or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Could this be the future? Oh, I wish...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Could this be the future? Oh, I wish... - Page 3

post #81 of 140
[quote]Originally posted by BobtheTomato:
<strong>

<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> Whatever</strong><hr></blockquote>


Whatever, maybe, but when the platform's major developers are complaining at the World Wide Developers Conference...

<a href="http://macintouch.com/wwdc2002top.html#speed" target="_blank">http://macintouch.com/wwdc2002top.html#speed</a>

...that the speed (or lack of...) of MOSX is making them and their applications look bad, then I would suggest that the OS is in serious need of some fettling.

The whole point of Unix OSs is that they take up tiny amounts of resources, which is why Irix is so rapid on systems with relatively low Mhz counts. One of the problems with MOSX, from my and my industry's point of view, is that is full of computationally demanding junk. Pretty interfaces and bouncing dock icons are fine and dandy for making the sale to Johnny at CompUSA, but they don't mean shit to me. The same goes for other demanding application areas such as Medical Imaging, Industrial and Architectural Visualisation and Biotech.

Now this wouldn't matter a damn to me, but Apple decideded to come crashing into my area, in a frankly gauche and careless manner. So there are reports that Pixar have swapped to Macs, I very much doubt it except for a few high-profile machines for cross-marketing purposes. Where are the high-end OpenGL cards that Maya needs? (If you say Geforce4, you are an idiot and we both know it...) Where is the truly powerful render-farm solution? Xserve isn't it, that is the most fundamentally flawed server I have ever seen. Where is the redundancy? Where is the SCSI? I wouldn't trust my mission-critical systems to IDE drives with tiny MTBFs. Add to that the requirement to rewrite everything, and I would suggest that all that has happened is that Pixar has locked the door to their Sun machine room and put up a sign saying "there's nothing here for you, move on now"
post #82 of 140
[quote]Originally posted by Mac Sack Black:
<strong>&gt;Since you don't have any Unix administration experience, I think we can
safely dismiss your opinion. Perhaps you're speaking from experience with
the speed of quartz, or something else which has nothing to do with unix.</strong><hr></blockquote>

My Unix admin experience is running a predominantly Unix based, multi-million dollar facility that has to be up and running at all times and has to make money in a highly pressured industry, that Apple has decided it wants to join.

That means my opinion matters to the people that employ me, and to Apple who want to sell to me. You, on the other hand, are a pompous wanker, comp-sci degree and all...

What's funny is that out of my argument, which was based mainly around the point of view of a business that you almost certainly know nothing about, even though you might think you do from editing your home movies on iMovie, you choose to dismiss my whole point of view because I don't fit some ideal of yours of a "pure" Unix Administrator...

Ha hah hah ha ha...

[ 06-30-2002: Message edited by: shannyla ]</p>
post #83 of 140
[quote]Originally posted by shannyla:
<strong>


Whatever, maybe, but when the platform's major developers are complaining at the World Wide Developers Conference...

<a href="http://macintouch.com/wwdc2002top.html#speed" target="_blank">http://macintouch.com/wwdc2002top.html#speed</a>

...that the speed (or lack of...) of MOSX is making them and their applications look bad, then I would suggest that the OS is in serious need of some fettling.

The whole point of Unix OSs is that they take up tiny amounts of resources, which is why Irix is so rapid on systems with relatively low Mhz counts. One of the problems with MOSX, from my and my industry's point of view, is that is full of computationally demanding junk. Pretty interfaces and bouncing dock icons are fine and dandy for making the sale to Johnny at CompUSA, but they don't mean shit to me. The same goes for other demanding application areas such as Medical Imaging, Industrial and Architectural Visualisation and Biotech.

Now this wouldn't matter a damn to me, but Apple decideded to come crashing into my area, in a frankly gauche and careless manner. So there are reports that Pixar have swapped to Macs, I very much doubt it except for a few high-profile machines for cross-marketing purposes. Where are the high-end OpenGL cards that Maya needs? (If you say Geforce4, you are an idiot and we both know it...) Where is the truly powerful render-farm solution? Xserve isn't it, that is the most fundamentally flawed server I have ever seen. Where is the redundancy? Where is the SCSI? I wouldn't trust my mission-critical systems to IDE drives with tiny MTBFs. Add to that the requirement to rewrite everything, and I would suggest that all that has happened is that Pixar has locked the door to their Sun machine room and put up a sign saying "there's nothing here for you, move on now"</strong><hr></blockquote>
post #84 of 140
[soapbox]

First off, this is NOT a personal attack, just a rebuttal...

Getting a bit scared of Apple, Shannyla...?!?

Looking down from your Ivory Tower(yeah, you all know the reference...) and seeing the encroachment of a truly consumer orientated Unix upon your sacred knowledge base...? I think Apple has been doing an excellent job, balancing the power of Unix for professionals with the simplicity of Macintosh for the consumer market... Not an easy task...!

OS X is quite a powerful Unix varient, and is only getting better...!

And for those who need to use it in a professional capacity, the eyecandy can be turned off... Heck, you can even run it all from a command line... (yeah, we got those...)

I think a lot of this nay-saying about Apple moving into the 3D/VFX/SFX market comes from those who are afraid of a machine that might actually be easier to use than other Unix varients... I have used Irix for about 9 years, and believe me, I would rather run Maya on an OS X box than on a SGI box any day! And it can only get better...!

Maybe some folks have a bit of fear towards the security of their jobs? Kinda like the entrenchment of the Windows Admins in the corporate environment... What takes a staff of IT experts to keep running under Windows, usually takes one (maybe two) part-time admins to keep running under the Mac platform...

[/soapbox]

<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> Maya Unlimited for Mac OS X <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
Late 2009 Unibody MacBook (modified)
2.26GHz Core 2 Duo CPU/8GB RAM/60GB SSD/500GB HDD
SuperDrive delete
Reply
Late 2009 Unibody MacBook (modified)
2.26GHz Core 2 Duo CPU/8GB RAM/60GB SSD/500GB HDD
SuperDrive delete
Reply
post #85 of 140
[quote]Originally posted by MacRonin:
<strong> [soapbox]

First off, this is NOT a personal attack, just a rebuttal...

Getting a bit scared of Apple, Shannyla...?!?

