Re: SGI files chapter 11

SGI's downfall started when the upper management decided SGI would no
longer be a leader but a follower of what ever the current trend was. They
got in bed with Micro$loth and Intel. They gave away or sold off anything
profitable or would make them a leader (MIPS, software, etc.). This caused a
lot of SGI's best and brightest to jump off the sinking ship causing major
brain drain. They dropped Micro$loth too late, but stayed in bed with Intel
and their much delayed vaporware and chucked MIPS. They chucked IRIX for the
Linux crap. Why should anyone stay with SGI? They can't even make up their
own minds what they are doing or where they are going.
When we were going to replace our current over decade old SGI servers
(which are still more reliable than our new hardware/software) with new
servers, our management said why buy SGI? We can buy Intel hardware directly
from Intel and download Linux for free. Why pay SGI more for the same thing
and I'd almost have to agree.
The only way SGI could stay alive is to:

1. PUSH MIPS/IRIX HARD. Get it back on top again.
(With out MIPS, what competition does Intel have? They have
no incentive to make better faster chips, because they have
no competition any more. All the competition has closed up
shop.)

2. Get back to having machines that range all the way from the
desktop to the big iron super computing servers and they ALL
run the same OS, so the same software worked on all levels of
hardware.

3. STOP being a follower of what ever is trendy and start being a
LEADER again.

Intel/Linux is a dead end and a road to extinction for SGI. SGI's users
have been saying this for years and management has ignored us. However, what
does SGI management care about? They made their millions and have run the
company into the ground. They can now jump ship. They got what they wanted.
They don't care if SGI continues or what happens to their workers or loyal
customers. They definitely do not care about their stock holders any more.
They just got rid of all of them.

Brent L. Bates wrote:[color=blue]
> The only way SGI could stay alive is to:
>
> 1. PUSH MIPS/IRIX HARD. Get it back on top again.
> (With out MIPS, what competition does Intel have? They have
> no incentive to make better faster chips, because they have
> no competition any more. All the competition has closed up
> shop.)[/color]
One can wonder how much slower an R18k on 65nm and *real* applications would
have been compared to Itanium. Not that much I guess and per Watt, certainly
not. However, reviving the R18k and Irix is probably far too expensive.
What is probably a missed opportunity is failing to offer attractive upgrades
for current Origin systems. IIRC there was at some point an 1Ghz R16k...[color=blue]
>
> 2. Get back to having machines that range all the way from the
> desktop to the big iron super computing servers and they ALL
> run the same OS, so the same software worked on all levels of
> hardware.[/color]
Making desktops at the necessary low pricepoint requires a mass sales
channel, they botched that by not understanding how important price is.
Still, when the big iron uses the same 'commodity' (no Itaniums!) processors
as a regular cheap Linux box this can still be realized.[color=blue]
>
> 3. STOP being a follower of what ever is trendy and start being a
> LEADER again.[/color]
In large single memory image systems?
At the time they selected Itanium/Linux as successor for MIPS/Irix it seemed
a reasonable choice, at least to me. In retrospect it is easy to say they
should have continued longer with MIPS/Irix, with a switch to Power5 or
Opteron on Linux in 2005. IMO an Altix with many Power6s or Opterons would
have been easier to sell than an Altix with the ever delayed Itanium. I don't
know how many Altixes were sold the last half year, but current delay of the
dual core Montecito but must have caused a complete buyers stop.[color=blue]
>
> Intel/Linux is a dead end and a road to extinction for SGI. SGI's users
> have been saying this for years and management has ignored us. However, what
> does SGI management care about? They made their millions and have run the
> company into the ground. They can now jump ship. They got what they wanted.
> They don't care if SGI continues or what happens to their workers or loyal
> customers. They definitely do not care about their stock holders any more.
> They just got rid of all of them.[/color]
.... just my 2cts SGI share, Hans

Brent L. Bates wrote:
[color=blue]
> With*out*MIPS,*what*competition*does*Intel*have?[/color]

AMD?

