Sandy Bridge or wait for Haswell?

core2core · 18 Dec 2010 at 19:19

The information that r3loaded posted is 100% correct.

So you say. It maybe correct but whats been posted about the sandy bridge kill switch, is still a legitimate concern.

You seem to be under the impression that anybody with a Sandy Bridge CPU will be exposed to having thier PC locked when this is clearly not the case.

I hope you are right it's not the case but as I said, it's still a concern.

Everyone around the web is now talking about it and this is good. I don't believe everything companies or my government tell me, like a lot of people do. So it's right to question it.

Here is some links on more talk about it. One of them must have caught your FUD bug, nightmare99.

http://www.tgdaily.com/opinion-feat...o-introduce-processor-with-remote-kill-switch

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=30938048

http://forum.xbitlabs.com/viewtopic.php?t=18122

I hope you enjoy your new Sandy bridge computer in the new year nightmare99.

You never know, threads may be posted on here like, "Who killed my new PC" and "intel remotely disable my PC".

Lakeland · 18 Dec 2010 at 19:43

Do you work for AMD by any chance?

core2core · 18 Dec 2010 at 19:51

Lakeland said:
Do you work for AMD by any chance?

Now that is a silly thing to say. I could say nightmare99 works for intel.

Of corse I don't work for AMD. I see this on many forums lol. I am no AMD or Intel fanboy. I have had my fair share of AMD and intel computers. I go with whatever is best.

BTW. I hope you all like my new error message.

You have got to have a laugh, haven't you?

nightmare99 · 18 Dec 2010 at 20:50

Everyone around the web is now talking about it and this is good.

Mainly because nutters like you are making something out of nothing.

I don't believe everything companies or my government tell me, like a lot of people do. So it's right to question it.

Thats good for you, for the love of god keep your tin foil hats to yourself.

The original article is not even correct, the board/firmware can be disabled not the cpu itself. You could swap the CPU out of a disabled system and it would still be usable.

You do realize this is an existing technology that is currently available and the new 3.0 version just happens to be launching in conjunction with some sandy bridge chipsets?

The original article is actually wrong, that is where the confusion is. The reason no partners know what you are banging on about when you start talking to them about processor kill switches is because a) SB is under NDA and b) SB does not have an internal kill switch.

core2core · 18 Dec 2010 at 23:24

Mainly because nutters like you are making something out of nothing.

Lol It's nothing to do with being a nutter, it's concerns many people have. You just can't except that.

Thats good for you, for the love of god keep your tin foil hats to yourself.

No tin hats here. I live in a cold war bunker.

The reason no partners know what you are banging on about when you start talking to them about processor kill switches

Erm no, I quoted that text from wiki and and some from infowars. They are not silly. There was one that understood what I was talking about. It's in my last post about it.

Edit. Removed this part as I got that a bit wrong, i think Lol.

A new one for you nightmare.

Lakeland · 18 Dec 2010 at 23:30

core2core said:
The only thing that is probably not the case is, unless Sandy Bridge has a cell phone chip in it, you won't be able to disable it, from a mobile phone network.

Really? I believe you don't work for AMD now, well, not in the technical department anyhow.

core2core · 18 Dec 2010 at 23:34

Really? I believe you don't work for AMD now, well, not in the technical department anyhow.

I'm gald to hear it.

I messed that bit up. Removed it. Lol

raikesi · 19 Dec 2010 at 00:14

core2core said:
Lol

THERE IS NOTHING FUNNY HERE STOP USING LOL. </rant>

nightmare99 · 19 Dec 2010 at 10:04

it's concerns many people have. You just can't except that.

I can accept it, there is no real cause for concern my fear is that you are trying to whip a storm up out of nothing.

For the benefit of everybody here is a link to the original article which has since been spun by various other publications http://www.itbusiness.ca/it/client/en/home/News.asp?id=60539&cid=6

This is what the Intel guy said

With Intel anti-theft technology built into Sandy Bridge, Allen said users can set it up so that if their laptop gets lost or stolen

Anti Theft Technology 3.0 is actually part of the Q series chipsets not the actual CPU itself and you can currently buy laptops with Anti Theft Technology 2.0 right now which can be remotely disabled with the right configuration from a system administrator and associated software.

gillywibble · 19 Dec 2010 at 11:45

raikesi said:
THERE IS NOTHING FUNNY HERE STOP USING LOL. </rant>

lol

core2core · 19 Dec 2010 at 12:44

raikesi said:
THERE IS NOTHING FUNNY HERE STOP USING LOL. </rant>

There is nothing funny about shouting. Typing all in capitals is considered shouting.

