I mentioned then (actually, just last week) about the potential ongoing problems:
I can see the problems extending though as more multi-core x86 cores come on line. It's going to take a year or so for the kinks to be worked out of the different systems, and we may yet see some changes and equalization of the different solutions across different suppliers and manufacturers.
The article in Information Age (actually in the Insider section, page 10 - I can't find an online copy) mentioned something I hadn't considered - the role that distributed computing, grids and virtualization might play in the way people are charged.
I mentioned then (actually, just last week) about the potential ongoing problems:
I can see the problems extending though as more multi-core x86 cores come on line. It's going to take a year or so for the kinks to be worked out of the different systems, and we may yet see some changes and equalization of the different solutions across different suppliers and manufacturers.
The article in Information Age (actually in the Insider section, page 10 - I can't find an online copy) mentioned something I hadn't considered - the role that distributed computing, grids and virtualization might play in the way people are charged.
If you watch the CPU trends, the 64-bit computing has been here for years, but strangely in the commodity market of the x86 CPU, widespread adoption has not been as widespread compared to the high-end Unix and mainframe environments.
Now Microsoft are leading from the front by moving their own web servers to 64-bit CPUs - primarily to remove the memory limitations and therefore improve the speed and performance.
To show you how it is done, they've released a white paper on how it was done.
If you watch the CPU trends, the 64-bit computing has been here for years, but strangely in the commodity market of the x86 CPU, widespread adoption has not been as widespread compared to the high-end Unix and mainframe environments.
Now Microsoft are leading from the front by moving their own web servers to 64-bit CPUs - primarily to remove the memory limitations and therefore improve the speed and performance.
To show you how it is done, they've released a white paper on how it was done.
As the subtitle says, he likes what he finds, but I have to provide my own comments to some of his summing at the end.
First of all is this comment:
Microsoft's customizable Start menu is in every way the analog of OS X's Apple menu, but you can't customize the Apple menu.
The Apple menu in non-OS X Apple's was always customizable, but the one in OS X isn't without additional tools. Whether you think this is a good or bad thing depends on your point of view, but it isn't the only place for customization. One of the things I like about the Apple Menu is that it is now a menu about the OS, not just a dump point for everything that didn't have a better place to go.
After having my T2000 arrive some weeks ago, I finally managed at the beginning of the week to start porting over the Cheffy codebase to the new system.
Before I got there, I had to do the basic setup. The System Controller (SC) uses a serial cable (and one I haven't had to use for a while) to do the initial set up of an IP address, then I could log in and boot up the machine proper. Without a display, access to the console is through the SC port, and the first phase is an extensive set of tests. Then the machine resets and starts up into Solaris 10.
After having my T2000 arrive some weeks ago, I finally managed at the beginning of the week to start porting over the Cheffy codebase to the new system.
Before I got there, I had to do the basic setup. The System Controller (SC) uses a serial cable (and one I haven't had to use for a while) to do the initial set up of an IP address, then I could log in and boot up the machine proper. Without a display, access to the console is through the SC port, and the first phase is an extensive set of tests. Then the machine resets and starts up into Solaris 10.
As the subtitle says, he likes what he finds, but I have to provide my own comments to some of his summing at the end.
First of all is this comment:
Microsoft's customizable Start menu is in every way the analog of OS X's Apple menu, but you can't customize the Apple menu.
The Apple menu in non-OS X Apple's was always customizable, but the one in OS X isn't without additional tools. Whether you think this is a good or bad thing depends on your point of view, but it isn't the only place for customization. One of the things I like about the Apple Menu is that it is now a menu about the OS, not just a dump point for everything that didn't have a better place to go.
I've been using Boot Camp now for almost a week, and I apologize to those who have been waiting for my review since my original comment on the release last week.
A few key notes to begin with:
Installation is very smooth and simple.
Windows XP on an iMac works very nicely.
It is unfortunately not without its problems.
Installation is straightforward enough, even if, as on my iMac Intel Core Duo, there isn't a huge amount of free space available. I was easily able to assign the 5GB (which I upped to 10GB) to install Windows XP. Installation is as fast as you would expect, and I didn't experience any problems with the XP SP2 disc I was using as an installation source.
I've been using Boot Camp now for almost a week, and I apologize to those who have been waiting for my review since my original comment on the release last week.
A few key notes to begin with:
Installation is very smooth and simple.
Windows XP on an iMac works very nicely.
It is unfortunately not without its problems.
Installation is straightforward enough, even if, as on my iMac Intel Core Duo, there isn't a huge amount of free space available. I was easily able to assign the 5GB (which I upped to 10GB) to install Windows XP. Installation is as fast as you would expect, and I didn't experience any problems with the XP SP2 disc I was using as an installation source.