or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Finally an interesting G5 story
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Finally an interesting G5 story - Page 10

post #361 of 441
[quote]Originally posted by Amorph:
<strong>It's basically the sub-$10K market. </strong><hr></blockquote>

I could see them reaching up to ~ $15,000. But only if the XServe & RAID version work well. (Initial reviews & reports on the XServe appear to be favorable) Some of the cheap blade server approaches would work well with a low heat chip, Apple could do one well, and the bioinformics groups (at the least) would love them. It seems like that the few big problems that are easily vectorizible have a boundless appreciation for computing power. More AV units in a box = good thing.

The part I'm curious about is whether the relationship between IBM and Apple might end up being close enough for IBM to offer something that Mac OS X can run on easily. Linux & AIX are there main OSes for now, but how much work would it be to make Mac OS X on one of the faster boxes as a piece of the e-solutions push.
post #362 of 441
I think it's obvious by now that MacLuv simply hates IBM, and is not willing to listen to any amount of reason, no matter how unanimous, to alter his opinion in the least.

He makes argumentative errors left and right, is guilty of numerous fallacies, especially personal attacks, special pleading and shifting the burden of proof, and he never holds himself accountable for his errors (he was the one who used the term "worldwide server market" and then blamed others for not pointing out his error earlier, as well as using the excuse "it was late"). Meanwhile, he argues over negligible semantics of posts made by others to distract from his own mistakes.

If there exists another as closed minded as he, such a person has yet to be seen.
post #363 of 441
Though it appears that MacLuv fell on this data by accident (later saying that he intended that the UNIX server market is the relevant indicator, which it is not), it does seem that worldwide server market by units is the best indicator, so the numbers linked to Gartner's placing HP and Dell at the top, followed by IBM and then Sun, are an accurate indication pertinent to the iServe.

However, looking at IBM specifically, it would be ignorant not to notice that IBM (the market leader in terms of revenue due to their unarguable dominance in mid-to high-end sales) has determined to dive into this market head-first with the 970. To claim that this is insignificant for Apple, should they choose to incorporate the 970 into their own server solutions, would be foolish indeed.

What I see is IBM, with a larger budget, world-renowned R&D, a more respected name, and superior technology, going up against Intel and AMD, who are clearly spending most of their efforts fighting over the consumer market on the tapped-out x86 architecture, and who have limited resources to commit to the mid-range server market.

I know where I would place my bets. IBM is going to kill in this market, and Apple is wise to hop on for the ride.

But this whole debate has migrated to concentrate on the server market. What about workstations?

In the low to mid-range server market we'll see Opterons, Itaniums, Xeons and Barton Athlons vs PPC 970s. Looking at these technologies, the 970 looks to come out on top in terms of performance, with the Opterons the only real affordable competition. Arguably, if Apple stuck with the G3/G4/Moto G5, they would not be able to compete. Otherwise, Intel is going to be the big loser in this market.

In the workstation market we'll see Clawhammers, Athlon XPs, Itaniums, Xeons and P4s vs. the PPC 970. In all indication, the 970 will kill the competition here (and this is the market that is most important to Apple). Again, Apple will fall behind if they continue to use the G-series in the towers.

In the notebook market, I predict we'll see a variant of the 970 vs. the Mobile P4s and the Mobile Athlons, an area where clearly the 970 (or even the G4 on a smaller process) will come out ahead unless you completely ignore battery, portability and heat issues.

It is blatantly obvious that IBM can compete, and intends to compete in all of these markets. AMD is an impressive model indeed, but the risk and strain on Apple to switch to a completely new ISA is not acceptable, and honeslty, IBM's strategy looks more promising in the long-run.

The x86 development strategy looks a lot like putting a larger engine, turbochargers and NOS injection systems into a '68 Dodge instead of building a whole new car based on more efficient, more modern technologies. Sure, you can keep ekeing out performance gains on the Dodge here and there, but there's only so much that can be done.
post #364 of 441
[quote]Originally posted by tonton:
<strong>Though it appears that MacLuv fell on this data by accident (later saying that he intended that the UNIX server market is the relevant indicator, which it is not), it does seem that worldwide server market by units is the best indicator, so the numbers linked to Gartner's placing HP and Dell at the top, followed by IBM and then Sun, are an accurate indication pertinent to the iServe.</strong><hr></blockquote>

1. How does it appear that I fell on this data by accident? You've got evidence to prove this?
2. Why isn't the UNIX server market an "indicator"? It seems you haven't even bothered to check how the market is segmented.
3. What does this have to do with market penetration?

