Spock!

1 478.2
596.4 Blue Gene/L eServer Blue Gene Solution
212992 (Power) IBM Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
2005

2 167.3
222.8 JUGENE Blue Gene/P Solution
65536 (Power)
IBM Jülich Research Centre
2007

3 126.9
172.0 Encanto SGI Altix ICE 8200
14336 (Xeon), InfiniBand
SGI New Mexico Computing Applications Center
2007

4 117.9
170.9 EKA Cluster Platform 3000
14240 (Xeon), InfiniBand
HP Computational Research Laboratories
2007

5 102.8
146.4 Cluster Platform 3000
13728 (Xeon), InfiniBand
HP Swedish National Defence Radio Establishment
2007

6 102.2
127.5 Red Storm Cray XT3
26569 (Opteron)
Cray Sandia National Laboratories
2006

7 101.7
119.4 Jaguar Cray XT4/XT3
23016 (Opteron)
Cray Oak Ridge National Laboratory
2006

8 91.3
114.7 BGW eServer Blue Gene Solution
40960 (Power)
IBM IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center
2005

9 85.4
100.5 Franklin Cray XT4/XT3
19320 (Opteron)
Cray National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center
2007

10 82.2
103.2 New York Blue eServer Blue Gene Solution
36864 (Power)
IBM Stony Brook University/Brookhaven National Laboratory
2007


btw, that first second number, is the Terraflops

your vatech cluster packs 12.25

that's about 11% of the #10 on the above list
or 2% of the #1 in the list...

i dunno, as supercomputers go, it's not really doing so well now is it?

“I just bought a Mac to help me design the next Cray.”

Seymour Cray

Actually, only ONE version of OS X is UNIX certified. Therefore, that one version is UNIX, not the rest of them:)

Agree with Sott R, you want high end UNIX workstations, look at SUN products. Or DEC/Compaq/HP. Or IBM.

Please tell me your kidding. What does HP make that is more high end? Have you LOOKED at their systems? Honestly...?

Stijn:

You're missing the point.

Neither Macs nor Windows machines even compete as supercomputers. But, Macs are more than just the 1997 image you and others have painted them as "toys".

I am not trying to say the Mac is the best computer in the world, but it is much more than a pretty box. Apple does make some very serious machines that compete in their market on both price and performance and 6% market is not a negative.

Best,

Kurt

well that's not surprising now isn't it
wintel is obviously not in that graph since you were talking about high end UNIX

This is what I was referring to:

See apple.com

Best,

Kurt

I realize that. But ONLY Leopard can properly be called UNIX. Tiger, etc, cannot. Each version must be certified.

No, the thread started as Why do some people hate Apple/Mac?

Toady, I am aware that HP as well as IBM and others make computers that are much more high-end, I guess I misspoke.

I do think XServe does match up well with similar hardware products from HP, Dell, IBM and others though, but do admit it s a very difficult market for Apple to penetrate. The VaTech and other cluster projects would have been a fairy tale in the 90s.

I bet many of the other folks were not even aware of some of Apple's high-end systems and server products.

FWIW.

Best,

Kurt

Yes, I agree!

Best,

Kurt

I should have said "markets that Apple competes in". I apologize for my mistake. :)

Best,

Kurt

Its still x86, that's not really unix, you can call it that, like I can Nissan an infinity.

Sheesh, now I missed my opportunity to get out of the house and go for a run today! :mad::mad::D

Best,

Kurt

so it competes with in the PC market, doesn't make it on top
it competes in the Super computer market... doesn't make it on top either
graphical workstation market.. is it market leader there??? does it whip sillicon graphics butt? does it kill sun workstations stone dead fast? ...?


I guess it's the market leader in the graphical design , photo editing,DTP market...
fair enough... but that market, is very small
ti-ti

it doesn't run the world

Scott:

I guess I am not into computer tech at the level you are. I always thought of "Unix" as an operating system independent of hardware. If I am wrong, I stand corrected.

Best,

Kurt

I hate to make car analogies, but I guess you just somewhat described Apple and Porsche.

Best,

Kurt

Yes, I absolutely am.

Those lines deserve to be quoted one more time.

I've expressed my view on this topic before and I don't feel that I need to again this time, because right from the beginning the first couple posts by your friendly Mac users demonstrate precisely why we "Mac haters" have issues with such attitude from them. Go ahead, read from page 1 again.

I always did think Macs were cool and excellent for what they were supposed to do, but every time I gave one a try I honestly didn't find both the OS and programs intuitive at all. However, no Mac user would ever agree with me, would they? For them it always makes sense and I should just go back to my Windows.

I think you can install Leopard on non-Apple Intel PC, can't you? To me the advantage of using the cute white box now, other than having one less mouse button and limited selection of hardware, is that you can say you own an Apple product, therefore your iZealotry and PC bashing is perfectly justified now.

This is screendump from one of our Wintel servers. It's online 24/7, last time I had to reboot it was beacuse of UPS change. It never goes down, I can replace it's failed discs on the fly. 300+ users, 80 printers and god knows what more. It costs as much as typical hi-end Mac and it can do sooo much more.


Frankly, I see Mac's as niche products. It's like comparing a VW Beetle or Toyota Prius to F150 Truck. It's nice and it has built-in flower vase but in the end, when you need something done, you use the truck.

The funny part is, Mac's are nothing more nowadays than styled PC's that boot OS X. There will always be a niche for Mac's (mostly for computer-challenged customers) but as somebody said before: if all Mac's stopped, the world would keep spinning as usual and couple of Art directors would be pissed.

If all PC's stopped....yeah baby....that would be a meltdown.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1204841727.jpg