Linux-only POWER5 server From IBM

Boot OSX Server? by Lapzilla · 2004-09-13 04:17 · Score: 2, Informative

Highly doubtful, OSX requires special roms... Maybe in Mac-On-Linux though.

Re:Boot OSX Server? by cyngus · 2004-09-13 04:18 · Score: 3, Insightful

Something tells me that booting up OS X Server on an XServe is going to be cheaper than these babies.
Re:Boot OSX Server? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-13 04:29 · Score: 2, Informative

Highly doubtful, OSX requires special roms

Is this still true? Apple began moving away from ROMs with the colored (New World) machines, and used a file called "Mac OS ROM" for OS 9. I was under the impression that they ditched the ROM thing entirely for OS X.
Re:Boot OSX Server? by BenjyD · 2004-09-13 04:38 · Score: 1

Doesn't MacOSX also require a G4/G5? AFAIK,they are modified POWER4s with Altivec, not POWER5s.
Re:Boot OSX Server? by greed · 2004-09-13 04:42 · Score: 5, Informative

You're thinking of the old Mac Toolbox ROM from the Old World machines.
On New World machines, they check for Apple-specific entries in the Open Firmware device map. There's a whole device tree that won't be present on a non-Apple machine.
So, theoretically, if you could work up enough Forth to get the appropriate entries on a non-Apple machine, it should work....
Another trick is that OS X only works with USB keyboards and mice, not with PS/2 devices. IBM pSeries machines still have PS/2 inputs. And RS-232 serial. And IEEE 1284 parallel. And video cards OS X has never heard of. And....
Re:Boot OSX Server? by FuzzieNorn · 2004-09-13 04:42 · Score: 3, Insightful

Um, interesting, because those ROMs aren't present in .. any of my machines running OS X. Welcome to newworld. The only OSX-running machines which isn't newworld are the beige G3s, and they're not even supported any more.

Even OS 9 has supported having the ROM present in a file rather than physically present for ages.
Re:Boot OSX Server? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-13 04:45 · Score: 1, Informative

Given that my old faithful 400MHz Powerbook G3 from 200 runs last month's version of MacOS X, I have some doubts about your statement.
MacOS X still runs on G3, iBooks were still G3 until last November and I suspect that all releases of OS X until end 2006 will run on all the iceBooks and the latest Powerbook G3 (the ones with Firewire, which have basically the same chipset as the G3).
Re:Boot OSX Server? by danielsfca2 · 2004-09-13 04:50 · Score: 1

and used a file called "Mac OS ROM" for OS 9. I was under the impression that they ditched the ROM thing entirely for OS X.

That's correct. However, I think* you probably need an 'enabler' file for the particular model. From what I understand, the enabler is basically a driver. For what exact device(s), I'm not sure. If someone could reverse those files and create one designed for this machine (difficulty of this unknown to me) then you could probably run Mac OS X on it.

* This whole paragraph might be wrong.
Re:Boot OSX Server? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-13 04:50 · Score: 0

"The point is ladies and gentlemen that greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right. Greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of it's forms - greed for life, for money, knowledge - has marked the upward surge of mankind and greed - you mark my words - will not only save Teldar Paper but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA. Thank you."
Re:Boot OSX Server? by typhoonius · 2004-09-13 04:53 · Score: 1

Supported too.
Re:Boot OSX Server? by BenjyD · 2004-09-13 04:55 · Score: 1

s@G4/G5@G3/G4/G5@g
Re:Boot OSX Server? by paitre · 2004-09-13 04:59 · Score: 1

G4 - produced by Motorola initially, IBM later, IIRC.
G5 - PPC970. Seriously. It's Power5 for the desktop.
Re:Boot OSX Server? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-13 05:02 · Score: 0

200 AD: Septimius Severus-Septimius Severus came to power at the point of a sword. Severus first challenged Didius Julianus who was the highest bidder to become emperor at a auction held by the Praetorian Guard. Severus went on to defeat Septimius Albinus and Pescennius Niger, each head of his own legion and each claiming the right to be Emperor. Holy crap...1800 years later you can still run OSX on it!
Re:Boot OSX Server? by morcego · 2004-09-13 05:02 · Score: 1

My old pSeries had a S3 Videoboard. I beat OSX heard about those.

Not sure which chipset they are using these days.

--
morcego
Re:Boot OSX Server? by Frymaster · 2004-09-13 05:04 · Score: 4, Informative

Something tells me that booting up OS X Server on an XServe is going to be cheaper than these babies
like the internet, for instance...
the openpower 720, acording to the press so far, "starts" at $5000 for a 1.5 ghz model. that's one chip. no specs on ram or disk space or bus speed or whatnot.
by comparison, $4000 will get you an xserve with dual 2 ghz g5s and a gig of ram.
now, admittedly, that's a crappy set of comparison data... but for those who are willing to jump to a conclusion or two: apple wins on price/performance. big time.

--
2 1337 4 u!
Re:Boot OSX Server? by Fred+Or+Alive · 2004-09-13 05:05 · Score: 1

Apple used to be ATI people though, I don't think any Macs have had S3 video cards in them, although I suppose NEXTSTEP might've had S3 drivers, it depends if they're still around in OS X.

--
10 PRINT "LOOK AROUND YOU "; 20 GOTO 10
Re:Boot OSX Server? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-13 05:30 · Score: 0

This has been true since 1998. So, to the OP, would you like to join the rest of us in the 21st century?
Re:Boot OSX Server? by justforaday · 2004-09-13 05:31 · Score: 1

Wow, I haven't seen enabler files in ages. I'm pretty sure those were ditched in the OS 7.5-8.x days. I believe they were superceded by the specific ROM files for the various New World machines (see above).

--
I'll turn into a supernova and burn up everything. Well I'll turn into a black little hole and you'll turn into string.
Re:Boot OSX Server? by BenjyD · 2004-09-13 05:42 · Score: 1

According to the documentation on IBM's site, the PPC 970 is "based on the POWER4". It's a single core version, with the SIMD engine added on.
Re:Boot OSX Server? by AnObfuscator · 2004-09-13 06:57 · Score: 0

Actually, the PP970 is a single-cored POWER4 with AltiVec, and designed to reach higher clocks. Ars Technica has several good references:
A Brief Look at the PowerPC 970
Inside the PowerPC 970
Inside the PowerPC 970, Part II

--
multifariam.net -- yet another nerd blog
Re:Boot OSX Server? by cymen · 2004-09-13 07:06 · Score: 2, Informative

How does PearPC boot up MacOS X on x86? According to one of the forums for PearPC, the legal issue is no longer present with newer systems.

http://pearpc.sourceforge.net/

BTW, 0.4 runs MacOS X somewhat decently on my system (AMD64 3200+). Still painful but it's neat to see an operating system in action that is getting so much press.
Re:Boot OSX Server? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-13 07:38 · Score: 0

Well a power5 and a g5 (powerpc970) aren't the same chip even though both are from IBM, the powerpc970 is closer to a cut down power4+ - for example the power5 has a l2 cache of about 1.9mb, and a huge l3 cache of up to 36MB per chip (dual core versions), while the powerpc970 just has 512kb of l2 cache.

IBM claims something like 50% performance improvement from p4+ to p5, with another 30% to come as they tune the operating system - how true that is I've yet to see, our first p5's haven't arrived at work.

All in all, I suspect the performance of the 720 will be at least equal to the xserves until they up the clock speed or release the powerpc980 which ibm has been mentioning for a while, which I'm sure they can do pretty much any time they need to.
Re:Boot OSX Server? by tverbeek · 2004-09-13 07:40 · Score: 1

Some of the pre-G3 Macs (7x00/8x00/9x00) will run OSX (with device support issues in some cases), with the assistance of XPostFacto

--
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
Re:Boot OSX Server? by flaming-opus · 2004-09-13 10:07 · Score: 1

Not really a comparison though. I've got a bunch of xserves in the lab, and they're really cool, but they compete with dual-cpu rack'n'stack dells. They are definately an entry-level server. They are cheap, simple, elegant, but not an answer to every question. I don't think apples ready to compete in the mid-range server market. Their focus seems to be on the A/V pro-apps.
Re:Boot OSX Server? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-13 10:56 · Score: 1, Informative

It's not that relevant, but the POWER5's do have USB.
Re:Boot OSX Server? by MagnusDredd · 2004-09-13 16:19 · Score: 1

No it does not.....

I'd imagine if someone went to the trouble to port Darwin, not all that likely, then OSX would run on this... It would require some stacking of OSX stuff onto Darwin, and I am not sure exactly how much is different between Darwin, and OSX's core, but not that much... it would take some effort...
Re:Boot OSX Server? by twelveinchbrain · 2004-09-13 16:51 · Score: 1

the openpower 720, acording to the press so far, "starts" at $5000 for a 1.5 ghz model. that's one chip. no specs on ram or disk space or bus speed or whatnot.

by comparison, $4000 will get you an xserve with dual 2 ghz g5s and a gig of ram.

