware or something the like? Not on the short term, for sure, but eventually maybe it is inevitable, unless DRM forces us into a police state.

Intel Corp yesterday announced that its Core Duo and Pentium D processors had been designed so that users of the latest version of Skype's 2.0 VoIP application can have as many as 10 users on a conference call.

Intel Corp yesterday announced that its Core Duo and Pentium D processors had been designed so that users of the latest version of Skype's 2.0 VoIP application can have as many as 10 users on a conference call.

Intel Corp yesterday announced that its Core Duo and Pentium D processors had been designed so that users of the latest version of Skype's 2.0 VoIP application can have as many as 10 users on a conference call.

Not that I like the 950, but just to get the facts straight here.

http://support.intel.com/design/mobile/datashts/30 9219.htm

I want:

1. Component output. S-Video will do if there's no "tearing" during horizontal pans.
2. XBMC work-alike. I don't care about the scripting, MameoX, or XBOX games. I want to access any file MPlayerOSX/VLAN can handle over my home network.

...I want this to replace my aging XBMC center. MythTV is another option in a ShuttlePC case - but the form factor of the Mac Mini is unbeatable.

If you want Core Duo/Solo support, Aopen announced an updated version last week.

Maybe that means a couple percents in benchmarks, but they're basically identical.

I have a 3 year old laptop with a Pentium-M 1.5Ghz CPU, and that was a lower-end model at the time. In otherwords, pretending that the bottom Mini model is bleeding edge in anyway is false.

I meant to emphasize the component price differences between a (1.5GHz Pentium M + 915GM + wireless b/g) bundle and a (Core Solo + 945GM + wireless a/b/g) bundle. However, I'm probably wrong on that point. According to Intel's Jan 2 pricelist, the former costs $272 (1.6GHz Pentium M) and the latter costs $278. Still, Dell's just-announced "cheap" Core Solo Inspiron starts at $929 ($729 for a limited time).

sudo nvram boot-device='enet:192.168.1.1,yaboot'

In case anybody cares...the video chipset on this thing was MADE for home theater! It has hardware motion compensation, MPEG-2 hardware decoding, support for native HDTV resolutions and 16x9 aspect displays..among other nice stuff. It's NOT a big 3d gaming platform but definitely has the stuff for decoding video.

http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/gma950/

How about the new Mac mini, which has a 1.5GHz Intel Core Solo or 1.66GHz Core Duo, 512MB RAM (expandable to 2GB), a combo drive or DVD±R/RW SuperDrive, up to 120 GB drive, DVI/VGA/composite/S-Video out on Intel GMA950 graphics (up to 1920x1200), 802.11a/b/g, Bluetooth 2.0+EDR, gigabit ethernet (!), four USB 2.0 ports, FireWire 400 (Yes, FireWire is here to stay, folks), analog and digital (S/PDIF) in/out, and an IR remote with Front Row media center software that supports sharing music, photos, and videos between libraries on any other machine on the local network, starting at $599 ($579 govt/education), all in the same tiny form factor as the old Mac mini (6.5"x6.5"x2")?

And a freaking set of speakers and a $99 leather case for the iPod are the "most interesting"? ;-)

I love how the submission is like "IPOD SPEAKERS", "LEATHER IPOD CASE", and then at the end, "oh yeah, and media center Intel-based Mac minis, too". ;-)

What I want to know is what Apple's going to do with its new 107,000 square foot Tier IV data center... iTunes Movie/Media Store, anyone?

You're right -- it's the fact that no controller chipset from Intel supports FW800 that is the reason.

Apple went with Intel-based systems, including the chipset. Intel, so far as I've been able to determine through their website, has FW400 support in their chipsets, but no FW800.

• Intel D945BGO motherboard
• Intel D945GPM motherboard

Here's a chipset system diagram for the chipset the MacBook Pro is apparently using:

Intel 945PM Chipset System Diagram

You're right -- it's the fact that no controller chipset from Intel supports FW800 that is the reason.

