Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
AMD Your Rights Online

AMD Opteron to support Palladium 477

Posted by CowboyNeal from the coming-soon-to-a-cpu-near-you dept.
Jim Norton writes "This article is just a reminder that AMD is just as guilty as Intel in supporting TCPA / Palladium. AMD has announced that Opteron will be compatible with the Palladium Initiative and that AMD is part of the 'Trusted Computing Alliance'."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

AMD Opteron to support Palladium More

AMD Opteron to support Palladium

Comments Filter:

  • Mostly a political gesture (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fault0 ( 514452 ) on Saturday September 21, 2002 @11:21AM (#4303024) Homepage Journal
    It's not that companies like AMD and Intel particularly like this effort. As hardware/chip/part manufacturers, it's just more work for them. They support the inititive because they need to stay on Microsoft's good side in the up coming x86-64/itanium battle.

    • You're kidding, right? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Noose For A Neck ( 610324 ) on Saturday September 21, 2002 @12:21PM (#4303269)
      Palladium means that anyone who wants to be able to view Palladium-protected media will have to have Palladium-compliant hardware. It's a goddamn goldmine for Intel and AMD! Imagine all the people who wouldn't otherwise bother to upgrade buying new chips so they can watch their DVD movies or whatever. That's a large amount of sales.

      • Re:You're kidding, right? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Featureless ( 599963 ) on Saturday September 21, 2002 @01:08PM (#4303545) Journal
        A risky business. If customers become unhappy with "trusted computing," perhaps because it's main "feature" is restricing their activities or violating their privacy (and believe me, palladium will do both), they may reject the new hardware.

        "Intellectual property politics" may be too complicated and confusing for most people to understand, but when it's sitting on their desktop, they will figure it out quick.

        Customers (especially home users) may resist buying the new equipment, which both Intel and AMD are in a poor position to afford. Apple (which has, by the way, put a large amount of effort into promoting open media - rip/mix/burn, ipod, etc) might not play ball with trusted computing, and reap huge rewards in new marketshare. Finally, free operating systems, especially Linux, might be catalyzed by the vast new community of people looking to take advantage of the next generation hardware without the restrictions of "Trusted" Windows (talk about an oxymoron).

        Finally, lest we forget, palladium security will be broken, perhaps even before it is released. DRM is only a cage. Things only need to escape once.

        Palladium is a giant loser, except possibly for Microsoft, who will use it to invoke the DMCA against open source authors who attempt to interoperate with their "secure" system. Against that, we can only hope the anti-trust judge is up enough on the issues to head off the issue with meaningful requirements (and enforcement) of an interoperability policy.
        • You're forgetting that MS has a major hold over Apple. Without Office for OSX, Apple goes back to being a niche pc with a niche os that will only get used by graphic designers -- and they'll have a wintel box on their desk right along with the mac so they can get "real work" done. Until OO or somebody has an office suite available that's 100% compatible with MS's file formats, hang it up -- Apple will fall right into line. In fact, I'm surprised they haven't said anything about it yet.
        • I don't see the risk to chip manufacturers. I do see a potential risk to Windows market share, because this will piss people off. If the really invasive incarnations of this conincide with the release of a very solid WINE embedded in a nice Linux distribution, it will make very little sense to keep buying Microsoft operating systems.
      • what about sun hardware? ibm? sgi? etc.

        are you saying that sun will also have to implement this? somehow, I doubt it. I can't believe IMPORTANT content will be allowed only to wintel cartel members..

    • It's not that companies like AMD and Intel particularly like this effort.

      AFAIK, the Trusted PC started as a project for business use. Software developers could move security checks to the client if it's "trusted" without getting grilled by those strange security people who might accidentally look at the code. So there was (and still is) some market demand.

      It just happened that you can sell the same technology to the copyright industry (as "copy control") and to the consumer (as "virus prevention"). I doubt that the technology will match such requirements, but we'll see.

  • Needs to be said.... (Score:3, Funny)

    by dalassa ( 204012 ) on Saturday September 21, 2002 @11:22AM (#4303029) Journal
    Not to be Trolling or anything...

    But every one should switch to the bunny foo-foo Macintosh. :-)

    *pats G4*
    • /me starts handing out copies of Yellow Dog Linux [yellowdoglinux.com].