The difference in performance between those chips, according to IBM and Apple's published specs:
2.0GHz PPC G5 ------------- SPECint_base2000: 800 SPECfp_base2000 : 840 1.9GHZ POWER5 ------------- SPECint_base2000: 1398 SPECfp_base2000 : 2576

--
Not Found
The requested URL /signature.html was not found on this server.
Re:Boot OSX Server? by Pieroxy · 2004-09-13 21:02 · Score: 1

Dude, your website is down!

--
Write boring code, not shiny code!

Big blue.. tux? by qmchenry · 2004-09-13 04:17 · Score: 4, Informative

IBM wants your apps. They'll give you a free laptop bag if you develop an app for Linux on their Power platform. I think the most disturbing thing about this is the picture of Tux in a blue tux. He looks like he's ready to sing in a lounge somewhere.

But (somewhat) seriously, I could make room a four-way 64 bit Linux box on my desk. Chances are you've probably not seen my desk -- not an easy task.

--
Recipes for geeks -- no meatloaf, we promise.

Re:Big blue.. tux? by TWX · 2004-09-13 04:24 · Score: 4, Funny

"Chances are you've probably not seen my desk -- not an easy task."

Ah, but have you seen your desk? If not in the past few years I'll be impressed.

--
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Re:Big blue.. tux? by qmchenry · 2004-09-13 04:38 · Score: 2, Funny

"Ah, but have you seen your desk? If not in the past few years I'll be impressed."

I was dissapointed to learn that your desk has to be missing for at least two years before the police will officially consider it missing. Sad because, by then, it could develop its own ecosystem.

--
Recipes for geeks -- no meatloaf, we promise.
Re:Big blue.. tux? by fitten · 2004-09-13 04:44 · Score: 1

They'll give you a free laptop bag [ibm.com] if you develop an app for Linux on their Power platform.

Is it like those T-shirts with the saying:

"I developed an App for Linux on IBM's Power Platform and all I got was this lousy laptop bag!"
Re:Big blue.. tux? by yoshi_mon · 2004-09-13 05:07 · Score: 2, Funny

Chances are you've probably not seen my desk -- not an easy task.

While the old saying does, "Never judge a man until you have sat for a day at his desk." I have to wonder if it even holds a candle to some truely messy desks.

--

Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
Re:Big blue.. tux? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-13 05:41 · Score: 0

They'll actually give you a Toyota Prius
Re:Big blue.. tux? by Gr8Apes · 2004-09-13 07:38 · Score: 1

Hey, I just dug back down to the desk level view here over the past few weeks. Quite an effort, and will probably result in the offloading of a bunch of crap to ebay....

--
The cesspool just got a check and balance.

OSX Server? by ack154 · 2004-09-13 04:17 · Score: 0, Redundant

My question is, will it boot up Apple's OSX Server?

I don't know about that, but I know that this does.

No. by wankledot · 2004-09-13 04:17 · Score: 5, Funny

"My question is, will it boot up Apple's OSX Server?"

No. Next question.

--
My sig is blank, I typed this by hand.

Re:No. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-13 04:24 · Score: 1

No. Next question.

Do the Slashdot editors get paid per occurance of "Apple" "OSX" and "iPod" on the main page?
Re:No. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-13 04:24 · Score: 3, Interesting

I've been fighting with one of these for the past few days and from what I can see it doesn't bloody run anything.

It won't do much but look pretty and no-one inside big blue seems to know sh!t about it.

Config is a nightmare, no success yet.

Posted anonymously should any senior management be reading this...
Re:No. by kworthington · 2004-09-13 04:39 · Score: 2, Funny

Yes. Next question.

--
Hosting: as low as $5.95/Mo
Re:No. by LurkerXXX · 2004-09-13 04:56 · Score: 0, Troll

Listen mac, I'm tired of people insisting we editors take kickbacks from Apple. Just because people don't like our style, they are quick to jump on any additions we make to a post. I hope someday you change your tune.
Re:No. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-13 05:11 · Score: 0

No boot for you! (fingers snap)
CD-ROM spits out the CD.
Re:No. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-13 05:19 · Score: 1, Funny

Posted anonymously should any senior management be reading this...

So back at your workplace senior management regularly check /. for employee's posts? and require you to make the id known? and they're still in business???
Re:No. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-13 11:00 · Score: 1, Interesting

If you're having HMC problems, call support.

NILES! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-13 04:17 · Score: -1, Troll

First Post for Niles? YAY?

Wouldnt it be best to ask IBM that question by UnseenEnigma · 2004-09-13 04:17 · Score: 2, Insightful

instead of a bunch of people with no idea what the answer might be and just attack IBMs marketing practises

yeah but can it....... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-13 04:17 · Score: -1, Offtopic

..something.. ...something... beowulf cluster

Answer by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-13 04:17 · Score: -1, Redundant

> My question is, will it boot up Apple's OSX Server?"

NO.

No by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-13 04:17 · Score: -1, Redundant

Apple will not allow OSX on IBM

Re:No by FuzzieNorn · 2004-09-13 04:45 · Score: 3, Informative

Good thing the kernel's open source, then. There are things like XPostFacto which make OS X work on older Macs by providing the necessary drivers/etc and faking things as necessary, for instance.
Re:No by soybean · 2004-09-13 04:47 · Score: 1

But, that doesn't mean that it won't boot g5 darwin.
Re:No by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-13 04:50 · Score: 3, Interesting

No, because OSX does checks to look for Apple-specific hardware on boot.

Interestingly, if you boot OS X using Pear PC a message appears during verbose boot stating "Warning: Apple Mac I/O Self Test fails", but then continues to boot. It would seem that OS X knows it's not Mac hardware, but doesn't care.
Re:No by extra+the+woos · 2004-09-13 05:55 · Score: 2, Interesting

I can confirm this... PearPC always made me wonder why people AREN'T making mac clones right now!!! It's definately possible... Obviously i doubt you could get a special deal on os X or sell it advertising it that way, but nothing against you selling a ppc box with a retail copy of OS-X bundled with it...

--
replacing it with NEW Folger's Crystals! (lets see if they notice the difference)
Re:No by SEE · 2004-09-13 10:46 · Score: 1

Except the OS X EULA bars one from legally running it on the hardware. While of questionable legality, is certainly enough to expose any attempted clonemaker to a draining Apple lawsuit.
Re:No by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-13 16:02 · Score: 0

The EULA for MacOS X specifically states that you are only allowed to install and run the software on "Apple branded" hardware.

Though nothing explicitly prevents you from building a Mac clone, it would be of little use since you wouldn't be able to legally install the OS on it. Unless of course you built clones with an Apple logo on them, but then you might as well hang a "Sue me for trademark infringement!" sign on your front door.
Re:No by HuguesT · 2004-09-14 18:19 · Score: 1

Since when are EULA binding?

Yes by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-13 04:17 · Score: -1, Redundant

Yes it can.

first post w000t! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-13 04:18 · Score: -1, Troll

ug

Maybe YellowDog? by bitswapper · 2004-09-13 04:18 · Score: 0

Wonder if it would run YellowDog Linux?

Re:Maybe YellowDog? by codemachine · 2004-09-13 04:31 · Score: 2, Informative

This is much more likely than it running OS X. And probably a lot more useful too.

Why is it you have to ask a really dumb question to get a submission posted to /. anyhow? I guess maybe they want to encourage discussion, but in this case, they've encouraged discussion that is off topic. IBM is releasing a POWER 5 Linux machine - lets talk about IBM, Power, and Linux, not Apple.
Re:Maybe YellowDog? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-13 04:49 · Score: 0

Here here. I totally agree. The power architecture consists of a very large non-mac user base. I think that maybe the real power users are not regular slashdot readers. They have a job and are busy working.
Re:Maybe YellowDog? by Ohreally_factor · 2004-09-13 05:27 · Score: 1

Why is it you have to ask a really dumb question to get a submission posted to /. anyhow?

Remember, there are no dumb questions, only dumb curious people.

--
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Re:Maybe YellowDog? by Carewolf · 2004-09-13 07:39 · Score: 1

Most likely they will come with SuSE, since IBM controls SuSE now through Novell(IBMs bitch).
Re:Maybe YellowDog? by datasetgo · 2004-09-13 07:46 · Score: 1

Will it run YellowDog Linux? I'd believe it'd be a safe bet, considering IBM is sponsoring some power5 and G5 development contests on YellowDog's website. IBM and TerraSoft have had a fairly tight history as I recall.

But then again, what would be the point, as the system ships with Redhat or SUSE. YellowDog is based on Redhat. I'd pick Redhat given the choice, the support is better.

OS X? by AKAImBatman · 2004-09-13 04:18 · Score: -1, Offtopic

My question is, will it boot up Apple's OSX Server?

Or can it run NetBSD? Can we get a Beowulf cluster of them? Does it run Linux!?! (Oh... wait...)

*rolls eyes*

BTW, I've got more GMail invites if anyone wants them. Just email me.

--
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade

Re:OS X? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-13 04:30 · Score: -1, Offtopic

"BTW, I've got more GMail invites if anyone wants them. Just email me."

How do you receive GMail invites to distribute? I have two accounts and I haven't received any invites for me to distribute.
Re:OS X? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-13 04:31 · Score: -1, Offtopic

GMail?

