On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 09:14:59 +0200, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
On 24 Jul 2003 at 8:52, Leandro Guimares Faria Corse wrote:
Old news... also there was the even older A/UX, that Apple distributed
as
a SCSI hard disk!
So you're saying history is just old news? Remarkable! :-)
On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 23:48:25 +, Andy Bastien wrote:
We have reason to believe that on Wed Jul 16 Leandro Guimar?es Faria Corsetti
Dutra wrote:
BTW, someone said AIX doesn't run on an Apple. Someone once told me he'd
tried it to see whether it would. His report, it did.
URLs?
On 24 Jul 2003 at 8:52, Leandro Guimarães Faria Corse wrote:
Old news... also there was the even older A/UX, that Apple distributed
as
a SCSI hard disk!
So you're saying history is just old news? Remarkable! :-)
Jeroen
on 03.7.23 11:14 PM, Jeroen Roovers at [EMAIL PROTECTED] was reported to
have writen:
On 24 Jul 2003 at 8:52, Leandro Guimarães Faria Corse wrote:
Old news... also there was the even older A/UX, that Apple distributed as
a SCSI hard disk!
So you're saying history is just old news?
We have reason to believe that on Wed Jul 16 Leandro Guimar?es Faria Corsetti
Dutra wrote:
BTW, someone said AIX doesn't run on an Apple. Someone once told me he'd
tried it to see whether it would. His report, it did.
URLs?
Back in 1996-97, Apple made the Network Server 500 and 700,
On Sun, 13 Jul 2003, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
On 13 Jul 2003 at 4:53, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Say you have a ginormous rig standing in a clean room, that is
business critical, runs a handful or even several dozens of
(clustered) 604e processors. Say you want to develop and test new
Em Wed, 16 Jul 2003 12:15:59 +0800, debia escreveu:
In that case, you simply missed the point. This is a workstation, and
a mainframe multiprocessor configuration with up to eight such
processors is not a myth: a quick search reveals a 1998 model with 8
I know they exist, they still do,
I think you hit the nail on the head here, Leandro.
I just feel I need to add that my earlier comments about mainframes
may have only confused the matter more, because IBM itself seems to
have mixed up many previously unambiguous naming conventions in
recent years. Of the 8-way system I referred
Em Wed, 16 Jul 2003 12:33:33 +0200, Jeroen Roovers escreveu:
I think you hit the nail on the head here, Leandro.
Thanks, I don't hear that often... ;-)
I just feel I need to add that my earlier comments about mainframes
may have only confused the matter more, because IBM itself
On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Then I see this:
http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/eserver/pseries/hardware/workstations/
RS/6000 43P Model 150
from $8,805.00 IBM Web price*
Monitor not included
Power, performance and expandability to fit your budget.
· Choice of 250 or
I have here a PowerMac 7300/200. It's CPU is, according to the kernel, a
PPC 604e at 200 Mhz.
It's CPU performance is nothing flash, my Athlon beats it hands down as
I'd expect.
Then I see this:
http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/eserver/pseries/hardware/workstations/
RS/6000 43P Model 150
Hi,
I would surely imagine that teh RS/6000 is tons more scaleable than the
powerMac or Athlon and would have fewer I/O bottlenecks. Tell me something
how many 604e's are included in that $9K price.
Best,
simon
On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have here a PowerMac 7300/200.
Em Sat, 12 Jul 2003 21:06:25 +0800, debia escreveu:
Now, 250 Mhz isn't a lot more than 200 Mhz. Sure its disk is faster, and
its a more-nicely specced machine, but it still has basically the same
CPU as is in my six-year-old Powermac. about the same age as my Pentium
II-233 system.
On 12 Jul 2003 at 21:06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have here a PowerMac 7300/200. It's CPU is, according to the kernel, a
PPC 604e at 200 Mhz.
It's CPU performance is nothing flash, my Athlon beats it hands down as
I'd expect.
Then I see this:
On Sat, 12 Jul 2003, Simon Mushi wrote:
Hi,
I would surely imagine that teh RS/6000 is tons more scaleable than the
powerMac or Athlon and would have fewer I/O bottlenecks. Tell me something
how many 604e's are included in that $9K price.
On Sat, 12 Jul 2003, [iso-8859-1] Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete Dutra wrote:
Em Sat, 12 Jul 2003 21:06:25 +0800, debia escreveu:
Now, 250 Mhz isn't a lot more than 200 Mhz. Sure its disk is faster, and
its a more-nicely specced machine, but it still has basically the same
CPU as is in
On Sat, 12 Jul 2003, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
On 12 Jul 2003 at 21:06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have here a PowerMac 7300/200. It's CPU is, according to the kernel, a
PPC 604e at 200 Mhz.
It's CPU performance is nothing flash, my Athlon beats it hands down as
I'd expect.
Then I
Em Sun, 13 Jul 2003 04:31:20 +0800, debia escreveu:
The CPU is the least relevant part in a server nowadays. This is one of
the reasons why x86 is actually a bad choice for a server: it dedicate
design and operation resources to the wrong part of the system.
This is a workstation.
