Cheap PPC Linux Machines From IBM 531
ksheff writes "According to this story, IBM is planning on introducing low-end SMP servers and deskside machines based on the PPC970. The machines would be able to run Linux and AIX. A 4-way machine is expected to cost less than $3500! IBM expects a 20x increase in the number of PPC Linux servers by 2006."
Like the G5, without OS X (Score:4, Insightful)
Now if I only had a spare $3,500 to spend on it...
Re:Like the G5, without OS X (Score:2)
depends on the price point... (Score:5, Insightful)
The server market, on the other hand will definitely get a great boost. Cheap PPC970 and 64-bit = heaven for databases, web, and app servers.
Re:depends on the price point... (Score:2, Interesting)
I own a Ibook, I know it only has a g3 900mhz cpu, but Linux FLYS on it, while macosx just rotates its little blue beach ball at me. In Linux I can open Mozilla, gimp 1.3, all my favorite apps, and its going to work, and not be slow. WHile in Macosx it just feels like a dog. Now on a G5 you wouldnt see that type of
You are lying. (Score:5, Funny)
So either you don't own an iBook, haven't used OS X and are just lying about blue beachballs, or you do own an iBook and see the beachball so little you don't even know what it looks like.
Which is it?
Re:depends on the price point... (Score:2)
Linux usability vs. Mac OS X (Score:5, Interesting)
I am a Linux user first and foremost... but the thing is, no matter HOW much time I put into customizing things, I can not make a Linux desktop as clean and easy to use as a Mac OS X desktop.
It's not just that having Only One Way To Do Things (tm) makes the easy desktop experience, but it's the fact that the One Way is thoroughly thought-out and streamlined. In Linux, we have tons of disparate pieces to put together in countless concatenations... but in the end, what we unavoidably get is an unstreamlined construct of disparate pieces.
I understand the appeal of customizing, and I do think Mac OS X could stand to allow a little more customizing without sacrificing the benefits of the OS. Linux will remain dominant on my PC desktop, and it will be dual-booted on my soon-to-be-purchased PowerBook, but the main reason I am getting the PowerBook is for Mac OS X and its ability to stay out of the way. The best OS is the one that interferes with my work the least. Mac OS X does that. Linux, when configured and tweaked to my liking and all that, does a good job by way of being stable and such, but some of those disparate pieces irritate. (Windows, of course, constantly interferes by being unstable and generally a source of irritation).
Ideally, I'd like to see Linux meet OS X halfway. Choice is good, but not when the choices are 15 different mediocre options. Can't we get 4 really good ones instead?
Nonsense. (Score:4, Insightful)
That's bull. Mac OS X only helps "just getting work done" if you're functionally computer illiterate.
I'm a creative pro (supposedly Mac's main market) and yet I do all my photo processing (which is extensive) in Linux.
Why? Becuse it's about 100x faster in Linux due to the degree that I have been able to optimize my workflow:
1) Focus-follows-mouse, always shunned by non-Unix systems and now even by Unix systems (OS X, GNOME) saves endless point-and-click strokes (find titlebar, click to focus) when you have dozens of image windows open. Each one of these is a savings of several seconds. If you're performing hundreds or thousands of manipulations on a single task in multiple windows, that adds up to hours saved, not just minutes, on focus policy alone.
2) Fast cut/paste. Here again, the reviled behavior of X (highlight with left button, move to another window that focuses automatically, middle click where you want it to paste) saves incredible amounts of time versus the OS X or Windows behaviors (highlight with left button, hit CTRL-C, click on titlebar of destination window, click where you want to place cursor for paste, hit CTRL-V). The combination of focus-follows-mouse and keystroke-free copy/paste here again saves hours, not just minutes, when performing reptitious tasks.
3) Floating windows are my call. Once again I can keep GIMP tool windows, layer/channel dialogs, a kcalc, my conferencing window and others on top at my discretion, rather than always having to hunt down and raise some windows (by clicking on a taskbar or a dock) that I know I will need over and over again or being stuck with others on top that I don't want there and that just take up screen real estate. And when I am done with them, I can release them from forceed raise behavior.
4) Ability to turn of automatic raise when windows receive a click (done by combining focus follows mouse + titlebar-raise-only). I can have one window partially obscuring another and be working (inputting) in the "lower" (partially obscured) window while referring to one or more upper windows that partially obscure it. No need to "raise this one, look, raise that one, work, raise this one, look some more, raise that one, work some more, oh hell, just make a hardcopy, hmm, where shall we set the hardcopy..."
