Welcome to our website

To take full advantage of all features you need to login or register. Registration is completely free and takes only a few seconds.

Sun offers to trade Dell Xeons for Sun Opterons

Posted by: duke on: 09/14/2005 02:11 PM [ Print | 21 comment(s) ]

The Inquirer is discussing the ways that Sun is attempting to bring in new customers.

AGGRESSIVE firm Sun Microsystems told AMD resellers that it would give a 20% trade up allowance on qualified Dell systems, so piling the pressure on the Round Rock'n'Rollers. The deal, presented to AMD's channel partners, said that resellers could save up to $1,900 on servers that Sun claims perform 1.5 times better than the Xeon machines Dell sells.

You can read the remainder of their post here.

Comment

Vuke69 Bitpimp Posts: 341 Joined: 2001-03-16

#37914 Posted on: 09/14/2005 07:45 PM If you have ever looked at any trade in deals lately, you know that this is a pretty good deal. I just wish that it applied to more than two different sun systems.

Comment

opus13 misanthrope. Posts: 1574 Joined: 2002-04-05

#37915 Posted on: 09/14/2005 08:18 PM it looks like sun wants to be the new badbot of IT. i was wondering when they would start to turn around their marketing. http://www.sun.com/emrkt/rejected/index.html if they can keep up their level of service in the volume markets, they wont have any issue getting me as a customer.

Comment

Vuke69 Bitpimp Posts: 341 Joined: 2001-03-16

#37916 Posted on: 09/14/2005 09:30 PM Originally posted by opus13 [B1.3tb FC+SATA Storage Who's arrays are you using? I am planning on doing something similar, but may go SATA->iSCSI. At least I'm not the only one that goes way overboard at home (Whaddaya mean the Sun UltraEnterprise 3000 was never ment for home use...)

Comment

sAvAgE69 Unregistered

#37917 Posted on: 09/15/2005 12:27 AM Love the Ads All I gotta say is that Suns Marketing director has got a set of balls for coming up with that ad campaign. Love it I really like the one "Now that's what we call an Ass-whoopin!"

Comment

Jig Registered User Posts: 114 Joined: 2000-09-11

#37918 Posted on: 09/15/2005 01:23 AM i hate the title. when you trade something, you trade what you have for what the other guy has... so sun trades sun's product for dell's product, not the other way around. sun's action is on what it currently owns, not what some other guy has.

Comment

rmn oh my, it's huge! Posts: 5894 Joined: 2002-01-26

#37919 Posted on: 09/15/2005 01:56 AM Actually, both word orders are perfectly valid. For example, in the sentence "the bank can trade your dollars for euros", the bank is supplying the second item, not the first (i.e., they will take your dollars and give you euros, they won't return "your dollars" after you give them euros). It would also be valid to say "the bank can trade euros for your dollars", but personally I think the first form sounds much better (and that's in fact the only order used in most languages - the first item mentioned is the item used to start the transaction). The action is always on both items (it's a trade). Anyway, I think it's pretty obvious that, in this case, Sun supplies the Sun Opterons, not the Dell Xeons. RMN ~~~

Comment

opus13 misanthrope. Posts: 1574 Joined: 2002-04-05

#37920 Posted on: 09/15/2005 11:24 AM Originally posted by Vuke69 Who's arrays are you using? I am planning on doing something similar, but may go SATA->iSCSI. At least I'm not the only one that goes way overboard at home (Whaddaya mean the Sun UltraEnterprise 3000 was never ment for home use...) right now im using a couple of the old nStor cr8f chassis', but im contemplating going fully to a sata over fibre setup. im not concerned about speed so much as volume and noise level

Comment

Jig Registered User Posts: 114 Joined: 2000-09-11

#37921 Posted on: 09/15/2005 02:14 PM Originally posted by rmn Actually, both word orders are perfectly valid. For example, in the sentence "the bank can trade your dollars for euros", the bank is supplying the second item, not the first (i.e., they will take your dollars and give you euros, they won't return "your dollars" after you give them euros). It would also be valid to say "the bank can trade euros for your dollars", but personally I think the first form sounds much better (and that's in fact the only order used in most languages - the first item mentioned is the item used to start the transaction). The action is always on both items (it's a trade). nope. when i give a penny for your thoughts, i'm not also offering to give your thoughts for a penny. the verb action is clear, whether it's trade or give. in your bank example, it can only be possibly valid because at some point you give your money to the bank. during the transaction, the bank has possession of both currencies, and so can semi-logically arbitrarily choose the object of the action. that's a bit of a rationalization, and while the bank also trys to get around the usage rule by specifying who owns what, neither usage is proper, and neither sounds better than just saying: the bank can exchange euros for dollars. some banks only do one way transactions, and when i was in europe and korea, this was the order that specified i could get local currency (only). how can it make sense for me to come up to you and say, i'll trade your truck for my car? not only is it not proper, it obviously indicates that i think i have some say in the disposition of your truck... the first item mentioned is always the item owned by the subject that is initiating the possible trade. if sun is offering the trade, then the sunstation goes first. if the bank offers the exchange, then it offers its currency first. if i want the bank to perform the exchange, i offer my currency first. any other order is jibberish, and not proper english, either side of the atlantic.