      Here, this'll ease the pain.
    • If you don't think Apple will be up against the wall like everyone else, implementing some form of DRM, you're deluded. Once content begins to be released with DRM restrictions, Apple will have to make a competing implementation, or else you'll find your precious lickable G4 unable to run an increasing number of things. The only technologies that could survive without DRM (assuming the CBDTPA doesn't pass) would be those that don't share a market with Windows, and they are very few indeed.
      • ...Apple will have to make a competing implementation, or else you'll find your precious lickable G4 unable to run an increasing number of things.

        After all the time Apple's spent doing their own thing despite exactly this being true -- massive compatibility issues with the rest of the PC market -- you honestly think that TCPA will drive them back into the flock of sheep? Give me a break.
      • With Sun becoming interested in Linux, it might be possible that when Intel and AMD ship these DRM-chips, they get some kind of new Sparc or something shipped without DRM. (Obviously the old ones are DRM-free, but for sake of having something closer the speed of Intel/AMD they'll need a new one...) Then they can build a low-cost system around it (no fancy memory) and make it available to non-corporate types.

        Then all the Windows people are locked onto Intel/AMD, but Linux/Unix users with source code won't have a problem compiling for a Sparc (or whatever).
    • Has Transmeta been forgotten?
      • Yes, and for good reason.

        Transmeta had something interesting in their code morphing software, but they didn't make use of it. Instead all they ever managed to produced is a butt-slow x86 processor that used an ass-backwards way of getting x86 compatability.

        Their only saving grace was that, for a while, they had lower powered chips then the other companies out there, however even that has been eliminated with the ULV PIIIs and the VIA C3 chips. Once Intel's Banias chip is available, that'll be the final stake in Transmeta's coffin if someone hasn't bought them up by that time.

        Ohh, and yes, I am aware that I have been speaking of Transmeta in the past-tense. They're a dead company. They'll probably be bought out by someone who has some potential uses for their code morphing software. My guess is IBM, but there are other possibilities.
    • Yes, and you can run Linux on it just fine. Not only that, but some of these Apple products are getting into the price competitive zone as well, especially the server products.

      The key item here though, is the PPC, which so far has no DRM in its guts. This has caused me to change my plans re what I design new projects around.

      Plus, rumours are flying of new, power-efficient PPCs for desktop and embedded use. As far as I'm concerned, that tears it. As soon as these hit the market, it's goodbye Intel, there no longer is any reason to stay with the bad old bad old. And so long as AMD sticks to their DRM guns, it's goodbye AMD too.

  • If you RTFA... (Score:3, Redundant)

    by gatesh8r ( 182908 ) on Saturday September 21, 2002 @11:22AM (#4303031)
    Yeah, they're doing this, but...


    Bit by bit, digital freedom disappears

    By Nathan Cochrane
    September 17 2002
    Next

    Another stage in Microsoft's five-year plan to control our PCs and the Internet will kick off early next year with the launch of Advanced Micro Devices' latest chip, Opteron, aimed at business uses.

    The new microprocessor, which will run both existing 32-bit applications and specially recompiled 64-bit programs, will support "Palladium", a set of security and privacy features Microsoft is building into its products. Both AMD and Microsoft are members of the Trusted Computing Platform Alliance (TCPA), a cabal of 170 product makers developing a uniform approach to security and copyright protection. AMD has been working on the "trusted client" approach with Wave Systems Corp for two years.

    AMD's chips will increase the security of those accessing programs and the Internet, says company marketer Patrick Moorhead. But it will also refuse to play certain content if it is not digitally signed by Microsoft or an authorised party.

    For the end-to-end security features to work as envisioned by the TCPA, all parties along the network chain must build in complementary security features. Chips from the likes of AMD and Intel will only decode information, such as audio and video, if it comes with an unlocking key. Hard-drive makers will make drives that won't record certain types of information, and so on.

    It is envisaged that once the TCPA system is fully functioning, our PCs would quietly report to authorities any unauthorised content on our machines. PCs and other devices would also refuse to play content, such as a music CD, tied to another device, and may be instructed by a remote server to delete information from the owner's hard drive.

    Moorhead, AMD's vice-president of consumer advocacy, dismisses consumer complaints that the ever-tightening noose designed to stop online piracy, known as Digital Rights Management (DRM), will erode existing rights.

    But he says AMD believes that these technologies should be "opt-in" - that the user should control it - not government mandates.

