SGI Rolls Out "Personal Supercomputers" 303
CWmike writes "They aren't selling personal supercomputers at Best Buy just yet. But that day probably isn't too far off, as the costs continue to fall and supercomputers become easier to use. Silicon Graphics International on Monday released its first so-called personal supercomputer. The new Octane III system is priced from $7,995 with one Xeon 5500 processor. The system can be expanded to an 80-core system with a capacity of up to 960GB of memory. This new supercomputer's peak performance of about 726 GFLOPS won't put it on the Top 500 supercomputer list, but that's not the point of the machine, SGI says. A key feature instead is the system's ease of use."
Man... (Score:2, Funny)
Can you imagine a Beowulf cluster of those? :-)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Can you imagine a Beowulf cluster of those? :-)
Yes yes, but does it run Crysis?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I used to wonder the same thing about personal super-computers to be honest, but I think you'd end up frustrated and disappointed when trying to run games on these things.
Notice how it stated "80 core system". Most games are only designed to use up to two cores while maybe some use four (same thing goes for folding @ home). That leaves at least 95% of the super computer's total CPU capacity completely idle (and even if it could technically use all 80 cores, Crysis (or any other modern game) is not THAT dema
Re:Man... (Score:4, Funny)
It not only can run Crysis, but it can run Crysis-on-Vista pretty well. with this supercomputer, maybe now 2009 can be the year Windows Vista will be ready for the desktop!
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Unless, of course, it runs NetBSD.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
We'll I think there may very well be a downside to that. As this stuff gets cheaper, the ability for just anybody to figure out problems increases, and that problem could be how to make bad stuff like nukes, or worse a virus writers dream. Hey, five more years and this will be under $2,000 in the sweet spot possibly. Anyhow, I want one, but maybe they need to only let people run them that have passed a basic test on driving a computer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fox? Now that's really bad.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Come on, you can't be serious.
Your average desktop pc is a Super-computer compared to a desktop of say 10 years ago.
Take 10 more years and every pc will be a HPC by today's standards.
Surely having access to a HPC is not the biggest problem in creating your own nuke, or figuring out any problem.
It's not like these fast computers automagicly program themselves to solve difficult problems.
Re: (Score:2)
If someone writes a program, cannot another use it? There is already plenty of software to make both good and bad things. It's all up to the users as usual.
And...I didn't say that was the biggest problems, but to design a working nuke without raising suspicion by testing it physically is a problem computing power can correct.
Like you know some counties may have them and not have tested them like possibly Israel. They probably are just using a design that someone else tested, possibly France that built their
Re: (Score:2)
That downside isn't just restricted to this computer; it's a symptom of technology advancing faster than human nature.
As has been said before, both on this site and elsewhere, for the first few thousand years of human existence, the extermination of humanity was well out of reach of everyone. As technology advanced it became possible for a group of people, working together, to develop a technology for mass destruction (the specific tech often referenced is nukes). Eventually, the group of people became sm
Re: (Score:2)
I think you are on to something. That DOES sound like one of the uses that I was thinking about but didn't want to state specifically here but since you already have:
Yeah, lab work with it is probably the greatest threat. The software is already out there.
Can't we have freedom and safety? We can do that but we all have to do it and make sure it's done. Even if those odds are very low, my intuition is this: People are Unpredictable. So I predict something will happen, but what it will be exactly, is unknown
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
As has been said before, both on this site and elsewhere, for the first few thousand years of human existence, the extermination of humanity was well out of reach of everyone. As technology advanced it became possible for a group of people, working together, to develop a technology for mass destruction (the specific tech often referenced is nukes). Eventually, the group of people became smaller and smaller (theoretically, larger groups of people won't let each other actually use such weapons.
The first European explorers to come to the Americas in the late 15th and early 16th centuries killed 90% of all humans in Central Amercia, and 95% of all humans in North America, without even trying. Modern technologies for mass destruction can't compete with the wooden boat.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Only on slashdot are computer viruses worse than nukes.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Because only on Slashdot is it commonly understood that computer viruses can give access to more nukes.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually that seems perfectly rational in the context given (i.e. some lone wacko developing one at home.)
