ORIGIN 400

Open discussion on or around SGI; software/hardware related posts should go in the appropriate subforum.
Forum rules
Any posts concerning pirated software or offering to buy/sell/trade commercial software are subject to removal.
User avatar
skywriter
Posts: 3290
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2003 5:22 am
Location: Trump-proof bunker
Contact:

Re: SGI (Rackable) Origin400 (and 6-core Nehalem)...

Unread postby skywriter » Fri Mar 19, 2010 8:45 am

cryz wrote:If they make a product under the name O2 or any of its variations, I will officially be more angry! :x


ah, yes the O3!

i'm taking bets now! time to start a poll: http://forums.nekochan.net/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=16723039
:Skywriter:

DECUS Member 368596

User avatar
Megatron-UK
Posts: 156
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 3:31 am
Location: Durham/Newcastle, UK
Contact:

Re: SGI (Rackable) Origin400 (and 6-core Nehalem)...

Unread postby Megatron-UK » Fri Mar 19, 2010 11:34 am

mapesdhs wrote:(EDIT: I'd assumed any chat would be in the hw section, my goof!)

A friend informed me SGI's announced the Origin400, a blade server clearly from the Rackable camp.
I doubt the name will please many here, but then being able to make use of the IP in this way is no
doubt partly why Rackable bought SGI. If it works and helps the development of other stuff, then good.
Only time will tell I suppose.

SGI's also announced support for all relevant products of the new 6-core XEON 5600 (Nehalem).
I assume this at least means the shared-memory UV system can now use the 6-core chip, which
when paired with Quadro FX cards should make for a pretty hefty beast by modern standards. But
where are the benchmarks, SGI? Enquiring minds wish to know...

Ian.


News on TheRegister.com this week also hints of AMD's tier 1 customers (HP, Dell, IBM, Oracle) getting their hands on the new 12-core Opteron shortly.... that's going to mean a huge amount of processing power in a single 2 or 4 socket server. That and the 6-core Xeon's must be going at least some way to negate the argument for the traditional big, shared image systems.
:Indigo2IMP: [ R10k-195/MaxImpact +TRAMs/896Mb/73Gb-15krpm/G160/6.5.22 ]
:Octane2: [ Dual R12k-400/V8/2Gb/73Gb-15krpm/6.5.29 ]

User avatar
josehill
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 3305
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 9:53 pm
Location: New England, USA
Contact:

Re: SGI (Rackable) Origin400 (and 6-core Nehalem)...

Unread postby josehill » Fri Mar 19, 2010 1:15 pm

skywriter wrote:ah, yes the O3!

aka, "The Ozone."

User avatar
hamei
Posts: 10433
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: over the rainbow

Re: SGI (Rackable) Origin400 (and 6-core Nehalem)...

Unread postby hamei » Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:25 am

skywriter wrote:ah, yes the O3!

Are you sure it won't be an O III ?

clavileno
Posts: 112
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:58 pm
Location: UK

Re: ORIGIN 400

Unread postby clavileno » Tue May 11, 2010 4:29 pm

hamei wrote:
SAQ wrote:Why would someone bother licensing? Didn't Intel run off with "Extreme Graphics" and "vPro" for free?

Little bullies have to pay. Bigger bullies get the free ride. You know, "We need rich people to give jobs to the poor people."


Not wishing to entirely derail the topic, but, err, yes, that's the basis of a market economy - those with money are called customers. It is no less noble to build Rolls Royce cars or Sony Vaios than it is to build VWs or Dell Inspirons. In fact "the rich" traditionally have helped to keep the more beautiful, and difficult, crafts alive by virtue of creating demand.

There really is no utopian ideal of even-close-to-equality and, frankly, nor should there be - humans are not alike in ability, aptitude, or - frankly, brutally, but honestly - value to each other or to society as a whole. That doesn't detract from their fundamental rights as humans, nor prevent them from making valid and often huge contributions to society, but neither does it provide a justification for the dull hand of "levelling".

Every conceivable model of society relies upon this differentiation in ability; if not rich vs poor then intelligent vs less so, or strong vs weak, or fertile vs barren, and so on. There will be division, and society does in fact need people at all strata in order to function properly.

