Should Intel decide what software we can run?

[madtownidiot]

Acquiring McAfee sounds like a sign of impending doom for intel anyway.

 

[acidburned]

maybe it will make McAfee better,faster. but no they shouldnt dictate what software you use.

 

[Win7User512]

Acquiring McAfee sounds like a sign of impending doom for intel anyway.

All I know for sure is it cost a helluva lot of money.

 

[acidburned]

i think it said the cost was like 17 or 18 billion dollars for the buy out.

 

[madtownidiot]

What makes no sense is they're buying the only bogus internet security company out there that isn't officially classified as malware

 

[Bushman5]

i'll be jumping off the Intel ship if they do this. Either that or i will buy as many of their current i5 and i7 CPUS now and stock uio for future computer builds.

 

[Tepid]

Well,, if it is like WHQL then that may not be so bad.
Like in windows, you can still install Unsigned Drivers, you just have to allow them to install.

This will probably be similar. You can install unsigned software, it is just that your risks are higher.

The whole point to Signing software and drivers is a better assurance that what you using is legit and will work best within a Windows environment. That's all.

I remember once upon a time, that it was rumored that Microsoft was not going to allow any Open Source Software to run on Windows. This also turned out to be false.... Either from the start or by pressure, but false.

 

[neo101]

Because Govts Worldwide have allowed Global Monsters to develop & takeover - we have actually reversed to a situation where the general World's population is reversing back to the early 1900's.

Some have developed into despotic dictatorships with nutters at the helm coming out with the insular crazy ideas (never disagreed with by their corpoate "YES" men either!)

ie You can have any colour for your new car - as long as it's black!

At least Ford eventually realised that they had to pay their workers a living wage in order that they could buy their cars too!

 

[HammerHead]

No Way

Relax people. It'll never happen. That's not to say they wouldn't try. (in their infinite wisdom) The hackers would keep the entire company tied up trying to combat the hacks. Was it AT&T that tried that with their phones? Did that work? I think not. For a company's business model to work their coustmers have to agree. When they begin to lose business because of a poor decision they will go another direction.

 

[BCXtreme]

This BETTER not happen. No one (and I do mean no one) has the right to dictate what a person does with their personal computers in their own homes, as long as they are not committing illegal acts (i.e. things that are illegal with or without computer assistance).

I've managed to live with Apple's lockdown of iOS, and have been pleased by the occasional steps they've taken to open the platform a little more, but I only tolerate it because iOS is one platform, and you can get around the lockdown just by using Android or Windows Phone. I would object vehemently to such restrictions being placed on all computing platforms.

 

[fseal]

I don't see how/why Intel would even be involved with this.

Isn't this an OS issue?

IF it were a good idea then Microsoft would have to do it, not Intel.

And though I can predict a dark future where everything HAD to be approved to run, I think that a nicer world version where software could be vetted might be nice. Though that idea is still entirely unworkable...

People cant even find accidental or even malicious code in Open Source software before it gets released on occasion let alone closed. Even Apple's store has had malicious apps on it, Firefoxe's web site has hosted horribly buggy plugins (a great target for virrii) so even plans like this with the best of intentions are still almost useless...

 

[Tepid]

I would think it would be similar to the Anti-Virus protocols (or whatever you want to call them) in BIOS due to old style MBR viruses.

If you can stop a virus at the hardware level (in theory) it would/should prevent the code from running at all. Or have a much harder time of executing if the Hardware prevents it from running. I have no idea how that might work. But it should be possible.

Just a thought.

 

[HammerHead]

Stupid Moves

If they were to decide to try something like this. They in the end would back track. This reminds me of the time they put out a bad cpu. The cpu was off in it's math somewhere around the minus 6th place (do not remember exactly). Some user posted on Compu Serve to attest to this. Well Intel ignored the post for a couple of days. The thread became huge. Finally Intel posted and denied the flaw. This inflamed the posters. They began to post test calcs to verify the claim.
Intel's next move was really far out. They posted and said anything that small was insignigicant. If these posters were all collected in the same place a riot would have occurred. Finally Intel said OK we will replace the defective chips. It was a public relations fiasco for them. Created a lot of ill will toward them.

 

[Skulblaka]

I'm certain that more piracy would ignite. Something like "jailbreaking" an iPhone except it's a CPU.

 

[geekfreak]

intel tries to control what i can and cannot put on my sys, i will be saying hello amd.

 

[madtownidiot]

On a side note, it occurred to me that maybe the reason microsoft has never produced an effective AV until MSE was released is because they would then get to decide what is a malicious process, and would be able to dictate what software can be installed on windows.. which would reignite all kinds of antitrust suits.. The only reason Apple gets away with it is because they have a much smaller market share.