Tonton, I've bruised your ego. Sorry, it wasn't intentional. But build a bridge and get over it, please. At this rate you and Mr. Ed could run for office together.

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

[ 12-09-2002: Message edited by: MacLuv ]</p>
post #365 of 441
[quote]Originally posted by tonton:
<strong>I think it's obvious by now that MacLuv simply hates IBM, and is not willing to listen to any amount of reason, no matter how unanimous, to alter his opinion in the least.

He makes argumentative errors left and right, is guilty of numerous fallacies, especially personal attacks, special pleading and shifting the burden of proof, and he never holds himself accountable for his errors (he was the one who used the term "worldwide server market" and then blamed others for not pointing out his error earlier, as well as using the excuse "it was late"). Meanwhile, he argues over negligible semantics of posts made by others to distract from his own mistakes.

If there exists another as closed minded as he, such a person has yet to be seen.</strong><hr></blockquote>


If you want to point out specific examples that support this post, fine, but, like Ed M, you're doing nothing but harrasing me here. Politicians do this, are you running for office?

If you can point out where I've made errors then by all means do so. The fact is you can't, so you just attack me instead.

Get over it, bud.


<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
post #366 of 441
[quote]Originally posted by tonton:
<strong>
However, looking at IBM specifically, it would be ignorant not to notice that IBM (the market leader in terms of revenue due to their unarguable dominance in mid-to high-end sales) has determined to dive into this market head-first with the 970. To claim that this is insignificant for Apple, should they choose to incorporate the 970 into their own server solutions, would be foolish indeed.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

A conclusion reached by examining irrelevant information. You're suggesting Apple will have success with the 970 because of IBMs position in unrelated markets. You haven't tied the information together--in other words, Apple's success will not directly related to IBMs, unless the 970 shifts the industry away from x86. That's NEVER going to happen. x86 has already achieved critical mass. Anybody playing in that sandbox isn't worried about a new kid on the block.


[quote]<strong>
What I see is IBM, with a larger budget, world-renowned R&D, a more respected name, and superior technology, going up against Intel and AMD, who are clearly spending most of their efforts fighting over the consumer market on the tapped-out x86 architecture, and who have limited resources to commit to the mid-range server market.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Apple is all about the "consumer" market. Even the Xserve seems positioned for the reach-out consumer ready to try a server solution.

The 970 is a commodoty just like any chip AMD or Intel makes. I cannot find any data that supports how much money they have devoted to making it an industry standard.

x86 isn't "tapped out". Technically it may be, but in the consumer market, that's irrelevant. This is about MONEY. The x86 ISA is here to stay for quite some time. As Windows is the industry standard OS, whatever direction Windows goes will be the direction supporting industry follows. The presence of the 970 will have no affect on this trend.

[quote]<strong>
I know where I would place my bets. IBM is going to kill in this market, and Apple is wise to hop on for the ride.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

The server market is a relationship market. It's not a consumer market. Regardless of which chip is in which machine, at the end of the day it depends upon who's shaken who's hand and who's kissed who's ass. That's how big business works.

[quote]<strong>
But this whole debate has migrated to concentrate on the server market. What about workstations?
</strong><hr></blockquote>

What about workstations?

This conversation migrated towards servers because I made one point that Apple sold 5,700 units and had a market penetration of 1.2%. Then some "consultant" boy posted information from 2001 about worldwide server domination without regards to market segmentation. So I pointed out that $$ within the UNIX market were dominated by Sun, and about five days ago HP became the leader. Then people start telling me that UNIX isn't UNIX, because of all the open source variations and whatnot.

Frankly, it's become a "whatever" issue at this point until a new case can be built around the evidence everyone has provided in this thread.

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

[ 12-09-2002: Message edited by: MacLuv ]</p>
post #367 of 441
still here <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
I heard that geeks are a dime a dozen, I just want to find out who's been passin' out the dimes
----- Fred Blassie 1964
Reply
I heard that geeks are a dime a dozen, I just want to find out who's been passin' out the dimes
----- Fred Blassie 1964
Reply
post #368 of 441
[quote]Originally posted by MacLuv:
<strong>At this rate you and Mr. Ed could run for office together.</strong><hr></blockquote>

And I'd vote for them over you in a second.
If you didn't come off as a whiney jerk maybe you wouldn't be "harrased" so much. Just try to understand how people perceive you from your posts and try to adjust.
post #369 of 441
[quote]Originally posted by Cake:
<strong>

And I'd vote for them over you in a second.
If you didn't come off as a whiney jerk maybe you wouldn't be "harrased" so much. Just try to understand how people perceive you from your posts and try to adjust.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Oooh, a popularity contest... I'd better start baking cupcakes.