    Hollywood and the music industry are lobbying hard to make DRM mandatory in all new devices, and existing laws here and in the US make it a crime to switch it off.

    Moorhead says the end user has been "unfairly branded" as a thief, and he believes most people would buy content online if it was available but it is being held back by a skittish film and recording industry.

    But Dan Bricklin, computing pioneer and co-developer of the world's first popular spreadsheet, VisiCalc, says attempts to copy-protect works are a "simple fix" to preserve out-dated business models.

    Further, he wrote, using legislation to bolster technological methods would be "bad for society", hobbling technology.

    "Copy protection, like poor environment and chemical instability before it for books and works of art, looks to be a major impediment to preserving our cultural heritage."

    • Re:If you RTFA... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Beliskner ( 566513 ) on Saturday September 21, 2002 @12:17PM (#4303260) Homepage
      Every now and again something happens that makes us citizens have to start everything again from scratch. I say FSF buys the Altera [altera.com] FPGA kit, and we design our own processor (I hope to God that Intel doesn't keep the OP-codes secret that relate to Palladium).

      We can program the FPGA with Intel instruction set compatibility, where Palladium instructions would be ignored, or design an add-on chip (like the old Pentium Turbo snap-on chips) which would detect the Palladium opcodes on the FSB and skirt around them. Whoa, am I violating the DMCA by suggesting this?

      Government + Corporations versus Consumers, Saddam is just a distraction

      • Re:If you RTFA... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by El Rey ( 61125 )
        Just get a Transmeta processor and hack the Pentium emulation layer...
        • Just get a Transmeta processor and hack the Pentium emulation layer...
          If they're still in business, by creating circumventable devices they're breaching the DMCA, they can be swatted like a fly by Hollywood. Then to rub salt in the wound, they can put Stallone into a movie about it - evil corporation tries to steal music like uhhh the Taliban and terrorists, and then gets destroyed by Stallone, who bursts into Transmeta HQ with a Gatling gun, and says, "You took all of our movies away, think you're a wise guy? Mickey Mouse says differrent, eat lead asshole. I'm gonna take our movies back from your evil clutches! Pluto Nash will destroy you"

      • Re:If you RTFA... (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Jester99 ( 23135 )
        Even if they keep the opcodes secret, legal precident is set that double-blind blackboxing is a legal method to reverse-engineer a system. The GNU project, if it wanted to, could surely reverse engineer all the opcodes for Palladium.

        (FYI, double-blind blackboxing is a process of reverse engineering in which one team of engineers "poke at" an existing system to determine how it operates under certain conditions. A second team, which never actually directly interacts with the system they're trying to copy, then uses a report created by the first team to implement the cloned system.)

        #include /*(IANAL)*/

    • Re:If you RTFA... (Score:3, Informative)

      by rosewood ( 99925 )
      I posted this in another thread but again, from hardocp.com

      Comments that looked like they were from Pat Moorhead on an Aussie Web site are not from Pat Moorhead, the firm has just told us.In fact, according to an AMD UK representative, AMD's Opteron products will run any kind of content in the future -- contrary to the report in The Age, on which our original report, below, was based.

      Part of the content in The Age failed to distinguish between comments Moorhead made and conjecture, AMD said. AMD, in fact, claims it is the "good guy", and even though it is a member of the "trusted computing" initiative, will allow users to opt in whether to use this type of technology or not. "There is nothing [in Hammer] that could actually prevent a user running unlicensed content," the representative from AMD said MM.

  • It all goes back to Microsoft. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jimhill ( 7277 ) on Saturday September 21, 2002 @11:22AM (#4303032) Homepage
    It's really simple. If AMD CPUs don't adhere to the "trusted computing" model, then Windows won't run on AMD CPUs and AMD is Done.

    Per usual, the root of the evil sits cackling in Redmond.
    • All it would take to nix this ridiculous scheme is for both Intel and AMD to refuse to support it (no other chipmaker has the volume to fill the void). But everyone is so afraid of being left out of the next big thing (read: the next big opportunity for profit) that no one dares refuse to jump on the bandwagon, lest their competitor beat them out of market share or they become a has-been.

      • All it would take to nix this ridiculous scheme is for both Intel and AMD to refuse to support it (no other chipmaker has the volume to fill the void).

        Two problems with that:
        1. Both are locked in a death-match. Neither is going to do anything that could put it in a weaker position.
        2. If they 'collude', Microshaft could open the 'anti-trust' brand of can-o-whoop-ass.