Malcolm

> > With out MIPS, what competition does Intel have?
[color=blue]
> AMD?[/color]

They're hardly pushing Intel, and have nowhere near the performance gap
MIPS processors have over them.

jonny_morris wrote:[color=blue]
> They're hardly pushing Intel, and have nowhere near the performance gap
> MIPS processors have over them.[/color]
*had* over them, and that is long ago. And part of it was due to the
compilers which are now reincarnated for...AMD. See [url]http://www.pathscale.com/[/url]
And don't forget IBM which has pushed out MIPS out of Sony PS with its cell
processor.

-- Hans

Brent L. Bates wrote:
[color=blue]
> SGI's downfall started when the upper management decided SGI would no
> longer be a leader but a follower of what ever the current trend was.
> They
> got in bed with Micro$loth and Intel. They gave away or sold off anything
> profitable or would make them a leader (MIPS, software, etc.). This
> caused a lot of SGI's best and brightest to jump off the sinking ship
> causing major
> brain drain. They dropped Micro$loth too late, but stayed in bed with
> Intel
> and their much delayed vaporware and chucked MIPS. They chucked IRIX for
> the
> Linux crap. Why should anyone stay with SGI? They can't even make up
> their own minds what they are doing or where they are going.
> When we were going to replace our current over decade old SGI servers
> (which are still more reliable than our new hardware/software) with new
> servers, our management said why buy SGI? We can buy Intel hardware
> directly
> from Intel and download Linux for free. Why pay SGI more for the same
> thing and I'd almost have to agree.
> The only way SGI could stay alive is to:
>
> 1. PUSH MIPS/IRIX HARD. Get it back on top again.
> (With out MIPS, what competition does Intel have? They have
> no incentive to make better faster chips, because they have
> no competition any more. All the competition has closed up
> shop.)
>
> 2. Get back to having machines that range all the way from the
> desktop to the big iron super computing servers and they ALL
> run the same OS, so the same software worked on all levels of
> hardware.
>
> 3. STOP being a follower of what ever is trendy and start being a
> LEADER again.
>
> Intel/Linux is a dead end and a road to extinction for SGI. SGI's
> users
> have been saying this for years and management has ignored us. However,
> what
> does SGI management care about? They made their millions and have run the
> company into the ground. They can now jump ship. They got what they
> wanted.
> They don't care if SGI continues or what happens to their workers or
> loyal
> customers. They definitely do not care about their stock holders any
> more.
> They just got rid of all of them.[/color]


I don't know if you know this or not, but market forces are not within SGI's
control. SGI does not have the power to direct the marketplace and force
consumers to take the direction that SGI finds best. It does not matter
who your CEO is or who sits on the board of directors. Business is at the
mercy of consumers -- not sometimes -- always!

There's not a corporation in business history that has not made blunders in
their attempts to lead the market. Microsoft has made blunders in their
attempts to lead the market. Coca-Cola, McDonalds, the big three American
automakers, Apple Computer, IBM, etcetera, etcetera. The list is endless
and the lessons are very real: You can't force consumers to move in a
direction that they don't want to go!

Coca-Cola made a huge blunder with "New Coke." New Coke was Coca-Cola's
attempt at blazing trails in the Cola wars. And it failed! Big Time!
And Coca-Cola is not the only company that has failed to lead markets; all
companies throughout the history of business, have had failures. So it's
hardly fair or realistic to blame people like Bob Bishop for the woes of
SGI. Especially, when other corporations in the same marketspace are
feeling the pinch as well.

I know that there are going to be people that will say that only IRIX can
save the company, but the simple truth is that the majority of SGI's market
abandoned IRIX in favour of more economical alternatives. And it is highly
unrealistic to suggest that SGI would be throwing in the towel by giving up
on IRIX. To do so, would be akin to saying that Apple Computer gave up
when they abandoned the Apple II. The reality is that things change,
people change, needs change, and circumstances change. If people don't
want to buy IRIX, then SGI should stop trying to sell it. It's a
no-brainer.

