From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by neteng.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id PAA62242 for ; Tue, 19 Jan 1999 15:27:15 -0800 (PST) Return-Path: Received: (from majordomo-owner@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id PAA97991 for linux-list; Tue, 19 Jan 1999 15:25:04 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@relay.engr.sgi.com) Received: from sgi.com (sgi.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.37]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id PAA97537 for ; Tue, 19 Jan 1999 15:25:02 -0800 (PST) mail_from (dmerchan@hiwaay.net) Received: from mail.HiWAAY.net (fly.HiWAAY.net [208.147.154.56]) by sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980304.SGI-aspam: SGI does not authorize the use of its proprietary systems or networks for unsolicited or bulk email from the Internet.) via ESMTP id PAB05853 for ; Tue, 19 Jan 1999 15:24:56 -0800 (PST) mail_from (dmerchan@hiwaay.net) Received: from hiwaay.net (tnt2-140.HiWAAY.net [208.147.148.140]) by mail.HiWAAY.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with ESMTP id RAA25518 for ; Tue, 19 Jan 1999 17:24:30 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <36A51517.A24C2BEB@hiwaay.net> Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 17:28:23 -0600 From: dmanddmer X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (WinNT; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com Subject: [Fwd: linus.linux.sgi.com] Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------0BD0375297667C7067B8BD23" Sender: owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------0BD0375297667C7067B8BD23 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Btw, I heard a rumor that the memory in the VPC is custom or unique memory. Is this true? How much of the VPC, besides the obvious, is not industry standard? If SGI is attempting solely to require customers to be able to buy any upgrades ONLY from SGI, then SGI has shot itself in the foot again. It did not work for Apple, it didn't work for Unisys, it didn't work for Intergraph. In short, it hasn't worked for anyone. David M. --------------0BD0375297667C7067B8BD23 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Received: from sgi.com (SGI.COM [192.48.153.1]) by mail.HiWAAY.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with ESMTP id JAA28325 for ; Tue, 19 Jan 1999 09:44:13 -0600 (CST) Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980304.SGI-aspam: SGI does not authorize the use of its proprietary systems or networks for unsolicited or bulk email from the Internet.) via ESMTP id HAA03017; Tue, 19 Jan 1999 07:43:23 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com) Received: (from majordomo-owner@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id HAA64294 for linux-list; Tue, 19 Jan 1999 07:38:34 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@relay.engr.sgi.com) Received: from dataserv.columbus.sgi.com (dataserv.columbus.sgi.com [169.238.139.130]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via SMTP id HAA68024 for ; Tue, 19 Jan 1999 07:38:32 -0800 (PST) mail_from (david@carrera.columbus.sgi.com) Received: from carrera.columbus.sgi.com by dataserv.columbus.sgi.com via ESMTP (951211.SGI.8.6.12.PATCH1502/930416.SGI) id KAA22488; Tue, 19 Jan 1999 10:38:29 -0500 Received: (from david@localhost) by carrera.columbus.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id KAA23239; Tue, 19 Jan 1999 10:30:47 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 10:30:47 -0500 (EST) From: david@carrera.columbus.sgi.com (David Watters) Message-Id: <9901191030.ZM37783@carrera.columbus.sgi.com> In-Reply-To: dmanddmer "Re: linus.linux.sgi.com" (Jan 19, 5:21am) References: <369F8C88.39CC6B03@infopact.nl> <199901151909.LAA23245@oz.engr.sgi.com> <19990115225918.25643@uni-koblenz.de> <199901160321.TAA11493@dm.cobaltmicro.com> <36A40CBE.F55CA9F1@detroit.sgi.com> <199901190519.VAA17644@dm.cobaltmicro.com> <36A46AAE.16FDA4C9@hiwaay.net> X-Mailer: Z-Mail-SGI (3.2S.3 08feb96 MediaMail) To: dmanddmer Subject: Re: linus.linux.sgi.com Cc: linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com Precedence: bulk On Jan 19, 5:21am, dmanddmer wrote: > Subject: Re: linus.linux.sgi.com > Personally, since SGI made the questionable decision to port to NT, I > wish they would commit to AMD's processors instead of Intels. SGI couldn't. SGI had to replace so much of the IA/440xx chipset that there had to be a prettty big agreement with Intel covering a lot of issues, machines, processors, and markets to allow SGI to, for example, implement the frontside bus in their own chipset. Don't forget all those Co'op marketing dollars too. -dong ^dong -dong ^^dong > Porting to NT alone is probably not enough to save the company. It > didn't work for Intergraph. Yeah, but Intergraph is lame so they had that working against them too. :) -- David Watters | Silicon*Graphics Systems Engineer | http://www.sgi.com/ Silicon Graphics, Inc.