Comment

glitch Registered User Posts: 1171 Joined: 2000-11-18

#37922 Posted on: 09/15/2005 02:53 PM Originally posted by rmn Actually, both word orders are perfectly valid. For example, in the sentence "the bank can trade your dollars for euros", the bank is supplying the second item, not the first (i.e., they will take your dollars and give you euros, they won't return "your dollars" after you give them euros). It would also be valid to say "the bank can trade euros for your dollars", but personally I think the first form sounds much better (and that's in fact the only order used in most languages - the first item mentioned is the item used to start the transaction). The action is always on both items (it's a trade). Anyway, I think it's pretty obvious that, in this case, Sun supplies the Sun Opterons, not the Dell Xeons. RMN ~~~ The distinction here is that you had to qualify the statement by putting "your" in front of dollars. "The bank can trade your dollars" and "the bank can trade dollars" can be interpreted in completely different ways. In fact, I would interpret "the bank can trade your dollars" as saying that the bank will take your money and trade it with someone else. "The bank can trade euros for dollars" says that the bank gives euros and receives dollars in exchange, while "The bank can trade dollars for euros" says that the bank gives dollars and receives euros. The bank is performing the action on the direct object, not on the object of the preposition. If the bank were performing the action on both items, then you would say, "the bank can trade dollars and euros." "Obvious" meaning does not change the rules of grammar. Sun is not trading Dell machines. Sun is trading Sun machines. Someone else is trading Dell machines, or so Sun hopes.

Comment

rmn oh my, it's huge! Posts: 5894 Joined: 2002-01-26

#37923 Posted on: 09/15/2005 08:37 PM Replacing "dollars" with "your dollars" does not change the sentence's grammar at all. Both interpretations are still possible (ex., "the pawn shop will trade your watch for $50", could easily be interpreted both ways). That's just the way the verb "trade" works in English (you'll find both forms quite frequently, on the internet, books, advertising, etc.). Who gives what and who takes what boils down to context (as does so much of the English language). And yes, it makes perfect sense to say "I'll trade your truck for my car" (because it implies "if you agree to do your part of the trade", just as the same would be implied if you said "I'll trade my car for your truck" - it has nothing to do with who has "control" over what). When trading things, both parties trade; it's not something that can be done by a single party. When people say "I trade" (in the context of echanging one thing for another), they are simply proposing terms for an exchange. This is not the same as trading ("being a trader") in a particular area. As I said, in most languages, the first object is usually the one used to initiate the transaction, so "I'll trade your truck for my car" suggests that I will give my car after receiving the truck, whereas "I'll trade my car for your truck" suggests that I'll give my car before receiving the truck. But, assuming both parties agree with and comply to the rules of the trade, the end result is the same, in terms of who gives what. In fact, if you see the article, and Sun's site, the Xeons are always mentioned first, which is consistent with the idea that the first object is the one used to initiate the transaction, and has nothing to do with who gives what. After all, Sun isn't saying it will forcibly replace people's Xeons with their Opterons; they are saying that, if people give them their Xeons, Sun wil give Opterons in return. They will exchange [clients'] Xeons for [their, Sun's] Opterons. Glitch, I think part of your confusion becomes clear in your final paragraph: you are mixing up two meanings of the verb "trade". It can mean "to deal in" (i.e., to be in the business of selling something), in which case indeed Sun "trades Opterons", but, in this context, it means to exchange something for something else. Absolutely no rules of grammar were harmed by Sun's press release, the Inquirer's article, or Duke's thread title. RMN ~~~

Comment

Vuke69 Bitpimp Posts: 341 Joined: 2001-03-16

#37924 Posted on: 09/16/2005 01:32 AM Originally posted by rmn Absolutely no rules of grammar were harmed by Sun's press release, the Inquirer's article, or Duke's thread title. I would tend to agree with rmn. But this isn't slashdot, so can we please get back to arguing about more important things, like COMPUTERS, and leave the gramar police crap for somewhere else?