Threat of a nuke: (Potential damage) * (Ability of wacko to obtain special nuclear material) * (Ability of wacko to use material in a bad way) * (Likelihood of a wacko going through the trouble to jump the hurdles, create, and deploy the bomb) = Pretty low
Threat of a computer virus: (Potential damage) * (Ability of script-kiddie to assemble a nasty virus) * (Likelihood that some script-kiddie might actu
Re:Man... (Score:5, Funny)
how to make bad stuff like nukes, or worse a virus writers dream
We geeks sure do have our priorities straight.
Re: (Score:2)
--Actually getting the nuke material is going to be a very large problem right off the bat.--
Nah, just build a breeder reactor and you get Plutonium. That right mix of explosives to make and implosion device and thermonuclear warhead design you wont find in a textbook, at least no specifics.
Enriching Uranium can be made easier with better centrifuge design. The computer controlled machining equipment that could machine to 0.001 inch or 0.001mm is everywhere. A lot of this is being auctioned off to the highe
Re: (Score:2)
Can you imagine a Beowulf cluster of those? :-)
Thank you Internet. You are predictable. And I love it.
If you *need* one, why not build one? (Score:3, Interesting)
Wouldn't most people who would NEED a supercomputer be able to build one much more cheaply using a dozen workstations? It's hard to see how this SGI system might be sold (except perhaps as a replacement for an overburdened business-office server).
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Wouldn't most people who would NEED a supercomputer be able to build one much more cheaply using a dozen workstations?
Is there any networked or cabled solution that's as fast as a bus on a motherboard? Having those machines communicate with one another and syncing the computations is a lot of overhead that reduces speed and adds complexity.
I see computer animation uses for this. I also see math geeks (hobbyists) buying their own to run their current hobby project. Engineering departments using one to run simulations at a faster rate and cheaper.
It's cheaper than the Apple solution so I see movie editors using this.
You jus
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The answer to your question is Infiniband, which is actually what is used in the Octane III systems.
Re:If you *need* one, why not build one? (Score:4, Insightful)
Adding to the PP: The overhead and redundant hardware involved in dozens of networked machines would also mean that, to achieve equivalent performance, you'd likely be using twice the power if not more (you might save a little if you rack them with a single PSU for the whole rack, but it's still going to use a substantially greater amount of power).
My home PC (a state of the art gaming PC as of January 2007), discounting the monitor, uses around 360 kilowatts at peak load (running one CPU and one GPU copy of Folding@Home while copying between the various disks to keep them spun up). Of that, only around 60-70 watts is the CPU, call it an even 80 once you add the memory. The GPU, motherboard, hard disks, and power supply losses eat up a lot of the rest.
If you need 80 cores worth of processing power with frequent interprocess communication, you'll need an 80 core machine, or 100-200 cores split across multiple machines. If we assume eight cores per machine, and 16 machines, if they have even half the power overhead of my machine that's going to run an additional 140 watts per box, or an additional cost of 2240 watts. Over the course of one month, that's roughly 1600 kilowatt/hours of overhead, or about $250-350 dollars of power. Every month. For the entire life of the machine (assume 10 years for a corporate or research box), that's around $36000 (remember, that's on top of the cost of the single box super computer). And that's before you factor in the cost of *cooling* the additional heat produced by the additional machines.
Don't get me wrong, there are advantages to the networked supercomputer design (redundancy and failover, the cheaper components mentioned, etc.). But there is also a place for the all-in-one super computer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Wouldn't most people who would NEED a supercomputer be able to build one much more cheaply using a dozen workstations.
This is a simplification, but is more or less correct:
Xeon FSB width 128 bits by 1.333 GHz equals 170 Gigabits/sec bandwidth between processors.
Commodity ethernet between commodity workstations, 1 Gigabit/sec bandwidth between processors.
