Slashdot Mirror
Cheap PPC Linux Machines From IBM
ksheff writes "According to this story, IBM is planning on introducing low-end SMP servers and deskside machines based on the PPC970. The machines would be able to run Linux and AIX. A 4-way machine is expected to cost less than $3500! IBM expects a 20x increase in the number of PPC Linux servers by 2006."
A 4-way machine is expected to cost less than $3500! IBM expects a 20x increase in the number of PPC Linux servers by 2006."
With those sorts of prices, they're going to get it, too! The cheapest Itanium 2 system money can buy (HP zx2000) costs $3500, more or less, and would run like a dog compared to e.g. a 4-way 1.6GHz PPC970 system.
Looks like Intel's competition is going to be coming more and more from IBM, not AMD...
I'd rather spend $3000 and get a dual 2Ghz PPC970 in two months rather than waiting for the IBM that probably won't even run Panther.
Quad proc OSX in MOL on IBM? Sounds tasty to me!
I wonder if this will push Apple to stick a couple more chips in the Power Macs? Maybe IBM's plan was to put together a cheap system to get Apple to buy more chips from them.
It would be interesting to see how they compare with the PowerMac. With a 4 way system that costs only $500 more then apple's two ways this could provide some good competition for in the scientific/heavy compute PPC niche. Maybe this will show the way for 4 way xservs/highend workstations from apple.
Could IBM pose a challenge to Apple in the notebook market with PPC-driven machines? Since the new PPC chip runs cooler while drawing less power, it might fit the bill. Perhaps someone more familiar with PPC architecture could discuss the technical viability of such a beast.
As for economic/consumer viability, right now nearly all the software I use is source-available (currently through Gentoo, on my Compaq Intel notebook). Nevertheless, iin the future, if I need to use pre-compiled, 3rd party software like Mathematica, IDL, etc. PPC+Linux might prove to be too small a market even with IBM's backing -- vendor "lock-out."
The memory bus speeds seemingly leave Intel in the dust. Pair those chips with a nice SATA RAID storage solution and a really fast PCI bus and those should be some seriously fast machines. Do they have linux working on the G5 yet?
I had it running fine on my G4 PPC with Gentoo Linux/PPC, which was running MOL (Mac-On-Linux) with Classic, where I had Virtual PC with RH Linux/x86.
By the way, it wasn't that slow as you think. Just a bit... useless? Why would I need x86 binaries if for all functinality of a server I need I have sources to compile?
Less is more !
Well I feel that Macosx is a great OS for people that dont really use computers, but for anything else, its way way way to bloated.. A nice Linux install on a G5 would really make a nice box.
I own a Ibook, I know it only has a g3 900mhz cpu, but Linux FLYS on it, while macosx just rotates its little blue beach ball at me. In Linux I can open Mozilla, gimp 1.3, all my favorite apps, and its going to work, and not be slow. WHile in Macosx it just feels like a dog. Now on a G5 you wouldnt see that type of slow down, because macosx finally has enough power to run smoothly... But I can still bet Linux (once IBM is done with it) will be far faster than macosx......
keanmarine.com
OS X/Darwin is entirely optimized for ppc and is developed entirely towards that end. ppc Linux is a port from something else (albeit a good one)
NextStep was originally written for the 68k, thence ported to SPARC, x86, and PA-RISC. So PPC was the fifth architecture the basic underlying system has been ported to. So if you don't like ports, you had better throw away your Mac and switch to Windows now (oh wait sorry...the NT kernel was actually developed for the i860 first).
And remember, Linux will be a native, fully supported OS for these machines alongside AIX -- the firmware will be designed to boot Linux, and all the hardware will be fully supported.
"(Man) tries to live his own life as if he were telling a story. But you have to choose: live or tell." --Sartre
Linux could be like apple, but its not, Linux has a million different ways of doing one thing. People might call this reinventing the wheel, but its always good to have another option. Yes I do agree that some options seem to be kinda pointless, but Im sure to others it might not be. Like for example, Xwindows can do alot of neat things, but to a normal user those things are not needed. Apple basicly says, okay, for this to be the perfect desktop, a normal user doesnt need this feature, or this or this, and they make a easy way of doing something. While in linux, there is no super company controling what your desktop looks like. Have you ever seen two linux screenshots look identical? I havent. Its even hard to tell people what the feel of linux is because it changes so much depending on what Desktop enviroment your in. and dont even get me going about Window Mangers. WHile with Macosx, you cant change or modifiy how things work, Apple says, this is the way it works, if you dont like it, TUFF. Look at any screenshot of a Mac nowadays, they all have the same look / feel. The dock is either on the bottem, right or left side, full of icons, the top has the classic apple bar that controls everything. And the only way you can really change the way everything looks is to change your background..... In linux I can change the way the buttons look, I can change the themes of the windowmanager, I have complete control over the computer. While In macosx I feel like I am restricted and I get very bored. In linux, if it doesnt work the way I want it, I force it to work the way I want....