Apple went with Intel-based systems, including the chipset. Intel, so far as I've been able to determine through their website, has FW400 support in their chipsets, but no FW800.

• Intel D945BGO motherboard
• Intel D945GPM motherboard

Here's a chipset system diagram for the chipset the MacBook Pro is apparently using:

Intel 945PM Chipset System Diagram

You're right -- it's the fact that no controller chipset from Intel supports FW800 that is the reason.

Apple went with Intel-based systems, including the chipset. Intel, so far as I've been able to determine through their website, has FW400 support in their chipsets, but no FW800.

• Intel D945BGO motherboard
• Intel D945GPM motherboard

Here's a chipset system diagram for the chipset the MacBook Pro is apparently using:

Intel 945PM Chipset System Diagram

Just a nitpick: Core Duo's 32-bitness doesn't limit you to 2GB of RAM. Without getting technical:

2^32 = 4,294,967,296

The PowerMac will undoubtedly wait for the 64-bit Conroe desktop processors or Woodcrest workstation/server processors, which will arrive in July at the earliest.

I would have jumped all over the P M, except there was no desktop gear for it; unless I bought a notebook PC and did some expensive hacking...

Examples:

• AOpen i915GMm-HFS motherboard
• AOpen XC Cube MZ915-M barebones
• AOpen MP915 MiniPC
• DFI 915GM-MGF motherboard
• Shuttle XPC SD11G5 barebones
• Shuttle XPC M1000 Media Center system

Tom's Hardware has a June 2005 review on the AOpen I915Gmm-HFS motherboard:

The Next Generation of Cool: AOpen's 37 Watt Pentium M Desktop PC

Will they get XP if their system does not meet the requirements? Surely Dell will sell a low-end machine that might not have the hardware to run Vista? Or worse yet, they sell a machine that meets the minimal requirements, and performs like a dog.

However, when Vista is finally sent to manufacturers for their Christmas shopping season PCs, I don't think this will be a problem. The current low-end chipset with integrated graphics, the 945GZ, will have no problem running Vista. However, even six months from now, this platform will undoubtedly be a little more expensive than what Dell pays today. So Dell PCs will probably start at $300-$350 instead of $250-$300.

Another cheap option for Dell (assuming they stick to Intel) is to use an old legacy AGP chipset without integrated graphics (like the 848P) and use a cheap Vista-capable AGP card like a GeForce FX5200 or Radeon 9500. I think this is less likely, even if it is cheaper, because of the added support costs of a platform without integrated graphics.

Will they get XP if their system does not meet the requirements? Surely Dell will sell a low-end machine that might not have the hardware to run Vista? Or worse yet, they sell a machine that meets the minimal requirements, and performs like a dog.

However, when Vista is finally sent to manufacturers for their Christmas shopping season PCs, I don't think this will be a problem. The current low-end chipset with integrated graphics, the 945GZ, will have no problem running Vista. However, even six months from now, this platform will undoubtedly be a little more expensive than what Dell pays today. So Dell PCs will probably start at $300-$350 instead of $250-$300.

Another cheap option for Dell (assuming they stick to Intel) is to use an old legacy AGP chipset without integrated graphics (like the 848P) and use a cheap Vista-capable AGP card like a GeForce FX5200 or Radeon 9500. I think this is less likely, even if it is cheaper, because of the added support costs of a platform without integrated graphics.

Will they get XP if their system does not meet the requirements? Surely Dell will sell a low-end machine that might not have the hardware to run Vista? Or worse yet, they sell a machine that meets the minimal requirements, and performs like a dog.

However, when Vista is finally sent to manufacturers for their Christmas shopping season PCs, I don't think this will be a problem. The current low-end chipset with integrated graphics, the 945GZ, will have no problem running Vista. However, even six months from now, this platform will undoubtedly be a little more expensive than what Dell pays today. So Dell PCs will probably start at $300-$350 instead of $250-$300.

