| 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 |
 |
IBM goes very very quiet about Linux | |
|
||
| Time: 13:44 EST/18:44 GMT | News Source: The Register | Posted By: Brian Kvalheim | ||
|
What ever happened all the desktops?
IT SEEMS that IBM might be toning down its bold resolution that it will have Linux running on all its desktops by, er, about now. As first exclusively revealed in the INQUIRER, IBM's grand supremo Sam Palmisano announced that everyone in Big Blue would have nice new Linux desktops by the end of 2005. There was much back slapping and the spinners spun after we printed the memo, oh how they spun. At the time Big Blue had 15,000 Linux desktops within the company and predicted that it would have between 40,000 and 60,000 in operation by the end of 2004. But when hacks popped back to IBM this week to ask them how they were doing with all those desktop Linux machines the spinsters were surprisingly evasive. One spokesperson said she didn't have anything to say that was "definitive" although she did say that there were people using Linux and nobody is telling them to stop. Well that is nice. She declined to say whether that 40,000 goal had been met or not. In fact she said that she didn't know if there was ever a goal of 40,000 Linux users. Actually she didn't know if there were 40,000 users already.
| ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 155 Last | Next |
The time now is
5:14:27 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 37 (24.183.41.60) at 1/26/2005 6:04:23 PM |
| True dat. |
| #2 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 1/26/2005 7:09:25 PM |
| Just wondering if anyone has checked the TPC site lately. IBM absolutely blew everyone out of the water. Albeit on AIX, not Linux, but also on a non-clustered, 64-proc system. Microsoft, where's your response? Will SQL 2005 even post a competitive result when it is released? |
| #3 By 12071 (203.185.215.149) at 1/26/2005 8:56:42 PM |
|
I see Parkker got a new identity.
What happened to all the "Register & Inquirer are rags" comments that normally get thrown around to automatically dismiss anything they may have to say? Oh sorry, my mistake, they're not criticising Microsoft in this story so that makes them a reputable news source. |
| #4 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 1/27/2005 12:36:13 AM |
|
#5 Actually both TPC/W and TPC/C show MS SQL 2000 SP3a to be very strong.
We live and die by this stuff - processing L&R for banks, national retailers and CC issuers. MS SQL eats the others - especially opposite price -v performance. We test a lot, and I have funded a lot of the effort - trust this, if there were a more powerful and economic solution, we'd be all over it. This became especially true under W2K3 server over all others on x86 hardware - Dell 4400 and 6600's with 4 to 16 GB RAM and loaded drive arrays. MS SQL falt out smokes Oracle 9i and 10g on the same hardware when 2K3 is used. It just handles the entire SRV Paged and Non-paged resource pool/path so much better. After running the BETA of SQL 2005 [Yukon] we are keenly interested in seeing it released - it will make us a lot more profitable revenue. Same is true of an ERP we built for SMB's - SQL just walks away with it and is so much easier to keep strong - over say 9i standard. It has been a real shame to watch people close to us refuse to accept this as they throw more and more resources down the combined Linuces/Oracle/J2EE terlet. Sad... |
| #5 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 1/27/2005 1:00:55 AM |
|
lketchum, I understand your point... real-world, these TPC scores don't mean too much. But nonetheless, when you look at what is some of the strongest non-clustered hardware that Windows can run (64-way SuperDome) vs. the IBM solution (also 64-way) and the IBM beats it by almost a factor of 4, that's significant. Your post seemed to be a response to the question of Oracle (on x86, it would appear) vs. MS SQL, but have you played with DB2 on AIX much? And price/performance-wise, the IBM is doing even better than MS SQL--at least on the very high end (notwithstanding the fact that the MS SQL top score is significantly older... although it's also true that both the PIV line nor the Itanium 2 line have only incrementally increased their performance since then...).
I'm very curious to know if Brian Valentine is still thinking they would support ~5 64-bit platforms in the future. That led me to believe that perhaps they were keeping their options open for a POWER platform (and maybe the speculation around reviving the PowerPC NT code for the next version of the XBox has a dual purpose?). I'm not sure if there are many applications out there that need the kind of power that any of the top TPC scorers offer, but the disparity between the scores is embarrassing to Microsoft. Maybe they would be forced to abandon the Itanium altogether in favor of the IBM platform? Or perhaps start supporting both? |
| #6 By 9589 (66.26.232.20) at 1/27/2005 10:04:29 AM |
| Obviously, like Munich, IBM is "studying" the problem! lol |
| #7 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 1/27/2005 12:06:44 PM |
|
LinuxIsTheft (aka Parkker aka Parker ;), fair enough, then look at this:
http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_result_detail.asp?id=104071202 IBM eServer p5 570 16P (16-way!) Total System Cost 4,004,491 US $ TPC-C Throughput 809,144 Price/Performance 4.95 US $ http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_result_detail.asp?id=103082701 HP Integrity Superdome (64-way, Itanium 2 1.5GHz) Total System Cost 5,105,486 US $ TPC-C Throughput 786,646 Price/Performance 6.49 US $ The IBM costs over 20% less, and performs better. And they're both available now. |
| #8 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 1/28/2005 3:54:22 AM |
|
#10, Yes, we did/do in an active lab, but the reality is that very few customers spend more than 50K for a server - in that class for both clustered and non-clustered systems, we've noted better value on x86 under W2K3 and MS SQL 2003 SP3a - processing yr over yr transactions where 200 mil is the avg. HP, Dell and custom systems where a loaded 6600 is about as high end as we have seen investments in. Above that and one starts to deal with Unices based centers with resources we can only dream of - 32 million $$ systems to just drool over. That said, there is still a lot of parallel processing that smaller shops [like us], are asked to support. In that space, the *nix, while strong just don't rise up to the value we can get/deliver using MS products, or a mix of systems - say RH AS, or ES if the supported devs are into J2EE - as many are. They are more comfortable with a *nix and Java - so that is a factor, too - e.g., if the dev team grew up with *nix it's probably going to be a better value in the short term for a customer to stay on that platform and an Oracle DB [9i or 10g].
For most though, they've adopted ASP.NET its IDE and they find a better value in MS's platform. A lot of it comes down to that and some harsh realities - like how fast can one get replacement parts - a Dell 6600 sells for Dell as a meaningful enough product that one can get better service. Higher on up, smaller shops, or divisions within huge companies with less budget, find it harsh to spend the $$ needed to support the higher end hardware - where such a purchase is relatively small. Such a balance has to be maintained that choice has to be driven by relative value - where all the variables above are at play. Now, supporting each is rough - and keeping it profitable. I can say with a dead on certainty that our clients on MS platforms pay and on time - the reverse is sadly true for those on other platforms. Why is hard to say...but as we do say..."it is what it is..." Personally, I've seen one DB that has run more than three years without a reboot [W2K box running Oracle 8i - with three monster instances on it]. I'd rather see some really wild stuff running an OO DB, but that is just so rare outside of Govt. or huge incumbent carriers like the Bells. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 155 Last | Next |
The time now is
5:14:27 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
