3 ms·
SGI workstations had software that only ran on SGI workstations, they had hardware that did things that consumer PCs just didn't (like 3D hardware before that b
by PostOnce 7y ago
SGI workstations had software that only ran on SGI workstations, they had hardware that did things that consumer PCs just didn't (like 3D hardware before that became a consumer item)
The Mac Pro isn't different enough to categorize it along the lines of SGI. It doesn't run software that regular Macs don't, it doesn't have any particularly special hardware, it's "prosumer" equipment, not "professional" in the sense that SGI and similar were. In other words, it's a PC.
That's not a bad thing, by the way; we all have amazing computers now, and we should be glad.
- mixmastamyk 7y agoIt has access to local cpu, cooling resources and ecc ram amounts that aren’t available to the masses. Agreed, not as deep a moat but there still is one.
- brandonmenc 7y ago> it's "prosumer" equipment, not "professional" in the sense that SGI and similar were Does the average consumer purchase a Mac Pro? No. Is the Mac Pro being used in every professional setting previously dominated by SGI? Yes. > The Mac Pro isn't different enough to categorize it along the lines of SGI. Uniqueness of architecture is orthogonal to the argument - which is that the cost of handling professional-grade workloads on the desktop is lower than ever.