PDA

View Full Version : Livkid's right....


Rezet
Aug 20, 2003, 01:32 PM
http://www.boxxtech.com/asp/cf_step2.asp?ModelInstanceID=180

My only question is what system is it running 64 windows?
And how is it compatable with old applications.



P.S.
Well, Powerbook G5 will be here shortly to state that the box if fkin ugly... :D

Mr. Anderson
Aug 20, 2003, 01:35 PM
It wasn't a matter of right or wrong - it was just a little old, been discussed in a few threads before and slightly on the flame-bait side.

D

Rezet
Aug 20, 2003, 01:39 PM
Originally posted by Mr. Anderson
It wasn't a matter of right or wrong - it was just a little old, been discussed in a few threads before and slightly on the flame-bait side.

D


Well, I don't want it to get out of hand.
But maybe you could tell me the key argument from both sides, anderson... It's that I haven't seen this yet....

Lanbrown
Aug 20, 2003, 01:47 PM
There is also a difference between a desktop and a workstation. Sun has sold workstations for a longtime and they had a 64-bit processor in it. IBM has sold workstation with a 64-bit processor as well. Oh, lets not for get the workstations from HP with a 64-bit processor. SGI sells workstations with a 64-bit processors too. Wow, look at all the 64-bit workstation available, but yet each of these companies donít call it a desktop. Do you know why? Letís look at the definitions:

Main Entry: 1desk∑top
Pronunciation: 'desk-"tšp
Function: noun
Date: 1929
1 : the top of a desk; also : an office desktop simulated by a computer program
2 : a desktop computer

Main Entry: work∑sta∑tion
Pronunciation: -"stA-sh&n
Function: noun
Date: 1931
1 : an area with equipment for the performance of a specialized task usually by a single individual
2 a : an intelligent terminal or personal computer usually connected to a computer network b : a powerful microcomputer used especially for scientific or engineering work

You can get definitions at:
http://www.m-w.com

Letís go look at AMD. What do they have to say about the Opteron. They have two links, one for a Server and the other for a Workstation. I don't see any Desktop link for it. What else do they have to say:
"All partners listed also offer AMD Athlon MP-based workstation solutions." Wow, there is that workstation word again.

Let's go see what BOXX has to say:
They even use the Workstation word as well. I don't see any desktop computers there. So if you see anywhere on AMD's site that says desktop and Opteron please post the link. Even if you see it on the BOXX site, that will work as well.

Rezet
Aug 20, 2003, 01:56 PM
You make it look like workstation is a completely different thing from a desktop. The only difference that is not chnageable is probably the size. And that computer looks like a damn desktop to me. I don't know about the size of the box itself, but needless to say G5 isn't going to win "THe Compact" award either.

I don't understand why you have to attack it. It's for those people who haven't seen that pc 64 bit thing yet...

Mr. Anderson
Aug 20, 2003, 02:17 PM
Macbytes had a great little article on the whole thing....

http://arstechnica.com/archive/news/1061250774.html

Makes sense to me and I never had a problem with the 'fastest pc' claim. As far as I'm concerned its the fastest mac and that's what's important to me. :D

D

Lanbrown
Aug 20, 2003, 02:17 PM
Originally posted by Rezet
You make it look like workstation is a completely different thing from a desktop. The only difference that is not chnageable is probably the size. And that computer looks like a damn desktop to me. I don't know about the size of the box itself, but needless to say G5 isn't going to win "THe Compact" award either.

I don't understand why you have to attack it. It's for those people who haven't seen that pc 64 bit thing yet...

A workstation comes in many configurations and sizes. How is Livkid right then? Going with what you and him believe, AMD was first. Explain, Sun, IBM, HP, SGI, etc then. They have been selling 64-bit machines for years. Sun at least says Desktop and Workstation on their site:
http://www.sun.com/desktop/
There you go. They (Sun) definitely beat AMD to it. They released the Ultra 5/10 with the UltraSPARC IIi processor in 1997. The Ultra 2 with the UltraSPARC I processor back in 1996. 7 years before AMD did.

