# Another cnet article bashing apple



## Fahrvergnuugen (Jan 12, 2004)

http://news.com.com/2001-7339_3-0.html?tag=nefd_gutspro#behind



> Find out why Apple's supercomputing dreams will probably remain just that.



how is it just a dream when there is an apple based system at #3?   


Is it me? Or do some of the editors at cnet really have a problem with apple. They're always bashing them in one way or another in my opinion.


----------



## malexgreen (Jan 12, 2004)

Fahrvergnuugen said:
			
		

> http://news.com.com/2001-7339_3-0.html?tag=nefd_gutspro#behind
> 
> 
> 
> ...



His bias is clear. Also the cost ratio of the top 2 compared to the Big Mac are 10:1, so even if they paid the students this would not justify the large price differential. And he kind of contradicts himself or makes another good point for the Big Mac:

Even though other companies are spending more to use RLX, Dell, HP, and Sun they STILL were NOT in the top 3!


----------



## btoneill (Jan 12, 2004)

The article is right on the money. Most supercomputers are not custom designs such as the top 10, the other 490 on the list are standard models sold by IBM/Sun/HP/Cray/SGI. Apple will not be offering a  $2.6M computer off the shelf. You can go to http://store.sun.com and order a $2.6M computer, which is not even maxed out. Apple will never be competeing on this level, nor do I believe they should.

It's a pretty feather in Apple's cap that their is a computer in the top 3 that was built from their hardware, but it's just that. The facilities alone to handle what VaTech did is far beyond what most supercomputer users are able to get.

Brian


----------



## Fahrvergnuugen (Jan 12, 2004)

I can't say I totally agree with you.
Clustering is a valid way to build a supercomputer. No apple will never build a single machine that costs ridiculous amounts of money... the idea is ludicrous when you consider that you can take a bunch of cheap nodes and build one thats faster. In theory, if Virginia Tech had 3 times the budget, they could have bought 3 times as much hardware and thus been #1 on the list, and it STILL would have been a fraction of the price of its competitors. My point is, you get a lot more bang for your buck with nodes, regardless of who makes it.

I think the days of "custom designed" supercomputers, like Cray and Sun will come to an end because of advances in clustering technology. I'm not saying that Apple in particular is any threat at all to supercomputer manufacturers, I just think we're going to see a change in the way your standard supercomputer is constructed.

Just for kicks 
http://darklotus.dyndns.org/temp/applestore_G5_node.pdf


----------



## fryke (Jan 12, 2004)

Well, however you look at it, the journalist just seems 'pi*** o**' with the fact that Apple made it to the top 10, and at number 3. It's quite a short article, and it basically says nothing but: "I whine if I want to about Apple."


----------



## btoneill (Jan 12, 2004)

Fahrvergnuugen said:
			
		

> I
> I think the days of "custom designed" supercomputers, like Cray and Sun will come to an end because of advances in clustering technology. I'm not saying that Apple in particular is any threat at all to supercomputer manufacturers, I just think we're going to see a change in the way your standard supercomputer is constructed.



Not for corporations. You can buy a 100 processor Sun box, that is one single server, running one single OS image, with one single shared memory segment. You can take any multithreaded application and it will run using as many processors as threads that the application will run, using as much memory as the application can use. In order to use a cluster, you have to write your software to work with a cluster API which enables it to run on different nodes, but it can be very difficult to change existing applications to use a cluster API, as the processing model is completely different. Not to mention issues with shared storage with clusters. It's easy to take a 100 processor Sun box, stick Oracle on it, and a big honking storage array, and you can take advantage of it. Try doing that with a cluster of 100 different boxes.

Clustered supercomputers have a very limited use, mainly for scientific calculations. When it comes to things like real time applications, their use goes down significantly without very specialized applications, and having the staff to write and administer them.

Brian


----------



## superfula (Jan 12, 2004)

No it's a very valid arguement.  I whole heartedly disagree that custom designed supercomputers are coming to an end.  The only reason VT was able to do it so cheaply was because of numerous hours of volunteer help.  Businesses would be forced to pay people a large some of money that schools can do for free.  Node supercomputers are great for some areas, but custom designed supercomputers are still the best cost-effective way.


----------



## Dominyo (Jan 12, 2004)

superfula said:
			
		

> No it's a very valid arguement.  I whole heartedly disagree that custom designed supercomputers are coming to an end.  The only reason VT was able to do it so cheaply was because of numerous hours of volunteer help.  Businesses would be forced to pay people a large some of money that schools can do for free.  Node supercomputers are great for some areas, but custom designed supercomputers are still the best cost-effective way.



Even if VT had had to pay all those helping set up the suprcomputer, it would have still turned out to be significantly cheaper than a custom supercomputer of similar power...


----------



## octane (Jan 12, 2004)

This recent article not withstanding, C|net are -- by and large -- anti-Apple.

For every new high for Apple, they dredge for an old low.

I think the point is, they liked the idea of the old Apple; pre OS X / G5. Now this new Apple is out there an in their face, they have to work all the harder to justify their unfounded bias to their editors.

On a lighter and related note, read here...


----------



## superfula (Jan 12, 2004)

Dominyo said:
			
		

> Even if VT had had to pay all those helping set up the suprcomputer, it would have still turned out to be significantly cheaper than a custom supercomputer of similar power...



Prove it.  Do you realize how much people get paid JUST to put supercomputers together?  I'd wager a guess that it's quite a bit more than 50 dollars an hour, since that's what people get just to fix a personal computer here in town.


----------



## superfula (Jan 12, 2004)

Cnet actually does a good job of staying neutral when it comes to Apple.  I've read the same amount of pro-Apple articles as anti-Apple articles.  That's what happens when a news site isn't totally devoted to Apple.  Not everyone likes what Apple does, which I expect.  Seeing both sides of the deal is what good jounalism is.  I'd be pretty anti-Cnet if they professed to be middle of the road, yet only published pro-Apple articles.