Dont get me wrong, Macosx is an awesome OS, but until it gives me alittle more flexablity, I wont be able to use it...
keanmarine.com
What's really important is if we see IBM release a real compiler for the 970. gcc is a complete joke on PPC.
- Adam L. Beberg - The Cosm Project - http://www.mithral.com/
How can you compair a Athlon to a G5?
Pretty easily. 32 bit CPUs can run 64 bit code just fine, they just need to split the operations in two. But most programs hardly ever use 64-bit ints, so it's not really a big deal. Its entirely possible for a fast 32bit machine to beat a slower 64 bit machine for lots of purposes.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Soong sez:Ummm....well then (from the article):Yah. RTFA.
IBM developed the chip, which means they developed a mobo along with it for testing. Apple had to make their own design, and they had to make it look good, and be quiet, home-friendly, and stylish. IBM gets to stamp out big ugly boxes, because really, unless you're talking about a secretary, no one in the office ever says "That is a nice lookin' rack!"
This leads me to believe the 2U model will be priced even lower. No mention is made, however, about clock speeds, although I'm, sure IBM will make nice fast ones avalible, a $3500 base configuration for the 4U probably means four-way 1GHz. Why would the fastest chips come in the base model?
All in all, however, these will be nice machines, and if you've ever wanted to escape the x86 world, PPC is a nice place to do it (speaking from experience). They are slightly ahead of Apple's current offerings, however IBM has the advantage there, the 970 being their own.
And if you want to run Mac OS X, you'll be disapointed.
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
The last time IBM tried "low-cost" PowerPC boxes they sold like 150 of them. Seriously.
But map in the entire database store into one process, a 32bit processor never will (unless your database is small, then multiway or 64 bit is useless anyway).
64bit math is actually not the draw of 64bits, it's all about the mapping capabilities.
TurboD
Come on moderator. Explain why I'm wrong instead of slapping me with a mod point
:>
...
i would guess that you are punished for talking about things you really don't know.
You probably pay 3-6 times what you'd normally pay for NICS and GFX cards. Apple does this all the time.
But you only need one nic and one card, and they will propably come bundled with the machine
2: SMP's nice. So is PPC. But how much will you actually save if you went to this versus a new 1 or 2 Athlon setup?
If you count the administrative costs i could buy not one but two 4way 970's, costing more than 8k, versus 4 beowulf athlons costing below 2k and still break even in a month. And i would have an identical machine for backup.
3...I can go to WalMart, or ripoff computer store and buy parts I need now... Not a good idea.
Go to walmart to buy parts for your server? Now that's a good idea
4: In my statement about Beowulf beating this, What's the cost/performance of 4 Athlon 1.5GHz with 1 gig of ram each (on 100MBps) versus one of these? I bet the name of "server" raises that cost atleast 1000$.
A 4way intel machine will cost far more though. More than $10K. These machines *will* be a huge success whether intel or not. You cannot address everything with beowulf you know...
Come on, a 4u 64bit under $5k? This is the dream of every fortran programmer i know, it is the perfect terminal server, the perfect development machine etc. Oh, and no one can come to you with a "why don't we use win2k3 here?" line.
What about power consumption issues?
huh? what about them? 970's need less power than most mobile chips. Where did you see that g5 "goble power faster than athlons"??? this is most definetely wrong.
Washington bullets will simply be known as the "Bulle
I am a Linux user first and foremost... but the thing is, no matter HOW much time I put into customizing things, I can not make a Linux desktop as clean and easy to use as a Mac OS X desktop.
It's not just that having Only One Way To Do Things (tm) makes the easy desktop experience, but it's the fact that the One Way is thoroughly thought-out and streamlined. In Linux, we have tons of disparate pieces to put together in countless concatenations... but in the end, what we unavoidably get is an unstreamlined construct of disparate pieces.
