Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

axlepin · Sep 5, 2003, 07:42 AM

I've been hearing this term for 10 years, and mainly in connection with SGI machines...

Now that Macs and those other computers are on-par with SGI machines, at least in some ways, I wonder why THEY aren't called workstations, too...

what is it that makes a workstation a workstation?

a

queritor · Sep 5, 2003, 08:05 AM

Originally posted by axlepin:

what is it that makes a workstation a workstation?

The Marketing department.

MusicalTone · Sep 5, 2003, 08:38 AM

Originally posted by axlepin:
what is it that makes a workstation a workstation?

a

A computer in a workplace.

tooki · Sep 5, 2003, 08:52 AM

I think it's kind of archaic, since desktop PCs (in the broad sense, including Macs) have reached the same levels of performance.

It described a high-performance workstation. Compared to a "normal" desktop PC, they had big screens, input devices beyond a keyboard, sound, video, sturdy operating systems (variants of UNIX), etc.

Even today, they hold places as engineering workstations, where they have some advantages, AFAIK.

tooki

mosch · Sep 5, 2003, 09:01 AM

Usually when somebody wants a "workstation" they're looking for a high-end computer with all of the trimmings such as a server-class CPU such as a Xeon or a G5, usually has ECC memory, often has SCSI hard drives. The machine will have guaranteed parts availability for a fairly long period of time (several years) to allow the machine to be serviced without any hardware changes that may cause some sort of unpredictable behaviour.

Workstations are usually ISV certified to support software such as Pro/E or Catia, and are expected to have a longer MTBF on all components in the system, which generally results in a more expensive, but more reliable computer.

It's not just marketing, but on the other hand, there's no law against marketing an eMachine as a workstation, so it doesn't actually guarantee anything.

JustinD · Sep 5, 2003, 10:02 AM

Wow, thanks for the info mosch. I really didn't know it was that extensive. (though I'm sure some companies that market their kit as 'workstations' don't hit every point you mentioned. jerks!)

Arkham_c · Sep 5, 2003, 10:15 AM

Originally posted by JustinD:
Wow, thanks for the info mosch. I really didn't know it was that extensive. (though I'm sure some companies that market their kit as 'workstations' don't hit every point you mentioned. jerks!)

Before Microsoft came out with Windows NT Workstation (4.0), the term workstation was reserved for a UNIX machine. Specifically, smaller UNIX machines that would not be classified as "Servers".

Sun would have single or dual processor workstations, and 8-256 processor servers.

SGI would do the same thing. An O2, Indigo2, or Octane was a workstation, but those big boxes with multiple R10k processors and looked like a refrigerator were servers.

These days, the line is more blurry.

juanpacolopez · Sep 5, 2003, 11:29 AM

Originally posted by Arkham_c:
Before Microsoft came out with Windows NT Workstation (4.0), the term workstation was reserved for a UNIX machine. Specifically, smaller UNIX machines that would not be classified as "Servers".

Sun would have single or dual processor workstations, and 8-256 processor servers.

SGI would do the same thing. An O2, Indigo2, or Octane was a workstation, but those big boxes with multiple R10k processors and looked like a refrigerator were servers.

These days, the line is more blurry.

There are still some real "workstations" in the world, though they are fewer and more far between:

http://www.sgi.com/workstations/tezro/

<drool>

Though honestly, it doesn't look all that great next to a Dual 2Ghz G5... kudos to Apple for really upping the ant� so to speak.

JustinD · Sep 5, 2003, 11:30 AM

SGI would do the same thing. An O2, Indigo2, or Octane was a workstation

How curious - we've been using an O2 as a server (web and DNS) for the longest time (and an Indy before that). Took it over from the previos guy - the one that bought it. Lately it's been acting up, so, time to move to an XServe. =)

jcadam · Sep 5, 2003, 01:32 PM

Originally posted by juanpacolopez:
There are still some real "workstations" in the world, though they are fewer and more far between:

http://www.sgi.com/workstations/tezro/

<drool>

Though honestly, it doesn't look all that great next to a Dual 2Ghz G5... kudos to Apple for really upping the ant� so to speak.

