millbank Posted February 3, 2005 Posted February 3, 2005 most interesting discussion by everyone , very interesting
KurtGodel77 Posted February 3, 2005 Posted February 3, 2005 SPARC is *far* more advanced than either Intel or AMD. Not only have they been 64-bit for years, they're also RISC, have dual-core processor technology, and scale to levels that Wintel can only dream of. The same goes for PA-RISC processors from HP. Intel and AMD are kids toys by comparison. CW 226825[/snapback] I love Sun. I love Java. I love the way that Sun's workstations and low-end servers held the line against M$s' junk servers. But I'm afraid that Sun will be outspent in the CPU market in the long term. I remember back when Sun's MHz ratings were actually pretty close to Intel's; then Intel pulled away. Now Intel has a 64 bit chip; though it's not that widespread yet. You're right in saying Sun is still ahead, but I'm not sure that Sun can spend the same money on chip design that Intel can. I suspect that the long run future of the server market will be Dell assembling Intel servers running Linux.
Fezmid Posted February 3, 2005 Posted February 3, 2005 I love Sun. I love Java. I love the way that Sun's workstations and low-end servers held the line against M$s' junk servers. But I'm afraid that Sun will be outspent in the CPU market in the long term. I remember back when Sun's MHz ratings were actually pretty close to Intel's; then Intel pulled away. Now Intel has a 64 bit chip; though it's not that widespread yet. You're right in saying Sun is still ahead, but I'm not sure that Sun can spend the same money on chip design that Intel can. I suspect that the long run future of the server market will be Dell assembling Intel servers running Linux. 226839[/snapback] There's more to chip architecture than clock speed. All in all, clock speed actually isn't that important at all. For example, an AMD Opteron running at 2.4GHz (with 32bit apps) can outperform Intel chips running at 3.6Ghz or higher in everything but video rendering. PA-RISC chips (HP) are only running at 1Ghz, but they kick the crap out of AMD, Intel AND Sun. Intel is going to have to solve its lack of scaling if it wants to compete in the server market. High end servers need more than 4 CPUs. I'd guess that Intel is at least a decade away from being able to provide that. CW
KurtGodel77 Posted February 3, 2005 Posted February 3, 2005 There's more to chip architecture than clock speed. All in all, clock speed actually isn't that important at all. For example, an AMD Opteron running at 2.4GHz (with 32bit apps) can outperform Intel chips running at 3.6Ghz or higher in everything but video rendering. PA-RISC chips (HP) are only running at 1Ghz, but they kick the crap out of AMD, Intel AND Sun. Intel is going to have to solve its lack of scaling if it wants to compete in the server market. High end servers need more than 4 CPUs. I'd guess that Intel is at least a decade away from being able to provide that. CW 226843[/snapback] You have a good point about clock speed. But even if 1 GHz of SPARC is worth 2 of Intel's 64 bit chip, Intel can overcome its inefficient architecture with enough of a MHz increase. Besides, the server market appears to be standardizing around Linux; making the UNIX chip market easier for the likes of AMD and Intel to enter. Even if Sun's SPARC chip gives you 25% better value than the Intel competitor, Intel may still get the sale. Why? Because Dell isn't going to buy the SPARC chip, and Dell's value proposition to the customer--consulting, maintenance and service agreements, the PC assembly itself--may be better than Sun's value proposition for some corporate customers. However, Sun has come up with a clever way of bundling software and hardware together, so for corporate customers who need the software; Sun's offerings are probably better.
SDS Posted February 3, 2005 Posted February 3, 2005 There's more to chip architecture than clock speed. All in all, clock speed actually isn't that important at all. For example, an AMD Opteron running at 2.4GHz (with 32bit apps) can outperform Intel chips running at 3.6Ghz or higher in everything but video rendering. PA-RISC chips (HP) are only running at 1Ghz, but they kick the crap out of AMD, Intel AND Sun. Intel is going to have to solve its lack of scaling if it wants to compete in the server market. High end servers need more than 4 CPUs. I'd guess that Intel is at least a decade away from being able to provide that. CW 226843[/snapback] Granted, I am an Apple shill - but, since I follow the company very closely I have noticed that normally hostile mac people are really taking notice - in particular, their Xserve line. We just bought 16 of them at work for our own "super computer". Plus, they have some storage solutions that are getting noticed: http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/01/27/stakes/index.php this from a writer from InfoWorld....