6) Scriptability/rapid application development. Yes, the dreaded command line shell. Many of my most intense post-production tasks (i.e. laying out posters with their captions, borders, copyright notices, anti-aliasing, interpolating to proper sizes, etc.) are database driven and processed through command line tools like ImageMagick. This allows me to do things like "makeposter 20x16 img_2525.crw" and in a single pass have the image automatically fetched from archive, converted from Canon raw, edited, captioned, matted, etc. according to a list of edits and captions I've saved ahead of time for images in my database, then sent to post-production (i.e. output). Don't tell me that there is a "makeposter" command in Mac OS X that will automatically query my database of images and perform these tasks for me, or that Apple will be willing to write me one.
[Perhaps AppleScript is capable of this stuff, perhaps not... I don't know AppleScript. But I will happily refuse to buy arguements that as well as my system works for me, I should switch to Mac OS X simply because AppleScript just "gets it right" or is "just more elegant" as scripting languages go. You'll have to give me real benefits, not techno-spiritual ones.]
7) The X-factor. I take pictures and I write prose. Those are the things I do for a living. I have other things that I do as hobbies (i.e. the
Re:Nonsense. (Score:3, Insightful)
Click Terminal - Look it's a Unix shell.
Want ImageMagick? Just install it. It's in Fink.
Want Focus-follows-mouse? Install Codetek's Virtual Desktop.
Want X11? Just install it.
Now, do you want to get a clue, because you've obviously not installed one.
I'm a old Unix hand, I'm a coder, I know what I'm doing, but I use MacOSX because it's a Unix system which has a great native desktop and doesn't lock out X11 support.
Stop deluding yourself that making
Re:Nonsense. (Score:3, Informative)
If i want more raw speed I start up in fluxbox or another wm with less overhead than KDE. Like the guy said, he wants to be productive, and Xwindows gives him that productivity out of the box. If he would go your path he would get huge slowdowns (have you ever tried load
Re:Nonsense. (Score:3)
And yes, I run X11 apps all the time on OSX. Maybe you are confusing the start up time of the server with the startup time of the application. Once the server is up, the applications start up as fast as any other X implementation.
Now, come back to me when Linux on PPC has Final Cut Pro, iSync, Omnigraffle, iTunes, Photoshop, Office or anything that *matches* their f
Re:Nonsense. (Score:3, Interesting)
And don't discount the "making it go faster" aspect you are so dismissive of. If you make an operation five seconds faster, and you have to perform that operation 10,000 times over a work week, you have just saved yourself 50,000 seconds, or in other words gained nearly 14 hours of additional work
Re:Nonsense. (Score:3, Interesting)
So the previous poster says it's not about the OS, it's about the applications. Now you say it's not about the applications, it's about the OS.
So why not drop your attitude that people who like MacOSX just can't handle a l33t s3tu9 like yours.
No. This is not what I said. Read what I wrote. I was responding to this:
"The irony is, the lack of costume features is part of what makes OS X a much
Re:Nonsense. (Score:5, Interesting)
That's bull. Mac OS X only helps "just getting work done" if you're functionally computer illiterate.
Hmm. Consider this. What if each car was entirely different (like Linux boxen can be). Let's say there are NO standards. Gas pedal could be on the left or right. There could be a gas BUTTON on the steering wheel. Breaks could likewise be accessable via a lever. And that's assuming that you keep the same rough configuration (that is, driver sits on the left side [in the US]). Just imagine if every car you ever had to drive was radically different. THat's what Linux is like.
1) Focus-follows-mouse, always shunned by non-Unix systems and now even by Unix systems (OS X, GNOME) saves endless point-and-click strokes (find titlebar, click to focus)
Since when do you have to click the title bar of an app to focus to it? And since when has there not been a laucher/dock/etc (first one I used was in OS/2 however I'm sure they were around before that)
2) Fast cut/paste. Here again, the reviled behavior of X (highlight with left button, move to another window that focuses automatically, middle click where you want it to paste) saves incredible amounts of time versus the OS X or Windows behaviors (highlight with left button, hit CTRL-C, click on titlebar of destination window, click where you want to place cursor for paste, hit CTRL-V). The combination of focus-follows-mouse and keystroke-free copy/paste here again saves hours, not just minutes, when performing reptitious tasks.