A workstation is designed for a sole purpose and is connected to a network. Nobody spends $7.600 (MSRP) on a Sun SB2000 workstation and doesn't connect it to a network. BTW, the Internet doesn't count either and to a certain extent, a home network. People will buy the G5 and it may never be connected to a network.

Rezet
Aug 20, 2003, 02:53 PM
Originally posted by Lanbrown
A workstation comes in many configurations and sizes. How is Livkid right then? Going with what you and him believe, AMD was first. Explain, Sun, IBM, HP, SGI, etc then. They have been selling 64-bit machines for years. Sun at least says Desktop and Workstation on their site:
http://www.sun.com/desktop/
There you go. They (Sun) definitely beat AMD to it. They released the Ultra 5/10 with the UltraSPARC IIi processor in 1997. The Ultra 2 with the UltraSPARC I processor back in 1996. 7 years before AMD did.

A workstation is designed for a sole purpose and is connected to a network. Nobody spends $7.600 (MSRP) on a Sun SB2000 workstation and doesn't connect it to a network. BTW, the Internet doesn't count either and to a certain extent, a home network. People will buy the G5 and it may never be connected to a network.

What the hell? First off, I have to defend Livkid here. He never said anything about sun or hp or whatever being first. He just posted the interview with apple senior exacutive who didn't seem to know crap about the issue. Second, 7 years ago it was a lot of money, now it's down to 3-4k. The key is G5 is not a first supercomputer either way, no matter how you look at it.
And as for Workstations... Just cuz you name it differently doesn't mean you are obligated to plug it into the network right away.
The only major difference between those was the price. And now when mass production catches up, the price goes down... So now 64 Bit in a consumer friendly Desktop, becomes reality.

What the hell do you get so fussed up about it, I don't know. The only reason for this thread is to show others that they can get a 64bit Pc machine for 2300 bucks...
I'm not attacking your G5... chill out for pete's sake...

Mr. Anderson
Aug 20, 2003, 03:05 PM
This discussion is going in circles - its not that serious.

the article in question was on a topic that was discussed back in June right after WWDC - its old news and its all been rehashed again and again.

http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2003/06_jun/features/cw_macg5_interview.htm

Lets not drag this out again - go back and do a search on the old threads.

D

Rezet
Aug 20, 2003, 03:14 PM
Originally posted by Mr. Anderson
This discussion is going in circles - its not that serious.

the article in question was on a topic that was discussed back in June right after WWDC - its old news and its all been rehashed again and again.

http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2003/06_jun/features/cw_macg5_interview.htm

Lets not drag this out again - go back and do a search on the old threads.

D


Yeah... I'm not picking on apple or defensing pcs here...
It's just I haven't seen this stuff yet (64bit Dual PC for $2400)...
I was just wondering maybe some others didnt see it either...
I'm off

Lanbrown
Aug 20, 2003, 03:17 PM
Originally posted by Rezet
What the hell? First off, I have to defend Livkid here. He never said anything about sun or hp or whatever being first. He just posted the interview with apple senior exacutive who didn't seem to know crap about the issue. Second, 7 years ago it was a lot of money, now it's down to 3-4k. The key is G5 is not a first supercomputer either way, no matter how you look at it.
And as for Workstations... Just cuz you name it differently doesn't mean you are obligated to plug it into the network right away.
The only major difference between those was the price. And now when mass production catches up, the price goes down... So now 64 Bit in a consumer friendly Desktop, becomes reality.

What the hell do you get so fussed up about it, I don't know. The only reason for this thread is to show others that they can get a 64bit Pc machine for 2300 bucks...
I'm not attacking your G5... chill out for pete's sake...

He brings up an article that has this:
"DMN: Now, you're saying it's the first 64-bit desktop machine. But isn't there an Opteron dual-processor machine? It shipped on June 4th. BOXX Technologies shipped it. It has an Opteron 244 in it."

