Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > So IBM did it.

So IBM did it.
Thread Tools
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Automatic
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2004, 02:13 PM
 
NY Times

Hum, what if Apple marketing folks use that fact, we could read: 'from the makers of world's fastest supercomputer...'

Please complete the sentence


"That plane's dustin' crops where there ain't no crops."
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Los Angeles of the East
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2004, 02:21 PM
 
Apple G5 by IBM ad's similar to HPiPod by Apple seem inevitable. Just kidding.
NOW YOU SEE ME! 2.4 MBP and 2.0 MBP (running ubuntu)
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Anywhere but here.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2004, 02:30 PM
 
The thing that bothers me, for some reason I can't find either one of the G5 Super Computers on the list?
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Floreeda
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2004, 03:00 PM
 
you'd think that if they were serious about winning they'd win with more than .15 teraflops.
     
Senior User
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe, MI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2004, 05:27 PM
 
Originally posted by fireside:
you'd think that if they were serious about winning they'd win with more than .15 teraflops.
They said that the next one they're making is going to have 130,000 processors compared to the 16,000 that beat the Japanese. That's ****ing crazy. They are serious about it, they were just testing what they could do.
...
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2004, 06:13 PM
 
They're 500Mhz PowerPC 440s.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Retired
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2004, 07:55 PM
 
Originally posted by olePigeon:
They're 500Mhz PowerPC 440s.
And they have better graphic cards than the new iMac I bet!
Power Macintosh Dual G4
SGI Indigo2 6.5.21f
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2004, 08:39 PM
 
Originally posted by MacGorilla:
And they have better graphic cards than the new iMac I bet!
Good one. Original too!
And not at all annoying yet...
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Seattle, WA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2004, 09:32 PM
 
Originally posted by the_glassman:
The thing that bothers me, for some reason I can't find either one of the G5 Super Computers on the list?
I read on /. that when they took the original closer down to replace it with the new G5 XServes they missed the window to submit a run and thus failed to make the list this time around.

Apple got it's video, VT got ti's press and computer I doubt either party cares a whole lot about it anymore.

oh, and although I have not read the article I doubt they had any video cards at all.
The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it always to be kept alive.
- Thomas Jefferson, 1787
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2004, 10:44 PM
 
Originally posted by juanvaldes:
I read on /. that when they took the original closer down to replace it with the new G5 XServes they missed the window to submit a run and thus failed to make the list this time around.

Apple got it's video, VT got ti's press and computer I doubt either party cares a whole lot about it anymore.

oh, and although I have not read the article I doubt they had any video cards at all.
They've just replaced all the XServes with 2.3 GHz models too, so that should help a bit.

As for the other bigger XServe cluster (COLSA/Army/Whatever), they are not using a fast interconnect system - only standard GB Ethernet. So it may not rate as highly as some people would expect. They decided that fast interconnect was not essential for them because of the type of processing they are planning to do (highly parallel, with little interaction between processes required). And a fast interconnect system can add a LOT of cost to setting up a cluster.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Always within bluetooth range
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2004, 11:06 PM
 
Looking back a few years (pre-1997), its hard to believe I'd be saying this but ... GO BIG BLUE !!!. Glad our favorite fruit company has aligned itself with the kickin'-ist @ssin-ist boys on the block.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2004, 11:33 PM
 
[edit] wrong topic
     
   
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:41 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2011 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.7 © 2000-2011, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2