<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
post #370 of 441
See, it seems you have no clue.
That kind of reply does nothing but add to your poor rep.
I don't care if you don't, just thought I'd try to offer a different perspective.

Oh well, on with the thread - forgive the interruption.
post #371 of 441
[quote]Originally posted by Cake:
<strong>See, it seems you have no clue.
That kind of reply does nothing but add to your poor rep.
I don't care if you don't, just thought I'd try to offer a different perspective.

Oh well, on with the thread - forgive the interruption.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Would you like a cupcake?
post #372 of 441
[quote]Originally posted by MacLuv:
<strong>If you can point out where I've made errors then by all means do so. The fact is you can't, so you just attack me instead.</strong><hr></blockquote>

"He makes argumentative errors left and right..."
[quote]Originally posted by MacLuv:
<strong>IBM doesn't have the financial resources to compete with Intel.
--------------------
Are you going to blame this on MOTU?
--------------------
The processors are not more expensive.
--------------------
No matter how much dedication and funding IBM could possibly put into this project, Intel will always have more.
--------------------
...the next time I write a business proposal I'll make sure to mention that a 1% market penetration is worthy of investment...
--------------------
Considering that Apple is now making a UNIX server, this is the only data that is relevant to us.
--------------------
Low-end generally means cheap as in manufacture, not price.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

"...is guilty of numerous fallacies, especially personal attacks..."
[quote]Originally posted by MacLuv:
<strong>What else do you pull out of that hat of yours? Rabbits?
--------------------
Considering your argument a) has no point and b)has no point, I would spend less time insulting other people's intelligence and more time learning how to get your point across--that is if you can find it.
--------------------
PS. Thanks for the comic relief, though.
--------------------
This is one of my favorite posts ever. I've printed it out and hung it on my wall. It's just that funny.
--------------------
Then you might learn how to do research on your own.
--------------------
"consultant boy"
--------------------
Now Telomar, tell me, what sort of consultant are you? A CutNPaste Consultant? Don't bring a knife to a gunfight, kid.
--------------------
And the award for best actor in a supporting role goes to: SPOOKY! *Applause* Great performance, man, I really dug it. Where's the wrap party?
--------------------
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.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

"...special pleading..."
[quote]Originally posted by MacLuv:
<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 I conduct research is unimportant.
--------------------
When you're ready to take me to school and point out my flaws, I'm ready.
----and----
Actually, Ed, you've done nothing but attack me with your bullsh*t and not my points.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

"...shifting the burden of proof..."
[quote]Originally posted by MacLuv:
<strong>If you still don't consier x86 to be the standard platorm with any amount of evidence presented before you, then there's no use continuing this conversation.</strong><hr></blockquote>

"...he never holds himself accountable for his errors (he was the one who used the term 'worldwide server market' and then blamed others for not pointing out his error earlier, as well as using the excuse 'it was late')."
[quote]Originally posted by MacLuv:
<strong>Well, I'm sorry you've misunderstood me, I was talking about estimated units shipped per 3Q. I realize I'm using the term "market" here loosely but as a *ahem* "consultant" I would expect that you knew what I was talking about. Sorry. [Embarrassed] (I also realize this wasn't the greaest of rebuttals, but what do you expect at 3AM? The fact that you couldn't point out my own mistake properly suggests a lack of depth on your part.)</strong><hr></blockquote>

"Meanwhile, he argues over negligible semantics of posts made by others to distract from his own mistakes."
[quote]Originally posted by MacLuv:
<strong>I realize what the post is trying to convey, but market penetration has nothing to do with... :confused: </strong><hr></blockquote>
post #373 of 441
[quote]Originally posted by Cake:
<strong>If you didn't come off as a whiney jerk maybe you wouldn't be "harrased" so much. Just try to understand how people perceive you from your posts and try to adjust.</strong><hr></blockquote>

A good first step would be to stop with the smileys and the sarcasm.
post #374 of 441
Tonton, the object of debate is not to just point out where you think I might be in error but explain why. Rather than ask me to elaborate on misunderstandings, you've made a collection of notes taken out of context.