On 13 Jul 2003 at 4:53, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Say you have a ginormous rig standing in a clean room, that is
business critical, runs a handful or even several dozens of
(clustered) 604e processors. Say you want to develop and test new
This is not such a box. It's a desktop/deskside
dear sir
i want to know the strengths of apple when compared to
ibm.please comply as soon as possible.i am a student,require info for a
competition.
thanking you
shravan
http://www.zdnet.com/pcweek/stories/news/0,4153,1015836,00.html
bad link, sorry. Story is linked properly at linuxtoday.com
Damn shopping cart, I tried the link on another computer and it actually
worked. I took away the atrocious links and just posted the nitty-gritty
details.
Your link at IBM is broken, since it was for your personal shopping
cart only.
But are you considering different memory architectures,
The claims about IBM there aren't too accurate. They're not so out of
touch. Look who they're selling rs6k's to. Big companies that want _full_
support 24/7 with AIX. They're willing to pay a lot for the support they
get from IBM.
For Linux, that's way off base but they only recently turned
At 18:22 -0500 1999-08-03, Jeramy B Smith wrote:
you only get PCI. The Apple has a True66mhz PCI which can be used for SCSI
or graphics depending on whether your running in workstation or server
configuration as well as the standard 33hz slots intel uses. Both systems
use 32bit PCI slots.
3. Sun Ultra5 machines (which start at $2400) outsell 43P150
machines by a
large margin.
All right, but last time I searched Ultra5 was an IDE, limited
upgrade machine... 256 colors only!
not workstations. If service and support are so expensive,
they should be
made an option
I have to say, as someone who makes almost 90% of my money off AIX and Big Blue,
that while the same types of questions have always bugged me--why are Macs
cheaper when you get more? Why is IBM so out of touch with the 43P?--I have to
give credit where it is due to IBM. The fact of the matter is
]
To: PowerPC (Correio eletrônico) debian-powerpc@lists.debian.org
Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 1999 7:02 PM
Subject: RES: Apple vs. IBM
3. Sun Ultra5 machines (which start at $2400) outsell 43P150
machines by a
large margin.
All right, but last time I searched Ultra5 was an IDE, limited
upgrade
- Original Message -
From: Joel Klecker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
That's not quite correct, the Blue White PowerMac G3 has one
32-bit/66MHz PCI slot, and 3 64-bit/33MHz PCI slots.
--
Even better. I wish they had a 64-bit 66mhz slot though. Gigabit ethernet
could really use that kind of
On Tue, Aug 03, 1999 at 04:39:33PM -0500, Jeramy B Smith wrote:
In light of the recent board discussion, I decided to price some full
PowerPC systems. Check it out at www.corplinux.com/powerpenguin if your
interested.
Alternately, one of my preferred vendors for my home RS/6000's is a
company
On Tue, Aug 03, 1999 at 06:22:57PM -0500, Jeramy B Smith wrote:
But are you considering different memory architectures, buses and
video cards? AFAIK these factor much more into the equipment prices than
clock speed or memory amount.
With the G3, you get Firewire, USB, and multiple PCI
On Tue, Aug 03, 1999 at 06:51:00PM -0500, Jeramy B Smith wrote:
The claims about IBM there aren't too accurate. They're not so out of
touch. Look who they're selling rs6k's to. Big companies that want
_full_
support 24/7 with AIX. They're willing to pay a lot for the support they
get
Phillip R. Jaenke wrote:
This is wrong wrong wrong. First off, the *truly* blatant error. IBM does NOT
use SDRAM in the RS/6000. Period. Flat out WRONG and INCORRECT. They use ECC,
which is about 3x as much as SDRAM anyways.
http://www.rs6000.ibm.com/hardware/workgroups/43p_150_specs.html
says
Phillip == Phillip R Jaenke [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This is kinda off topic, but no more than has been discussed so far,..
if anyone wants us to shut up, just holler...
Phillip Never trust information to the uninitiated.
Phillip This is wrong wrong wrong. First off, the *truly*
On Wed, 4 Aug 1999, Alexander S. Guy wrote:
Phillip == Phillip R Jaenke [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Phillip G3 has 'True66MHz' PCI, which doesn't exist as far as I'm
Phillip concerned, with the G3, due to the way the G3 was
Phillip designed and implemented. Power260 has 66MHz
My article was meant to be provocative and certainly was. Of course, aside
from the pricing facts, everything was IMHO. Let's find a common ground
here. I think everyone can agree that buying PowerPC equipment for running
Linux directly from IBM is not cost effective.
As far as being out of touch
In light of the recent board discussion, I decided to price some full
PowerPC systems. Check it out at www.corplinux.com/powerpenguin if your
interested.
Cheers.
Jeramy B Smith
BS AAS MCSE MCP+I
CLC - www.corplinux.com
PowerPenguin - www.corplinux.com/powerpenguin
In light of the recent board discussion, I decided to price some full
PowerPC systems. Check it out at
http://www.corplinux.com/powerpenguin if your
interested.
Your link at IBM is broken, since it was for your personal shopping
cart only.
But are you considering different
37 matches
Mail list logo