If your application runs on 1/170th the interprocessor bandwidth, agreed, it would be cheaper. If not, then it's not a relevant comparison.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Sure, you could do it with a cluster of workstations. You would need some insane interconnects. OR, you could just buy this pre-configured system from SuperMicro [supermicro.com] with dual quad-core Nehalems and 4 Nvidia Tesla C1060 [wikipedia.org] GPU Cards. That's 960 thread processors @1.3 GHz if you don't overclock, 16GB of DDR3 @ 1.6 GHz on a 512 bit bus, 16 threads of system CPU with up to 96GB of system RAM. It pulls close to 4 TFLOPS, in a desktop machine. You probably could break into the top500 [top500.org] with ten of them with decent i
Shifting Standards (Score:2, Insightful)
G4 PowerMac is MY personal supercomputer (Score:2)
Since apparently the definition of a supercomputer is a machine capable of 1 gigaflop, SGI was scooped [randomize.com] by Apple 10 years ago!
Re: (Score:2)
It's like this: just because you say your home PC is a "supercomputer" because it has all the performance of a "supercomputer" doesn't make it one. You need to have a little plastic bar glued to the front wherein is written, in dazzlingly Arial font, "SuperComputer". Otherwise, no one will believe you. Oh, just buy it already.
Regards,
SGI Marketing and Management.
80 cores, 1TB of memory, and you got modded up? (Score:5, Insightful)
I've seen the term 'personal supercomputer' so many times over the past 20 years. It's just baloney marketing. What you have on your desktop RIGHT NOW is more capable than some of the original CDC machines. So what?
What you have on your desktop RIGHT NOW is most likely more powerful than the Cray Y-MP by a factor of three, if you've got a quad-core Core2 Duo; those babies push +1Gflop.
It's also 1/50th to 1/100th as capable as this supercomputer (or more- I don't know the relative performance between a current desktop processor and current Xeon.) Yes, it's relative, and relatively speaking, this is most certainly a supercomputer. In terms of memory, the maximum amount of ram you can put into a consumer-available motherboard is around 64GB, maybe 128. This has a maximum of 10 times that.
80 xeon cores, 1TB of memory, and you call it a "marketing ploy"? And you got modded up "insightful"? May the hand of metamoderation come on down from high.
Re: (Score:2)
But if Best Buy did sell these, some sales monkey would undoubtedly be trying to sell one to a little old lady who wants it for web browsing and email, because "Email needs a pretty fast computer."
Picture (Score:5, Informative)
Picture here: http://www.ubergizmo.com/tags/octane-3 [ubergizmo.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ugly :( Gone are the beautiful SGIs we knew. :(
Re: (Score:2)
That is the ugliest SGI ever made!! I spent the late 90's on Indys, O2s, Octanes (the real ones), Onxys, and Origins and they all were beautiful. Maybe they should outsource design to Apple and get some mojo back.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow! It's a box! With an ugly logo. I'm impressed...
Holy Bad Marketing Batman (Score:5, Informative)
This goes right up there with Honda constantly recycling their product names; passport [wikipedia.org], odyssey [wikipedia.org], pilot [wikipedia.org], and more recently insight.
Re:Holy Bad Marketing Batman (Score:4, Insightful)
It's UGLY !!! And GRAY !!!
That's no SGI.
Re: (Score:2)
That's no SGI.
It's a space station.
Yes they are (Score:2)
"They aren't selling personal supercomputers at Best Buy just yet."
Sure they are, it just depends on what era supercomputer you are comparing that commodity computer to. A modern desktop machine is insanely fast with inconceivable amounts of ram and disk storage if you think back a couple (several) decades. Best-buy will never sell super-anything, it's not their game. But the computers we take for granted are insanely capable machines based on the problems tacked in the past by supercomputers.
Now get off
Guess lightning can strike twice (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Guess lightning can strike twice (Score:4, Interesting)
that was known, internally as the WBT (wintel box thing).
I kid you not.
Super Computer (Score:2)
Why? (Score:2)
Still, you'd never need to heat your house again.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What will a home user do with an 80 core, 1TB RAM sysetm? Ray tracing? Protein folding? Local weather prediction? All things really high on the list for personal computers.
I'm not sure about you, but my most immediate thought would be to simulate an extremely complex neural network, likely easily using over half the ram on that task. Combine that with coding an infrastructure for it to learn patterns well from a source of input like a webcam, and hilarity ensues.