So they are implying that the AMD was first. Apple calls theirs a desktop, which is what it is. AMD is positioning the Opteron systems in the server and workstation market, not the desktop. There is a difference between a workstation and a desktop. Since Livkid brought it up, he thinks that the Opteron workstation from BOXX was first. You always said that Livkid was right, so you believe it also. I simply brought up the others that have sold 64-bit systems for years. If you want to group a workstation and a desktop system together, then fine. Apple is not first and AMD is definitely not first. Just like when Apple puts the 970 in a PB, it won't be the first 64-bit laptop either.

AMD did not design the Opteron for a desktop; it was designed for servers and workstation. Apple uses the 970 for a desktop. Apple doesn't sell a workstation. Sun sells servers and workstations, as does IBM (not including their desktop peecee line), SGI, HP, etc.

Show me where Sun systems are not on a network. Show me that with HP, IBM, SGI, etc workstations are not on a network. Why not buy a server and not hook it up to a network either.

So now you are going to use price as factor, how about a 64-bit SB150 from Sun for $995, so I guess that takes price out of the picture.

Rezet
Aug 20, 2003, 03:21 PM
I was talking about fast good working computer... not a box for penies.

Likvid
Aug 20, 2003, 03:38 PM
Wow! i didn't know my post would take these proportions:D

However, some input is needed.....


Desktop or Workstation or Server doesn't define what hardware you are running actually.

Windows 2003 is a server OS and Windows XP is a desktop OS.

From what i can see the Dual Opteron is running Windows XP, so it is a desktop.

And who cares anyway what it is?

Apple was a bit evil here in their ads for the G5, instead of calling the G5 the fastest computer, they called it the fastest desktop computer in the world to overcome the critics.

That's not telling the truth according to my definitions.

We all know Apple's past claims about how fast the G4 was compared to the Intel CPUs and they all claimed it was faster with their published benchmarks which was hyped according to their taste.

What i wanted to show with my post about the interview was that Apple really doesn't have a clue about their competitors and that they shouldn't go and out and say things and make people believe it's the fastest 64-bits computer.

I like Apple's products but i don't like when they make people think as they want and everything else is not true.

Just take the silly thing like the single-button mouse which Steve Jobs still think it's the best solution.

Yes i know you can add a new mouse afterwards but that's not the point here, what's irritating is Steve's attitude for single-button mouses to be shipped with all new Mac's.

Yeah right!!

Stupid people might agree, in all other platforms we always have mouse with several buttons for different work tasks.

I am a x86 user and was considering switching to Apple, i really don't think it's the right move to do.

Mr. Anderson
Aug 20, 2003, 03:42 PM
Then why come into a mac forum and post flame bait. Open, intelligent discussions are fine, but posting something just for an argument won't be taken well.

D

praetorian_x
Aug 20, 2003, 06:15 PM
Originally posted by Likvid
Wow! i didn't know my post would take these proportions:D

...

I am a x86 user and was considering switching to Apple, i really don't think it's the right move to do.

Ignoring the flaimbait...

Look, the whole workstation/desktop split is falling apart, much to SGI's chagrin. There are opteron systems (and now g5 systems) on the market that pretty much meet any definition of "workstation" you might have had a year ago.

The people who buy into the verbal parsing by apples market weenies are silly, but unimportant. What is important, if you are indeed an x86 user considering a powermac is this:

The new powermac g5s (especially the top end) compete well with high-end x86 boxen. Faster at somethings, slower at others. But a viable option, with an interesting OS on top of it.

That is all,
prat

Rezet
Aug 20, 2003, 07:00 PM
Yeah... Both have good points here. I like apple products also but I always hated their "inflated" advertisement and misleading statements about their hardware...

But I do agree. G5 is probably able to compete with most high end PCs...

Daveman Deluxe
Aug 20, 2003, 07:27 PM
The workstation/desktop divide is drawing to a close, as has been mentioned before. I think the main difference these days is preferential. Most people using desktops are in the tertiary sector of the economy. Most people using workstations are in the quaternary sector of the economy.