        Recall the Xbox announcement? Microshaft put out a rumor that they were going to use AMD's processors in the Xbox. That was enough to make Intel come grovelling to Redmond and agree to literally give away their Celerons/P-IIIs to the Xbox. Microshaft is very good at playing one against the other, much better than the entire /. crowd combined. There's a reason why Billy G. is depicted as a Borg on /.

        • You're not disagreeing with me in the least :)

          That's exactly the problem. Neither AMD nor Intel can give up anything they perceive as a POSSIBLE advantage over the other, so they all have to provide the same "support" for whatever comes down the pipe (for practical purposes, meaning whatever M$ wants to market next).

          And I'm sure you're right about the how-dare-you-collude-against-Us threat, too -- "you band together to oppose our Gately Might, and we'll whup your asses but good."

          Tho I suspect it would take the form of M$ buying their own chip fabrication facility (which they could do from petty cash) and that would soon spell the end of everyone else in the realworld CPU market.

      • All it would take to nix this ridiculous scheme is for both Intel and AMD to refuse to support it... But everyone is so afraid of being left out of the next big thing

        yup, the good ole prisoner's dilemma rears its destructive head once again

    • Per usual, the root of the evil sits cackling in Redmond.

      Not like I'm for DRM by any stretch of the imagination...and I'm no big fan of Microsoft, but is this really Microsoft's doing?

      The studios do not want to release their movies on a new digital format like VoD (for some reason, they're particularly weary about streaming). They want some guarentee that their IP is secure. They spent millions on the DVDCCA and it was a total flop. It doesn't take long to search Kazaa to find the number of ripped DVD's out there (I know...not necessarily DVDCCA's/CSS's fault -- its actually the auth token system which is flawed)...Anyway I digress. So there isn't much good (legal, licensed) content for video streaming because the studios are legitamately worried about losing their revenue stream...and it is theirs -- they raised the capital and plunked down millions to make the movies.
      (Disclaimer: I do not want any legally mandated DRM anywhere near my computer...that stuff is evil...its my computer, and my data....damnit)

      If you want the streaming media industry to move forward, you need better content. For the *AA to give us better content, their content needs to be better protected. Microsoft just seems to be addressing this in their own way (by trying to own that segment). If Microsoft didn't do it, someone else would. Do you expect Microsoft to just roll over and withdraw from the PC industry? The only way that they can stay alive in this industry is to keep acquiring new shit. I'm not waying that I really want this, but what are you gonna do? I'd stop running MS and stop complaining (and calling Microsoft evil).

      Lastly, since when has Microsoft's security ever been any good? Granted, its illegal to circumvent that security -- but that hasn't stopped anyone from actually doing it yet.

      --Turkey

  • Addendum (Score:5, Informative)

    by Ridge ( 37884 ) on Saturday September 21, 2002 @11:23AM (#4303038)
    Note that apparently the Opteron (Autobots, transform!), will support untrusted/unlicensed content as well. [neowin.net] [neowin.net].

  • Story is Incorrect (perhaps) (Score:5, Informative)

    by whovian ( 107062 ) on Saturday September 21, 2002 @11:24AM (#4303042)
    AMDZone [amdzone.com] says differently:
    Update: AMD has contacted The Inquirer and indeed Opteron will not support Palladium. Apparently that was some creative writing on the part of the outfit that posted the story.

    • Re:Story is Incorrect (perhaps) (Score:5, Informative)

      by whovian ( 107062 ) on Saturday September 21, 2002 @11:37AM (#4303094)
      AMDmb [amdmb.com] adds further:
      AMD's Opteron won't reject unlicensed content - Ron Goldin - Fri, Sep 20, 2002 - 10:46 AM

      Palladium... just that word sends shivers down my spine.. but it seems AMD is trying to smooth things over a bit and take away the shakes.
      In fact, according to an AMD UK representative, AMD's Opteron products will run any kind of content in the future -- contrart to the report in The Age, on which our original report was based.
      Part of the content in The Age failed to distinguish between comments Moorhead made and conjecture, AMD said. [emphasis added]
      Source: The Inquirer - More Information

      • AMD's Opteron won't reject unlicensed content - Ron Goldin - Fri, Sep 20, 2002 - 10:46 AM

        Ok, so it sounds like it STILL HAS PALLADIUM in it. This is how palladium hardware works, it can also run unsecured content, but not in secure mode.

