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.
Please, no off-list mail at all at all. This address accepts mail only
from Debian addresses.
- Re: Apple vs IBM
- From: Leandro Guimarães Faria Corsetti Dutra <email@example.com>
- Re: Apple vs IBM
- From: Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete Dutra <firstname.lastname@example.org>