Another cnet article bashing apple

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



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


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.
Click to expand...

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! ;)
 
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
 
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
 
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."
 
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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...
 
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...
 
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...
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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".
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
 
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
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.)
Click to expand...

For the rest of the article, go here and scroll to the last article on the page...
 
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. :)
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top