Licensing of clones, the Newton, the eMate, etc. They were losing major money/resources and got rid of people. Their CEO left, and everyone thought they were going to die.
They rehired Steve Jobs, trimmed their products down to their core strengths, and are now worth more than they ever have been before.
So SGI, but spinning off and properly marketing their strengths(without tying them down to SGI) such as MIPS and Cray and their VisualPC stations, while focusing on their Irix high end supercomputing, and Linux on their low end desktop workstations, gives them a reasonable future. If they can focus on their core strengths and not waver or get distracted...
It's a perfect chance to buy their stock at 11 and (hopefully) see it go to 40!
Apple is just utilizing the IEEE 802.11 wireless lan technology that Lucent, 3com, and others are designing and selling.
A new.com article tells of Dell also planning on utilizing similar technology.
If France(and other countries) allocate their frequencies in this range for military or non public use, than *no* IEEE 802.11 specified devices can be used/sold/imported. I wonder how this will be resolved, else France will either need to develop their own technolog and solutions or they will miss out entirely!
Your third point: Initially RAMBUS at 800MHz was specified, but when manufacturing and quality difficulties occurred, it was stepped down to 600MHz and lower. And PC133 was added as well.
I don't know about SDRAM maxing out at 150MHz. Word is that Apple is working on DDRAM, which uses both clock edges, as well as working it at 266MHz. Now this may just be Double the rate at 133MHz, or Double the rate at 266MHz, I don't know. Link is http://www.macosrumors.com/8-99.html
But otherwise I have to agree with most of your points.
I'm one of the other posters who was wondering on the price/performance comparison.
One could very well chalk up the price difference towards reducing communications/messaging latency between computing units, cooling solutions, memory architectures, etc.
And hasn't it already been shown, for at least brute force algorithm cracking techniques, that massively parallel computing does work? So that a Beowulf is okay for such a system?
Of course this is different than using a more elegant and efficient algorithm to handle encryption/decryption attacks, but that is out of my/our ken as well.
Just wondering, because another post wanted to compare one to, say, a Beowulf cluster.
If you use a G4 PowerMac and their highly advertised 1 gflop rating as a base, at $1,600 each, to reach a 10 tflop rating you would need 10,000 networked machines, so for each 10 tflops would be spending $16,000,000. I don't know how the comparable PIII or Celeron would perform though, or at what price.
16 mil is a lot to spend. But for government purposes it may just be a drop in the bucket.
Well how about a Beowulf cluster of G4s? Say using the publicized 1 gflop performance of the Velocity Engine, you'd need 1000 of them to get 1 teraflop and 10,000 to hit the 10s of teraflops, and multiples of 10,000 to hit a comparable multiples of 10s of teraflops.
That's $1600 each, or $16,000,000 per tens of teraflops.
It may be cheaper on PIIIs, but it would also take more PIIIs as well.
I'm assuming it's a headless network at $1600 each, btw.
-AS
Re:Every toaster on the internet?
on
CNN On IPv6
·
· Score: 2
That's definitely an exaggeration and hyperbole.
But if every Palm or Visor were networked? Or all the millions of Gameboys? As well as PCs, cell phones, cars, etc?
Ostensibly anything that can use information can/should be connected to the internet.
And the dynamic capabilities of IPv6 should be very useful for such roaming devices as cars, trains, airplanes, Gameboys, Palms and Visors, cell phones, beepers, pagers, e-books, WinCE machines, wristwatches, and whatnot.
I would imagine, fundamentally, that everyone would *want* to switch, were it that simple.
However, organizations and companies have to tackle issues such as hardware and OS support, software written to recognize and work with *both* IPv6 and IPv4 until the transition has been made, as well as all the little differences in network architecture that may be necessary due to IPv4 vs IPv6.
I had heard that Linux already has support for IPv6; but how about hardware(NICs, routers, network topologies)? And do they work with Linux? And will the software we use, will they work with Linux?
For example take USB. Everything is USB today except for WindowsNT. Linux has better USB support, for crying out loud! Can't use USB mice, keyboards, printers, anything, under WinNT. Will there be a similar situation for IPv6? If the M$s and Suns of the world don't actively try to promote IPv6, and smaller alternatives such as Linux can't/don't/won't step up to the plate, how will anyone ever switch over?