Why would you want to inflict a Big Brother email system on your friends?
Re:OS X? by jacoplane · 2004-09-13 04:33 · Score: -1, Offtopic

Google uses a special algorithm that analyses your mail to see if you are "cool". If so, it gives you Gmail invites...
Re:OS X? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-13 04:51 · Score: -1, Offtopic

wait.
I got my first batch of invites like two weeks after opening the account.
Re:OS X? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-13 04:55 · Score: 1, Insightful

"Why would you want to inflict a Big Brother email system on your friends?"

What's the big hubub about? Big Brother already scans ALL your email. Its called CARNIVOR. If you are so concerned about your privacy, perhaps you should stop using the net.
Re:OS X? by Fred+Or+Alive · 2004-09-13 05:11 · Score: 0, Offtopic

On the first page you see after logging in a blue bar appears above your inbox listings saying:

You have 6 Gmail invitations. Invite a friend to join Gmail!

The last bit is a link.

I got my invites after about a week (less I think...), perhaps it's throughput based, seeing as I recived several megabytes of AVR development tools through email into the account. ;-)

Either that, or it's random. Whatever it is, at this rate the world and it's dog will have Gmail accounts before open signups begin...

--
10 PRINT "LOOK AROUND YOU "; 20 GOTO 10

My answer is.... by Kenja · 2004-09-13 04:18 · Score: 2, Interesting

" My question is, will it boot up Apple's OSX Server?"

Odds are that it wont. Diferent (if similar) CPU and architecture. Also, since when is 5k$ low cost?

--

"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"

Re:My answer is.... by Noksagt · 2004-09-13 04:25 · Score: 5, Funny

Also, since when is 5k$ low cost?
For something from Big Blue, this is a bargain basement price.
Re:My answer is.... by ran-o-matic · 2004-09-13 04:25 · Score: 1

$5k is low cost for that class of machine.
Re:My answer is.... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-13 04:28 · Score: 1, Interesting

There are servers and then there are SERVERS.

There is the server in my basement (most people's desktops have more power) and then there is the new server my ISP just bought. It has redundant, hot-swappable everything including mother boards. Each mother board has at least two CPUs and each CPU has two cores (I'm quoting him as accurately as I can here). It can replace all his other machines (a bunch). It is the size of several desktops. I asked him what it cost and he just said, "I have to pay for it on installments." I think it cost WAY more than $5k.
Re:My answer is.... by Kenja · 2004-09-13 04:32 · Score: 0

"$5k is low cost for that class of machine."
Why? You can get a 1U Sun system for under 1k$. A dual AMD 64 system comes in under 5K$ as well. I'm not saying that the IBM system isn't worth the money, just that it isn't "low cost".

--

"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Re:My answer is.... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-13 04:36 · Score: 0

> You can get a 1U Sun system for under 1k$

How many processors does it support?

> A dual AMD 64 system comes in under 5K$ as well

You do realize this is $5K for _4_ processors, right?
Re:My answer is.... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-13 04:38 · Score: 0

Dual AMD64 Quad POWER5

Saying you can get the latter for almost the price of the former is a very good thing for IBM.
Re:My answer is.... by CoolToddHunter · 2004-09-13 04:41 · Score: 1

The article said that IBM would release a 4-way machine first. I can only assume that's the one that's $5000. If so, that's a steal for a 4-way POWER 5 machine. Spec'ed with AIX, you pay (starting at) $8000 for a 2-way. And the 4-way would (IMO) blow the lid off anything under $5000.
There must be some catch...
Re:My answer is.... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-13 04:43 · Score: 0

Oh damnit, there was a double less than sign between dual AMD64 and Quad POWER5, until /. decided to edit it out.
Re:My answer is.... by morcego · 2004-09-13 04:59 · Score: 1

Similar CPUs ? Sorry, but I can't see any other similarity between a PowerPC and a POWER5 than the fact they are both RISC processors. It is like saying an Opteron and a Z80 processors are similar.

So no, unless Apple releases an POWER5 version of OSX, which is something they can't do in a week or two, it won't run.

US$5K ? Pretty cheap for this kind of computer.

--
morcego
Re:My answer is.... by mios · 2004-09-13 05:02 · Score: 1

What's 2-way / 4-way mean? I mean, multi-processors I get ... multi-way(?) Anyone care to shine a light for the uninitiated? Cheers, -steve
Re:My answer is.... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-13 05:12 · Score: 0

2-way = 2 processors
4-way = 4 processors
n-way = n processors

you're welcome.
Re:My answer is.... by Fred+Or+Alive · 2004-09-13 05:15 · Score: 1

PowerPC is a cut down version of the POWER arhitecture, so they are a bit more related than an Opteron and an Z80, but I'm not sure if they're code compatible. I think the G5's might be quite near though, but still Mac OS X probably hasn't got half of the drivers it needs.

--
10 PRINT "LOOK AROUND YOU "; 20 GOTO 10
Re:My answer is.... by drinkypoo · 2004-09-13 05:38 · Score: 5, Interesting

Why? You can get a 1U Sun system for under 1k$. A dual AMD 64 system comes in under 5K$ as well. I'm not saying that the IBM system isn't worth the money, just that it isn't "low cost".

It appears that POWER5 wipes the floor with UltraSPARC IV. An 8-core POWER5 system has better performance (according to this benchmark) than a 16-core USIV system in every benchmark in which they are compared.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:My answer is.... by JonAnderson · 2004-09-13 06:19 · Score: 1

I think the 1U system in question is the v20Z (opteron) or USIIIi based. POWER5 is a superior CORE to the UltrasparcIV, there is no doubt about that. However, if you look at systemic performance Sun does pretty well (SAP, STREAM etc.). Most people running Oracle don't really care about SPECfp performance really. Suns value is investment protection (retaining the same chassis, just upgrade the uniboards - you can even have different cpus and speeds in the same chassis) and Solaris 10. UltrasparcIV+ still probably won't be as fast per core as P5 but I expect in systemic benchmarks that Sun will do pretty well.
Re:My answer is.... by drinkypoo · 2004-09-13 06:24 · Score: 1

That may be but on a desktop system you care about the processor most of all (witness: the crappy PC architecture, although opteron systems don't seem to suck so much) because you're doing processor-intensive things; playing games, encoding video, et cetera. Also the system doesn't have to do as many things at once.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:My answer is.... by fymidos · 2004-09-13 06:54 · Score: 1

have you checked the prices on 4-way motherboards?
you can't have a 4-way machine under 15K, i don't care what processor u use.

this is really low cost for a power5.

--
Washington bullets will simply be known as the "Bulle
Re:My answer is.... by bhima · 2004-09-13 08:02 · Score: 1

They Must be talking about a single proc system, even without AIX it just doesn't fit their pricing scheme.

--
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
Re:My answer is.... by bhima · 2004-09-13 23:27 · Score: 1

Wow was I wrong!
"The four-way IBM eServer OpenPower 720 .... will use 1.5GHz or 1.65GHz processors and run either Red Hat or SuSE Linux"

--
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
Re:My answer is.... by TheToon · 2004-09-14 03:47 · Score: 1

Oh, they are code compatible (though may need different optimizations). POWER5 are dual-core chips and with wastly larger caches than the PPC970 chips. For large workloads they are quite faster than POWER4 and PPC970.

POWER5 > PPC970/G5

--
//TheToon

your question by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-13 04:18 · Score: -1, Offtopic

"My question is, will it boot up Apple's OSX Server?"

Let's think about it... think harder... harder ....

Awesome, although I give it long odds by Ars-Fartsica · 2004-09-13 04:19 · Score: 1

x86/AMD pretty much rules the linux market to date, although it would be great to see an alternative get entrenched.

Re:Awesome, although I give it long odds by mrseigen · 2004-09-13 04:20 · Score: 2, Interesting

A lot of people say that PPC Linux has been historically slower than X86 Linux but I honestly cannot see the difference when running my K6-2 and Power Computing machines side by side. Has this been squashed, or can someone provide evidence to the contrary?
Re:Awesome, although I give it long odds by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-13 04:28 · Score: 1, Informative

Well, linux on PPC has certainly been improved a whole lot.
GCC for PPC used to produce ungodly slow code. However Apple and IBM have been doing alot of optimisation work on gcc in the last few years, so now it's almost as good as the x68 target.
Re:Awesome, although I give it long odds by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-13 04:38 · Score: 0

"x86/AMD pretty much rules the linux market to date, although it would be great to see an alternative get entrenched."

I'm still waiting for the Linux port to the Inmos Transputer T-800 chip so it'll run on the Atari ATW. :)
Re:Awesome, although I give it long odds by Zorilla · 2004-09-13 04:40 · Score: 2, Funny

so now it's almost as good as the x68 target.

Almost as good as the X68000 so far? I'd say there's a bit more work to do :) At least that system had a nice Castlevania game on it that managed to get a PS1 port to the US. (Castlevania Chronicles)

--

It would be cool if it didn't suck.
Re:Awesome, although I give it long odds by Arker · 2004-09-13 05:08 · Score: 1

This has been primarily due to two issues.

GCC support hasn't been, and still isn't, as good on PPC as x86. That's improved a lot, so it isn't as big an issue as it once was, but it's still there.