Basically, you can try to sell lemonade to eskimos, but don't be too shocked
when they don't lineup at your northpole lemonade stand on that warm arctic
day.
--
--
People Against Corruption * Right Always Triumphs
Website: [url]http://sarnia.selfip.org[/url]

In article <jD78g.72738$fd.33524@read2.cgocable.net>,
AlbaClause <you@cogeco.ca> wrote:

: I don't know if you know this or not, but market forces are not within SGI's
: control. SGI does not have the power to direct the marketplace and force
: consumers to take the direction that SGI finds best. It does not matter
: who your CEO is or who sits on the board of directors. Business is at the
: mercy of consumers -- not sometimes -- always!

I think it's very telling that there's virtually no big UNIX vendors that are
still relevant in the market today.

IBM is a software company, HP (Compaq, Digital) sells printers, Sun is moving
towards storage and software.

Apple's pretty much the closest thing to a UNIX vendor these days, and they're
selling pretty standard PCs now and making a big chunk of change from iPod sales.

It's not the end of SGI, it's the end of big UNIX. SGI should be proud to have
been one of the last holdouts in a dying market.


Cheers - Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler :)

--
Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler - Master of Code-fu
-- [email]nicoya@ubb.ca[/email] -- [url]http://www.ubb.ca/[/url] --

Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler wrote:
[color=blue]
> In article <jD78g.72738$fd.33524@read2.cgocable.net>,
> AlbaClause <you@cogeco.ca> wrote:
>
> : I don't know if you know this or not, but market forces are not within
> : SGI's
> : control. SGI does not have the power to direct the marketplace and
> : force
> : consumers to take the direction that SGI finds best. It does not
> : matter
> : who your CEO is or who sits on the board of directors. Business is at
> : the mercy of consumers -- not sometimes -- always!
>
> I think it's very telling that there's virtually no big UNIX vendors that
> are still relevant in the market today.
>
> IBM is a software company, HP (Compaq, Digital) sells printers, Sun is
> moving towards storage and software.
>
> Apple's pretty much the closest thing to a UNIX vendor these days, and
> they're selling pretty standard PCs now and making a big chunk of change
> from iPod sales.
>
> It's not the end of SGI, it's the end of big UNIX. SGI should be proud to
> have been one of the last holdouts in a dying market.
>
>
> Cheers - Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler :)
>[/color]

Wow! I was expecting people to jump all over me and question my opinion
that SGI scrap IRIX and move on. But you're absolutely right, Tony! SGI
is not finished and they probably won't be finished for quite some time to
come.

It's really rather naive for someone to think that SGI can revive something
like IRIX and MIPS based workstations in a world that has moved on to other
pastures. SGI just doesn't have the power to herd folks into seeing
things their way.

Even the largest software company on the planet, Microsoft, lacks the power
to force consumers into adopting products that consumers just aren't
interested in buying. Microsoft's history is littered with failed
products and market research that went nowhere fast. Microsoft has also
been guilty of missing the boat on a lot of things. The Internet, for
example. The visionary's at Microsoft didn't see any sustainable future
in products like web browsers, etcetera. Compare Microsoft's yesteryear
to their current Internet offerings!

It's really quite ridiculous to suggest that one company or person could
have so much influence over the buying patterns and impulses of consumers.
Consumers buy what they want... and the things that they don't want, sit on
store shelves until they're closed out or shipped back to the manufacturer.

Ah well...

--
--
People Against Corruption * Right Always Triumphs
Website: [url]http://sarnia.selfip.org[/url]

AlbaClause <you@cogeco.ca> wrote in
news:gRd8g.36356$Hk1.12202@read1.cgocable.net:[color=blue]
>
> It's really rather naive for someone to think that SGI can revive
> something like IRIX and MIPS based workstations in a world that has
> moved on to other pastures. SGI just doesn't have the power to herd
> folks into seeing things their way.
>[/color]

I have to disagree, not everyone is happy with the move. I know there are
quite a few companies that would rather run MIPS/IRIX. You forget,
customers were *forced* to migrate to intel/linux with the oficial end to
IRIX.

