Windows 2000 is The Borg!

[Richard Crowley]

"Mjolinor" wrote ...

Not much of a programmer but I am left wondering why
you would want a 0 cycle NOP, what other uses does
it have other than a bit of time?

It is also useful for "zeroing out" code space where actual
instructions used to be (or to safely fill out a block of code
space).

 

[Joel Kolstad]

Andre <testing_h@yahoo.com> wrote:

All I care about is if it lets me program PICs and access hardware at
low level. Which is why I use DOS 6.22 on my laptop. No problem.

Well, accessing hardware 'trivially' is great if you're a hacker -- it's a
nightmare if you're a regular user trying to protect yourself from poorly
written programs and virii.

2K is just a royal pain when it goes wrong, though it is fairly stable
(as long as you only run M$ apps and use approved drivers on it).
Otherwise it *will* fail eventually.

All operating systems will fail if you just willy-nilly add half-baked
drivers. I won't get into whether or not Linux or Windows is inherently
more stable, but I will say I've seen both Linux and Windows machines crash,
as well as both staying up for months at a time (and only being taking down
for maintenance, not crashes!).

Plus its every hacker and virus writer's dream OS due to all the
horrible critical security holes (chasms) that you have to download
hundreds of updates to fix. Pity those on a slow Net connection, they
haven't a snowball's chance in hell!

If Linux were anywhere near as popular as Windows, you can bet all the virus
writers would be targeting it with just as much enthusiasm. And while I'm
again not qualified to perform a security analysis of either OS, I think
it's safe to say that Linux has security holes as well... and all it takes
is one...

The Windows Update approach to patching is a good idea, IMO. Although I
agree that those without a high-speed Internet connection are at a
disadvantage, be aware that Windows will slowly download patches in the
background for those with a dial-up connection, so assuming the user spends
some hours per week connected to the Internet, they'll still get all the
patches they good.

Last time I tried Linux (about a year and a half ago now), it didn't have
automatic updating available -- it still required user interaction to
install each patch. And the typical argument that Linux programmers will
more quickly fix a found security risk may be true (but it's certainly
debatable!), but unless those patches can be pushed to users effectively,
it's all for naught.

If more companies wrote a DOS or Linux version of their software they
would make much more money

DOS is far too limiting for modern prorams. You can do sophisticated things
in it, but realistically 99% of all the cool programs that run in DOS have
already been written. I agree that more companies writing Linux software
would generate revenue for those companies -- but the question is whether or
not it's _enough_ revenue so as to pay for their added development costs!

especially from the less well off people
who have for various reasons opted out of the Windows upgrade ladder.

You do have a point, but keep in mind that someone buying a new Dell or
Gateway PC every 3-5 years is effectively paying all of about $50 for the
operating system (bundled with the system). It's very challenging these
days to build your own PC for the same price that Dell, et al. can if you
actually intend to go out and purchase legal copies of Windows, Office, etc.
from a retailer. XP Pro. brand new is $299 retail! :-(

Linux, Open Office, etc. is a wonderful solution for people who can't really
even afford, say, $500-$1000 for a PC. The groups that use 'last
generatrion' (e.g., 2+ year old PCs) hardware and package them up with free
software and either give away the machines or sell them for next to nothing
are performing a valuable service.

As far as I am concerned Windows software that won't allow low level
hardware access that WORKS is a no-no. (Are you listening, Gates et
al) ?????!

Ever heard of a device driver? You don't just willy-nilly bang on the
hardware if you expect your driver to obtain Microsoft certification, but if
all you want to do is hack around, there are several drivers out there that
will take your "peek, poke, inport, or outport" request and just stick it on
the hardware.

The Windows driver model is a Good Thing -- the 'layering' approach that
allows the guy who creates the USB oscilloscope (ob. electronics group
reference!) to not have to know anything at all about the USB chipset on the
motherboard in question is a huge convenience vs. having to do it in DOS.
Although there were some pseudo-layering standards in DOS (e.g., packet
interfaces for network cards), the lack of a real OS is why your DOS PC
doesn't support USB CD ROM drives, flash ROM cards, etc.

