Comment Re: Nice, but lowered support for POWER3 != good. (Score 1) 36
Dude, Power3 came out in 1998. How can you possibly complain about that?
Dude, Power3 came out in 1998. How can you possibly complain about that?
Siteox.com has Power8 systems
http://www.siteox.com/
It's likely only a matter of time before SoftLayer does.
You've been able to run Linux on Power/ppc64 for over 10 years now.
Even Ubuntu runs on Power now.
There are small business accounting software applications for Linux. Now maybe your or your clients prefer ones that are not on Linux, but that doesn't mean others are not satisfied with them when running Linux.
Check out GnuCash or Lazy8. Also quickbooks online works with Linux.
Why would anyone new enter a market that has clearly peaked? Smartphones and tablets are replacing PCs for web surfing, video watching, social media, email and some gaming. You basically have your enthusiast gamers (not really that big of a market) content creators and developers left.
And I don't see how you call open source a joke. The only thing funny is that some people still look to Microsoft or Apple to tell them what technology to use. Why?
Windows 8 is a very confused product, reflecting the confusion of it's parent company.
Who needs this crap? Give Linux a chance. On the server it's a no-brainer. On the desktop, it takes some getting used to, but it is more than adequate for what you need from desktop OS.
Haven't you seen the MS commercials lately?
They all mention "The New Windows!", NOT "Windows 8!" Because they know that regular users have already latched on to the idea that Windows 8 is "bad". The same thing happened to Vista. Maybe both OS's deserve it, maybe not, but when you overhear Joe Schmoe computer buyer at Fry's saying "Oh, no I want the one with the good Windows", (I seriously heard this around the time Vista was cratering and again a few months back) you know you have a problem.
riiight..., there is a real ground swell of people moving *to* Solaris and Oracle's loving, popular and customer friendly arms. (chuckle)
The threat in the high end is Intel creeping upwards to more profitable systems while ARM starts to devour everything at the low-low end.
According to the Reg (page 2) Power8 is going to have some sort of memory coherence function for accelerators. Allowing the GPU to be just another first-class processor with regards to memory could be a big win, performance-wise, not to mention making it easier to program.
The latest version of CUDA (version 6) has also just added features in the same area (unified memory mgmt). Anandtech has some more info about that.
This thing will be beast!
It's was CPU tech that put IBM on top.
Sun couldn't get a new design out to save their lives and HP shit-canned PA-RISC to get in bed with Intel on Itanium, which has always been late and slow and difficult.
IBM on the other hand kept slowly be steadily improving their ppc CPU tech.
Power.org manages the ppc ISA.
The ppc ISA is and has been completely open. You can design and create your own chips based on it and people do.
This is about opening up, or decomposing, the development of the high end POWER chips that IBM develops. Large data center companies have an increasing desire for customized chips. Customizing chips is not what Intel is good at or want to be good at. The only game box win that Intel had was the original XBOX and that was a massive failure, partly because of the inflexibility of Intel and their precious margins. I really can't think of any other custom wins that Intel has had since.
If Google wants to cobble together a small 2-4 core Power Chip with exactly the parts they need, based on licensed pieces from IBM, and then go fab it at wherever is cheapest, I've got to think that will save them money versus being a mountain of retail Intel chips.
Impressive. You are wrong on just about *everything* you wrote:
>>POWER support is dead on all enterprise Linux distributions, Red Hat dropped support with EL5.
Nope and nope and nope
>>Furthermore OpenPower boxes are contractually prohibited from running AIX.
You are confusing this announcement with a previous attempt at the Linux market that was also called OpenPower. Those systems only ran Linux and could not run AIX. This announcement is about opening up the entire platform and licencing out parts or whole cores of the actual high end chips to companies like Google, who recognize that the single most expensive component in servers is the CPU - and they want choice and customization.
>>You've got a box of hardware with nothing to run on it and it can only deliver half the performance of comparatively priced Intel equipment.
The recently released Power7+ chip running Linux is the fastest thing on the market right now.
>> If you outsource support to IBM, their support specialists in the delivery centers will accidentally nuke your whole frame during routine maintenance, and you could be down for days
Umm..ok I'm stopping now
I like the idea of Windows on other hardware, especially cheap energy efficient hardware like ARM.
I don't understand why MS has both Windows Phone and Windows 8 RT, though. Both ARM-based touch-focused Windows OSs. But software won't run on both. Why? How many ecosystems can you realisitcally expect to create? MS obviously over-estimated their ability or their cache with users.
Creating ecosystems is hard. Even if you have the better product. And MS doesn't have the better product with either RT or Phone.
How was this supposed to work? Even if it sold, was it a "survival of the fittest" OS scenario? Kill RT if Phone did well? Or vice-versa? Eventually there could be just one, right?
Why not have one lightweight 'mobile/touch' OS that can run on ARM and x86; then have 'heavy' x86-only Windows for Surface Pro and Laptop/Desktops? Because it makes too much sense?
Perhaps RT was a play to get some leverage on Intel? Who knows. One thing that's clear is that the market has rejected it.
Sheesh..so maybe 'forced' was an overlly strong word to use.
But consider: EA may not have the clout they once had, but they are still one of the largest game publishers in the world and you still want them making games for your fledgling console, I think. And if 'the other console' may be giving them what they want, you are likely to consider the same.
But this is maybe more likely: MS and Sony saw 'online pass' and decided they want that money instead of EA. It's their network after all. The console guys give the publishers a small cut, which the publishers are happy with since it's enforced platform-wide and managed by network, which costs the publishers nothing. It's just free money. Everyone wins! Except for the gamer, of course, but they're probably filthy thieves anyway.
Still seem hard to believe?
Mathematicians stand on each other's shoulders. -- Gauss