Of course this is just another opportunity for Linux to show it's superiority =)
Linux vs WinNT Better USB support IPv6 support Better low level scalability Higher efficiencies and runtimes Better clustering capability(Beowulf)
They talk about Apple working on 266MHz SDRAM implementations, probably for future G4s and in anticipation of G5s.
Someone else mentioned that Alpha gets it's 200MHz/250MHz bus by multiplexing a 75MHz 256bit wide bus. I can imagine 8 64bit memory buses running at 100MHz, which is can be worked with as a single 800MHz 64bit bus. But that's a darned high wire count. More likely you'd get 8 32bit buses at 100MHz or even at 133MHz.
Excuse me if I don't make much sense, I'm speculating here =)
I'd actually believe that Motorola has no problem selling it's PPC and 68k CPUs in embedded systems, and it was only recently with the advent of $600 systems that the popularity of architectures and CPUs becomes an issue.
I mean Motorola sells a 68k CPU with every Palm and Visor out there. If they have an embedded processor in a cell phone, I'd think they would be selling more cell phones than PCs. Yes, PPC CPUs in computers would be more popular, but it wasn't necessarily the most profitable or intelligent thing to do; it would require that Motorola(or someone else) support AGP chipsets, PCI chipsets, memory chipsets, etc, for a single system to make a profit.
If you haven't noticed, Apple does this all by themselves. If you search IBM's website for PowerPC, you'll also see that they had PowerPC systems for sale since 1996 or something, but at $6,000 costs.
I can't imagine anyone just picking up the PowerPC platform until LinuxPPC stabilizes and matures, because I don't think anyone can compete with Apple on a design standpoint and no one can compete with Intel on a price standpoint.
So DEC Alphas and AMDs use a 200MHz FSB, or whatever they call it, and Intel/VIA/etc will be using 133MHz FSB as well.
I'm not sure how the RAM and bus speed correlates, but Apple seems to be actively researching 266MHz RAM, most likely in anticipation of G5s. It has also been documented that PC133 outperforms RAMBUS, so PC266 may be what you're looking for.
Look at http://www.macosrumors.com/8-99.html under the 8/16 update.
A response, in three parts =) 1: By licensing out their OS they can get a royalty per sale, much like M$ gets a fixed sum per PC sold because it comes bundled with the system, and not have to deal with the manufacture, sales, advertising, or development costs of actually building a system. In this case say Handspring outsells a Palm 3:1 because of price, features, and color--Palm still gets royalties which are essentially pure profit, as well as grabbing more market share because WinCE machines, if they couldn't keep up with the Pilot, they certainly can't keep up with the Visor.
2: I don't know. I don't think they will yank out from under Visor because in interviews they have explicitly said they want to avoid the traps and pitfalls that Apple has gone through =)
3: Because it's there. Because it's a Motorola 60480 whatever CPU that was in the MacII or something. Because they are bored. Because they are geniuses. Because they are morons. =)
Hey, I didn't say Compaq doesn't research or innovate. I just said that SGI's research helps it to differentiate itself from Compaq, otherwise they are both companies that sell RISC servers, RISC and Intel workstations, supercomputers, Linux machines, Beowulf clusters, UNIX OSes, etc.
It seems a good idea that SGI dropped NT, if only because they would be hobbled by Microsoft's development schedule.
Now we have to wait and see if SGI's plan has any merit!
Oh, I know that. It's just that without any of the 'sexy' stuff or the unique stuff, what will SGI offer that Compaq doesn't?
For now SGI has strengths in graphics and some neat memory technology. They have *excellent* mindshare, what with being involved in just about every single blockbuster high tech sfx movie ever released, and some really good talent, from what I hear.
I hope they do better without their 1500 people =(
I'm not sure I agree that reliance on 'proprietary processors' hurt it.
Name a processor that isn't 'proprietary'!
Do you mean they relied too much on internal processes when they should have used available resources that fit the need? Like they're doing now? Intel PIII Xeons, instead of MIPS, Beowulf clusters, instead of freaking expensive supercomputers, and Linux instead of Irix? Take four years ago. What could they have done differently? Linux was still but a babe in diapers, comparatively, and the PIIs didn't have the scaleability or robustness or price point to make them great buys. They could have bought DEC Alpha, I guess, or used Alphas instead of MIPs... But Alphas were just as expensive, and still are, to some point. And about OSes, the only other choices they had were HP UX, OS/2, AIX, Windows NT, DEC's OS, and maybe some others.
