I'd rather be 1/4th the power than pay Apple taxes over the life of the cluster, AND be limited by the suckyness of apple to begin with
This just smacks of desparation. I find it a constant source of amazement (and amusement) that no matter what facts come to light that contradict the widely held rumours about Apple and their computers, there's always some jackass standing by ready to dig excuses out of his ass to counteract them. You want to pay 7x the cost for 1/4 the power, be my guest! But don't try to come up with some lame excuse for your stupidity, like vague references to the "suckyness of apple" or some mysterious "Apple tax." If anything, it's MS software that forces users to pay constant "taxes" in the way of forced upgrades and endless security patches (all of which are either optional or free for Mac users).
Just because it's 7 times more expensive, doesn't mean an x86 cluster is more expensive. It means an x86 cluster from Dell is more expensive.
That may be true, but since Dell has made a name for themselves as being the most affordable PC seller, it kind of makes your point...well...pointless, doesn't it? Unless you're suggesting that U. Texas should have built each and every machine from scratch out of bargain basement parts they ordered from all over.
I'm just realizing though that this isn't news, this is just pure flamebait.
But if the headline had been in favor of the non-Apple contendor, it would have been? No, this is definitely news, namely because apparently so few people expected this outcome.
Okay, you're on. Build me a supercomputing cluster of Wintel machines that is cheaper than and can outperform a similar cluster of G5's. Let's see what the numbers on that are like.
Despite your desperate attempts to dig for excuses that explain this apparent incongruity with your feelings toward Apple, the facts remain:
"Cost per Tflop: Dell - $10.3 million; Apple - $295,000. It's almost shameful."
In truth, Apple machines seem more expensive only because they don't sell $400 machines. Thus, if you want a Mac at all, you have to pay at least $1000. But that grand will still get you more computing power (and other advantages) than if you'd bought a PC.
I suppose I understand. Personally, I have a stand-alone DVD player (as well as one in my computer) and I dislike sports games. I also never play networked games, as I prefer playing video games alone. When others around, I can usually find better things to do.
Plus I love Metroid and Zelda, so the Cube was a no-brainer.
I agree. The thing I hate the most about Japanese RPGs is that you can't go anywhere until the game wants you to. For example, I bought the PC version of Summoner (a port of a console RPG) hoping it would be fun. Then I discovered that I could walk anywhere on the overworld map I wanted, but I couldn't actually enter any location until someone in the game told me that those locations existed. In other words, I go to the place on the map where a huge city is located, but until some shmuck in another city tells me it's there, I can't see it.
Granted, games like BG2 occasionally so something similar, but for the most part this is not a problem with PC RPGs.
I like games where I can do what I want, go where I want, and not have to worry about sticking to the plot if I choose not to. In most console RPGs, if you eschew the plot, there's nothing left to do. However, I guess I can understand why most console gamers would find that appealing- non-linear games take more time and comittment, and the demographic which console games appear targetted to doesn't seem to have much of an attention span.
Nope. You can buy Eternal Darkness for as little as $14.99 new. And Metroid Prime can be had for free with the purchase of a new Cube. Otherwise, you can buy it new for $29.99.
Well, technically the X-Box has slightly better graphics capability than the Cube, though not every game makes use of it. But otherwise, you're right on. Of course, GameCube games tend to be more fun to play, but...
Why not buy a GameCube? You're missing out on some truly excellent games, more than you'd get with the X-Box (not that it doesn't have some great games, too.) The GC is cheap, and some of the best games are under $30 now. Do yourself a favor and get one. Unless you've been duped by that whole "Nintendo is a kiddy console" line of BS.
Buy a GameCube, then buy: Metroid Prime Legend of Zelda: Windwaker Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem Rogue Squadron III: Rebel Strike
Those four alone should make the Cube worth your while.
Not even close. No console RPG can touch PC RPGs like Ultimas 3-7, Baldur's Gate, BG II, Neverwinter Nights, Planescape: Torment, Fallout, Fallout 2, the AD&D Gold Box games, etc, etc, etc. When you were playing some simplistic faux-RPG on your NES, I was playing Ultima V and VI, the Bard's Tale series, the Might & Magic series, and more. Those were role-playing games.
