Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Tyre MacAdmin · Jul 10, 2005, 12:58 AM

That sounds like a troll but it's not. Too bad such an excellent company.

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=0...tid=139&tid=98

Link · Jul 10, 2005, 01:01 AM

SGI, gee.. .sounds like a company that made a transition to something called Intel....

Kinda like Apple is doing...

Ring a bell?

xi_hyperon · Jul 10, 2005, 01:07 AM

Originally Posted by Link

SGI, gee.. .sounds like a company that made a transition to something called Intel....

Kinda like Apple is doing...

Ring a bell?

Not really.

Severed Hand of Skywalker · Jul 10, 2005, 01:23 AM

I was saying the same almost a year ago.

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.php?t=230979

cc_foo · Jul 10, 2005, 01:44 AM

Any sign of the phrase “The beleagured company…”?

Severed Hand of Skywalker · Jul 10, 2005, 01:50 AM

The stock was 1.35 less then a year ago, wonder what it is now.

Stogieman · Jul 10, 2005, 02:01 AM

Their stock closed on Friday at a whopping 56 cents.

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/050707/sfth084.html?.v=14

Big Mac · Jul 10, 2005, 03:05 AM

56¢, huh? Why don't we pool our funds and buy the company?

Hawkeye_a · Jul 10, 2005, 09:37 AM

I know SGI is a rather prestigious company for visual effects.(correct me if im wrong). Wouldnt it be a good idea if Steve baught it for Apple or even Pixar ?

ReggieX · Jul 10, 2005, 09:58 AM

Originally Posted by Link

SGI, gee.. .sounds like a company that made a transition to something called Intel....

Kinda like Apple is doing...

Ring a bell?

One man spearheaded that, after doing the same at DEC and HP. Now he has a very high position at Microsoft. Coincidence?!

On top of that, all those companies were switching from their own *NIX systems to NT, something Apple is not doing.

mitchell_pgh · Jul 10, 2005, 10:12 AM

Originally Posted by Link

SGI, gee.. .sounds like a company that made a transition to something called Intel....

Kinda like Apple is doing...

Ring a bell?

Just the opposite IMHO. Apple is trying to take the OS more mainstream... SGI and even Sun have moved to the VERY high end and can't compete. The problem with the very high end is there isn't a big demand for such systems as the low end has enough power for many applications.

People would rather have four high end Dell boxes vs. one SGI box (if the Dell can do what they need)

SGI does have some cool technologies, but I just don't see them making it.

Severed Hand of Skywalker · Jul 10, 2005, 10:48 AM

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

I know SGI is a rather prestigious company for visual effects.(correct me if im wrong). Wouldnt it be a good idea if Steve baught it for Apple or even Pixar ?

They were. Even pixar replaced their SGI boxes with cheap intels cuz they are just as fast.

Hawkeye_a · Jul 10, 2005, 11:19 AM

So like i know theyre into visual special effects, whats their core business ? Hardware, software or just research into visual effects ?

I only ask cause, i reckon it would be a great asset to Pixar or Apple given their know-how in that particualr field. Bring over their tools,etc to MacOSX the way Apple marketed Shake, and they will have an even stronger Pro suite. And thats not counting the brainpower that comes with the purchase.

Ill have to read up o nthis company in more detail now...ive heard about it, and always put it on a pedestral for some reason.

Eug Wanker · Jul 10, 2005, 11:31 AM

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

So like i know theyre into visual special effects, whats their core business ? Hardware, software or just research into visual effects ?

I only ask cause, i reckon it would be a great asset to Pixar or Apple given their know-how in that particualr field. Bring over their tools,etc to MacOSX the way Apple marketed Shake, and they will have an even stronger Pro suite. And thats not counting the brainpower that comes with the purchase.

Didn't SGI already sell much of its cool patents to nVidia?

Originally Posted by Link

SGI, gee.. .sounds like a company that made a transition to something called Intel....

Kinda like Apple is doing...

Ring a bell?

I know you've been on an anti-Intel transition trolling binge recently, but SGI and Apple represent opposite ends of the computing spectrum these days. Repeated troll posts don't make the troll posts any truer.

iNub · Jul 10, 2005, 11:35 AM

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Didn't SGI already sell much of its cool patents to nVidia?

I thought that was 3dfx.

Zimmerman · Jul 10, 2005, 11:36 AM

3dfx went bankrupt and was bought lock stock and barrel by nVidia, yes. I don't know anything about nVidia buying SGI technologies. I think you are getting SLI and SGI mixed up.

