Prediction: CHRP Lives, Microsoft will port Windows to PPC 970
Nothing really to base this on except some murmurings I've heard that there's an unnamed active third 64-bit port going on at MS, along side IA64 and AMD x86-64. There really isn't any other possible target out there that I know of, so that must mean the rebirth of NT-PPC. You read it here first.
What IBM gets: Customers for their planned server systems. Credibility that the PowerPC platform is "open" and not yet another AIX box. The ability to keep PowerPC from drowning in an x86 world.
What Microsoft gets: A lifeboat off the Itanic. A stick in Intel's eye for supporting Linux. A good platform for .NET. Probably money to do the port.
What this potentially means for Apple: The anti-Markler. Open hardware without looking Dell straight in the eye.
Along with OS X, Windows and Linux *could* drive a thriving third party hardware culture surrounding PowerPC, a domain where Apple is the biggest player in desktop space. This will drive down costs for everyone, including Apple and IBM, expand add-in hardware greatly and so on, and grow Apple's market.
Downside is that Apple would have to sell on style and functionality in a whitebox market, offset somewhat by OS and software revenue. But this is all a big *IF* because PowerPC/CHRP didn't do so well in the general market the last time round.
What IBM gets: Customers for their planned server systems. Credibility that the PowerPC platform is "open" and not yet another AIX box. The ability to keep PowerPC from drowning in an x86 world.
What Microsoft gets: A lifeboat off the Itanic. A stick in Intel's eye for supporting Linux. A good platform for .NET. Probably money to do the port.
What this potentially means for Apple: The anti-Markler. Open hardware without looking Dell straight in the eye.
Along with OS X, Windows and Linux *could* drive a thriving third party hardware culture surrounding PowerPC, a domain where Apple is the biggest player in desktop space. This will drive down costs for everyone, including Apple and IBM, expand add-in hardware greatly and so on, and grow Apple's market.
Downside is that Apple would have to sell on style and functionality in a whitebox market, offset somewhat by OS and software revenue. But this is all a big *IF* because PowerPC/CHRP didn't do so well in the general market the last time round.
Comments
<strong>CHRP didn't do well the first time because next to no one used it. If Apple adopts it, it will automatically do at least as well as Apple does. Not that I think it will happen...</strong><hr></blockquote>
If CHRP is revived, I suspect IBM would be the ones to use it - for Linux boxes running the 970. Interesting idea, but I see it as unlikely.
<strong>Nothing really to base this on except some murmurings I've heard that there's an unnamed active third 64-bit port going on at MS, along side IA64 and AMD x86-64. There really isn't any other possible target out there that I know of, so that must mean the rebirth of NT-PPC. You read it here first.</strong><hr></blockquote>I agree. You have nothing to base this one except a very active imagination. As for NT-PPC, after killed it the Seattle company rather quickly began optimizing he OS for Intel x86. I believe that some high-end non-Intel servers run Windows 2000. IIRC, however, Windows XP runs runs only on Intel. This strategy has dramatically reduced Microsoft's development costs. I am not saying they won't do it. If your speculation is correct, however, M$ is going to be laying out some heavy cash for developing multiple versions of its OS. IA64 and AMD's x86-64 are compatible only in 32-bit mode. In that mode, they are CISC chips. The PPC is RISC at all levels.
[quote]Originally posted by IntlHarvester:
<strong>What IBM gets: Customers for their planned server systems. Credibility that the PowerPC platform is "open" and not yet another AIX box. The ability to keep PowerPC from drowning in an x86 world.</strong><hr></blockquote>I don't quite understand your point here. Buyers of IBM servers buy IBM because it is IBM or because IBM's servers have the performance and features they require. Openess is not really an issue here. However, IBM offers Linux to those who want it. You can't get any more "open" than that.
[quote]Originally posted by IntlHarvester:
<strong>What Microsoft gets: A lifeboat off the Itanic. A stick in Intel's eye for supporting Linux. A good platform for .NET. Probably money to do the port.</strong><hr></blockquote>First off, Microsoft is not on the Itanic, at least not as a major source of its revenue. Microsoft's fortunes lie firmly with IA-32. It is going to ride that horse for a very long time because it is going to survive for a very long time. When that 1970s technology dies, you can be assured that M$ do its level best to jump to whatever replaces it, be it from IBM, MIPS, Sun, or whomever. Its decisions will not be made out of pique at Intel or anyone else. Gates is all about the "Benjamins." He is not going to deliberately take money out of his own wallet. As for .NET, I read all sorts of rumblings that .NET is .NYET.
[quote]Originally posted by IntlHarvester:
<strong>What this potentially means for Apple: The anti-Markler. Open hardware without looking Dell straight in the eye.</strong><hr></blockquote>You are rally off the beam here. What in the world can Dell possibly do to Apple. Dell sells the wrapper for Intel processors and Microsft software. The company may have the largest marketshare in the desktop industry. But every night, Michael Dell must toss and turn himself to sleep with the knowledge any his customers can go to Frye's, fill up a shopping cart, drive home, and in an hour assemble a replacement for his product and save money doing it. That is a house of cards, and Dell knows it.
[quote]Originally posted by IntlHarvester:
<strong>Along with OS X, Windows and Linux *could* drive a thriving third party hardware culture surrounding PowerPC, a domain where Apple is the biggest player in desktop space. This will drive down costs for everyone, including Apple and IBM, expand add-in hardware greatly and so on, and grow Apple's market.</strong><hr></blockquote>You are not talking about driving down costs. You are talking about driving down prices. However, there is not a lot of room for prices to drop in the PPC desktop market. Currently, only Apple and IBM sell PPC-based desktop systems. These are brand names. Brand names cost more, even for x86 desktops. To further reduce prices, Apple and IBM will have to reduce or eliminate R&D and quality control.
[quote]Originally posted by IntlHarvester:
<strong>Downside is that Apple would have to sell on style and functionality in a whitebox market, offset somewhat by OS and software revenue. But this is all a big *IF* because PowerPC/CHRP didn't do so well in the general market the last time round.</strong><hr></blockquote>The last time I checked my PowerBook G3 Firewire, it was still a CHRP machine. However, CHRP is not tied to any particular CPU. IIRC, Sun and IBM still use it, albeit for engineering workstations. However, I know of no reason why anyone else should be precluded from using it in their desktop PCs.
Both actually. When IBM is designing a $5000 x86 workstation, do they have to design their own chipsets, memory controllers, and so on? Hell no! They buy the same stock parts as everyone else and do a good job integrating them.
That's the sort of thing that the PPC market needs, and Apple needs to be competitive in the market as a whole. In fact that's the entire reason that Apple joined PowerPC in the first place -- so that they would have access to a broader hardware culture.
Only PPC nosedived in the market, and what happened? AIM ended up with single customer chips and they couldn't afford to keep them competitive. Thus we have the pathetic G4, and Apple has a bunch of huge engineering costs making their own chipsets etc, while everyone else just buys off the shelf. Meanwhile Apple's marketshare keeps falling and falling and falling.
If Apple/IBM are serious about keeping PowerPC alive against the onslaught of x86, they need to develop a broader hardware base. The PPC 970 looks like it will be a very competitive platform for doing just that.
[quote]Buyers of IBM servers buy IBM because it is IBM or because IBM's servers have the performance and features they require. Openess is not really an issue here. <hr></blockquote>
Cost is the issue. All the old UNIX on RISC vendors face the same problem -- the market is dumping their stuff very quickly (except for the ultra-highend), and moving to Linux on Intel. Rightly or wrongly, customers are going to perceive a IBM PowerPC box as a proprietary system -- unless it's very clear that there's third party replacements out there.
But ... the 64-bit transition might mean there's an opening for a new CPU, and it looks like IBM is jumping on it -- they've invested billions in a modern fab and the PPC970 design. They've publicly told Intel where they can stick the IA64. It's clear that PPC970 is a much much more than a one-off Mac chip like previous PPCs - it's a huge strategic push.
The PPC faces two futures -- it either expands it's base to 3rd parties or it gets strangled into the embedded market by Intel and Dell. Which leaves both Apple and IBM screwed and facing the inevitability of a painful transition to Intel or AMD.
I think IBM realizes this and is making a major push on PowerPC. They aren't going fold like SGI, DEC, HP and so on did. A Windows port would be icing on the cake.
[quote] WinNT not portable ... CISC vs RISC ... Dell is expensive ... .NYET ... Sun is CHRP <hr></blockquote>
There's so many factual inaccuracies, suppositions presented as fact, and borderline FUD that I don't want to go into these points. The "look Dell in the eye" comment was simply that Apple can not be competitive on stock PC hardware.