←back to thread

The Rise and Fall of Silicon Graphics

(www.abortretry.fail)
346 points BirAdam | 4 comments | 05 Apr 24 16:42 UTC | HN request time: 0.841s | source
Show context
tombert ◴[05 Apr 24 17:07 UTC] No.39944744[source]▶
There's a few cases in the history of computers where it feels like the world just "chose wrong". One example is the Amiga; the Amiga really was better than anything Apple or Microsoft/IBM was doing at the time, but for market-force reasons that depress me, Commodore isn't the "Apple" of today.

Similarly, it feels like Silicon Graphics is a case where they really should have become more standard. Now, unlike Amiga, they were too expensive to catch on with regular consumers, but I feel like they should have become and stayed the "standard" for workstation computers.

Irix was a really cool OS, and 4Dwm was pretty nice to use and play with. It makes me sad that they beaten by Apple.

replies(18): >>39944819 #>>39944821 #>>39944854 #>>39944859 #>>39944877 #>>39944921 #>>39944922 #>>39944925 #>>39944939 #>>39944947 #>>39944948 #>>39945067 #>>39945191 #>>39945372 #>>39945418 #>>39945614 #>>39946016 #>>39946259 #
hn_throwaway_99 ◴[05 Apr 24 17:14 UTC] No.39944821[source]▶
> Similarly, it feels like Silicon Graphics is a case where they really should have become more standard. Now, unlike Amiga, they were too expensive to catch on with regular consumers, but I feel like they should have become and stayed the "standard" for workstation computers.

I think you highlighted very correctly there, though, why SGI lost. It turned out there were cheaper options, which while not on par with SGI workstations initially, just improved at a faster rate than SGI and eventually ended up with a much better cost/functionality profile. I feel like SGI just bet wrong. The article talks about how they acquired Cray, which were originally these awesome supercomputers. But it turned out supercomputers essentially got replaced by giant networks of much lower cost PCs.

replies(4): >>39944896 #>>39944942 #>>39945209 #>>39945293 #
1. cmrdporcupine ◴[05 Apr 24 17:54 UTC] No.39945209[source]▶
This betting wrong on specialization happened over and over again in the late 70s and 80s. The wave of improvements and price reduction in commodity PC hardware was insane, especially from the late 80s onwards. From Lisp machines to specialized graphics/CAD workstations, to "home computer" microcomputer systems, they all were buried because they mistakenly bet against Moore's law and economies of scale.

In 91 I was a dedicated Atari ST user convinced of the superiority of the 68k architecture, running a UUCP node off my hacked up ST. By the end of 92 I had a grey-box 486 running early releases of Linux and that was that. I used to fantasize over the photos and screenshots of workstations in the pages of UnixWorld and similar magazines... But then I could just dress my cheap 486 up to act like one and it was great.

replies(1): >>39946040 #
2. kazinator ◴[05 Apr 24 19:19 UTC] No.39946040[source]▶
Atari ST and Intel PC are not distant categories. Both are "'home computer microcomputer' systems". Not all home computer systems can win, just like not all browsers can win, not all spreadsheets can win, not all ways of hooking up keyboards and mice to computers can win, ...
replies(1): >>39946476 #
3. cmrdporcupine ◴[05 Apr 24 19:56 UTC] No.39946476[source]▶
They were distant on market tier but most importantly on economies of scale. The Intel PC market grew exponentially.
replies(1): >>39947093 #
4. kazinator ◴[05 Apr 24 20:55 UTC] No.39947093{3}[source]▶
Sure, but the economy of scale came from the success. The first IBM PC was a prototype wire-wrapped by hand on a large perf board.

When you switched to Intel in 1992, PC's had already existed since 1981. PC's didn't wipe out most other home computers overnight.