Economy of scale. A PPC chip costs more just because fewer of them are made. Since we usually compare by price, this makes them look bad. Again, this has been getting better, but it's still there.

If PPC production was at the same volume as AMD or Intel production, it would be the x86 chips that would be underperformers for their price, by a large margin. This new product line by IBM may herald a real push to increase their production volume and lower their prices. It would make sense for them to sell at a loss for a year or two, if necessary, just to increase the marketshare. PPC production wouldn't need to match x86, just get closer to the same ballpark, for them to become the price/performance leaders. And put IBM back in the drivers seat in the PC world.

Of course, in the past, they seem to have shown no interest in taking that place back. Something about antitrust prosecution, bad reputations, bad experiences long past but still alive in the corporate culture. That could be changing though.

--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Re:Awesome, although I give it long odds by the+chao+goes+mu · 2004-09-13 05:18 · Score: 1

IBM's personal antitrust suit may be in the distant past, but ask MS about antitrust worries... I don't think IBM will be doing anything to draw the DoJ's attention any time soon.

--
Boys from the City. Not yet caught by the Whirlwind of Progress. Feed soda pop to the thirsty pigs.
Re:Awesome, although I give it long odds by Arker · 2004-09-13 06:53 · Score: 1

but ask MS about antitrust worries

The same MS that got caught lying over and over again in court, lost their case badly, and then still managed to get out of it without any consequences whatsoever?

--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Re:Awesome, although I give it long odds by Donny+Smith · 2004-09-13 07:26 · Score: 1

> Has this been squashed, or can someone provide evidence to the contrary?

Who cares - if it's not significantly faster, then why even bother?
For 5K one can get a 4 way x86 server that requires no maintenance contract and runs on h/w spare parts for which are available on eBay.
Re:Awesome, although I give it long odds by chez69 · 2004-09-13 09:08 · Score: 1

a lot of folks who really don't like it when their database goes tits up during times of large transactional volume don't mind paying for hardware that works and don't want to wait for goodparts34 to ship that new harddrive

--
PHP is the solution of choice for relaying mysql errors to web users.
Re:Awesome, although I give it long odds by MikeCapone · 2004-09-13 10:21 · Score: 1

Yeah, they must've been so glad that the Bushies came to power to let them down easy.

--
Treehugger? Treehugger... Treehugger!
Re:Awesome, although I give it long odds by cfuse · 2004-09-13 11:38 · Score: 1

x86/AMD pretty much rules the linux market to date, although it would be great to see an alternative get entrenched.
Why? What difference does it make?

No by Dynedain · 2004-09-13 04:19 · Score: 5, Informative

My question is, will it boot up Apple's OSX Server?"

No, because OSX does checks to look for Apple-specific hardware on boot.

--
I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....

AIX limitations? by kperrier · 2004-09-13 04:20 · Score: 3, Interesting

Is there anything on the silicon they would prevent me from installing AIX on it?

Re:AIX limitations? by mekkab · 2004-09-13 04:24 · Score: 2, Informative

lack of device drivers?
Possibly the cost of an AIX license? (though thats not a silicon limitation)

--
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
Re:AIX limitations? by OctaneZ · 2004-09-13 04:35 · Score: 1

Possibly the cost of an AIX license? (though thats not a silicon limitation)
there is one if you are trying to decide between AIX and an *ahem* "augmentation."
Re:AIX limitations? by Saint · 2004-09-13 04:37 · Score: 1

No.
Re:AIX limitations? by bluephone · 2004-09-13 04:43 · Score: 4, Funny

" Is there anything on the silicon they would prevent me from installing AIX on it?"
Sanity?
An alternative, yet equally funny answer would have been "SCO?"

--
jX [ Make everything as simple as possible, but no simpler. - Einstein ]
Re:AIX limitations? by bigredradio · 2004-09-13 04:45 · Score: 1

Really. What information do you have to support this? I am curious if you know for sure, or are just speculating. This is actually an important point because AIX shops could purchase the "lower price" models and then slap a pirate copy of AIX on it. Kinda like the Linspire consumer model with walmart. Buy a cheap PC with Linux and install Windows on it later.

--
Flexible bare-metal recovery for Linux/UNIX
Re:AIX limitations? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-13 05:03 · Score: 0

They probably disable the cpu's hypervisor mode.
Re:AIX limitations? by chez69 · 2004-09-13 05:16 · Score: 1

pirate AIX copy? this isn't script kiddy hardware, it is a real server. I doubt any org that uses that kind of kit would risk voiding their support contract.

--
PHP is the solution of choice for relaying mysql errors to web users.
Re:AIX limitations? by drinkypoo · 2004-09-13 05:40 · Score: 1

Yet another person who doesn't understand the difference between silicon crystals and silicone, a polymer.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:AIX limitations? by OctaneZ · 2004-09-13 06:37 · Score: 1

oh, it was a joke, it's monday, and I'm on line 11484 of code. :)
Re:AIX limitations? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-13 08:24 · Score: 0

Really. What information do you have to support this? I am curious if you know for sure, or are just speculating. This is actually an important point because AIX shops could purchase the "lower price" models and then slap a pirate copy of AIX on it.

Well, that's what it says on IBM's internal intranet:

What's being introduced?
Photo of OpenPower 720 The initial OpenPower offering - the eServer OpenPower 720 - will be available in an up to 4-way rack or tower option with either 1.5 GHz or 1.65 GHz POWER5 microprocessors and a maximum memory of 64 GB.

The 1-, 2- or 4-way OpenPower 720 will run SUSE LINUX Enterprise Server 9 from Novell and Red Hat Enterprise Lunux AS3, but not IBM's own AIX 5L or i5/OS, the two operating systems most commonly used on POWER5 processor-based servers.

Some of OpenPower 720's enterprise features include:
# IBM Virtualization Engine compatibility
# Automatic first-failure data capture
# Dynamic processor deallocation
# LPAR error containment
# Error correcting code and IBM chipkill memory correction in main storage
# Predictive failure analysis
Re:AIX limitations? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-13 10:15 · Score: 0

There are plenty of reasons you would want AIX over Linux.

For me (as a guy doing a lot of debugging): AIX has multithreaded core file where linux does not!

On the other hand, there is no reason I can think of as a reason to chose Linux over AIX (but I am sure many exist).
Re:AIX limitations? by winchester · 2004-09-14 01:22 · Score: 2, Informative

I can name you one...

On a p690, you can run 32 processor jobs on AIX. Linux on a p690 won't get you farther than 26 processor jobs before the box crumbles.
Re:AIX limitations? by mandos · 2004-09-14 02:20 · Score: 1

Sanity on silicon? I thought sanity was carbon based.

--
Mike Scanlon
Re:AIX limitations? by TheToon · 2004-09-14 04:51 · Score: 1

Because AIX in some repspects is better than Linux. Many reasons for that; more stable, better performance and enterprise level features and management tools that just isn't there on Linux (yet).

Why Linux has not adopted the nice AIX command structure, where commands are ch*, ls*, rm* and mk* for change, list, remove and make stuff. I.e chlv, lslv, rmlv and mklv for dealing with logical volumes in the LVM.

--
//TheToon

Virtual Performance Hit by grunt107 · 2004-09-13 04:22 · Score: 4, Interesting

With the supposed capacity to emulate 20 servers virtually, can these low/medium-end POWER5s actually perform adequately (comparably to the single-servers they are targeting)? That seems like a bit of a stretch.

It is commendable, however, that IBM is maintaining its Linux focus (at least on the servers). Now if they'd start pushing the desk/laptop a little harder...

Re:Virtual Performance Hit by qwijibo · 2004-09-13 04:34 · Score: 2

Linux is commercially viable to support on servers.

Where is the money in a Linux desktop? IBM wants to sell fewer, more expensive machines. Anything they could do to promote the desktop would be done cheaper by competetors.
Re:Virtual Performance Hit by grunt107 · 2004-09-13 04:37 · Score: 1

The money is (barely) in the hardware. For my use, I am more interested in LapLins than DeskLins - on the absolute newest hdwe, not remfg (otherwise Emperor is good).
Re:Virtual Performance Hit by flaming-opus · 2004-09-13 10:02 · Score: 2, Insightful

What are the servers you replace. In our lab we have a server dedicated to being a proxy cache to our code-versioning software. We have a server dedicated to being an ssh tunnel. We have a server dedicated to a dns/nis/nfs server which is terribly under-utilized.

No 4 power-5 processors aren't going to replace a dozen maxed-out dual-xeons. But more likely they will replace 2 maxed-out dual-xeons, and half a dozen servers that are largely underused. One clever thing they let you do is adjust the allocation of resources. Clever.

You probably can't run OSX on the bare hardware... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-13 04:22 · Score: 0

But it should run like mad under Mac On Linux (MOL).

Why is redhat still using 2.4? by SuperBanana · 2004-09-13 04:23 · Score: -1, Offtopic

My question is, will it boot up Apple's OSX Server?

A better question is "why is RedHat STILL not using the current stable kernel series?"

2.6 has been out for how long, folks?

--
Please help metamoderate.