Comment

Jig Registered User Posts: 114 Joined: 2000-09-11

#37925 Posted on: 09/16/2005 02:11 AM Originally posted by rmn (you'll find both forms quite frequently, on the internet, books, advertising, etc.) just because it's written (incorrectly) many places doesn't mean it's correct. i'm not arguing that in some of these instances it isn't easy to infer who does what with what, just that these and your proposed usage are incorrect, in english. you can't initiate a transaction with an object you don't have control over. in your world, you could arbitrarily change the direct object in an accept sentence. "i'll accept your car for my truck" is not the same as "i'll accept my truck for your car". context decides which one is used, and therein who ends up with what, but the sentences aren't interchangable. you misinterpretation of glitch's last paragraph is telling as far as your english skills are concerned. "trades in" and "is trading" are completely different concepts, and glitch didn't mix them up. if grammar and syntax aren't important in the context of computers, where are they important? "i++" doesn't equal "++i", right?

Comment

rmn oh my, it's huge! Posts: 5894 Joined: 2002-01-26

#37926 Posted on: 09/16/2005 02:32 AM Can you produce any links to relevant publications that say that "entity X trades A for B" necessarily means that entity X will give A when given B (and never the other way around, or either way)? If not, please shut up, or e-mail the Inquirer and Sun if you want to continue this pointless argument. P.S. - Neither the last paragraph on Glitch's post nor my comment about it mention the expression "trade in" (which, BTW, can mean two completely different things). The replies to the "points" you try to make on your last post are already given above. The rest (that "I'll accept my truck" example, etc.) is just nonsense. P.P.S. - Se quiseres continuar com a conversa da treta, troca de l

Comment

glitch Registered User Posts: 1171 Joined: 2000-11-18

#37927 Posted on: 09/16/2005 03:27 AM If you want a relevant publication, you could try a dictionary -- in this context, the meaning of "trade" is "to give in exchange for another commodity" (see Merriam-Webster, for example). The subject of the sentence is the one doing the giving, the object is the thing being given by the subject. As for Sun, the usage I see on their site is in agreement with this. The subject of their sentence is the reader, and he or she is being told to trade his or her Dell for a Sun system. p.s. Ich gab meinem Raumaffen Lederhose.

Comment

Blakhart Registered User Posts: 4517 Joined: 2002-04-16

#37928 Posted on: 09/16/2005 03:52 AM Haben sie lederhosen? Nexus7 enhanced combat/pleasure model.

Comment

opus13 misanthrope. Posts: 1574 Joined: 2002-04-05

#37929 Posted on: 09/16/2005 05:42 AM mein lederhosen sind haarig!

Comment

Vuke69 Bitpimp Posts: 341 Joined: 2001-03-16

#37930 Posted on: 09/16/2005 06:15 AM keine mehr grammatik bitte meinen kopf kranken

Comment

p0lar Network Neandrethal Posts: 229 Joined: 2002-08-26

#37931 Posted on: 09/16/2005 07:42 AM FWIW, I guess Sun decided to pull those 'rejected' ads that were so cool -- did anyone snag them while they were up?

Comment

Vuke69 Bitpimp Posts: 341 Joined: 2001-03-16

#37932 Posted on: 09/17/2005 06:17 AM Originally posted by p0lar FWIW, I guess Sun decided to pull those 'rejected' ads that were so cool -- did anyone snag them while they were up? Coral Cache of page

Comment

Vuke69 Bitpimp Posts: 341 Joined: 2001-03-16

#37933 Posted on: 09/17/2005 06:21 AM Originally posted by Vuke69 Coral Cache of page Doohhh They (sun) replaced the page with a different one, and it updated the cached page. Internet archive may possibly have it though.

Comment

glitch Registered User Posts: 1171 Joined: 2000-11-18

#37934 Posted on: 09/17/2005 06:30 AM This site has them: http://www.langamers.ch/langamers/home.php?typenews=17 http://www.langamers.ch/img/news/2005.09.15/ASS_WHOOPIN_DRAFT.jpg http://www.langamers.ch/img/news/2005.09.15/BITCHIN_DRAFT.jpg http://www.langamers.ch/img/news/2005.09.15/DELL_SUCKS_DRAFT.jpg http://www.langamers.ch/img/news/2005.09.15/RHYMES_HELL_DRAFT.jpg