Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Mini D on June 06, 2005, 01:32:34 PM
-
I wonder if this means you will be able to buy OSX for x86 PCs in the near future. This is exactly the kind of competition Microsoft has needed for about 5 years now.
-
Are they still using motorola?
Do you have a link?
-
I followed the keynote Mini D, and they did not confirm that you will be able to use OSX on a regular computer.
They did show OSX Tiger on a Dell tho, and they said that the last 5 versions of OSX has been running on intel pcs in the labs.
-
Or will Apple computers now be able to run WinXP?
-
Originally posted by oboe
Or will Apple computers now be able to run WinXP?
There was no info on that.
-
Latest from "our" guy at the keynote now is:
No OSX on regular computers.
No Windows on mac's.
They are only changing to Intel processors, and they will prolly all be 64bit, even the mac mini that will be among the first macs to get the "Intel Inside" logo
-
I was wondering about the 64bit thing too. I wonder what they will be using.
-
They will prolly run different kinds. The Powerbooks , iBooks and mini will get some M variant, The high-end will use D and The cheaper models will use pentium 4.
The Xserves will run on Xeon.
-
If all of that is to be 64bit, Intel will need to introduce some new products.
-
ya..INTEL STOCK..go go go!!!!
not a big change..dam i wish i bought more at 14$!!!!!1
-
Originally posted by Mini D
If all of that is to be 64bit, Intel will need to introduce some new products.
Yup, but the first macs with intel are one year away, and the rest should be on intel within 2007.
-
I don't think it's really going to help Intel that much revenue wise... just like it's not really going to hurt IBM tha much that they're losing a customer.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
They will prolly run different kinds. The Powerbooks , iBooks and mini will get some M variant, The high-end will use D and The cheaper models will use pentium 4.
The Xserves will run on Xeon.
Xserves already run on Xeons.
My guess is someone will hack the OS within weeks to run on "any" pc (ie something matching Apples hardware specs). As for being 64 bit, OS X isn't really, it has ONE 64 bit library that is rarely used - so moving back to 32 bit CPU's won't be a huge issue.
Plus Apple have really started to bastardize the underlying BSD libraries putting their own stuff in. The network stack got worked over in Tiger, and they added Widgets (custom made for Virus writers it seems ;) )
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Are they still using motorola?
Do you have a link?
AFAIK, they're still using IBM and Motorola... So far, it doesn't look like this is going to be much of an impact to IBM. Mac is a niche market.
-
I have a feeling that this is the finale of the Macintosh.
-
Probably, Apple have been relying on the Ipod for sometime to look good. The OS has started departed from the base BSD code which IMHO isn't good (especially security-wise). And Apple have been alienating software vendors all over the place either through OS compatibility changes or developing their own apps (this includes big name like Adobe).
-
apple still makes computers?
-
No IBM makes a chip for a AMD board that Asus assembles and sells them to Apple, who then put a bastardized version of BSD Unix on them :D
-
This is uglier than the circumcision thread.
-
Apple switched from Motorola 68Ks to IBM PowerPC chips some years ago. For Apple the main motivation to leave IBM has been that the the new game consoles will all run on PowerPC and will be much bigger customers for IBM so Apple will have less influence. Apple have already been having inventory and delivery problems with IBM.
-
OK... made a few calls at work.
The main reason for the Apple move didn't have anything to do with game consoles, it was about mobile chips. Basically, IBM can't make them for ****. Their lowest power offering was 45 watts and their 90nm process was not working to reduce that. Intel is offering a 22 watt laptop chip.
Also, the 64bit thing is false. Apple is going to work with the chips that are soon to be released by Intel. You could not design a whole new processor, tape it out, manufacture it, certify it and then release it in less than one year. 2 would be a stretch.
-
Agree with Mini D. I'm an IBMer working in the microelectronics division. That's the way I was told too. They are not too bothered though with the link up with Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo.