Re:Why is redhat still using 2.4? by Chmarr · 2004-09-13 04:30 · Score: 2, Informative

Because the current RedHat offering, RHEL, is a BUSINESS application, and in business the mantra "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" applies VERY strongly.

If you want 2.6, just use Fedora instead.
Re:Why is redhat still using 2.4? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-13 04:32 · Score: 0

> A better question is "why is RedHat STILL not using the current stable kernel series?"
> 2.6 has been out for how long, folks?

Judging by the kernel mailing list, not long enough for use in a stable server OS.
Re:Why is redhat still using 2.4? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-13 04:33 · Score: 1

To hear them tell it they have rolled the "important" updates that are in 2.6 into their enterprise (2.4) kernel.
Re:Why is redhat still using 2.4? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-13 04:34 · Score: 0

You've forgotten that 2.4 wasn't even stable until 2.4.18ish. Just because someone (Linus) is now calling the kernel 2.6.x rather than 2.5.x doesn't magically mean that you (or RedHat) should use it.
Re:Why is redhat still using 2.4? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-13 04:36 · Score: 3, Informative

Here is the answer...

http://www.redhat.com/software/rhel/kernel26/
Re:Why is redhat still using 2.4? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-13 04:37 · Score: 5, Informative

because most of the features important to Redhat has already been backported to their "2.4"

The thing is that Redhat isn't targetting the same market, as say Fedora or Suse.

That's why they created Fedora, otherwise all you guys would be bitching about redhat using 2.4 on your desktops.

They have their OS certified by many 3rd party makers of propriatory software, such as Oracle. Stuff like that takes a lot more work then just slapping 2.6 into a OS and making sure that everything works.

Everything has to work the way Oracle (for example) expects it to work, and Oracle is only going to tell Redhat the minimal it is needed to get it running, since it's closed source.

Don't worry, Redhat isn't dropping behind, it's just that they've adopted a much more long term-style revision policy compared to other distros. When they switch to 2.6 it will be a relatively cutting edge version of 2.6.

Which should be pretty soon. Also PPC developement is going to be falling a bit behind x86 developement due to the relative popularity of the different platforms.
Re:Why is redhat still using 2.4? by pyros · 2004-09-13 04:38 · Score: 3, Informative

A better question is "why is RedHat STILL not using the current stable kernel series?"
Are you suggesting the fortune 500 companies spending thousands of dollars on RHEL 3* deployments should have either expected a kernel less then 6 months old in the intial RHEL 3 release? Or perhaps that their shiny new product certified to keep component version numbers stable for 5 years suddenly do a major version kernel upgrade 6 months into the product life cycle?
* RHEL 3 is the only Red Hat distribution you could be talking about. All other RHEL versions came out before kernel 2.6, and FC2 and FC3 do use kernel 2.6. FC1 won't get it because FC2 is halfway through it's own life cycle (which means FC1 is old & busted).
Re:Why is redhat still using 2.4? by hackstraw · 2004-09-13 04:46 · Score: 1

From that link:

Support for very large volumes. Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3 supports up to 1 TB.

WTF??? Am I the only person in the world that would consider an "enterprise" class OS in 2004 something that should be able to have an attached harddisk of more than 1 TB? Its difficult to even buy an array with less then 1 TB.
Re:Why is redhat still using 2.4? by evilviper · 2004-09-13 05:04 · Score: 0, Redundant

"why is RedHat STILL not using the current stable kernel series?"

You obviously missed the story that 2.6 is NOT stable, and the whole 2.6 tree is never supposed to reach the level of stability. All version of Linux are -unstable now...

But perhaps more directly to the point... why should they use 2.6? The scheduler may be improved, but that alone isn't serious enough to warrant an upgrade.

There's still plenty of kernel modules that aren't working or just aren't stable on 2.6.

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Re:Why is redhat still using 2.4? by sweede · 2004-09-13 05:09 · Score: 1

ya, thats volumes though. i.e. a 1 terabyte /home

you can have a 10 terabyte array if you need too, and run redhat on it, but you'd have to have 10 partitions.

however i do see your point that it is pretty weak to have an enterprise class OS not be able to support >1TB filesystem

--
I follow the SDK and GDN principles.. Spelling Dont Kount, Grammer Dont Neither
Re:Why is redhat still using 2.4? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-13 05:12 · Score: 0

You mean "If we can still charge for it don't fix it".
The more people they sell "Enterprise" 2.4 to, the more people they can charge for an upgrade to "RedHat Voyager" with a 2.6 kernel.
Re:Why is redhat still using 2.4? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-13 06:06 · Score: 0

You obviously missed the story that 2.6 is NOT stable, and the whole 2.6 tree is never supposed to reach the level of stability. All version of Linux are -unstable now...
And you obviously missed the fact they the "instability" of the 2.6 tree is API-level. Linus doesn't want to lock the kernel into a bad set of interfaces. No one (at least no one who RTFA) ever suggested that the 2.6 wouldn't build a stable binary, only that a new kernel make make old modules/programs/etc stop working.
Re:Why is redhat still using 2.4? by Builder · 2004-09-13 19:59 · Score: 1

Near as I understand, we'll see 2.6 in RHEL 4. I think that's due Q1 or Q2 2005.

In the meantime, we've got backported O1 scheduler, most of the EXT3 speedups and fixes and a raft of other things.

At the moment, the only real killer problem for RHEL in the enterprise is the lack of a supported filesystem that will allow dynamic resizing. You have to unmount an ext3 volume before you can resize it, so it's not suitable for some volume management solutions. I believe that XFS will allow you to resize on the fly, but from what I've heard, there are no plans to support that at the moment.

My Guess by iamdrscience · 2004-09-13 04:24 · Score: 0

Apple's OSes need special ROMs, but I know that people have been able to boot MacOS on non-apple G3/G4 computers so I don't see why it isn't possible that you could get OSX server running on these boxes without much trouble.

It does violate the EULA for OSX though, but then again, what doesn't these days. I doubt Apple would ever take you to court over it unless you started a company that sells boxes running OSX server. Even then though, doesn't this qualify as reverse engineering for interoperability? Anyone? Bueller?

Re:My Guess by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · 2004-09-13 04:46 · Score: 1

Any links to info on how to boot osx on non apple PPC computers? For "educational" purposes only, of course.

--
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
Re:My Guess by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-13 04:53 · Score: 0

OS X does NOT reguire special ROMs, it DOES require that certain firmware be in place. The firmware is downloadable from Apple so in theory it could be done.
Re:My Guess by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-13 04:59 · Score: 0

Apple's OSes need special ROM

OS 9 used the ROM off the board in a file, OS X needs no ROM. However, OS X does expect Apple specific stuff in OpenFirmware. No clue if that could be added by an end user directly to OF using it's FORTH interpreter.

I don't see why it isn't possible that you could get OSX server running

Potentially that it's a different chip archetecture? I don't know from POWER5, but PPC is POWER4 minus some intructions + Altivec. Not sure if POWER5 is backwards compatible with POWER4, and I know it doesn't include Altivec. However, I'm not sure if base OS X actually uses Altivec ops. Apps that use Altivec may have problems, but on the other hand, since OS 8 the MacOS has emulated some of the POWER4 instructions that PPC didn't support. So maybe Altivec apps would run fine.

I doubt Apple would ever take you to court over it

Apple, historically is pretty sue happy. If you can afford these boxes, your probably got a chunk of change to run in a production environment. That's money not in Apple's pocket, and they're trying to make OS X server a real choice for enterprise environments. Besides, do you think you could get away with the software piracy in an office that could afford these boxes?
Re:My Guess by iamdrscience · 2004-09-13 05:03 · Score: 1

Check out the "Mac-on-Linux" project. Basically what you do is run OSX in Mac-on-Linux, on an install of linux.

So yeah, it is, in a way, just an emulation, but really it's very quick.
Re:My Guess by shotfeel · 2004-09-13 05:52 · Score: 1

AFAIK, none of the Macs that run OS X need special ROMS -Apple got rid of those a long time ago.

But there is another reason it won't run OS X -there's more to a computer than the CPU. Specifically different busses and architectures to move data around. Take a look at http://www.apple.com/powermac/architecture.html , especially note 4: the Advanced PowerPC G5 System Controller. OS X is going to expect to do all of its communication through there -and its not going to find it in IBM's offerings.

Why???? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-13 04:25 · Score: -1, Offtopic

Poem:

Os X ... the meaning of PAIN!
the way that I want you to DIE!
SLOW death immense DECAY!,
boot-times ECLIPSE you of your life!!!!

Re:Why???? by sweede · 2004-09-13 05:12 · Score: 1

wow, if i had modpoints i'd mod you up for the kickass slayer reference.

to bad you wouldnt get the karma though

--
I follow the SDK and GDN principles.. Spelling Dont Kount, Grammer Dont Neither
Re:Why???? by MoronGames · 2004-09-13 15:29 · Score: 1

Is it full of sin?

--
hey!

What would be more interesting... by iamdrscience · 2004-09-13 04:26 · Score: 4, Interesting

I would be much more interested in IBM dropping prices on a Power5 desktop. It seems unlikely, but I would buy that thing in a second.