I don't know that I believe that the high end graphics market isn't lucretive. What should they focus on instead? Servers(vs IBM or Sun or HP)? Supercomputers(vs IBM)?
It may be necessary to cut loose employees--but that is a lot of talent that they are losing, and a lot of future growth they are sacrificing.
I don't know that I agree with SGI's current focus. But my fingers are crossed for them!
The brief mentions laying off almost double it's previously announced expectations as well as outsourcing much of it's costly research.
What I've got to wonder is *who* SGI is laying off? They have some unique and powerful technology, and the research is what differentiates SGI from, say, Compaq. If they stop innovating and exploring, they *can't* offer any value over Compaq. Of course Compaq may decide to buy out SGI anyway =)
From what I can read the Visor(Solo) is just a Visor without a cradle; it can still sync, but it doesn't come with a cradle, on the assumption I guess that you can have 8 Visors sharing one cradle or something.
Um, so it's cheaper, comes with more memory(8mb on the deluxe version), and has superior upgrade capability with the Springboard. What would you call extraordinary? It can tell you bedtime stories? They talk about GPS, cellular connectivity, mp3 playback, dictation, voice control, wireless communication...
There is nothing out there with this capability except maybe the Gameboy.
What, a Visor with the appropriate Springboard module isn't your taste? I'd imagine Visor would come out with it before Palm would.
What would you do with it, btw? It would be only useful if you could either use the data(mp3s?) or transfer the data, and I don't think 340mb would transfer very quickly...
Now why couldn't a wireless interface on the Visor be in constant contact with a host 'supercomputer' at all times? I don't know that this would be anything other than a convenience though, but having access to something to run Mathmatica or something else similar 24/7 would be nifty.
So I looked at all the Super7 motherboards at the site. All used DIMMs, no SIMMs. Oh, and the MB5077 doesn't exist(at least not on AltonPC site). The closest is the M577, an AT formfactor with 3 DIMM slots.
We are talking about the same thing, right?
My original point was that a PowerPC Performa 7100 could upgrade to a G4.
To be fair, that meant upgrading a PC from a Pentium to an AMD K6-3 for a reasonable cost.
On the Mac side you just pop in a daughtercard and off you go(you probably need to patch the BIOS and use a OS that supports the processor as well, but the same holds true for the PC)
On the PC side, if I were to upgrade my Pentium, not only do I need to use a something like the AltonPC M577(let's assume it's $60), I need to grab the processor, an AMD K6-3 for about $100, and finally ram. Let's say I grab 64MB. Best of my knowledge then, that's $80, because prices are going up right now.
So I just spent $240... assuming I'm not also forced to replace an ethernet card, video card, sound card, or SCSI card as well.
For a Mac person, a Performa 5400 to a G3 costs $299 (From a PowerPC 603e@160MHz to a PowerPC G3@300MHz)
So you can't be arguing it's easier to upgrade a PC than a Mac, though I do cede that it costs $59 dollars less on the PC(assuming that the M577 is indeed $60, and not closer to $100, as I suspect)
I never said one couldn't upgrade a PC; just that it was much easier and hassle free on a Mac.
Last I checked, AT motherboards cost more than ATX motherboards, and still used newer memories.
I am aware you can upgrade a Pentium up through the AMD line, up to near Celeron performance levels. So my old Pentium can go from a P133 to a AMD K-63? No, the motherboard isn't that up to date, and bios releases don't allow it to use the k-63. So I need a new motherboard.
I haven't been seeing $50 AT motherboards. And don't forget the cost of memory, as your IBM PC XT more than likely does not have a significant or useful amount of memory. How you upgrade is important; I thought we were talking about reviving 3, 4, 6 year old PCs to modern performance levels in a similar way one would upgrade a 7100 Performa to a 400MHz G3 or G4. Which is just bios and daughtercard on the Mac, but memory, motherboard, CPU, possibly power supply, possibly case, and possibly peripherals like mouse and keyboard on the PC side.
It would be very nice to be able to pop in a daughtercard into my P133 motherboard's PCI slot and use a Celeron or something.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course look at Apple three years ago:
Licensing of clones, the Newton, the eMate, etc. They were losing major money/resources and got rid of people. Their CEO left, and everyone thought they were going to die.
They rehired Steve Jobs, trimmed their products down to their core strengths, and are now worth more than they ever have been before.
