Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!decwrl!sun!pitstop!sundc!seismo!uunet!sco!seanf
From: seanf@sco.COM (Sean Fagan)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: Ethics of crippler circuitry
Message-ID: <2312@scolex.sco.COM>
Date: 19 Feb 89 19:37:12 GMT
References: <4602@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM> <79700020@p.cs.uiuc.edu>
Reply-To: seanf@scolex.UUCP (Sean Fagan)
Organization: The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.
Lines: 20

In article <79700020@p.cs.uiuc.edu> gillies@p.cs.uiuc.edu writes:
>2.  I think intentionally "crippled" machines are mostly a thing of
>the past.  IBM probably did it to avoid competing with themselves ("we
>can't sell this super-fast machine cheap, because we'll hurt our own
>business").

This is not really true.  The only difference is that now more people are
buying machines with microprocessors, which have widely announced and
published timings (i.e., if you bought a Framistans, Inc. Model G, with a
25MHz 68020 and 68881, you would be really surprised if it could only do 3
MIPS, right?).  People who buy mainframes (and some brands of minis) still
have to put up with this.  For example:  CDC's newer machines have a field
upgrade which essentially consists of replacing the boot up microcode.
Crays also have a nice little field upgrade, but, considering what the Cray
CE's carry around in their vans, that's not saying much 8-).

-- 
Sean Eric Fagan  | "What the caterpillar calls the end of the world,
seanf@sco.UUCP   |  the master calls a butterfly."  -- Richard Bach
(408) 458-1422   | Any opinions expressed are my own, not my employers'.