It may save hours for you--but shouldn't the interface be irrelevant unless you're computer illiterature (your words, not mine). Personally, I get terribly frustrated when I'm trying to paste over something and end up accidentally clearing my clipboard buffer in oldschool X. I prefer windows/mac style (I have mice button bound to copy/paste actually--doesn't work NEARLY as well in X because of the issue I just cited).
6) Scriptability/rapid application development. Yes, the dreaded command line shell. Many of my most intense post-production tasks (i.e. laying out posters with their captions, borders, copyright notices, anti-aliasing, interpolating to proper sizes, etc.) are database driven and processed through command line tools like ImageMagick. etc etc
I'm not an AppleScript pro by anymeans, but from what I know, AppleScript is the exact functional equivalent of traditional unix style scripting tools. There's a macro recorder for one thing which is a GREAT feature that unixes have no equivalent too. In addition AppleScript can be used to control any applicationsm, to an incredible degree. I've worked in DTP, try searching for Quark AppleSCripts--the things some of them can do are AMAZING, IThink you'd be surprised. I hope that's not too techno-spiritual for you ;)
Just to be clear--don't get me wrong, I'm very glad you like Linux. But I don't think most people even WANT the kind of control and variability that you need. It's all great for people like you and I, who hang out and slashdot and do this stuff for fun, to talk about the user experience, but from my work experiences, most of the people who use computers don't care about how they work--they just want them to be easy to use and to not break :p I'm sure you've seen a user befuddled when something changes slightly. One graphic designer I was helping recover email for last week couldn't figure out how to get into her netscale email because some of her settings had gotten trashed and the "mail" button (along with Composer, NAvigator on that little floating bar) were at the bottom of the screen instead of floating to the side where they had been..I had to show exactly where to click. To most people, computers are a tool and nothing more. Like I said earlier, can you imagine if all cars interior controls etc were totally designed by the whim of the moment?
Re:Nonsense. (Score:4, Insightful)
You've just described an adaptive vehicle, as used by handicapped persons. There are thousands of them. Why? Because they work much better than a standard car for their intended customer. Now, tell me again what's wrong with customing your OS?
Re:Nonsense. (Score:4, Insightful)
It adds the following to OS X:
=> Virtual Desktops (up to 100)
=> Edge flipping between desktops
=> Hotkeys to switch between desktops (I have it be the same as my Enlightenment settings)
=> The ability to handle individual applications differently that normal settings
=> Focus follows mouse
That does not address all of your concerns of course, but it does make using OS X a little more like a real Unix system.
Personally I like the CMD-C, CMD-V to copy and paste. I always have to stop myself under other Unix systems from copying a URL I want to view, going to my browser, selecting the URL and pasting the first URL overtop. You can't do that on more Unix system because it'll copy the URL you are trying to paste over automatically. That was one of my pet-peeves with I work in 100% Linux. For you, it's the reverse.
As for your points, 1, 3 and 4 are handled by CodeTek Virtual Desktop (I particularly enjoy 3, I have a desktop for each task that I have, browsing, instant messaging, e-mail, etc...).
For number 6, I use the shell, I use Perl, I use Applescript and I use bash (sometimes I'll use C or C++ too, depending on what I'm doing). I can't think of what I did under Linux scripting-wise that I can't do under Mac OS X.
For number 7, I actually will load up KDE or TWM on one of my desktops if I want the nice classic feel (this also gives the same feel for your number 2).
Oh, yeah, I couldn't think of anything to help you with number 5 - I couldn't find it
I'm not trying to say 'You should use Mac OS X', but I would like to think that people shouldn't discount it because people think that Mac OS X is just simplifying Unix by removing features. I find that all it takes is a little looking around in order to find how to do what you want on OS X. I now work 100% with OS X. My OS X, although is still had the aqua theme (which I can get rid of) it doesn't look at all like a normal OS X workstation.
For me, I have found that with enough poking around I can get a system to work for me whether its Linux, OS X, Windows or BeOS. I found that Linux was the easiest to configure (outside the norm) - even more than OS X (that was much easier to configure within the norm).
That's just my $0.02 CDN.
Re:Nonsense. (Score:4, Interesting)
Although I happen to be using OSX as I write this, and I really do like the system (and I'm not computer illiterate by a long shot) I tend to agree with most of what you say. The same things you talk about in X I miss on my Mac. It is quite annoying in many ways.
But, in my current job, I simply must use SPSS which is only available for Windows or Mac. So that was my choice. Given that choice, Mac is the clear favourite.