Re:What would be more interesting... by evilviper · 2004-09-13 04:57 · Score: 1

Why?

What's the difference between a server and a desktop these days??? The video card that comes with it?

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Re:What would be more interesting... by iamdrscience · 2004-09-13 05:10 · Score: 1

The fact that servers cost at least 1.5 times as much.
Re:What would be more interesting... by Fweeky · 2004-09-13 06:13 · Score: 2, Informative

ECC/Registered memory, PCI-X, SCSI, RAID (I mean $600+ PCI-X cards here, not the crappy little software RAID you get with your on-board ATA controller), rackmountable cases with redundant PSU's and insanely loud 15kRPM Delta fans, SMP/NUMA, lots of IO-APIC's (= lots of IRQ's), serial console even in BIOS and POST, and generally higher quality components, with on-site warranties with response time guarantees and things like that.

That answer your question?
Re:What would be more interesting... by HTD · 2004-09-13 09:11 · Score: 1

I second that. I'd buy a power5 desktop machine instantly - but it must provide a OpenGL compatible graphicscard with drivers for linux though else the system would be kind of useless, at least for me. Having a machine like that would smoke the x86 boxes the next few years and therefore there wont be a real need to upgrade.

I also wonder how much software really works for it, the power5 being 64bit and all may be a problem for some OSS projects. I'm thinking more about the different GUI apps not server-software, i am concerned that some of them are written with only x86 and 32bit in mind.
Re:What would be more interesting... by evilviper · 2004-09-13 09:57 · Score: 1

That answer your question?

Nope. What I'm trying to get at, is what a server doesn't have, that you need a workstation to have.

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Re:What would be more interesting... by matyas47 · 2004-09-13 10:04 · Score: 1

I've often thought that IBM and Apple have some sort of agreement (possibly informal) to split up the POWER/PPC world. Apple gets desktops, workstations, and low-end servers; IBM gets high-end workstations and servers. (This would also explain why you don't see quad-proc hot-swappable G5 XServes, and why Apple hasn't really been pushing the G5 desktop as a technical/scientific workstation as much as they probably should.) But anyway, if you want 64-bit POWER, you should probably just buy a G5, and if you really want Linux, you could run Yellow Dog or Suse on it....
Re:What would be more interesting... by JanneM · 2004-09-13 12:06 · Score: 1

The other way around: a server has a bunch of stuff that your workstation really doesn't need, and that pushes up the price and noise level enough that it more than pays to have separate product lines. Rackmounts and high-speed SCSI drives sound cool - until you are actually forced to be in the same room for an extended period of time.

--
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Re:What would be more interesting... by dmaxwell · 2004-09-13 15:10 · Score: 1

An AGP slot? I haven't seen many server boards with those.
Re:What would be more interesting... by evilviper · 2004-09-13 21:10 · Score: 1

A PCI-X card would be just as good.

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant

Good news by hackstraw · 2004-09-13 04:27 · Score: 3, Interesting

This is good news. Currently, there are few 64bit platforms where the hardware and software (Linux) are supported by the vendor. I wonder how well these will perform, and more importantly will IBM release a good compiler for them so that we can use them.

Re:Good news by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-13 04:35 · Score: 1, Informative

Well, their XLF is allready out for linux, I expect that XLC/C++ will get a linux release too sooner or later.
Re:Good news by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-13 04:48 · Score: 0

Why did WTC 7 collapse?

Because it caught on fire from the initial debris and burned uncontrolled for ~7 hours because all the rescue folks were busy with more pressing issues. Luckily, an evacuation was called early on and lots of folks made it to safety.
Re:Good news by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-13 07:18 · Score: 0

The steel used for those buildings melts at over 1000 degrees celcius
It would have been impossible for the building to collapse from flames.
Re:Good news by Sleep_Pilot · 2004-09-13 08:02 · Score: 1

version 6 of XLC/C++ on Linux has been out for over a year.

--
-- Ka Lam
Re:Good news by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-13 12:11 · Score: 0

but it starts softening much cooler than that.

the better question by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-13 04:27 · Score: 5, Funny

Will it boot OS/2?

Re:the better question by liquidsin · 2004-09-13 04:47 · Score: 1

Fuck OS/2, I wanna know if it'll boot UnixWare!

--
do not read this line twice.

Someone's bound to say; "The death of AIX!" by samberdoo · 2004-09-13 04:29 · Score: 1

Unfortunately, AIX has too many proprietary IBM extensions we don't want in Linux. More importantly, can it run DB2 or WSAD? Of course, it would be nice to hook it up to an iPod.

Re:Someone's bound to say; "The death of AIX!" by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-13 05:36 · Score: 0

More importantly, can it run DB2 or WSAD?

Yes.

Pretty much all IBM middleware runs on Linux. And Linux runs on pretty much all IBM hardware - xSeries, pSeries, iSeries, and zSeries.
Re:Someone's bound to say; "The death of AIX!" by drinkypoo · 2004-09-13 05:48 · Score: 1

If you actually cared about DB2 on linux you would know about DB2 Universal Database for Linux.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"

It is almost *too* tempting. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-13 04:31 · Score: -1, Offtopic

Every time I see somebody offering gmail invites with a visible email address (especially a gmail one) I just want to sign them up for all kinds of dirty newsletters. It's nothing personal, of course. It just seems like people here are going crazy for gmail accounts and people like you are pimping them out like a crack dealer. Again, it's nothing personal. For some reason, making people email you for the divine privaledge of getting signed up for a beta (mass-storage) email system seems...snooty to me. "Look at me, I'm special because I have a gmail account and you don't, but if you want one just swallow your pride and email me!" I'm not saying that is what you are doing, but that is how it comes off. I'd rather see the invites posted anonymously, but Google would probably invalidate them eventually (they have done so previously).
And no, I'm not jealous. I've had several gmail invites come my way and have never used one. I definately don't need the space (which is basically the big feature), and my spam filtering solution works good enough. I don't use email that much, so the conversation tracking and other features just don't mean anything to me.
I miss you, goat-see.

Re:It is almost *too* tempting. by AKAImBatman · 2004-09-13 04:45 · Score: 1

1. The features amount to much, much, much more than just space.

2. Sorry for trying to be helpful.

3. Signing people up for crap is rude. None the less, GMail will helpfully filter the Spam using its handy, dandy, trainable, spam trap.

--
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade

I'm holding out for MVS by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-13 04:32 · Score: 0

I can't wait to write JCL at home!

Redhat on Power architecture? by Dr.+Evil · 2004-09-13 04:34 · Score: 4, Interesting

When did IBM start using Redhat on the Power achitecture? It's been SuSE for a long time now hasn't it?

Re:Redhat on Power architecture? by xferboy · 2004-09-13 04:39 · Score: 3, Informative

for quite a while (year +) on the iSeries (old AS/400) and now the i5 (rebranded, again AS/400) boxes

http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/eserver/iseries/lin ux /dist.html
Re:Redhat on Power architecture? by bigredradio · 2004-09-13 04:42 · Score: 3, Informative

They started serious power development in Redhat 7.1 . Right before RHEL came out. It was always 64-bit though. Intented for pSeries and not Macs. That is why it was not well known.

--
Flexible bare-metal recovery for Linux/UNIX

Fri5t Psot by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-13 04:35 · Score: -1, Troll

EFNet, And aaply God, let's fucking Fact: *BSD is dying guest and never get

Apple's chief benefit. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-13 04:37 · Score: 0

Why would you want to run OSX on these. IMHO Apple's greatest strength is the really awesome industrial design; and if I had an excuse to run OSX, I'd love the excuse to get Apples from Apple.

Can't use OS X by digitalgimpus · 2004-09-13 04:45 · Score: -1, Redundant

The reason why is Apple's Mac OS X requires Apple ROM.

I'm pretty sure at some point, someone's going to come up with either a hack for Mac OS X, or a way to fake out via some open source ROM.

I'd bet it takes some serious skills... but it's bound to happen.

And Apple's DMCA lawyers will be all over it.

Someone will still attempt it, because it would be one hell of a feat. I'm curious if PearPC might be moving towards that direction slowly.

--
Was my post Informative? Help me get an iPod, by signing up and completing an offer. Get a cool eBay credit card and help me out! I'm 1 referral away from my iPod.

WOW! 'linux-only' means... by ant_tmwx · 2004-09-13 04:48 · Score: 3, Funny

too busy to read the TITLE? this is even lazier than me. RTFT.

Re:WOW! 'linux-only' means... by evilviper · 2004-09-13 11:20 · Score: 1

And of course we all know that the titles of Slashdot stories are 100% accurate, 100% of the time... Never exaggerated or just plain wrong.

And by "Linux-only" they couldn't possibly have just meant that AIX doesn't come installed...

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant

Applinux by coyotedata · 2004-09-13 04:51 · Score: -1, Flamebait

If you are thinking about Apple why are you even on this board? Or is it that you are not thinking?

mod d0Wn by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-13 04:53 · Score: -1, Troll

We''l be able to end, we need you

Power =! PowerPC by nurb432 · 2004-09-13 04:54 · Score: 1, Insightful

They are not the same CPU, so its doubful OSX would run..

