<strong>>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...
...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>
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]" />
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.
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.
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.
[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:
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.
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.
<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 -> 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.
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.
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.
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...)
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.
>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.
> 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.
> 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
<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.
>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:
>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.
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.
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...
Comments
<strong>>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>
<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>
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]" />
<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>
[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.
Just an observation
- 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.[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.
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.
<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 -> 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.
<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.
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.
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.
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.
[QB]
>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.
>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)
>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.
>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.
> 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.
> 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!
<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.
>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:
>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>
<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.
>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.
<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>