The big annoyances I had with Linux were:
-- Lack of program installation standards. Depending on which desktop you
were running, there were variegated methods to get a program connected to AN
ICON ON THE START MENU. Very few programs were smart enough to do this
themselves -- much less to add themselves to a standard 'add/remove program'
database. This is all completely standard in Windows. Of course, there's
no reason Linux couldn't do this -- it's just a lack of standards.
-- Lack of common keyboard control standards. I really despised how some
programs would use, e.g., Alt+X to cut whereas others used Ctrl+X! Yes, of
course these could (typically) be 'fixed,' but I really don't want to spend
my time doing that. Standadization is a good thing. Customizability is
great too -- but I want the base product to have the same defaults as all
the rest. The keys Windows uses for routine tasks are so common these days
that many keyboards have them printed on the front sides of the keys.

---Joel Kolstad

 

[Joel Kolstad]

Richard Crowley <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote:

"Mjolinor" wrote ...
Not much of a programmer but I am left wondering why
you would want a 0 cycle NOP, what other uses does
it have other than a bit of time?

It is also useful for "zeroing out" code space where actual
instructions used to be (or to safely fill out a block of code
space).

I doubt that 'zeroing out' occurs that often, but 'safely filling...' would
be used, for instance, in order to align the next chunk of code on a cache
line boundary. Of course, this is prone to break on other processors as
well -- I would consider using NOPs for alignment purposes or timing
purposes a 'reasonable' programming approach only if your code has checked
what kind of CPU it's running on and has a 'safe' (but slower) alternative
method if it isn't 100% positive it has the right target.

ObAnnoyance: The Microsoft Windows 2000 IDE drivers will run on Intel, Via,
and SiS chipsets, albeit with non-optimal performance for the later two.
The Via driver will CRASH if started on a non-Via chipset. :-( Score one
for Microsoft.

---Joel Kolstad

 

[Richard Crowley]

"Joel Kolstad" <JKolstad71HatesSpam@Yahoo.Com> wrote in message
news:bk8b0m$u8b$1@news.oregonstate.edu...

Richard Crowley <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote:
"Mjolinor" wrote ...
Not much of a programmer but I am left wondering why
you would want a 0 cycle NOP, what other uses does
it have other than a bit of time?

It is also useful for "zeroing out" code space where actual
instructions used to be (or to safely fill out a block of code
space).

I doubt that 'zeroing out' occurs that often, but 'safely filling...'
would
be used, for instance, in order to align the next chunk of code on a
cache
line boundary. Of course, this is prone to break on other processors as
well -- I would consider using NOPs for alignment purposes or timing
purposes a 'reasonable' programming approach only if your code has checked
what kind of CPU it's running on and has a 'safe' (but slower) alternative
method if it isn't 100% positive it has the right target.

ObAnnoyance: The Microsoft Windows 2000 IDE drivers will run on Intel,
Via,
and SiS chipsets, albeit with non-optimal performance for the later two.
The Via driver will CRASH if started on a non-Via chipset. :-( Score one
for Microsoft.

---Joel Kolstad

 

[Richard Crowley]

"Joel Kolstad" wrote ...

I doubt that 'zeroing out' occurs that often,

Isn't that how the "warez" sub-culture defeats software
licensing code (etc)?

 

[Joel Kolstad]

Richard Crowley <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote:

"Joel Kolstad" wrote ...
I doubt that 'zeroing out' occurs that often,

Isn't that how the "warez" sub-culture defeats software
licensing code (etc)?

Oh, I suppose it does! Although Microsoft hopefully doesn't do this in
Windows anywhere.