Another cheap option for Dell (assuming they stick to Intel) is to use an old legacy AGP chipset without integrated graphics (like the 848P) and use a cheap Vista-capable AGP card like a GeForce FX5200 or Radeon 9500. I think this is less likely, even if it is cheaper, because of the added support costs of a platform without integrated graphics.

Will they get XP if their system does not meet the requirements? Surely Dell will sell a low-end machine that might not have the hardware to run Vista? Or worse yet, they sell a machine that meets the minimal requirements, and performs like a dog.

However, when Vista is finally sent to manufacturers for their Christmas shopping season PCs, I don't think this will be a problem. The current low-end chipset with integrated graphics, the 945GZ, will have no problem running Vista. However, even six months from now, this platform will undoubtedly be a little more expensive than what Dell pays today. So Dell PCs will probably start at $300-$350 instead of $250-$300.

Another cheap option for Dell (assuming they stick to Intel) is to use an old legacy AGP chipset without integrated graphics (like the 848P) and use a cheap Vista-capable AGP card like a GeForce FX5200 or Radeon 9500. I think this is less likely, even if it is cheaper, because of the added support costs of a platform without integrated graphics.

Here's the new logo: http://www.intel.com/homepage/nav/pix/logo.gif

People keep repeating this and yes it's true you can emulate everything real easy, except for one tiny itsy-bitsy little thing -- The private key inside the chip. Remote attestation has been pretty much given a solid design. Platform Configuration Registers (PCRs), Attestation Identity Keys (AIKs), Endorsement Certs, RSA, SHA-1 are all part of the formula.

Secure Platform Attestation with TPMs One frequent system attack involves making unauthorized changes to a platform's configuration. This allows misuse of the device and its contents as well as access to the networks to which the device is connected. In devices that use TPM chips, platform integrity is protected by secure storage of the platform configuration values and by secure reporting of the values. This enables attestation of the device by verifying that its configuration is intact. The mechanism is based on the chain of trust used in creating the hash values of the pre-boot information of the platform. It is common industry practice to check the integrity of a platform by comparing configuration settings when a platform is rebooted against the settings when it was set up. A "hash" algorithm is used to calculate a value from information stored in the Platform Configuration Registers (PCRs) when the platform is setup. When the platform is re-booted, a new hash value is calculated and compared against the original. If the values match, the computer or cell phone or other platform starts up and login proceeds. In unprotected systems, PCRs are accessible and the hash values are stored in system memory that is subject to compromise. In TPM-capable platforms, the hash value is calculated using the SHA-1 algorithm, access to the PCRs requires trusted authorization, and the hash values are stored within the TPMs in secure, non-volatile memory. These values are used to create Attestation Identity Keys (AIKs) that cannot be used unless a hash value is the same at the time of use as when the AIK was created. This makes it possible to determine if trusted-state configuration parameters are corrupted. If they are corrupted, use of the device may be denied. TPM-Protected digital signatures: Protect the private signature keys. Keys are stored inside the TPM and are not exposed in system memory during signing operations. A true Random Number Generator (RNG) is used to create RSA key pairs internal to the TPM. The TPM chip's RNG generates the seed numbers for the cryptographic processor's encryption, decryption, and key generation functions. Performing the RSA calculations in the TPM instead of in the general system processor improves both system and encryption performance. The TPM generates, stores, and manages cryptographic keys in hardware, which "hardens" applications that originally relied on software-only encryption algorithms.

The main thing to get out of all that is that you never get the private keys.. Ever....
And the hash values can only be reset by rebooting.

the process of acquiring AIKs. 1. Owner bundles into an ID (request: New ID PubKey Endorsement Cert, Platform Cert, Conformance Cert) 2. Owner sends ID request to TTP 3. TTP verifies Certificates 4. TTP signs ID 5. Signed ID sent to TPM AIKs are created using Certificates (also called Credentials) available within the TPM. AIKs do not have any direct association with the EK or the credentials. AIKs are always bound to the platform and can be used to provide attestation to the platform's identification and configuration. It is important to note that the service provider (or challenger) trusts the Trusted Third Party (TTP) to do its due diligence before issuing AIKs to a platform.

