Another cnet article bashing apple - Page 3

diablojota · #17 January 13th, 2004, 05:39 AM

Well, I just think these C|Net folks are just a little jealous that their Intel owners are yet to be able to compete with Apple's superiority in the 64-bit computing arena. Apple is in quite a good position now that they've released the new Xserves with the G5 in 'em.

Satcomer · #18 January 13th, 2004, 10:50 AM

By the way, who made C|Net is end all of be all in technology? They are constantly getting facts wrong. I wouldn't be surprised if that site is on it's last legs as a web company. C|Net writes these stories bad mouthing Apple at every chance so they can have a click magnet so C|Net can show inflated web traffic to attract web advertisers. The Apple bashing is the last gasp of a dying web news company.

Viro · #19 January 13th, 2004, 12:38 PM

With Apple's XGrid technology, it becomes very easy to set up your own cluster of computers. The article even mentions this.

So yeah, while it would be traditionally difficult to install and setup a cluster of nodes to make a super computer, XGrid does make that job a lot simpler. Thus I'm not sure what the author is alluding to by these 'hidden' costs. The example he gives of carting 19 tonnes of computer parts is basically manual labour. Add that to just setting up a the computers.

Seriously, how much is that even going to cost? This CNet author needs to get his head examined.

superfula · #20 January 13th, 2004, 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pjeski

Uh, the article mentioned "hundreds of volunteer hours". But let's give it two man-years (4000 hours), and I'll pay them $100 an hour. That is still only $400,000 (500 - 600K with benefits), pretty paltry compared to the 5.2 million the hardware cost.

I guarantee you Dell, HP, Cray, etc charge quite a bit more than 100 dollars per hour to put together a super computer, and then to test it out extensively, etc.

**btoneill** · #21 January 13th, 2004, 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Viro

With Apple's XGrid technology, it becomes very easy to set up your own cluster of computers. The article even mentions this.

So yeah, while it would be traditionally difficult to install and setup a cluster of nodes to make a super computer, XGrid does make that job a lot simpler. Thus I'm not sure what the author is alluding to by these 'hidden' costs. The example he gives of carting 19 tonnes of computer parts is basically manual labour. Add that to just setting up a the computers.

XGrid makes making small clusters simple. XGrid is not usable for a cluster that has 100 different nodes, let alone 1,000 nodes. Clustering technology doesn't scale very well, what works for 5 hosts won't work for 500, different technologies are used.

This is not even to mention the environmental factors. IMHO what they did at VaTech for facilities is just as impressive, it not more so, then the cluster itself. They basically designed the data center to be one huge fridge cooled with copper piping. Powering, wiring, cooling, etc is a huge cost. Datacenter design is a very challanging area when you start getting into large scales.

Also, they did more then just have volunteers putting togeather machines, they had companies writing drivers specifically for them. They weren't paying to have custom drivers written, the were being done because the company that has the hardware was sponsoring it, and they got their payment in free PR.

Brian

rubicon · #22 January 14th, 2004, 12:46 AM

In a better light, CNET has a story of six people who comment on their three favorite technology devices. 5 out of the 6 listed their iBook or PowerBook as one of the three. Only one PC laptop was mentioned.

Crobot · #23 January 14th, 2004, 03:22 PM

Quote:

It cost $5.2 million to buy the Virginia Tech gear, but that figure doesn't include what the school says were "hundreds of volunteered hours of Virginia Tech faculty, staff and students to help set up the 19.25 tons of computers, routers and other equipment."

Does it say anywhere that the $350 million spent for the #1 computer, or that the $215 million spent on the #2 computer includes the cost of facilities, labor hours, and installation costs? Anyone know?

pjeski · #24 January 14th, 2004, 08:01 PM

They might charge more than that (and I doubt it), but they don't pay more than that. $100/hr is $200K/yr. Pretty high paying for an IT job.

Quote:

Originally Posted by superfula

I guarantee you Dell, HP, Cray, etc charge quite a bit more than 100 dollars per hour to put together a super computer, and then to test it out extensively, etc.