Microelectronics is a problematic area for IBM. Too much in the way of losses. I work in a testing facility, it never made money. In fact it will close at the end of this year and the whole operation sub contracted out to the Far East. Which means I will soon be an ex IBMer. I wanted out anyway now I'm walking with a five figure sum and a smile on my face. Happy days:D
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Also, the 64bit thing is false. Apple is going to work with the chips that are soon to be released by Intel. You could not design a whole new processor, tape it out, manufacture it, certify it and then release it in less than one year. 2 would be a stretch.
Is that info stong enough for me to pass on?
-
-update-
Phil Schiller @ apple has confirmed to news.com that you will be able to run windows on the new intel-macs, but no OSX for intel-machines.
http://news.com.com/Apple+throws+the+switch,+aligns+with+Intel/2100-7341_3-5733756.html?tag=macintouch
(bottom of page 2)
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
-update-
Phil Schiller @ apple has confirmed to news.com that you will be able to run windows on the new intel-macs, but no OSX for intel-machines.
http://news.com.com/Apple+throws+the+switch,+aligns+with+Intel/2100-7341_3-5733756.html?tag=macintouch
(bottom of page 2)
I'd give 'em a couple of months of sales before the hack is out, and then Apple's computer sales will crash. It'll be much cheaper to buy a PC then hack it to use OSX than buy a mac, and there will be no difference between the two, except for the price tag. Fancy case design is nice, but not worth paying three times the price nice, and Apple won't be dropping their prices anytime soon.
Last time apple dealt with clones, they had a large measure of control over the CPU, and could shut them down with a proprietory architecture claim. If they try that with standard x86 architecture and components and effectively no say over the CPU, they may well get hauled up in front of a monopolies tribunal and financially spanked. Like the EU & Microsoft.
Very risky strategy, but what else can they do? G5s are currently still unusable in laptops (as are the AMD x86 clones) and the G5 chips aren't exactly on the cutting edge of Moore's law in the desktops either.
-
I'm not so sure it will be that easy to hack. They have had 5 years of intese testing and have prolly figured out a way to lock OSX to macs.
Not saying it wont be done, but i doubt it will happen that fast.
I am willing to bet that macs will come down in price tho.
-
Originally posted by oboe
Or will Apple computers now be able to run WinXP?
if it gonna be x86 compatible.. and its very likely to be, an answer is Yes.
Im just wondering about Intel.
Intel is loosing badly, even Sun microsystems switched to AMD.
Im looking for pictures of buring Intel director by share holders :D
-
Originally posted by cpxxx
In fact it will close at the end of this year and the whole operation sub contracted out to the Far East.
damm you should be happy that you will get chance to move to far east and work there :D
well ok .. i agree that it depend on personality :D
-
Originally posted by lada
Im just wondering about Intel.
Intel is loosing badly, even Sun microsystems switched to AMD.
Sun never used Intel that I know of. They've always been bitter rivals. Intel nearly killed their company.
So, if by "doing badly", you mean owning the market share in servers, workstations and home PCs, you'd be correct.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Sun never used Intel that I know of. They've always been bitter rivals. Intel nearly killed their company.
So, if by "doing badly", you mean owning the market share in servers, workstations and home PCs, you'd be correct.
well this class were based on Intel, mostly Xeon in the past
http://www.sun.com/servers/entry/
and here is few more links, to back that Sun is using Intel's CPU for quite long time. They sell it as "cheap" substitution for those who can afford "real CPU, Ultra sparc" ... in their terminology :)
http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/09/16/HNknox_1.html
http://www.monkey.org/openbsd/archive2/announce/200304/msg00000.html
here is one of Intel based from Sun web site. But they abandoned 32 bit some time ago ;)
http://www.sun.com/servers/entry/v60x/
Doing badly .... lets have a look at Intel and AMD sales for past 2 quartals. I guess they arent publshed yet :)
-
OK... so Sun carried some xeon servers for a little over 18 months. That pretty much supported what I said. As far as workstations... who cares?