I Belive PPC is a subset of "Power", but i could easily be wrong on that part..

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----

Re:Power =! PowerPC by thpr · 2004-09-13 05:07 · Score: 1

PowerPC is actually derived from POWER; it is NOT a subset. Things from POWER2 would not run unchanged on PowerPC - I experienced that in a transition from an RS/6000 R30 (if my memory isn't failing) to an RS/6000 J40, and it required some rework.
To quote IBM's POWER history, there are differences: "For instance, PowerPC is open-endian, supporting both big-endian and little-endian memory models, where POWER had been big-endian. The original PowerPC design also focused on floating-point performance and multiprocessing capabilities. Still, it did and still does include most of the POWER instructions. Many applications work on both, perhaps with a recompile to make the transition."
Re:Power =! PowerPC by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-13 05:13 · Score: 0

Please. I know this is Slashdot and actual research and knowledge are not required before you post but this is just inane.

PowerPC *IS* a subset of POWER. A POWER chip can execute any PowerPC instruction thrown at it (baring AltiVec bolt on extensions). Thus why you can run AIX on both architectures.

Read up thread a little bit about WHY it won't run OS X. It has nothing to do with the architecture of the Chip.
Re:Power =! PowerPC by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-13 05:18 · Score: 0

The Power5 processor does not have an Altivec engine.
Re:Power =! PowerPC by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-13 05:26 · Score: 3, Informative

Sorry for the AC post

PowerPC RISC architecture was developed by IBM in the late 80s / early 90s. Apple, IBM and Motorola formed a triumverate to further develop the architecture. IBM came into the deal with the 601 series processor already in development. When Somerset Park was shut down, Motorola inherited most of the physical assets, while all three companies retained ownership over the intellectual properties. The last processor series developed in concert between the three companies was the PowerPC G3.

Motorola and IBM diverged on development after the G3. Motorola was very interested in further developing vector processing, while IBM focused on better enhancing the core of the processor. Hence, then next iteration of the series from Motorola was known as the G4, while IBM went on to develop the Power 4, using similar underlying core architectures, though Motorola was stymied by clocking problems that didn't seem to be as much of an issue for the Power 4 processors.

The G5 processor that Apple is using now is actually a variant of the Power series from IBM that has included vector units. The Power 5 is also developed from the same core. Call them cousins if you will. So it would not be beyond the scope for someone to find a way to run Mac OS X Server to run on a Power 5 architecture. In fact, about the only thing stopping that development, I bet, is the threat of litigation from Apple.
Re:Power =! PowerPC by drinkypoo · 2004-09-13 05:44 · Score: 1, Informative

PowerPC IS a subset of POWER, but with Altivec added. Altivec is apparently pretty much motorola's game, but because they got in bed with IBM, IBM got it too. (Partial custody?) The latest PowerPC processor is not either-endian, support for the either-endianness of many instructions was dropped in the G5. So it's sometimes-either-endian. This change has caused problems for people who write emulation software of the x86. PPC601 was the only PowerPC processor which had a full POWER instruction set, after that they've all had less instructions, with the obvious exception of the G3 and up having altivec/SIMD.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Power =! PowerPC by shotfeel · 2004-09-13 05:56 · Score: 1

Another big difference is that Power does not include AltiVec (aka Velocity Engine).
Re:Power =! PowerPC by Henriok · 2004-09-13 08:41 · Score: 1

POWER IS PowerPC. Ever since POWER3 the POWER-processors have hade the complete 32- and 64-bit PowerPC ISAs. there would only be the matter of drivers that would keep OSX from running on any PowerPC hadware, including POWER-based servers.

--

- Henrik

- when the Shadows descend -
Re:Power =! PowerPC by mveloso · 2004-09-13 13:12 · Score: 1

MacOS X does not require AltiVec. Next point?

xlC ? Teamconnection ? by morcego · 2004-09-13 05:11 · Score: 1

I wonder if IBM is releasing their compiler set for Linux as well. Even tho xlc (C compiler) was kinda crappy, xlC (C++ compiler) was one of the best I ever seen, expecially for not allowing programers to put too much crap on the code (printf on C++ ? Don't think so).

Same question regarding Teamconnection.

Then again, these may already be avaliable, and I'm just asking a dumb question.

--
morcego

Re:xlC ? Teamconnection ? by chez69 · 2004-09-13 05:20 · Score: 1

IBM owns rational, so i doubt team connection (if your refering to their old source control software) will ever get ported to this platform.

--
PHP is the solution of choice for relaying mysql errors to web users.
Re:xlC ? Teamconnection ? by morcego · 2004-09-13 05:30 · Score: 1

For me, their old source control software is called CMVC. Used that in 1993. But I disgress.

I'm not sure I follow you. Is rational their new source control software or something ?

--
morcego
Re:xlC ? Teamconnection ? by chez69 · 2004-09-13 05:41 · Score: 1

the former company rational had a product called clearcase that is a widely used sorce control product.

IBM seems to have adopted it as their source control platform of choice. I guess I mixed up team connection with an old source control program.

--
PHP is the solution of choice for relaying mysql errors to web users.
Re:xlC ? Teamconnection ? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-13 06:15 · Score: 0

xlC (C++ compiler) was one of the best I ever seen, expecially for not allowing programers to put too much crap on the code

xlC (4.x) produced very good optimized code, but it barfed on lots of legitimate C++ syntax, didn't have STL, and couldn't compile an executable capable of addressing more than 128MB RAM forcing one to diddle with the executable with dd.

TeamConnection was canned back in 2002 if I remember correctly. IBM still uses its ancestor CMVC internally but is moving to ClearCase.
Re:xlC ? Teamconnection ? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-13 06:24 · Score: 0

For me, their old source control software is called CMVC. Used that in 1993. But I disgress.

I'm not sure I follow you. Is rational their new source control software or something ?

CMVC was cleaned up and packaged for external sale; that product was called "TeamConnection". TeamConnection didn't sell well and was scrapped. A newer Java-based version of CMVC (4.0) is still used internally by several divisions in Software Group.

IBM purchased Rational Software in 2003-ish; Rational makes "Rational Rose" (the premier UML modeler), ClearCase (a well-known SCM), and a dozen other CASE-ish tools. IBM is transitioning out of CMVC and into ClearCase, but it's naturally taking a while.

The sad thing is ClearCase is tightly controlled by license servers. Before it was pretty easy to get a CMVC repository up and running for an off-site department -- or for your own laptop.
Re:xlC ? Teamconnection ? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-13 08:56 · Score: 0

The compilers are already available.

$5k by siskbc · 2004-09-13 05:16 · Score: 1

For something from Big Blue, this is a bargain basement price.

Or for something running OS X...

It's a joke people...I own a powerbook.

--

-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat

Re:$5k by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-13 05:40 · Score: 0

That's good. You're like the racist guy who say's, "But I have a(n) friend."

Nice try, David Duke.
Re:$5k by fsbilly · 2004-09-13 05:44 · Score: 1

That was supposed to say, "But I have a(n) (inert ethnicity) friend."
Re:$5k by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-13 06:07 · Score: 0

And that one was supposed to be AC like the other, right?

What are you like? the PC police with no sense of humor?
Re:$5k by swillden · 2004-09-13 06:31 · Score: 1

That was supposed to say, "But I have a(n) (inert ethnicity) friend."
What's an "inert" ethnicity?
An ethnic group whose members don't interact with other ethnic groups?

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Re:$5k by fsbilly · 2004-09-13 07:53 · Score: 1

yeah. whole thing got all screwy on me. could have been funny.

i'm never posting again.

ot - messy desks by advocate_one · 2004-09-13 05:18 · Score: 1

yippee... a contest I stand a chance of winning!!! seriously, I started my new job today and my workspace is rather sparse compared to those... but give it a week...

--
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.

Re:ot - messy desks by lewp · 2004-09-13 19:27 · Score: 1

Welp, since you've already started hitting Slashdot on your first day you might not have to worry about being there a whole week.

--
Game... blouses.
Re:ot - messy desks by advocate_one · 2004-09-14 05:20 · Score: 1

who says I post from work??? I'm in the UK, not US and my evenings correspond with your worktimes. Anyway, slashdot is not on the "whitelist". To get a site added to the whitelist is not trivial, it has to be either work related, or of major general benefit to the rest of those at work.

--
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
Re:ot - messy desks by lewp · 2004-09-14 15:28 · Score: 1

I was just fucking with you.

--
Game... blouses.

Boot Mac OS X -- yes, but using MOL by perlow · 2004-09-13 05:20 · Score: 2, Informative

http://freshmeat.net/projects/mol/

http://www.maconlinux.org

Re:Boot Mac OS X -- yes, but using MOL by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-13 06:00 · Score: 0

Unfortunately MOL only works on 32-bit hardware, i.e. it doesn't even run on G5's.
Re:Boot Mac OS X -- yes, but using MOL by perlow · 2004-09-13 07:43 · Score: 1

As I understand it, the POWER architecture can handle 32 and 64 bit executables when running a 64-bit Linux kernel, so I would think any 64-bit limitations in MOL could be easily corrected with some extra development work.
Re:Boot Mac OS X -- yes, but using MOL by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-13 18:19 · Score: 0

Sure, it can be corrected with "some extra development work". When are you done?

