Slashdot Mirror
Apple to Award Workgroup Clusters to Scientists
Graff writes "Apple is giving away five Apple Workgroup Clusters for Bioinformatics (each worth approximately $40,000) to four higher
education researchers and one non-education researcher. A panel of independent scientists and Apple will choose the lucky researchers."
For the mad scientist who has everything!
Dragging people kicking and screaming into reality since 1996.
must be a 1.8 ghz G5 with monitor to add up to that size of cash.
Apple (as well as other computer companies like IBM) are getting very interested in bioinformatics. They have loaned us a ton of equipment for free even though our product is linux based. Of course, Apple has always had a stronghold in academics.
Please, no beowulf cluster jokes.
So writing puff pieces about your great accomplishment means they own it? Bull.
You know what?
Are you suggesting that for some reason Giant Pandas are not worthy of this prize?
Apple should give a set away to United Devices (Profit) or Grid. Both of these ventures specialize in distributed Cancer/Drug simulations. Let's find a cure for breast and prostate cancer!!!! Go Go Go!!!
Only a tiny fraction of the science-related software out there runs on Macintosh.
For gui-based stuff, that might be true. But a very big percentage of bioinformatics is done on the command line. And there is a wealth of free unix based bioinformatics software out there.
True, that. But the majority of it that doesn't run exclusively on Mac OS runs on a UNIX or on Linux, and a fully functioning Mac version is usually only a recompile away. Also, Apple is giving away the iNquiry software toolkit which claims to include over 200 applications preconfigured for the Workgroup Cluster environment, which is pretty damn spiffy.
Every cloud has a silver lining (except for the mushroom shaped ones, which have a lining of Iridium & Strontium 90)
Though not saying you (like every other person you mistakenly interchanges the term market share for the word install base) are assuming that the company's install base is declining... something that there is no proof of. Declidining "market share" could simply mean that Windows market share increased while Apple's stayed the same... (end result is still declining *market share* for mac users) or that Mac users are simply getting more life out of their computers (end result is still declining *market share* for mac users)... or that PC users are suddenly getting less life and are having to upgrade more frequently (end result is still declining *market share* for mac users). What I'm getting at is that market share is NOT an indicator of the increase or decrease in a platform's install base. Apple's install base is probably in the 7%-12% range... though you would never know it because the major research companies are only shoing *market share* statistics. This information is of no use to anyone EXCEPT stock holders in the company the stats they refer to as it is an indicator of profit and loss. If market share indicates profit and loss... its important that we understand that Apple is one of only two profitable computer companies these days and that their computers are priced exactly in tune with the rest of the industry (not over priced as is so commonly suggested).
Companies give research grants to universities all the time. A DEC grant paid for two years of grad school for me in the early 90's, and gave my lab a bunch of sweet Alphas. Why is this news - because it's Apple?
I've come to the conclusion that Apple must have some sort of market share that defies the natural laws of the universe. For years now, Apple's market share has always been reported at ~4% with numbers as low as 2% in some places and as high as 10% in others. But the one thing that has remained constant throughout these reports is that it's adwindling market share and it's falling rapidly. Now, how is it that 6 years ago, they could have 4%, 5 years ago they had 4%, 4 years ago they had 4%, 3 years ago they have 4%, 2 years ago they have 4%, one year ago they have 4% and this year, they still have 4%, yet every year it was declining?
This leads to the conclusion that Apple must have invented purpetual self sustaining marketshare, a graph of which could make MC Escher proud, and that they must patent this immediately so that they can increase their marketshare to -pi
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
The award should be for PCs.
Apple should give away competitors' hardware? To what end?
Only a tiny fraction of the science-related software out there runs on Macintosh.
Hmm. Interesting, broad comment with no support. In the Life Sciences, my experience is that about half of us use Mac OS X. Not a bad cut of the market. If only a "tiny fraction" of the applications used are available, why do so many people use it over Linux, Windows and other platforms?
Word to the wise: think before you make senseless observations.
If your definition of "mad scientist" is "person working on weapons of mass destruction", ie, nuclear weapons, most of them already have the world's largest clusters. Pretty sad that we still consider it important to build better nuclear weapons even though we've got thousands of them, and not a single legitimate target for them(the whole deterrence thing is ridiculous- if it's just about deterrence, we only need a dozen or so).