There is certainly overlap between the two. Pixar, for example, is undeniably in the tertiary sector yet uses workstations for its rendering, in the same way that some research labs use desktop systems and network them together to perform data-crunching.

Most of the time, though, desktops are found in the tertiary sector, and most of the time, workstations are found in the quaternary sector.

I hope this doesn't fan the flames.

Schiffi
Aug 20, 2003, 10:12 PM
Originally posted by Likvid
Wow! i didn't know my post would take these proportions:D

However, some input is needed.....


Desktop or Workstation or Server doesn't define what hardware you are running actually.

Windows 2003 is a server OS and Windows XP is a desktop OS.

From what i can see the Dual Opteron is running Windows XP, so it is a desktop.

And who cares anyway what it is?

Apple was a bit evil here in their ads for the G5, instead of calling the G5 the fastest computer, they called it the fastest desktop computer in the world to overcome the critics.

That's not telling the truth according to my definitions.

We all know Apple's past claims about how fast the G4 was compared to the Intel CPUs and they all claimed it was faster with their published benchmarks which was hyped according to their taste.

What i wanted to show with my post about the interview was that Apple really doesn't have a clue about their competitors and that they shouldn't go and out and say things and make people believe it's the fastest 64-bits computer.

I like Apple's products but i don't like when they make people think as they want and everything else is not true.

Just take the silly thing like the single-button mouse which Steve Jobs still think it's the best solution.

Yes i know you can add a new mouse afterwards but that's not the point here, what's irritating is Steve's attitude for single-button mouses to be shipped with all new Mac's.

Yeah right!!

Stupid people might agree, in all other platforms we always have mouse with several buttons for different work tasks.

I am a x86 user and was considering switching to Apple, i really don't think it's the right move to do.

Actually Apple makes one-button mice because noone else does. Teach some 80 year old to use a computer, odds are they'll learn the one-button mouse computer faster than a multibutton mouse.

Apple didn't say first 64-bit desktop, it was "first 64-bit personal computer". Hardly anyone buys a Sun for personal use.

Rezet
Aug 21, 2003, 12:25 AM
Originally posted by Schiffi
Actually Apple makes one-button mice because noone else does. Teach some 80 year old to use a computer, odds are they'll learn the one-button mouse computer faster than a multibutton mouse.

Apple didn't say first 64-bit desktop, it was "first 64-bit personal computer". Hardly anyone buys a Sun for personal use.


Well. it's always nice to see apple care for elderly at the times when noone else does. :D

Lanbrown
Aug 21, 2003, 08:13 AM
Originally posted by Likvid
Wow! i didn't know my post would take these proportions:D

However, some input is needed.....


Desktop or Workstation or Server doesn't define what hardware you are running actually.

Windows 2003 is a server OS and Windows XP is a desktop OS.

From what i can see the Dual Opteron is running Windows XP, so it is a desktop.



Solaris runs on all Sun platforms made in the last decade or so, it doesn't matter what platform or form factor. There is no server or desktop variant; they are the same. You can also run Windows server on a desktop. Your point is mute. Also, where is windows for workstations then?

Lanbrown
Aug 21, 2003, 08:21 AM
Originally posted by Daveman Deluxe
The workstation/desktop divide is drawing to a close, as has been mentioned before. I think the main difference these days is preferential. Most people using desktops are in the tertiary sector of the economy. Most people using workstations are in the quaternary sector of the economy.

There is certainly overlap between the two. Pixar, for example, is undeniably in the tertiary sector yet uses workstations for its rendering, in the same way that some research labs use desktop systems and network them together to perform data-crunching.

Most of the time, though, desktops are found in the tertiary sector, and most of the time, workstations are found in the quaternary sector.

I hope this doesn't fan the flames.

A workstation for rendering is exactly what a workstation is supposed to be used for, a specialized task.