If it could get to be of about the intellect of a small bird that would be awesome, but even if it is a spectacular failure and nothing valuable is produced, it would be awesome :)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Funny)
What will a home user do with an 80 core, 1TB RAM sysetm? Ray tracing?
Sometimes I need a giant mirrored ball as a pick me up when I'm down, or a photo-realistic digital recreation of a bowl of fruit. What's wrong with that?
Protein folding?
They're not going to fold themselves.
Local weather prediction?
I don't trust the NWS, though. I generally try to run my own weather models at home every morning before leaving for work. I have to do something with these petabytes of NASA satellite data.
they can keep up (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Despite the prevailing skepticism here, this is... (Score:2, Interesting)
Then again, I'm buying up Marvel SheevePlugs as fast as I can afford 'em. With built-in 1000TX networking and a Kingston SOC chip delivering approximately the same performance as a 1
Re: (Score:2)
Less than 500. Compare with Xserve. (Score:2)
Bottom of the Top500 as of June is about Max 17 Tflops, Peak 37 Tflops. So if this is really 0.6 Tflops well... maybe one of these would make one node of a many-noded supercomputer.
Interesting to compare to a rack of Apple Xserves [apple.com]. Each rack is 8 cores (same cpus as the Octane III it seems). Again about $50k for 80 cores. Looks like sgi is aiming at that segment.
Can anybody with Xserve experience say how these would compare? I see Apple has something called Xsan too.
The Computer to End Geek Fights? (Score:2)
Yet Another Personal Supercomputer (Score:3, Informative)
Here's just a brief search for personal supercomputers of days gone (not too far) by. Most if not all are cheaper than the SGI. Being older they may not stack up spec-wise, and the definition will always be changing anyway. More than one claim to be 'first', and to SGI's credit they only claim it's 'their' first.
http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/11/23/068234 [slashdot.org]
http://www.researchchannel.org/prog/displayevent.aspx?fID=569&rID=4263 [researchchannel.org]
http://aslab.com/products/workstations/marquisk942.html [aslab.com]
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/06/07/tyan_unveils_typhoon/ [reghardware.co.uk]
http://www.hpcwire.com/features/Cray_Unveils_Personal_Supercomputer.html [hpcwire.com]
perverted definition of supercomputer (Score:2)
enlighten me (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
What do you think it's for?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I know you're joking, but from the article:
Re:PS3s (Score:5, Funny)
You could even go and buy Z80 compatible cores for US$ 0,95 each. That would get you more than 8000 cores for under 8K.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
An Nvidia Tesla has 240 cores at 1.3GHz for about $1300. You can put four of these in a system, lets say the base system would cost $1000. You could get eight systems loaded with 4 Tesla cards each for $49600 and possibly have enough left over to get a 10gbE switch. It would total 7680 cores, pretty close to your 8000 core idea. Except this one would actually work, where as there would be a tremendous amount of additional components necessary to get 8000 Z80s to communicate with one another, cheapest being
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Good luck with that -- as much as I like my PS3, the new ("slim") PS3 models come without support for Other OS installation. Sony's official statements on the subject indicate that it isn't coming back, either.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Can't use it for graphics... because all Linux versions running on the PS3 have no access to RSX, the Nvidia-sourced GPU.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
forgot the source : http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1024278/linux-petitioners-sony-ps3-graphical-innards/ [theinquirer.net] sry
Re:PS3s (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Morrow Designs had an S-100 running some sort of mini-unix in the early 80's on a Z-80.
Re: (Score:2)
I had Minux running on a Mac Plus a few years ago. No HD, booted from 800k floppy and then had a web server running on it. It wasn't apache, though. Can't really remember what it was. I'm not even sure if I still have this machine. Still, was a fun exercise in minimal computing. Sorta' like getting my Newton 2100 to serve web pages.
Re:PS3s (Score:5, Informative)
Assuming you actually need one of the higher end configurations, though, the mac pro isn't going to cut it. A mac pro supports 2 quad core xeons. This SGI box supports 20 quad core xeons in a box of roughly equivalent size. Not to mention that each node on the SGI box supports 3 times as much RAM as the mac pro. Not playing the same game.