The interesting bit for me will be the upcoming iBook. I want to see how Core Solo stacks up against the G4 (seeing that Duo doesn't really clean out the house against the single G5).

Don't worry about the "Celeron" brand. The "Celeron M" (based on Pentium M) has been a very good performer and fantastic value since its introduction in January 2004. Two of the desktop versions of Celeron were crappier than crap, though: (1) the original Celeron (based on Pentium 2 but with no L2 cache) and (2) the first Pentium 4-based Celerons (128K L2 cache).

The key differences between Core Solo and the next versions of Celeron M (based on Core Solo):

• Core Solo has 667MHz FSB, Celeron M will have 533MHz FSB
• Core Solo has has 2MB on-die L2 cache, Celeron M will have 1MB
• Core Solo will have more power-saving features than Celeron M

I predict the Celeron M-based iBooks and Mac minis will demolish the G4 in most of the apps used on these "non-professional" Macs. Since they're coming in April at the earliest, most of these apps will be further optimized for Intel (even Altivec/SSE3 apps).

Source:

Intel readies 65nm 'Yonah'-based Celeron M 4xx series

The interesting bit for me will be the upcoming iBook. I want to see how Core Solo stacks up against the G4 (seeing that Duo doesn't really clean out the house against the single G5).

Don't worry about the "Celeron" brand. The "Celeron M" (based on Pentium M) has been a very good performer and fantastic value since its introduction in January 2004. Two of the desktop versions of Celeron were crappier than crap, though: (1) the original Celeron (based on Pentium 2 but with no L2 cache) and (2) the first Pentium 4-based Celerons (128K L2 cache).

The key differences between Core Solo and the next versions of Celeron M (based on Core Solo):

• Core Solo has 667MHz FSB, Celeron M will have 533MHz FSB
• Core Solo has has 2MB on-die L2 cache, Celeron M will have 1MB
• Core Solo will have more power-saving features than Celeron M

I predict the Celeron M-based iBooks and Mac minis will demolish the G4 in most of the apps used on these "non-professional" Macs. Since they're coming in April at the earliest, most of these apps will be further optimized for Intel (even Altivec/SSE3 apps).

Source:

Intel readies 65nm 'Yonah'-based Celeron M 4xx series

Centrino is not a processor, but a group of Intel technologies bundled under one brandname.

Not only that, but isn't comparing the Intel Core Duo to the single core Turion like apples to oranges? Single core vs. single core makes for an even comparison.

Good luck with your new and improved Macintosh. It will be nice to see how many years Apple will give this platform before a complete upgrade is necesarry again. My guess is, not long.

Or they could just ship systems based on chips which support EM64T.

Intel uses "Intel® Core(TM) Duo" and "Intel® Core(TM) Solo". Not Solo Core and Duo Core terms. I am pretty sure that they will use "Intel Core" name for their CPUs.

the "wonderful" macbook in all its intelness: http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/intelcoreduo.html also for those wanting to see intels take on its chip: http://www.intel.com/products/processor/coreduo/

Intel said they were going to be releasing x100-core processors by 2015.

Just watch the Intel 2005 Keynote speech, (video) hear about x100 cores and x100 GBits/sec chip-chip data transfer.

It's not like this is a big secret or anything.

I'd wager that at least the GMA 950 will be enough for the more advanced interface, and even the GMA 900 will be.

An older version of Intel's notebook guidelines for Vista (before the current 945GM chipset was released) said that GMA 900 would run Vista without the new Aero interface.

The key difference is support for Windows Vista Display Driver model (WDDM) drivers, which is required for Aero. GMA 950 has it now, GMA 900 doesn't. I don't know if WDDM support will be added to GMA 900 before Vista's release, but I doubt it.

Note that GMA 900 did a fine job running OS X's Aqua interface in Apple's Developer Transition Kits. Therefore, I think GMA 900 should run Aero if Intel or MS writes the drivers for it.

