Fict versus faction
Good lord, AC, do you write the HP "Rilly Rilly True Stories" ?
Fict: "If Sun does not extend the OEM agreement with Fujitsu they will not be able to sell the US64 quad core systems in 2009. Another end of life product for Sun"
Yes, and if Intel finally decides to pull the plug on Itanium, HP is totally hosed. I truly doubt either will happen, but they make nice spooky stories around the campfire, don't they?
Fict: "Being able to put 10 blades in a 10U enclosure does not count as blades. They are horizontal 1u servers."
Hah? A blade is a blade unless it isn't?
Fict: "Eight SPANCII cores on a chip with almost no cache/core is good for benchmarks, but not for dynamic workloads, or virtualization."
Yeah, having good benchmarks really sucks. And dynamic workloads and virtualization are precluded why?
Fict: "Never compare the T2 with a scalable system/architecture with more than one chip"
That's not a fact; it's an admonition. And a weird one at that. T2s work great in many circumstances where you might use a scalable systems architecture as well. And when it doesn't? Well, use a scalable systems architecture. Horses for courses, as you say on that side of the pond.
Fict: "The T2 chip uses 120W up from T1 95W. This is why we have a ridiculous metric of Watts/Thread. The T2 also requires incredible amounts of memory compared to other architectures, which is why you have to buy 64GB for a one chip/8core system."
Again: hah? It uses more power because it does more: you know, 64 versus 32 threads? It uses more memory because it *supports more threads* and thus *takes on more workloads*. It requires the *same amount of memory per workload* as any other chip. Chip designs generally have no impact on memory footprint, broadly speaking. Certainly there'd be no difference within the same instruction set architecture.
Watts/thread was used as a metric from the very first with T1, so why is this somehow a whitewash for T2?
Fict: "Montecito and Montvale are both only 104Watts."
...delighting sheer dozens of Itanium customers.
Fact: "The T2 chip is not 89.6GHz, and I have no idea how that is not considered lying."
It's a REALLY STUPID metric. It's not lying, but it's really odious logic. Surprise! I almost agree with you.
Fict: "LDOMs are not virtualization, they are partitioning of threads"
I think it was the prime minister of France that once defended one of their country's nuke tests by saying, "it was not a bomb, it was a device that exploded."
If I can run up to 64 separate OS instances on a single T2 chip and dynamically shift allocation of cores and threads amongst those OS instances, how is that anything but virtualization?
Fict: "The ROCK chip systems above 8 sockets have been canceled, so Sun has exited the >8 socket space forever."
...and the Itanium processor now takes over the world. You win! Just ask IDC!
Fict: "The Road to Redmond is through Sunnyvale"
The wind is in the buffalo. John has a long mustache. My hovercraft is full of eels.
Fict: "SUNW is down to $4.80, once you get past the marketing antics"
Oooo, so close. First off, if you'd just said Sun's stock price was down, you'd have been in the paint. But calling it marketing antics just turns it into more bullshit. Why? Because using share price as a standalone metric is meaningless. Overall market value is all that matters.
Sun split their stock *three* times after the bloom was off the boom, so in reality, their stock price should be in the $36-37 range. But really, meaningless.
Your other gaffe, of course, was missing the opportunity to poke fun at the ticker change to JAVA, because, hey, Sun sucks and HP roolz. I mean: Gwen Stefani!
Biting the hand that feeds IT
