Knights Reborn

every1 has preconcieved ideas bout apple now from ther old products, apple is wiked good now, the came round 180*

i went to their site in graphic design this morning cuz i had no other work to do in that class, and i checked out their new power mac. it can hold up to 8 friggin processors!! who the hell are these ppl? who needs 8 processors and 3 TB of data storage. i built one for fun with all upgrades, it was 22,000 dollars (yes, 3 zeros!!) which is more than my moms car. again, who would need that? and moreover, who would need that for mac, cuz a PC would fit right in there cuz they can do pretty much anything, but a mac? i wonder how many 20 thousand dollar ocmputers theyve sold so far....

EDIT: apple told me my problem, i am not allowed to use the resource disks to install mac os x on my machine, however, i can get 10.3 for about 10 bucks, so that clears that up...

probably a server.

you can get servers up to 32/64 processors etc like data centers
.
Unless of course your mistaken with core pprocessors whcih intel are making 8 and next year 16 core processors for both Mac and PC..

yea, im def gunna need that 16 core processor when it comes out :p

no, it was a personal conputer, ment for home use, its like, not normal.

no, they are used for those people who do graphic design from their home. they need al that storage. it could also be used for large movie studios for video editing.

well, i put on Xp yesterdy, so far no problems, its running fine(just takes up allot of HDD) the trackpad is kinda wierd on it but that bout it

it would be a total waste

there is nothing that would work or use any of that hardware level

are you sure it wasnt a server? the difference between a server and a personal computer is very fine indeed except its role and some software issues.

16 cores etc all well and good but 16 or 4 or 2... whats the difference you gonna see? at the minute .. nothing as there is no software to hardly take any advantage of it..

as a server however the space makes sense Id assume it would be raided of some type for fault tolerance

the processors can load balance multi requests especially if its running a large DB.

you could use it for rendering, folding@home, burning huge amounts of files, editing images, and compiling a hd-dvd and blue ray disk all at the same time. there is an option in the configuration where you can get the mac server for it, but the server would still be running os x.

or OS X server edition

but all those you mentioned you would stil be mostly redundant on the other processors.. software has yet been written to take advantage of multi threads. Some can do dual core and processors but the gets more exacerbated by the more cores and processors..

right, but you could do them all at once. and why would you pay 22,00 for anything but like a car or a house. besisdes for a server i'd rather use linux. apple's server is $999 for unlimited users, ubuntu server is free .

FlapJack23 wrote:right, but you could do them all at once. and why would you pay 22,00 for anything but like a car or a house. besisdes for a server i'd rather use linux. apple's server is $999 for unlimited users, ubuntu server is free .

Along with the other 100's of linux distributions.

doing them all at once still wouldnt make the difference

as for server well it depends what you wanna do.

For a cheap free home server yes id go Linux.

for business I would definateely go Windows server and all their software solutions. Eveything on that side seems very much alone in competition.
My Partners dad works amongst a massive IT squad they all ditched Linus servers especially Linux mail servers, saying they are just so troublesome and well they do not communicate consistantly etc..

For the large organisation definateley you'd wanna look at exchange as that integrates in Active directory and Global catalogue flawlessley. making Centralized management and a key single point of business management.

the 22,000 which in my money is um around £12,000. Well large business servers can cost alot of money.. Apple of course in general would cost alot more.. but large business servers well you can get them for like $2000 up to $well as you say 22,000 or 12,000 would be kinda average for a LARGE WIndows server ..

But well these are capable of serving services for large very learge application and databases which could span to multiple network domains all over the world (obviously as long as you have the WAN infastructure). It may even be able to roll out , deploy and install updates and required software packages on all the client machines around the world as and when they log on.. In thoery that last thing is something which would be a slow process so you would want to manage that better by local distribution.

i read an article on this new mac and it sed that 10.4 tiger is not yet a sufficiant software to be able to handle 8 processors. therefor, buying the power mac with 4 processors instead will still give the same amount of speed and working capabilities. so until 10.5 leopard comes out (which is a 64 bit OS too) the 8 processors is just going to be a financial liability

but apps are not really yet designed to work in 64bit or multi processors yesterday.. its not the hardwares fault its just the software design have not caught up with it.. and to be honest the hardware movement is moving at a pace which is difficult for developers to constantly keep adjusting to.

wow this is getting a bit... deep.

by the way you sure you mean 8 cores not 8 processors.