As other posters have pointed out, it does have a quite functional command line, and it does have X available to run inside of Aqua. Sadly the latter is slow as a dog, and you can't just ditch the hideous Aqua WM and run everything inside something decent like WindowMaker yet, but hey, look at the alternative.
Write me a fully compatible SPSS clone for linux, and I'll wipe OSX and install Gentoo/PPC in a heartbeat. Until then, I'm just glad I don't have to run XP on my beautiful little laptop.
Business reasons to use OS X (Score:3)
At work I'm seeing a pretty fast transition from Linux to MacOS X among professors and professionals. They like the ease of
IBM's Business Plan (Score:5, Funny)
- Identify a product which is not being provided, but which there is a demand for.
- Sell that product to consumers at a price which is reasonable, but higher than what it costs you to produce each unit.
- Profit!
Hmm, that sounds different from normal somehow. Maybe they're on to something here.Re:IBM's Business Plan (Score:5, Funny)
2.5 Develop a huge support infrastructure backed by a huge company (Noon ever got fired for buying IBM) and make a crapload more money than step 2.
Nice! (Score:5, Interesting)
With those sorts of prices, they're going to get it, too! The cheapest Itanium 2 system money can buy (HP zx2000) costs $3500, more or less, and would run like a dog compared to e.g. a 4-way 1.6GHz PPC970 system.
Looks like Intel's competition is going to be coming more and more from IBM, not AMD...
Re:Nice! (Score:2, Insightful)
If x86-64 were to succeed, on the other hand, we'd have an iron clad guarantee that server rooms would always be at least 5 degrees warmer than the outside world
Re:Nice! (Score:5, Insightful)
If these machines can be coaxed into running Darwin, maybe there will be some limited amount of binary compatibility with OS X - and people could run programs on both boxes. Compatibility is a good thing, but who says IBM has to be PC-compatible? Besides, these days the Apples are more IBM than your average PC.
I say this can only be a Good Thing.
-uso..
Re:Nice! (Score:2)
Besides, the license is going to hit you in the colon if you do that.
I may be wrong.
-uso.
Re:Nice! (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, there's some interesting possibilities here. Apple has been developing new products such as the iPod, iTunes, and strengthening their application software offerings. Obviously, they're becoming less dependent on revenues from the M
Re:Nice! (Score:2, Interesting)
I'
Re:Nice! (Score:2)
Re:Nice! (Score:4, Informative)
I found this article that talks about this [osnews.com]
Hum... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Hum... (Score:3, Informative)
That's what Intel wants you to think. Comparing the best Opteron systems versus the best Itanium2 systems in the SpecCPU database - Integer performance is roughly equal and for FP the Itanium2 is roughly twice the speed of the Opteron.
But, on a dollars per unit work basis, the Opteron stomps the Itanium2 for both integer and FP and that's the secret that Intel is working really hard to keep their Itanium2 customers from learning. Really, the only p
Re:Nice! (Score:2)
Not suprised (Score:5, Insightful)
This is also a good thing for the mac community because now the G5 will get a lot more "work" done on it, because IBM will have to compete with other 64-bit manufacturers on a broader stage than just the Mac arena.
Problem.. no workstation box. (Score:2)
MOL anyone? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:MOL anyone? (Score:4, Informative)
About time someone brought that up. From MoL's FAQ [maconlinux.org]:
Job's is going to freak when he figures this out. =)G5 Competitor (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:G5 Competitor (Score:2)
The "G5" is a PPC970 from IBM. Who the hell do you think is making them? Motorola? *snicker*
IBM is making the chips for Apple, and have a -huge- plant that they need to pump more chips out of to be profitable, so they're going to throw some more wagers through and compete with Apple on the server end of things
Re:G5 Competitor (Score:2)
Indeed.
The "G5" is a PPC970 from IBM.
Which is no doubt why he said "Maybe IBM's plan was to put together a cheap system to get Apple to buy more chips from them."
I believe his point was that Apple is going to have a hard time selling $3000 dual-processor machines if a few hundred dollars more will buy you a quad, probably with higher-quality components and better support, from IBM. It may only be a small fraction of Apple's customers who are drawn to IBM, but that's still money
Apple (Score:5, Interesting)
Implications for Thinkpad? (Score:3, Interesting)
As for economic/consumer viability, right now nearly all the software I use is source-available (currently through Gentoo, on my Compaq Intel notebook). Nevertheless, iin the future, if I need to use pre-compiled, 3rd party software like Mathematica, IDL, etc. PPC+Linux might prove to be too small a market even with IBM's backing -- vendor "lock-out."
