Finally an interesting G5 story - Page 9

[quote]Originally posted by firelark:
<strong>"....all we want is an insanely powerful killer computer in a killer designed unit that is so fast we have to find ways of slowing it down just to be able to use it."

Amen to that!!!

They need to be so fast it'll give you a nosebleed just trying to comprehend the insane speed.
Just wishful thinking.

I know it will never happend. Well be stuck with the G4 until 2004 and then Apple will go chapter eleven. Just my prediction <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>

i remember some games after the switch from the ATARI ST to ATARI Falcon which were too fast to play ... i found no way to clock the Falcon down so that i could play these ones

[quote]Originally posted by MacLuv:
[QB]This is what happens when I'm bored.

This is for Telomar

<a href="http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/17758.html" target="_blank">*** EL LINKO ***</a>



Hey, how about that. IBM is in third place this year. Considering that Apple is now making a UNIX server, this is the only data that is relevant to us. And it doesn't even cover *ahem* market penetration, which Apple has only attempted in the US. Thus, the worldwide market is of no concern to us right now.

Now Telomar, tell me, what sort of consultant are you? A CutNPaste Consultant? Don't bring a knife to a gunfight, kid.

<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />

PS... stay cool.

<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
<hr></blockquote>

The Newsfactor Network is your authoritative source? An article that was posted from the <a href="http://www.ecommercetimes.com/" target="_blank">E-Commerce Times</a>, the same E-Commerce Times that is part of The Newsfactor Network? Are you serious? Don't you know that The Newsfactor Network is an opinion site, not a news site? Sure the op-ed piece quoted a Gartner Group study. Just in case you did not know, the Gartner Group earns its bread by telling its clients what those clients want the buying public to believe. These should in no way be confused with scientific studies.

The bottomline is that you are are trying to pass opinion from an opinion site as an authority. Without question, you share the opinion expressed in the piece, but that does not make it fact.

Still beatin' a dead horse are we.

[quote]Originally posted by Bigc:
<strong>Still beatin' a dead horse are we.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Hey, it twitched!

[quote]Originally posted by Nevyn:
<strong>

Hey, it twitched!</strong><hr></blockquote>

<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

[quote]Originally posted by MacLuv:
<strong>This is what happens when I'm bored.

<a href="http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/17758.html" target="_blank">*** EL LINKO ***</a>
Hey, how about that. IBM is in third place this year.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

I'm not an economics expert, nor care to be, but your referencing market share for UNIX, right? I'm under the impression, maybe mistakenly, that IBM is concentrating on LINUX.

IBM is still maintains the largest market share for servers, right??
from the article [quote]"In the overall server market, IBM gained 1.3 percent for a total of 29.3 percent, Gartner reported, with Sun running a close second at 23.6 percent."<hr></blockquote>

A more telling quote from the article might be;
[quote]"IBM also secured the top spot in the overall Linux server market, gaining a whopping 19 percent to reach 34.4 percent of the $236 million market, which Gartner said grew 78.9 percent despite shrinkage in the overall server market."<hr></blockquote>

Let's see the LINUX market grew 78.9% despite an overall shrink in the server market. And the UNIX market is shrinking according to the article. [quote]"According to Gartner, the UNIX server market accounted for 40 percent of the US$4.3 billion in total server sales in the United States, making it the largest single segment despite a sales decline of 5.3 percent, from $1.8 billion to $1.7 billion."<hr></blockquote>

Please correct me if I'm wrong, high probability I am, but IBM is focusing on a growing market, LINUX, capturing the largest market share. IBM is maintaining a solid market share in a declining UNIX market and begining to show serious interest in the low end server market.

Oh great googly moogly, after all this I forgot what your point was, could you clarify what your arguement against IBM is?



Methinks you like to argue for the sake of arguing.

Back on topic

One part of the article I have trouble with is this quote [quote]"... whereby Motorola may not be able to push the G4 above 1.3 Ghz, which would be a paltry 50 Mhz speed bump with the upcoming 7457 G4.<hr></blockquote>

Wouldn't a die shrink to 0.13µnm in and of itself provide a significantly higher increase in Mhz than a "paltry 50 Mhz?? I was under the impression a die shrink to 0.13µm would provide up to a 30% increase in speed??

[quote]Originally posted by Nevyn:
<strong>

Hey, it twitched!</strong><hr></blockquote>

Some life in 'er yet, 'eh!

[quote]Originally posted by rickag:
<strong>Wouldn't a die shrink to 0.13µnm in and of itself provide a significantly higher increase in Mhz than a "paltry 50 Mhz?? I was under the impression a die shrink to 0.13µm would provide up to a 30% increase in speed??</strong><hr></blockquote>

I'm not sure what their deal is, but we should be seeing 1.2GHz to 1.6GHz from the die shrink.

[quote]Originally posted by firelark:
<strong>"....all we want is an insanely powerful killer computer in a killer designed unit that is so fast we have to find ways of slowing it down just to be able to use it."

Amen to that!!!

They need to be so fast it'll give you a nosebleed just trying to comprehend the insane speed.
Just wishful thinking.

I know it will never happend. Well be stuck with the G4 until 2004 and then Apple will go chapter eleven. Just my prediction <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>

Firelark, you have the nail well and truly hit on the head there.

[quote]Originally posted by Mr. Me:
<strong>

The bottomline is that you are are trying to pass opinion from an opinion site as an authority. Without question, you share the opinion expressed in the piece, but that does not make it fact.</strong><hr></blockquote>

That Sun is #1 in the Unix market is fact, not opinion. This information comes directly from Gartner. The opinions I express about this data are my own.

If you could refer to my actual posts and point out where I've inserted opinion over fact, then please do so. It's posts like these that lead topics astray. Since you're obviously just trying to discredit my facts with a bunch of nonsense, you're also harassing me as well. I don't appreciate you wasting my time.

[[[Sure you can. Considering that's not the data I was referring to, it's pretty cloudy. Why don't you just post the stats for the Dallas Cowboys while you're at it? It may prove just as useful.]]]

This is an clear example of "Slothful Induction" and also an example of the fallacy of "Nothing but objections". Look them up for yourselves and see if they don't apply.

[[[I was replying to "consultant boy"--who apparently "charges" people to hit the Google search button and post the first piece of evidence he finds that supports his argument. ]]]

And how do *you* conduct your research?

[[[You want to look for market penetration specs for servers sold by unit.]]]

That's pretty good... How many Itanium servers did Intel actually sell to date?

Oh, and Mr. Me... Regarding your previous post... EXCELLENT. MacLuv is again cherry picking. he claims people of doing what he himself does... He runs to Google and clicks on the first link that seems to support his claim. In this case his source is a joke.... ;-)

--
Ed M.

[quote]Originally posted by rickag:
<strong>

I'm not an economics expert, nor care to be, but your referencing market share for UNIX, right? I'm under the impression, maybe mistakenly, that IBM is concentrating on LINUX.

</strong><hr></blockquote>

First of all, I appreciate that you've done some homework and looked up some facts. But you're taking my main point and trying to relate it to irrelevant data.

Look guys, I really don't have the time and sit down and illustrate this for you. I've given you a lot to go on already.

The whole point of getting into servers and marketshare, etc, was to talk about Apple's market penetration into the server world. Apple would be classified under UNIX, not Linux. Furthermore, the data that everyone is pulling only illustrates why I don't think going IBM is a good idea for Apple--at the very least for Xserve. I'll post my case when I finish it. Until then, this thread has gone so far off topic it needs to be closed.

<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />

[quote]Originally posted by Ed M.:
<strong>
In this case his source is a joke.... ;-)
</strong><hr></blockquote>

My source is Gartner research. It has always been Gartner research. Are you suggesting they are a joke? I would think that your appeal to popular opinion does nothing to help you make a case against my arguments. But as you are constantly making a case against me and not my ideas, I would say that you are baiting me for the sake of your own entertainment.

Mr. Ed, the facts speak for themselves. If you do not wish to participate constructively in this thread, don't bother posting, because all you're doing is harrasing me.

point to point

[quote]Originally posted by Ed M.:
<strong>

This is an clear example of "Slothful Induction" and also an example of the fallacy of "Nothing but objections". Look them up for yourselves and see if they don't apply.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

It's not a matter of slothful induction.

I supported by objection with relevant data supporting my objection.




[quote]
<strong>

[[[I was replying to "consultant boy"--who apparently "charges" people to hit the Google search button and post the first piece of evidence he finds that supports his argument. ]]]

And how do *you* conduct your research?

</strong><hr></blockquote>


The original poster was using his "credentials" to act as a leading authority on the subject. In this case he used old, irrelivant data to support his argument. Obviously he is not a leading authority.

How I conduct research is unimportant. What is important is that the information I use to support my arguments is as factual and accurate as it can be. If you're so big on the art of debate, you will find that you're trying to *turn the table* on me, or rather try to discredit me by questioning my authority. If we were in an actual debate, you would be laughed at, as I have never put forth any claim to be an official authority by telling people I get paid for my services. Like, who cares? It's obvious the guy's not a consultant--unless he consults people for talkin' *trash*--which makes me think you're probably his biggest client.

<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />


[quote]<strong>
[[[You want to look for market penetration specs for servers sold by unit.]]]

That's pretty good... How many Itanium servers did Intel actually sell to date?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
How would this data be imporant to you for determining Apple's market penetration? Could you elaborate?

[quote]<strong>
Oh, and Mr. Me... Regarding your previous post... EXCELLENT. MacLuv is again cherry picking. he claims people of doing what he himself does... He runs to Google and clicks on the first link that seems to support his claim. In this case his source is a joke.... ;-)
</strong><hr></blockquote>

As previously stated, the facts speak for themselves.

Practice your bad debating styles someplace else, like--in politics. If you get good enough, maybe you can run for the Mayor of Uranus.

<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

[ 12-07-2002: Message edited by: MacLuv ]</p>

When you do post this post you're promising, be sure to say what you mean. "The server market" is a lot different from "the UNIX market" or "the UNIX server market," or "the market that ships with UNIX and UNIX-like OS'." If you take the stance that neither Linux or BSD is a proper UNIX (which they aren't), then the BSDish OS X doesn't qualify either. So if you look at someone measuring "the UNIX market" you have to check what they mean by "UNIX."

Also, restricting the analysis to "the UNIX market" comes with a price: Nobody is locked into neat categories, because it's common for servers to run different OS' than all of the machines around them, and most server OS' overlap heavily in terms of what they are capable of. The high end, SVR4-based UNIX market - SGI's IRIX, Sun's Solaris, IBM's AIX, HPaq's Tru64 and HP/UX - is bleeding share, which is going to Windows, Linux and BSD servers. There is also a long-standing and accelerating move from Windows to Linux and BSD. The free UNIX-like OS' are hard to track, because they are frequently installed after the fact on servers that shipped with another OS, and on machines that weren't considered servers when they were shipped: lots of cast-off desktops get repurposed for file, print, and intranet web serving duties.

So when you're looking at how Apple is doing in this market, you have to consider that the server market is very fluid right now, and realigning itself across categories. Things are happening that nobody would have predicted a few years ago, like a resurgence in sales of IBM's mainframe lines. Mainframes were dismissed as dinosaurs, but they're coming back. VMS, which was nearly cancelled a few years ago, now has a sizable chunk of the uptime-critical market, and is enjoying a resurgence as a database platform.

Also, server customers are conservative. Unproven technology and unestablished companies are treated skeptically, because reliability, uptime, and support are not optional in this space. Apple came into the fastest-growing segment of the server market (the low end, UNIX-like/Windows segment) with hardware that had never seen the light of day before backed up by an enterprise support structure that literally hadn't existed the year before, and stamped with a brand that was actively scorned until very recently. Given that, with a few exceptions (mostly in biotech and the sciences, where Apple has a much better reputation), curious IT people are buying an Xserve or two, setting them to non-critical tasks, and watching them. In other words, current sales reflect early adopters willing to try this new thing out despite all the strikes against it (none of which, notice, have anything to do with the Xserve's potential as a server). If the word over time from these early adopters is that the Xserve is compatible, easy to maintain and stable - and that OS X isn't a damn thing like MacOS in the ways that IT people care about - then you'll see sales spike as the wait-and-see, conservative customers (the bulk of the server market) adopt it in earnest and set it to real work. If not, well, no spike in sales, and Apple goes back to the drawing board.

[ 12-07-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>

Amorph, that was one hell of a post!

:cool:

amorph...

[quote]Apple came into the fastest-growing segment of the server market (the low end, UNIX-like/Windows segment) <hr></blockquote>

so you're saying that Apple is entering the PC server market?

BTW--let's move this to another thread. Then I can concentrate at one thing at a time.

SEGMENTING THE SEVER MARKET.



[ 12-07-2002: Message edited by: MacLuv ]</p>

oog. What was this thread about again? I've lost track.

[quote]Originally posted by 709:
<strong>oog. What was this thread about again? I've lost track.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Parachute failure.

Those who favor an x86 processor for the Mac have some good arguments, but they usually lack one quality, vision. An AMD or Intel processor may seem like the best choice, looking at how things were in the past, and how they are in the present. But it can be a big mistake thinking things always stay the same. Leaders do not remain leaders forever, and the most popular of anything will usually change at some point. Many of us believe, and for good reason, that the processor scene is changing, and the IBM 970 is the best possible way for Apple to go today.

PPC desktop processors suffered in the last two years, and Macs suffered because of it. Motorola has been interested in the embedded market and has not done much to improve desktop processors for Apple. IBM was busy with things like the Power 4 for their big servers, and did not see the benefits of an SIMD engine either. But things show strong indications of change. Those glued to the past and present may miss it.

IBM is getting in the business of making custom chips. They made one for Nintendo to use in the Game Cube. They may be doing one for Sony, for the Playstation 3, and have stated they intend to pursue this market. Apple is not limited to tagging along with IBM's need for processors. If Apple wants a chip that IBM does not intend to build for themselves, IBM will build Apple a custom chip. But the future appears brighter yet now that IBM has their own need for that same processor that Apple wants. IBM now has that extra motivation to win with the best.

One of the biggest threats to IBM server business is Linux running on x86 processors. Within three years, this type of server will likely be making big inroads in markets that typically use big servers now. IBM could just market their own x86 Linux server and call it good. But if IBM followed this approach, they would be competing head to head with Dell and HP. There would be little to differentiate an IBM Linux server from any other, and IBM could not maintain their lead in the server market. They need to give customers a reason to run Linux on an IBM processor, rather than an Intel or AMD. They need the best processor in this class, and they are out to get it.

So, looking just at the past and present, the x86 looks favorable. With a vision of the future, it is a different story. If anything should be debated, it should be whether IBM is capable of beating Intel and AMD, when IBM is committed to this task. I feel sure of IBM's commitment, because servers are paramount to their business.

[ 12-08-2002: Message edited by: snoopy ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by MacLuv:
<strong>

Blah-bla-bla

Look guys, I really don't have the time and sit down and illustrate this for you. I've given you a lot to go on already.

Bla-bla-bla

<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>

Yes, you've given me a lot to go on...

:cool:

[quote]Originally posted by snoopy:
<strong>Those who favor an x86 processor for the Mac have some good arguments, but they usually lack one quality, vision. An AMD or Intel processor may seem like the best choice, looking at how things were in the past, and how they are in the present. But it can be a big mistake thinking things always stay the same. Leaders do not remain leaders forever, and the most popular of anything will usually change at some point. Many of us believe, and for good reason, that the processor scene is changing, and the IBM 970 is the best possible way for Apple to go today.

</strong><hr></blockquote>


This is a great assessment of the industry's current direction. I think that the IBM/Apple combination has potential and a lot of it, if for no other reason than timing.

First off, Intel is saying that x86 Xeon is not where it's at on the server side of things. So they've got Itannic and McKinley. As for the desktop, Intel says hey, we think the world will be happy with x86 for a while longer so we will continue to sell Pentium(32 bit processor) for the desktop.

AMD says wrong. We think there is a market for 64bitness on the desktop and so the Hammer family will be backwards compatible with a desktop implementation in mind.

IBM interestingly agrees with AMD and says yes the world is ready for a 64 bit desktop processor.

As I intimated in my last post, Linux is only run on Pentiums because it's what most geeks can afford. However, I'd bet that anyone that truly appreciates Linux probably still has wet dreams about the legendary Alpha. I don't think any of us can deny that Unix and RISC processors is just the way of things. Hence why IBM is betting on the 970 and Linux. Assuming IBM builds and affordable systems around the 970 with Linux, I'm guessing many geeks might begin to pony up.

Obviously, if Unix on RISC is the natural order, OSX/BSD/Darwin all make sense on the 970.

But wait, there's one more thing. I admit that I could be wrong on this, but I believe that Intel and AMD are just getting into 64 bit market. This is not the case for IBM. The Power4 is a 64 bit chip. Thus, Apple is partnering with a company that has quite a bit of experience in the field. After all, the 970 is a slimmed down version of the only other chip that can be spoken of in the same phrase as the Alpha.

As far as the 64bit desktop market, for the next two years or so we are talking IBM/Apple and AMD.

What Intel was thinking when they left this gaping hole in there processor strategy is anyone's guys. When considering AMD's marriage of the 32 and 64 bit ISAs in the Hammer family so the customer can move and migrate at their choosing vs. Intels all or nothing approach, you have to wonder if Intel was thinking at all.

I can imagine that Intel might ultimately regret leaving the 64bit desktop market to IBM/Apple for any length of time.

[quote]Originally posted by MacLuv:
<strong>amorph...

so you're saying that Apple is entering the PC server market?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Duh, no. Low end server market. As in cheaper than $10.000 servers. Anything from IBM to x86 based servers go here, but those are not PCs. If Amorph would mean PC Server market, he would say "PC Server market".

[quote]Originally posted by xype:
<strong>

Duh, no. Low end server market. As in cheaper than $10.000 servers. Anything from IBM to x86 based servers go here, but those are not PCs. If Amorph would mean PC Server market, he would say "PC Server market".</strong><hr></blockquote>

i didn't realize you were amorph's personal spokesperson.

I don't even know what a low-end server market is. Is that the entry level market that everyone with a clue talks about? Because that includes servers ~ $100,000.

[ 12-08-2002: Message edited by: MacLuv ]</p>

Intel himself think that the X86 series will not last forever. The Prescott seems to be the lattest developpement of the Pentium and the end of the developpement of the pentium : but it give them three years of developpement in front of them. After this they have to move to the 64 bit world. Even if 64 bits chips are not much better than a 32 bits chip, everydesktop chip will be 64 bits.

Intel know that but did not wanted to make a 64 bit X86 32 bit compatible chip at the contrary of AMD and his opteron, he wanted to produce a radically new design with more room for progress in the future : the itanium.
But the itanium did not reaches the result expected and was a partial failure. Since this they produced the itanium 2.
As every geek here, you know that the current X86 chips are more RISC than CISC : rughly they are RISC chip with a X86 decoder in the front end. And this X86 decoder is complex and leads to a waste of performance and transistors.
You will notice also that hardware X86 chips decoder are much more performant than software decoder (emulator) : that's why the itanium was not really good.

Intel at the contrary of Apple (with his transition from 68K to PPC)canno't force the market to move from the X86 code to the Itanium one : he is not alone, AMD is here. And AMD has a magic card : is opteron is backward compatible. The opteron waste power and transistors to be backward compatible, but the current software will run great on him at the cost of minimal code optimisation.
In short the sofware world is not ready for the Itanium reign. Windows must make disapear entirely the DOS (and not only hide him) and make several improvements. So Intel is obliged to wait. But he is still active and due to his fantastic team of engineers his latest pentium 4 rocks.

The PPC 970 chips have a great future in front of them, with many rooms to improve them : better core (power 5 variant), multicore ...
If the X86 are currently better it's because of the great teams of engineers who develop them, not because the X86 code is inherently better : it's just the contrary.

Let's see in 3 years who will have the best chip : IBM or INTEL with his itanium 3 or with his Pentium 5 ? .

[quote]Originally posted by Powerdoc:
<strong>
If the X86 are currently better it's because of the great teams of engineers who develop them, not because the X86 code is inherently better : it's just the contrary. </strong><hr></blockquote>

Well, like I said, where there's a will, there's a way. What gave these engineers the incentive to push the x86 farther than what it was intended? Red Bull? Free GAP clothes? :cool:

[quote]Originally posted by MacLuv:
<strong>

Well, like I said, where there's a will, there's a way. What gave these engineers the incentive to push the x86 farther than what it was intended? Red Bull? Free GAP clothes? :cool: </strong><hr></blockquote>

I just say that IBM has the will, Mot did not have it. The PPC 970 is the celeron version of the Power4. The Power5 is already on the way : there will be a future celeron or duron like version of this chip for the mac. This line of chip has a future.
Like all celerons like chips, the 970 chips does not represent a terrific amount of R&D at the exception of the two altivec units wich represant a great amount of R&D. But the job is already done, and less R&D will have to be done in the future developpements of the PPC 970.

In other way the power 4 has required a vast amount of R&D : it was a 4 years project developpement. The power line is a huge locomotive that drag behind him the PPC 970 line.

[ 12-08-2002: Message edited by: Powerdoc ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by MacLuv:
<strong>I don't even know what a low-end server market is.</strong><hr></blockquote>

But you still argue about it? Wow.

[quote]Originally posted by MacLuv:
<strong>Is that the entry level market that everyone with a clue talks about? Because that includes servers ~ $100,000.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Low end as in cheap, low cost servers that still are servers and not PC boxes running Linux. ~ $100,000.- servers are now low end since they pack quite some performance already. You could probably abstract it to the level that low end servers are 1-4 CPUs. But then again, for people deadling with servers worth $10,000,000 low end might be a 100,000 server.

At least from how I understood it.

[quote]Originally posted by Powerdoc:
<strong>In the contrary the power 4 represented a great amount of R&D.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Which, in turn, IBM does not want to be in vain. Hence this means they have longer-reaching plans for the platform.

[quote]Originally posted by xype:
<strong>

Which, in turn, IBM does not want to be in vain. Hence this means they have longer-reaching plans for the platform.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I think they have plans for the high performance servers based upon power chips and the low end ones based upon the PPC 970. You will notice is that if Apple was not concerned by the PPC 970 they would not have developped a SIMD unit Altivec compatible. A simple core power 4 without altivec unit would have been simplier to produce and design.

I think that producing PPC 970 is a way to recover a certain amount of R&D they spent on the power line.

[quote]Originally posted by xype:
<strong>
But you still argue about it? Wow.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

I was being facetious. Since you guys want me to specify "x86 ISA" rather than "x86 processor" perhaps you should use the term "entry-level" instead of "low-end". Low-end generally means cheap as in manufacture, not price. Actually I don't care which you use, as long as you know.

I've answered the questions to segmenting the server market with <a href="http://forums.appleinsider.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=002736#000005" target="_blank">this post.</a>

[quote]I think that producing PPC 970 is a way to recover a certain amount of R&D they spent on the power line.<hr></blockquote>

The immense R&D is part of the reason that Power4 is so expensive (other factors being low volume compared to desktop processors and the supporting arhcitecture being beefy).

[quote]Originally posted by MacLuv:
<strong>amorph...

so you're saying that Apple is entering the PC server market?
</strong><hr></blockquote>

No, xype got it right: I'm saying that they're entering the low-end, UNIX-like server market. There are entries here from just about everyone, some running on platforms other than x86 (although x86 is common here), and there is lots of competition from the Windows server market, which has a large low-end presence.

It's basically the sub-$10K market. That's the neatest way to identify it. But if you want to segregate by OS also, then Apple is competing with Linux, BSD, and Solaris/x86 solutions under $10K.

[ 12-08-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Amorph:
[QB]

No, xype got it right: I'm saying that they're entering the low-end, UNIX-like server market. There are entries here from just about everyone, some running on platforms other than x86 (although x86 is common here), and there is lots of competition from the Windows server market, which has a large low-end presence.

It's basically the sub-$10K market. That's the neatest way to identify it. But if you want to segregate by OS also, then Apple is competing with Linux, BSD, and Solaris/x86 solutions under $10K.

[Oh, by the way: I suppose "entry level" would be more precise, but "low end" is still accurate. You pay for robust hardware, so the best you'll see sub-$10K are consumer-grade components like the x86, with some redundancy here and there.]

Hmm... Although this thread is going way off anything, really, I have to add the following to the discussion...

Whether Apple is entering 'low end', 'low price', 'UNIX' or 'UNIX-like' - I don't care. They're entering the server market. Like Steve Jobs said, they're entering it humbly.

Why are we discussing IBM's and Sun Microsystems' big iron servers when talking about what Apple should or shouldn't do? I don't see Apple in _that_ market in the near future (the next five years). And if I want a stable and fast web/file/mail/print/whatever-server for 'small' to 'medium', the Xserve is a nice alternative to what's around, if you consider price, usability, stability and power.

I'm sure the PowerPC 970 will be the better option for the Xserve than a Motorola chip, but an X86 chip (define that yourself) isn't a better option, unless you suggest that Apple would go X86 for the other product lines, too. But that's basically out of question for the near future (2003).

What Apple wants, in my opinion, is to build a strong option for businesses to go all Mac from server to desktop to notebook. They have a strong selling point there, but they're not well accepted in that market. This has nothing to do with Intel or AMD processors, but rather with how the company is viewed from a business angle. Apple looks like a consumer company to businesses. Very much like Sony. Xserve has made a good entry into the market (I don't really CARE about exact market share figures, this thread shows how irrelevant those statistics are, because it very much depends on how you look at them.). It's gotten good reviews, it fares well in its price/power segment and people start to look at Apple differently. Maybe in a year or two, Apple will be taking a bite out of Dell for business sales. And business people could care less about what processor is in a machine. ROI is important. TCO is important. You don't see many businesses upgrading processors every other months, only because Intel claims that 'the internet is faster with MMX' or anything like that. But they _do_ see that Microsoft is a one-way street. They _do_ see that Microsoft is starting to behave strangely with licenses. And Microsoft pissing off people is an opportunity for Apple.

[quote]Amorph
"I'm not sure what their deal is, but we should be seeing 1.2GHz to 1.6GHz from the die shrink."<hr></blockquote>

The 64 million dollar question is WHEN. There have been very few rumors regarding this lately.


OFF TOPIC
[quote]Originally posted by MacLuv:
<strong>
The whole point of getting into servers and marketshare, etc, was to talk about Apple's market penetration into the server world.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

My bad. I mistakenly thought your original comments regarding IBM's small market share and slight decline in UNIX servers was in response to positive arguments made for Apple using an IBM cpu, because of IBM's large size and ability to spend billions on research.

After your statement of facts, it seemed the argument changed from IBM's commitment/ability to design/develop/market a competitive cpu to Apple's initial server offerings. Regrettably, this confused me.

many many spelling errors

[ 12-08-2002: Message edited by: rickag ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by MacLuv:
<strong>I was being facetious. Since you guys want me to specify "x86 ISA" rather than "x86 processor" </strong><hr></blockquote>

That was just me being pedantic, actually. I don't speak for anybody else here, and nobody else here speaks for me.

All this talk of UNIX vs Linux markets is really a little bizarre, IMO. For starters, Unix isn't one operating system -- there is about one flavour per vendor. They are all more or less compatible, except that they run on different processors. Then there is the FreeBSD crowd, the Linux crowd, and now Mac OS X. All of these are quite similar, but they are all different in various details. A lot of software can just be recompiled across the various flavours, and administration/user knowledge is largely transferable but its not like Windows or Macintosh in that you can buy shrink wrapped software and expect it to run on any Unix-like OS. In the server market that is acceptable (and perhaps even expected), but its hopeless in the consumer desktop market. In the server market, therefore, IMO the operating systems should be lumped into Windows and Unix-like. In the desktop market its really just Windows and Macintosh (with the various versioning issues inherent in each of those). Anybody else is in the geek market and is so individualistic that it doesn't matter.

I'm amazed that there is anybody left who doesn't believe we'll see a 970-based Macintosh from Apple at some point next year. That processor officially exists, it has VMX, it is aimed at the desktop, Steve Jobs himself has said that they like what IBM has lined up, etc.
There might be another G4 revision (0.13 micron is strongly hinted at), but who knows how fast it'll be. Moto's scaling problems could persist and 1.3 GHz might be the limit despite their earlier expectation that they could claw their way up to 1.8 GHz eventually. Sure the 0.18 -&gt; 0.13 process shrink is expected to deliver a 30% performance boost, but that is a guideline not a sure thing. Regardless of what they actually get out of it, the G4 is likely to continue to drive the consumer & notebook lines for a while yet... at least until the 0.09-micron 970 arrives.

IBM has built a 64-bit PowerPC before, remember -- the 620 and 630 were designed and produced around 1997 and used by IBM's AS/400 group IIRC. The POWER3 & POWER4 were both 64-bit as well. Lots of experience and tools to be had there. PowerPC was designed from day 1 to have a 64-bit version that was backward compatible with the 32-bit version. x86 wasn't even designed to have a 16-bit version!!! Its been one hack on top of another one.

The x86 market will find its way despite themselves... they've got enough money to spend their way to a solution. It doesn't take willpower to build an advanced processor, it just takes money. Lots of it. Intel has it, IBM has it (and a better starting position), Motorola doesn't have it, AMD might have it. Who are you going to bet on?

[quote]Originally posted by fryke:
<strong>Like Steve Jobs said, they're entering it humbly.

Why are we discussing IBM's and Sun Microsystems' big iron servers when talking about what Apple should or shouldn't do? I don't see Apple in _that_ market in the near future (the next five years).</strong><hr></blockquote>

To be honest Apple doesn't have the resources to enter any bigger a server Market than what can be achieved with up to 4-way CPU servers (lowe end) because the higher segments demand, like Amorph said, quality that has to be proven and that costs a lot. IBM has a reputation of a few decades they can build upon and that's ecactly the reason people with loads of cash to spend but IBM hardware - because for 10.000.000 you better get something that works - and works the way you want. Which is also the reason SGI stayed afloat, because they went back to do what they know best - powerful computing. And not "imagine a Beowulf cluster of these" wannabe power-computing.

The Rack-mountable approach Apple is taking is perfectly fine because it's a market where they could in theory live off their current customer base and compete with cheap Linux boxes. Plus the R&D cost is not really high so the risk is far lower than going head to head with IBM/SGI/Sun for the real server market. Just like their RAID system is neat for the Apple market, but no way they could ever challenge EMC and Hitachi.

Apple is playing some well tought out moves lately and if it weren't for their bus/cpu cripple they'd be in a really good position.

[quote]Originally posted by Programmer:
<strong>The x86 market will find its way despite themselves... they've got enough money to spend their way to a solution. It doesn't take willpower to build an advanced processor, it just takes money.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I will argue that - Intel really doesn't have enough willpower to go for something better, they were really content with simply pushing mhz for a long time. Besides, the goal behind most of x86 hardware designs is low cost cheapcheap and that alone will make the platform stay unappealing for most "serious" computer people.

PowerPC always seemed to me like a platform where the functionality was given higher priority than cost/mhz, which is a good thing. It may have not always been in Apple's best interest (IBM servers, Motorola embedded) but if IBM wants to go the workstation/desktop route, they have a really solid base to build upon and a better starting point than the x86 world. Heck, I doubt Apple will ever have problems because or fubared IRQs or because the motherboard will have conflicts with their graphics card. Unless they switch to AMD.

[quote]Originally posted by Programmer:
<strong>

That was just me being pedantic, actually. I don't speak for anybody else here, and nobody else here speaks for me.

</strong><hr></blockquote>

No, it's fine that you pointed out that perhaps I should be referring to "x86 ISA" because--as I went back to examine if it would have any relevance to my agruments--I learned more about how the instruction set would impact the future. For example, as the x86 ISA "moves forward", there's always going to be a billion dollar industry for x86 legacy support. To an idealist this is absurd, to an entrepreneur this is opportunity.

Regarding "Linux vs Unix" variations, etc... industry analysts have to draw the line somewhere. They can't sit down and nitpick over which side Kirk's hair was parted in episode #37. This doesn't mean I don't agree with what you and others are saying--that there are "grey" areas of distinction--but for business purposes the market has already been segmented. I didn't do it, Gartner's & others have. There are plenty of subs that may be spitting hairs with markets right now but I haven't bothered to check. In that the Xserve is under $10K and everyone is claiming that this is a defined market, I ask for help finding out who has defined that market... I don't have the time right now.



[ 12-08-2002: Message edited by: MacLuv ]</p>