-ks

On Wed, 10 May 2006 16:16:28 GMT,
-ks <kshuff@verizon.net>, in
<Xns97BF7E149FB44kshuffverizonnet@199.45.49.11> wrote:[color=blue]
>+ AlbaClause <you@cogeco.ca> wrote in
>+ news:gRd8g.36356$Hk1.12202@read1.cgocable.net:
>+ >
>+ > It's really rather naive for someone to think that SGI can revive
>+ > something like IRIX and MIPS based workstations in a world that has
>+ > moved on to other pastures. SGI just doesn't have the power to herd
>+ > folks into seeing things their way.
>+ >
>+
>+ I have to disagree, not everyone is happy with the move. I know there are
>+ quite a few companies that would rather run MIPS/IRIX.[/color]

Ok, fine.

Are they a sufficiently sized market to justify the costs of CPU
design and OS improvement? are they willing to pay extra for
a MIPS/IRIX solution?

Oh, they have a bottom line, too, and stockholders to keep happy?

--
Consulting Minister for Consultants, DNRC
I can please only one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow
isn't looking good, either.
I am BOFH. Resistance is futile. Your network will be assimilated.

HvdV wrote:[color=blue]
> IIRC there was at some point an 1Ghz R16k...[/color]

Indeed there was. I've seen it mentioned in three places:

1) An old post in a newsgroup from somebody who had received a price
quote on a 4x1GHz Tezro

2) Your newsgroup post to which I'm replying

3) [url]http://www.sgi.com/products/remarketed/weekly_specials.html[/url] which is
the *remarketed* systems part of SGI's website, where they're offering a
4x1GHz Tezro (item #606).

It's interesting to note that the Tezro product page describes the
system as having "Up to four 800MHz MIPS RISC processors with 4MB L2
cache" ([url]http://www.sgi.com/products/workstations/tezro/features.html[/url]).
Odd, given the fact that they're selling remanufactured systems with the
1GHz processor.

It sure seems as if SGI didn't want anybody to know about the 1GHz CPU.
I wonder why?

John-Paul Stewart wrote:

[4x1GHz Tezro][color=blue]
>It sure seems as if SGI didn't want anybody to know about the 1GHz CPU.
> I wonder why?[/color]

Probably they just want to protect our life - or wouldn't you dream day
and night from such a beast? I would, definitely ;-)

Toni

In article <lbjej3-pp5.ln1@mail.binaryfoundry.ca>,
John-Paul Stewart <jpstewart@binaryfoundry.ca> wrote:

: It sure seems as if SGI didn't want anybody to know about the 1GHz CPU.
: I wonder why?

I'd guess that maybe they couldn't produce the chip in high enough quantities to
make it a regular product, so they'd keep it quiet and offer up systems on an
as-needed basis to certain customers.

Cheers - Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler :)

--
Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler - Master of Code-fu
-- [email]nicoya@ubb.ca[/email] --*[url]http://www.ubb.ca/[/url] --

Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler <nicoya@ubb.ca> wrote in
news:nicoya-0DB257.22262509052006@shawnews.wp.shawcable.net:
[color=blue]
> It's not the end of SGI, it's the end of big UNIX. SGI should be proud
> to have been one of the last holdouts in a dying market.
>[/color]
No big Unices still alive :
- GNU/Linux
- OpenBSD
- FreeBSD
- NetBSD

These Unices are massivelly supported on almost all computer architectures
that has been or will be !

I think the market for _commercial_ unix is ended... Do you fell the
difference ?