Severed Hand of Skywalker · Jul 10, 2005, 12:08 PM

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

So like i know theyre into visual special effects, whats their core business ? Hardware, software or just research into visual effects ?

I only ask cause, i reckon it would be a great asset to Pixar or Apple given their know-how in that particualr field. Bring over their tools,etc to MacOSX the way Apple marketed Shake, and they will have an even stronger Pro suite. And thats not counting the brainpower that comes with the purchase.

If even Apple ditches SGI then why would they have any interest in buying them?

Eug Wanker · Jul 10, 2005, 03:51 PM

Hmmm... Apparently, Microsoft was the one who bought SGI patents. nVidia had previously licenced them from SGI after a legal fight supposedly.

Howver, that's The Reg. Anyone have a better source?

Tyre MacAdmin · Jul 10, 2005, 06:29 PM

SGI does a lot of Top secret government projects. They are the number 2 spot on the entire supercomputer list. (Altix at NASA) behind IBM's BlueGene/L computer. How exactly can you show profit for a company that does that much top secret work? (that list is just of *known* supercomputers)

Sarc · Jul 10, 2005, 06:35 PM

Many companies do top secret work, howvery they look a lot healthier than SGI.

sugar_coated · Jul 10, 2005, 06:54 PM

Everything that is created will have to be uncreated.

analogika · Jul 10, 2005, 07:06 PM

Originally Posted by Link

SGI, gee.. .sounds like a company that made a transition to something called Intel....

Kinda like Apple is doing...

Ring a bell?

Companies that DIDN'T switch to Intel and still went under:

Commodore

Atari

Sinclair

...

Weyland-Yutani · Jul 10, 2005, 07:20 PM

Originally Posted by analogika

Companies that DIDN'T switch to Intel and still went under:

Commodore

Atari

Sinclair

...

Perhaps, but for those companies a switch to Intel wouldn't have changed a thing. They'd still have gone under.

cheers

W-Y

analogika · Jul 10, 2005, 07:31 PM

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

Perhaps, but for those companies a switch to Intel wouldn't have changed a thing. They'd still have gone under.

Well, yeah, that was the point of my post, warn'it?

If SGI goes under, it probably WON'T be because they switched to Intel.

If Apple should go broke, it WON'T be because of the Intel switch. The Intel switch, at least at the moment, is the best way for Apple to stay alive and competitive once the iPod halo effect wears off a little (the initial Mac mini rush is already slowing to a less frenzied, but probably fairly steady marketshare pull).

Hawkeye_a · 10:51 PM

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

If even Apple ditches SGI then why would they have any interest in buying them?

Apple used SGI ? for what ? I remember when PIXAR was pretty much nothing...Jobs took over and a couple of years later they hit the big time. I reckon if SGI still has the brainpower(people & researchers)...it could prove to good long term investment for Apple or Pixar.

BasketofPuppies · Jul 10, 2005, 10:28 PM

I think Star Wars Guy meant Pixar.

What use is SGI to Apple or Pixar these days? Mid-range software, such as Maya and Final Cut Pro, running on standard Windows, Mac, and Unix/BSD boxes can do most of the things that used to require insanely expensive software running on insanely expensive custom hardware from SGI, HP, Sun, or Digital.

mitchell_pgh · Jul 11, 2005, 12:02 AM

Originally Posted by BasketofPuppies

I think Star Wars Guy meant Pixar.

What use is SGI to Apple or Pixar these days? Mid-range software, such as Maya and Final Cut Pro, running on standard Windows, Mac, and Unix/BSD boxes can do most of the things that used to require insanely expensive software running on insanely expensive custom hardware from SGI, HP, Sun, or Digital.

Bingo... now you send it to an Intel based server farm all running Unix/Linux...

DeathMan · Jul 11, 2005, 12:22 AM

Was not Maya an SGI property until this last year or so?

dlefebvre · Jul 11, 2005, 12:24 AM

Originally Posted by Link

SGI, gee.. .sounds like a company that made a transition to something called Intel....

Kinda like Apple is doing...

Ring a bell?

Actually, more than most of SGI systems don't run Intel CPU. In the late 90's, SGI bought Intergraph to have an Intel based product line. It died because even if it was Intel based, they had to much proprietary technologies (Video cards, memory, etc.) their boxes were way overpriced and were too expensive to maintained. At one point SGI was on top, but they were too overconfident and underestimate the progress made by PC manufacturers.