That's not saying that Linus hasn't been the main driving force all these years, but he's in no way the only one. Now, the jury's still out as to whether GPLv3 is a good thing - I haven't made up my own mind yet either - but I'll bet large chunks of the Linux kernel could be relicensed immediately if the will was there.

Now why they went with a 32bit Intel part is still a mystery to me. 32bit processors are so last millenium....

There are two parts to that question: "...went with a 32-bit part" and "...went with an Intel part".

I have no information on why Intel was chosen. Plenty of people probably have their own theories about that.

Once Intel was chosen, however, at least for the MacBook Pro, a 32-bit part was the obvious choice if you don't want a Pentium 4 (e.g., too much power, too much heat) and want to ship machines before Merom ships; it's not as if the PowerBooks were 64-bit.

The iMac might not have the same power and heat concerns, and the previous version was already 64-bit, so perhaps a case could've been made for using an EM64T P4 there. I'm not a hardware or business guy, though, so I'm not sure whether that would've made sense or not.

In any case, as the next-generation x86 chips from Intel will be 64-bit (if Paul Otellini wasn't lying in his presentation at the Intel Developer Forum, where he said

Now in true Intel fashion, I don't just want to tell you about these products. I'd like to show it to you. I'm happy to say that the silicon from these three products is really running very, very well. In fact, so well that this presentation today has been running on this [Merom]- based notebook. Let me show you what we've got here. You'll see the presentation there. Let me minimize that. In this chart here we have performance monitor. You can see it's got two cores, two processors running. Over here you can see it's a Windows 64-bit edition, so we've enabled the 64-bit extensions, dual-core, and perfect compatibility.

We've also got a second product called Conroe. Conroe is a desktop product, and this one, in this case, is running in a [reference] platform here. And it's running Fedora Linux 64. And there's a third product here called Woodcrest, which is a server product. It's actually in a DP - a dual processor configuration, and if you look up at the performance monitor here, what is showing is that it's essentially four cores running. So two processors, two cores each...

showing 64-bit OSes running on Merom and Conroe prototype boxes), so any Macs with next-generation x86's will have 64-bit processors.

Intel announced their use of strained silicon back in 2002, and I'm pretty sure all new Pentiums for at least the last couple of years have used this technology. It's essentially certain that every Intel-based Macintosh already uses strained silicon in its CPU.

As an aside, TFA only talks about "squeezing" silicon, but it's actually possible to either tighten or loosen the lattice. CMOS uses complementary pairs of NMOS and PMOS transistors, and for best results you (normally) want to strain the silicon in opposite directions for each -- though NMOS generally has slightly better characteristics to start with, so IBM may have decided to apply the strain only to the PMOS transistors (or the article may simply be incomplete, and they're really doing both, just like Intel and others do).

OTOH, AMD has been using SOI (also since they went to 90 nm). I'm reasonably certain that all their current x86 processors use this technology. Their dual core processors certainly do, though some of their low-end processors may not use it (I'm afraid I've lost track of which cores use what technology anymore).

What IBM has announced is (apparently) successfully using both of these technologies in the same chip. AFAIK, that hasn't been done in an x86 CPU before, but it's not entirely new either. One thing that should be kept in mind is that x86 CPUs are (mostly) built for the mass-market -- that means using fabrication technology that you can dependably produce in large quantities with decent yields. The IBM POWER series chips have a drastically smaller market and substantially higher price tags. A yield level that's perfectly reasonable for that market would virtually put an x86 supplier out of business. As such, both Intel and AMD are somewhat conservative in what they use in production chips, as opposed to what they can manage to do under lab conditions and such (though their volume also lets them put lots of money into R&D to really push the technology as well).

1. The Xen Project is the leader

2. Intel VT

3. AMD Pacifica

Wake up! A big change is coming...