----------



## Dominyo (Jan 12, 2004)

I'd like to point out that clustered systems are the most common architecture on the Top 500 supercomputer list, and the majority of those systems were probably not installed by volunteers.


----------



## superfula (Jan 12, 2004)

I'm not sure what that has anything to do with this.  ALL of the top 500 are cluster systems of some sort.  The majority of those aren't technically clusters, but they are essentially "super clusters".


----------



## symphonix (Jan 12, 2004)

If the #3 system had been made by another company for the same money and under the same circumstances, would the article have read with the same deriding tone? Somehow, I doubt it.


----------



## pjeski (Jan 12, 2004)

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.





			
				superfula said:
			
		

> Prove it.  Do you realize how much people get paid JUST to put supercomputers together?  I'd wager a guess that it's quite a bit more than 50 dollars an hour, since that's what people get just to fix a personal computer here in town.


----------



## MDLarson (Jan 12, 2004)

I've read enough positive Apple hardware reviews on C|Net to feel good about them overall.


----------



## btoneill (Jan 12, 2004)

Dominyo said:
			
		

> I'd like to point out that clustered systems are the most common architecture on the Top 500 supercomputer list, and the majority of those systems were probably not installed by volunteers.



There are alot of clusters on the list, but there are alot of non-clustered boxes, for instance the SGI Origin 3000 can have up to 1,000 processors in a shared emory environment. 30 of the top 500 are Origin 3000's. Of the top 500, 165 are MPP servers (distributed memory multiprocessors).  127 of the top 500 are listed as being constellations, which is probably most simply described as a combination of MPP and clusters. So, while there are 208 clustered boxes, there are more non-clustered boxes then clusters. When it comes down to self-made boxes, there are a grand total of 22. The other 186 clusters were built by the likes of HP/SGI/Sun/IBM/NEC/Intel and delievered as complete units.

Brian


----------



## octane (Jan 13, 2004)

For all those who think C|net is the embodiment of impartiality:



> Still marveling at the accomplishment that is Virginia Tech's "Big Mac" G5-powered supercomputer, despite CNET's feeble attempts to downplay its significance? (Gee, does anyone know if Intel still owns a chunk of CNET? That's a totally unrelated question, of course.)



For the rest of the article, go here and scroll to the last article on the page...


----------



## diablojota (Jan 13, 2004)

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 (Jan 13, 2004)

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 (Jan 13, 2004)

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 (Jan 13, 2004)

pjeski said:
			
		

> 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 (Jan 13, 2004)

Viro said:
			
		

> 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 (Jan 13, 2004)

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 (Jan 14, 2004)

> 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 (Jan 14, 2004)

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. 




			
				superfula said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## kerrazyjoe (Jan 15, 2004)

I am pleased that VT was able to put together this cluster, and that it was ranked very high and that the published price was significantly lower than others.  I am impressed that the G5 was even capable of being clustered this way.  However, I do not feel that this is a marketable solution by Apple - In fact I do not think Apple will market this type of setup.  Apple will acknowledge it is possible though - and they should - It says so much about the individual machine and its platform.  Apple's xgrid is at least interesting - 'clustering for the rest of us' I suppose.


----------



## octane (Jan 15, 2004)

kerrazyjoe said:
			
		

> In fact I do not think Apple will market this type of setup.



You're right! The same way Apple have been underselling the Xserve.

I think Apple have been cautious because they wanted to see the reaction first. Imagine that Apple had a list of companies that would have bought the Xserve come what may. Now you have a test bed for a new system.

Once these people are happy with the system, they're familiar with the setup and Apple have ironed out the bugs over for the second year, _then_ Apple start to market the Xserve -- which is what they're doing, now.

Why go striding into a completely new market shouting the odds and parading the new system and have it fall to bits the moment it's switched on?



			
				kerrazyjoe said:
			
		

> Apple will acknowledge it is possible though - and they should - It says so much about the individual machine and its platform.  Apple's xgrid is at least interesting - 'clustering for the rest of us' I suppose.



Apparently, Apple would be quite happy to use the Big Mac as a template for other customers. But Apple really wouldn't go putting good marketing dollars into a market that is highly exclusive.

The wise money is on Apple just saying: 'Hey! That was cool. We'll sell you the system, the cabling and send down a couple of guys to put it all together, but just don't go expecting the next Apple News to be offering a built-to-order terrflop cluster at the Apple Store...'


----------



## lilbandit (Jan 15, 2004)

Good counter argument http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/4194


----------



## diablojota (Jan 16, 2004)

lilbandit said:
			
		

> Good counter argument http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/4194



Fantastic article.  It is always good to see people respond in a well written form.  He doesn't bash C|Net, but just explains where they made their mistakes.  Very nice read, and very informative.
Nice find lilbandit.


----------



## octane (Jan 16, 2004)

We're not alone, guys:



> A week or so ago, C|Net posted an editorial about the System X Supercomputer. The Editorial itself is full of fear, uncertainty and doubt, and smacks of someone who clearly has an agenda and hasn't done their research. Fear not, today Alan Graham takes them to task correcting all sorts of general falsifications on the part of C|Net. What's the moral to this story? Do your research. Write what's true.



For the article, go to MacSlash and scroll down a bit...


----------



## Satcomer (Jan 16, 2004)

octane: That was a great article. Mr. Graham was right on with his analysis.  He tore c|net a new one with the facts.   This article should be shown on all the Macintosh news sites.


----------



## octane (Jan 23, 2004)

Could this be C|Net extending an olive branch of piece to the disgruntled Macolites who tore a strip off them recently? Or just good, impartial coverage?


----------