It'd be nice to see some computing horsepower, if only a small piece, go to those trying to do something other than make better nuclear bombs or look for little green men...ie something (gasp) productive.
Please help metamoderate.
year 0: 10 Macs, 10 PCs
year 1: 0 new Macs, 10 PCs replaced
year 2: 0 new Macs, 10 PCs replaced
year 3: 10 Macs replaced, 10 PCs replaced
year 4: 0 new Macs, 10 PCs replaced
year 5: 0 new Macs, 10 PCs replaced
total sold: 20 Macs, 60 PCs
install base: 10 Macs, 10 PCs
I have seen research that shows Macs have something like twice the life of a PC.
I've owned both Macs and PCs for years, and my Macs are capable of running more new software then the PCs.
"That's so plausible, I can't believe it!" - Leela
More to the point, Apple is doing this voluntarily, whereas Microsoft tried to settle an antitrust lawsuit by donating Microsoft products to schools (and extending their monopoly)--a whole different kettle of fish.
See, e. g., this and this.
Sorry, Apple, but I can't accept your offer. You see, my IT department won't support Mac servers.
Best Buy can have you arrested
There's a lot of statements in this thread about about Macs not being useful for science due to software support. What the hell? That's like saying that HP, Dell, etc can't be used - Mac systems can take UNIX versions just like any other computer. Regardless, our university's physics department apparently uses nothing but Apple systems, although generally old ones due to the budget.
Before you start giving away Xserve clusters, could you please ship the Xserves that we ordered over a month ago?
How is Microsoft a Monopoly if Apple exists?
because they control the vast amount of the computing market. you don't have to own all 100% of it just to be declared a monopoly. perhaps you should also keep up with the news. the US and the EU have declared microsoft a monopoly.
If that makes Microsoft a monopoly doesn't that make Apple an even worse monopoly (they control the hardware AND the software)?
sigh. i sometimes wonder if people will ever understand the truth about apple. apple makes the case, the motherboard, the power supply, and the operating system. that's IT. every other component of a mac (including the cpu, video card, hard disk, ram, cdrom, lcds, crts, etc, etc) is standard. if some other company came along and implemented a ppc chip that implemented the same instruction set as the g3-g5 chips and used hardware components (ethernet, video, sound) that are compatible with os x's drivers and implement the openfirmware STANDARD then it will run os x. now that may not be legal according to the EULA but you can do it. worst case you can run linux on your machine, or freebsd, or the various other free *nix operating systems that run just FINE on ppc hardware. heck even windows nt 4 ran on mac hardware (albeit a long time ago, not anymore). if you want more ppc hardware, send a nice letter to amd and intel to implement more ppc compatible chips. send a letter to the various mobo manufacterers to implement more motherboards that agree to said specs. its no different than companies implementing intel's x86 specs. stop spreading FUD
- tristan
Objectively, how is a five year-old 2x500Mhz Mac any better in 2004 than a five year-old 2x500Mhz PC?
It's not really. Just that Mac advocates typically engage in the intellectual dishonesty of comparing $3000 Macs with $1000 PCs.
Furthermore, it's pretty clear that G4 have had a pretty long lifespan because PowerPC development was so retarded. Until the G5s came out there really wasn't a compelling upgrade for PMac G4 users.
I'm not sure if the long shelf-life of Macs really help anyone. Mac users have to wait until they've saved up another $2000+ to upgrade, and in the meanwhile they're stuck wtih old machines, and Apple is getting no revenue. A PC user might pay less to replace a cheap machine every year and always have top-end kit.
Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
How many "ordinary scientists" have $40k burning a hole in their pocket?
At a decent research university, probably most of them. If they're comp bio, they probably have even more money than that. In bioinformatics, you don't need to spend $250 on a milliliter of antibodies or thousands of dollars on primers - the overhead for keeping a lab running is much lower. And experimentalists regularly have to spend considerably more than $40k on their equipment - as the other poster pointed out, microscopes are an excellent example. (EM systems are even worse - these are usually at least $300k.) Therefore, grant money stretches a long way.
I do realize your comment is tongue in cheek.. but Bioinformatic tools (some of them like BLAST) run multiples faster on Apple hardware than on x86 hardware. Apparently apps like BLAST really run great on Altivec.
I haven't seen anything recently, but at one time BLAST ran up to 16x faster on a G4 than a P4.
I'm not feeling witty so bite me