So, in the context of a market economy, we do, in fact, need the rich in order to provide (some of the) jobs for the poor!

Of course, as SGI's history shows us, being rich and remaining rich are 2 very different things. To paraphrase an age-old quote, SGI is the prime example of "if you want to make a small fortune in the computer business, start with a large fortune" :)

User avatar
zmttoxics
Posts: 896
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2009 9:11 am

Re: ORIGIN 400

Unread postby zmttoxics » Tue May 11, 2010 5:04 pm

AH HAHAHA.

That is amazing. I completely forget this thing even existed over just a months time until you revived this thread. Wow. Just goes to show how uneventful the release actually was.
Stuff.

User avatar
Dubhthach
Posts: 779
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2003 8:16 am
Location: Bláth Cliath, Éire

Re: SGI (Rackable) Origin400 (and 6-core Nehalem)...

Unread postby Dubhthach » Wed May 12, 2010 6:16 am

josehill wrote:
skywriter wrote:ah, yes the O3!

aka, "The Ozone."


Reminds me of my post from nearly 6 years ago! :shock:

http://forums.nekochan.net/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=4282&p=33015&hilit=ozone#p33015
"Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better"

User avatar
hamei
Posts: 10433
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: over the rainbow

Re: ORIGIN 400

Unread postby hamei » Wed May 12, 2010 7:59 am

clavileno wrote:So, in the context of a market economy, we do, in fact, need the rich in order to provide (some of the) jobs for the poor!

Sorry but you do not understand a "market economy" in the slightest. The wealthy do not do shit to advance an economy. They are pretty much parasites. There will always be the wealthy and they do provide nice decorations but almost ALL advances come from the middle class.

Wealthy people and companies do not create anything new : they manipulate whatever comes along to provide the maximum profit for themselves and kill anything that interferes with their own selfish desires in the process. It's the middle class which is the "market economy." Crush the middle class and you get Mexico or China or India.

Please, people, use your own brains and eyes instead of just regurgitating the swill you've been fed by the CEO's and Wall Street brokers.

clavileno
Posts: 112
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:58 pm
Location: UK

Re: ORIGIN 400

Unread postby clavileno » Wed May 12, 2010 1:37 pm

hamei wrote:
clavileno wrote:So, in the context of a market economy, we do, in fact, need the rich in order to provide (some of the) jobs for the poor!

Sorry but you do not understand a "market economy" in the slightest. The wealthy do not do shit to advance an economy. They are pretty much parasites. There will always be the wealthy and they do provide nice decorations but almost ALL advances come from the middle class.

Wealthy people and companies do not create anything new : they manipulate whatever comes along to provide the maximum profit for themselves and kill anything that interferes with their own selfish desires in the process. It's the middle class which is the "market economy." Crush the middle class and you get Mexico or China or India.

Please, people, use your own brains and eyes instead of just regurgitating the swill you've been fed by the CEO's and Wall Street brokers.


Ah-hem, thank you for that. Contrary to what you may think, I've spent many decades using my eyes, ears, and brain to examine the world and form my own opinions. Those opinions may not match yours, but that is the way of the world, and it would be a pretty dull place if we all agreed on everything.

Whether we like it or not, the desire for wealth has facilitated some of the most important technological advances. Without the desire for wealth, there would have been no industrial revolution, no explosion in technology and, yes, no SGI. Without access to existing wealth (capital), those advances would have been slower coming.

The market economy provides efficient means by which wealth may be acquired, and products / services distributed. Without a market economy, wealth creation becomes more difficult; without some pre-existing wealth, a dynamic market economy cannot realistically flourish. At least, it cannot in the longer term; in the short term there has, of late, always been borrowing.

Where you see parasites, I see self-interest on the part of some participants in an efficient market. Just as a mixture of abilities, of resources, of means, and so on is important to both the diversity and the movement of the economy (and, lest we forget, it is economic entropy which keeps things moving), so the varied motivations and ambitions of the market's participants also stimulate movement and development.

Now, socially - or at least, politically - it may be expedient (or even desirable!) to limit or otherwise temper by regulation the operation of some market participants, so as to allow the market to meet other, not-necessarily-market-related goals. But that is the role of the regulation; the lack of self-regulation on the part of individual participants does not render them somehow deficient or deserving of our ire, in my opinion at least.