A dedicated graphics card with DirectX® 9.0 support

That is only a requirement if you want to run the Aero user interface (it must also support Windows Display Driver Model). I can't believe I haven't seen any "Score:3+" comments mentioning Vista's "Classic" UI mode, which doesn't require a powerful GPU. In fact, it looks a lot like Windows XP with its "Luna" interface deactivated. According to that Wikipedia article (don't use as a final source), Vista's "classic mode" only has the same graphics card requirements as Windows 2000.

Here's what I think is a better Microsoft page describing (and providing links to) Vista's likely requirements:

Windows Vista Capable PC Hardware Guidelines

• CPU -- PC systems should have a modern CPU.
• RAM -- PC systems should have 512MB of memory or more.
• GPU -- PC systems should have a graphics processor that will support Windows Display Driver Model (WDDM).

Windows Vista offers significant improvements to the graphics user experience. To take advantage of these advances in the graphics user experience, graphics processor will need to support WDDM. Graphics processors capable of supporting WDDM:

• Are designed to ensure that graphics user experience scales up with hardware capabilities.
• Offer improved graphic stability and performance.
• May be able to support additional desktop productivity features.

Systems that meet and/or exceed the above requirements should be able to provide a good experience while running Windows Vista. PC systems that do not meet the above hardware requirements for CPU, RAM and GPU may support running Windows Vista. However, such systems may not offer all the features and benefits of Windows Vista. For example, PC systems with GPUs that do not support WDDM will only be able to provide a Windows XP-comparable desktop graphics experience, with regards to features, stability, and performance.

So to answer the freakin' article's question: Yes, if your Core Duo or Solo notebook had integrated Intel graphics, it will work with Vista because GMA 950 supports WDDM. Heck, it will likely work with the new Aero UI. But since the reader specifically stated he "doesn't care about semitransparent windows and cool animations," even an old Pentium M or Celeron M notebook with the 915GM chipset (GMA 900 graphics) will work with Vista in "classic mode." Here's a link to an Intel page on mobile minimum recommendations for Vista:

Windows Vista and Intel Mobile Platforms for Business

After the launch of Windows Vista, laptop PCs with Mobile Intel® 915GM Express Chipset will be able to run Windows Vista providing a Windows* XP-comparable graphics experience.

A dedicated graphics card with DirectX® 9.0 support

That is only a requirement if you want to run the Aero user interface (it must also support Windows Display Driver Model). I can't believe I haven't seen any "Score:3+" comments mentioning Vista's "Classic" UI mode, which doesn't require a powerful GPU. In fact, it looks a lot like Windows XP with its "Luna" interface deactivated. According to that Wikipedia article (don't use as a final source), Vista's "classic mode" only has the same graphics card requirements as Windows 2000.

Here's what I think is a better Microsoft page describing (and providing links to) Vista's likely requirements:

Windows Vista Capable PC Hardware Guidelines

• CPU -- PC systems should have a modern CPU.
• RAM -- PC systems should have 512MB of memory or more.
• GPU -- PC systems should have a graphics processor that will support Windows Display Driver Model (WDDM).

Windows Vista offers significant improvements to the graphics user experience. To take advantage of these advances in the graphics user experience, graphics processor will need to support WDDM. Graphics processors capable of supporting WDDM:

• Are designed to ensure that graphics user experience scales up with hardware capabilities.
• Offer improved graphic stability and performance.
• May be able to support additional desktop productivity features.

Systems that meet and/or exceed the above requirements should be able to provide a good experience while running Windows Vista. PC systems that do not meet the above hardware requirements for CPU, RAM and GPU may support running Windows Vista. However, such systems may not offer all the features and benefits of Windows Vista. For example, PC systems with GPUs that do not support WDDM will only be able to provide a Windows XP-comparable desktop graphics experience, with regards to features, stability, and performance.

So to answer the freakin' article's question: Yes, if your Core Duo or Solo notebook had integrated Intel graphics, it will work with Vista because GMA 950 supports WDDM. Heck, it will likely work with the new Aero UI. But since the reader specifically stated he "doesn't care about semitransparent windows and cool animations," even an old Pentium M or Celeron M notebook with the 915GM chipset (GMA 900 graphics) will work with Vista in "classic mode." Here's a link to an Intel page on mobile minimum recommendations for Vista:

Windows Vista and Intel Mobile Platforms for Business

After the launch of Windows Vista, laptop PCs with Mobile Intel® 915GM Express Chipset will be able to run Windows Vista providing a Windows* XP-comparable graphics experience.