Very few people use a desktop systems network together for crunching. They use smaller form factor solutions, like 1U servers. A desktop is too big and would take too much room. When a company is paying X amount per square foot, they won't the most processors in the least amount of space. Some home users will use desktops networked together for crunching, but they do not have a business use.

All of the companies that make workstations target them towards a business. Desktop units are also used by businesses as well home users. AMD does not target home users with the Opteron, like Intel doesn't with the Itanic. Does IBM target homes users with a Power4?

Rezet
Aug 21, 2003, 01:29 PM
OMG... It's like talking to a wall...
There isn't that much of a difference between DESKTOP and WORKSTATION. I can runa and launch anything I want on both of them. What the hell are you trying to prove? That Worstation is something completely different? Talk about mute points.
I repeat, this thread wasn't even meant to fuel the war macs vs pcs... so stop getting so freaking defensive over your G5... Geez!
Apple uses slogans for marketing. Doesn't mean that their comp. is first or the fastest...

Mr. Anderson
Aug 21, 2003, 01:39 PM
Originally posted by Rezet
Talk about mute points.

Just so you know, that -moot point- not mute point...;)

D

Rezet
Aug 21, 2003, 01:49 PM
Thanx I know. But I well aware of what I typed and stand by it. :cool:

Likvid
Aug 21, 2003, 05:24 PM
Actually the G5 is alot slower than the Xeon from Intel.

If we compare apples and apples this is the correct way and it's what i thought all the time that the G5 would be slower than the Xeon and Apple's campaign was just bull that it was the fastest personal computer according to their specs.

See below for benchmark.

Dual 2 gig G5
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 18 2003 @ 11:25 AM PDT
I tested the G5/2GHz MP, G4/1.42GHz MP, and Xeon 2.4GHz MP
recently.

In a Photoshop action test with mostly MP aware filters, the results were:
26 sec Dual Xeon
29 sec Dual G5
35 sec Dual G4

In the Cinebench 2003 ray trace (render) test:
51 sec Dual Xeon
66 sec Dual G5
107 sec Dual G4

In the UT2003 Botmatch (average of Antalus & Asbestos)
63 fps Dual Xeon
43 fps Dual G5
30 fps Dual G4

Likvid
Aug 21, 2003, 05:27 PM
Also note above that they compared it to the 2.4GHz Xeon, i wouldn't dream how the Xeon 3.06GHz would outrun the G5 completely.

Rezet
Aug 21, 2003, 05:44 PM
Originally posted by Likvid
Also note above that they compared it to the 2.4GHz Xeon, i wouldn't dream how the Xeon 3.06GHz would outrun the G5 completely.

Dude, give it a rest man. Don't make it another PC vs MAC thread.
DUAL G5 is faster at some tasks, slower at others...
If you look at neutral sites they will tell you that.

Sun Baked
Aug 21, 2003, 06:17 PM
Heck even BoxxTech (www.boxxtech.com) calls the 3dBoxx a workstation and probably markets it as such.

So when do they expect to ship an Athlon64 desktop?

Or do they just make workstations and servers?

---

Ouch... $800 for a pair of ECC 1GB DDR333 mem sticks. :eek:

---

And I don't know what OS they're using... sorry.

>Livkid - Isn't XP is for single processor use only, so any duals would require XP Pro. :confused:

Lanbrown
Aug 22, 2003, 09:34 AM
Originally posted by Rezet
OMG... It's like talking to a wall...
There isn't that much of a difference between DESKTOP and WORKSTATION. I can runa and launch anything I want on both of them. What the hell are you trying to prove? That Worstation is something completely different? Talk about mute points.
I repeat, this thread wasn't even meant to fuel the war macs vs pcs... so stop getting so freaking defensive over your G5... Geez!
Apple uses slogans for marketing. Doesn't mean that their comp. is first or the fastest...

There is a difference. Companies like Dell sell what they call a workstation but in reality, it is just a desktop. Companies like Sun, IBM, HP, etc. all sell workstations that are UNIX based. You think they are the same because the term workstation has been used incorrectly. You don't know any better.