2CPU

Main Menu

· Content
· News
· Articles
· Mailinglists
· Knowledgebase
· Trouble Tickets
· Files
· Glossary
· Links
· Compatibility Lists
· Forums

News

· News Overview
· News Channels
· News Archive
· Search News
· Submit News

What's New

Login to see an overview of all news stories since your last visit.

News Channels

· General Site News
· Folding@Home
· SETI@Home
· General Web News
· General Distributed Computing
· RC5
· General Articles
· Hardware
· Motherboards
· Video Cards
· Storage
· Cases
· Optical Drives
· Barebones, Servers and SFFs
· Processors
· General Hardware
· Operating Systems
· Applications
· How-To
· General Technical
· Frequently Asked Questions
· Editorials
· Press Releases

News Tags

The news tag list is currently empty

Online Users

There are currently 16 user(s) online

Managed with Contentteller(R) Community Edition, (C) 2002 - 2009 Esselbach Internet Solutions. The Community Edition of Contentteller(R) is free software released under the GNU/GPL v3

Latest News

· Best CPU: 10 top processors from AMD and Intel
· Happy New Year
· AMD aim Opteron at the Cloud
· Cisco doing the silicon shuffle
· Juniper goes after the SDN market
· China gives birth to Godson, rival Intel
· HP intros the Proliant SL4500 series Server
· Tech Jobs and Minimum wage
· Linux Mag's Linux for Small Business Servers
· AMD's Sweet 16

Top News

· Best CPU: 10 top processors from AMD and Intel
· Samsung To Enter the Server Market?
· Weekend Topic: Should employers be able to fire employees caught looking for job
· Site Redesign: Comments? Suggestions? Help?
· Poll Time: Milkshake - Beverage or Dessert?
· Help Wanted!
· Neoseeker plays with Iwill's DVD266-R!
· Honesty: The best policy?
· No comment!
· It's Official: nitro_fish owns me...

Latest Poll

There are currently no polls in the news database

News Archive

· November 2015
· January 2013
· December 2012
· November 2012
· October 2012
· August 2012
· July 2012
· June 2012
· May 2012
· April 2012
· March 2012
· February 2012
· January 2012
· December 2011
· November 2011
· April 2011
· March 2011
· February 2011
· January 2011
· November 2010
· October 2010
· September 2010
· August 2010
· July 2010
· June 2010
· May 2010
· April 2010
· March 2010
· February 2010
· January 2010
· December 2009
· September 2009
· August 2009
· July 2009
· June 2009
· May 2009
· April 2009
· March 2009
· February 2009
· January 2009
· December 2008
· November 2008
· October 2008
· September 2008
· August 2008
· July 2008
· June 2008
· May 2008
· April 2008
· March 2008
· February 2008
· January 2008
· December 2007
· November 2007
· October 2007
· September 2007
· August 2007
· July 2007
· June 2007
· May 2007
· April 2007
· March 2007
· February 2007
· January 2007
· December 2006
· November 2006
· October 2006
· September 2006
· August 2006
· July 2006
· June 2006
· May 2006
· April 2006
· March 2006
· February 2006
· January 2006
· December 2005
· November 2005
· October 2005
· September 2005
· August 2005
· July 2005
· June 2005
· May 2005
· April 2005
· March 2005
· February 2005
· January 2005
· December 2004
· November 2004
· October 2004
· September 2004
· August 2004
· July 2004
· June 2004
· May 2004
· April 2004
· March 2004
· February 2004
· January 2004
· December 2003
· November 2003
· October 2003
· September 2003
· August 2003
· July 2003
· June 2003
· May 2003
· April 2003
· March 2003
· February 2003
· January 2003
· December 2002
· November 2002
· October 2002
· September 2002
· August 2002
· July 2002
· June 2002
· May 2002
· April 2002
· March 2002
· February 2002
· January 2002
· December 2001
· November 2001
· October 2001
· September 2001
· August 2001
· July 2001
· June 2001
· May 2001
· April 2001
· March 2001
· February 2001
· January 2001
· December 2000
· November 2000
· October 2000
· September 2000
· August 2000
· July 2000
· June 2000
· May 2000
· April 2000
· March 2000
· February 2000
· January 2000

Theme Selector

The theme override option is disabled

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.

2CPU.com » News » September 2005 » Sun offers to trade Dell Xeons for Sun Opterons

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.


Digg it! Slashdot Del.icio.us Technorati Fark it! Binklist Furl Newsvine Windows Live Netscape Google Bookmarks Reddit! LinkaGoGo Tailrank Wink Dzone Simpy Spurl Yahoo! MyWeb NetVouz RawSugar Smarking Scuttle Magnolia BlogMarks Nowpublic FeedMeLinks Wists Onlywire Connotia Shadows Co.mments

« Sun's sub-$1000 SunFire X2100 Server · Sun offers to trade Dell Xeons for Sun Opterons · Folding Update! »

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 :D

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: 4522
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

2CPU.com » News » September 2005 » Sun offers to trade Dell Xeons for Sun Opterons