1. Using "hot" as a synonym for "sexy" (as one might when discussing a microprocessor) is pre-Paris Hilton. She merely flattened the term out so it can be used in place of "neat", "tasty", "interesting", and "barely adequate".

2. Couldn't Apple use Intel's 64-bit chips and thus not appear to be hypocrites? Aren't they still called x86, or what? Disclaimer: I find the differences between 32-bit and 64-bit computing to be incredibly dull and thus know nothing about it.

3. What about the DRM Intel is putting in all their chips? OPEN YOUR EYES PEOPLE YOUR RIGHTS ARE BEING TAKEN AWAY

...or something.

posted by Jonathan Harford on 06/07/2005 11:39:04

1. Yes, but my phrasing was funnier.

2. Well, I don't know much more, but as I recall, Intel's 64-bit line wasn't really appropriate for desktop (and certainly not portable) use.

3. Whatev. I'll be honest about this issue: I'm concerned about this, but right now everything is too hazy for me to make much of a fuss over it yet.

posted by Mark Kawakami on 06/07/2005 13:13:49

DRM?

posted by Jason M George on 06/09/2005 10:40:06

Digital Rights Management, like the stuff online music stores put in the files you download to prevent them from being played on other machines. The issue is that a lot of people find them to be a violation of consumer rights, in that when you purchase music or movies or the like, the fair use clauses of our copyright laws allows us to do things that DRM is designed to prevent, like make copies of it for personal use.

posted by Mark Kawakami on 06/09/2005 10:51:38

So with DRM I am not allowed to move it from my Desktop to my laptop, or to my MP3 player for that matter?

posted by Jason M George on 06/10/2005 14:11:30

Well, it depends on the DRM. For instance, on iTunes, you can have your music on up to five machines, and to any number of iPods, and the iTunes software itself prevents you from burning the same playlist more than X number of times (I forget how many). Overall, those are pretty liberal terms for DRM, but not as liberal as what you're technically allowed to do with an MP3 you've ripped yourself from your own CD. So, by building DRM into the chipset, Intel can supposedly apply DRM more broadly and universally, although the exact implications of it I don't know.

posted by Mark Kawakami on 06/14/2005 16:50:31

There's another little bit of info here: According to The Inquirer (the British technical publication, not the American tabloid), Intel's DRM is said to implement Microsoft's DRM at the chip level rather than at the more easily hacked OS level. However, they did say something about the DRM system being "forward looking" meaning built with some vision of incorporating other DRM systems as well.

However, if the main thrust of Intel's DRM-scheme is to interoperate with Microsoft's DRM (and that makes sense), I think there is little for Mac users to worry about, as Apple controlling its own DRM technology is considered a highly competitive advantage to them.

posted by Mark Kawakami on 06/14/2005 16:58:38

I hate it when Computers tell me what I can and cannot do.

"I am the User!!!"

posted by Jason M George on 06/16/2005 07:28:20

Well, for iTunes, there's always the burn and re-rip method (burn the file to a CD, re-rip it as an MP3). Hey, did I just violate the DMCA?

posted by Mark Kawakami on 06/16/2005 10:42:43

Bob Cringley posted a second article about Apple's transition to Intel. He seems to think the G5's 64-bit processing is underutilized. He also suspects that this will help with digital rights and downloading content like movies over iTunes.

I just want to buy a laptop that runs applications on both operating systems, so I'm very excited! (I have to run some software that only runs on XP)

I am very optimistic about the transition. At the very least, this will end my feud with my sister-in-law, who works in marketing for Intel :)

posted by Matt Miller on 06/16/2005 16:40:12

Good blog

posted by Mira on 09/01/2005 16:18:32

Very useful blog. Thank you.

posted by blog on 02/20/2006 08:36:04