Wacka Posted February 3, 2005 Posted February 3, 2005 When people say that Macs are more expensive, they don't take into account the software they have to buy and all the time they have to spend keeping their Wintel boxes running. I have a 5 year old Mac running at 400 MHz w/ 650 M memory and OSX.3.7 (the newest release). I have NO virus protection, NO Adaware, NO Spybot, use the pop-up blocker in Firefox. Since going to OSX a year ago, I have not needed to reinstall OSX or any applications. Of course, I backup new files regularly (monthly) to an external drive and CD in case the hard drive fails. Before OSX (19 years of using Macs), I had to re-install the OS twice. I see numerous posts here and in other places on the web where people have to spend several hours a week cleaning of all the viruses, etc off their PCs. Today there is a thread where someone was advised to totally wipe his HD clean and re-install everthing. As Moose said, iLife (which comes with new Macs) has components that would cost more than the computer if the MS equivalents were bought. If you want to play games, buy an X-Box or PS2.
RkFast Posted February 3, 2005 Posted February 3, 2005 I do a lot of work with the folks in Redmond. Microsoft has its flaws. They are well-documented. No need to rehash them. But despite those flaws, I can say from firsthand experience that they are a good bunch of energetic, VERY smart and motivated people who overall, believe in what they are doing, enjoy it tremendously and strive to always improve all facets of their business. This country could use MORE companies like Microsoft, not less.
KurtGodel77 Posted February 3, 2005 Posted February 3, 2005 I do a lot of work with the folks in Redmond. Microsoft has its flaws. They are well-documented. No need to rehash them. But despite those flaws, I can say that they are a good bunch of energetic, VERY smart and motivated people who overall, believe in what they are doing, enjoy it tremendously and look strive to do it better in all facets of business. This country could use MORE companies like Microsoft, not less. 226896[/snapback] I have nothing against the rank and file at Microsoft. I'm sure that at least two of the employees there are good people whom I'd enjoy spending time with. My issue with the company is its business strategy of wiping out competition, eliminating open standards in favor of its own proprietary operating systems and file formats, and in general standing in the way of innovation. This doesn't mean that the Windows group, for example, isn't innovative. But with Linux, anyone from anywhere in the world can contribute; so Linux does a better job of harnessing the innovative talent of the world's programming community than does Windows.
Fezmid Posted February 3, 2005 Posted February 3, 2005 You have a good point about clock speed. But even if 1 GHz of SPARC is worth 2 of Intel's 64 bit chip, Intel can overcome its inefficient architecture with enough of a MHz increase. Besides, the server market appears to be standardizing around Linux; making the UNIX chip market easier for the likes of AMD and Intel to enter. Even if Sun's SPARC chip gives you 25% better value than the Intel competitor, Intel may still get the sale. Why? Because Dell isn't going to buy the SPARC chip, and Dell's value proposition to the customer--consulting, maintenance and service agreements, the PC assembly itself--may be better than Sun's value proposition for some corporate customers. However, Sun has come up with a clever way of bundling software and hardware together, so for corporate customers who need the software; Sun's offerings are probably better. 226855[/snapback] I have the feeling that you don't actually work in the industry. Linux is taking over small Windows servers here and there, that's true. But it's *not* a replacement for "real" servers in the datacenter. You're ignoring *scaling* -- I can't get a lot of CPUs for any Intel box, Windows or Linux. I don't care how fast they are, if I'm stuck at 4 CPUs there's not much I can do to increase that. Plus, the Intel/AMD architecture in general is poor. CPUs may be fast, but what about the backplane? AMD is starting to get it with its NUMA architecture, but they still have a long way to go. Most people think that a computer's speed is solely based on clock speed. In reality, that's one of the least important aspects nowadays. Granted, I am an Apple shill - but, since I follow the company very closely I have noticed that normally hostile mac people are really taking notice - in particular, their Xserve line. We just bought 16 of them at work for our own "super computer". We looked at one of these as a fileserver replacement (along with an XRaid). Looked impressive, although the Apple guy giving the demo was very GUI-oritented and couldn't answer most of my CLI questions. After all was said and done, we ended up buying a Windows solution (with ExtremeZ-IP), but the only reason was because we don't want to support yet another platform. Otherwise, price/performance wise I think the XServer looked pretty good. (not as good as a Dell DJ though ). CW
KurtGodel77 Posted February 3, 2005 Posted February 3, 2005 I have the feeling that you don't actually work in the industry. Linux is taking over small Windows servers here and there, that's true. But it's *not* a replacement for "real" servers in the datacenter. You're ignoring *scaling* -- I can't get a lot of CPUs for any Intel box, Windows or Linux. I don't care how fast they are, if I'm stuck at 4 CPUs there's not much I can do to increase that. Plus, the Intel/AMD architecture in general is poor. CPUs may be fast, but what about the backplane? AMD is starting to get it with its NUMA architecture, but they still have a long way to go. I was referring to long-term trends. IBM is working to cluster Linux computers together; thereby addressing the scaling issue you metion. The way I see it, Linux will take over Windows servers today, and real servers tomorrow.
