Slashdot Mirror
Intel's Anti-Overclocking Technology Simplified
John Thorensen writes "Found a fantastic article on Intel's recent Anti-Overclocking patent at Fastsilicon.com. Worth the read, as it also explains some of the technical and ethical issues of overclocking. Good to see that some tech journalists can still write material understandable by an average person."
Personally, I'd like to be able to underclock better so it would be easier to built a really quiet PC. Although there are a few articles about it, silent PCs are an underserved area of the market.
--- Often in error; never in doubt!
Let's start overclocking, enhancing, and reverse engineering EVERYTHING to protest these laws.
Preventing overclocking is just corportate bs. Remember the liminal messaging of Brave New World, "I'm tired of old things. I want new things. If it's broken, don't fix it. Throw old things away."
In all honesty, people probably break as many chips as they enhance and overclocking helps profits for chip makers. Anyways, you can use this code, compared against the time/date clock to determine if a chip is overclocked. Software/electronic patents are a bunch of bullcrap for things like this because it's so damn simple to recreate the effect.
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
Actyually, having had expeirence with this, it's not "fraud".....and I can explain why. This dealer advertised and sold a machine of a specific speed, they didn't sell a system DESGINED for that speed. I know someone who got taken by buying some overclocked machines, when this small buisness owner attempted to sue the computer dealer, the judge threw it out, sayign there was no fraud. If he had said it was a system DESIGNED for that speed it would have been fraud.
Sounds depressingly familiar... In the UK, until around 1984, it was illegal to obtain telephone service from anyone other than the (government owned) British Telecom (Kingston Communications in Hull) - governments don't like competition! It still is illegal not to subscribe to the state TV company, if you own a TV: you're free to subscribe to other channels as well, but you have to subscribe to the BBC as well - even if you're in a transmission blackspot and don't receive it! For that matter, until not that many years ago, there were still state monopolies or near-monopolies on everything from milk to steel - and you even had a limit on how much money you could take with you on holiday. Of course, in these days of credit cards, that kind of control would be almost impossible to maintain effectively, but back when moving money meant taking cash or travellers' checks, it was much easier.
It's always been a reflex of such governments: if "your side" is losing in a market, instead of competing, just tax, restrict or outright prohibit the competitors. In the UK, taxis, pubs (bars) and farm production are all subject to quotas and often price-fixing - no competition allowed! I'm all in favor of proper regulation - food safety, roadworthy taxis driven by non-axe-murderers and non-toxic drinks - but when the government tries to push prices up artificially, or ban competition to bow to political lobbying from taxi-drivers, farmers or bar owners, it's gone WAAAAAAAAY too far. Who can actually say, honestly, that there can be too much choice for our own good?