I was thinking more along the lines of self-modifying code, which you
(hopefully) don't see much of today since it's a lot trickier to make work
correctly and I'm not aware of any benefit of using such code on a modern
processor anyway. (And I mean 'self-modifying while it's running,' not just
patching up absolute addresses prior to starting execution.)

---Joel Kolstad

 

[qrk]

On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 17:44:21 -0700, "Joel Kolstad"
<JKolstad71HatesSpam@Yahoo.Com> wrote:
[snippage]

If Linux were anywhere near as popular as Windows, you can bet all the virus
writers would be targeting it with just as much enthusiasm. And while I'm
again not qualified to perform a security analysis of either OS, I think
it's safe to say that Linux has security holes as well... and all it takes
is one...

There are virus writers out there targeting Linux and Unix systems. It
just doesn't make the headlines as much as the Windoze stuff.
I just got another notice from Red Hat about a potentially nasty hole
in OpenSSH. Second in about a year or two period for OpenSSH. I'm
getting used to updating my Linux box every month due to various
vulnerabilities.
Mark

 

[Harry Conover]

"Mjolinor" <mjolinor@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<FaL9b.406$ta6.663335@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net>...

"Dave VanHorn" <dvanhorn@cedar.net> wrote in message
news:vDidnfuQ5_NW5_qiXTWJhw@comcast.com...

Actually, it wasn't integer arithmetic that was so much faster. Unless
you're saying that NOP is integer arithmetic. ;-) WinBlows had a NOP
timing loop. The K6 had a zero cycle NOP instruction, where the P5
took one cycle for the NOP. I believe Athlon went back to a one-cycle
NOP, perhaps for this reason.

boy that's scary..
if i code in a nop, it's because i need that timing delay.

Not much of a programmer but I am left wondering why you would want a 0
cycle NOP, what other uses does it have other than a bit of time?

In programming, you use a NOP to allow time for a device to settle
before sampling it. You have to ask yourself how much time is consumed
by programming a 0 cycle NOP, and how many times will I have to loop
it before, say, 31 nanoseconds is consumed?

Harry C.

 

[Roger Hamlett]

"Dave VanHorn" <dvanhorn@cedar.net> wrote in message
news:vDidnfuQ5_NW5_qiXTWJhw@comcast.com...

Actually, it wasn't integer arithmetic that was so much faster. Unless
you're saying that NOP is integer arithmetic. ;-) WinBlows had a NOP
timing loop. The K6 had a zero cycle NOP instruction, where the P5
took one cycle for the NOP. I believe Athlon went back to a one-cycle
NOP, perhaps for this reason.

boy that's scary..
if i code in a nop, it's because i need that timing delay.
Actually, if you coded a 'NOP', it did take a cycle.

The problem was the instruction 'pre-fetch' on the K6, bypassed the
'implicit' NOP, in a decrement and loop instruction.

Best Wishes

 

[Bob Masta]

On 16 Sep 2003 22:13:43 -0700, hhc314@yahoo.com (Harry Conover) wrote:

"Mjolinor" <mjolinor@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<FaL9b.406$ta6.663335@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net>...
"Dave VanHorn" <dvanhorn@cedar.net> wrote in message
news:vDidnfuQ5_NW5_qiXTWJhw@comcast.com...

Actually, it wasn't integer arithmetic that was so much faster. Unless
you're saying that NOP is integer arithmetic. ;-) WinBlows had a NOP
timing loop. The K6 had a zero cycle NOP instruction, where the P5
took one cycle for the NOP. I believe Athlon went back to a one-cycle
NOP, perhaps for this reason.

boy that's scary..
if i code in a nop, it's because i need that timing delay.

Not much of a programmer but I am left wondering why you would want a 0
cycle NOP, what other uses does it have other than a bit of time?

In programming, you use a NOP to allow time for a device to settle
before sampling it. You have to ask yourself how much time is consumed
by programming a 0 cycle NOP, and how many times will I have to loop
it before, say, 31 nanoseconds is consumed?