If i want to lol, i will. Ranting about it, won't make a jot of difference.

So for you raikesi. Lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol.

Nightmare99 i'm getting confused here. I am lead to believe this is on laptops and desktop cpu's but you only talk about laptops. What one is it?

If it is for desktops to, which i think it is, are all them motherboard chipsets you posted about on another thread, going to have that feature? Here http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18217409

Like i said before, this is still a concern and just hope intel ditch that feature.

nightmare99 · 19 Dec 2010 at 13:39

Nightmare99 i'm getting confused here. I am lead to believe this is on laptops and desktop cpu's but you only talk about laptops. What one is it?

It is on neither desktop nor laptop cpus as it is part of the chipset, more specifically the B & Q series chipets as pointed out be r3loaded already.

So yes it will be a feature on desktop and laptop computers using certain chipsets Q67 & QM67 (there is no mention of it in the B65 chipset it seems).

andrewdodd13 · 19 Dec 2010 at 14:15

This thread is lol, but what the hell is that font in those error messages? Do people actually use that on their systems!?

gillywibble · 19 Dec 2010 at 14:15

andrewdodd13 said:
This thread is lol, but what the hell is that font in those error messages? Do people actually use that on their systems!?

Win 95 at a guess.

raikesi · 19 Dec 2010 at 14:52

core2core said:
There is nothing funny about shouting. Typing all in capitals is considered shouting.

If i want to lol, i will. Ranting about it, won't make a jot of difference.

So for You raikesi. Lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol.

i can see that you dont know what growing up entails then

core2core · 19 Dec 2010 at 16:53

gillywibble said:
Win 95 at a guess.

No thats not a windows 95 error, it's a windows xp one. This is what a windows 95, 98, Me, error looks like.

Time to ignore raikesi now.

Looking up this kill switch again and heard on another place, that intel tried to edit the post about privacy concerns, on the intel vPro wiki article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_vPro#Intel_vPro_Privacy_C
Now why would they want to do that? Something to hide maybe.

Here is the text they tried to remove.

Intel vPro Privacy Concerns
This article: "Big Brother potentially exists right now in our PCs, compliments of Intel's vPro"[23] raises many potential privacy concerns for PC's with vPro. The fact that there is apparently no way to disable vPro on a PC along with the fact that most users cannot detect outside access to their PC via the vPro hardware based technology is a serious concern.

And here is where it is posted about it.
http://dalanreport.com/index.php?op...ridgeprocessorshavearemotekillswitch&Itemid=4

raikesi · 19 Dec 2010 at 17:39

congratulations, you have shown the forum that you can photoshop, well done on completing that difficult task

nightmare99 · 19 Dec 2010 at 17:44

And here is where it is posted about it.
http://dalanreport.com/index.php?opt...witch&Itemid=4

Well done another article that is based off the original.

Did you check out the cool video I posted for you?

core2core · 19 Dec 2010 at 18:00

nightmare99 said:
Well done another article that is based off the original.

Did you check out the cool video I posted for you?

Yes I did but it's just a sales video to get the public to buy into it.

That won't stop the thief from removing the HD and using some form of hardware recovery, to get the data off the HD.

So long as you don't leave your laptop on a train, it's not needed or do we all need that. I have never had a computer or laptop stolen, touch wood. So I would rather not have that on my computer.

Lakeland · 19 Dec 2010 at 18:53

core2core said:
Yes I did but it's just a sales video to get the public to buy into it.

That won't stop the thief from removing the HD and using some form of hardware recovery, to get the data off the HD.

So long as you don't leave your laptop on a train, it's not needed or do we all need that. I have never had a computer or laptop stolen, touch wood. So I would rather not have that on my computer.

You do realise it is A feature on Some SB chips right? Business and Personal users often have very different requirements.