You, yourself, have offered no supporting evidence of WHY these are errors on my part. If you knew anything about debate, you'd realize you've just created the world's biggest "straw man".




You don't seem to understand that everything you've accused me of doing, you've just done in your own post.

The arguments I've made stand valid within their original content. If you wish to start addressing them instead of me then by all means do so.

You might as well just give me the finger.

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

PS. All of the examples you've shown w/fallacies are incorrect. I may suggest you take a proper course in debate before practicing on me. Thanks.

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

[ 12-09-2002: Message edited by: MacLuv ]</p>
post #375 of 441
...

[ 12-09-2002: Message edited by: MacLuv ]</p>
post #376 of 441
[quote]Originally posted by MacLuv:
<strong>The arguments I've made stand valid within their original content.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Oh? They do? Here's an example for you to ponder: please explain again why you think IBM doesn't have the resources to compete with Intel. You've tried, and failed to make that argument. If you are so sure of your argument then please produce a single person who's been following this thread that agrees with you. You can't because your argument is not valid. Just because you've made an argument doesn't mean you've made a valid one.

You claim you've won the debate, right? Claiming something doesn't make it so. If twenty people think you've lost, and you think you've won, I think it's pretty clear you've lost. You're in denial. Not only does everyone here think you're wrong, they all seem to think you're an ass as well!

Because of their superior technology, huge financial resources and marketability, IBM has the resources to kick Intel's ass in the workstation and server markets if they go there agressively. And all indication is that they are.
post #377 of 441
[quote]Originally posted by tonton:
<strong>

Oh? They do? Here's an example for you to ponder: please explain again why you think IBM doesn't have the resources to compete with Intel.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Before I explain why I don't think IBM has the resources to compete with Intel, we must put the argument back into its original context--which is my opinion that putting a 970 in an Apple PC won't guarantee direct competition with *Wintel*. (of course, it may not be Apple's plan to compete, but that's another thread entirely). Since you've asked me to "elaborate" on this some 80 posts later, I'll do my best to explain my side to you.

A step by step guide, if you will.

1. Consider company fundamenals, as taken from Hoover's:

IBM

Big Blue? Try Huge Blue. International Business Machines (IBM) is the world's top provider of computer hardware. Among the leaders in almost every market in which it competes, the company makes desktop and notebook PCs, mainframe and servers, storage systems, and peripherals, among its thousands of products. The company's service arm is the largest in the world. IBM is also one of the largest providers of both software (ranking #2, behind Microsoft) and semiconductors. The company continues to use acquisitions to augment its software and service businesses, while streamlining its hardware operations with divestitures and organizational shifts.

Intel
Kingpin. Top dog. Leviathan. Intel. Any way you phrase it, Intel is by far the world's top semiconductor maker. Even though archrival AMD has eaten into its market share, and while some of its diversification efforts have stalled, Intel still makes several times as much from chips as do any of its rivals. Though best known for its Pentium and Celeron microprocessors -- about four-fifths of all new PCs have them -- Intel also makes flash memories (where it's also #1 globally) and embedded semiconductors for the communications and industrial equipment markets. Most computer makers use Intel processors; PC giant Dell is the company's largest customer.

2. Recognize the difference between both companies.

IBM is big. Sure. But as I recall, Amorph stated this interesting point:
[quote]
Originally posted by Amorph:
IBM is so vast that they have had identically named divisions selling different solutions to the same market, none of which were aware of the others' existence. <hr></blockquote>

Redundancy within a corporation that does not leverage itself defines *poor management*. This isn't to say IBMs management team isn't top notch, it just means they may be trapped within a behemoth bureaucracy that is blind to the cause. Often within an organization the size of IBM divisions lose focus within its own political system and as a result, situations like redundancy are ever-present.

Although the same could be said of Intel, the fact that they only have one goal--to make semiconductors and flash memory--put them above IBM for resource management in that the whole company is dedicated to one cause. This is probably the #1 reason Intel has been able to surpass all expectations of the x86 ISA (!-see, I used it).

