(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??
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.
[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?
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.
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.
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]" />
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.
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?
[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.
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.
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.
(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>
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.
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...
[quote]Originally posted by Mark- Card Carrying FanaticRealist:
<strong>
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.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This argument still seems a little weak to me. Why benefit does SGI get from a mainstream application portfolio? More apps. Why on earth would Apple give them away though? This is almost introducing a clone market again. At least it's another vendor competing with the same, or a subset of the same, applications as Apple.
I guess SGI's machines might be so far out of reach pricewise, that it wouldn't be real competition for Apple, but that leaves me wondering, if SGI gives Apple the 'Big Iron', then Apple moves into SGI's territory of 'Big Iron'. What competitive advantage does SGI keep in this situation?
Maybe for all of these reasons it IS a perfect fit, I don't know. Either it's a match, or they're mutually exclusive. I have yet to figure out which one it is....
Comments
<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??
Hot-plugable and -swappable everything, except a reason for it's existance...
<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.
<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.
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>
<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.
<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.
<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]" />
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
[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.
<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]
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>
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.
<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>
(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>
<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...
<strong>
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.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This argument still seems a little weak to me. Why benefit does SGI get from a mainstream application portfolio? More apps. Why on earth would Apple give them away though? This is almost introducing a clone market again. At least it's another vendor competing with the same, or a subset of the same, applications as Apple.
I guess SGI's machines might be so far out of reach pricewise, that it wouldn't be real competition for Apple, but that leaves me wondering, if SGI gives Apple the 'Big Iron', then Apple moves into SGI's territory of 'Big Iron'. What competitive advantage does SGI keep in this situation?
Maybe for all of these reasons it IS a perfect fit, I don't know. Either it's a match, or they're mutually exclusive. I have yet to figure out which one it is....