bartshan-83 Posted February 3, 2005 Posted February 3, 2005 Mac people....please help me.... WHY is there no right-click f*cking mouse button????????????? :I starred in Brokeback Mountain:
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 3, 2005 Posted February 3, 2005 "Earthlink and WebRoot Software have completed a quarterly spyware audit, documenting the current malware plague: Results from the report, which tracked the growth of spyware on consumer PCs since the report's inception on January 1, 2004, show the instances of system monitors rose 230 percent, while the instances of Trojans rose 114 percent from October 2004 to December 2004. Trojans, keystroke loggers and system monitors are capable of capturing keystrokes, online screenshots, and personally identifiable information like your social security number, bank account numbers, logins and passwords, or credit card numbers. " http://finance.lycos.com/qc/news/story.aspx?story=46604321 226637[/snapback] Yes, well, ever try imaging a mac hard drive? Get an unfixable virus on a PC? NO PROBLEMO! Just re-image it.
Fezmid Posted February 3, 2005 Posted February 3, 2005 Mac people....please help me.... WHY is there no right-click f*cking mouse button????????????? :I starred in Brokeback Mountain: 227191[/snapback] Because Jobs thinks that makes things too confusing. And with general Joe Blow, that's actually true. Ask someone to right click and drag some files, and they have no idea what you're talking about... You can buy a two-button mouse and it works; it's just not as full featured as it is in Windows. If I remember correctly (from my limited Mac knowledge), pressing the command key and clicking is the same as a right click. A Mac-person can confirm this though. CW
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 3, 2005 Posted February 3, 2005 Yes.C-A-N-C-E-R.http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&c2c...ces&btnG=Search 226688[/snapback] You act as if this is the first time that something liek this has happened in American history. If you think it's so, I suggest you do some research on Standard Oil, US Steel and Union Pacific.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 3, 2005 Posted February 3, 2005 Please be more specific - what do you mean by "easier to manage"??? I'm curious because I "manage" over 230 computers running Mac OS X, and most of it I can do right from the computer on my desk. This includes imaging a hard drive via netboot, updating software, and observing or taking control or screen sharing of remote computers anywhere in the building. What exactly is it that is "unmanageable" about your OS X machines? What, specifically, can you do to manage your XP computers that you can't manage with your OS X ones? 226745[/snapback] Finally someone asks the right question. Let me break it down for you: 1) PCs are open-ended hardware platforms. This allows for infinite customizability, whereas with a Mac you're stuck with their platoform. Also, because of open hardware, it's far easier to diagnose and repair a PC. No "Sad Mac Syndrome". 2) Macs are not as easily "imaged" as a PC can be. The utilities (ie Carbon Copy cloner) don't even come close to what's available for PCs. 3) Seeing as 90% of the world is PC-centric, it becomes imperative in the Mac world to have to be able to connect to Active Directory and the like. Know how much time our OSX conversion staff has gone through to create a desktop that will integrate with our PC platform? I could go on, but I'm lazy today.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 3, 2005 Posted February 3, 2005 UNIX is open source.OSX is UNIX with a GUI. I wouldn't call it stealing.It's pretty smart if you ask me.... 226782[/snapback] Tell that to Sun.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 3, 2005 Posted February 3, 2005 Yes, I do know that... but the rest of this is way over my head. I'm just glad it's all behind a GUI that rocks! 226794[/snapback] Yes, because we ALL know form is better than function in the Mac universe