Re:Implications for Thinkpad? (Score:2)
Sure they could, they could sell the resulting stinkpad with either Linux or AIX. I used to have a 603e-based machine (I want to say it was a thinkpad 750? that sounds right...) which was a cute little Unix machine but it didn't have enough memory to really be useful, I think it had like 32MB. It did have decent video in and out supposedly.
I think they would be better off using a shrink of an older PPC chip in a per
Simply BRILLIANT (Score:2)
an IBM pda just for the cool black case with the
IBM letters on it. That would become a geek fetish
item overnight. Expecially if it rocked and was
actually useful.
Re:Implications for Thinkpad? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Implications for Thinkpad? (Score:3, Insightful)
Not at the moment. While IBM can offer an extremely powerful and cheap PPC server with Linux, I seriously doubt that they can challenge Apple or MS for desktop/laptop marketshare with Linux. Yes, Linux has become more mainstream on the business sides but widespsread consumer adoption on desktops or laptops is years away.
What is keeping most consumers from using Linux on the laptop?: Office. While OpenOffice and StarOff
Drool Drool Drool... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Drool Drool Drool... (Score:2)
How they fear them! (Score:5, Funny)
I think it's clear from this just how much IBM fears SCO!
:-P
Avoid Intel lockout (Score:3, Insightful)
They Can't Do This! (Score:2, Funny)
Don't they know that SCO 0\/\/n0R5 both Linux and AIX?
</HUMOR>
HUMOR tags added for the humor impaired, to comply with the ADA.
nice sound to it (Score:5, Funny)
Re:nice sound to it (Score:2)
Damn, quad PPCs? Get some heatsinks on that sumbitch!
Warning: battletech humor (Score:3, Funny)
$3500! ? That's expensive! (Score:2, Funny)
$3500! = 3500 x 3499 x 3498 x 3497
That's reeeally expensive!
Compilers (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Compilers (Score:5, Informative)
Apple uses gcc to compile Mac OS X, and pushes gcc for developers, so they've been doing their own work on gcc. The more compiler hackers that use PPC, the better gcc will become, no? Maybe this new machine will add some motivation.
IBM expects a 20x increase... (Score:2)
So that's like how many? 20 PPC servers in 2006?
(no no, seriously I do like the idea, it's just hard to tell if $3500 is going to get me more than a similarly equiped Intel/AMD system)
IBM and Apple (Score:2)
Once mortal enemies, IBM and Apple are strategic partners now. In the deepest sense of the phrase.
Isn't that weird for two companies who were mortal enemies less than 20 years ago?
This could work (Score:4, Insightful)
This makes PPC the only competitor to x86 in the commodity server space, except Sun, but Sun's product lineup grows more stale and outclassed by the day. Using IBM's compiler the 2GHz PPC970 performs approximately equivalently to a 2.8GHz p4 using icc, which is far beyond the performance offered by the in-order execution (!!) 1.05 GHz UltraSparc iii.
Having an alternative to x86 in the server space is desirable, because PPC will always have better heat dissipation and power consumption at a given level of performance. These are important considerations especially in the blade server market. In addition these are 64-bit boxes which will allow going beyond the 4GB memory barrier without using the "segmented memory" hack of the 36-bit memory addressed Xeons.
In short, this could work.
I don't see it happening (Score:3, Interesting)
I do wish that non-x86 platforms, like PPC, would become more widely used so that the Penguin's eggs aren't all in one basket, but realistically, I don't see it happening. Linux runs quite well on PPC, but some things just don't work: some compilers and JITs don't have a PPC backend, the AltiVec macros screw up some compilation, etc. But it's nice that IBM is trying; maybe if the get really aggressive on the pricing, they will make some inroads. $3500 for a 4x machine might do it, although AMD will do 4x as well at a reasonable price.
Base configuration may not come with 4 CPUS (Score:5, Informative)
But it doesn't actually say that the base configuration comes with 4 cpus at this price. It's very common for IBM and others to offer a lower price configuration with empty cpu sockets for later upgrades.
IBM finally listened to their customers (Score:3, Informative)
Sun and Wintel both have an advantage with blades. They may not be as fast as IBM's offerings but they cost only %15 as much. 100k for an AIX RS/6k despite the advantages is unacceptable to all but a selected few who are now cutting costs.
