I could be, and likely am, wrong; please correct me me if I am. I don't see any clear indication in the SLI wikipedia article and I'm not motivated enough to dig much deeper than that.
P.S. I am not an economist and what I've posted above may be completely wrong... I'm working from very old memories of a 100 level econ course I took a long long long time ago.
NetApp does a much better job of this even going so far as to support ZFS.
Are you pot high? In what way does NetApp support ZFS? ZFS is not a NAS protocol... ZFS on SAN luns isn't a feature that needs to be explicitly supported and is the only way I can think you'd even sort of have a NA filer with ZFS on it. Also the continuing litigation by NetApp with regards to ZFS's purported infringement on NA's WAFL file system would be a pretty good reason to not believe that "Netapp [supports] ZFS".
If I missing something exceedingly obvious please reply...
Lack of 48-bit LBA support -- couldn't stick a drive larger than 137 gig on it, which in this day and age, just doesn't quite cut it for a desktop.
You could still do this with linux though, if its an option
Not if it's a BIOS limitation.
Linux hasn't depended on the bios for handling drive geometry for ages... Sometime before the 2.2 kernel iirc.
The GCC team has to work on ARM/MIPS/SPARC/whatever while ICC only need to work on x86.
ICC supports IA-32, Itanium 1 & 2, x86-64, and xscale. Not that it kicks too much of a leg from your argument, but if you are going to argue the point you should at least make it accurate. Ah yeah almost forgot to mention all the extended instruction sets too... SSE, SSE2, SSE3, MMX, MMX2, etc...
New York... when civilization falls apart, remember, we were way ahead of you. - David Letterman