        WISE the fuck up folks. This is how palladium is designed to work at first. IT'S OPTIONAL. That's how they want to fuck us over, by getting most people without them even knowing.

    • No, they will support Palladium. AMD's update does not indicate that they won't, rather it says they will have an 'Opt-In' policy.

      I hope that they define 'Opt-In' policy as a choice the consumer can make at purchase whether to include the DRM chip at all. I personally do not want any DRM chips on my future processors... disabled or not!

      • I hope that they define 'Opt-In' policy as a choice the consumer can make at purchase whether to include the DRM chip at all. I personally do not want any DRM chips on my future processors... disabled or not!

        Having a pin on the processor that you can tie low/high (eg, with a jumper on the mobo or whatever) would be sufficient. AMD can't just leave a big hole in a CPU. They probably have to redesign. Even if they didn't, AMD would have to change their assembly line to support double of everything. It's simply not going to happen.

    • From HardOCP.com

      Comments that looked like they were from Pat Moorhead on an Aussie Web site are not from Pat Moorhead, the firm has just told us.In fact, according to an AMD UK representative, AMD's Opteron products will run any kind of content in the future -- contrary to the report in The Age, on which our original report, below, was based.

      Part of the content in The Age failed to distinguish between comments Moorhead made and conjecture, AMD said. AMD, in fact, claims it is the "good guy", and even though it is a member of the "trusted computing" initiative, will allow users to opt in whether to use this type of technology or not. "There is nothing [in Hammer] that could actually prevent a user running unlicensed content," the representative from AMD said MM.
    • AMD and Intel are both doing exactly the same thing -- letting TCPA (and hence Palladium) be BIOS-disableable. It's a required part of the TCPA spec.

      This is not news. Both AMD and Intel are supporting TCPA, both let you disable it.
    • This is exactly why I didn't bother to submit it when I read it yesterday. I figured, heck, it's more BS and /. readers don't need to be bothered with it, but I did tack in on to the end of a post in a different topic. Guess I should have posted the red-herring and AMD's denial, but usually that sort of thing gets rejected. It's too often BS that gets posted. Go figure.

  • Sad (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Aztek ( 260107 )
    Sad they do this just to get microsofts support in the next windows for the hammer
  • Not a huge issue, just don't use an OS that supports Palladium.
    Unless there is some killer feature Palladium has that makes unenabled OS's useless.

  • Support is optional (Score:3, Informative)

    by Analysis Paralysis ( 175834 ) on Saturday September 21, 2002 @11:26AM (#4303053)
    Ceck out the update on The Inquirer here [theinquirer.net]. According to AMD, TCPA support will be optional, with users being able to opt out.

  • do like me (Score:3, Insightful)

    by kipple ( 244681 ) on Saturday September 21, 2002 @11:28AM (#4303066) Journal
    ..start buying 'old' processors and set up your own cluster.. you won't need new CPU for a while :)

  • Just Another Reason (Score:3, Insightful)

    by asv108 ( 141455 ) <asv@@@ivoss...com> on Saturday September 21, 2002 @11:29AM (#4303068) Homepage Journal
    To Run Linux on the opteron. Seriously, I think all these DRM moves by MS our great, /. should welcome them, it will just speed up the world migration to Linux. There even seems to be a lot more interest in Linux these past few weeks on usenet since certain "free" winxp installtions can't use sp1.

  • TCPA I can live with but palladium?? (Score:3, Informative)

    by Billly Gates ( 198444 ) on Saturday September 21, 2002 @11:34AM (#4303087) Journal
    TCPA is more strict then palladium but TCPA is founded by Intel, IBM, HP and a few other players who are more sympathetic to linux then Microsoft.

    TCPA is already secretly installed by default on most IBM machines [ibm.com] but the good news is you can turn it off and run linux on them. IBM is one of the biggest investors of TCPA and has also invested more then a billion into linux. They will make sure linux will run on TCPA hardware or that TCOA can easily be turned off. However microsoft's palladium will be built into memory modules and the cpu itself. Ouch. I do not know if you can turn these off. Microsoft's palladium faq [microsoft.com] states that you can still run old non trusted apps but admits linux can not run due ot legal rather then technical reasons. TCPA is more strict from a technical standpoint but it has proven itself that it can be easily disabled and I trust IBM a hell of alot more then Microsoft concerning my interests.

