[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Apple vs IBM

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 my six-year-old Powermac. about the same age as my Pentium
> > II-233 system.
> 	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.
> > What's special about this IBM kit to justify its price?
> 	Some words: support, reliability, OSs and thoroughput.
> 	The Apples can't run AIX, GNU/Linux is all but unsupported, and 

IBM has been talking for some time about discontinuing AIX. It has done
so on some platforms (IA32, S/390).

> don't have the same bus bandwidth between processor(s), memory and

This is a workstation with one processor.

True, it has 1 Mbyte of L2 cache.

> storage.  Apple can't give the same level of support with the same global 
> reach, both for lack of competence and of structure.
> 	If someone else would produce a system with similar reliability and
> thoroughput, running AIX and GNU/Linux and having worldwide
> production-level support, then sure IBM would have to lower prices.  Given
> that that competence and structure isn't born in a day, not likely.  But
> IBM itself is fostering that with what remained of the POP initiative,
> that is to say the Genesi Pegasos and the Eyetech AmigaOne.


John Summerfield

Please, no off-list mail at all at all. This address accepts mail only
from Debian addresses.

Reply to: