The State Of Apple, MOT & IBM...
Cupertino I think we have a problem...
MOT just did a pretty big layoff and it seems the group working on the PPC may have been hit. (if I'm wrong please let me know)
IBM has been working on a new G3 called Sahara and while IBM might have other customers for that chip Apple was the big one.
Many have speculated that the new iMac was to feature the Sahara in the LCD iMac and then MWSF hit and BAM they now sport the G4 (ala MOT).
The Sahara isn't a low power chip (as far as everything I've read) so it wouldn't go with the iBook...
IBM had to spend more than just pocket change to R&D Sahara and now Apple can't use em... So where does this leave Apple and IBM? As of now IBM is providing what, just the iBook CPUs??
MOT has done next to nothing with the G4 over the past two and a half (close enough) years* and they just did a major layoff... IBM has been doing it's job with the G3 and if they had access to AltiVec I'd be willing to bet they can/could do better with the G4 too...
(*) top speed of 1st G4 500Mhz 2+ years later top speed 867Mhz... pretty sick by any standard! 367Mhz pop comes out to .5Mhz per day (blech!). How far as Intel or AMD come in 2+ years??
Anyway... while some say Apple has been fed-up with MOT it sure seems they are betting everything on them. IBM can't be too happy about loosing even more PPC sales to MOT.
Comments?
Dave
MOT just did a pretty big layoff and it seems the group working on the PPC may have been hit. (if I'm wrong please let me know)
IBM has been working on a new G3 called Sahara and while IBM might have other customers for that chip Apple was the big one.
Many have speculated that the new iMac was to feature the Sahara in the LCD iMac and then MWSF hit and BAM they now sport the G4 (ala MOT).
The Sahara isn't a low power chip (as far as everything I've read) so it wouldn't go with the iBook...
IBM had to spend more than just pocket change to R&D Sahara and now Apple can't use em... So where does this leave Apple and IBM? As of now IBM is providing what, just the iBook CPUs??
MOT has done next to nothing with the G4 over the past two and a half (close enough) years* and they just did a major layoff... IBM has been doing it's job with the G3 and if they had access to AltiVec I'd be willing to bet they can/could do better with the G4 too...
(*) top speed of 1st G4 500Mhz 2+ years later top speed 867Mhz... pretty sick by any standard! 367Mhz pop comes out to .5Mhz per day (blech!). How far as Intel or AMD come in 2+ years??
Anyway... while some say Apple has been fed-up with MOT it sure seems they are betting everything on them. IBM can't be too happy about loosing even more PPC sales to MOT.
Comments?
Dave
Comments
<strong>The Sahara isn't a low power chip (as far as everything I've read) so it wouldn't go with the iBook...</strong><hr></blockquote>Sure is. It will operate at about the same power at 1Ghz as the current chip does at 600Mhz, and it'll be about 25% smaller. Fantastic chip for the iBook for the next year or so.
I don't think IBM has ever produced as many chips for Apple as Motorola has, have they?
But yeah, 367Mhz in 2 1/2 years is just pathetic. I believe Intel has gone up about 1.5 Ghz in the same time frame.
Also, we don't know about IBM's involvement in future chips. Their <a href="http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/products/powerpc/rdmap/"; target="_blank">roadmap</a> points to a 1+Ghz chip with similarities to the G4/G5: SMP, SIMD, Rapid I/O, .13µ. Nothing about 64-bit, and no clue as to whether the SIMD really is Altivec. But we can hope.
<strong>Sure is. It will operate at about the same power at 1Ghz as the current chip does at 600Mhz, and it'll be about 25% smaller. Fantastic chip for the iBook for the next year or so.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Good news BRussell... I'm glad to hear it.
I would just hate to see the option of going to IBM (AltiVec or not) if Apple so needed go away. MOT has had a pretty bad few years with the PPC and maybe they were just in a slump but now with the economy and the layoffs etc etc etc if Apple were to piss-off IBM at a time like this it wouldn't be a good thing.
And hey, if MOT turns around and gives us 1.0 - 1.4Ghz Gx (don't wanna piss off the G5 wishing folks) in the next few weeks I'll look at them in a whole new light.
If however we don't see speed bumped towers in that time span then I will begin to fear for Apple in a major way. They can't/wont sell the PRO line at the current speeds unless someone is forced to upgrade (I buy Macs for a company and I have been buying PRO systems post MWSF and each and every order I have to approve is making me more and more upset with Apple). I feel like the company I work for is being robbed. Why? All because of the iMac...
I didn't feel like this PRE-MWSF becuase the iMac was... well G3 just wasn't an option... but now it is SO CLOSE to an option at a MUCH lower price I AM being robbed...Having your faithfull buyers feel like they are being robbed all because a Doctor wants a 17" LCD isn't a good thing.
This is the major reason why I feel Apple must boost the tower line NOW (not in a few month) if a few months do pass the bad blood between major buyers like the company I work for and Apple will be huge. People can 'hold off' on a purchase but a company can't always do the same.
Dave
[ 01-17-2002: Message edited by: DaveGee ]</p>
I think I read that 2,000 jobs were cut this past time at their semiconducter division.
I also have read that Moto has said screw the PPC, it's not worth thier time and money anymore. (in some many words) As well as "look to IBM for the next chip" type of comments.
<strong>
I think I read that 2,000 jobs were cut this past time at their semiconducter division.
I also have read that Moto has said screw the PPC, it's not worth thier time and money anymore. (in some many words) As well as "look to IBM for the next chip" type of comments.</strong><hr></blockquote>
well, i made that "look to ibm" comment. but your last statement is true. we have to remember, for motorola's purposes, their chips ARE fast.
[ 01-17-2002: Message edited by: admactanium ]</p>
Yes, Moto's recent history is pathetic. But it is only with the G4 that Moto has had serious problems. It is quite possible that with a new chip design the G4's problems with scaling will be a thing of the past.
[quote] Many have speculated that the new iMac was to feature the Sahara in the LCD iMac and then MWSF hit and BAM they now sport the G4 (ala MOT).
<hr></blockquote>
No, not "BAM" at all. Apple undoubtedly knew that the iMac they were designing would be designed with a G4. It's Apple, after all, who designed it! The only people who were surprised at the iMac sporting a G4 are those who take rumors too seriously. I'd been predicting for some time that the iMac would get a G4, it just made sense...but then AI posted their nonsense about the Sahara iMac, and people ate it up. tsk tsk tsk...when will people learn that AI is as bad if not worse than MOSR when it comes to rumors. I swear most of the crap AI posts was just pulled out of someone's ass. If you watch close enough, you'll see that the main AI page stories are basically just summaries of the consensus here on the FH board, with a few extra pinches of bull turd thrown in for kicks.
By using the G4 in iMacs, Apple guarantees Motorola more desktop PPC sales. This is good news for Moto, and I somehow doubt that they would be hacking up their PPC development team to save money, when they are going to be selling hundreds of thousands of G4s to Apple for iMacs alone.
As far as pissing off IBM, I think IBM is getting what they asked for. IBM had the chance to use Altivec, but they were adamantly opposed to the technology. If I remember correctly that is the main reason for the AIM consortium break-up. So IBM is just reaping what they sowed. In any event, whether Apple uses the G3 in the iMac or not will not break IBM. Apple could poof out of existence tomorrow and IBM wouldn't even feel it in their bottom line.
problem...
The Sahara isn't a low power chip (as far as everything I've read) so it
wouldn't go with the iBook...
Dave</strong><hr></blockquote>
What have you been reading? Try <a href="http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/"; target="_blank">http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/</a>;
Oops, that makes too much sense, silly me.
~1.6W at ~700 Mhz as i recall.
<strong>The State Of Apple, MOT & IBM...</strong><hr></blockquote>
They're companies, not states! D-uh!
Currently, you have IBM PPCs showing up in the Nintendo Game Cube, printers, copiers, and consumer electronics. IBM makes a lot of money off of their PPC development, and with Apple being only one of their customers/partners, they don't focus their efforts entirely on the computer market.
Then you have Motorola, which we all love to hate. They create this great technology known as altivec, and make it a major selling point of their new G4 processor. Then, Motorola tells IBM (a PPC partner), that they can't have it, and that if Apple wants it, they have to get the 'G4' solely from them. So Apple starts off with the G4 in August of 1999, and doesn't get over the 500 MHz mark for well over a year. Meanwhile, IBM continues to pump out the G3s used in the PowerBook, iBook, and iMac, at speeds of up to 500 MHz. Rumors say that the G3 has already broken speeds well past 500 MHz, but Apple stays with the G4.
So right now, you have G4s ranging from 350 MHz to 867 MHz in various Macs. Not terrific for a chip that was supposed to save the platform.
Now people expect the G5 from Motorola, saying that it will save the platform. IBM supposedly has 1 GHz G3s ready to ship right about now, but we won't see them in Macs for a while, because there is no Pro machine with a 1 GHz+ processor.
If Motorola really is planning to end PPC development, is the G5 the final hurrah? And what will happen to the PPC? Will IBM actually take over production?
I don't know the answer, and it's kind of spooky to think that we might be using G3s in future products a year or two from now. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
<strong>
What have you been reading? Try <a href="http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/"; target="_blank">http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/</a>;
Oops, that makes too much sense, silly me.
~1.6W at ~700 Mhz as i recall.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Originally posted by Mac Sack Black:
<strong>
What have you been reading? Try <a href="http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/"; target="_blank">http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/</a>;
Oops, that makes too much sense, silly me.
~1.6W at ~700 Mhz as i recall.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sorry the first post was empty:
~1.6W at ~700 Mhz as i recall.[/QB]
Wrong:
See here:http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/techlib/techlib.nsf/techdocs/852569B20050FF7785256993005870F7/$file/750cx-cxe_pb.pdf
6 W @ 600 MHz (CXe)
regards
rooster
I DO s\\wish that Apple hasd done a complete product line revision at MWSF. 1 GHz G4 PowerMacs, 1 GHz G4 Powerbooks, 800 MHz G3 (Sahara) iBooks, 800 MHz G3 iMacs. I mean, Steve could hav used the new iMac as his "one more thing." But here we are, with an iMac that's faster in one respect than the entry-level pro machine, old Powerbooks, older PowerMacs, and nice iBooks. That new one is nice, although I do wish that it had a higher LCD resolution.
And what information do we have on the Apollo? Will it be the functional twin of the 7450 only on SOI? Or will it be a hopped up cousin of the G4 like IBM did with the 750FX (the 750CX has a 4 stage pipeline 133MHz system bus and 256KB cache; the 750FX has a 5 stage pipeline, 200MHz bus with 512KB cache). It's entirely possible that the Apollo might include such niceties as an extended pipeline (say to 9 stages), a DDR system bus (200MHz DDR (400MHz effective) would rock) and a bigger L2 (512KB). If this isn't manufactured on 130nm then to not increase the die size they might have to forego the L3 tags circuitry. I mean if the Apollo is simply a SOI change (not even a change to 130nm) then it should have been out by now! There may yet be some goodies in store...
<strong>Cupertino I think we have a problem...
IBM has been working on a new G3 called Sahara and while IBM might have other customers for that chip Apple was the big one.
Many have speculated that the new iMac was to feature the Sahara....
The Sahara isn't a low power chip (as far as everything I've read) so it wouldn't go with the iBook....
IBM had to spend more than just pocket change to R&D Sahara and now Apple can't use em. So where does this leave Apple and IBM?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Obviously, the speculation about Sahahra/iMac was unfounded, so we can cross that of the problem list.
IIRC, the Sahara is low-power, and smaller to boot. I expect that they will drive the iBook & the CRT iMac until its next-gen CPU comes along; aside from that, what possible use could Apple have for small, cool, fast G3s?
We can add this to the list of things that make ya go hmmmm.
[ 01-17-2002: Message edited by: shaman ]</p>
<strong>MOT has done next to nothing with the G4 over the past two and a half (close enough) years* and they just did a major layoff.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No one's tried to claim that G4 speeds have kept up w/ expectations: G4 stagnation has fuelled much of the beating Apple's received in the tech press in these 30-odd months, and caused SJ great personal embarrassment & humiliation (& we all know how much he loves that).
This has been said many times already, but the G4 scaling issues are inherent in the G4 design/implementation. They are NOT due to MOT being a bunch of poopieheads who don't get it.
Maybe I'm jumping off a cliff, here, but it's my impression that Apple pretty much took over PowerPC design about 18 months ago. MOT went on to squeeze as many mHz as they could out of the G4 thru efficiencies, and Apple went on to get the G5 into production & start laying the groundwork for the G6 & beyond.
This is all good, as AAPL is highly motivated to get this done & done right; MOT, on the other hand, seems to view the PPC as a contractual obligation thing.
Yes, MOT has been laying off a bunch o' folks; yes, at least some of them seem to have come PPC areas. I'd be really curious to know how many of MOT's cast-offs have been hired by AAPL. If AAPL has in fact taken the lead w/ the PPC, it'd make sense to use "unofficial employee transfers" as a sneaky way of moving IP assets from MOT to AAPL under the radar of the press/industry.
If this is the case, then it would not surprise me to learn that the G5 is way ahead of MOT's original roadmap - perhaps even a year ahead. Hell, maybe it's ready to kick bootay right now, and they're just trying to get that G6 rackmount server together for a righteous one-more-thing!
"Engineer Stimpy - give me STUPID SPEED!!!"
<strong>Anyway... while some say Apple has been fed-up with MOT it sure seems they are betting everything on them. IBM can't be too happy about loosing even more PPC sales to MOT.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think you over-estimate the threat posed to IBM by MOT.
As far as betting everything on MOT, I think the indications are otherwise: what is OS X on x86, but an escape hatch? A parachute, the ultimate defense against the failure of the PPC. Apple will survive.
But this can't be AAPL's only hedge against disaster. THE WHOLE POINT behind AIM (for AAPL) was to secure the future viability of the platform by involving more than one manufacturer, and more than one research facility; I'd be very surprised to learn that AAPL's agreement w/ MOT did not include a trap-door specifically to prevent 'focus drift' at MOT from strangling AAPL.
Such a trap-door clause might stipulate that if MOT was unable or unwilling to devote sufficient resources to PPC development, AAPL could fork the PPC IP & continue development independently, in which case MOT would assume the role of preferred provider, with AAPL free to make agreements w/ other providers. No buyout necessary.
From developments, I infer that a clause of this sort was triggered 12-18 months ago, and that all asumptions about the current state of PPC development (G5/G6/G7) - including timetables - are meaningless.
<a href="http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/products/powerpc/newsletter/oct2001/new-prod1.html"; target="_blank">http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/products/powerpc/newsletter/oct2001/new-prod1.html</a>;
3.6W @ 800 MHz
Too bad IBM don't make G4's.
I still think that Apple should design the G6 themselves, and turn it over to IBM to fab. Sure IBM might have an expensive fab, but it's a good one, and they don't mind making other people's chips (see Motorola and Transmeta).
Ultimately, Apple can't go on letting it's primary component be designed and built from a company that makes cell phones.
SdC