Posted on 06/23/2004 12:17:13 AM PDT by Swordmaker
Already being done. "But Top 500 means nothing because it uses LINPACK and that's not real-world." Too bad, that's how it was rated for years before Jobs even came back to Apple, that's the rating method that has given Cray and others bragging rights for 10 years before Apple even started in the HPC market, and now that Apple is in the game suddenly Top 500 means nothing? Ah, I see.
We do wonder about someone who constantly tries to defend his sexuality every time a computer is mentioned.
Your choice, as long as you can live with it. BTW, I didn't like the gumdrop iMacs either. The iLamps are pretty good though, except that they still only have the G4 processor.
As Carl Jung once said, clever argument cannot convince reality, and the reality in this case is in the top 500 list. Even after the excellent showing of the VT Cluster (NOT based on the Xserve) and "excellent prices" on their systems, NOT A SINGLE Apple has appeared in the top 500, and correct me if I'm wrong but the last top 500 list (where VT actually showed up) was done November 2003, not "three months ago"...
Uh, Khurkris, how many Dell computers have Dell Processors at their hearts???
You really are stretching it to trash Apple. You don't like it, so you hope it doesn't get adopted, although there's no evidence to suppor that.
Like you said, "NOT based on the XServe." The VA Tech cluster was a proof of concept when the desktops came out, to see if the processor and architecture was worthy. Get real, no one would do a production cluster of 1,100 Mac desktops! It was found worthy (#3!), and they started switching over once the G5 XServes came out, plus the Army (a generally Mac-hating organization) has now snapped them up not much later.
It's been only three months since the availability of the G5 XServe (the viable production cluster product from Apple), from a new unproven vendor (except one test case for the underlying architecture), with two contracts (one about to be built, the other not finished in time for the Top 500), and you're claiming the market has judged Apple? Premature to say the least.
Can I say the market hates Itanium because there weren't a whole bunch of them on the Top 500 a year after their release, even though it had the backing of major HPC vendors? (BTW, in case you forgot, Itanium now has the #2 slot and 18 others). Stupid statement.
November 2003 - Apple G5 based cluster: 1
November 2003 - ANY Opteron based cluster: 4
November 2003 - IBM Opteron based cluster: 0
June 2004 - Apple G5 based cluster: 0
June 2004 - ANY Opteron based cluster: 30
June 2004 - IBM eServer Opteron based cluster: 15
You tried to argue that the 30 new opteron systems were spread around multiple vendors, the facts say that IBM in the six months since November 2003 fielded 15 new top 500 Opteron clusters under the eServer brand, and Apple fielded NONE.
Make of that what you wish, the facts are the facts and clever argument cannot convince reality...
One test system was up before the tech was shipped to the public. One XServe cluster is almost up (would have been up in time for this Top 500, but Apple couldn't ship the hardware fast enough) and another big order was made less than three months after the release. That clearly shows that people are interested.
You don't seem to get it either. The market has responded to Apple's cluster with a big yawn...
That's enough power to play back a 'Garageband' tune with more than 5 tracks.
... only Mac users will know what that means.
The market has responded as it does any new technology in this field. There were only two Itaniums in the beginning, so I guess that is indicative of their failure too.
But in the end time will tell. Let's wait until XServe clusters have been available for a year, that's 9 months from now. In that time there will be at least two, one in the top 10. I wonder how many more.
Believe me, I'm not offended, just puzzled.
Yes, I am a Mac uses, and also a Dell user and a Gateway user.
The Mac uses a chip that was originally developed jointly by Apple, Motorola, and IBM, although I think Motorola may have left the consortium by now. I'm not sure about that, but lets just get clear on one point.
Personal computer makers generally do not manufacture the chip on which their machines are based. That's not unique to Apple; it's true throughout the industry. That's why you see the ubiquitous "Intel inside" logo on machines made by literally hundereds of different manufacturers that Intel had nothing to do with except selling the manufacturer a processor. And there are huge differences in quality and features among these machines all using an Intel processor that distinguish one from another quite apart from the processor.
Also, there are at least a couple other manufacturers making central processor chips, but I can't recall their names. (Amdel? is that one?)
IBM uses Intel manufactured processors in their computers, not IBM's own chips.
So when Apple uses chips made by IBM, that isn't noteworthy in any significant way except to note that IBM is making one fine processor there, with that PowerPC G5 chip. It's more than appropriate for Apple to buy them and use them in the Mac, especially since this chip is the outgrowth of a processor project in which Apple once played a central role.
bttt
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.