</strong><hr></blockquote>

Not in the slightest. If Apple built the best systems for what I need them to do, I would buy dozens of them tomorrow. You only have to look at the field of print graphics, where I would run Macs without even thinking about it.

Thanks for the clarification about not being a personal attack, no insult would be taken whatever you choose to say.

What I would agree with you is that Apple has done a great job in taking Unix to the masses, and that is most definitely a good thing. Unfortunately, as far I'm concerned, I don't need it to be easy to use, my artists and operators are pefectly able to get their heads around any operating system. The only thing they care about is speed and reliability, and that is where Apple falls down. I refer you to my previous post about OpenGL cards. Where is the equivalent of the Wildcat for Mac, or even a Quadro4, for instance?

Once again, and I can't stress this highly enough, what Apple does would not matter a damn to me if they hadn't decided to come play in my sandpit. The removal of Shake from the windows platform is an utter pain in the arse for me, as we use that program a lot, and it's very good at what it does. Is forcing me to use any new version on hardware that as far as I'm concerned is three years behind the curve a good thing from a business point of view..? The answer is "no" by the way...

To get back to the point of this thread, SGI could bring both the experience of building wide-bandwidth computers, and their client base, such as me, to the Apple party, and both sides could benefit hugely.

[ 06-30-2002: Message edited by: shannyla ]</p>
post #86 of 140
While we're on the subject of the ease of maintenance of Apple systems, does this sound familiar to anyone:

[quote]It always seemed to me doing professional production on a Mac was just as technical and complicated as PCs and sometimes much more confusing 'cause the whole thing is designed to not let you get under the hood. That's fine if you are just word processing or something simple, but not if you do anything bleeding edge and on a deadline.

On a PC I can usually open up some setting file and edit my tweaks and off you go (to find a new way to crash).

On a Mac it seems like voodoo and lore to fix anything:

... change the order of your startup extensions for two days then change them back and your Mac will be happy

... you must allocate more ram to photoshop, but, careful buddy!, not too much ram, you mustn't spoil it (and never ever feed photoshop after dark)

... to enable your network you must think of a random number we haven't yet thought of

... never plug in two scanners or you will die

... "If you hit this button [eg., print, render, save, etc.] do a little dance while chanting the mantra 'insanely great' or you will have to send the Fedex man away and go to bed with no supper."

Not that PCs are any easier, just a different approach to annoyances.

However, I should note that the only machine I've ever had catch on fire was Mac.

--Mystery <hr></blockquote>

Sums up my experiences with Macs.
post #87 of 140
umm... I thought all that shmit was like pre OSX. You know the configuring ram crap, etc.

Just an observation
'If these words were people, I would embrace their genocide.' - Maddox
Reply
'If these words were people, I would embrace their genocide.' - Maddox
Reply
post #88 of 140
Just a few points to toss into the ring here:
  • MacOSX is still quite new and functionality has clearly had precidence over performance.
  • Reliability is something that comes with time, and for such a new product MacOSX is remarkably stable. It will improve going forward.
  • There are known performance issues in MacOSX, aside from Aqua, and they are being addressed (starting with 10.1, continuing with Jaguar, and continuing into the future).
  • Quartz Extreme, as I'm sure you've read many times, will make Aqua less of a burden on the system. Possibly less of a burden than the GUI is on most systems if Apple builds new hardware that is designed with QE in mind.
  • SGI machines are fast at low clock rates because their processors are superscalar and emphasize floating point performance. Their integer performance isn't that stellar. They also have fast & expensive memory and I/O systems.
  • Apple is just starting to address this market. Assimilating new companies and their products takes time, and I expect Apple is making their move now so that the software is ready when the hardware has "caught up".
  • The GPU in the geForce4Ti is as capable as any of the "high end" cards that you list. Apple does need to introduce a card intended for high end users that comes with more RAM, but nVidia would be the right choice. I expect they will use the nv30 which will leave the traditional "high end" cards eating dust.
  • The Xserve is well designed for the market slice it is aimed at. It is their first server and they bit of a piece that they can chew. Next time they'll address another part of the rack server market. I expect to eventually see a machine that meets your criteria -- Xserve isn't even supposed to be it, so its not fair to slam it for being something that its not.

Apple appears to have a plan, and plans unfold over time. Don't write them off just yet, and don't consider them until they are ready to try and win you over.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #89 of 140
[quote]Originally posted by Programmer:
[QB]The Xserve is well designed for the market slice it is aimed at. It is their first server and they bit of a piece that they can chew. Next time they'll address another part of the rack server market. I expect to eventually see a machine that meets your criteria -- Xserve isn't even supposed to be it, so its not fair to slam it for being something that its not.<hr></blockquote>

Agreed, and perhaps a cheap jibe on my part. However, is SGI not the company that could help Apple with this?

[quote]The GPU in the geForce4Ti is as capable as any of the "high end" cards that you list.<hr></blockquote>

This isn't so easy. The GeForce 4, whilst a capable card for DirectX gaming, can't really be considered a professional card. The Quadro 4 on the other hand, would fit any criteria for professional graphics.

[quote]SGI machines are fast at low clock rates because their processors are superscalar and emphasize floating point performance. Their integer performance isn't that stellar. They also have fast & expensive memory and I/O systems.<hr></blockquote>

It's true to say they can't count, which is why 3d rendering is rarely done on SGI this day. However, everything else you mention about their systems gives the throughput to work on multiple streams of uncompressed SD and HD video, which PC level systems are only just starting to achieve. I suggest you take a look at 5D's Cyborg:

<a href="http://www.five-d.com" target="_blank">www.five-d.com</a>

to see what can be done with a combination of optimised code and fast OpenGL hardware. 5D leverage the OpenGL speed of the Wildcat 5110 and 6110 to acheive realtime playback of 6 streams of uncompressed SD Video. Run exactly the same system with a Geforce4 or Quadro3 (and I've tried this) you are down to less than real-time playback on one stream. By the way I'm talking about 30 Mbyte/Sec Pal video, not 5 Mbyte/sec DV, through the PCI and AGP buses on a fairly standard Windows 2000 PC.

This is a classic example of SGI tech pilfering. Discreet systems also use the OpenGL hardware to a huge extent to accelerate rnedering and playback. It's all about bandwidth, and Apple is behind on this at the moment.
post #90 of 140
Yeah!
begin smirking

How do I re-order my extensions in Mac OS X?

