Apple to switch to Intel processors

[lada]

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

but when its well configured it serve well... like any other device

[Nilsen]

Originally posted by Vulcan
Meh, I stay away from Cisco gear, I prefer something with functionality and quality.

like?

[lada]

Planet, Intel but not 3Com if we are talking about switchs

[Mini D]

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".

[Mini D]

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.

[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.

[Vulcan]

Originally posted by Nilsen
like?

Juniper/Netscreen/Sonicwall/Foundry/hmmm even Allied Telesyn.

[Vulcan]

Originally posted by lada
i agree cisco is for nerds with lot of time

but when its well configured it serve well... like any other device

No Cisco is for people who believe their marketing and can do with half working code, and crap security.

[Nilsen]

Originally posted by Vulcan
Juniper/Netscreen/Sonicwall/Foundry/hmmm even Allied Telesyn.

local bands?

[Vulcan]

Originally posted by lada
Planet, Intel but not 3Com if we are talking about switchs

<--- points at lada and laughs!

[Gixer]

Just curious but does anyone else here work on Tandem NonStop Himalaya systems and networks?


...-Gixer

[lada]

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.

[lada]

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.

[lada]

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 ?

[lada]

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 ?