Console RPGs are linear, constricting, and just plain boring. There's no sense of exploration, so sense of being enveloped in a living world, and no reward for doing the unexpected. It's like watching an interactive movie. Japanese-style (which is what we're really talking about, here) RPGs are terrible.
Boy, Apple must have really hurt your feelings when they released the G5. Funny how, when the Pentium 4 was faster than the G4, all we heard was how much faster PCs were than Macs. Now that the Mac is faster, speed somehow no longer matters.
You don't like Macs. We get it already. But enough of these rediculous arguments that make no sense and are flat-out wrong.
Of course I send him something encouraging. Every time I send him anything, I always make sure to tell him how much he is missed, and how much we all want him to come home safely. I criticize the powers that sent him there, but I never criticize him. And he, as my best friend, knows all too well how I feel about this administration. He knows how angry this all makes me, and gladly allows himself to serve as a place where I can vent some of my frustrations. He takes no offense from what I say. As I said, he agrees with most of it.
Again, yours is a valid opinion. They certainly 'might' exist, and we may never find them. However, I find that extremely ulikely and, without a shred of evidence to prove that they're there, I'm not willing to just assume they still exist. A vague assumption is just not enough to start a war.
Keep chasing that red herring. Prove me wrong, though, and I'll gladly apologize with a smile on my face and a song in my heart.
Actually, I read every word you wrote, I just didn't agree with many of them.
Quick? Decisive? We owned that country in a matter of weeks with minimal resistance. The continued desperate, sporadic attacks coming from the Jihaadists I see as signs of desperation
I see no evidence to suggest that we now "own" or, in fact, ever owned that country. What I do suggest, however, is that the war which Bush declared over is, in fact, still going on and that the "minimal resistance" you claimed we were met with is largely canceled out by the massive guerilla resistance we are seeing now.
It's hardly a useless conflict when Osoma bin laden is only seen in recycled footage,
Remind me... how exactly were we getting our messages from Osama before we attacked? And how is that different from how we get them now? If you know what my answer to that question is, then you know what I mean by "useless conflict." And besides, the useless conflict I was referring to was the invasion of Iraq, not the war in Afghanistan (which, for the record, also largely failed to accomplish what it set out to.)
...islamic terrorists are biting the hand that feeds them in the middle east, and they're throwing themselves in large numbers into the blender that is our troops. Sure, they take a few of our troops once in a while. I wager you're crying crocodile tears for our fallen soldiers, and take every spoon-fed soldier death as a great sign that things are SOOOOO BAD IN IRAQ.
This kind of statement is exactly why I have no respect for ardent supporters of Bush's war. The "blender that is our troops?" What the hell kind of talk is that? What do you think we're doing over there? Is that the kind of respect that you give to our military? Is that really how you look at the idea of war? Military casualties are always bad, no matter what side they're on. And war should never, ever be faced with such a casual, nonchalant, almost giddy attitude like the one you're demonstrating here. I find it hard to remain rational and not insult you, sir. But I'll certainly try.
A plaintive whine that my opinions qualify as 'lies and deceptions' because they don't line up with yours is hardly worth writing a response over.
I call them "lies and deceptions" because that is exactly what they are. No more, no less. And I stand firmly behind that statement. And, so you know, my best friend happens to be stationed there right now. He's a Medivac helicopter pilot, so he sees a lot of the results of this little conflict first hand. I get regular email from him, and I often send him articles and news clippings and opinions of my own that express just how much I think that what he has been sent there to do is wrong (the invasion, not his medivac duties.) And you know what he says to that?
He agrees.
So don't get on my case for not reading "the blogs of some of the soldiers over there" and not having any insight. I've got some of the best insight there is. Better than yours, I'll wager.
Simple. We've been there how long? And we've found how many?
The way I see it, one of three things is possible. Either the government sincerely believed the weapons were there and was wrong; the government never believed they were there and lied to us; or, and this one's my favorite, Iraq is full of WMDs and our troops are just too damn inept to find them.