You can't use instruction timings for delays on any modern CPU;
they just aren't that predictable. This used to be recommended on
'286 machines where JMP $+2 was used after I/O instructions to allow
the slow ISA bus to settle. When '386s came along, you used to see
strings of JMPs (in BIOS hard drive code, for example) until people
finally wised up and used hardware timing. I've used it on '486s
in special cases where I calibrated the delay at the start of the
program, but it's a real hassle. Hopeless on a Pentium or later.

Having said all that, instruction delays are still useful in lots of
embedded processor applications, where they use old-style
CPU cores that have deterministic instruction timings. And
there are a _lot_ of embedded systems out there!


Bob Masta
dqatechATdaqartaDOTcom

D A Q A R T A
Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
Shareware from Interstellar Research
www.daqarta.com

 

[Keith R. Williams]

In article <FaL9b.406$ta6.663335@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net>,
mjolinor@hotmail.com says...

"Dave VanHorn" <dvanhorn@cedar.net> wrote in message
news:vDidnfuQ5_NW5_qiXTWJhw@comcast.com...

Actually, it wasn't integer arithmetic that was so much faster. Unless
you're saying that NOP is integer arithmetic. ;-) WinBlows had a NOP
timing loop. The K6 had a zero cycle NOP instruction, where the P5
took one cycle for the NOP. I believe Athlon went back to a one-cycle
NOP, perhaps for this reason.

boy that's scary..
if i code in a nop, it's because i need that timing delay.

Not much of a programmer but I am left wondering why you would want a 0
cycle NOP, what other uses does it have other than a bit of time?

Aligning code on cache line boundaries, perhaps. Filling to the end of
code pages. There was a time when NOPs were put in as place-holders for
self-modified code (another bad idea ;-).

OTOH, why waste the energy dispatching, executing, and completing a
NOP. It's wasting system resources (and heat) that could be used for
real instructions. Architecturally it doesn't do anything (obviously).
Any inference one makes on the function of a NOP (or any other
parameter not specified in the architecture) is simply asking for
trouble. Add in the OoO nature of modern processors; counting on the
execution time of any instruction/loop gets even more dubious.

--
Keith

 

[Keith R. Williams]

In article <bk8bv0$ugj$1@news.oregonstate.edu>,
JKolstad71HatesSpam@Yahoo.Com says...

Richard Crowley <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote:
"Joel Kolstad" wrote ...
I doubt that 'zeroing out' occurs that often,

Isn't that how the "warez" sub-culture defeats software
licensing code (etc)?

Oh, I suppose it does! Although Microsoft hopefully doesn't do this in
Windows anywhere.

I was thinking more along the lines of self-modifying code, which you
(hopefully) don't see much of today since it's a lot trickier to make work
correctly and I'm not aware of any benefit of using such code on a modern
processor anyway. (And I mean 'self-modifying while it's running,' not just
patching up absolute addresses prior to starting execution.)

Indeed. Since the L1 I-caches don't generally have a write port the
modified code would have to go at least to the L2, address invalidated
in the L2, and then refetched. Ugly!

There was a time when self-modified code was common. It's not so
anymore.

--
Keith

 

[John Jardine]

Harry Conover <hhc314@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7ce4e226.0309162113.5674928@posting.google.com...

"Mjolinor" <mjolinor@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<FaL9b.406$ta6.663335@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net>...
"Dave VanHorn" <dvanhorn@cedar.net> wrote in message
news:vDidnfuQ5_NW5_qiXTWJhw@comcast.com...

Actually, it wasn't integer arithmetic that was so much faster.
Unless
you're saying that NOP is integer arithmetic. ;-) WinBlows had a NOP
timing loop. The K6 had a zero cycle NOP instruction, where the P5
took one cycle for the NOP. I believe Athlon went back to a
one-cycle
NOP, perhaps for this reason.

boy that's scary..
if i code in a nop, it's because i need that timing delay.