And... you really don't want to comare sales between the two companies lada, it won't support your position at all. And, you don't want to compare market share between Intel and Sun in the server world either. That would show something glaring that you seem to be missing: Intel and Sun are competitors. Sun using any of their processors is not by choice, but rather necessity.
-
Originally posted by Suave
This is uglier than the circumcision thread.
:D
-
Awww.... lada's just a bit confused as to how announcements translate. For example: when IBM announced they were no longer going to use Pentiums since they were unreliable (at the time they sold licensing for their manufacturing process to AMD) and then proceded to retract the statement to much less fanfare a month later.
At least... that's the only reason why I can see he'd bring an "Intel is losing badly" line into a thread where Intel is gaining ground. I'm sure the Apple chip sales won't be near what the sun entry level server sales were for 18 months, but Intel will try to struggle on.
Dismiss apple deal as nothing... promote sun switch as relevant. Yeppers... that's buisness sense for ya.
-
P.S. Lada... the mobile chip issue mentioned above applies to AMD also. It's the same manufacturing process.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
I'm not so sure it will be that easy to hack. They have had 5 years of intese testing and have prolly figured out a way to lock OSX to macs.
Not saying it wont be done, but i doubt it will happen that fast.
I am willing to bet that macs will come down in price tho.
I doubt it, back on the 68000 days I used to run the old Mac OS on Amigas (which ran it faster on a cheaper platform ;) ).
-
Once again you spew your mac hatred on this board. I have guys watching you Vulcan so you be careful. :cool:
:D
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Once again you spew your mac hatred on this board. I have guys watching you Vulcan so you be careful. :cool:
:D
Meh, you're small fry and of little challenge to me, I'm surrounded in my office by Mac dweebs, 2 of which are fully certified Mac techies (in fact 2 of them are away at that Apple conference in the USA listening to Job's propaganda machine).
But heres my prediction, sometime in 2006 Apple will partner with a big PC player (read Dell or HP) and start moving away from hardware production to purely software (except Ipods).
-
You are beeing monitored Vulcan.
I belive you are one of "those"
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
You are beeing monitored Vulcan.
I belive you are one of "those"
Muahahahahaha, I run the network here boy, and they're the ones that are being monitored (and throttled)... them and their multicast-happy apples.
-
(http://www.fsukxaz.com/Images/SmileOhYeah.gif)
-
Originally posted by Mini D
OK... so Sun carried some xeon servers for a little over 18 months. That pretty much supported what I said. As far as workstations... who cares?
I would say that Sun microsystem is selling Intel based machines since pentium P3.
No Intel can not compare to SPARC in highend solutions, yes Sun doesnt sell cheap sparcs for office dudes.
I dont think that Intel is competitor for Sun. What can intel offer me, if i would like to have 16 CPU, 64bit unit with 128Gb of RAM ? ...
probably Megacool Celeron ;)
Sun cover diferent segment of market.
But i started to speak about it from diferent reason.
If you will have a look, what Sun selling today as Entry level servers, you will find 64bit opteron.
So ... we have UltraSparc - 64bit risc CPU
then we have cisc 64 bit AMD opteron CPU
and then we have Intel with their [ i would say obsolete] 32 bit cisc platform
I realy do not understand, why did apple chose company with most poor offer at the moment. And now i wanna hear you trough about their choose.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Muahahahahaha, I run the network here boy, and they're the ones that are being monitored (and throttled)... them and their multicast-happy apples.
LOL that remind me.... its fun to turn on port security on cisco switches.... Once your apple start to flood network with multicasts, mr cisco take it as packet storm and shutdown that port :D
that little apple is pretty noisy on the wire s
-
Originally posted by lada
LOL that remind me.... its fun to turn on port security on cisco switches.... Once your apple start to flood network with multicasts, mr cisco take it as packet storm and shutdown that port :D
that little apple is pretty noisy on the wire s
Meh, I stay away from Cisco gear, I prefer something with functionality and quality.