So SGI, but spinning off and properly marketing their strengths(without tying them down to SGI) such as MIPS and Cray and their VisualPC stations, while focusing on their Irix high end supercomputing, and Linux on their low end desktop workstations, gives them a reasonable future. If they can focus on their core strengths and not waver or get distracted...
It's a perfect chance to buy their stock at 11 and (hopefully) see it go to 40!
-AS
Has a serious problem then.
Apple is just utilizing the IEEE 802.11 wireless lan technology that Lucent, 3com, and others are designing and selling.
A new.com article tells of Dell also planning on utilizing similar technology.
If France(and other countries) allocate their frequencies in this range for military or non public use, than *no* IEEE 802.11 specified devices can be used/sold/imported. I wonder how this will be resolved, else France will either need to develop their own technolog and solutions or they will miss out entirely!
-AS
Your third point: Initially RAMBUS at 800MHz was specified, but when manufacturing and quality difficulties occurred, it was stepped down to 600MHz and lower. And PC133 was added as well.
I don't know about SDRAM maxing out at 150MHz. Word is that Apple is working on DDRAM, which uses both clock edges, as well as working it at 266MHz. Now this may just be Double the rate at 133MHz, or Double the rate at 266MHz, I don't know. Link is
http://www.macosrumors.com/8-99.html
But otherwise I have to agree with most of your points.
-AS
I'm one of the other posters who was wondering on the price/performance comparison.
One could very well chalk up the price difference towards reducing communications/messaging latency between computing units, cooling solutions, memory architectures, etc.
And hasn't it already been shown, for at least brute force algorithm cracking techniques, that massively parallel computing does work? So that a Beowulf is okay for such a system?
Of course this is different than using a more elegant and efficient algorithm to handle encryption/decryption attacks, but that is out of my/our ken as well.
-AS
It just encourages them.
Sigh.
*breath*
*breath*
*breath*
-AS
Just wondering, because another post wanted to compare one to, say, a Beowulf cluster.
If you use a G4 PowerMac and their highly advertised 1 gflop rating as a base, at $1,600 each, to reach a 10 tflop rating you would need 10,000 networked machines, so for each 10 tflops would be spending $16,000,000. I don't know how the comparable PIII or Celeron would perform though, or at what price.
16 mil is a lot to spend. But for government purposes it may just be a drop in the bucket.
-AS
Well how about a Beowulf cluster of G4s? Say using the publicized 1 gflop performance of the Velocity Engine, you'd need 1000 of them to get 1 teraflop and 10,000 to hit the 10s of teraflops, and multiples of 10,000 to hit a comparable multiples of 10s of teraflops.
That's $1600 each, or $16,000,000 per tens of teraflops.
It may be cheaper on PIIIs, but it would also take more PIIIs as well.
I'm assuming it's a headless network at $1600 each, btw.
-AS
That's definitely an exaggeration and hyperbole.
But if every Palm or Visor were networked? Or all the millions of Gameboys? As well as PCs, cell phones, cars, etc?
Ostensibly anything that can use information can/should be connected to the internet.
And the dynamic capabilities of IPv6 should be very useful for such roaming devices as cars, trains, airplanes, Gameboys, Palms and Visors, cell phones, beepers, pagers, e-books, WinCE machines, wristwatches, and whatnot.
-AS
I would imagine, fundamentally, that everyone would *want* to switch, were it that simple.
However, organizations and companies have to tackle issues such as hardware and OS support, software written to recognize and work with *both* IPv6 and IPv4 until the transition has been made, as well as all the little differences in network architecture that may be necessary due to IPv4 vs IPv6.
I had heard that Linux already has support for IPv6; but how about hardware(NICs, routers, network topologies)? And do they work with Linux? And will the software we use, will they work with Linux?
For example take USB. Everything is USB today except for WindowsNT. Linux has better USB support, for crying out loud! Can't use USB mice, keyboards, printers, anything, under WinNT. Will there be a similar situation for IPv6? If the M$s and Suns of the world don't actively try to promote IPv6, and smaller alternatives such as Linux can't/don't/won't step up to the plate, how will anyone ever switch over?
Of course this is just another opportunity for Linux to show it's superiority =)
Linux vs WinNT
Better USB support
IPv6 support
Better low level scalability
Higher efficiencies and runtimes
Better clustering capability(Beowulf)
etc.
-AS
They talk about Apple working on 266MHz SDRAM implementations, probably for future G4s and in anticipation of G5s.
