Dell outsources to India too... no kidding!

Just wanted to let you know that Dell Canada has outsourced their support to India as well.

I know that because I just got off a 1 hour phone call with someone from India just to replace the hard disk in one of my Dell Optiplex systems.

I told the guy right from the start that the hard disk was the problem - but naturally we have to go through all the steps. The only thing I refused to do is to stick the clearly defective hard disk in another working PC just to reconfirm that it's defective.

The support isn't what it used to be... but I wouldn't rate it as terrible. After all, the rep in India was just following a list of steps specified by Dell. Also, I think that the Indians are better in one way - they seem to be more willing to take verbal abuse and still be polite (not that I was abusing the person I was speaking to - but I was a little 'direct'). And the two reps from India that I spoke to so far (I find that Dell Optiplex systems generally don't need to be serviced very often - at least not the ones I buy) both spoke English clearly and I didn't have any trouble understanding them.

While it would be nice to have a Canadian or Eva Glass (;-) at the other end, what I think everyone should understand is that where India is today, is where Japan was maybe 40 or 50 years ago. As the India progresses, wages will rise and poverty will be reduced. And poverty is what creates things like terrorism.

I'm not defending HP. Clearly there are right ways and wrong ways to do outsourcing. Rather than have another company do it, I think it would have been wiser if HP to set up shop itself in India using existing employees (employees that want International Experience), have those employees hire and train locals - and then they get rewarded by managing the people they hired - or at the very least, they would stay a bit to make sure everything runs smoothly and then find some other job opportunity - whether it be within HP or in another company.

Looking at the big picture, I think that stopping all forms of outsourcing is just as bad as outsourcing things badly.

Regards,
Peter Stern

Why blocking Linux on the Xbox is good
I know, I know. My subject line seems like an inherent falsehood. But hear me out. I understand wanting to have total control over your computer, and the fears of things like Palladium and DRM. However, in the case of the Xbox, especially Xboxes with the Xbox Live service, plugging holes like this, and blocking Linux, is incredibly important. The Xbox is a video game console, that is what it is designed, marketed, and made for. It has PC hardware, yes, but its purpose is to play games and other entertainment software. The Xbox Live service is designed to be a stable platform for online games that is as impervious as possible to cheating. If people can hack their Xboxes, and do whatever they want with them, then they can cheat in online games. There are many cases in society where an individual's freedom is restricted for the purposes of providing a stable society for others. Someone may feel that all property should be communal, but most people don't, and we therefore have laws against stealing. By the same token, someone may feel that they have a right to cheat in games if they choose, but since it ruins the experience for other people, there are rules against it.

Now, if you want to play with your Xbox and install Linux, that's fine. But you can't do it and have Xbox Live on the same Xbox. Simple as that. If you have an Xbox with Linux, and don't have Xbox Live on there, you won't get the update, and you can continue to do as you please. It's the same with mod chips. I think Microsoft's customers have every right to expect as secure an environment as possible on the Xbox Live service. You only have to look at what happens in online PC games and PS2 games to see the problems with a wide-open, entirely hackable/crackable system when it comes to a shared, multi-user experience..

Thank you for your time,

Nathan Hartzell

[No probs Nathan. Long paragraphs tho', don't you think? Ed.]

Mike,

A couple things I'd like to point out in your rather poorly written article on Microsoft's Xbox Live service and its auto-update.

Your paragraph starting "The Xbox only runs software approved by Microsoft" leads the reader to believe this is a big-bad Microsoft practice when in actuality it the practice of console makers going back twenty some years. You can't put anything on the PS2 that Sony doesn't approve or anything on the Gamecube that Nintendo doesn't allow. Your wording is deceitful at best.

Also, the next paragraph beginning "Needless to say...." should also point out that there is also no method approved by Nintendo for putting Linux on your Gamecube. In fact, with the proprietary software standard that Nintendo uses for its Gamecube console it will be a cold day in hell before Linux could ever run on that machine either. But this debate has never really been about a balanced approach to putting Linux on consoles. It has been a bunch of dorks taking potshots at Microsoft to assuage their damaged egos that Microsoft has been fairly successful at keeping Linux off its console. Why no article on Nintendo's insidious methods to keep Linux off the Gamecube? Where's the balanced reporting?

That's right, that's not your interest. Just a little muckracking to keep your fanatical niche cult happy. Idiot.

Finally, if you knew anything about the Live Service you would know that there WAS and IS an extensive contract when purchasing the Live software that details that things like this WOULD and WILL happen in the future. Just because the general populace is too stupid to read agreements before clicking the "I agree" button doesn't make that Microsoft's fault.

In short, the article is pathetic all around.

Sincerely,

Patrick Herron
Informed Consumer of all Three Next-Gen Consoles and Mac User

[Thanks Patrick. I didn't write the article, but you definitely win the rudest reader of the week award. Have a banana. Ed.]

Four trillion transistors in Blackburn, Intelshire
Hi Mike!

Did you notice what I noticed regarding information coming from the IDF? The P4 has 55 Million transistors. Prescott has 125 Million transistors. On third of the 70 Million additional transistors are explainable on the basis of an increase in the on-die L2 cache from 512 KB to 1 MB. What about the remaining almost 50 Million transistors? Yes, there will be a 1 MB L3 cache which, probably, will remain deactivated until Tejas unless the Athlon64 performance requires Intel to activate it sooner. Who says competition is not a wonderful thing to behold!

Best regards,

Stuart

INTC has run out of ideas
IBM e325 server (16 Opterons) is running SuSe Linux for AMD64 and outperforms similarly configured 16x Itanium and 16xAlpha by 80%.

INTC's CEO: mainstream 64 bit apps next year, what does INTC have in its sleeves?

To answer HyperTransport, Integrated Memory controller, and AMD64, INTC engineers came up with the bright idea, increase cache to 2MB for Xeon and P4 and increase cache to 8MB for Itanic.

One day, INTC will create huge 32bit chips with 100MB of cache and hope that's enough to match AMD. And we guess AMD is bright enough to add more cache too.

So INTC has 90nm on 300mm wafers, so what? To stay less far behind, they have to put 2MB cache and double the die size and heat....

According to INTC CTO, 90nm chips are hotter.

So the only saving from 90nm process is die size, but then, INTC has to double the die by increasing cache....and then there is even more heat... I guess wafer and power companies will love INTC and google will need many more mega watts to stay online if they choose INTC. And google will also need its own mega watt generator for backup power...

INTC really has no ideas left

The only way for INTC to survive is to license AMD64 and become a clone maker.