Chantelle wrote:but apps are not really yet designed to work in 64bit or multi processors yesterday.. its not the hardwares fault its just the software design have not caught up with it.. and to be honest the hardware movement is moving at a pace which is difficult for developers to constantly keep adjusting to.

yes thats wut i tried to say, gess it didnt come out that way, urs is a better explanation

mel: yes, 8 cores. 2, 4 core processors.

well before you rush out and buy one why not buy a HP very high end server

http://h20341.www2.hp.com/integrity/cac ... 0-121.html

that 128 processor cores and 2 Tera Bytes (2048 GBs) of Ram should come in use 76GB Cache ! :-s

absolutley mental

It does not say price but im guessing your gonan be looking at least $50k

Doesn't mention Storage, Id imagine you woudl have either a seperate RAID Cadeé or SAN in that case..

anyway this is all too geeky on my part sorry

uve gotta be kidding me, thats a computer built to run the world...a computer that would make bill gates shit himself and jump out a window....how many drivers would u need to use that thing...wow....

Chantelle wrote:well before you rush out and buy one why not buy a HP very high end server

http://h20341.www2.hp.com/integrity/cac ... 0-121.html

that 128 processor cores and 2 Tera Bytes (2048 GBs) of Ram should come in use 76GB Cache ! :-s

absolutley mental

It does not say price but im guessing your gonan be looking at least $50k

Doesn't mention Storage, Id imagine you woudl have either a seperate RAID Cadeé or SAN in that case..

anyway this is all too geeky on my part sorry

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

thats not a nice lil home comp for the family, thats like....a comp god.....who the hell whould spend that much money and use what for it?

Well its a server thats why, in theory yes a computer and a server are similar exept role and a few hardware things which would be more geared towards carrying out its role best.. also the sever software / tools.

I mean yes this is an extreme case its only what that server type can have as max capacity of the hardware and probabaly Windows server Datacenter 2003.


But Large enterprises will have massive servers like that cliustered (meaning if one has a failure there will be a few balancing between it to fail over).

Say a large international bank may have these and offices and such can access these massive databases all over the world. Or processing massess and masses of data and information. But thats the beauty of the technology world we live in..

I Could easily fly across the Atlantic to you in USA and use a computer or my laptop get wi fi get online and authenticate myself and log onto work and manage the servers there or access the databses and such.

Its hard to explain in lehmans terms but you have to try to put it in perspective that as a server it may be accessed and have like 70,000 people using it at once in somee enterprise situations.

yeah I get it but I still don't see why you would pay that much when you could probably get a better server for much much less. you could even use a free server os which would save you loads.

free os as in linux?

those servers do come with linux and for software do be able to support that kind of trnasport you will need to get a real licence which will cost you that coudl also mean linux, and server licenes are often quoted on connection rather than server itself.

also linux servers .. well to be honest not really good for that sort of thing, MS for all their flaws do exceedingly well in the business market and there are not many at all who compete with there enterprise and business solutions.

how exactly could you get a much better server for much less? i mean the server licence is hardly something to orry about if your paying for 64 processors and 2 Terabytes of RAM just for one box,

and inside that you'd have 4 maybe 6 or 8 PSUs and then link that up to a UPS which are very expensive.

This is obviously for very large enterprise multi national global business front end servers.

If you need a server to fill such a role especially a front end server for a database or exchange mailboxes its gonna need to be able to have much raw power and communicate with the back end servers likeley to have teh storage on..

a cheap linux server isnt going to server wouldnt do that job at all whne you may have 70,000 people trying to access there emails from around the world.

"easy on the budget too"

I just think it is pretty crazy to charge $999 for unlimited users or "just" $499 for 10 users.and if you had 70,000 users connecting at once wouldn't it be better to share the workload between a few rack mounted servers?

yes , you would do that anyway for redudnancy and load balance


I mean the server spec is obviously for extreme cases.

But you would have in large enterprise cases.. it could be say your ISP? how many people on your ISP? the local servers or such or teh mail servers

you would have a bunch of huge powerhouse servers at the front end of thier network on the perimeter onto the internet ususally in a protected permiter zone called DMZ. this then rocesses all the requests and simply pulls information for your mail box off the back end servers which will cluster large mailbox storages. back end servers have lesser need to be raw power yet more with incredible ram and drive storgae usually on massive RAID arrays probabaly RAID 5+0 or RAID 5+1

you need to balance the power to power the requests of everything and process and load balance such hardcore as well as provide uniterupted usage in case of failure at that level.