Mentioned in WSJ Today by jhoffoss · 2004-09-13 05:28 · Score: 2, Informative

This was mentioned in an article in the Wall Street Journal today. The article is regarding vendor-backing of LSB2. Near the end, the WSJ stated this product is meant to compete with Sun and HP workstations. Link to related story, as WSJ's requires subscription services.

--
Linux: The world's best text-adventure game.

Will it boot up Apple's OSX Server? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-13 05:28 · Score: 0

Can a puma challenge a lion for king of the jungle?

Darwin has the drivers by sjf · 2004-09-13 05:32 · Score: 1

Darwin does support PS/2, RS232 etc...it also supports pretty much any video card in an unaccelerated mode - which isn't that important in a server.

And, for what it is worth, OS X supports USB RS232/432 devices.
And, of course, there are the various virtual machines that will let you run OS X and Darwin under Windows - if they can virtualize those devices, no doubt it could be done on a pSeries.

OTOH, no doubt that the pSeries will be no cheaper than an XServe.

-S

this is going to piss off AIX customers large by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-13 05:35 · Score: 1, Insightful

For whatever reason IBM intentionally or un-intentionally will be pissing off their AIX customers by not certifying the hardware for AIX. Technically there's no reason for not doing this, financially they would take a hit. Currently a similarly powered machine for AIX is 3-6 times more money depending on the config...

Nice product, don't get me wrong, they're just going to be pissing off their best customers...the died in the wool "UNIX" customers.

Why would you want to? by Ohreally_factor · 2004-09-13 05:38 · Score: 1

My understanding of OS X server is that it is basically a bunch of really nice GUI wrappers for free utilities. So, if you really needed an IBM Power5 server, couldn't we assume that you wouldn't need the slick OS X server UI?

--
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.

AIX -- Expensive!?! by vijaya_chandra · 2004-09-13 05:45 · Score: 1

The post says
"This story from Infoworld.com talks about IBM's new low priced POWER5 based servers which will ship with Red Hat or Suse Linux, but not IBM's AIX."

Does a 'low priced' linux-only server without AIX mean that AIX actually is the reason for the higher pricing of the other IBM servers!?!

Simple question of open vs. closed hardware by hol · 2004-09-13 06:00 · Score: 1

Apple closed their hardware specs again after a short period of opening up. Something about having hoped that other companies would eat PC market share and not their own. Right.

The better question here is: Is the IBM Power5 series truly open? If so, it should run any OS with support for that platform, if not now, but real soon. That would include *BSD, the open version of BeOS, or whatever Linux flavour you want.

If it's a closed back-room deal involving a closed OS loader, this would be more difficult, but considering SuSe is involved I would not be surprised; their willingness to sell out to the likes of Nvidia could be argued to have pushed back OSS/FSS support for NVidia for some time.

--
- - - Non Caffeine Drink or Drink Error

Parent is plain wrong by Bill+Hayden · 2004-09-13 06:02 · Score: 1

MacOS X does not use ROMs.

Only the classic Mac OS up through version 8 used onboard ROMs. Mac OS 9 (and maybe even 8.6) used a "software" ROM that was loaded in the filesystem. MacOS X does not use ROMs at all.

--
Protect your browser with the Force Safe Search add-on

Actually yes. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-13 06:03 · Score: 0

I know you are kidding, but it probably would (with some work) boot OS/2. Before IBM killed it back in the 95/96 timeframe, there was a project to port OS/2 to the PowerPC that got to the alpha stage. It was based on a TRUE microkernel (no NT style pseudo-microkernels). Cool stuff.

Re:Ask Apple, too. by Bastian · 2004-09-13 06:05 · Score: 1

The EULA that came with my copy of OS X Server says you aren't allowed to install the OS on non-Apple hardware. You'll have to call them and work out a special agreement.

Emulation of a server running AIX? by pe1chl · 2004-09-13 06:13 · Score: 1

We have an old RS-6000 server, model E30.
It is running AIX 4.1.5.
There is a vertical market application on it, that we have replaced by SAP in 1999, but the system still needs to be running because data stored in the application sometimes needs to be retrieved.

Now, the system is dying. Disks are failing (not yet fatal because of the mirroring). The maintenance contract has been stopped, as earlier it was believed that it would be redundant by now.
All our systems are now Intel-based and run Windows or Linux, we have no interest to buy new PowerPC hardware.

Is there some sulution to run this entire environment emulated under Linux?
A PowerPC emulator running on Intel, that can run AIX?
I have read about "PearPC" but it looks like it is targeted towards running Apple operating systems.
Any chance it would run AIX?

Re:Emulation of a server running AIX? by kpharmer · 2004-09-13 06:37 · Score: 1

Given the recent dramatic drop in rs/6000 prices, it might be cheaper & safer to just get a new aix box.

You could probably get a new p615 for under $10k. Add four 15k-rpm 36-gbyte drives internally for data, and you've got a surprisingly cheap, fast, and reliable box. And there are lower-end options as well that might be able to save more money. Then once you migrate off this application you could resell the box, or put linux on it.

Alternatively, getting an updated application from your vendor that specially supports linux would be another safe option.

Back to the original question - emulate aix on linux, that unfortunately doesn't sound likely to be reliable...
Re:Emulation of a server running AIX? by pe1chl · 2004-09-13 07:09 · Score: 1

Add four 15k-rpm 36-gbyte drives internally for data

This system is old. I think it was originally purchased in 1996. It has 4 1GB and 2 2GB disks in RAID-1... so 4GB of space.

getting an updated application from your vendor

The vendor is out of business. When we had the sources we would recompile it on Linux.
Lesson: use open-source when possible!

emulate aix on linux, that unfortunately doesn't sound likely to be reliable

Reliability is not really a concern. It just needs to work, for a single user, infrequently.
In fact the current state is: we have backups, should the system die we will have to do something like you describe and load the backups.
But it would be convenient when we could just run it on one of the many Intel servers when required, without having to go through the procedure of configuring a new system, making sure it can run our old stuff before buying, etc.
We are also considering buying one or two used 4GB drives (these are available for like $200) and transfer the data to these, considering that the drives currently seem the limiting factor for the lifetime of the existing box.
An alternative is to print as many reports as we can think of to textfiles, and save these.

Thanks for your comments.
Re:Emulation of a server running AIX? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-13 14:35 · Score: 0

An alternative is to print as many reports as we can think of to textfiles, and save these.

When are people going to quit drinking the kool-aid (okay, the WiNTELFlavor-aid)?

WTF? I think parent was supposed to be funny by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-13 06:48 · Score: 0

But I think you need to backup your position with more links

Seriously, the grandparent was implying that Apple gave kickbacks for links, so the parent just made a post of links. It's a joke, get it? (I see how it could be construed as not funny, but a troll?)

Less cheap crack. More (free) beer.

Same article, now in living color, er contrast! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-13 08:08 · Score: 0

http://shit.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/09/13/1 332246&threshold=-1&tid=136&tid=218

No, it uses USB keyboard by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-13 11:16 · Score: 0

Unlike previous pSeries machines, the Power5 generation has no ISA bus. Hence there no directly controlled RS232, parallel, or PS/2 ports. For the keyboard one would use the embedded NEC USB 2.0 chipset.

While there is a serial port, using it for OS console won't work because it's abstracted through a new virtual-tty interface that OS X won't understand.

I'm skeptical that one could trick the OS into thinking there is a Apple-ROM since the device tree entry for the Apple-ROM would be verified by the OS driver. The device tree entry is merely a hint as to where to locate the ROM.

Irrelevant question by AchilleTalon · 2004-09-13 14:23 · Score: 2, Insightful

I think asking if it will boot OS/X is just like asking: Yes, but will it boot Windows XP?

It is just irrelevant to the marketing initiative and the goal of IBM. Why the hell should IBM cares about the PowerPC on the desktop when Apple is already providing a solution? Go and buy Apple!

IBM is just unrolling the red carpet for Linux to enter enterprise data-centers in some of the most skeptical and demanding industries.

The most interesting feature is the virtualization engine on the four processors model. Given what it is costing to some banking customers per server on the floor, while some are idle most of the time and only justified because they need a "separated box for security reasons", this single feature will sell the box by tons. And I know a customer who would benefit right away from this to replace about 50 servers by two or three of these. And two-third of these servers are Sun boxes. IBM is likely to get the integration project using their virtualization engine, they will lost some money on the maintenance since the remaining third is IBM boxes, but they will get fresh new cash for the new boxes, the project and kick-out Sun. Anything else they could wish to have?

--
Achille Talon
Hop!

Yes But..... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-13 14:33 · Score: 0

There is a big difference between a POWER5 chip and a POWERpc 970FX chip. The POWER5 chip will be able to similtainously run OSes on the same chip. There are some other cool technologies that go with the chip, but sifting through the IBM site to find this is not something I care to do tonight.

What part of ... by e_AltF4 · 2004-09-14 13:03 · Score: 1

... "Linux-only" didn't you understand ?

Slashdot Mirror

Linux-only POWER5 server From IBM

232 comments