Anyone who has ever hacked around in their PC will have been hit with an urge to take their tinkering to the next level and create a custom-built device, but few actually try – believing such things to be far too complicated. At least, until the Arduino appeared on the scene.

Originally developed in Italy in 2005 as a tool for students building interactive design projects, the Arduino is a microcontroller-based prototyping board – but one that pretty much removes the barriers to entry that previous electronic prototyping systems had.

The idea behind the Arduino is simple: to create a system that allows electronic circuits to be created, modified, and tested in minutes – complete with a programmable chip in the centre to take control of everything.

What are you still doing here? Go! GO!

Although Intel had previously promised that Larrabee-based products would be launching in the first quarter of 2010, the company has chosen to make a rather late announcement that it wasn’t being exactly honest with that launch date. As reported by PC Magazine, company spokesman Nick Knupffer admits that “Larrabee silicon and software development are behind where we had hoped to be at this point in the project,” and states that “as a result, our first Larrabee product will not be launched as a standalone discrete graphics product, but rather be used as a software development platform for internal and external use.”

While Larrabee’s innovative architecture promised a different way of looking at the process of rendering graphics – described by Intel chief executive officer Paul Otellini back in 2007 as “a highly parallel, many core product comprised of an array of Intel architecture cores” promising” “teraflops of performance” – the truth of where the product was came out at IDF back in September, almost two years after Larrabee’s original announcement, when a demonstration by senior research scientist Bill Mark used a Larrabee prototype to run the real-time ray-traced Enemy Territory: Quake Wars demonstration incredibly slowly. Interestingly, despite the embarrassing demonstration, Intel was still claiming at that time that the first Larrabee product would be “discrete performance graphics” boards – not an SDK.

While the news that 2010 will only be seeing an software development platform for Larrabee will be a blow for Intel, the company hasn’t completely given up on the idea of launching its own discrete graphics processor to compete with rival AMD and Nvidia – but it’s likely to be 2011 at the earliest.

The first is an article about the agreement ‘twix AMD and Intel over the latter’s allegedly anticompetitive behaviour, written back in November of last year.

As reported over on Wired, the two companies have agreed to settle their disputes – and it’s an agreement which sees AMD compensated for Intel’s past misdeeds.

Under the terms of the agreement, Intel is to pay rival AMD a whopping $1.25 billion (£754 million) in a five-year cross-licensing agreement which sees Intel compensating its rival for allegedly working to exclude it from the marketplace. In turn, AMD is to drop all pending lawsuits across the globe and withdraw all complaints it has made to regulatory bodies regarding Intel’s behaviour.

In a remarkably understated joint statement, the two companies claim that “while the relationship between the two companies has been difficult in the past, this agreement ends the legal disputes and enables the companies to focus all of our efforts on product innovation and development.”

The agreement finally settles the bad feeling between the two companies which has been ongoing since 2005, and will allow the two companies to concentrate on producing neat new products rather than attempting to litigate each other into submission.

The deal is certainly a welcome one for AMD, which has seen its share price increase by more than 30 percent on the news and should help to get the company get back on track in the processors marketplace.

As someone who uses – and likes – Ubuntu on most of his hardware, this is a surprise.  Sadly, it’s not that surprising – most people will always vote for the status quo.

I did write an article for Bit-Tech on the matter, but a real journalist did the same.  Accordingly, here’s the article that never made it:

Desktop Linux received a bitter blow recently with the news that Windows is by far the most popular operating system for low-cost netbook devices.

According to an article on InformationWeek, the latest figures from market research specialist NPD show Microsoft’s Windows operating system leading the way with a massive 96 percent share of the netbook market.

Microsoft’s Brandon LeBlanc describes the growth of Windows on the low-cost netbook platform – a platform that many believe originated with the Asus Eee PC, which was originally designed around a custom version of the Xandros Linux distribution – over the last year as “phenomenal.” With many manufacturers now offering Windows XP – and a few ambitious or foolhardy types even offering Windows Vista – as standard, Windows has blossomed from a mere 10 percent market share to an incredible 96 percent.