No matter which one you choose, it makes our government look bad. Question is, how bad do you want them to look?
The point is, I don't jump to conclusions unless I have empirical evidence to justify that leap. In this case, none has been provided. The fact that Saddam is an evil prick notwithstanding, we had no good reason to attack Iraq. You give me absolute proof that WMDs still exist in Iraq and that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling them up until our goverment invaded his country, and I'll issue a formal apology without malice, and without regret. Until then, shut the hell up.
God, you're a moron and exceedingly proud of it. Anyone who rests his position on the lack of "evidence" of WMD is self-deluding of the worse kind.
And anyone who rests his justification of the Iraq invasion on the "evidence" that there are WMDs (note that I do not deny that Iraq had them at one time) is...
I did expect the United States military to execute a thorough, decisive victory, and they did exactly that. Around 300 soldiers dead? In terms of War, that's an unprecidented effeciency in human life. That may sound cold to the families of those 300 dead soldiers, but it doesn't sound like a lot to anyone except irrational Bush-haters.
Quick? Decisive? Have you simply decided to ignore the truth? More people have died since Bush declared this war "over" than died while it was going on. You're either an ignorant son of a bitch, or a heartless coward. Defense has nothing, I repeat, NOTHING to do with why we invaded Iraq. That's what Afghanistan was supposed to be about.
And you're damn right 300 lives sounds like a lot to me. Particularly when every life lost in this war has been a life wasted in useless conflict.
You people make me sad. Everything you say is so full of lies and deception, I hardly know where to begin. I'm sorry I chimed in at all.
You're both marvelously deluded. The whole point is not what France's motives were. Those, too, are beside the point. Just replace the word "France" with just about any other nation, and the statement is still true. Despite what you may think of Saddam, our government had to lie to its own people to get the internal backing to invade.
Of course, I realize that the average Republican stooge cares not that no WMD have been found, or that none of the promises they made to us before the war about how quick and decisive it would be, have come true. All they care about is the fact the "Bush kicked some Arab ass!" Woo hoo. This whole thing has turned into a revenge tragedy.
According to the many articles I've read concerning this, they compared price and performance with a lot of different companies and machines. So, no. They wouldn't have gotten it cheaper with Linux and Intel.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, you made the bet, not me. Besides, I'm not really curious. I know what the outcome would be. (hint: read the headline).
I understand everything I read. Well, except for Gadamer. Boy did I have a hard time with him.
This just smacks of desparation. I find it a constant source of amazement (and amusement) that no matter what facts come to light that contradict the widely held rumours about Apple and their computers, there's always some jackass standing by ready to dig excuses out of his ass to counteract them. You want to pay 7x the cost for 1/4 the power, be my guest! But don't try to come up with some lame excuse for your stupidity, like vague references to the "suckyness of apple" or some mysterious "Apple tax." If anything, it's MS software that forces users to pay constant "taxes" in the way of forced upgrades and endless security patches (all of which are either optional or free for Mac users).
That may be true, but since Dell has made a name for themselves as being the most affordable PC seller, it kind of makes your point...well...pointless, doesn't it? Unless you're suggesting that U. Texas should have built each and every machine from scratch out of bargain basement parts they ordered from all over.
But if the headline had been in favor of the non-Apple contendor, it would have been? No, this is definitely news, namely because apparently so few people expected this outcome.
I believe we've already come to the conclusion that, according to the math, they paid full price for every machine.
The savings come from the fact that it won't cost as much to maintain the G5 cluster.
Okay, you're on. Build me a supercomputing cluster of Wintel machines that is cheaper than and can outperform a similar cluster of G5's. Let's see what the numbers on that are like.
We got crummy dads.
Despite your desperate attempts to dig for excuses that explain this apparent incongruity with your feelings toward Apple, the facts remain:
"Cost per Tflop: Dell - $10.3 million; Apple - $295,000. It's almost shameful."