    If worse comes to worse macs are always an option. It will take forever before apple is done designing motherboards with the new IBM powerpc chip's( last quarter 2003) which means g4's will stay for another year or two with slow memory access(sdram). Sure the new macs come with ddr but the internal chipset slows it down to sdram 133 speeds because the g4's suck so much.

    • Re:uhh..... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Kythorn ( 52358 )
      From the same FAQ you link to:

      Q: Can Linux, FreeBSD or another open source OS run on "Palladium" hardware?

      A: Virtually anything that runs on a Windows-based machine today will still run on a "Palladium" machine (there are some esoteric exceptions[1]). If you currently have a machine that runs both Linux and Windows, you would be able to have that same functionality on a "Palladium" machine.

      [1] These exceptions include the following:

      Some debuggers may need to be updated to work in the "Palladium" environment, but they can still work.
      Some special performance tools may need to be updated.
      Software that writes directly to TCPA hardware will need to be updated.
      Memory scrub routines (at the hardware level) will need attention.
      Third-party crash dump software may need to be updated.
      BIOS mode hibernation features will need to be updated to work with "Palladium."
    • Microsoft's palladium faq [microsoft.com] states that you can still run old non trusted apps but admits linux can not run due ot legal rather then technical reasons.

      Maybe you should read your own links.. From the link you provided:

      Q: Can Linux, FreeBSD or another open source OS run on "Palladium" hardware?

      A: Virtually anything that runs on a Windows-based machine today will still run on a "Palladium" machine (there are some esoteric exceptions[1]). If you currently have a machine that runs both Linux and Windows, you would be able to have that same functionality on a "Palladium" machine.

      What the FAQ does say is that it would be hard to create a similar trust architecture under Linux, due to patents and other legal reasons. Which is something I don't think most Linux users are gonna be missing anyway.

  • There's still hope... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by pVoid ( 607584 )
    In these articles, destined at the general public, they state things like:

    But it will also refuse to play certain content if it is not digitally signed by Microsoft or an authorised party.

    I'm still very perplex by these assertions, since really, playing an mp3 has no tie to the kernel (you decode in user mode, you send to a wave device).

    That implies that a) the chip will restrict access to the wave device, b) it will restrict access to files...

    Both sound kinda ludicrous to me... Would that mean games will have to digitally sign their sound fx? If not, will the kernel have some way of knowing *what* a file contains (semantically)? CPUs are simple devices, they don't do stuff like "POUR cupofcoffe in eax IF coffeemaker = full" ... no they do simple stuff like "INC eax". I really think there will be ways to circumvent this thing pretty fast. What scares me is the fact that they think having such a chip will somehow assert the OS currently running has not been tampered with, and hence it can't be a malicsious OS... and at that point send in work loads from different users (basically making a big trusted network). This is just an invitation for mass viruses and global chaos.

  • So... (Score:5, Funny)

    by labratuk ( 204918 ) on Saturday September 21, 2002 @11:44AM (#4303119)
    Is this something from which we cannot Opt-er-out?

    I'll get my coat.

  • Article is old and incorrect (Score:4, Insightful)

    by l33t-gu3lph1t3 ( 567059 ) <arch_angel16.hotmail@com> on Saturday September 21, 2002 @11:47AM (#4303128) Homepage
    http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=5489

    "Comments that looked like they were from Pat Moorhead on an Aussie Web site are not from Pat Moorhead, the firm has just told us.
    In fact, according to an AMD UK representative, AMD's Opteron products will run any kind of content in the future -- contrary to the report in The Age, on which our original report, below, was based.

    Part of the content in The Age failed to distinguish between comments Moorhead made and conjecture, AMD said.

    AMD, in fact, claims it is the "good guy", and even though it is a member of the "trusted computing" initiative, will allow users to opt in whether to use this type of technology or not.

    "There is nothing [in Hammer] that could actually prevent a user running unlicensed content," the representative from AMD said."

    Make damn sure to check the most current of facts before posting FUD, fellow /.ers?

  • Ya know... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Jhon ( 241832 )
    Maybe... just MAYBE 1.8 Ghz with win98 or linux or whathaveyou is fast enough. I STILL use my old p166 for the majority of my "work" related activities (email, word processing, etc), I doubt I'm going to find an app any time soon that wont run well on my 1.8 Ghz monster. Bet my p166 is still chugging along 5 years down the road, too.