--
Rico

Malcolm Tobias <mtobias@wustl.edu> wrote in news:e3qgc8$m8k$1
@newsreader.wustl.edu:
[color=blue]
> Brent L. Bates wrote:
>[color=green]
>> With*out*MIPS,*what*competition*does*Intel*have?[/color]
>
> AMD?
>[/color]
Intel/AMD competition does not produce new technologies, it just enhance
x86 architecture (engraving, frequence, pipeling,...)

But nowadays there are no more alternatives CPU for computing usage :
- no more alpha,
- no more powerpc,
- no more mips,
- SUN continues to sell sparc architectures, but they began to produce also
IA64 servers and stations, so I predict they'll abandon SPARC too.

So the winner is.... Intel with its badly conceived x86 processors !

--
Rico

Eric Belhomme wrote:
[color=blue]
> Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler <nicoya@ubb.ca> wrote in
> news:nicoya-0DB257.22262509052006@shawnews.wp.shawcable.net:
>[color=green]
>> It's not the end of SGI, it's the end of big UNIX. SGI should be proud
>> to have been one of the last holdouts in a dying market.
>>[/color]
> No big Unices still alive :
> - GNU/Linux
> - OpenBSD
> - FreeBSD
> - NetBSD
>
> These Unices are massivelly supported on almost all computer architectures
> that has been or will be !
>
> I think the market for _commercial_ unix is ended... Do you fell the
> difference ?
>[/color]

I wouldn't even say that the market for commercial unix is dead. Mac OS X
seems to be doing quite well. And several of the heavyweight computer
vendors are betting their chips on operating systems like Linux. What
about companies like Red Hat? They're pushing open source operating
systems like Linux, with so many changes that Linux is almost becoming a
commercial OS.
--
--
People Against Corruption * Right Always Triumphs
Website: [url]http://sarnia.selfip.org[/url]

Eric Belhomme wrote:[color=blue]
> - SUN continues to sell sparc architectures, but they began to produce also
> IA64 servers and stations, so I predict they'll abandon SPARC too.[/color]

Don't confuse the IA64 architecture (Itanium, as used by SGI) with the
x86_64 architecture (the 64-bit extensions to the classic Intel x86,
such as the AMD 64-bit chips and the 64-bit Intel Xeons). They are
quite different. Sun is *not* using IA64.

Any idea why this stock is still trading? And going up since the
announcement?

Hi,

Eric Belhomme wrote:[color=blue]
> Malcolm Tobias <mtobias@wustl.edu> wrote in news:e3qgc8$m8k$1
> @newsreader.wustl.edu:
>
>[color=green]
>>Brent L. Bates wrote:
>>
>>[color=darkred]
>>>With out MIPS, what competition does Intel have?[/color]
>>
>>AMD?
>>[/color]
>
> Intel/AMD competition does not produce new technologies, it just enhance
> x86 architecture (engraving, frequence, pipeling,...)
>
> But nowadays there are no more alternatives CPU for computing usage :
> - no more alpha,
> - no more powerpc,[/color]
PowerPC never was a high end CPU, but Power is in pretty good shape I
would say!
[color=blue]
> - no more mips,[/color]
We still have the Chinese with have a non-licended MIPS.

What if they purchased MIPS :))[color=blue]
> - SUN continues to sell sparc architectures, but they began to produce also
> IA64 servers and stations, so I predict they'll abandon SPARC too.
>[/color]
On desktop it currently looks that way with only one WS due to ROHS but
absolutely not on servers they have a nice roadmap on Sparc with Fujitsu.
[color=blue]
> So the winner is.... Intel with its badly conceived x86 processors !
>[/color]
And AMD was the one that gave them the victory with the x64 which killed
IA64, a shoot in the foot :))

/michael

[email]telleson@sbcglobal.net[/email] wrote:
[color=blue]
>
> Any idea why this stock is still trading? And going up since the
> announcement?[/color]

No idea. I just checked SGI's website, and there's nothing there that would
explain it. Maybe it's just people wanting to own certificates for
posterity. Who knows?

--
--
People Against Corruption * Right Always Triumphs
Website: [url]http://sarnia.selfip.org[/url]