That said, the two other configurations they offer (see here [sgi.com]) seem much less useful. The "intel 2-way" configuration gives you up to 20 xeons and 960GB of RAM. That is pretty impressive power for a box of the size. The "Intel 1-way" is based on dual-core Atoms. 2GB max of RAM per node and the extremely feeble Atom seems like a very odd choice. 19 Atoms in a box of that size is pretty blah density, and for most applications you'd probably have a faster, cheaper, and easier time with a basic quad-socket board running processors that weren't designed for netbooks. The "Graphics workstation" configuration is a single dual socket workstation board. Lots of PCIe slots; but probably not worth SGI's price for a basic workstation level performance.
Re:PS3s (Score:5, Informative)
This is actually a decent price for an 80 core system that's preconfigured. You wouldn't want to make a 10 node cluster of mac pros, you could do it easily, in fact my older system is essentially that, a bunch of independent nodes strung together over ethernet and sharing the home directory. You really don't get good scaling over the gigabit ethernet though, as least for what we're doing, so it's pretty pointless to go to more than a few nodes that way. I also noticed this as well:
So my suspicion was right, this isn't SGI, it's a server company banking on SGI's name.
atom? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Somehow, they can get 20 quad core firebreathing server processors into this box(with 6 RAM slots apiece, and 10 HDDs); but only 19 netbook processors, with only 2GB max of RAM each and all but one of the nodes diskless. How did that happen?
Re:PS3s (Score:5, Interesting)
Then to make matters worse, most of the engineers from the graphics dept of Sgi jumped ship, and all went to join Nvidia (Mark Kilgard et al). The comsumer grade Geforce cards had better OpenGL support + features than an Sgi unit at a fraction of the cost.
This is probably the only realistic comparison you can make between SGI and Apple. Apple (having seen a computer company crash and burn due to a switch to Intel) must have studied what went wrong with Sgi, and made damn sure they didn't repeat the same mistakes.... If Sgi had managed the transition as well as Apple, it would still be a powerhouse in the industry.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Or you could just buy this [apple.com]. For $3k plus a couple of thousand depending on how you want to configure it (it's cheaper if you add the memory and hard drive yourself from newegg), you can get a dual quad core with two ethernet ports and pretty decent graphics.
Alternatively, grab yourself a Dell Precision 5500 for the same 8 cores at 2/3 the price. Or, if you don't mind slumming it a little, an XPS 9000 only has 4 cores in a box, but works out at around twice the cores/$ as the Mac Pro.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The presumption of this system is that you will actually put more processors in it than you could simply put in a PC. So comparing this to a desktop or even a small server is pointless. The price point they are giving is something of an illusion because you will never use this system with only one, two or even just four processors. If you did that, you would be wasting your money.
The basic unit is offering expandability to a number of cores and memory modules that your PC or Mac simply cannot provide. T
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Because according to a Mac fanboi, Apple can do no wrong, and anything possible in computerdom, on any hardware, no matter how high end, is completely possible, and in fact faster, on a COTS Apple desktop machine. :-/
Not to say that Apple doesn't make some good stuff, but they're not the be all, end all of computers.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The correct question (for a supercomputer) is of course "Does it run Fortran?".
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. And Windows. Heck, maybe even OS X :)
[John]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well... It's 8k, and the CPUS, according to a quick google, are ~2k apiece new (?! For one CPU?). So presumably you can get the full 80-core experience for 168k.
For comparison, a fast commodity rig might cost, I dunno, 1.5k? Times 80, and you're at 120k? So this thing, fully decked out, is possibly 40% more expensive than an equivalent commodity setup? If it's commensurately faster -- which is easy to believe as the processors are on the same mobo instead of strung across a network -- then it could be
Re: (Score:2)
The 5550 is a quad core. So for 80 cores, you only need 20 procs.
That makes the 80 core experience $8000 + ($2000 * 19) = $46,000.
For commodity hardware, you'd have to be getting your computers for $575 for single core machines, or $1150 for dual core. And that doesn't count the discount you'd probably get on the CPUs for buying 19 at once.
Although you might get a similar discount on commodity machines, but it's certainly not guaranteed....