When one company gains market share, another loses – although in this instance it’s the open source Linux operating system which is has suffered for Microsoft’s success. LeBlanc claims that Linux on netbooks has directly contributed to Microsoft’s success in the market, saying that “[netbook owners] that try Linux are often returning it,” after realising that “their Linux-based netbook PC doesn’t deliver the same quality of experience” as a full-blown Windows system.

While it’s in Microsoft’s interests to downplay Linux wherever possible, the rhetoric – in this case, at least – is borne out by fact: mobile ‘phone specialist retailer The Carphone Warehouse quietly dropped Linux-based netbooks from its list of offerings after seeing a return rate of up to 20 percent – far higher than the same hardware running Windows XP.

Some of the issues that cause users to become frustrated with Linux-based netbooks could be down to expectations – with the overwhelming majority of retail software being designed for Windows alone, it’s easy to imagine users becoming frustrated at their inability to purchase add on applications for their netbook. Another reason for the high return rate could be the often locked-down and limited system offered by some manufacturers which prevents users from harnessing the true power of their new purchase – with special mention to the particularly poor hack job Asus did of the Xandros distribution for the original Eee PC range.

Whatever the reasons behind the seeming failure of Linux in the netbook market, Microsoft will be hoping that it can maintain its momentum as XP is phased out and replaced by Windows 7 – which LeBlanc says “will run great” on netbook hardware “no matter how [the] hardware evolves.” Likewise, companies behind rather more impressive netbook versions of Linux such as Canonical’s Ubuntu Netbook Remix and the Linux Foundation’s Moblin project will be praying they can reverse consumer opinion on netbook-based Linux.

Do you think that Windows will always be the consumer choice – even on restricted hardware such as netbooks – or are the manufacturers to blame for poor public opinion for offering badly implemented locked-down systems under the Linux name? Share your thoughts over in the forums.

Since that time, many individuals both on bit-tech and another forum called Slyck have downloaded and sent off the letter along with the required payment.  Since then, most – as I predicted – have not heard back.  However, some of the very earliest letters have had a reply – here’s an example from bit-tech member nw104hh:

Dear Sir

Atari Europe S.A.S: The Witcher

We refer to your letter of 08 July in which you have made a subject access request under section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998 for “personally identifiable information held by yourselves with regards myself”.

The personal data which this firms holds about you is contained in documents which were created in order to be used in potential litigation against you. As such, they are exempted from requirement to comply with subject access request given in Section 37 and paragraph 10 of Schedule 7 of the Act.

Accordingly, we are not require to comply with your request and are therefore returning your postal order.

We strongly suggest you seek legal advise and cease copying and pasting often misguided and erroneous advice from internet forums. This only serves to increase the costs which it will be necessary to seek from you, should this matter proceed to trial.

I find this response very interesting.  Note the continued threats (“…only serves to increase the costs which it will be necessary to seek from you…“) and claims that they are somehow exempt from the Data Protection Act (“…given in Section 37 and paragraph 10 of Schedule 7 of the Act.“).

To put it bluntly, this is horse-hooey.  Schedule 7 does not make information obtained for the purposes of pending civil lawsuit exempt – this is, you will remember, information which the firm will be obliged to make available to you before the lawsuit begins anyway.

To anyone who has received this response, I would advise the following: send another letter along with another cheque – or the same cheque again, whichever – stating that the evidence gathered is not exempt, and your original Subject Access Request still stands according to the original timescale of 40 days.

The second reason I find the letter interesting is that it makes specific reference to my original letter (“…cease copying and pasting often misguided and erroneous advice from internet forums…“) – which tells me that Davenport Lyons is actually spending time searching for people it has accused discussing the matter on the ‘net, in order to pre-empt any defence they might make.