If that Quartz Extension was infront of the Slow Render Extension, this thing would fly, right?

- end smirking

Seriously though, Most of the annointed of the IT world don't need to fear the Mac.

These highly intelligent folk need to spend their days and careers solving real problems - not hand-holding users. The future of Macs will allow them to earn their high salaries doing demanding work while we mere users will be empowered to solve our own problems or have a computer that solves them on its own.

This means that lots of jobs that now rate very high pay will go away (be absorbed by lower-end users whose pay will rise somewhate). It also means that the best of the IT world will have a chance to move this industry, this world, ahead as they never have before and for even more pay.

Just my opinion.
J.C. Corbin, Apple Certified Technical Coordinator
Member, Apple Consultants Network
www.ro3.com
Reply
J.C. Corbin, Apple Certified Technical Coordinator
Member, Apple Consultants Network
www.ro3.com
Reply
post #91 of 140
[quote]Originally posted by shannyla:
<strong>It's all about bandwidth, and Apple is behind on this at the moment.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I agree completely.

You'll note above that I said the geForce4Ti GPU. It is essentially the same unit from the Quadro3 -&gt; 4. All they really added to the 4, IIRC, is an optimized anti-alias line draw. The rest of the difference is on the card. Both support ~10 GB/sec of bandwidth, and the coming nv30 should about double that to say nothing of the increase in computational ability. My point was simply that Apple does not have a competitive video card simply because they have not chosen to bring such a monster to market yet, not due to technical inability. I think that will change before the year is out.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #92 of 140
[quote]Originally posted by shannyla:
<strong>

This isn't so easy. The GeForce 4, whilst a capable card for DirectX gaming, can't really be considered a professional card. The Quadro 4 on the other hand, would fit any criteria for professional graphics.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

But that doesn't seem to be a difference that can't be erased the moment Apple has the will, I believe the actual hardware differences are two sense pins (that set the card ID and determine what features in the core are enabled/disabled) and a slight difference in clock speed. It isn't going to be a huge issue making a Quadro available when the Software is ready.
"Moo" said the chicken
"Cluck" said the cow
Dr. Frankenstein rubbed his hands together with glee
Reply
"Moo" said the chicken
"Cluck" said the cow
Dr. Frankenstein rubbed his hands together with glee
Reply
post #93 of 140
I will add only this to the thread- Steve Jobs is NOT stupid.

While marketing may make you think that he honestly believes that the current G4 offerings kick Wintel ass, it's decidedly not so. It's not as if there are G4s that support DDR etc out there, and they're not using them.

I understand the 'unwelcome intrusion' into your space, Shannyla... but if you sit back and think about it, Apple knows that they do not have competitive machines.

Why would they buy all of this software, if the target market knows that their current machines aren't competitive, and will refuse to buy them? THEY WOULDN'T.

To not have hardware that can run this software at a competitive performance level is to waste their investment.

New, High-Performance (real, not G4 high-performance) hardware is coming.

I'm not suggesting that this will come in July- it's most likely that we'll see DDR and 1.4ish GHZ G4's at MWNY-

however, there are a few interesting things to consider.

-- Rumor within the semiconductor division of Motorola is that they have lost the Apple contract.

-- Motorola had been designing a G5 for Apple. The design everyone's heard about- BookE, RapidIO, etc.

-- Apple isn't a fan of RapidIO.

-- Apple likes HyperTransport.

Who else likes HyperTransport?


Currently, it looks like they're going into battle against an elephant with a machine gun as a kitten with a shotgun.


I'll buy anyone a slice of Apple Pi if Apple doesn't have a big-ass gun up their sleeve.
post #94 of 140
[quote] -- Apple likes HyperTransport.

Who else likes HyperTransport?
<hr></blockquote>

Well, on that membership list is both SGI and AMD...

Here's a what if...

AMD gets its 64bit chips to market, and they are really good, better than I expect them to be at the moment.

Both Apple and SGI split from their present chip supplier, and take up with AMD. Ignore any engineering issues for the moment, stop thinking like a geek and start thinking like a manager... Suddenly their machines have a very great deal in common.

Apple brings the experience of the low-end, which SGI has famously failed to crack, ever. Sgi brings the experience, which Apple has famously failed to crack, ever (anyone remember the Apple Server running A/UX? Thought not...)

Suddenly another route appears possible.
post #95 of 140


Technical issues with porting OS X to x86-64 aren't that difficult-- once Classic is out of the mix.

Sans Classic, OS X is *very* portable. even Carbon.
post #96 of 140
[QUOTE]Originally posted by shannyla:
[QB]

&gt;My Unix admin experience is running a predominantly Unix based,
multi-million dollar facility that has to be up and running at all times

Funny, this `Unix admin experience' didn't rate a mention at all your
previous blurb; the extent of the Unix i find in that was limited to
irix, and not in an administrative capacity.


&gt;That means my opinion matters to the people that employ me

(fortunately i do not employ you)

Yes, who apparently don't employ you for your unix admin experience, since
you seem to have none, except for the magical appearance of this
"predominantly Unix based multi-million dollar facility" which, strangely,
rated not at all a mention in your original blurb despite your effusive
attempts now to piss in your own pocket (multimillion dollar facility?
wow, never seen one of them before)

&gt;You, on the other hand, are a pompous wanker,

Because I point out that your bitching about `speed' of `apple's unix' is
misplaced? My point stands -- Apple already HAVE a decent PPC unix clone,
they do NOT need anyone to `teach' them to write a decent unix clone; what
utter drivel.

Your link above yielded exactly what I said -- pissing and moaning about
the bits of cruft on top of darwin, rather than anything meaningful about
network thoroughput, interprocess pipes, context switching latencies,
which is what is meant by the `speed' of `apple's unix', not some gravely
misplaced whining crap vilifying the sensational efforts of next, the
various bsd projects, the current darwin maintainers, amongst others, who
are not to blame because you think quartz is sluggish.