-
Wow lada... just saying sun and intel aren't direct competitors really speaks volumes. Intel covers a much more diverse market, but that market also includes entry level up to mid range servers. That is a considerable amount of Sun's product offerings... or do you actually believe they survive selling the big systems?
PS... in all likelyhood, those opterons are running 32bit unless they have Solaris 10 loaded on them. I'm betting with those wopping 2 and 4 chip servers, that's not gonna happen.
And nothing you posted even remotely suggested P-3s in suns. Maybe in a different post? They've always looked at them, but ever since Intel introduced the Itanium and kicked the cache up on the xeons, there's been no love lost between the companies.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
PS... in all likelyhood, those opterons are running 32bit unless they have Solaris 10 loaded on them. I'm betting with those wopping 2 and 4 chip servers, that's not gonna happen.
And nothing you posted even remotely suggested P-3s in suns. Maybe in a different post? They've always looked at them, but ever since Intel introduced the Itanium and kicked the cache up on the xeons, there's been no love lost between the companies.
Well look.... if you buy Sunfire with 4 opterons and install 32 bit OS on then... then there is no way to help you.
belive me or not, we are compaling everything from scratch with these flags.
CFLAGS="-O2 -march=k8 -pipe"
CHOST="x86_64-pc-linux-gnu"
I realy do not know, why should i run 32 bit applications on 64bit machine. Specialy, when i can compile software however i wish. (and yes i have both 64bit linux and 64bit Windows Xp on my home machine)
Regarding P3 in Sun, try google before asking
http://www.sun.qassociates.co.uk/servers-entry-level-v60x-dv.htm
[shall i now find some Sun with celerons or you will belive me, that Sun sell intel based servers all the time ? ]
And about Itaniam... yes intel introduced it, then they hide it somehow, coz it had someminor issues whitch made it useless.
For example it cant emulate 32 bit CPU w/o software help. Does you local computer store sell Itanium ? Our local stores dont.
HiTech might join this thread and tell us, whitch Sun is hosting AH server ;)
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Meh, I stay away from Cisco gear, I prefer something with functionality and quality.
i agree cisco is for nerds with lot of time :D
but when its well configured it serve well... like any other device :D
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Meh, I stay away from Cisco gear, I prefer something with functionality and quality.
like?
-
Planet, Intel but not 3Com if we are talking about switchs
-
LOL! Lada... you do realize that's a 2005 list... right? P3s are still for sale. How do you figure that translates to suns using pentiums ever since the P3? Try getting thinking a bit past the word "google".
-
I see as many Itaniums for sale at computer stores as I see SPARC chips. I'd venture to say that as many Itanium processors have been sold in the last 5 years as SPARC server processors. It's just that that's not many chips for any Intel release.
On the 32bit note... you need to read the list of OS's offered up by sun on those opteron systems. 1 of the 5 supports 64bit. 2003 only supports ia64 (Itaniums)... not 64bit extensions. XP-64 was not on the list. It's not a matter of what programs they use, it's a matter of what operating system Sun is offering on them.
And... don't mention XEON while you're at it there big guy. It's too easy to leave out because it pretty much anhialates the "Intel isn't a competitor with SUN" statement.
Face it, the "switch to AMD" by sun is irrelevant. Sun sold probably 1/1000th of the amount of x86 processors compared to Apple yearly sales. That translates to gain in anyone's book. This is simple math lada. Really.
That pretty much does it for me. This started because you decided to come in and piss in a thread with an irrelevant comment in order to try to prove a point and failing miserably. Take it to the hardware forum where you and kev can polish each other while chanting AMD and pretend the rest of the world is of the same oppinion because you read it on-line.
-
Our servers are dual-Xeon based. I would not use Sun for anything. The cheesy things like forcing hard drive manufacturers to change the SCSI INQUIRY data so the SunOS will only work with drives supplied by Sun is about as cheesy as it gets.
Not to mention the memory leaks in some of the libraries. The long running joke about why you need to have 48GB of ram in a Sun server is to allow it to run for more than a month before needing to be rebooted.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
like?