Don’t let the buggers win.  As I have said in my original post, if you’re innocent you have nothing to fear.  Don’t pay: if you pay, that’s an admission of guilt.  Today it’s a claim for £500; tomorrow it’s for £1,000.  Davenport Lyons are, in my opinion, acting like bullies with diplomas, and must not be allowed to get away with these tactics.

If you’re worried about the recent case of Isabella Barwinska - who was ordered by the court to pay £6,000 in damages and £10,000 in legal costs for the alleged sharing of Pinball Dreams 3D – don’t be: Barwinska failed to respond to the original letter from Davenport Lyons, and didn’t turn up to court.  Faced with no defence, the judge had no option but to find in favour of Davenport Lyons.  As I said in my original post on the matter, make a fuss: as Ms. Barwinska has found to her cost, burying your head in the sand is precisely the worst thing you could possibly do.

Well, hooey. So far the only people they’ve taken to court are individuals who ignored the letter and didn’t turn up on their court day – which resulted in a default victory for Davenport Lyons.

If you receive such a letter, **do not ignore it**. Instead, ask to see the ‘evidence’ that you made the software available. I’ve drafted a sample letter to send back to Davenport Lyons which //bit-tech// members have found useful.

Dear {the person the letter is from, or “To whom it may concern” if no name},

With regards to your letter dated {date} claiming that a computer connected to my internet connection provided by {ISP} downloaded on {date} a software product called {game} without permission of the copyright holder: this letter is to inform you that I deny any such wrongdoing, and request a full and complete copy of all records you have pertaining to myself, the case, and the alleged download. I request this under the Data Protection Act 1998 and would advise that this constitutes a full and formal Subject Access Request under said act. Accordingly, I am including a cheque for £10 made payable to your company as required under the Act.

In accordance with said Act, you now have 40 days to make available full and complete records of this alleged incident along with any other personally identifiable information held by yourselves with regards to myself. If the records are not made available within this time I will issue a complaint through the Information Commissioner against the appointed Data Protection Officer at your company as recorded in the Register of Data Controllers record number Z645072X.

Please note that future correspondence regarding this issue that is not related to my Subject Access Request and which is not accompanied by a valid court order or summons will be considered harassment, and will be treated accordingly.

Yours sincerely,

{signature}

{name}

It is important to realise that by replying in this way you are //not// risking a criminal record – if Davenport Lyons //were// to sue, it would be a civil case. The only thing they would be granted in victory would be the fee they originally requested, so you really have nothing to lose.

My prediction is that once this letter has been sent – and I’d recommend using a tracked service such as Special Delivery – you’ll make it to Davenport Lyon’s ‘troublemakers’ list, and never hear from them again.

If a leaked slide from a presentation authored by Sun Microsystems is to be believed, Intel is planning on launching a six-core processor aimed at the server market.

Although the Intel Dunnington has been rumoured for quite some time, the slide is the first evidence that Intel is planning to ditch its usual ‘cheat’ of putting multiple chips in a single package and is instead aiming for a true six-core single-chip processor.

The slide shows a six-core chip with each core paired up with a buddy to share a 3M chunk of level 2 cache for a total of 9M of L2 cache along with a whopping 16MB L3 cache shared between all three pairs. If the figures are right, that’s one heck of a lot of cache RAM and will certainly help to alleviate any nasty bottlenecks lurking around the yet-to-be-finalised Dunnington front-side bus.

The cores themselves are based on the Penryn architecture and will be built around a 45nm process to keep heat production to a minimum. The thermal profile is a fairly respectable 130W, which might seem a lot from a desktop perspective – after all, the ‘energy efficient’ models of Core 2 Quads come in at under 100W – but is pretty impressive for something that can replace six discreet processors.

The slide features an Intel Xeon logo, suggesting that the chip will be marketed under the same moniker as Intel’s existing server chip products. The launch date is given as some time in the second half of 2008, so we don’t have too long to wait to see if the rumours are true.