| http://reality.sgi.com/davester/ (6/13/97) david.watters@sgi.com | 1.800.800.SGI1 (Sales) 1.800.800.4SGI (Support) DID 1.614.844.3820 | http://www.nintendo.com/ (N64, the $130 SGI!) --------------0BD0375297667C7067B8BD23-- From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Message-ID: <36A51517.A24C2BEB@hiwaay.net> Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 17:28:23 -0600 From: dmanddmer MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [Fwd: linus.linux.sgi.com] Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------0BD0375297667C7067B8BD23" Sender: owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com To: linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com Message-ID: <19990119232823.2lcHQVV3jtXRqfFEs1Qj_TzmtgnHqtP2ZEaGnxMMkLg@z> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------0BD0375297667C7067B8BD23 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Btw, I heard a rumor that the memory in the VPC is custom or unique memory. Is this true? How much of the VPC, besides the obvious, is not industry standard? If SGI is attempting solely to require customers to be able to buy any upgrades ONLY from SGI, then SGI has shot itself in the foot again. It did not work for Apple, it didn't work for Unisys, it didn't work for Intergraph. In short, it hasn't worked for anyone. David M. --------------0BD0375297667C7067B8BD23 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Received: from sgi.com (SGI.COM [192.48.153.1]) by mail.HiWAAY.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with ESMTP id JAA28325 for ; Tue, 19 Jan 1999 09:44:13 -0600 (CST) Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980304.SGI-aspam: SGI does not authorize the use of its proprietary systems or networks for unsolicited or bulk email from the Internet.) via ESMTP id HAA03017; Tue, 19 Jan 1999 07:43:23 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com) Received: (from majordomo-owner@localhost) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id HAA64294 for linux-list; Tue, 19 Jan 1999 07:38:34 -0800 (PST) mail_from (owner-linux@relay.engr.sgi.com) Received: from dataserv.columbus.sgi.com (dataserv.columbus.sgi.com [169.238.139.130]) by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via SMTP id HAA68024 for ; Tue, 19 Jan 1999 07:38:32 -0800 (PST) mail_from (david@carrera.columbus.sgi.com) Received: from carrera.columbus.sgi.com by dataserv.columbus.sgi.com via ESMTP (951211.SGI.8.6.12.PATCH1502/930416.SGI) id KAA22488; Tue, 19 Jan 1999 10:38:29 -0500 Received: (from david@localhost) by carrera.columbus.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id KAA23239; Tue, 19 Jan 1999 10:30:47 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 10:30:47 -0500 (EST) From: david@carrera.columbus.sgi.com (David Watters) Message-Id: <9901191030.ZM37783@carrera.columbus.sgi.com> In-Reply-To: dmanddmer "Re: linus.linux.sgi.com" (Jan 19, 5:21am) References: <369F8C88.39CC6B03@infopact.nl> <199901151909.LAA23245@oz.engr.sgi.com> <19990115225918.25643@uni-koblenz.de> <199901160321.TAA11493@dm.cobaltmicro.com> <36A40CBE.F55CA9F1@detroit.sgi.com> <199901190519.VAA17644@dm.cobaltmicro.com> <36A46AAE.16FDA4C9@hiwaay.net> X-Mailer: Z-Mail-SGI (3.2S.3 08feb96 MediaMail) To: dmanddmer Subject: Re: linus.linux.sgi.com Cc: linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com Precedence: bulk On Jan 19, 5:21am, dmanddmer wrote: > Subject: Re: linus.linux.sgi.com > Personally, since SGI made the questionable decision to port to NT, I > wish they would commit to AMD's processors instead of Intels. SGI couldn't. SGI had to replace so much of the IA/440xx chipset that there had to be a prettty big agreement with Intel covering a lot of issues, machines, processors, and markets to allow SGI to, for example, implement the frontside bus in their own chipset. Don't forget all those Co'op marketing dollars too. -dong ^dong -dong ^^dong > Porting to NT alone is probably not enough to save the company. It > didn't work for Intergraph. Yeah, but Intergraph is lame so they had that working against them too. :) -- David Watters | Silicon*Graphics Systems Engineer | http://www.sgi.com/ Silicon Graphics, Inc.| http://reality.sgi.com/davester/ (6/13/97) david.watters@sgi.com | 1.800.800.SGI1 (Sales) 1.800.800.4SGI (Support) DID 1.614.844.3820 | http://www.nintendo.com/ (N64, the $130 SGI!) --------------0BD0375297667C7067B8BD23--