However these machines are not workstations but blade servers. If you want a fast risc powerpc workstation I would suggest the new Apple G5's. They have more software, 6.4 ghz internal bandwith, serial ATA, PCI-X 800 mhz bus, and other goodies. Not to mention you can run MS-Office, games, and other apps.
Linux on anything non intel really just includes OSS software. Not really worth it if your willing to spend big bucks.
64-CPU G5 "Dark Star" by Apple & IBM (Score:3, Interesting)
"We have demonstrated yesterday that Panther can support n processors, and really large amount of RAM.
Several different sources have confirmed the circulating rumor that we already had received in the past
Apple and IBM could be associated to developp and manufacture computer with n processors, where n could go til 64 G5! The project is internally named "Dark Star".
Each processor will have 4 memory slots, for a maximum allocated RAM of 16GB (when the 4 GB RAM modules). The 64 processors-based configuration will support up to 1 TB of RAM.
It will be possible to install in those computer many ATI graphic cards, and to use them in paralell, in order to allow a very high quality rendering.
Prototypes based on 8, 16, 32 and 64 processors are already working fine.
those machines will be available with an enclosure similar that to the G5' one.
The pre-production should start next month, but the availability should only be at the end of the year together with Panther Server.
Price will vary from 12 000 $ for the 8 CPUs version to 50 0000 $ for the top version including all the optionis.
Some people will probably consider this as a risky project. However, it seems that Apple and IBM could have already pre-sell some of those machines to prioritized clients, such as:
- Industrial Light and Magic
- Raytheon
- General Dynamics
- Genentech
- Amgen
- Pixar
- NASA
There are other names such as large american administrations."
Some clarification on 4U/4 way issue (Score:3, Informative)
4U means the physical size of the server. 4-way means that there can be as many as 4 CPUs in the box. It doesn't mean that there are 4 CPUs in each server. Base configuration means the bare minimum of equipment (cards, memory, HD) and software (Linux, AIX) that will ship with the box. Mostly likely the $3500 box will have 1 CPU as a starting point. Companies then can estimate the final box fully loaded.
Wake up! It's a quad! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Dual 2Ghz (Score:5, Insightful)
I really doubt that people wanting to run Mac OS X are the targeted group here. It is, as IBM says it is, for servers and Linux desktops.
Re:Dual 2Ghz (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Dual 2Ghz (Score:2, Insightful)
These servers are for real sysadmins, and to run real server applications, not a GUI.
Re:Dual 2Ghz (Score:2)
probably won't even run Panther
erm. I would say it 100% wouldn't run Panther - (a) OS X will only run on actual Apple hardware due to the ROM requirements (b) even if the ROM could be supplied as a software file (as is the case for modern Macs), who's going to develop it for the IBM machine? (c) 4-way SMP does not exist on the Mac spectrum, who'll do the necessary work on it?
Re:Dual 2Ghz (Score:2)
Re:Will these run OSX??? (Score:2)
The problem is licensing. The EULA for OSX stipulates that OSX may only be run on Apple hardware.
Just a point... (Score:2)
(1) Before too long *will* be less than $3500, if they aren't already
(2) Will quite soon be able to run Linux [hop over to Debian, you'll see that Debian is quite into porting their systems]
(3) If they're able to run Linux, will also be able to run AIX?
I wonder if this is what IBM is thinking as well, in general. But I'd bet that these low-end servers either will be a lot like a Mac, or else they'll actually be more expensive than a Mac before three years runs ou
The key will be a Mac boot ROM (Score:2)
Re:The key will be a Mac boot ROM (Score:3, Informative)
Here, this is from Apple:
"Hardware-specific code still exists in firmware (ROM) in order to handle the computer's start-up activities. This code fits into one ROM called the Boot ROM. The Boot ROM has the hardware-specific code and description of the hardware needed to start up the computer, as well as to boot an OS and provide common hardware access services the OS might require. One part of the Boot ROM contains Open Firmware. This Open Firmware implementation is significantly i
Re:We already know..... (Score:3, Interesting)
I had it running fine on my G4 PPC with Gentoo Linux/PPC, which was running MOL (Mac-On-Linux) with Classic, where I had Virtual PC with RH Linux/x86.
By the way, it wasn't that slow as you think. Just a bit... useless? Why would I need x86 binaries if for all functinality of a server I need I have sources to compile?
Re:We already know..... (Score:2, Informative)
et.x86: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (GNU/Linux), for GNU/Linux 2.0.0, dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped
>>>try to run that on a ppc and tell me how it worked?