Does IBM have the resources (money and staff) to compete with Intel? Maybe. Will it allocate enough to compete? Probably not. Most of IBMs research is specialized--becuase that's where their profit design lies. The 970, as a spinoff of the Power4, is simply another product to peddle to penetrate markets. I have not heard IBM say they will attempt to make the 970 an industry standard, nor have I heard them say how far they will push this chip. If anyone wishes to point out statements from the press, feel free. (*1* see note below*)

Intel, on the other hand, has almost *unlimited* resources to push the x86 further as it has already achieved critical mass. This means that no matter how far IBM tries to push the 970, Intel will be right behind waiting to take up the slack, if there is any. We have already witnessed this with the G3/G4. There's just not enough consumer market for this architechture to survive.

Now, before one says "hold on, IBM has unlimited resources as well because they're so big"--think again. The fact that IBM is so big means quite the opposite. Risk Management is essential for a company like IBM, whereas Intel can almost take all the risk it needs to--because x86 has achieved critical mass.

There's probably more questions this will bring up, but as you can see from the lengthy explanation, it was easier for me just to say: IBM doesn't have the resources. If I had been asked nicely to elaborate on this rather then get flamed I would have taken the time to do so in the first place.



[quote]<strong>
You've tried, and failed to make that argument. If you are so sure of your argument then please produce a single person who's been following this thread that agrees with you. You can't because your argument is not valid. Just because you've made an argument doesn't mean you've made a valid one.</strong><hr></blockquote>

1. I have not failed to make the argument. I may have, in your opinion, failed to produce the evidence neccessary to support my arguments--but that is objectionable. You need only ask me to elaborate. Otherwise I get cranky and strart getting sarcastic and use a lot of smilies.




2. Producing a single person that agrees with me would not validate my point, nor would it yours. Furthermore, just because no one has stepped forward to agree with me does not dismiss my opinions, make my arguments erronous, fallacious, or invalid.

[quote]<strong>
Because of their superior technology, huge financial resources and marketability, IBM has the resources to kick Intel's ass in the workstation and server markets if they go there agressively. And all indication is that they are.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I'm sorry, I thought this conversation was about Apple.

The point people are making is that the 970 will be agressively marketed. The server market is a relationship market--that is, deals are made by top-level decision makers, not the IT guys who think the technology is superior. All I mean by this is--there's more to the deal than the technology. Politics play an important role here. And although IBM is ready to play, so are its competitors. This isn't easy sailing for anyone.

Meanwhile, where does this leave Apple IMO? In the same place it is now--stuck between a rock and a hardplace. We're still losing high-end Apple users to faster machines on the PC side. Speed sells.



*1* -- I realize that IBM has been positioning this chip as a contender in the desktop arena, but it will take the right business relationships to make this venture profitable. Apple doesn't really offer IBM that much incentive as far as a market is concerned. As IBM is second behind Microsoft in software design, I now doubt the plausability of IBM slapping Aqua into any of its solutions. I also realize that IBM will use the Power4/970 in a great deal of its proprietary solutions, but that does not guarantee production to the scale of Intel/AMD.

--- I reserve the right to make mistakes. If there are any questions, please ask me nicely to elaborate. ---

[ 12-09-2002: Message edited by: MacLuv ]</p>
post #378 of 441
macluv, you don't forget to post the answer to the questions in my post do you? thx.

greets,krassy
go AAPL, go to $70 !!! © 2004
Reply
go AAPL, go to $70 !!! © 2004
Reply
post #379 of 441
Back to the topic of this thread, sort of
If the G5 is dead and the 970 is the only viable options for the next few years.

Can anyone tell how heat scale with core size and clock speed?
For the eMac and iMac a CPU load of 40W or even 2x 40W can be managed but for the 970 to migrate to the PB and iBook the heat has to be reduced.
post #380 of 441
[quote]Originally posted by DrBoar:
<strong>Back to the topic of this thread, sort of
If the G5 is dead and the 970 is the only viable options for the next few years.

Can anyone tell how heat scale with core size and clock speed?
For the eMac and iMac a CPU load of 40W or even 2x 40W can be managed but for the 970 to migrate to the PB and iBook the heat has to be reduced.</strong><hr></blockquote>
i heard the 970 will be:

19W @ 1.2Ghz and 42W @ 1.8Ghz

which means the 970 at 0.9µ will be &lt;19W @1.2Ghz which is ok for the Titanium.