I understand the appeal of customizing, and I do think Mac OS X could stand to allow a little more customizing without sacrificing the benefits of the OS. Linux will remain dominant on my PC desktop, and it will be dual-booted on my soon-to-be-purchased PowerBook, but the main reason I am getting the PowerBook is for Mac OS X and its ability to stay out of the way. The best OS is the one that interferes with my work the least. Mac OS X does that. Linux, when configured and tweaked to my liking and all that, does a good job by way of being stable and such, but some of those disparate pieces irritate. (Windows, of course, constantly interferes by being unstable and generally a source of irritation).
Ideally, I'd like to see Linux meet OS X halfway. Choice is good, but not when the choices are 15 different mediocre options. Can't we get 4 really good ones instead?
That's bull. Mac OS X only helps "just getting work done" if you're functionally computer illiterate.
Hmm. Consider this. What if each car was entirely different (like Linux boxen can be). Let's say there are NO standards. Gas pedal could be on the left or right. There could be a gas BUTTON on the steering wheel. Breaks could likewise be accessable via a lever. And that's assuming that you keep the same rough configuration (that is, driver sits on the left side [in the US]). Just imagine if every car you ever had to drive was radically different. THat's what Linux is like.
1) Focus-follows-mouse, always shunned by non-Unix systems and now even by Unix systems (OS X, GNOME) saves endless point-and-click strokes (find titlebar, click to focus)
Since when do you have to click the title bar of an app to focus to it? And since when has there not been a laucher/dock/etc (first one I used was in OS/2 however I'm sure they were around before that)
2) Fast cut/paste. Here again, the reviled behavior of X (highlight with left button, move to another window that focuses automatically, middle click where you want it to paste) saves incredible amounts of time versus the OS X or Windows behaviors (highlight with left button, hit CTRL-C, click on titlebar of destination window, click where you want to place cursor for paste, hit CTRL-V). The combination of focus-follows-mouse and keystroke-free copy/paste here again saves hours, not just minutes, when performing reptitious tasks.
It may save hours for you--but shouldn't the interface be irrelevant unless you're computer illiterature (your words, not mine). Personally, I get terribly frustrated when I'm trying to paste over something and end up accidentally clearing my clipboard buffer in oldschool X. I prefer windows/mac style (I have mice button bound to copy/paste actually--doesn't work NEARLY as well in X because of the issue I just cited).
6) Scriptability/rapid application development. Yes, the dreaded command line shell. Many of my most intense post-production tasks (i.e. laying out posters with their captions, borders, copyright notices, anti-aliasing, interpolating to proper sizes, etc.) are database driven and processed through command line tools like ImageMagick. etc etc
I'm not an AppleScript pro by anymeans, but from what I know, AppleScript is the exact functional equivalent of traditional unix style scripting tools. There's a macro recorder for one thing which is a GREAT feature that unixes have no equivalent too. In addition AppleScript can be used to control any applicationsm, to an incredible degree. I've worked in DTP, try searching for Quark AppleSCripts--the things some of them can do are AMAZING, IThink you'd be surprised. I hope that's not too techno-spiritual for you ;)
Just to be clear--don't get me wrong, I'm very glad you like Linux. But I don't think most people even WANT the kind of control and variability that you need. It's all great for people like you and I, who hang out and slashdot and do this stuff for fun, to talk about the user experience, but from my work experiences, most of the people who use computers don't care about how they work--they just want them to be easy to use and to not break :p I'm sure you've seen a user befuddled when something changes slightly. One graphic designer I was helping recover email for last week couldn't figure out how to get into her netscale email because some of her settings had gotten trashed and the "mail" button (along with Composer, NAvigator on that little floating bar) were at the bottom of the screen instead of floating to the side where they had been..I had to show exactly where to click. To most people, computers are a tool and nothing more. Like I said earlier, can you imagine if all cars interior controls etc were totally designed by the whim of the moment?
The 64bit offerings from AMD look more compelling to me: they give you comparable performance, cost less, and are fully backwards compatible with existing x86 software. You can already buy high-end dual-processor systems, and the desktop versions are going to be out later this year. If you are going to run Linux, they seem like a better choice.
I do wish that non-x86 platforms, like PPC, would become more widely used so that the Penguin's eggs aren't all in one basket, but realistically, I don't see it happening. Linux runs quite well on PPC, but some things just don't work: some compilers and JITs don't have a PPC backend, the AltiVec macros screw up some compilation, etc. But it's nice that IBM is trying; maybe if the get really aggressive on the pricing, they will make some inroads. $3500 for a 4x machine might do it, although AMD will do 4x as well at a reasonable price.
Although I happen to be using OSX as I write this, and I really do like the system (and I'm not computer illiterate by a long shot) I tend to agree with most of what you say. The same things you talk about in X I miss on my Mac. It is quite annoying in many ways.
