Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!munnari.oz.au!cs.mu.OZ.AU!pkl
From: pkl@ee.mu.OZ.AU (Peter Kenneth LAWREY)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: What's in the '586?
Message-ID: <1991May18.003324.27122@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>
Date: 18 May 91 00:33:24 GMT
References: <1991May14.002130.4740@vax5.cit.cornell.edu> <42347@cup.portal.com> <1991May15.132623.25795@vlsi.waterloo.edu>
Sender: news@cs.mu.OZ.AU
Organization: University of Melbourne, EE Engineering
Lines: 21

In article <1991May15.132623.25795@vlsi.waterloo.edu> ward@vlsi.waterloo.edu (Paul Ward) writes:
>In article <42347@cup.portal.com> mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson) writes:
>>(An 8-bit
>>password is sufficient, because three consecutive failed password attempts
>>permanently disables the FPU).  When you buy your 100th password, the FPU
>>becomes permanently enabled.  This benefits the consumer because it allows
>>him to buy exactly what he needs, rather than overspending on unused 
>>performance. It also cuts out the middleman, allowing the end-user to reap 
>>the cost savings of dealing directly with Intel.
>
>Novel !!  I'll say.  This is going to be a real winner.  We'll sell you the
>FPU, but you can't use it unless you pay us.  No thanks.
>
This means you can write a virus that makes 4 or more attempts at the password
and disable you FPU.

Erratum: Read 'the end-user' as 'Intel and the end-user' above.
(I'm not saying this is a bad thing)

This allows Intel to charge for the chip propotionally to how badly the
end-user wants it.