Those original servers were Sun Ultra II's running Solaris. If I remember correctly, it was a dual proc box (rare in those days), 300mhz, with 256MB of ram (which we subsequently upgraded to 512MB for a boat load of cash). The server weighed a ton, and certainly wasn't rack mountable. and they cost about $30k each, making one UO shard cost about $150k (not including external storage), which is a ridiculous amount of money these days for a single shard. We eventually built MMO shards for a lot less (including MCO, TSO, ENB, and of course SWTOR) cost per shard. Back ups were kept on internal storage, for which we sweated buckets over everytime we lost a drive. we eventually centralized backups on an Hitachi Storage array that was a monster and weighed easily 100lbs and provided a whopping ~10GB of raw space.
I think where we revolutionized administration of a distributed MMO was on the network side, specifically via the VPN, which was very new at that time. Short of ordering PTP circuits all over the country and world, we used a software VPN to create those tunnels over our public internet connection at the time (a SINGLE DS3 -- it wasn't until late 1998 that we had a second circuit!) to allow for login handoff, administration, backups, publishes, etc. our hub and spoke VPN design and subsequent fully-meshed design were what made distributing shards economically feasible.
I think it was around mid 1999 when we converted to Linux, but not before using Solaris x86 first for a time. We bought Dell Towers to act as servers (Dell didn't ship a true rack-mountable server until the following year or so I think) and they were slightly better on speed than the Suns and at a much lower cost. But i think we needed more of them per shard, especially as we released expansion packs (which in those days, meant adding a new server to handle the added land mass). We were likely closer to 10 servers/shard around 2000/1.
Credit to Mark Rizzo for the architecture and buildout of the UO's backend. It was way ahead of it's time, and the innovations we mustered back then is so taken for granted these days (but isn't that true for everything?!).
That timeline for Solaris (Sparc) -> Solaris (x86) -> Linux (x86) feels very familiar from my small company developer job at the time.
Intel does these "throw spaghetti on the wall" kind of investments into potientially interesting companies/technologies all of the time - and have done so for decades.
Every time the recipient hypes the shit out of it, of course.
The main problem is that they often don't stick with it.
As far as I can tell, Intel more-or-less pioneered the idea of SSDs being the best storage rather than the cheap storage, for instance. The X25-M and X25-E were absurdly good. Then, once the market was established...they pulled out of it.
I’m still waiting for the Intel Arc B770 since a 5060 Ti and 9060 XT are already overpriced and if they just committed to something for once it wouldn’t be marginally worse.
Not that releasing the GPU would be something super innovative, they already have the B70.
Then, once the market was established...they pulled out of it.
This makes perfect sense given that Intel's target margins are pretty high. They only want to sell advanced tech, not commodities. Once SSDs became commoditized Intel was out.
Most of the big hit's in tech had a trendy index swinging moment, Intel has been searching for one for a long time since AMD64 undercut the Itanium. Hype drives a currently multi-billion dollar bubble. It's not always a bad idea to throw our holy noodles at the wall. You might find they hover is the sky and grow meatballs, could be big.
Well, peak weirdness was the thing involving Will-i-am from the Black Eyed Peas as a 'Futurist'/Spokesperson/IDEK.
I think what's semi-unfortunate is all the swings and misses, especially the cases where it wasn't necessarily a bad idea but Intel gives up too soon;
- Massively parallel simple-ish x86 cores a-la Xeon Phi; okay maybe not the best idea on the surface but I feel like nowadays the opportunities could be more forthcoming with how to reuse parts of that tech (And maybe they do but are just quiet about it... i.e. GPU acceleration)
- Optane. I think the tech would have been cheaper if they made terms for licensing easier, but maybe I'm missing part of the equation...
- This thing where they keep half assing the GPU strategy; Imagine if B70 launched last year alongside the B60 and B50, before DRAM prices went sideways. Or if they didn't take so long to release a >16GB GPU in the first place; that would have built a lot of interest, but instead they finally release a 32GB GPU alongside more bad news for the overall roadmap. The whole situation instead becomes a jarring rollercoaster that makes everyone worry that Intel is gonna kill the project the way everything but CPUs gets killed lately.