To brand "the wealthy" "parasites" is as pointless as calling "the poor" "lazy" or "stupid". Each participant (in society, as in the market economy) plays their part, within constraints both of their own making and imposed by others. We all need (almost) all of the various types and flavours of participants; remove some, and the rest operates - at best - inefficiently.

User avatar
josehill
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 3305
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 9:53 pm
Location: New England, USA
Contact:

Re: SGI (Rackable) Origin400 (and 6-core Nehalem)...

Unread postby josehill » Wed May 12, 2010 2:51 pm

I knew that there was no way that I could have been the first! :D

Tempus fugit...
Dubhthach wrote:
josehill wrote:
skywriter wrote:ah, yes the O3!
aka, "The Ozone."
Reminds me of my post from nearly 6 years ago! :shock:

http://forums.nekochan.net/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=4282&p=33015&hilit=ozone#p33015

User avatar
hamei
Posts: 10433
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: over the rainbow

Re: ORIGIN 400

Unread postby hamei » Wed May 12, 2010 10:14 pm

clavileno wrote:Ah-hem, thank you for that. Contrary to what you may think, I've spent many decades using my eyes, ears, and brain to examine the world and form my own opinions. Those opinions may not match yours, but that is the way of the world, and it would be a pretty dull place if we all agreed on everything.

Whether we like it or not, the desire for wealth has facilitated some of the most important technological advances. Without the desire for wealth, there would have been no industrial revolution, no explosion in technology and, yes, no SGI. Without access to existing wealth (capital), those advances would have been slower coming.

The market economy provides efficient means by which wealth may be acquired, and products / services distributed. Without a market economy, wealth creation becomes more difficult; without some pre-existing wealth, a dynamic market economy cannot realistically flourish. At least, it cannot in the longer term; in the short term there has, of late, always been borrowing.

Where you see parasites, I see self-interest on the part of some participants in an efficient market. Just as a mixture of abilities, of resources, of means, and so on is important to both the diversity and the movement of the economy (and, lest we forget, it is economic entropy which keeps things moving), so the varied motivations and ambitions of the market's participants also stimulate movement and development.

Now, socially - or at least, politically - it may be expedient (or even desirable!) to limit or otherwise temper by regulation the operation of some market participants, so as to allow the market to meet other, not-necessarily-market-related goals. But that is the role of the regulation; the lack of self-regulation on the part of individual participants does not render them somehow deficient or deserving of our ire, in my opinion at least.

To brand "the wealthy" "parasites" is as pointless as calling "the poor" "lazy" or "stupid". Each participant (in society, as in the market economy) plays their part, within constraints both of their own making and imposed by others. We all need (almost) all of the various types and flavours of participants; remove some, and the rest operates - at best - inefficiently.

Hogwash and sophistry. Believe these fairy tales all you like but in fact, they are pure nonsense. We've had 30 years of this crap and look where we are directly because of it. Greed is not good.

Nothing but corruption comes from avarice and that's been true even before King Midas.

clavileno
Posts: 112
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:58 pm
Location: UK

Re: ORIGIN 400

Unread postby clavileno » Fri May 14, 2010 6:20 pm

hamei wrote:
clavileno wrote:Ah-hem, thank you for that. Contrary to what you may think, I've spent many decades using my eyes, ears, and brain to examine the world and form my own opinions. Those opinions may not match yours, but that is the way of the world, and it would be a pretty dull place if we all agreed on everything.

Whether we like it or not, the desire for wealth has facilitated some of the most important technological advances. Without the desire for wealth, there would have been no industrial revolution, no explosion in technology and, yes, no SGI. Without access to existing wealth (capital), those advances would have been slower coming.

The market economy provides efficient means by which wealth may be acquired, and products / services distributed. Without a market economy, wealth creation becomes more difficult; without some pre-existing wealth, a dynamic market economy cannot realistically flourish. At least, it cannot in the longer term; in the short term there has, of late, always been borrowing.