Juniper/Netscreen/Sonicwall/Foundry/hmmm even Allied Telesyn.
-
Originally posted by lada
i agree cisco is for nerds with lot of time :D
but when its well configured it serve well... like any other device :D
No Cisco is for people who believe their marketing and can do with half working code, and crap security.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Juniper/Netscreen/Sonicwall/Foundry/hmmm even Allied Telesyn.
local bands?
-
Originally posted by lada
Planet, Intel but not 3Com if we are talking about switchs
<--- points at lada and laughs!
-
Just curious but does anyone else here work on Tandem NonStop Himalaya systems and networks?
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Mini D
On the 32bit note... you need to read the list of OS's offered up by sun on those opteron systems. 1 of the 5 supports 64bit. 2003 only supports ia64 (Itaniums)... not 64bit extensions. XP-64 was not on the list. It's not a matter of what programs they use, it's a matter of what operating system Sun is offering on them.
Why should i bother with OS supported by sun ? I already told you, that most (in our case all Suns) are running linux.
On SPARCs its Solaris. Can you imagine that we dont buy OS by sun, since we use linux ?
Originally posted by Mini D
That pretty much does it for me. This started because you decided to come in and piss in a thread with an irrelevant comment in order to try to prove a point and failing miserably. Take it to the hardware forum where you and kev can polish each other while chanting AMD and pretend the rest of the world is of the same oppinion because you read it on-line.
Ahhh ... you didnt get it and now i came here to piss on your thread... ahh ok...
I will ask again for those who got pissed during my first piss.
Why Apple decide to use CPU whitch other manufactures leaving ?
If i pissed on you again MiniD, im sorry but if you have nothing to say, then simply dont respond.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
<--- points at lada and laughs!
Well... when some costumer is trying to convince you, that he want top quality, and then you gave him 3 offers... cisco, intel, planet .. he simply look at it and buy most cheap solution, with underlined text "not recomanded solution" then you have 2 options.
a. you can point finger, laugh and be cool
b. you can simply sell what he demands and make some money.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Our servers are dual-Xeon based. I would not use Sun for anything. The cheesy things like forcing hard drive manufacturers to change the SCSI INQUIRY data so the SunOS will only work with drives supplied by Sun is about as cheesy as it gets.
Not to mention the memory leaks in some of the libraries. The long running joke about why you need to have 48GB of ram in a Sun server is to allow it to run for more than a month before needing to be rebooted.
Does it mean that HT already abandoned AH server on solaris ?
umm is Ah server writen in Java ? :D
-
Originally posted by Gixer
Just curious but does anyone else here work on Tandem NonStop Himalaya systems and networks?
...-Gixer
nop.
What *nix are you running on it ?
-
Originally posted by lada
Why Apple decide to use CPU whitch other manufactures leaving ?
If i pissed on you again MiniD, im sorry but if you have nothing to say, then simply dont respond.
Dude... get a damn clue.
The thread says why apple is using Intel. Read it very carefully. Intel makes mobile PCs that use half the power of PowerPCs or Athlons. That's stated in this thread. It's the primary drive for Apple ditching IBM's manufacturing process.
As for others leaving Intel... that's where you start pissing. You cite sun, who's sales are completely irrelevant (you'd have to run their OS on a box purchased from them to even get 64bit apps to work), but you seem to think it's indicitave of a trend. You pretend sun wouldn't have ditched Intel at any given instance because "they're not competitors". Sorry dude, but you don't seem to want answers... you seem to want to prove a point. You're failing.
-
there are now rumors that intel will BUY apple.. this was the first move.
-
I seriously doubt that's true. Regardless, It would not be allowed.
-
not be allowed by?
-
The government would not allow that buy-out. It pushes the boundries of a monopoly. Intel owning an operating system in addition to an overwelming majority share of the chip market is a dangerous combination.
-
You mean you haven't seen Terminator? :p
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Dude... get a damn clue.
The thread says why apple is using Intel. Read it very carefully. Intel makes mobile PCs that use half the power of PowerPCs or Athlons. That's stated in this thread.