100% agreed. I think it's safe to say that good software UX is incompatible with the way German hardware companies are generally run.
It's the same old story about how hardware companies can't do software UX, except extra amplified because of the strong emphasis on hierarchy, formal degrees and their, errm, heavy processes.
Lots of promised investments, naive local politicians (the same guy is still municipal councilor, gah), lack of critical thinking.
The end result was just a lot of Swedish/EU visas. They had been advertised for $20-30k per family in China. Oh, and also about 100 "investors" + families who had "paid for visas" but not received anything before it all crumbled.
Mmm my browser tools fail on that page, what was the tldr regarding the visa scam? I am in China and there is a huge business scamming foreigners to open a business and get a work-residence permits. EDIT: see comments below, yeah, it seems a similar scam
The practice — supported by artificial intelligence and known as dynamic pricing or surveillance pricing — can lead to two consumers paying different amounts for the same item from the same retailer, at roughly the same time. If a store knows, for example, that one of those customers lives in a wealthier neighborhood, it can charge that person a higher price.
That has always happened. If you go to a flea market, do you think the seller isn't going to bump up the price if you look prosperous or desperate? Do you think the roof replacement company isn't going to make a bid based on how wealthy or poor your neighborhood looks? Or you need a new water heater? Do you think grocery stores in wealthy neighborhoods charge more?
We live in a market economy. If you don't like the price, us apes have learned to say "no".
BTW, if prices are set by the wealth of the customer, then the poor ought to be getting a better deal. Isn't that a good thing?
At the flea market you can haggle. Are you saying we should all have to haggle with the harried checkout person over the price of milk ever time we shop? Or everything is self checkout and you don't haggle but then choose whether you accept the price or not?
As with many things in technology, it's not about the raw concept, it's about the automation of it and inability to appeal to a human. Haggling face to face is human. Having a bot decide what you are paying (take it or leave it) is asymmetric with the benefit going to the corpo.
I've never encountered or heard of a grocery store that didn't mark the prices on the shelves.
> asymmetric with the benefit going to the corpo
You have the power to say "no". The only transactions you are forced into are the ones dealing with the government or the mob.
> inability to appeal to a human
I was stonewalled by a gigantic corporation the other day over a substantial sum of money. I googled the name and address of the CEO, and sent him a hand written polite letter. My issue was promptly resolved.
I know the CEO didn't read the letter. But he has staff that does, and hand writing a letter will get their attention, as well as reminding them that I was a loyal customer.
So I really wanted to understand the different kinds of margins. Yes, this was made with the help of an AI, with lots of iterations to make it applicable to Apple and easily understandable. I attempted to verify the numbers manually fwiw. Now please roast me.
Net profit margin: 26.6% ($29.58B / $111.18B) — what the company and its shareholders keep after taxes and everything else. (edited)
Operating margin: 32.3% ($35.89B / $111.18B) — left after the product and running the company (staff, R&D, marketing, stores).
Gross margin: 49.3% ($54.78B / $111.18B) — left after paying suppliers and contract manufacturers. Shows how much more customers pay than it costs to build.
Correction, shareholders don’t keep the profit, the company keeps most of this on its balance sheet which may cause a corresponding rise in the price of Apple’s stock if people did not already anticipate that level of return. (And markets are rational)
The only money that shareholders keep is the dividend per share which was $0.27 out of a profit of $2.01 per share.
I know it is not you but the industry parlance, so a question to anyone knowledgable. Is gross margin ever useful? Sure 50% sounds like a lot, but without R&D and staff and other expenses, you can not make that 50% and even the 100%.
One of the few good outcomes: Mark Klein never faced a lawsuit or criminal charges from the government, AT&T or the justice system in general for his disclosure.
Berkshire Hathaway, Novo Nordisk, ASML, TSMC, Saab, Atlas Copco, Texas Instruments.
(Perhaps not that many from the US though, relatively speaking? Not sure TBH.)
reply