Then there's all the hardware necessary to connect up 40 or 80 mac
Re:$8000 for a single processor (Score:5, Interesting)
As someone who has a whole Sun Enterprise 5500 rack in his room, There is indeed a great difference between server class hardware and commodity gear, where shall we start.
Multiple power supplies, varied in number depending on your load out but hot swappable and configured as such that 1-2 of them can die before your system goes down. Along with diagnostic interface and usually visible indicators going 'part failure, replace asap'.
Same with cpus, hot swappable cpu/memory boards are a must, so long as a single cpu remains functioning the system should still run albeit at a lower capacity.
While I've already mentioned psu redundancy, the AC power outlets it uses would usually have redundancy also, with two separate connections to different circuits or ups etc.
Anyway, no commodity hardware does this, only high end, high availability stuff has this, and you will pay through the nose for it. If this octane has these features, it is very cheap for what it is.
Re:$8000 for a single processor (Score:5, Insightful)
You forget service and support! Sun will make sure that for the serviceable life of your machine they will have replacement parts on hand and technical support for your machine. Imagine a commodity system looses a motherboard, will you be able to get the exact one three years down the line? And with pretty much every board maker located in Taiwan will they give you proper tech support in a timely manor? Will they ensure you get matching memory and CPU's? That's the other strong point of server class hard ware that is thoroughly supported by the vendor.
Please tell me it's not used for entertainment. (Score:2)
whole Sun Enterprise 5500 rack in his room
Does it run 24 hours/day (as the high availability options would suggest)? How much power does it consume? Why are you burning all that power all day?
I'm hoping for an answer like: "I'm modeling a quantum electrodynamic system at 100 hours of processing per microsecond." Or maybe "I'm trying to find a zero of the Zeta function off the critical line." Or even "I'm trying to factor a big number." Please don't tell me "It sits idle 23.9 hours a day and then I play Spacewar on it once in a while."
Alt
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How much power does it consume?
A fully decked out system can use 5760 watts (24 amps at 240v) or so it says on the back power panel which has a couple 25 amp iec connectors on the back. the 5500 system by itself wouldn't use anything near that though, about 1600 watts. There is plenty of remaining space in the rack for other things however, the backplane only uses 1/4 the rack.
Does it run 24 hours/day (as the high availability options would suggest)?
Alas, it currently is not in running order, I am short a few parts which I have found on the internet for reasonable prices refurbished however shipping is a bitch
Re: (Score:2)
Ironically, those that don't know what it is tend to be like "You have a towering monolith in your room, but where are the monkeys?" (2001: a space odyssey reference)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ouch! I never understood the need for all of this specialized "server-class" hardware when cheap-o commodity hardware and a little elbow grease works just as well. Maybe most people don't want to put the work into it, considering the huge jump in price between retail consumer and server pricing, I've never been able to justify shelling out those kind of bucks.
I can't decide if you're a troll or an amateur. If you're the latter, I meant that in the nicest possible way.
If you don't understand that there's a difference between "cheap-o commodity hardware" and server hardware, you don't understand nearly as well as you think you do.
Re: (Score:2)
Hardware fails, and commodity hardware fails more. Using it on a large scale for systems with a high-availability requirement needs engineering/operations skills and resources that many companies simply do not have, and even at the companies that theoretically have the resources, they often fail.
Designing and building applications to withstand server failures can be extremely difficult, especially if you have to scale, and properly testing them can border on the impossible. Sometimes you're better off just
Re: (Score:2)
I'm assuming you're a troll but I'll bite anyway, modern Macs all run on 64-bit Intel CPUs, early Intel Macs did have 32-bit CPUs though.
/Mikael
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah right (Score:2)
You can't fool me, Kilgore Trout!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
2nd to last paragraph from TFA:
...It can be preconfigured with Windows Server or its HPC Server 2008, as well as Red Hat and SUSE Linux servers...
Re: (Score:2)
Big deal. I have a 1 GHz processor that is almost a decade old, and a 1.2 GHz processor that is six months younger than the other one. The new one has a number more than the CUBE of the old one! And they're only six months apart!!1one!