What's the keep the AMT technology from being accessed remotely by a nefarious website? I can see this bieng left in it's default setting by clueless home users and being used to really screw up computers in new and exciting ways. I'm sure Intel has given this some thought, but have they said anything about it?
Originally Posted by Cthippo What's the keep the AMT technology from being accessed remotely by a nefarious website? I can see this bieng left in it's default setting by clueless home users and being used to really screw up computers in new and exciting ways. I'm sure Intel has given this some thought, but have they said anything about it?
Sounds vaguely like that Blue Pill hack that could have basically been the worst security flaw in known history...
Originally Posted by g3n3tiX We now know what's in the guts of the gaming server....CLOVERTOWN !!
lol nice...scheduled for early 2007 !
nice deal with intel !
Thought we were not meant to that yet... Thou i thought it was a quad core processor.
Originally Posted by DarkReaper They said they couldn't tell us until the IDF, which has happened - so now we know!
No big suprise though really guys :p
Aight nice and subtle way of saying it then...
With the AMT could it be possible to run an older version of windows (95/98) to run some older games incompatible with XP and probably the same again with Vista.
I've been excited about hardware virtualization technology for a while now. AMT doesn't really have the same effect on me, though... maybe I need to actually see it in action, and have my fears allayed on the security side?
All sound very interesting, on the VM side wonder what will happen if/when running multi os on one system becomes the norm... thinking Microsoft/Apple EUL.
Why would you run 8 game servers each in a different VM when you could just run 8 instances in the one install anyway? Surely there wouldn't be any speed improvements.
Originally Posted by cebla Why would you run 8 game servers each in a different VM when you could just run 8 instances in the one install anyway? Surely there wouldn't be any speed improvements.
With the AMT could it be possible to run an older version of windows (95/98) to run some older games incompatible with XP and probably the same again with Vista.
Not with AMT, but with VM it sounds like it should be possible
Simply put, AMT could make the life of the technical troubleshooter a heck of a lot easier, and the life of a consumer a heck of a lot simpler.
I can see this creating an even bigger divide between those in the know and those who aren't.
As it is, most generic (ie clueless) PC users manage to break PCs in ever more ingenious ways yet if all they have to do is sit back while someone remotely fixes their screwup, they're going to be less inclined to try to not mess up or learn what the problem is.
The largest security vulnerability in any large network is the users.
The only way I see to cure this is education.
Virtualisation could cause users to care even less and hence cause even more issues?
Then again, the thought of a fresh OS install every time you double-click a file sounds like it could be very helpful too... :D
Originally Posted by cebla Why would you run 8 game servers each in a different VM when you could just run 8 instances in the one install anyway? Surely there wouldn't be any speed improvements.
Well, aside from "because they can", it also helps to compartmentalise each server so that a problem with one game server only affects that particular VM, rather than causing every server to crash and burn.
Comments 1 to 19 of 19
Replylol nice...scheduled for early 2007 !
nice deal with intel !
Thought we were not meant to that yet... Thou i thought it was a quad core processor.
No big suprise though really guys :p
Aight nice and subtle way of saying it then...
With the AMT could it be possible to run an older version of windows (95/98) to run some older games incompatible with XP and probably the same again with Vista.
What has been the opinon at Bit about it so far?
Because we can :D
Not with AMT, but with VM it sounds like it should be possible
I can see this creating an even bigger divide between those in the know and those who aren't.
As it is, most generic (ie clueless) PC users manage to break PCs in ever more ingenious ways yet if all they have to do is sit back while someone remotely fixes their screwup, they're going to be less inclined to try to not mess up or learn what the problem is.
The largest security vulnerability in any large network is the users.
The only way I see to cure this is education.
Virtualisation could cause users to care even less and hence cause even more issues?
Then again, the thought of a fresh OS install every time you double-click a file sounds like it could be very helpful too... :D
;)
-
« Previous
-
1
-
Next »
Discuss in the forums