Re: NAS for Macs?



In article <u1123605251@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
transfigur@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (transfigure) wrote:

> > Are you using Netatalk because you still have OS 9 clients? If you are
> > using all OS X, couldn't you just use native Unix filesharing, NFS?
>
> Sorry, I subscribed to this thread, but I'm not getting email from
> it, apparently.
>
> Yes, this is why we're using AFP. We're running OS 9 currently. We
> were going to upgrade to OS X, but Apple's announcement of switching
> to Intel processor has caused us to put such plans on hold. When we
> upgrade, we want our new machines to last at least four years. Apple
> claims that they will support G5 for two years after the new
> processors are released, but what about software? From what I
> understand, software will need to be rewritten for the new
> processors. Apple's already provided development packages for
> software mfrs. But that is a different topic.

In most cases, the rewrite will produce software that runs on PPC as
well as on Intel. Nobody wants to lose the customers that will be
buying the first intel machines, but nobody wants to lose the customers
still running the G5 desktop machines Apple is likely to keep selling
until mid to late 2006. (Those benchmarks are true - it is very hard to
beat a G5 at memory bandwidth and vector processing. Intel likely will
eventually, especially if the do some of the things SSE3 promises, but
it is not going to happen right away.)

So, if these are portables, then I quite agree. Those are going to be
revved within a year. Desktops, though, and especially servers, are not
so likely to be revved that fast.

Scott

--
Scott Ellsworth
scott@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Java and database consulting for the life sciences
.