Too true. Still you proved my point more. Yes, Linux on PPC backed by IBM is "Cool", but right now, EVERYTHING is based on the standard of X86 compatibility.
I have a choice if I go with X86. I like Linux, and if my clients like linux, all the better. I can offer it. HOWEVER, if
Re:We already know..... (Score:4, Insightful)
How can you compair a Athlon to a G5?
Yes If you want a cheap dual smp rig then Athlons are fine. But if you want a powerfull workstation, backed by a huge company, THis is a pretty cool idea.
im sure since IBM is the creator of a G5 they are going to be able to support them better than anything else they sell. Companies are going to see this and they will realize that these machines will be quick and easy for IBM to repair.
Oh Sure these companies can call Bob's computer warehouse, but we all know how much better IBMs support will be....
If I worked for a Multimillion dollar company I wouldnt want the computer repair guy going to walmart to pick up spare parts for their new server/workstation.....
Re:We already know..... (Score:3, Interesting)
Pretty easily. 32 bit CPUs can run 64 bit code just fine, they just need to split the operations in two. But most programs hardly ever use 64-bit ints, so it's not really a big deal. Its entirely possible for a fast 32bit machine to beat a slower 64 bit machine for lots of purposes.
Re:We already know..... (Score:3)
Bingo! One of the more interesting aspects of 64-bit platforms is that they enable a programming model where a process maps all its files into its address space and lets the OS's VM system handle all the I/O. This can have huge advantages; for example, the OS can perform I/O directly into the process's memory and can even share that memory via the VM mappings when multiple processes open the same file. Simultaneous u
Re:Erm, (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:We already know..... (Score:3, Informative)
Oh right, because everyone knows that all ethernet cards are identical in terms of performance and quality. [www.fefe.de]
I sure hope no one here has been taking any of your advice on enterprise servers seriously. Do you honestly believe that Fortune 500 companies pay for these hideously expensive service contracts with Dell et. al just for kicks? Hell, if they
Re:We already know..... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:We already know..... (Score:5, Informative)
No, you only need special firmware on the card if you want the computer's firmware to be able to talk to the card. Modern OSes use the firmware for very little, or they don't use it at all. For example, on a PC, you can disable a hard drive in the BIOS, but Linux will still be able to access it (assuming it's not your boot drive). Linux accesses the drive controller directly; it doesn't use the BIOS.
So, you'll only need a special NIC if you want to netboot with that NIC. And you'll only need a special graphics card if you want to see the boot process on that card (you can use a serial console if you don't... at least these machies had better support serial console).
5: What about power consumption issues? Last I've seen the G5's, they gobbled power faster than an overclocked Athlon.
When did you last see a G5? A 1.8GHz PPC970 uses about 42W [ibm.com], while an Athlon XP 2500+ (1.833GHz) draws around 54W [amd.com]. I don't know how fast an overclocked Athlon would gobble power, but I'll note that the max power consumption of a non-overclocked Athlon 3200+ (2.2GHz) is 77W.
Re:We already know..... (Score:5, Interesting)
i would guess that you are punished for talking about things you really don't know.
You probably pay 3-6 times what you'd normally pay for NICS and GFX cards. Apple does this all the time.
But you only need one nic and one card, and they will propably come bundled with the machine
2: SMP's nice. So is PPC. But how much will you actually save if you went to this versus a new 1 or 2 Athlon setup?
If you count the administrative costs i could buy not one but two 4way 970's, costing more than 8k, versus 4 beowulf athlons costing below 2k and still break even in a month. And i would have an identical machine for backup.
3...I can go to WalMart, or ripoff computer store and buy parts I need now... Not a good idea.
Go to walmart to buy parts for your server? Now that's a good idea
4: In my statement about Beowulf beating this, What's the cost/performance of 4 Athlon 1.5GHz with 1 gig of ram each (on 100MBps) versus one of these? I bet the name of "server" raises that cost atleast 1000$.
A 4way intel machine will cost far more though. More than $10K. These machines *will* be a huge success whether intel or not. You cannot address everything with beowulf you know...
Come on, a 4u 64bit under $5k? This is the dream of every fortran programmer i know, it is the perfect terminal server, the perfect development machine etc. Oh, and no one can come to you with a "why don't we use win2k3 here?" line.
What about power consumption issues?
huh? what about them? 970's need less power than most mobile chips. Where did you see that g5 "goble power faster than athlons"??? this is most definetely wrong.