But, in my current job, I simply must use SPSS which is only available for Windows or Mac. So that was my choice. Given that choice, Mac is the clear favourite.
As other posters have pointed out, it does have a quite functional command line, and it does have X available to run inside of Aqua. Sadly the latter is slow as a dog, and you can't just ditch the hideous Aqua WM and run everything inside something decent like WindowMaker yet, but hey, look at the alternative.
Write me a fully compatible SPSS clone for linux, and I'll wipe OSX and install Gentoo/PPC in a heartbeat. Until then, I'm just glad I don't have to run XP on my beautiful little laptop.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
The GCC community was contacted by an IBM
representative last Thursday with a plan
for adding automatic vectorisation to
the GCC "middle" end (i.e., the machine
independent optimization passes).
Toon Moene, current GNU Fortran maintainer.
I work for a company that has IBM doing the support for our Netfinity and eServer server systems in the field.
In short, their support is atrocious. Their techs are awful and their parts have some of the worst build quality I've ever seen. The techs are constantly calling US about hardware issues. They come and go like crazy because IBM hires and fires them without a second thought.
Maybe the PPC970 hardware situation would be different. Maybe it's a different division. But I dunno if I'd count on it.
FYI.
+++ATH0
According to http://www.hardmac.com/niouzcontenu.php?date=2003- 07-17#198
:
"We have demonstrated yesterday that Panther can support n processors, and really large amount of RAM.
Several different sources have confirmed the circulating rumor that we already had received in the past
Apple and IBM could be associated to developp and manufacture computer with n processors, where n could go til 64 G5! The project is internally named "Dark Star".
Each processor will have 4 memory slots, for a maximum allocated RAM of 16GB (when the 4 GB RAM modules). The 64 processors-based configuration will support up to 1 TB of RAM.
It will be possible to install in those computer many ATI graphic cards, and to use them in paralell, in order to allow a very high quality rendering.
Prototypes based on 8, 16, 32 and 64 processors are already working fine.
those machines will be available with an enclosure similar that to the G5' one.
The pre-production should start next month, but the availability should only be at the end of the year together with Panther Server.
Price will vary from 12 000 $ for the 8 CPUs version to 50 0000 $ for the top version including all the optionis.
Some people will probably consider this as a risky project. However, it seems that Apple and IBM could have already pre-sell some of those machines to prioritized clients, such as:
- Industrial Light and Magic
- Raytheon
- General Dynamics
- Genentech
- Amgen
- Pixar
- NASA
There are other names such as large american administrations."
I run Photoshop in KDE when I have to do Photoshop work. See http://www.codeweavers.com. It works very well, thanks. I don't need a lot of the applications you mentioned, so why is it so wrong if I don't use them?
And don't discount the "making it go faster" aspect you are so dismissive of. If you make an operation five seconds faster, and you have to perform that operation 10,000 times over a work week, you have just saved yourself 50,000 seconds, or in other words gained nearly 14 hours of additional work.
If an X environment provides the applications you need, and you can provide your own tweaks to optimize your workflow, then you are gaining, not losing.
I have no problem with you wanting nice defaults. My problem is with people who say to me "You want choices? You must be a 'leet geek who never gets any work done because you are always fondling your desktop. You're not a real person so we don't care about your choices."
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
You run Photoshop on *Intel*... which is irrelevant to PowerPC based systems which is what this topic is about.
So the previous poster says it's not about the OS, it's about the applications. Now you say it's not about the applications, it's about the OS.
So why not drop your attitude that people who like MacOSX just can't handle a l33t s3tu9 like yours.
No. This is not what I said. Read what I wrote. I was responding to this:
"The irony is, the lack of costume features is part of what makes OS X a much better platform for just getting work done. A computer is a tool, not a home, it's not a fashion statement. OS X gets this right. Trivial time-wasters like themes--while they may keep you from getting bored--really don't have much practical value."
I am not saying that your Mac OS X is not of value to you. What I am arguing against is the argument (read the paragraph above again) that my Linux is less valuable to me.
Why are Mac OS X users so insecure? It's a fine operating system. Why must they always post these "Mac OS X is useful, other systems are not!" messages?
Read the original poster's message again.
"Fashion statement."
"Trvial time wasters."
"Don't have much practical value."
Who is making negative statements about another system? Not me. I made positive statements about my own own system, out of frustration at having been labeled (as you just did) a "l33t s3tu9" (your words) wannabe just for not preferring Mac OS X.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW