Yes and the things that these chips process used to be processed on the main CPU, relying on software to prevent malicious access.
Rightfully so.
Correction to your utter pro-corporate drivel:
Now the attack surface, which used to be every implementation of every software, is reduced expanded to the unreachable closed-source implementation that makes consumers dependant on a corporate of the world separation with an imbalance of power these chips provide subject consumers to.
You still aren’t talking about the technology
The thread was originally about e-waste of technology. Your thread crap has discarded the e-waste discussion, so of course I am talking about technology. This thread branch is about avoiding undisclosed opaque technology with an attack surface we don’t need.
, you are spouting “common sense” nonsense like new chips using single digit watts of power are less efficient
The spouting of nonsense comes when you neglect to make a meaningful comparison that actually reveals the waste of the spychip. You can’t hide the spychip’s waste by choosing processors of different effeciencies from different time periods.
than old chips using dozens of watts of power.
You missed the link about new machines still using a 2013 pre-spychip because the TDP is 17w. But I guess it hardly matters when you’re trying to make a dishonest comparison anyway to conceal waste.
Edit: again, what is the cutoff? Should they still support procs from 1995? 1990?
If it’s a closed-source spychip, it should be supported for as long as the chip maker exists. And when they go under, they should be forced to disclose the source code. If they don’t like that, they should quit making the spychips. If they are ruined and sink because they failed to support their crippled support-needy garbage, then rightfully so.
If it’s not a spychip, it needs no support from the maker apart from documentation, which should always be available as long as the chip maker exists. And thereafter available on archive.org.