I mean, READ the comments. ONE of them had a legitimate bitch (the first
one), specifically about VM. Presumably Darwin has a mach-derived vm, and
replacing that would not be an easy task... the rest of the comments
(in only that section!) are bitching about:

*the video card
*speed of the file sharing client (not anything to do with thoroughput problems btw -- tcp/ip thoroughput is fine in darwin/osx using either of OT or bsd sockets)
*someone wanting it to run word lag-free on a 233 imac
*something vague about a "significantly optimized system" (that would be the sluggishness of quartz [apparently -- i've used 10.1.5 on a 233 imac w/160mb ram, and it works fine])
*another vm whine from some moron who can't get os x working on anything below a "Quicksilver 800".


If you want to bitch about the speed of quartz or whatever, go bitch to
who/whatever held up quartz extreme until 10.2 rather than 10.1, it has
very little to do with this supposed inability of Apple's to write a
decent fork of BSD.

&gt;What's funny is that out of my argument, which was based mainly around
the point of view of a business that you almost certainly know nothing
about,

I don't need to know anything about your line of work, because I wasn't
bitching about your line of work. I was ranting squarely on your
moronic conviction that Apple is unable to write a decent unix clone, and
need someone to `teach' them; what crap.

&gt; even though you might think you do from editing your home movies on
iMovie,

You said something about `pompous wanker'? I don't use Mac OS if it helps
any; no imovie for me.


&gt; you choose to dismiss my whole point of view because I don't fit
some ideal of yours of a "pure" Unix Administrator...

Rather, I chose to dismiss your point of view because you were bitching
about the wrong things. Fancy saying that an OS largely based on mach and
*bsd isn't a real unix!
post #97 of 140
[quote]Originally posted by Jonathan:
<strong>Technical issues with porting OS X to x86-64 aren't that difficult-- once Classic is out of the mix.

Sans Classic, OS X is *very* portable. even Carbon.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Personally I don't think that will (or should) happen, and I don't think that this is what the discussion above implied. A more likely scenario would be for AMD to build a new generation of PowerPC (however, this is something I think we're more likely to see from IBM). Apple is not going to move to x86 -- while OSX might be reasonably portable, they still have a considerable amount invested in optmizations for PowerPC & AltiVec.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #98 of 140
[quote] Originally posted by Mac Sack Black:

&gt;My Unix admin experience is running a predominantly Unix based,
multi-million dollar facility that has to be up and running at all times

Funny, this `Unix admin experience' didn't rate a mention at all your
previous blurb; the extent of the Unix i find in that was limited to
irix, and not in an administrative capacity.
<hr></blockquote>

So what exactly does:

&gt;Post Production facility Sys Admin (running Discreet on Sgi, Avid, Shake, Maya etc on Win2k

mean in my first post where I was describing my experience, Mac Sad Ball Sack... So sorry I didn't justify myself any further, but I was talking about a particular assertion:

Apple+SGI+Avid= Total domination of Post Production Industry

And is Irix now mysteriously not Unix ..? Someone better ring SGI, as some Unix Guru Sad Sack Ball Ache Cack says it isn't because it isn't free and wasn't written by people with no other life than open source coding.

I'm definitely sensing touchiness... are we an unemployed linux guru right now by any chance?

Anyway, enough hair pulling and bitch slapping, just say MOSX is a fine example of Unix, which has HP, IBM, Sun and any other proprietry Unix vendors frankly pissing themselves in fear at its all-conquering progress. What does it matter if the hardware its running on is frankly obsolete before it leaves the factory? I not sure you noticed but this thread was to discuss the possibility of a hypothetical Apple/SGI merger? To overfocus on a flippant and throwaway comment of mine is truely a trait of an underveloped personality, which is what being a Linux Guru does for you.

Hey, you slag me off, have some back...

And the irony is neither of us wants to use Apple computers.

[ 06-30-2002: Message edited by: shannyla ]

[ 06-30-2002: Message edited by: shannyla ]</p>
post #99 of 140
[quote]Originally posted by Programmer:
<strong>

Personally I don't think that will (or should) happen, and I don't think that this is what the discussion above implied. A more likely scenario would be for AMD to build a new generation of PowerPC (however, this is something I think we're more likely to see from IBM). Apple is not going to move to x86 -- while OSX might be reasonably portable, they still have a considerable amount invested in optmizations for PowerPC & AltiVec.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Why not? Why is the PowerPC so inviolate? Is it a cpu or a religious artifact?

Why should a company such as Apple not make use of the best technologies it can? As far as I can make out, Apple is a software company and a computer box assembler. As far as I'm aware Apple did not have that much input to the design of the PPC, Motorola building it predominantly as an embedded systems processor and IBM building their version as the processor for their mid-range server solutions. I was under the impression that after the death of the CHRP, Apple's use of the PPC is something of a historical accident. If this isn't the case please let me know.
post #100 of 140
&gt;[QUOTE]Originally posted by shannyla:

&gt;To overfocus on a flippant and throwaway comment of mine

Ah, precisely what I was looking for.

I shall return in time for the MWNY fever-pitch threads, thankyou and goodnight.
post #101 of 140
[quote]Originally posted by Programmer:
<strong>

Personally I don't think that will (or should) happen, and I don't think that this is what the discussion above implied. A more likely scenario would be for AMD to build a new generation of PowerPC (however, this is something I think we're more likely to see from IBM). Apple is not going to move to x86 -- while OSX might be reasonably portable, they still have a considerable amount invested in optmizations for PowerPC & AltiVec.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I didn't mean to imply that Apple's moving to x86 anytime soon.

What I did imply is that there's something big coming...


Again, i'm betting piece of Apple Pi on it.

[ 06-30-2002: Message edited by: Jonathan ]</p>
post #102 of 140
[quote]Originally posted by shannyla:
<strong>
(anyone remember the Apple Server running A/UX? Thought not...)</strong><hr></blockquote>

Actually I do. I worked for a small time Mac mail order shop a couple years back and the owner (whose moral ethical judgment was a wee bit flexible) and he bought one cheap at an auction and thought he had a deal. The thing was always in the way in the warehouse (and heavy) and I think we would have had better luck selling it as a novelty coffee table. Our Mac "tech" never could figure out how to get it running (He was convinced you should be able to load the Mac OS on it). I always figured the owner kind of deserved it
"Moo" said the chicken
"Cluck" said the cow
Dr. Frankenstein rubbed his hands together with glee
Reply
"Moo" said the chicken
"Cluck" said the cow
Dr. Frankenstein rubbed his hands together with glee
Reply
post #103 of 140
And what a tank that bad boy was. I swear to god it could have survived a direct hit from a multi-megaton weapon.