Hello? Anybody home? (Score:3, Insightful)
Wrong. I don't know where you got this myth but it is, indeed, a myth. That's your point 3 as well - completely misguided and misinformed.
Then the Beowulf comments, now those are really clueless. Obviously you don't understand what a Beowulf clu
you're behind the times - welcome to OpenBoot, eh? (Score:3, Informative)
That's funny -- I just got back from CompUSA, where I paid all of $15 for a D-Link 100baseT NIC that will work with both Macs and PCs. The exact same trick works with most SCSI cards, several flavors of NVidia and ATI graphics cards, and Creative's Soundblaster line.
It's been many, many years since PCI cards for Macs cost substantially m
Re:We already know..... (Score:2, Informative)
It's just crossing that low'end barrier is the killer. If you can make your app into a threaded app, you can send each thread to a processor and run them all at once. Beowulf. And you can use the really cheap stuff to do it it too. Google
Re:Why? (Score:5, Interesting)
NextStep was originally written for the 68k, thence ported to SPARC, x86, and PA-RISC. So PPC was the fifth architecture the basic underlying system has been ported to. So if you don't like ports, you had better throw away your Mac and switch to Windows now (oh wait sorry...the NT kernel was actually developed for the i860 first).
And remember, Linux will be a native, fully supported OS for these machines alongside AIX -- the firmware will be designed to boot Linux, and all the hardware will be fully supported.
Re:Why? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why? (Score:2)
Besides, maybe IBM knows a thing about the PPC architecture as well and can modify Linux and AIX to perform well for servers?
Re:Why? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:"cheap" (Score:2, Informative)
The problem with your comparison... (Score:5, Informative)
Based on everything I've read thus far, it seems to me the PPC970 cheaps are substantially more efficient than their P4 counterparts at the same clock speed. Because of that, I hardly doubt a quad Xeon 2.4 system would "kick the crap out" of a quad PPC970 2.0 system. It seems you're exaggerating a bit--or perhaps you have something to backup your claim?
And when Opteron comes out...
Opteron has been out for close to 3 months now. Machines are available from several vendors. Google is your friend. [google.com]
Re:The problem with your comparison... (Score:2)
Yes, I meant "PPC970 chips".
Re:"cheap" (Score:2)
No, the serious flaw in your comparison is you are comparing 32 bit Xeon processors with 64 bit PowerPC processors. If you need a 64 bit address space your co
Re:"cheap" (Score:2)
>under $500
I think you are referring to a board (AC450NX or the SC450NX) that takes 4 old Pentium II-style Xeons. All slot-2 connectors--it was produced in 1998.
The boards I've found on pricewatch which are 4-processor Pentium 4 Xeon boards are all $1500+ (please feel free to correct me, I'd like to know). You can get dual opteron mobos for closer to what you are thinking.
Then, four processors on top of that, we're looking at $2500+ and we hav
Re:G5 alternative? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why put an ATI Radeon 9800 Pro in a machine that is going to show a login: prompt at best?
Re:Who (Score:2)
Re:uh, rip off (Score:2)
i'll do you one (well, four) better... build a cluster of these ibms! i'd suggest black lab [terrasoftsolutions.com] project from terrasoft (makers of yellow dog linux). if you are building a cluster, really, black lab is an awesome tool: automated node building, an automatic "life sign" monitoring system for nodes, a migration tool so that you can put shared libraries on nodes over the cluser resulting in having nodes that do
Re:Poster Correction (Score:5, Interesting)
Soong sez:Ummm....well then (from the article):Yah. RTFA.
IBM developed the chip, which means they developed a mobo along with it for testing. Apple had to make their own design, and they had to make it look good, and be quiet, home-friendly, and stylish. IBM gets to stamp out big ugly boxes, because really, unless you're talking about a secretary, no one in the office ever says "That is a nice lookin' rack!"
This leads me to believe the 2U model will be priced even lower. No mention is made, however, about clock speeds, although I'm, sure IBM will make nice fast ones avalible, a $3500 base configuration for the 4U probably means four-way 1GHz. Why would the fastest chips come in the base model?
All in all, however, these will be nice machines, and if you've ever wanted to escape the x86 world, PPC is a nice place to do it (speaking from experience). They are slightly ahead of Apple's current offerings, however IBM has the advantage there, the 970 being their own.
And if you want to run Mac OS X, you'll be disapointed.
Re:Poster Correction (Score:2)