Not much of a programmer but I am left wondering why you would want a 0
cycle NOP, what other uses does it have other than a bit of time?

In programming, you use a NOP to allow time for a device to settle
before sampling it. You have to ask yourself how much time is consumed
by programming a 0 cycle NOP, and how many times will I have to loop
it before, say, 31 nanoseconds is consumed?

Harry C.

On the face of it, the 31nS loop time would seem to need ... 31nS divided by
the Planc time of 5.38e-44 seconds or roughly 5.76e35 no-cycle loops.
regards
john

 

[Keith R. Williams]

In article <bkas0k$874$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>,
john@jjdesigns.fsnet.co.uk says...

Harry Conover <hhc314@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7ce4e226.0309162113.5674928@posting.google.com...
"Mjolinor" <mjolinor@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<FaL9b.406$ta6.663335@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net>...
"Dave VanHorn" <dvanhorn@cedar.net> wrote in message
news:vDidnfuQ5_NW5_qiXTWJhw@comcast.com...

Actually, it wasn't integer arithmetic that was so much faster.
Unless
you're saying that NOP is integer arithmetic. ;-) WinBlows had a NOP
timing loop. The K6 had a zero cycle NOP instruction, where the P5
took one cycle for the NOP. I believe Athlon went back to a
one-cycle
NOP, perhaps for this reason.

boy that's scary..
if i code in a nop, it's because i need that timing delay.

Not much of a programmer but I am left wondering why you would want a 0
cycle NOP, what other uses does it have other than a bit of time?

In programming, you use a NOP to allow time for a device to settle
before sampling it. You have to ask yourself how much time is consumed
by programming a 0 cycle NOP, and how many times will I have to loop
it before, say, 31 nanoseconds is consumed?

Harry C.

On the face of it, the 31nS loop time would seem to need ... 31nS divided by
the Planc time of 5.38e-44 seconds or roughly 5.76e35 no-cycle loops.

Please send me the design of your counter. We can make some
serious money! ;-)

--
Keith

 

[Keith R. Williams]

In article <oxV9b.113$te.79297@newsfep2-gui.server.ntli.net>,
rogerspamignored@ttelmah.demon.co.uk says...

"Dave VanHorn" <dvanhorn@cedar.net> wrote in message
news:vDidnfuQ5_NW5_qiXTWJhw@comcast.com...

Actually, it wasn't integer arithmetic that was so much faster. Unless
you're saying that NOP is integer arithmetic. ;-) WinBlows had a NOP
timing loop. The K6 had a zero cycle NOP instruction, where the P5
took one cycle for the NOP. I believe Athlon went back to a one-cycle
NOP, perhaps for this reason.

boy that's scary..
if i code in a nop, it's because i need that timing delay.
Actually, if you coded a 'NOP', it did take a cycle.

Nope. It was dropped from the pipe (never saw an execution
unit). It took zero clocks, as long as there wasn't an unusual
branch around.

The problem was the instruction 'pre-fetch' on the K6, bypassed the
'implicit' NOP, in a decrement and loop instruction.

Nope. It wasn't dispatched. This isn't unusual these days.
Anyone using NOPS, or any other instructions for that matter, for
timing loops should be taken out and *shot*. There is a reason
we have timers these days.

--
Keith

 

[Joel Kolstad]

Keith R. Williams <krw@attglobal.net> wrote:

In article <oxV9b.113$te.79297@newsfep2-gui.server.ntli.net>,
Anyone using NOPS, or any other instructions for that matter, for
timing loops should be taken out and *shot*. There is a reason
we have timers these days.

I was reading an article just yesterday that suggested the way to perform a
delay in C was to code up an empty for loop. I suppose someone using that
approach also wouldn't know to turn on the compiler's optimizer... which
would undoubtedly just remove the loop entirely! (Although it might issue a
warning message if the user were lucky...)