Hot-plugable and -swappable everything, except a reason for it's existance...
post #104 of 140
[quote]Originally posted by shannyla:
<strong>

Why not? Why is the PowerPC so inviolate? Is it a cpu or a religious artifact?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Re-read what he wrote because the answer you're looking for is in the post you were replying to.

You're beginning to sound a lot like a troll. I have no problem with non-mac users coming to the forum. Actually, it can be a refreshing change. I like anyone who is being realistic, and not blindly one sided for either 'side' of these arguments.

You're worried because Apple bought out a company that makes software that you use. Fair enough. But the truth is it's going to be a year until any fruits of the buy-out occur. During that time, Apple isn't going to enter your multi-million dollar facility and force you to upgrade to lowly Macs. And they're definitely not going to do it to your multi-million dollar facility while not making your competitors make the same change leaving you at a competitive disadvantage.

No, more than likely a year from now both the software and the hardware are going to be different. You yourself said that you would have no problem buying Macs if they were competitive speed-wise. Well, you won't have to make that choice for quite some time. The software you have now will run on X86 machines for a long time, even newer faster ones.

So, when the time comes to upgrade to the next version of the software, if Apple hasn't 'closed the gap' and isn't offering competitive hardware, come back and bitch some more. Most likely a whole lot of us will be bitching right there with you.

As for SGI, what does SGI have to gain from getting better distribution or exposure in Apple's current markets? There's a lot of up for Apple moving into their territory, but I'm not sure how the reverse could help SGI.

And to the thread starter, about Apple spreading itself from the lowest to the highest realms of computing. If it's going to happen (and I think it could/should), I think Apple is going to do it with as few parts as possible. So rather than making 18 versions of the XServe, I'm guessing they would keep the current one that has better disc I/O, and add one that has the new 'G5' with better computation powers. Make that one more scalable, more processors per 'U' and racks more tightly integrated with clustering. This would be less of a risk because although it doesn't necessarily cover any market exactly, it covers more markets for a lot less money.

If Apple buys SGI for reasons outside of Maya, it just doesn't look like they could use the talent soon enough.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #105 of 140
[quote]Originally posted by shannyla:
<strong>(anyone remember the Apple Server running A/UX? Thought not...)</strong><hr></blockquote>

That's propably because they didn't run A/UX - they were (ours still is) running AIX.
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
post #106 of 140
[quote] You're beginning to sound a lot like a troll. I have no problem with non-mac users coming to the forum. Actually, it can be a refreshing change. I like anyone who is being realistic, and not blindly one sided for either 'side' of these arguments. <hr></blockquote>

And what is a troll, out of interest? Does that mean I don't believe Steve Jobs is the new messiah, or that Apple can do nothing wrong? And does having a Dual 533 G4 on my desk that I'm playing with make me a non-Apple user?

For the record, I happen to believe that Apple did a great job building graphics computers for the rest of us whilst Intel/Microsoft solutions were barely any use for typing letters, and SGI systems were ridiculously overpriced. I also happen to believe that creating a Unix OS for the ordinary user has been a great achievement.

As I've already stated, I don't actually give a damn that Apple bought Nothing Real, as their finances were on a seriously shaky footing, or that they bought Silicon Grail, as I didn't personally rate Rayz as appropriate for our market. What does bother me is Apple's behaviour after buying Nothing Real where, in an act of corporate spite, support for the Windows version was chopped there and then. If Microsoft bought Quark and killed the mac version, I suspect the howls of protest would be never ending... And I'm also unconcerned about Microsoft's business practices, as Apple would do exactly the same as Microsoft if it could, but consider that when Microsoft bought SoftImage they kept the Irix version. Bear in mind also that the only reason Avid ever moved to NT was because Apple stopped building a machine they could use for their systems (Not enough PCI slots). I believe this was during one of Apple's mid-nineties volte-faces when they wanted to be a corporate PC manufacturer.

And as I've already stated, I'm only interested in this thread as the original hypothesis is one that I find a really interesting idea, with many possibilities.

[quote] As for SGI, what does SGI have to gain from getting better distribution or exposure in Apple's current markets? There's a lot of up for Apple moving into their territory, but I'm not sure how the reverse could help SGI. <hr></blockquote>

The reverse could help SGI as they have had real problems migrating their proposition downmarket, though they have been trying. And if you have any interest in graphics or video computing, the prospect of SGI technology on your desktop should make your mouth water.

[quote] Make that one more scalable, more processors per 'U' and racks more tightly integrated with clustering <hr></blockquote>

But isn't the point that G4 technology isn't scaling, and that the G5 appears mythical?

[quote]That's propably because they didn't run A/UX - they were (ours still is) running AIX. <hr></blockquote>

Out of interest, what are you still using it for? Web serving, file serving, what? I'm genuinely interested that someone actually used one of these. And is it a 500 or a 700?

[ 06-30-2002: Message edited by: shannyla ]</p>
post #107 of 140
[quote]Originally posted by shannyla:
<strong>

Out of interest, what are you still using it for? Web serving, file serving, what? I'm genuinely interested that someone actually used one of these. And is it a 500 or a 700?</strong><hr></blockquote>

It's a 500 and it was originally used as a web server, DNS, BootP, print server and running three small Java apps.

Today it's only running a couple of print queues and the three Java apps - it will be retired within a year.
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
post #108 of 140
[quote]Originally posted by shannyla:
<strong>

And what is a troll, out of interest? Does that mean I don't believe Steve Jobs is the new messiah, or that Apple can do nothing wrong? And does having a Dual 533 G4 on my desk that I'm playing with make me a non-Apple user?
</strong><hr></blockquote>

"I have no problem with non-mac users coming to the forum. Actually, it can be a refreshing change."

Now don't be silly. I said I find opposing views a refreshing change. You just seem spiteful. A troll is someone that enters into a forum just looking to incite responses, a devil's advocate so to speak. That's how your arguments were coming across.

I agree that predatory practices are bad, even from Apple. Killing the Windows version of Nothing Real isn't quite the same as killing Quark. Isn't there a Linux version of Nothing Real that's going to still be available? I could be wrong on that point but I thought it were the case.