    -jhon

  • This is just silly (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Rui del-Negro ( 531098 ) on Saturday September 21, 2002 @11:56AM (#4303166) Homepage
    Do you think the CPU has any idea if it's rendering a 3D scene or playing an MP3 or decompressing a JPEG or spell-checking a document? Let alone know if the files are copyrighted or not.

    That's up to the OS and individual applications to (try to) determine and enforce.

    The only thing that changes in a "secure" CPU is the fact that programs and (especially) the operating system will be able to identify that CPU uniquely (by a serial number), similar to what the Pentium III already does (but you can turn it off on the PIII, and I think also on the P4). Then some programs will probably refuse to play certain files if they're not tagged with that CPU id. Ex., if you buy a "secure" song on-line, or if you rip one of your CD's, it probably won't play on your friend's computer (or on yours if you change the CPU, and that's why MS needs to work with CPU makers, to make sure the CPU id can be managed by the OS).

    The rest is just a lot of marketing hype to get money out of the RIAA and similar associations. "See, we are working on this 'secure' hardware that won't play copyrighted music, but it's very expensive to develop and we really don't have enough money, what with this recession and everything, so if you could fork over a couple of million, we'd appreciate it..."

    It's a potential gold mine for (some) IT companies, just like the Y2K bug.

    RMN
    ~~~
  • Stick with what you got. Who needs another Ghz of CPU? Aside from gamers, who have my sympathy, most other users out there don't come close to really needing all the power currently in their CPUs. So just don't buy it. You won't feel the difference.

    cleetus
    • Yup, CPU / MB manufacturers better beware - my system is already really damn fast (tm). If they start getting on the bandwagon of restricting what MY computer can do, they'll find MY hard-earned money going into huge LCD displays, video cards, or simply other areas of interest besides computing.

      Which all means I won't be buying THEIR motherboards or CPUs.
  • How does a vendor checking your machine remotely, finding unlicensed content and deleting said content fit into current laws governing search and seizure practices ? Just curious ?

  • Ok, so the US gets all this restrictive legislation passed - the cabal has their way and implements hardware DRM to enforce it while the rest of the world has a good belly laugh. The arrogance to think that there won't be alternative hardware available from Asia - or anywhere else for that matter - is stupifying.

    The emerging markets for new technology is not the US but the parts of the world that don't have it now. If MS, Intel, etc are only selling locked down software on 4GHZ chips, why wouldn't a consumer in say China choose Linux/BSD/etc on a say a VIA processor and chipset that doesn't implement DRM?

    This is all such a waste... and economic suicide for US technology companies. To think they can impose their self interests outside their borders - after they thumb their nose at organizations such as the world court - is inexplicable.

    This nonsense can't be enforced and in the end the 'bootleg' companies will win.

    Prohabition, speakeasys and organized crime - funny how history repeats itself.

  • will old hardware and software combinations (say a PIII running Windows 2000) be able to view/listen to/use the new DRM'd stuff? Or is whatever the DRM bit of media is encrypted in something you need DRM-compliant hardware/software to open?

    I may end up buying a LOT of P4s in a big, big hurry.

  • I didn't know what to think of palladium, but then I realized two things; this might make the MPAA less squeamish about releasing content specifically for computers, and I mostly make my own content anyway, or download it from other small, independant sources.

    The only thing which this could cause problems with would be if I downloaded movies and MP3s off of kazaa, but since I have a 56k connection, I don't bother.
    I can't blame the evil powers that be for trying *something* to protect their interests, and to be honest, I'd rather have it so I need the new kickass AMD processor than have it so the MPAA and RIAA can DoS everyone they please or suing the creators of a GPL'd DVD Player.

    So who wants to do something about the latter measures?

  • Let 'em know ... (Score:5, Informative)

    by rlp ( 11898 ) on Saturday September 21, 2002 @12:45PM (#4303410)
    Don't like Palladium - write to Intel and AMD and tell them
    that you won't buy processors that support Palladium.
    Intel backed-off CPU-ID's (for the Pentium III) quickly when
    they realized that it would cost them sales. In general,
    pissing off your best customers is not a smart long term
    business practice.