Where you see parasites, I see self-interest on the part of some participants in an efficient market. Just as a mixture of abilities, of resources, of means, and so on is important to both the diversity and the movement of the economy (and, lest we forget, it is economic entropy which keeps things moving), so the varied motivations and ambitions of the market's participants also stimulate movement and development.

Now, socially - or at least, politically - it may be expedient (or even desirable!) to limit or otherwise temper by regulation the operation of some market participants, so as to allow the market to meet other, not-necessarily-market-related goals. But that is the role of the regulation; the lack of self-regulation on the part of individual participants does not render them somehow deficient or deserving of our ire, in my opinion at least.

To brand "the wealthy" "parasites" is as pointless as calling "the poor" "lazy" or "stupid". Each participant (in society, as in the market economy) plays their part, within constraints both of their own making and imposed by others. We all need (almost) all of the various types and flavours of participants; remove some, and the rest operates - at best - inefficiently.

Hogwash and sophistry. Believe these fairy tales all you like but in fact, they are pure nonsense. We've had 30 years of this crap and look where we are directly because of it. Greed is not good.

Nothing but corruption comes from avarice and that's been true even before King Midas.


Well, I can't fault you on your brevity nor your succinctness. However, I'm somewhat at a loss as to why you think my views are sophisms whilst yours are not! Or is this one of the Churchill-esque irregular verbs; something like: "I am right, you are wrong, he or she is a sophist"?

I would suggest it is hardly 30 years we have to worry about; in the context of, say, the rise and fall of SGI, we must, at the very least, look back over the period since around 1780 (a reasonable date for the start of the industrial revolution), or even as far back as the 16th century (the start of what has become modern capitalism). In terms of "greed is good" and, perhaps, unfettered avarice, one must cast aside Gordon Gecko in favour of such ne'er-do-wells as the early Venetian bankers, with their pocket armies and orchestration of wars.

I'm really not sure how to put this; capitalism and the market economy are the only proven engines of technological development. We are not all here to enthuse over the work of Siliconski Grafiks. The planned economy, socialist (or further left-wing) ideals, the curtailment of the entrepreneurial imperative; these are all important pillars of systems which have demonstrably failed to deliver on so many levels.

That said, it is not I who am extolling the virtues of "greed is good" as a mantra; I have merely pointed out that avarice is just one part of a complex capitalist ecosystem, which must be balanced by other positions in order to create a healthy economy, and which must be tempered by society (whose will in this regard is represented by the authority delegated to legislators and regulators) in the interests of society's wider aims and objectives.

Incidentally, for what it is worth, I've spent the last dozen years running social enterprises and not-for-profit organisations. My personal objectives owe more to giving back than to taking away from society, but that doesn't prevent me from understanding the world nor supporting that which I believe to be right.

Rather than throwing accusations of character flaws and lack of analysis my way, perhaps you can articulate your idea of how the economy should function so as to meet the needs of society and continue the path of technological development?

User avatar
skywriter
Posts: 3290
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2003 5:22 am
Location: Trump-proof bunker
Contact:

Re: ORIGIN 400

Unread postby skywriter » Sat May 15, 2010 7:07 am

tally ho! well put, old 'bean!
:Skywriter:

DECUS Member 368596

User avatar
vishnu
Donor
Donor
Posts: 3176
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2007 3:25 pm
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA

Re: ORIGIN 400

Unread postby vishnu » Sat May 15, 2010 12:37 pm

Jim Clark used 10 million dollars of the money he made at SGI to create Netscape Communications Corporation. In the end, Netscape made a small number of people very wealthy but cost a whole bunch of other people, mainly AOL/Time Warner stockholders, a fortune. So, was the creation of Netscape ultimately good or bad for the economy? I'd say it was bad. Was it good or bad for society? I'd say it was good. Did the societal good outweigh the economic bad? Did the billions of dollars made by Jim Clark disappear from the real economy, i.e. the economy that's accessible to us commoners, forever? I'd say that to make such an argument is ludicrous. Unless it's buried in bell jars in the back yard money is an equal part of the economy no matter who lays claim to billions of it. It's not a zero sum game; every dollar earned by Jim Clark is not a dollar that can never again be earned by a commoner...
Project:
Temporarily lost at sea...
Plan:
World domination! Or something...

:Tezro: :Octane2:


Return to “SGI: Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests