Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 6th Jul 2006 19:40 UTC
SGI and IRIX SGI hopes to emerge as a leaner, meaner organisation by the end of the third quarter. The hardware maker this week filed an amended reorganisation plan that calls for it to finish off bankruptcy proceedings by September. If all goes as expected, SGI will trim its total debt down to USD 70m from USD 345m. Some of the debt will be removed in exchange for the privilege of investing more money in SGI 2.0.
Thread beginning with comment 141224
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Follow up...
by kaiwai on Sat 8th Jul 2006 04:13 UTC
kaiwai
Member since:
2005-07-06

Personally, SGI should:

1) Embrace Itanium and bring down the costs of their workstations and servers which use it - bring it down to the price level where by their price/performance is on the mark with AMD/Intel x86 offerings; either via raw price/performance, or simply offering more products and services with each sale.

2) Embrace Solaris, and port it to Itanium, licence the Sun compilers, and get them optimised for Itanium - rename Solaris, IRIX version 7 to demonstrate a clear and clean break from the 6.x series in reference to the architecture switch and operating system overhaul.

3) Either do one of two things, buy out Qt (relicence under something like CDDL or BSDL) and embrace KDE as their default desktop, or muck in with Sun and improve GNOME; make management tools easy to use, so that those who aren't necessarily technically computer literate (scientists) can setup and manage a cluser of computers without the need of having an expensive IT department.

4) Stop using the excuse 'we're going for a niche' - a niche company is a dead company; niches only exist for a small period of time before they end up changing and morphing into something else; SGI need to sell not only big friggin servers to scientists, but sell them to those businesses who want a big 128way machine, loaded to the gills with memory, and Oracle running on top of it.

Edited 2006-07-08 04:15

Reply Score: 2