In truth, Apple machines seem more expensive only because they don't sell $400 machines. Thus, if you want a Mac at all, you have to pay at least $1000. But that grand will still get you more computing power (and other advantages) than if you'd bought a PC.
I seriously doubt that labor is going to cost them $32 million (the difference between the two price tags.)
I suppose I understand. Personally, I have a stand-alone DVD player (as well as one in my computer) and I dislike sports games. I also never play networked games, as I prefer playing video games alone. When others around, I can usually find better things to do.
Plus I love Metroid and Zelda, so the Cube was a no-brainer.
In this case, it does. But it's no big deal. All the graphics flash in the world can't make games more fun.
I agree. The thing I hate the most about Japanese RPGs is that you can't go anywhere until the game wants you to. For example, I bought the PC version of Summoner (a port of a console RPG) hoping it would be fun. Then I discovered that I could walk anywhere on the overworld map I wanted, but I couldn't actually enter any location until someone in the game told me that those locations existed. In other words, I go to the place on the map where a huge city is located, but until some shmuck in another city tells me it's there, I can't see it.
Granted, games like BG2 occasionally so something similar, but for the most part this is not a problem with PC RPGs.
I like games where I can do what I want, go where I want, and not have to worry about sticking to the plot if I choose not to. In most console RPGs, if you eschew the plot, there's nothing left to do. However, I guess I can understand why most console gamers would find that appealing- non-linear games take more time and comittment, and the demographic which console games appear targetted to doesn't seem to have much of an attention span.
Nope. You can buy Eternal Darkness for as little as $14.99 new. And Metroid Prime can be had for free with the purchase of a new Cube. Otherwise, you can buy it new for $29.99.
Well, technically the X-Box has slightly better graphics capability than the Cube, though not every game makes use of it. But otherwise, you're right on. Of course, GameCube games tend to be more fun to play, but...
Why not buy a GameCube? You're missing out on some truly excellent games, more than you'd get with the X-Box (not that it doesn't have some great games, too.) The GC is cheap, and some of the best games are under $30 now. Do yourself a favor and get one. Unless you've been duped by that whole "Nintendo is a kiddy console" line of BS.
:)
Buy a GameCube, then buy:
Metroid Prime
Legend of Zelda: Windwaker
Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem
Rogue Squadron III: Rebel Strike
Those four alone should make the Cube worth your while.
Or don't buy one. See if I care!
Not even close. No console RPG can touch PC RPGs like Ultimas 3-7, Baldur's Gate, BG II, Neverwinter Nights, Planescape: Torment, Fallout, Fallout 2, the AD&D Gold Box games, etc, etc, etc. When you were playing some simplistic faux-RPG on your NES, I was playing Ultima V and VI, the Bard's Tale series, the Might & Magic series, and more. Those were role-playing games.
Console RPGs are linear, constricting, and just plain boring. There's no sense of exploration, so sense of being enveloped in a living world, and no reward for doing the unexpected. It's like watching an interactive movie. Japanese-style (which is what we're really talking about, here) RPGs are terrible.
Of course, that's my opinion.
Boy, Apple must have really hurt your feelings when they released the G5. Funny how, when the Pentium 4 was faster than the G4, all we heard was how much faster PCs were than Macs. Now that the Mac is faster, speed somehow no longer matters.
You don't like Macs. We get it already. But enough of these rediculous arguments that make no sense and are flat-out wrong.
Go away.
Of course I send him something encouraging. Every time I send him anything, I always make sure to tell him how much he is missed, and how much we all want him to come home safely. I criticize the powers that sent him there, but I never criticize him. And he, as my best friend, knows all too well how I feel about this administration. He knows how angry this all makes me, and gladly allows himself to serve as a place where I can vent some of my frustrations. He takes no offense from what I say. As I said, he agrees with most of it.
It's been enjoyable.
Again, yours is a valid opinion. They certainly 'might' exist, and we may never find them. However, I find that extremely ulikely and, without a shred of evidence to prove that they're there, I'm not willing to just assume they still exist. A vague assumption is just not enough to start a war.