Someone else mentioned that Alpha gets it's 200MHz/250MHz bus by multiplexing a 75MHz 256bit wide bus. I can imagine 8 64bit memory buses running at 100MHz, which is can be worked with as a single 800MHz 64bit bus. But that's a darned high wire count. More likely you'd get 8 32bit buses at 100MHz or even at 133MHz.
Excuse me if I don't make much sense, I'm speculating here =)
-AS
I'd actually believe that Motorola has no problem selling it's PPC and 68k CPUs in embedded systems, and it was only recently with the advent of $600 systems that the popularity of architectures and CPUs becomes an issue.
I mean Motorola sells a 68k CPU with every Palm and Visor out there. If they have an embedded processor in a cell phone, I'd think they would be selling more cell phones than PCs. Yes, PPC CPUs in computers would be more popular, but it wasn't necessarily the most profitable or intelligent thing to do; it would require that Motorola(or someone else) support AGP chipsets, PCI chipsets, memory chipsets, etc, for a single system to make a profit.
If you haven't noticed, Apple does this all by themselves. If you search IBM's website for PowerPC, you'll also see that they had PowerPC systems for sale since 1996 or something, but at $6,000 costs.
I can't imagine anyone just picking up the PowerPC platform until LinuxPPC stabilizes and matures, because I don't think anyone can compete with Apple on a design standpoint and no one can compete with Intel on a price standpoint.
Apple may be our only hope here =(
-AS
So DEC Alphas and AMDs use a 200MHz FSB, or whatever they call it, and Intel/VIA/etc will be using 133MHz FSB as well.
I'm not sure how the RAM and bus speed correlates, but Apple seems to be actively researching 266MHz RAM, most likely in anticipation of G5s. It has also been documented that PC133 outperforms RAMBUS, so PC266 may be what you're looking for.
Look at http://www.macosrumors.com/8-99.html under the 8/16 update.
-AS
A response, in three parts =)
1: By licensing out their OS they can get a royalty per sale, much like M$ gets a fixed sum per PC sold because it comes bundled with the system, and not have to deal with the manufacture, sales, advertising, or development costs of actually building a system. In this case say Handspring outsells a Palm 3:1 because of price, features, and color--Palm still gets royalties which are essentially pure profit, as well as grabbing more market share because WinCE machines, if they couldn't keep up with the Pilot, they certainly can't keep up with the Visor.
2: I don't know. I don't think they will yank out from under Visor because in interviews they have explicitly said they want to avoid the traps and pitfalls that Apple has gone through =)
3: Because it's there. Because it's a Motorola 60480 whatever CPU that was in the MacII or something. Because they are bored. Because they are geniuses. Because they are morons. =)
-AS
Hey, I didn't say Compaq doesn't research or innovate. I just said that SGI's research helps it to differentiate itself from Compaq, otherwise they are both companies that sell RISC servers, RISC and Intel workstations, supercomputers, Linux machines, Beowulf clusters, UNIX OSes, etc.
It seems a good idea that SGI dropped NT, if only because they would be hobbled by Microsoft's development schedule.
Now we have to wait and see if SGI's plan has any merit!
-AS
Oh, I know that. It's just that without any of the 'sexy' stuff or the unique stuff, what will SGI offer that Compaq doesn't?
For now SGI has strengths in graphics and some neat memory technology. They have *excellent* mindshare, what with being involved in just about every single blockbuster high tech sfx movie ever released, and some really good talent, from what I hear.
I hope they do better without their 1500 people =(
-AS
I'm not sure I agree that reliance on 'proprietary processors' hurt it.
Name a processor that isn't 'proprietary'!
Do you mean they relied too much on internal processes when they should have used available resources that fit the need? Like they're doing now? Intel PIII Xeons, instead of MIPS, Beowulf clusters, instead of freaking expensive supercomputers, and Linux instead of Irix? Take four years ago. What could they have done differently? Linux was still but a babe in diapers, comparatively, and the PIIs didn't have the scaleability or robustness or price point to make them great buys. They could have bought DEC Alpha, I guess, or used Alphas instead of MIPs... But Alphas were just as expensive, and still are, to some point. And about OSes, the only other choices they had were HP UX, OS/2, AIX, Windows NT, DEC's OS, and maybe some others.
I don't know that I believe that the high end graphics market isn't lucretive. What should they focus on instead? Servers(vs IBM or Sun or HP)? Supercomputers(vs IBM)?
It may be necessary to cut loose employees--but that is a lot of talent that they are losing, and a lot of future growth they are sacrificing.