The tezro, that's a new SGI product. I thought that SGI was in the throes of death. A few years ago, everyone was saying "SGI is going under, what's going to happen to OpenGL? omigod omigod omigod"

Great machines, the SGI workstations. I've used them, but would never dream of owning one. The problem for SGI these days is that cheap-a$$ PCs and Macs (esp. now that we can have Dual-G5s running Maya) are several thousand $$ less than an SGI and are almost but not quite as good as an SGI workstation.

On one hand, you have a $3000 PowerMac G5, with 90% of the capability of a $10,000 SGI system. Which would you buy?

version · Sep 5, 2003, 01:55 PM

The tezro is awsome, if it wasn't for the decline in SGI software, I'd love one. It's miles ahead of anythgin else in the brice bracket. One thing to note about workstations, is that they quite happily chugg away for years. The hardware is also usually beyond what the market generally offers, so lasts a bit longer, my SGI Octane, which is a few years old now, has a system bus that puts most pc's, and macs to shame, until the G5 that is.

SGI used to have this saying, 'Why do in software tomorrow, that which you can do in hardware today?'.

juanpacolopez · Sep 5, 2003, 02:25 PM

Originally posted by version:
The tezro is awsome, if it wasn't for the decline in SGI software, I'd love one. It's miles ahead of anythgin else in the brice bracket. One thing to note about workstations, is that they quite happily chugg away for years. The hardware is also usually beyond what the market generally offers, so lasts a bit longer, my SGI Octane, which is a few years old now, has a system bus that puts most pc's, and macs to shame, until the G5 that is.

SGI used to have this saying, 'Why do in software tomorrow, that which you can do in hardware today?'.

The system bus... that's the thing w/ workstations, that and enormous caches.

You'll notice the tezro has _4_ Mb of on-die L2 cache. Multiply that by 4 processors and distribute it on the fastest bus known to man (until the G5... I think the dual 2ghz just barely edges out the high end SGI's in overall bandwidth) and you've got one hell of a machine.

As someone said though, now that there are Mac/PC version of Maya it's not quite so appealing; again, the G5 has almost all the specs for less than half the price of the SGI. When my wintel friends complain about the "slowness" of Macs I point them to that little spec and it usually shuts them up quick... The G5 is definitely a "good thing".

version · Sep 5, 2003, 03:37 PM

Originally posted by juanpacolopez:

As someone said though, now that there are Mac/PC version of Maya it's not quite so appealing; again, the G5 has almost all the specs for less than half the price of the SGI. When my wintel friends complain about the "slowness" of Macs I point them to that little spec and it usually shuts them up quick... The G5 is definitely a "good thing".

So true. I wouldn;'t buy into SGI again, well not at the moment. I can get a PC to perform as well as I need for 3D animaton, plus all the benefits of a widely supported OS, like OS X. The only thing keeping me on PC's now, is XSI, I just wish Softimage would port it to OS X. It's a tool that I rely on, much like a carpenter, or Photoshop user does with their tools. Maya's fantastic, but I need my XSI, lol.

RooneyX · Sep 5, 2003, 06:44 PM

The Tezro is a bit crap. But it has a market in the visualization field because a lot of them are Unix programmers used to using SGIs from before the time PCs and Macs became to capable.

But look at the Tezros CPU. Doesn't matter how much cache this one has, it performs badly compared to the fastest PIVs, G4/G5s and Athlons and Opterons. It has that much cache to compensate for its low speed (not just the clock speed).

Disk speed and capacity is pretty bad too.

And expansion wise, not even worth talking about.

Arkham_c · Sep 5, 2003, 08:28 PM

My first job out of college was porting software from Solaris to SGI and HP. I had an Indigo2 on my desk, later replaced by an R10k O2.

SGIs were cool machines back then, and I still think IRIX is a really nice UNIX implementation.

However, the MIPS CPUs have not kept up with the times. They are just not performance competitive with the Intel and now PPC offerings.

Sun is having the same problem with its SPARC processor line. Their low and medium machines are just not as fast as an Intel box running Linux. To really merit buying a Sun these days, you have to get a machine with capacity for 16+ processors.

DeathMan · Sep 7, 2003, 08:24 PM

When we can put one of these bad boys in a G5, I'll be willing to call it a workstation.

Come on ATI!!!!!

P.S. ...or maybe one of these