Keep chasing that red herring. Prove me wrong, though, and I'll gladly apologize with a smile on my face and a song in my heart.
I see no evidence to suggest that we now "own" or, in fact, ever owned that country. What I do suggest, however, is that the war which Bush declared over is, in fact, still going on and that the "minimal resistance" you claimed we were met with is largely canceled out by the massive guerilla resistance we are seeing now.
Remind me... how exactly were we getting our messages from Osama before we attacked? And how is that different from how we get them now? If you know what my answer to that question is, then you know what I mean by "useless conflict." And besides, the useless conflict I was referring to was the invasion of Iraq, not the war in Afghanistan (which, for the record, also largely failed to accomplish what it set out to.)
This kind of statement is exactly why I have no respect for ardent supporters of Bush's war. The "blender that is our troops?" What the hell kind of talk is that? What do you think we're doing over there? Is that the kind of respect that you give to our military? Is that really how you look at the idea of war? Military casualties are always bad, no matter what side they're on. And war should never, ever be faced with such a casual, nonchalant, almost giddy attitude like the one you're demonstrating here. I find it hard to remain rational and not insult you, sir. But I'll certainly try.
I call them "lies and deceptions" because that is exactly what they are. No more, no less. And I stand firmly behind that statement. And, so you know, my best friend happens to be stationed there right now. He's a Medivac helicopter pilot, so he sees a lot of the results of this little conflict first hand. I get regular email from him, and I often send him articles and news clippings and opinions of my own that express just how much I think that what he has been sent there to do is wrong (the invasion, not his medivac duties.) And you know what he says to that?
He agrees.
So don't get on my case for not reading "the blogs of some of the soldiers over there" and not having any insight. I've got some of the best insight there is. Better than yours, I'll wager.
Good thing I had some karma to burn.
Simple. We've been there how long? And we've found how many?
The way I see it, one of three things is possible. Either the government sincerely believed the weapons were there and was wrong; the government never believed they were there and lied to us; or, and this one's my favorite, Iraq is full of WMDs and our troops are just too damn inept to find them.
No matter which one you choose, it makes our government look bad. Question is, how bad do you want them to look?
The point is, I don't jump to conclusions unless I have empirical evidence to justify that leap. In this case, none has been provided. The fact that Saddam is an evil prick notwithstanding, we had no good reason to attack Iraq. You give me absolute proof that WMDs still exist in Iraq and that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling them up until our goverment invaded his country, and I'll issue a formal apology without malice, and without regret. Until then, shut the hell up.
And anyone who rests his justification of the Iraq invasion on the "evidence" that there are WMDs (note that I do not deny that Iraq had them at one time) is...
Words fail me. Sorry.
Quick? Decisive? Have you simply decided to ignore the truth? More people have died since Bush declared this war "over" than died while it was going on. You're either an ignorant son of a bitch, or a heartless coward. Defense has nothing, I repeat, NOTHING to do with why we invaded Iraq. That's what Afghanistan was supposed to be about.
And you're damn right 300 lives sounds like a lot to me. Particularly when every life lost in this war has been a life wasted in useless conflict.
You people make me sad. Everything you say is so full of lies and deception, I hardly know where to begin. I'm sorry I chimed in at all.
You're both marvelously deluded. The whole point is not what France's motives were. Those, too, are beside the point. Just replace the word "France" with just about any other nation, and the statement is still true. Despite what you may think of Saddam, our government had to lie to its own people to get the internal backing to invade.
Of course, I realize that the average Republican stooge cares not that no WMD have been found, or that none of the promises they made to us before the war about how quick and decisive it would be, have come true. All they care about is the fact the "Bush kicked some Arab ass!" Woo hoo. This whole thing has turned into a revenge tragedy.
At the risk of losing karma points:
You, sir, are a jackass.
What France did was protest when the US governent lied to its people and invaded another nation under false pretenses.
Whether or not Saddam is a mean guy is inconsequential.
According to the many articles I've read concerning this, they compared price and performance with a lot of different companies and machines. So, no. They wouldn't have gotten it cheaper with Linux and Intel.