And the major security feature of the NX bit doesn't seem to be being backported to 32-bit archtectures.

"Backported" to the processors, or "backported" to the 32-bit versions of the OSes? According to the Intel® Centrino® Duo Mobile Technology Performance Brief, the 32-bit Core Duo has the NX bit (or, as Intel calls it, the XD, or Execute Disable, bit).

But, as you note, the recently-released Core Duo and Core Solo might be the last new 32-bit-only x86 processors from Intel; as far as I know, Merom and its siblings are all 64-bit.

Here's a link but scroll down to the FLorence image:http://intel.com/technology/itj/2005/volume0 9issue01/intro/p06_new_usages.htm

Me, I'd really want instant-on more than always on. The suspend on ol thinkpads PLUS linux always messes up the sound (even IBM admitted this at least for this OS), so I hardly use either one.
 

For those who need to have large flat or single system image memory requirements, the Itanium can handle up to 50-bits of physical memory addressing and 64-bit of virtual addressing [1] where the Opteron can address 40-bits of physical memory addressing and 48-bit of virtual addressing.

Right now, the Opteron can scale up to 8 sockets using HyperTransport (at least until the Horus chipset becomes available) while the Itanium can scale into massive number of sockets (which is more of a function of chipset rather than processor).

[1]: Page 9: http://download.intel.com/design/Itanium2/datashts /25094504.pdf

"they use Xenon chips instead."

the reason why ppl would use videogame consoles for serious server tasks realy escapes me...

oh, you meant Xeon, right ? sorry, move on, nothing to see here...

Intel® Virtualization Technology The Intel® Core(TM) Duo Processor includes support for Intel® Virtualization Technology which is a set of hardware enhancements to Intel server and client systems that combined with the appropriate software, will enable enhanced virtualization robustness and performance for both enterprise and consumer uses. Intel Virtualization Technology forms the foundation of Intel technologies focused on improved virtualization, safer computing, and system stability. For client systems, Intel Virtualization Technology's hardware-based isolation helps provide the foundation for highly available and more secure client virtualization partitions.

Virtualize All Operating Systems with Support for Intel® VT Hardware Virtualization Xen 3.0 is the industry's first virtualization infrastructure software to support Intel Virtualzation Technology (VT), which allows virtualized servers to run natively on the processor. This enables the hypervisor to exploit hardware acceleration for CPU and memory virtualization and is key to Xen's ability to virtualize all operating systems.

Yonah is based on earlier Pentium M designs as well as the Pentium Pro-Pentium III. If you read the errata documents for these processors you will find a lot of the Yonah errata there too. I'm sure they were bugs deemed not worth fixing and thus keep carrying forward. AE2 has existed since the Pentium Pro. It wasn't considered an errata then. Pentium 4 did something different in this case and thus it is an errata now because Pentium 4 is more recent. Section 18.32.1 of IA32 manuals documents this difference. "The behavior when executing near the limit of a 4 GB selector (limit=0xFFFFFFFF) is different between the Pentium Pro and the Pentium 4 family of processors. On the Pentium Pro, instructions which cross the limit -- for example, a two byte instruction such as INC EAX that is encoded as 0xFF 0xC0 starting exactly at the limit faults for a segment violation (a one byte instruction at 0xFFFFFFFF does not cause an exception). Using the Pentium 4 microprocessor family, neither of these situations causes a fault." Pentium III errata: http://download.intel.com/design/PentiumIII/specup dt/24445355.pdf Banias errata: http://download.intel.com/design/mobile/SPECUPDT/2 5266519.pdf Dothan errata: http://download.intel.com/design/mobile/SPECUPDT/3 0220917.pdf