As for why Apple was making the shift, Jobs pointed both to past problems and to the PowerPC road map, which he said won't deliver enough performance at the low-power usages needed for powerful notebooks.
ammm ummm ehm ehm ... would you be so kind and make screenshot with passage, where they speak about athlons ? (put it into red circle please)
Shall i ask same questio for 3rd time ?
some hints if you have no clue, why im asking
http://www.techreport.com/onearticle.x/7417
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/pentiumd-820_3.html
-
You do realize the same IBM process that was making PowerPC chips is also used to make AMD chips... right?
You find an AMD processor that even comes close to the low power consumption of an Intel mobile processor. You won't. It's a harsh reality to deal with, but I think you'll get over it in time.
-
Mini D is speaking the truth
-
Originally posted by lada
Well... when some costumer is trying to convince you, that he want top quality, and then you gave him 3 offers... cisco, intel, planet .. he simply look at it and buy most cheap solution, with underlined text "not recomanded solution" then you have 2 options.
a. you can point finger, laugh and be cool
b. you can simply sell what he demands and make some money.
Well you didn't give him much of a choice did you?
Cisco - expensive without the full functionality and with poor performance
Intel - almost a dead brand as far as networking goes
Planet - a low end low performance cheap Taiwanese solution
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Well you didn't give him much of a choice did you?
Cisco - expensive without the full functionality and with poor performance
Intel - almost a dead brand as far as networking goes
Planet - a low end low performance cheap Taiwanese solution
no I didnt. I mostly work with cisco. And to be honest i were laizy to search for proper spelling of other.
However cisco is expensive, cisco doesnt work well if its missconfigured.... and yeah when you dont know whitch model suite to your solution, it can have poor performance.
Well Intel didnt disappear yet overhere. Plenty companies are still running them. But 3Com and HP did. (nobody sell them from stock) Key*** and Allied tel. are even less used that Intel here.
While Intel were in stocks here, it were just fine option to Cisco... but rest of manufactures, like 3Com,Hp and other are just same stuff as Planet and other proud Taiwanis.
Actualy sales of planet went rapidly up, while other fall. Even VDSL platform by Planet is quite nice stuff.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
You do realize the same IBM process that was making PowerPC chips is also used to make AMD chips... right?
You find an AMD processor that even comes close to the low power consumption of an Intel mobile processor. You won't. It's a harsh reality to deal with, but I think you'll get over it in time.
No i didnt know that IBM have same process for PowerPC as they have for AMD.
Could you explain more about this ?
Is it realted to current AMD production ?
I also noted, that they speak about mobile CPUs in the report, but didnt find any comparation of mobile CPUs.
-
I use D-link, 3com and SMC.
All work fine for me, but then im not a professional user either.
-edit- only product i havent liked was an ASUS wifi router. It has won some awards but i "just didnt like it"
-
Originally posted by lada
However cisco is expensive, cisco doesnt work well if its missconfigured.... and yeah when you dont know whitch model suite to your solution, it can have poor performance.
No, Cisco is crap, configured right or not, Juniper routers have more functionality and performance, Foundry & AT switches have more functionality and performance, Netscreen & Sonicwall have more functionality and performance. Cisco is an easy cop out for people who are to lazy to figure out what really is best for them.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Cisco is an easy cop out for people who are to lazy to figure out what really is best for them.
You must be freaking ritch, if you know whats best for those, who didnt even tell you their demans. You probably never heard that things should be use for purpose, whitch they fit well, did you ?
Since you keen on your statements, w/o any need of discusion, i think we can leave "this is better you dumb !!!" dialog. You can keep your, cisco=crap dream.
Im just thinking if some of cisco switches has fallen on your foot when you were small boy.... because usualy when people have some problem with something, they can name it.... like poor performance with packets under 256 bytes, or crappy http management based on java...... but you simply rock and cisco simply sux.... yeah ...
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
I use D-link, 3com and SMC.
All work fine for me, but then im not a professional user either.