 

[Andre]

"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in message news:<3F674B9F.F87FF75F@Hovnanian.com>...

Rich Grise wrote:

[snip]

The storedrone says, "Just let me show you something." I grumbled
and seethed, but there wasn't much I could do - this weenie starts
the computer, and goes into CMOS setup, and I say, "Yeah, I know
how to do that. Oddly, it doesn't have a "factory defaults" setting,
just "Optimum performance" and "Best Performance" or some such.
So this guy is showing me the BIOS, and goes down into the deepest
menus and actually changes the processor clock! He says, Oh, yeah -
factory default is 100/100, but you have to set it to 133/133 or it
won't boot. I blew up. I said, "If you'd told me that two fucking
weeks ago, I'd have had a fucking computer already!!!!!'
He says, "Oh, we're not supposed to tell you that...." muttering
sometning about 'knowledge base'...

[snip]

Get used to it. The day is rapidly approaching when you will not be
permitted to open the case of your computer (or any other electronic
device) without the proper authorization from the licensor of its
hardware/software.

Nah . It'll never happen.

No-one can stop the individual taking their equipment apart , not even
the Government . No matter how many warnings they put on it and/or
security screws .

Other than their designated service representatives,
anyone doing so will be in violation of at least one federal law. This
retailer has probably already instituted store policies voluntarily that
will become the law of the land.

 

[Paul Hovnanian P.E.]

Andre wrote:

"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in message news:<3F674B9F.F87FF75F@Hovnanian.com>...
Rich Grise wrote:

[snip]

The storedrone says, "Just let me show you something." I grumbled
and seethed, but there wasn't much I could do - this weenie starts
the computer, and goes into CMOS setup, and I say, "Yeah, I know
how to do that. Oddly, it doesn't have a "factory defaults" setting,
just "Optimum performance" and "Best Performance" or some such.
So this guy is showing me the BIOS, and goes down into the deepest
menus and actually changes the processor clock! He says, Oh, yeah -
factory default is 100/100, but you have to set it to 133/133 or it
won't boot. I blew up. I said, "If you'd told me that two fucking
weeks ago, I'd have had a fucking computer already!!!!!'
He says, "Oh, we're not supposed to tell you that...." muttering
sometning about 'knowledge base'...

[snip]

Get used to it. The day is rapidly approaching when you will not be
permitted to open the case of your computer (or any other electronic
device) without the proper authorization from the licensor of its
hardware/software.

Nah . It'll never happen.

No-one can stop the individual taking their equipment apart , not even
the Government . No matter how many warnings they put on it and/or
security screws .

No security screws or labels needed. Just a federal law. Its the next
step beyond the DMCA. In order to protect copyrighted material, the next
step beyond software encryption will be security at the hardware level.
Reverse engineering software used for the protection of copyrighted
material is now a violation of federal law. Once a part of that function
is implemented in hardware, you will no longer be permitted (without
proper authorization, of course) to know how the innards of your PC
work. Any attempt to discover this, for whatever reason, will also be a
violation of the law.

--
Paul Hovnanian mailtoaul@Hovnanian.com
note to spammers: a Washington State resident
------------------------------------------------------------------
If your only tool is a hammer then every problem looks like a thumb.

 

[Andre]

"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in message news:<3F6BCEFB.FF75D87F@Hovnanian.com>...

Andre wrote:

"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in message news:<3F674B9F.F87FF75F@Hovnanian.com>...
Rich Grise wrote:

[snip]

The storedrone says, "Just let me show you something." I grumbled
and seethed, but there wasn't much I could do - this weenie starts
the computer, and goes into CMOS setup, and I say, "Yeah, I know
how to do that. Oddly, it doesn't have a "factory defaults" setting,
just "Optimum performance" and "Best Performance" or some such.
So this guy is showing me the BIOS, and goes down into the deepest
menus and actually changes the processor clock! He says, Oh, yeah -
factory default is 100/100, but you have to set it to 133/133 or it
won't boot. I blew up. I said, "If you'd told me that two fucking
weeks ago, I'd have had a fucking computer already!!!!!'
He says, "Oh, we're not supposed to tell you that...." muttering
sometning about 'knowledge base'...