As opposed to Apple who almost suffered that faith and saw the light by getting rid of all their proprietary technologies (nubus, ADB, ADC, etc)

zizban · Jul 11, 2005, 10:07 AM

Originally Posted by DeathMan

Was not Maya an SGI property until this last year or so?

Yes and after Maya was sold, it released one last version for Irix then dropped it. SGI went from Irix on high powered workstations to a vendor of Linux supercomputers. Not that I am against Linux but that's a fairly niche market and they are struggling. Selling one or two of those $12 million dollar machines a year isn't going to sustain SGI for very long.

You can make long a list of things SGI did wrong that lead to their current state, among them are:

Long development to market cycle. I mean, they are just now releasing a Linux workstation (The Prism) years after moving to Linux.

Letting Irix die. Not that a company moving on to another OS is bad, but they kind of let Irix drift away and die slowly. Either kill it or don't. Make up your mind. They still make Irix workstations but who would buy one not knowing the future of Irix?

When they announced the Linux Prism workstation, they said Irix apps would run on it with a "slight" performance hit and some might not work. Which one? Call their sales department to find out. WTF? Sales?? How about tech support? No, that costs you money, big money to even get to call them.

The foray into windows NT workstations.

Now they have some good tech (XFS, low level I/O, etc) but what else?

I love an Octane and love it and it's sad to see SGI in this state.

Tyre MacAdmin · 01:59 PM

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

Apple used SGI ? for what ?

SGI made OpenGL. Apple and almost every other OS on the planet uses OpenGL for their remder technology. SGI pioneered a ton of hardware and software... and created the "workstation".

Weyland-Yutani · Jul 11, 2005, 03:03 PM

Originally Posted by Tyler McAdams

SGI made OpenGL. Apple and almost every other OS on the planet uses OpenGL for their remder technology.

Except for that Windows OS. It uses ActiveX.

cheers

W-Y

Tyre MacAdmin · Jul 11, 2005, 05:58 PM

True... but most people here know that Directx9 pixel shader 2.0 equals OpenGL 1.4 for Core Image video cards. What am I implying? MS changed around some stuff, made a "custom" IDE/API and named it something new.

Weyland-Yutani · Jul 11, 2005, 08:52 PM

Originally Posted by Tyler McAdams

True... but most people here know that Directx9 pixel shader 2.0 equals OpenGL 1.4 for Core Image video cards. What am I implying? MS changed around some stuff, made a "custom" IDE/API and named it something new.

Yeah, I think they call that "embrace and expand" or something

cheers

W-Y

Tyre MacAdmin · Jul 12, 2005, 08:23 AM

Originally Posted by DeathMan

Was not Maya an SGI property until this last year or so?

Maya has belonged to Alias for around 5 years now.

zizban · Jul 12, 2005, 08:51 AM

Originally Posted by Tyler McAdams

Maya has belonged to Alias for around 5 years now.

Who do you think owned Alias?

badidea · Jul 12, 2005, 10:13 AM

I used to work on SGI for AIRBUS (3D engineering) but now we exclusively use HP visualize workstations - for me as an enduser there is no difference!

Tyre MacAdmin · Jul 12, 2005, 02:58 PM

Originally Posted by zizban

Who do you think owned Alias?

What I was implying was that the split was about 5 years ago from SGI.

What's ironic is that this year's Maya is the last release of Maya for SGI IRIX while releases for OS X, XP and Linux will keep coming.

Lordx_ · Jul 12, 2005, 04:45 PM

SGI only sold Alias to Accel-KKR a little over a year ago. They also changed their name to just Alias around the same time.

Good thing Alias jumped ship. Although Maya and its StudioTools package were probably the only things that were keeping SGI afloat.

Cheers.

Scandalous Ion Cannon · Nov 2, 2005, 02:28 PM

http://news.com.com/SGI+stock+faces+...8422&subj=news

Eug Wanker · Nov 2, 2005, 03:07 PM

Hmmm... 44¢ per share. Market cap of $118 million.

Are they even worth buying these days? Didn't they sell all their most interesting intellectual property already?

ReggieX · Nov 2, 2005, 05:07 PM

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

Except for that Windows OS. It uses ActiveX.

ActiveX has nothing to do with 3D rendering

Dork. · Nov 2, 2005, 06:37 PM

I've read enough Slashdot to know that no company is truly dying until Netcraft confirms it.

Weyland-Yutani · Nov 2, 2005, 07:05 PM

Originally Posted by ReggieX

ActiveX has nothing to do with 3D rendering

DirectX then ReggieX.

To my shame I am mixing up Microsoft lingo

cheers

W-Y