    If you write - remember: be concise and polite:

    Intel:

    Chairman: Andy S. Grove
    CEO: Craig R. Barrett

    Corporate Offices:
    2200 Mission College Blvd.
    Santa Clara, California 95052, USA

    AMD:
    Chairman: W. J. Sanders III
    CEO: Hector de J. Ruiz

    Corporate Offices:
    One AMD Place
    P.O. Box 3453
    Sunnyvale CA 94088, USA

    • Won't help (Score:3, Insightful)

      by RelliK ( 4466 )
      AMD has no choice in this matter. It needs to support palladium so that Microsoft ports windows to x86-64. Without windows, AMD is dead. Notice that Intel is doing the same thing -- again because it has no choice. Once again, Microsoft has everyone by the balls, so I suggest you instead direct your mail to One Microsoft Way.
  • AIX supports something they call the Trusted Computing Base and it has to be chosen to be installed at install time. I basically has alot of things to make sure things stay as secure as possible. If this is anything like that, then I don't see how or why Palladium needs to be implemented in hardware. AIX does not have anything specific in the hardware to support TCB. It's a modified Kernel. I did not say that they don't have serials out the wazoo. They do. But noone is concerned about TCB on AIX. Even if it isn't the same, I see some of the same features in Palladium as the TCB has on AIX. Basically, I would like to see hardware and software first before I come out against it. It may be we are all just freking out about nothing. If it does come out, well, my computers fast enough now and does everything I need to do except for a vew things, and plenty of non palladium machines are out already. Just use the old stuff until they realize it won't sell. Passport flopped because noone wants it. Palladium could fail just the same. All I would like to see/fight against is the REQUIREMENT that this stuff be run.
  • Looks like Crusoe could be a nice alternative if you still want to keep on using the x86 instruction set and avoid Palladium. Otherwise, its time that maybe you asked yourself how much your freedom is worth and switched to the Mac.
  • Is everyone really upset because your new Disney DVD is going to require Windows 2005 and a Palladium CPU to play? Instead of bitching about how you should be able to play/copy your new NSync CD anywhere you want, maybe people need to stop feeding the corporate beast that spawns this crap.
    Support garage bands. See local shows with local talent. See an indie film at your local arthouse or the MFA. By a PowerPC, Alpha, or Sparc. Download a free or opensource MMORPG/RTS/MUD on the internet and spend a few hours making friends with humans all over the world, and in the process create your own DRM-free content!
    I know this is slashdot, and we only care about freedom/justice/rights until Blizzard puts out a new game, Disney imports some anime, or George Lucas belches, but come on. There is so much good content available out there. You don't *have* to buy/rent your entertainment from Viacom. If you don't buy DRM enabled content, you don't have to worry about owning a DRM enabled machine. I am sure I will always have a unixy (Linux/BSD/whatever) box on which to run my indie content.
    Of course, you can just ignore this message, and go back to downloading your Divx rip of AOTC on kazaa while bitching that your "rights" are being trampled.
  • AMD must have recieved a lot of flack for that interview. This is why they're trying to SPIN the issue.

    There is no fucking way someone who works at AMD says by accident that they're including palladium. They either are or they're not and theres no internal confusion. It's a BFD.

    The opteron still has palladium. Don't be fooled by comments carefully crafted to confuse you into thinking there's no palladium. When they say "it will still run unsecured content." They are just playing off the fact that palladium hardware allows you to run unsecured content when it runs in usecured mode.

    Don't fool yourselves, most windows lusers will be running longhorn with secure mode on. That's how it all starts.

    If you like your fair use rights, free software, competition in the software market, low prices, commodity computing... Get ready to bend over and be thoroughly pounded by the big devil in redmond for the rest of your breathing existance.

  • Many computer technicians have long complained about how flawed and completely inefficient the PC-Intel architecture is, and how alternative platforms like Apple and Sparc are so much better.

    The only thing that the PC has going for it is that it's cheap, open, and completely commoditized.

    After Palladium, I doubt very much that PCs will be continue to drop in price, and they definitely won't be open.

    I'm willing to bet significant amounts of users will switch to alternative platforms, including, I imagine, the entire open-source community and many nations outside the US.

    Intel and AMD have shot themselves in the foot, as well as all other hardware vendors who depend on making parts for PC's.

  • Possible reason for the delay? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by RelliK ( 4466 ) on Saturday September 21, 2002 @03:04PM (#4304041)
    Does anyone else think that the previously reported delay in ClawHammer production is due to this crap?

Slashdot Top Deals

E = MC ** 2 +- 3db

Close