I don't know that I agree with SGI's current focus. But my fingers are crossed for them!
-AS
The brief mentions laying off almost double it's previously announced expectations as well as outsourcing much of it's costly research.
What I've got to wonder is *who* SGI is laying off? They have some unique and powerful technology, and the research is what differentiates SGI from, say, Compaq. If they stop innovating and exploring, they *can't* offer any value over Compaq. Of course Compaq may decide to buy out SGI anyway =)
-AS
Wow. One of the planned Springboard modules would be TigerWoods 99 or something like that.
I wonder if they have any plan to do a GameBoy emulator/interface to pop in GameBoy cartridges into the Visor?
Or if Nintendo would license the PalmOS for their Gameboy Advance coming out next year...
Heck, Visor could just design and release a free GameAPI for PalmOS I guess.
-AS
From what I can read the Visor(Solo) is just a Visor without a cradle; it can still sync, but it doesn't come with a cradle, on the assumption I guess that you can have 8 Visors sharing one cradle or something.
-AS
Um, so it's cheaper, comes with more memory(8mb on the deluxe version), and has superior upgrade capability with the Springboard. What would you call extraordinary? It can tell you bedtime stories? They talk about GPS, cellular connectivity, mp3 playback, dictation, voice control, wireless communication...
There is nothing out there with this capability except maybe the Gameboy.
-AS
What, a Visor with the appropriate Springboard module isn't your taste? I'd imagine Visor would come out with it before Palm would.
What would you do with it, btw? It would be only useful if you could either use the data(mp3s?) or transfer the data, and I don't think 340mb would transfer very quickly...
-AS
Now why couldn't a wireless interface on the Visor be in constant contact with a host 'supercomputer' at all times? I don't know that this would be anything other than a convenience though, but having access to something to run Mathmatica or something else similar 24/7 would be nifty.
-AS
So I looked at all the Super7 motherboards at the site. All used DIMMs, no SIMMs. Oh, and the MB5077 doesn't exist(at least not on AltonPC site). The closest is the M577, an AT formfactor with 3 DIMM slots.
We are talking about the same thing, right?
My original point was that a PowerPC Performa 7100 could upgrade to a G4.
To be fair, that meant upgrading a PC from a Pentium to an AMD K6-3 for a reasonable cost.
On the Mac side you just pop in a daughtercard and off you go(you probably need to patch the BIOS and use a OS that supports the processor as well, but the same holds true for the PC)
On the PC side, if I were to upgrade my Pentium, not only do I need to use a something like the AltonPC M577(let's assume it's $60), I need to grab the processor, an AMD K6-3 for about $100, and finally ram. Let's say I grab 64MB. Best of my knowledge then, that's $80, because prices are going up right now.
So I just spent $240... assuming I'm not also forced to replace an ethernet card, video card, sound card, or SCSI card as well.
For a Mac person, a Performa 5400 to a G3 costs $299 (From a PowerPC 603e@160MHz to a PowerPC G3@300MHz)
So you can't be arguing it's easier to upgrade a PC than a Mac, though I do cede that it costs $59 dollars less on the PC(assuming that the M577 is indeed $60, and not closer to $100, as I suspect)
I never said one couldn't upgrade a PC; just that it was much easier and hassle free on a Mac.
-AS
What makes you think I'm uninformed?
Last I checked, AT motherboards cost more than ATX motherboards, and still used newer memories.
I am aware you can upgrade a Pentium up through the AMD line, up to near Celeron performance levels. So my old Pentium can go from a P133 to a AMD K-63? No, the motherboard isn't that up to date, and bios releases don't allow it to use the k-63. So I need a new motherboard.
I haven't been seeing $50 AT motherboards. And don't forget the cost of memory, as your IBM PC XT more than likely does not have a significant or useful amount of memory. How you upgrade is important; I thought we were talking about reviving 3, 4, 6 year old PCs to modern performance levels in a similar way one would upgrade a 7100 Performa to a 400MHz G3 or G4. Which is just bios and daughtercard on the Mac, but memory, motherboard, CPU, possibly power supply, possibly case, and possibly peripherals like mouse and keyboard on the PC side.
It would be very nice to be able to pop in a daughtercard into my P133 motherboard's PCI slot and use a Celeron or something.
-AS
Hmm, there should be Slashdot HTML extensions:
Text
Text
Text
Text
Nah.
-AS