IA64

In article ,
Morten Reistad wrote:

But it isn't the platform you would choose for a server

For a small business a Mac could work very well as a server. Certainly
not for a server farm.

--
A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.

On 2010-04-10, Walter Bushell wrote:
So, get a desktop.

Apple's desktops (the iMac doesn't count, I already have a very nice
monitor, and need to share it with other computers) are quite noticeably
out of date right now.

Apple may feel there is not a big enough market for a
laptop desktop replacement, which turn out to be too big to schlep and
not really powerful for a desktop either.

For what it's worth, I used a ThinkPad "desktop replacement" for about
four years, and was quite happy with it. I'm using an older MacBook Pro
as my primary desktop, and it's livable, it's just not capable of the
graphics workloads I care about -- and neither are the current models.

I would love a Mac desktop with modern hardware. As is, if I had to get
a computer today, it wouldn't be a Mac -- not because I'm not happy with
OS X, which I'm loving, but because Apple steadfastly refuses to make a
computer which is built for functionality rather than looks. I sincerely
hope they fix this soon, but I'm not hugely optimistic.

-s
--
Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach /
http://www.seebs.net/log/ -- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) -- get educated!

"RJ" == Rick Jones writes:

RJ In comp.sys.intel Charlton Wilbur wrote:

of the iPhone and iPad. They also care about performance per
watt -- the "crippled" CPU in the iPad manages to deliver its
performance for over 10 hours.

RJ Over? I thought the Apple specs were claiming "up to" and that
RJ was with just WiFi and without 3G.

Apple specs claim "up to" 10 hours. All the reviewers to date have
remarked on how the battery lasted over 10 hours for them.

Charlton

--
Charlton Wilbur

Jim wrote:
"Quadibloc" wrote in message
...
Of course, if those companies had sold so many units as to have that
kind of power... Motorola would have sold more chips, and hence had
more resources.
http://www.embedded.com/98/9807sr.htm
"As of 1998, the 68K family was the best-selling 32-bit architecture in the
world. 79 million 68K chips were sold in 1997, compared to about 75 million
Pentium-based PCs."
The average selling price for Pentiums was probably much higher though.

Were they comparing the entire 68K family of processors up until that
point, against only the latest member of the 32-bit x86 processor family
up until that point? x86 processors have been 32-bit since the 386. If
you add 386, 486, and then Pentium, not to mention all of the AMD and
Cyrix compatible chips, you easily outsell the 68K chips.

Yousuf Khan

Charlton Wilbur wrote:
"MW" == Michael Wojcik writes:

MW Apple has never been interested in performance. These days
MW they're being a bit more honest about it, at least for their new
MW shinies like the iPad, with its crippled Atom CPU.

Apple has never been interested in *raw* performance - but they have
always been interested in responsiveness.

Which is fine, if you're only interested in single-user interactive
general-purpose computing. And there's nothing wrong with *that*,
except that far too many self-appointed pundits, supposed visionaries,
and lazy academics who confuse it with all of computing - when it's
really just a small segment of the industry, used mostly by the
relatively wealthy and mostly for entertainment.

And Apple's marketing people have been just as eager as the rest to
proclaim that personal computing is some sort of magic fairy dust that
will transform the world and usher in a new age of peace and light and
ponies for all.

They also care about performance per watt -- the "crippled" CPU
in the iPad manages to deliver its performance for over 10 hours.

They didn't care about it enough to keep away the superior
performance-per-watt PPC architecture over the significantly higher
dissipation of x86.

But in any case, that rather supports my point - they're not playing
the performance-boasting game with the iPad. (Personally, I can't
imagine why anyone would want to hold that awkward-sized beast for 10
hours, so I'm not sure why that battery life is any sort of advantage,
but people never cease to surprise me.)

--
Michael Wojcik
Micro Focus
Rhetoric & Writing, Michigan State University

Walter Bushell wrote:

So, get a desktop. Apple may feel there is not a big enough market for a
laptop desktop replacement, which turn out to be too big to schlep and
not really powerful for a desktop either.

I am always impressed by people's willingness to deal in facile
generalizations in this area.

Morten says his Macbook is "the perfect terminal". Perhaps it is, for
him; personally, even if I could ever learn to stand Apple's GUI, I
don't think I'd be able to come to terms with the trackpad, which I
find simply unusable. That alone makes those machines non-starters for me.

And here you claim that a "laptop desktop replacement" is "too big to
schlep". I carry one around frequently without any difficulties. In
fact, I often carry two around in one case, because I have a work
laptop (owned by MF, giving them first claim to intellectual property
developed using it) and an academic one (owned by me). And they have
specs that would be reasonable for desktop machines.

In short, different users have different preferences and requirements.
Often they have different requirements in different situations; I'll
never have one computer that's perfect for me, because I need more
than one sort.