[snip]

Get used to it. The day is rapidly approaching when you will not be
permitted to open the case of your computer (or any other electronic
device) without the proper authorization from the licensor of its
hardware/software.

Nah . It'll never happen.

No-one can stop the individual taking their equipment apart , not even
the Government . No matter how many warnings they put on it and/or
security screws .

No security screws or labels needed. Just a federal law. Its the next
step beyond the DMCA. In order to protect copyrighted material, the next
step beyond software encryption will be security at the hardware level.
Reverse engineering software used for the protection of copyrighted
material is now a violation of federal law. Once a part of that function
is implemented in hardware, you will no longer be permitted (without
proper authorization, of course) to know how the innards of your PC
work. Any attempt to discover this, for whatever reason, will also be a
violation of the law.

Dammit, we fought two world wars to stop these kinds of idiots .

....

-A

 

[Dimitrij Klingbeil]

Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:

Andre wrote:

"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in message
news:<3F674B9F.F87FF75F@Hovnanian.com>...
Rich Grise wrote:

[snip]

The storedrone says, "Just let me show you something." I grumbled
and seethed, but there wasn't much I could do - this weenie starts
the computer, and goes into CMOS setup, and I say, "Yeah, I know
how to do that. Oddly, it doesn't have a "factory defaults" setting,
just "Optimum performance" and "Best Performance" or some such.
So this guy is showing me the BIOS, and goes down into the deepest
menus and actually changes the processor clock! He says, Oh, yeah -
factory default is 100/100, but you have to set it to 133/133 or it
won't boot. I blew up. I said, "If you'd told me that two fucking
weeks ago, I'd have had a fucking computer already!!!!!'
He says, "Oh, we're not supposed to tell you that...." muttering
sometning about 'knowledge base'...

[snip]

Get used to it. The day is rapidly approaching when you will not be
permitted to open the case of your computer (or any other electronic
device) without the proper authorization from the licensor of its
hardware/software.

Nah . It'll never happen.

No-one can stop the individual taking their equipment apart , not even
the Government . No matter how many warnings they put on it and/or
security screws .

No security screws or labels needed. Just a federal law. Its the next
step beyond the DMCA. In order to protect copyrighted material, the next
step beyond software encryption will be security at the hardware level.
Reverse engineering software used for the protection of copyrighted
material is now a violation of federal law. Once a part of that function
is implemented in hardware, you will no longer be permitted (without
proper authorization, of course) to know how the innards of your PC
work. Any attempt to discover this, for whatever reason, will also be a
violation of the law.

To hell the law! How many licensed copies of W2K+XP are in use? How many
unlicensed are? Do you really think that a federal law will be effective
unless you're going to attach a goddamn CIA agent to every man everywhere
in the world. As with the hardware, you'll always be able to assemble a
working PC by buying each card/component separately even if (and this tends
to be true nowadays) the components have been made not within the country
you live in just because it is more profitable for those companies to
assemble different parts at different locations and sell them without
worrying about who buys them and what for he uses them. Modern hardware is
far too complicated to be easily tampered with, so there is no point in
attempting to reverse-engineer e.g. an NVidia gfx card. Did you know that a
law exists (Sorry, I forgot in which jurisdiction) that requires a hacker
to set some sort of 'i am a hacker' flag during login to the ISP. Now tell
me, what use will be of this law. It's obvious, a law is far not everything
and there is a vast difference between things allowed and those done. As
for your 'note to spammers', do you think someone using an open-relay
server in Ho-Chi-Mingh City (or wherever) will care about a Washington
State Resident?

Having all this said, I apologize for the language used, I just had to
comment on the omnipotence of law and what it appears to me.