"The only thing they care about is speed and reliability, and that is where Apple falls down."

That's from one of your previous posts. Originally your argument against Apple killing the Windows version of Nothing Real was because Apple's hardware was too slow, but if it were up to par you would gladly use Apple's hardware instead of Wintel. I suggested you wait to see what was released.

Now you say you don't like the predatory practice. I agree it's not a welcome sign, although not as bad as what M$ could/has done in the past. To me, a Troll is also someone that continually changes their argument rather than discuss. I'm not sure if that's an 'official' definition or not though.

As for the benefits to SGI, I would LOVE to have their tech in a PowerMac. My questioning the benefit tp SGI of a possible merger was based out of the belief that Apple couldn't afford to put the SGI tech into a $3000 USD PowerMac. If Apple could, then the merger could benefit both sides.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #109 of 140
[quote]Originally posted by shannyla:
<strong>
The reverse of that, however, is nagging doubt over Apple's focus. This the company that has chased market sectors over the last decade like the drunken party girl at a fraternity party, waking up in the morning with a headache, someone in bed next to them they don't recognise and no money in their wallet. Who is to say that my industry isn't simply Apple's latest night on the tiles, to be dropped when they sober up.
</strong>

Awful and true. Apple should be reminded of the mistakes it has made.

<strong>
To return to the core of this thread, I can see incredible synergies between SGI and Apple, lets face it, Apple needs someone to teach them how to write a proper Unix for a start, by that I mean one that runs at the speed a Unix core on a RISC chip should reach. Both systems have always been known as the artist's computer. Both deal with niche markets. It's a shoe-in, and I can see it happening.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I'ma ng a professional BOFH, my background is Unix, from almost never seen versions ,such as Zeus from Zilog (1984) to the latest OpenBSD. Among my jobs were VAX clusters, redundent DG Aviion Oracle servers, Intergraph CAD stations, Sun Parallel Oracle servers, so on and so forth.

I disagree on the general "proper UNIX" comment, as it fails to point-out how almost all so-called Unix platforms are faulty-and-stupid in some technical area. In my opinion, the conformance to older non-unix OS items are what weigh down the Apple, but are comendable for evolutionary trasnition.

Apple's adoption of the GCC 3.1 compiler for Jaguar is clue enough how hard they are traking technologies that improve speed. I'm also happy to see them tackle security updates within 3 days with consumer-grade updates for OpenSSH and Apache.

As for the purchase, I myself would buy SGI if my bank-account was bigger. Though, with recent rumors concerning the sell-off of the SuperComputer patents, the "disecetion" of graphics teams to nVidia, the picture is mostly concerned with software and very few hardware pieces.

No, I think Mr Jobs is taking the Larry Ellison path to hardware choices. Oracle says that small, commodity server, in farms, as the way to increase performance and uptime. RAIS. Among the most important quote for me in the unveiling of the Xserve was Oracle's promise to deliver the database and tools. This implies good performance on low-end hardware, where the OS already includes Java & Apache. Only Sun's Cobalt division may achive the same price/performance/integration as Apple *could*.

So, where does this take SGI ? Well, how about another branch with serious Pro tools on less-expensive-then SGI hardware ?

Just rambling. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
post #110 of 140
Urp!

The thread's been hijacked!

This is what I get for having just been on jury duty!

MCCFR-

Sorry, I don't mean to be jumpy. It just seemed that the tone had changed, and it wasn't clear to me where you were being facetious and where you were being serious.

Anyway, the 2¢ version of my brand argument is that Apple's and SGI's brands don't overlap, and are considered extremely different, a la Mack trucks to Jaguar sedans, rather than Bentley sedans to VW sedans. There's clearly an added cost to an Apple/SGI merger here, since it either dilutes existing Apple and SGI brands, or else the new SGApple has to create a new brand...

Just for fun, to maybe steer this thread back a little bit, here's a neat link I found. Just read the first few pages- this background detail repeats what I've seen elsewhere, and I'm willing to accept it as being real.

<a href="http://www.sun.com/servers/wp/docs/3384_rev2_061702.pdf" target="_blank">www.sun.com/servers/wp/docs/3384_rev2_061702.pdf</a>

Ignore the stuff about Sun's V480, just read the bits about how IDC expects the worldwide server market to move. Especially look at that graph that shows traditional servers selling fewer and fewer, while smaller "rack optimized and blade servers" will sell more and more.

Accepting this, it's a really bad sign for SGI, since SGI's core market (those big servers) is shrinking, while it's not a bad sign for current Apple strategy (Xserve).

It's also a really bad sign for Apple buying SGI- why buy a company that's shrinking so quickly?

-HOS
You are in a twisty maze of passages, all alike.
Reply
You are in a twisty maze of passages, all alike.
Reply
post #111 of 140
Hos

[quote] The thread's been hijacked! <hr></blockquote>

Why do you believe that to be the case? I responded to one of MCCFR assertions and then had to beat off some personal attacks for a little while, but I felt we were all pretty much on topic.

Funnily enough, SGI's core market is not necessarily Servers. Bearing in mind the increase in their share value of 1250%, although admittedly from $0.25, since September 11 I suspect a lot of that comes from confidence in sales of Visualisation products to the defence industry.

Petergun

[quote] In my opinion, the conformance to older non-unix OS items are what weigh down the Apple, but are comendable for evolutionary trasnition. <hr></blockquote>

Agree completely on both counts.

Bunge

[quote]Originally your argument against Apple killing the Windows version of Nothing Real was because Apple's hardware was too slow <hr></blockquote>

Actually my argument was against my facility buying any new copies or versions of shake over 2.5, Apple can do what they want with their properties. I don't believe I'm changing my argument in the slightest.

And I'm not trolling. If I wanted to troll, I'd simply put up a post with the subject:

Apple and their users are the new Moonies: Discuss....

Oops, looks like I have done. Its a joke, by the way.
post #112 of 140
[quote]Originally posted by shannyla:
<strong>

Actually my argument was against my facility buying any new copies or versions of shake over 2.5....</strong><hr></blockquote>

[sarcasm]Wrong forum to discuss what your company buys....[/sarcasm]


"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #113 of 140
To add to Jonathan's point:

At the very end of Attack of the Clones, Lucasfilm thanks

APPLE AND AMD

On the same line, side by side.
Any other refs to separate companies were on sep lines.