--
Michael Wojcik
Micro Focus
Rhetoric & Writing, Michigan State University

In comp.sys.intel Quadibloc wrote:
Also, their pro desktop is perhaps the only computer with two CPUs on
the motherboard easily available to the consumer. So, performance
isn't totally a lost cause with the Macintosh platform.

Not necessarily any cheaper than a Mac Pro, but anyone with a credit card
can order a dual-socket machine from Dell (or any number of other
manufacturer's "workstation" lines.)

For the present less expensive of the two relevant current models from Dell:
http://www.dell.com/us/en/business/desktops/workstation-precision-t5500/pd.aspx?refid=workstation-precision-t5500&s=bsd&cs=04
(or search on "Precision T5500" - refurbs with two processors start at about
$1100)

--
Nate Edel http://www.cubiclehermit.com/
preferred email |
is "nate" at the | "I do have a cause, though. It's obscenity. I'm
posting domain | for it."

On Apr 12, 7:14*pm, Michael Wojcik wrote:
Charlton Wilbur wrote:
"MW" == Michael Wojcik writes:

* * MW Apple has never been interested in performance. These days
* * MW they're being a bit more honest about it, at least for their new
* * MW shinies like the iPad, with its crippled Atom CPU.

Apple has never been interested in *raw* performance - but they have
always been interested in responsiveness.

Which is fine, if you're only interested in single-user interactive
general-purpose computing. And there's nothing wrong with *that*,
except that far too many self-appointed pundits, supposed visionaries,
and lazy academics who confuse it with all of computing - when it's
really just a small segment of the industry, used mostly by the
relatively wealthy and mostly for entertainment.

And Apple's marketing people have been just as eager as the rest to
proclaim that personal computing is some sort of magic fairy dust that
will transform the world and usher in a new age of peace and light and
ponies for all.

They also care about performance per watt -- the "crippled" CPU
in the iPad manages to deliver its performance for over 10 hours.

They didn't care about it enough to keep away the superior
performance-per-watt PPC architecture over the significantly higher
dissipation of x86.

But in any case, that rather supports my point - they're not playing
the performance-boasting game with the iPad. (Personally, I can't
imagine why anyone would want to hold that awkward-sized beast for 10
hours, so I'm not sure why that battery life is any sort of advantage,
but people never cease to surprise me.)

Could you guys be bothered to drop this discussion from
comp.sys.intel? I'm sure there is a newsgroup dedicated to Steve Jobs
somewhere, but I don't follow it, and it isn't comp.sys.intel.

Robert.

In article ,
Michael Wojcik wrote:
Walter Bushell wrote:

So, get a desktop. Apple may feel there is not a big enough market for a
laptop desktop replacement, which turn out to be too big to schlep and
not really powerful for a desktop either.

I am always impressed by people's willingness to deal in facile
generalizations in this area.

Morten says his Macbook is "the perfect terminal". Perhaps it is, for
him; personally, even if I could ever learn to stand Apple's GUI, I
don't think I'd be able to come to terms with the trackpad, which I
find simply unusable. That alone makes those machines non-starters for me.

I admit the Apple GUI is a little, hmmm, .. special? Takes a bit to
get to know all the quirks. But it works great for a terminal. Using
mostly canned applications, and as a network end device.

But it flies right in your face when you try to run program/debugger/etc.
In which case I just run full-screen X, and use a server as the logical
gui platform.

And here you claim that a "laptop desktop replacement" is "too big to
schlep". I carry one around frequently without any difficulties. In
fact, I often carry two around in one case, because I have a work
laptop (owned by MF, giving them first claim to intellectual property
developed using it) and an academic one (owned by me). And they have
specs that would be reasonable for desktop machines.

Hehe. I lug around a little EEE, and use that as a server for the
Macbook, to do Serious Work (TM) on. Or I access a server in a hosting
center somewhere in an old nuclear bunker. But anyway, the EEE is really
neat, and carries a full Linux. With a keyboard, mouse and displaylink
adapter it becomes a somewhat usable desktop too.

In short, different users have different preferences and requirements.
Often they have different requirements in different situations; I'll
never have one computer that's perfect for me, because I need more
than one sort.

I don't see my situation as particularly special. I need to present
stuff to customers, and make design documents etc; and even do some
coding. Travel is around 30 trips, 70 days/year; 2/3rds of which are
plane trips. Serious sales folk should at least double this.

-- mrr

"Yousuf Khan" wrote in message
...
Were they comparing the entire 68K family of processors up until that
point, against only the latest member of the 32-bit x86 processor family
up until that point? x86 processors have been 32-bit since the 386. If you
add 386, 486, and then Pentium, not to mention all of the AMD and Cyrix
compatible chips, you easily outsell the 68K chips.
My interpretation is 68K against Pentium (no Cyrix/AMD) sold that year.