The collected works of zolotroph

It's old news that in the visual effects industry, MIPS/IRIX is effectively dead on the desktop. There may be post houses with legacy machines still in their pipeline, but what about new hardware? I'm curious to know: Aside from discreet, who is buying MIPS/IRIX workstations in 2005, and what applications do they use? Obviously SGI still has a big presence in high end visualization, HPC and defense, but that's primarily driven by solutions on the Onyx/Origin level, not by workstations. So who's buying/using Tezro (besides discreet), and Fuel?

Let's extend the question further: In 2005, who buys UNIX workstations in general (IBM, HP, Sun, etc.), and what applications do they use? How are UNIX workstations able to compete in price/performance against the Wintel PC juggernaut in any industry anymore?

I assume that in certain industries, there are still valid reasons for choosing workstations over PCs. I also assume that in some instances, it's simply a case of momentum, that an industry has so much invested in legacy UNIX architecture that it's easier to replace existing hardware with the same thing than to convert their entire infrastructure (hardware and software) to PC-based solutions. I'd like to hear from people working in industries where UNIX workstations still endure: what are some of the reasons PCs haven't taken over yet?

Finally, there is speculation that SGI is working on a new Linux workstation, below Prism in the product line. Who would buy it? How could it justify its price/performance over commodity Linux PCs? What Linux applications could require greater performance than that attainable on PCs but less than that attainable on Prism? Did SGI fail to learn their lesson about the commodity market after their disastrous experiment with PCs?

Anyone?

-zolo

A big difference between the Intellistation/Boxx and a new SGI Linux workstation is that the former both run Windows, which account for the vast majority of their user base. Until more professional media applications are ported to Linux, a new SGI Linux workstation won't have anything to run on it in that market aside from discreet apps and Maya.

The Visual Workstations, at least the 320/540, were a case of too little, too late. While their IVC architecture was logical, elegant and indeed admirable on paper, by the time they were released, their performance didn't justify their price premium. Had they been released two years earlier, they might have seemed more impressive. However, their hardwired graphics, proprietary memory and reliance on hacks to the existing Windows NT code would still have been an issue for many customers. SGI didn't grasp the fundamental mentality of the commodity PC user base--cheap, standard user-upgradable hardware is what drives that market. It's a really tough market in which to innovate, unless your company is named Intel.

That's an excellent point about in-house software. I hadn't considered that, but you're absolutely right. I guess the real question is:

What could SGI offer in a Linux workstation that isn't already available? Massive throughput and scalable graphics (multiple cards working in parallel?) would be my guess, but how far can you go before you have a Prism? How much would potential customers be willing to pay, and what kind of performance increase over commodity PCs would be enough to lure new customers? I guess we'll find out, if the rumors are true.

-zolo

Please explain... Is it that A) the Indy's hard drive is physically in your Mac, or B) you need to access the Indy's hard drive (in the Indy) FROM your Mac via a network connection?

If A)-- Can't do it.

If B)-- You can't mount xfs directly.

Your options are:

ftp (fastest)

nfs shares (slower, more difficult to configure)

Well, technically, SGI is supporting OS X with CXFS, but that's hardly something that most mere mortals would ever encounter.

What is the significance of having two graphics cards in the "deskside" Prism? Can they work together in parallel and output to one monitor, or is the configuration only useful for multiple monitor setups? If it's the latter, it seems like a waste.

Also, unless I'm missing something, SGI have not announced any digital media (read: video) I/O hardware for the Prism series. Without said hardware, it seems these systems would be worthless to a company like discreet (oops, I mean Autodesk Media and Entertainment--pfft, whatever).

So without particularly special graphics abilities or digital media hardware options, who would buy the Prism "deskside" vs. a cheaper Linux box from another vendor?

-zolo

Well, the total lack of professional video applications for Linux (aside from smoke/flint) might have something to do with it...

-zolo

I'm guessing that compositing and 3D apps by themselves aren't nearly lucrative enough of a market for video card companies to support Linux. If popular editing apps like Avid, Vegas or even Premiere Pro (shudder) had Linux ports, the sheer numbers would make driver development much more worthwhile for the card vendors. Just a guess...