Maybe AMD is making the new Gx....

[edit: mis-spelled Lucasfilm]

[ 07-01-2002: Message edited by: jccbin ]</p>
J.C. Corbin, Apple Certified Technical Coordinator
Member, Apple Consultants Network
www.ro3.com
Reply
J.C. Corbin, Apple Certified Technical Coordinator
Member, Apple Consultants Network
www.ro3.com
Reply
post #114 of 140
It's well known that Moto and AMD have joint ventures. I still don't expect AMD to produce PowerPC chips for Motorola. As the apple/moto contract that ties Apple to Moto's processors ends in August (please correct me if necessary as I might be mistaken here) I suspect IBM to be the next supplier of PPC chips.
fear the monsterjaeger,
especially if you're a monster...
Reply
fear the monsterjaeger,
especially if you're a monster...
Reply
post #115 of 140
If Apple were to switch to x86 they would lose the ability to have any hardware advantage.

Of course I know the response I'll get:

[quote]
"What hardware advantage?"
<hr></blockquote>

The PowerPC currently does have a bunch of advantages -- shorter pipelines, better instruction set, AltiVec, more efficient bus, lower power/heat. Whatever your opinion of the "MHz Myth", the G4 is quite fast for its clock rate both in terms of processor speed and bus bandwidth.

More important, however, is the potential for the future. First of all, Apple has a say in that future whereas they wouldn't if they went x86... and if they did affect the direction of x86, everybody else would benefit from that too. Since Apple had a significant role in the development of AltiVec and is apparently pushing for the inclusion of something called "Apple Pi", this is a real factor. Second, the PowerPC has excelled in the last few years, just not in the same direction as the x86. Future PowerPC processors have the potential to be as fast or faster than x86 processors -- the POWER series from IBM is an indication of that. If IBM is the future supplier for Apple we will see how far & fast it can push the PowerPC. Third, Apple doesn't have to compete with other PC makers for a supply of processors -- look at the problems they have getting the latest GPUs right away, and imagine if the same was true for the CPU. This also applies to the veil of secrecy they manage to keep their future product behind -- that goes out the window if their processor is an x86.

If Apple saw that there was really no future in PowerPC then they would switch. If this were the case I think they would have already made the leap, but instead they've been optimizing for AltiVec like crazy. We don't really know what is coming next, but it sure doesn't look like Apple is going to jump ship and there must be a good reason for that.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #116 of 140
People keep mentioning "Apple Pi," especially Jonathan. Could someone please recap what is known of this, if anything?
post #117 of 140
I think Apple Pi is a reference to the Washington Mac/Apple Users Group that I think I may join soon. Of course it may be something else entirely.
<a href="http://www.wap.org/" target="_blank">Apple Pi</a>

BTW: Anyone wanna give me a Apple Network Server? Please?

[ 07-01-2002: Message edited by: Crusader ]</p>
"Its a good thing theres no law against a company having a monopoly of good ideas. Otherwise Apple would be in deep yogurt..."
-Apple Press Release
Reply
"Its a good thing theres no law against a company having a monopoly of good ideas. Otherwise Apple would be in deep yogurt..."
-Apple Press Release
Reply
post #118 of 140
[quote] Originally posted by shannyla:
(anyone remember the Apple Server running A/UX? Thought not...) <hr></blockquote>

[quote]Originally posted by JLL:
<strong>

That's propably because they didn't run A/UX - they were (ours still is) running AIX.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Just to ensure accuracy, Apple's WS 95 ran A/UX, a version of AT&T's Unix that ran on the 68040. It was a slick little unix machine. The Network Server 500 and 700 ran AIX. As mentioned before, it was a tank.

edit: fixed grossly inaccurate errors

[ 07-01-2002: Message edited by: Mac Glue Sniffer ]</p>
Still waiting for a PowerMac that is a significant jump in performance from current levels.
Reply
Still waiting for a PowerMac that is a significant jump in performance from current levels.
Reply
post #119 of 140
Does anyone else think it is very quiet for being only 2 weeks away from the MacWorld.
post #120 of 140
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by HOS:
<strong>Urp!

The thread's been hijacked!

This is what I get for having just been on jury duty!

MCCFR-

Sorry, I don't mean to be jumpy. It just seemed that the tone had changed, and it wasn't clear to me where you were being facetious and where you were being serious.

Anyway, the 2¢ version of my brand argument is that Apple's and SGI's brands don't overlap, and are considered extremely different, a la Mack trucks to Jaguar sedans, rather than Bentley sedans to VW sedans. There's clearly an added cost to an Apple/SGI merger here, since it either dilutes existing Apple and SGI brands, or else the new SGApple has to create a new brand...

Just for fun, to maybe steer this thread back a little bit, here's a neat link I found. Just read the first few pages- this background detail repeats what I've seen elsewhere, and I'm willing to accept it as being real.

<a href="http://www.sun.com/servers/wp/docs/3384_rev2_061702.pdf" target="_blank">www.sun.com/servers/wp/docs/3384_rev2_061702.pdf</a>

Ignore the stuff about Sun's V480, just read the bits about how IDC expects the worldwide server market to move. Especially look at that graph that shows traditional servers selling fewer and fewer, while smaller "rack optimized and blade servers" will sell more and more.

Accepting this, it's a really bad sign for SGI, since SGI's core market (those big servers) is shrinking, while it's not a bad sign for current Apple strategy (Xserve).

It's also a really bad sign for Apple buying SGI- why buy a company that's shrinking so quickly?

-HOS</strong><hr></blockquote>

And I thought this thread had run out of steam!!

Blade servers are an interesting development: But they have a segment and a place in the market just like every other product segment (handheld, sub-notebook, laptop, desktop replacement......, high-end corporate server, mainframe).

My particular belief is that blade computing is a really great solution for a particular kind of problem, but the constraints on I/O in most implementations limits their applicability to roles such as Java servers (potentially the basis of Sun's interest), thin-client serving, or web serving.

As for the high-density 1U or 3U rack-optimised server. They are great "in their place", namely SMEs, workgroups or similar. A 1U server with 3 PCI slots does not give the kind of redundancy/fault-tolerance or expansion that larger companies often require.