-edit- only product i havent liked was an ASUS wifi router. It has won some awards but i "just didnt like it"
D-link were very popular overhere. but later on, they somehow Fubared support and nobody buy them now. Specialy wireless products.
I had few SMC and its nice substitution for Dlink.
I doubt if there is any profesional user of Wifi routers ;)
Reliable and cheap stuff for home use is also made by Ovislink or Linksys. (ohh now im sorry vulcan linksys is crappy cisco w/o performance, we already know it, so please do not comment on this). Ovis is fine, untill you have no problems with power suply. Once your voltage or freq. change a bit, it hangs. I didnt have sutch problems with Linksys yet.
-
Originally posted by lada
D-link were very popular overhere. but later on, they somehow Fubared support and nobody buy them now. Specialy wireless products.
I had few SMC and its nice substitution for Dlink.
I doubt if there is any profesional user of Wifi routers ;)
Reliable and cheap stuff for home use is also made by Ovislink or Linksys. (ohh now im sorry vulcan linksys is crappy cisco w/o performance, we already know it, so please do not comment on this). Ovis is fine, untill you have no problems with power suply. Once your voltage or freq. change a bit, it hangs. I didnt have sutch problems with Linksys yet.
I have no problems with Linksys eithter, we had them at universty (dont think they were part of cisco then tho) when i was on the support staff there. Didnt use routers tho, only accesspoints and bridges. with novell.
-
Cisco bought Linksys ... some 2 years ago or so.
-
Originally posted by lada
Cisco bought Linksys ... some 2 years ago or so.
then i havent used them since that.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
then i havent used them since that.
its loong time, since you were fired from the university isnt it ? :D
-
Originally posted by lada
its loong time, since you were fired from the university isnt it ? :D
lol.. i finished in 2000 :)
part time job there the last 2 years showing the new students how to use the network and refilling printers etc etc. bad pay (15$) an hour, but the perks were good.
-
Originally posted by lada
No i didnt know that IBM have same process for PowerPC as they have for AMD.
Could you explain more about this ?
Is it realted to current AMD production ?
Yes they do. The IBM process was adopted about 5 or 6 years ago. I think IBM started making processor for AMD about 4 years ago in a foundry capacity... along with transferring the process over to the plant in Dresden. Basically, a process is just a sequence of steps used to build the chip. IBM is having serious problems with the 90nanometer process. This is why Apple dumped them. I've heard rumors that they haven't been able to sell a decent laptop since the G3 processor was wrapped up. This is what I've heard from people in the know over here at Intel and someone from IBM agreed that's what he'd heard over there (Both in the first 15 posts in this thread).
I also noted, that they speak about mobile CPUs in the report, but didnt find any comparation of mobile CPUs.
You mean comparison? There really isn't any comparing them right now. For power consumption and battery time, nothing comes close to the Intel mobile processors. I've heard 45 watts from the Apple/AMD offerings as compared to 22 watts from the Intel stuff. Mobile computing is what Intel deams the future of computing. From the handheld to the laptop.
-
Originally posted by lada
You must be freaking ritch, if you know whats best for those, who didnt even tell you their demans. You probably never heard that things should be use for purpose, whitch they fit well, did you ?
Since you keen on your statements, w/o any need of discusion, i think we can leave "this is better you dumb !!!" dialog. You can keep your, cisco=crap dream.
Im just thinking if some of cisco switches has fallen on your foot when you were small boy.... because usualy when people have some problem with something, they can name it.... like poor performance with packets under 256 bytes, or crappy http management based on java...... but you simply rock and cisco simply sux.... yeah ...
LOL... you do know that Foundry, Juniper, Netscree, Allied Telesyn and Sonicwall product generally cost less (or the same). I'm not going write a 4 page brief on why Cisco switches are crap because of their varying codebase and low switch fabric, or why Cisco routers are crap because throuput is low and functionality like MPLS is broken, or why PIX firewalls are crap because they don't do IDP or proper zoning among many many other things.