Moose Posted February 3, 2005 Author Posted February 3, 2005 JoeSixPack,Feb 3 2005, 12:42 PM Finally someone asks the right question. Let me break it down for you: 1) PCs are open-ended hardware platforms. This allows for infinite customizability, whereas with a Mac you're stuck with their platoform. Also, because of open hardware, it's far easier to diagnose and repair a PC. No "Sad Mac Syndrome". Obviously you've never used the Hardware Test utility that comes with every Mac. Diagnosing a hardware problem on a Mac is not difficult and not a guessing game. Someone in your company doesn't know Macs well enough, I suspect. There's also a down side to what you call "open-ended hardware platforms"... namely you have Frankenstein PCs with parts from different manufacturers all over the world, and each one telling you that your problem is from another component made be someone else. 2) Macs are not as easily "imaged" as a PC can be. The utilities (ie Carbon Copy cloner) don't even come close to what's available for PCs. I honestly don't know what you're talking about here. Imaging a Mac is super easy. This is what I do for a living. I can set up a whole lab of 30 computers in less than a hour, imaging them via netboot or FireWire drive (netboot's quicker). It usually takes me longer to get a new Mac out of the box than to get it imaged and ready to use. Again, if you're having trouble with this at your company, then someone doesn't know what they're doing. Haven't you ever used NetRestore??? 3) Seeing as 90% of the world is PC-centric, it becomes imperative in the Mac world to have to be able to connect to Active Directory and the like. Know how much time our OSX conversion staff has gone through to create a desktop that will integrate with our PC platform? I don't use PCs and I am not familiar with Active Directory, so I won't pretend to have an answer for this, although maybe you can find it here. Out of curiosity, what is your estimated ratio of tech people to PCs at your company?
Alaska Darin Posted February 3, 2005 Posted February 3, 2005 I don't use PCs and I am not familiar with Active Directory, so I won't pretend to have an answer for this, although maybe you can find it here. Out of curiosity, what is your estimated ratio of tech people to PCs at your company? 227282[/snapback] The problem with Active Directory and Macs is on the AD side. We never had a problem integrating Macs into NDS, which is light years ahead of that P.O.S. Microsoft calls a Directory Service. The world can only hope that Novell remains a viable company, so Microsoft has something to shoot for.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 3, 2005 Posted February 3, 2005 Obviously you've never used the Hardware Test utility that comes with every Mac. Diagnosing a hardware problem on a Mac is not difficult and not a guessing game. Someone in your company doesn't know Macs well enough, I suspect. There's also a down side to what you call "open-ended hardware platforms"... namely you have Frankenstein PCs with parts from different manufacturers all over the world, and each one telling you that your problem is from another component made be someone else. That's assuming you can boot to the mac. We get by the whole "frankenstein PC" issue by ordering systems from one manufacturer (HP/Compaq). That's not to say we don't use some thrid party components, but most PC shops nowadays follow this single manufatcurer paradigm. I honestly don't know what you're talking about here. Imaging a Mac is super easy. This is what I do for a living. I can set up a whole lab of 30 computers in less than a hour, imaging them via netboot or FireWire drive (netboot's quicker). It usually takes me longer to get a new Mac out of the box than to get it imaged and ready to use. Again, if you're having trouble with this at your company, then someone doesn't know what they're doing. Haven't you ever used NetRestore??? We've only recently gone to OSX and they use neither of the utilities you're talking about. Their procedure is one of installing additional memory, using carbon copy cloner to copy the base OSX configuration, then manually binding each machine to the network and customizing the apps as appropriate. The whole process takes 30 minutes or more PER each machine. In that same time frame, I could have FOUR PCs imaged and up and running. I don't use PCs and I am not familiar with Active Directory, so I won't pretend to have an answer for this, although maybe you can find it here. Out of curiosity, what is your estimated ratio of tech people to PCs at your company? That depends what you mean by "tech people". If you're talking deskside support, we have about a 100:1 customer to tech ratio. Of course we have the usual assortment of back-end network and configuration weenies. But to me, it SEEMS as if the mac community is far more resource-needy than our PC people. I don't know if it's the "dumbing down" of the average mac user over time, or what. When I have to cover the help desk for a week, I'd say 80% of my calls are from mac users when only 30% of our machines are mac. Something does not compute there, IMO. I thoughtMacs were stable and reliable? BTW, the major mac apps used here are InDesign and the rest of the Adobe Suites, as well as Font Reserve. Ick.
Recommended Posts