| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Apple Must Make Strong Case for Xserve G5 Adoption | |
|
||
| Time: 16:40 EST/21:40 GMT | News Source: MacNewsWorld | Posted By: Erick Cordero | ||
|
Apple's Xserve G5 is a powerful machine -- just not in ways that are easy to get across to the IT market. It is not a general-purpose computing barn burner. In business-style integer and floating-point tests, a 2-GHz Xserve G5 comes in at about half the calculating power of a 2.2-GHz Opteron running in pure 64-bit mode. The G5's memory performance is excellent, but it degrades in a linear fashion under load, whereas Opteron's memory performance degrades more slowly. Opteron is cheaper, faster in common computation, and more consistent in terms of how fast it accesses memory. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 151 Last | Next |
The time now is
1:45:32 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 3339 (64.160.58.135) at 7/2/2004 8:08:50 PM |
| http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php/id;1815020456;fp;2;fpid;1 |
| #2 By 3339 (64.160.58.135) at 7/5/2004 11:00:30 PM |
|
"He estimates that the total cost so far of the new network, including racks, switches, boxes and wiring, is at $250,000."
How do you read : "$250,000 for one RAID box"? F'in @ssclown!! |
| #3 By 3339 (64.160.58.135) at 7/5/2004 11:03:14 PM |
| http://www.thinksecret.com/news/ucla.html |
| #4 By 3339 (64.160.58.135) at 7/6/2004 12:53:30 PM |
|
"By the way, they spec'd this out in June of 2003 before Opterons were out in significant numbers."
Neither were XServe G5s. Do you have a point? |
| #5 By 3339 (64.160.58.135) at 7/6/2004 1:36:15 PM |
|
You got a vague, nondocumented quote... I've got two sources who have actually evaluated the tech and bids, and they chose Apple because their solution was cheaper, more powerful, and more robust.
You claim these people are insane, that they are getting robbed. They tell you: this was the cheapest option, it is the best option... Even when you decide to believe something, you have to distort the information to insane extremes... as per the claim that a single RAID server cost $250,000. I don't know why I bother to discredit you all the time when you are so good at it yourself. |
| #6 By 3339 (64.160.58.135) at 7/7/2004 12:45:53 PM |
|
1) your beliefs are generally insane and retarded. Why would I consider your beliefs? Is it your impression that they considered bids from 5 vendors and not one of them pitched an Opteron solution? Whatever... I thought it was the best option.
2) No, it is not. They mention the drive capacity of an XServe increasing... it does not say one XServe RAID unit, one cheap gig switch, and that's it. 3) And? They are more expensive and less powerful than what could be built with XServes. 4) So? I know this. This has never been my point. My point is that for those who know and evaluate high performance computer clusters are finding the XServe a highly desireable and affordable option. Apple is the only vendor of XServes. They represent 1% of the server market. And yet they have had 4 big cluster wins that I am now aware of and 2 of them will appear in the top 5 to 10 highest performing clusters of all time when completed. |
| #7 By 3339 (64.160.58.135) at 7/7/2004 5:51:47 PM |
|
1. So you have no evidence of your theory.
2. No, learn to read. Your quote is referring to "a server" platform, not a single box. 3. as I said, my argument was never that XServes ruled the Top500. 4. Baloney. If you are selectively counting Opteron's first year, let's count the G5s first year: 1 in the Top500. In fact, #2 for far cheaper than had ever been accomplished. |
| #8 By 3339 (64.160.58.135) at 7/7/2004 8:39:05 PM |
|
1) And I've told you before, I don't give a sh1t what you said. I said, you have no evidence that Opteron wasn't considered. Yet you claim this is a fact. You have no evidence. As usual.
2) Yes... and? If you tried to sell me Windows, and I said, "I want a killer OS." Does that mean I only want one? But more simply, why don't we read: "After six weeks of the test running smoothly on demo boxes..." AND "Our RAIDs shipped in January 2004, so by the time they arrived Apple had released a new version and they had evolved into better machines." Illiterate @ss monkey. 3) Your initial claim was only the insane buy XServes. You have done nothing yet to prove that VT, The DOD, SBS, or UCLA are insane. Quite the opposite. 4) No proof? Oh, I forgot, you are illiterate... http://www3.gartner.com/5_about/press_releases/2002_10/pr20021028b.jsp Moron! 1.2% marketshare, 5th largest in the US, 3Q02. 5) Despite your claims, no one at VT has ever complained. They are perfectly happy with their purchases. This post was edited by sodajerk on Wednesday, July 07, 2004 at 20:45. |
| #9 By 3339 (64.160.58.135) at 7/8/2004 2:48:37 PM |
|
1) No, as I have said, you have no proof Opteron wasn't considered. Only a moron would presume that anyone evaluating multiple options from multiple vendors would not consider the Opteron.
2) Keep ignoring my quotes which use the plural 3 times. Keep pretending one box cost a quarter of a million. No one has ever believed anything you have ever said anyway. 3) You are a moron. No one would trust or believe you ever for anything. 4) Yes, two years ago... before HT improved, before the first Raids, before G5s, before 2.5 G5s, before VT, before UCLA, before the DOD... Do you want to bet that the next time stats are published that they haven't GRON marketshare, moron? 5) There's no reason to reply. I've acknowledged that VT has disassembled the Big Mac, that they have purchased new gear, but have not rebuilt it yet many times. I don't know what you think this means, but it does not mean any of the things you have suggested thus far... Everyone involved in it is happy and have not expressed any concerns about fraud... in fact, they have stated the (few) facts that you have stated. Where's the fraud, moron? |
| #10 By 3339 (64.160.58.135) at 7/8/2004 4:00:11 PM |
|
" Considering that the process started in June 2003 before Opteron motherboards were available in numbers makes me sure I am right ... that Opteron was not considered."
What the fck are you talking about? The product they chose just started shipping in March (I bet it hasn't even shipped in your mind)... The 2.5 GHz XServe Raid. So they clearly didn't select the XServe option because it wasn't available a whole year later... Wait, they did... and the Opteron was available well before any G5 XServes... go figure, moron. |
| #11 By 3339 (64.160.58.135) at 7/9/2004 6:31:15 PM |
|
Stopped reading? I've repeated this twice already... Third times a charm, maybe:
Moron, June 2003 predates ANY and ALL G5 XServes, therefore, they could not consider XServes... How many fckin' times do I have to repeat myself before you realize how fckin' retarded what you are saying is? This post was edited by sodajerk on Friday, July 09, 2004 at 18:31. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 151 Last | Next |
The time now is
1:45:32 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