A render farm or compute farm executed using what are effectively densely clustered 2-way xServes and Ethernet (at whatever speed) is a fantastic way of solving a computing problem in a modular, cost-efficient method for SOME marketplaces. However, there comes a point at which the combined capital cost and TCO can no longer compensate for what is essentially a "workaround" solution for many computing problems.

The next technology step: Highly expandable 4-ways or 8-ways connected by a high-speed fabric, such as Infiniband, is exactly what I'm proposing. My next proposal, the usage of a coherent cache manager, would allow the results of the computation on one x-way node to influence the computational action of any other x-way node. Whatever you say about Ethernet-connected compute farms, managing all of the memory across the farm at the kind of performance that SCI + Infiniband would offer is a pipedream.

I wish to differ on the perception of Apple's and SGI's brands!

My perception of AAPL is that it is an excellent "evolution factory" for ideas which are awaiting the mainstream; GUI, WIMP, Postscript, USB, CD-ROM, and several dozen other technologies (including DVD-R) finally found their potential when Apple found a way to bring them to a volume marketplace.

However, I don't believe that anyone with an objective eye could deny that Apple has lost ground in the hardware marketplace. We all hope that the ground will be regained with a technology hike at the forthcoming MWNY or (more likely) MWSF, but - even if that technology hike happens - Apple will still, rightly or wrongly, be a vendor with a very thin product catalogue.

I perceive SGI as the Alpha male of high-end post-production, with hardware - even at a CPU level - that has been progressively evolved to very skilled at a) floating-point math and b) graphics I/O.

This evolution has been both a virtue and a vice for SGI. with the specialisation denying SGI any kind of marketplace in "traditional" IT environments such as data-warehousing, client/server business applications or even the bread-and-butter file/print serving marketplace.

In many ways, Apple's "perceived" specialisation in a (comparatively) narrow market segment also leads to parallel "vicious" and "virtuous" circles: A vicious circle of being unable to re-enter the "conventional" SME or enterprise markets, as much because of the (mainly spurious) WinXXX apps/peripheral portfolio argument as the (completely spurious and now completely outmoded) "open systems" argument; and a virtuous circle of having nearly every major Creative audience awaiting your next offering.

In these respects then, SGI and AAPL remind me of the TNG episode where an "alternate" Picard from six hours in the future has crash-landed a shuttle onto the deck of the Enterprise.

My point being that SGI is almost certainly a "view into the future" for AAPL, self-selected marginalisation ultimately leading to erosion and entropy until all that remains is the computing equivalent of a pulsar, sending out cyclical reminders (every major expo) of one of the greatest centres of innovation that any industry has ever seen.

Assuming (and I say this with all the relevant fine print) that the URL
I referred to in my previous posting (which was a leech from another thread that has since been closed) is in any way a reflection of a solid truth, both SGI and Apple can save each themselves and each other from extinction (medium- and long-term) respectively.

If G5 is seriously beiong considered by SGI, then logic dictates the chip must be a viable floating-point performer when compared to their owen MIPS processors. Even more importantly, it says something about the untit when compared to x86 or Itanium or even Clawhammer, either with regards to floating-point or bandwidth or a combination of both.

However, AAPL's more mainstream requirements would also demand that the chip is capable of relatively good integer benchmark, because an Oracle or a Sybase or even a 4D are going to focus on that parameter for performance.

So, assuming The Rumour is true, SGI will deliver IRIX onto G5, thus becoming technically capable of pursuing large-scale DBMS implementations were it not for the fact that (from what I can tell) there is no Oracle or Sybase implementation for IRIX at the moment.

Conversely, Apple will ultimately deliver OS X onto G5, which will be the first mainstream 64-bit capable CPU to be released at any kind of cost which could be considered attractive.

The word "mainstream" in this context means destined for a wide range of marketplaces including consumer PCs (something which neither Sparc nor Itanium can claim): This is overwhelmingly important - consumer market means economies of scales, economies of scale mean cheaper to buy, cheaper to sell.

So now, Apple "popularises" the 64-bit capable platform which means that SGI can take advantage of economies of scale and sell its' own hardware more competitively, none of which I mind at all.

But AAPL now has something that SGI need even more than AAPL: a broad mainstream applications portfolio, including the dreaded 800-pound gorilla of the business workplace, MS Office.

Conversely, SGI have something that AAPL would (or certainly, should) like: a genuine reputation for building "big iron" (or at least, "bigger iron" than Apple currently can claim) that has penetrated major R&D facilities like BP, Ford, Volvo and hundreds of others. Likewise, that "big iron" - with the prospect of an integer-friendly G5 and license to use cc:NUMA design - is exactly the kind of iron that Oracle or Sybase can use to do serious damage to the world of DB2 and the S/390-class mainframe.

The key here is the political link between Apple and Oracle: If Larry Ellison chooses to support Apple, it happens - no ifs, no buts. So the argument that AAPL would have no reputation as a vendor of DBMS iron would only be partially true at that point; it would have whatever reputation Jobs, Ellison, Schiller and all of their wizards and familiars chose to endow.

To reiterate the summary of my position: -

My point here is that the potential sum of these two companies becomes greater than their parts conditional on the validity of The Rumour: It assures SGI and their customers of a future with a broader applications portfolio than they could ever expect; it assures an enormous proportion of SGI personnel a future in an uncertain world, even the basic act of purchase gives Apple greater weight and mindshare than could currently be the case, especially in Hollywood - the company becomes an "across-the-board" vendor of highly capable computing systems, scalable from classroom to corporate, from digital media to datawarehouse.

I would point out that I think that all of this is about as likely as Spiderman not generating a sequel (i.e. slim, bordering on non-existent), but I can't help wondering...
"There's no bigot like a religious bigot and there's no religion more fanatical than that espoused by Macintosh zealots." ~Martin Veitch, IT Week [31-01-2003]

"What's your point?" ~ Mark Solomon...
Reply
"There's no bigot like a religious bigot and there's no religion more fanatical than that espoused by Macintosh zealots." ~Martin Veitch, IT Week [31-01-2003]

"What's your point?" ~ Mark Solomon...
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Could this be the future? Oh, I wish...