Yonah is based on earlier Pentium M designs as well as the Pentium Pro-Pentium III. If you read the errata documents for these processors you will find a lot of the Yonah errata there too. I'm sure they were bugs deemed not worth fixing and thus keep carrying forward. AE2 has existed since the Pentium Pro. It wasn't considered an errata then. Pentium 4 did something different in this case and thus it is an errata now because Pentium 4 is more recent. Section 18.32.1 of IA32 manuals documents this difference. "The behavior when executing near the limit of a 4 GB selector (limit=0xFFFFFFFF) is different between the Pentium Pro and the Pentium 4 family of processors. On the Pentium Pro, instructions which cross the limit -- for example, a two byte instruction such as INC EAX that is encoded as 0xFF 0xC0 starting exactly at the limit faults for a segment violation (a one byte instruction at 0xFFFFFFFF does not cause an exception). Using the Pentium 4 microprocessor family, neither of these situations causes a fault." Pentium III errata: http://download.intel.com/design/PentiumIII/specup dt/24445355.pdf Banias errata: http://download.intel.com/design/mobile/SPECUPDT/2 5266519.pdf Dothan errata: http://download.intel.com/design/mobile/SPECUPDT/3 0220917.pdf

Yonah is based on earlier Pentium M designs as well as the Pentium Pro-Pentium III. If you read the errata documents for these processors you will find a lot of the Yonah errata there too. I'm sure they were bugs deemed not worth fixing and thus keep carrying forward. AE2 has existed since the Pentium Pro. It wasn't considered an errata then. Pentium 4 did something different in this case and thus it is an errata now because Pentium 4 is more recent. Section 18.32.1 of IA32 manuals documents this difference. "The behavior when executing near the limit of a 4 GB selector (limit=0xFFFFFFFF) is different between the Pentium Pro and the Pentium 4 family of processors. On the Pentium Pro, instructions which cross the limit -- for example, a two byte instruction such as INC EAX that is encoded as 0xFF 0xC0 starting exactly at the limit faults for a segment violation (a one byte instruction at 0xFFFFFFFF does not cause an exception). Using the Pentium 4 microprocessor family, neither of these situations causes a fault." Pentium III errata: http://download.intel.com/design/PentiumIII/specup dt/24445355.pdf Banias errata: http://download.intel.com/design/mobile/SPECUPDT/2 5266519.pdf Dothan errata: http://download.intel.com/design/mobile/SPECUPDT/3 0220917.pdf

That's interesting, but uninformed, speculation.

Fortunately, Intel publishes information about how they find bugs. You may be surprised that validating a modern complex microprocessor is not as trivial the 8-bit counter you validated in school.

"this marks one of the first times that Intel released a processor with known bugs"

Every chip Intel has ever shipped has had errata. This isn't unique to Intel, of course -- every chip ever shipped has had errata. The only news here is that apparently people have found a lot of bugs in this specific chip fairly quickly. But Mac users are a demanding bunch...

http://www.amd.com/epd/desiging/tsdocs/2.erratashe /index.html lists AMD's errata sheets.
http://www.rcollins.org/Errata/ErrataSeries.html documents some Intel errata from the late 90's.
http://mysearch.intel.com/corporate/default.aspx?c ulture=en-US&q=errata&searchsubmit.x=12&searchsubm it.y=8 searching for Errata on Intel's site returns 6,520 hits (most for errors in documentation). This is to their credit -- everyone makes mistakes, and documenting them benefits everyone.
http://www.freescale.com/webapp/search/MainSERP.js p?QueryText=errata&RELEVANCE=false&showAllCategori es=false&srch=1&assetLocked=false&pageSize=5&Selec tedAsset=Product+Pages& and FreeScale has a ton of errata documentation as well.

You get the idea.

Here's a link to a PDF describing Intel's virtualization technology and how to make it go. Everyone get to work.

The "Classification/impact" column is not from the original document. I don't know who wrote the comments or what their technical background is, but they seem a little alarmist to me.