[ 12-09-2002: Message edited by: Krassy ]</p>
go AAPL, go to $70 !!! © 2004
Reply
go AAPL, go to $70 !!! © 2004
Reply
post #381 of 441
Well, I was going to put this in another thread, but I'll post some considerations here since you've asked


[quote]Originally posted by Krassy:
<strong>
why is intel itself moving away from x86 if this ISA offers a better price-performance than other solutions? do we know how many years x86 will stay in the game before it will be replaced by itanium or other cpus? how is multiprocessing with intels P4 by the way? is it an easy task like with the 970? </strong><hr></blockquote>

Considerations about x86:


1. 4/5 of all PCs in the world use x86 ISA.
2. Legacy support for x86 ISA is a billion dollar business.
3. Because of legacy support and market size, x86 will be around for some time--it has achieved critical mass as an industry standard.
4. Intel will evolve and the x86 market will follow. AMDs Athlon 64 & Opteron are good indication of x86 investment.
5. Yes, the 970 was built for SMP in a desktop system, the P4 is not. There is much anticipation for an Opteron comparison to the 970, however. Intel is not the choice for Apple I am suggesting.

[quote]<strong>
ibm will build a new supercomputer with 120.000 Power5-processors for - ahem - big money i think they will put enough of it in R&D to reach their final mark of a 10 times faster system than todays fastest (see top 500-supercomputer-list</strong><hr></blockquote>

Considerations:

1. IBMs R&D will not necc. scale to the consumer market as quickly as Apple needs it to to keep up with AMD/Intel.

2. Apple has a longer product-cycle--consumer investment. If pro users needs a high-speed machine, they may opt out of Apple if x86 offers better speed performance.

[quote]<strong>
ok apples sales are not as good as we all like them to be - but if they try to compete with Wintel they won't win the game. instead they're doing the right thing to be 'different' ... the computing-experience is a reason for buying a mac - not the performance. x86 won't change this. and if the 970 will top todays</strong><hr></blockquote>

Considerations:

1. It may not be Apple's intention to compete with *Wintel*. This is something I will discuss later.

2. Apple does not sell a computing experience, it sells one a lifestyle choice. One may interpret that as a computing experience. Another may consider it a good choice that the Cube matches her new home office decor. Pro users, however, are being let down in the speed department, and the transition to OSX has been slow in the pro department. These high-end users are important to Apple, as the products they buy have the most profit margin.

3. The average consumer is aware of the current lack of speed in the Mac department.

4. I will have to present arguments/strategies for an x86 migration later, for they're too complicated to get into at 4AM.

I'll answer the rest of your stuff later... when I have more time--and more sleep!

Hope this helps, rebut at your leisure.

&lt;-- i wish i had the dancing banana guy here.


--- I reserve the right to make mistakes. If there are any questions, please ask me nicely to elaborate. ---

[ 12-09-2002: Message edited by: MacLuv ]</p>
post #382 of 441
My opinion. What we are currently seeing develop at IBM and Apple is the fruition of AIM's decision long ago to ensure 32bit/64bit compatibility. Original references to what has become the 970 can be found on the web as far back as 1998.

Few OS's handled 64 bit when this decision was made. Technology for 64bit low end servers and especially desktop computers couldn't be made at this time.

The single most important decision made by AIM was this compatibility. Intel, AMD and Sun are about to see the fruits of this. IBM is serious about the 970, it's potential uses range across the board for uses, even down to the high end embedded market Motorola so covets.

[quote]Originally posted by MacLuv:
<strong>



....By the time the 970 is ready to go to market, Intel will be so far ahead of the game Apple won't have a chance. .....

If Apple doesn't approach a standard platform to compete head-on with Microsoft it will show a blatant disregard for the needs of its customers.

:eek:
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Just exactly how do you know that when the 970 goes to market Intel will be so far ahead. Have you seen the 970 perform Photoshop, 3-D rendering, database manipulation??? For that matter have you seen Intel's future processors perform these tasks.

"blatant disregard for the needs of its customers." A blatant disregard for its customers at this time would be switch to X86, the loss of software compatibility would be devastating. Apple apparently is maintaining an X86 build of Darwin, who knows why, I don't, but I'd bet Apple has valid reasons.

X86 ISA will die, when is anyone's guess, but for Apple to switch to an aging ISA that even Intel broke compatibility with in their 64 bit cpu's(emulation only) offers me proof that Apple shouldn't pursue this ISA.

Get over it. Apple won't be using X86. Future ISA's, possibly, in my lifetime who knows?
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
Reply
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
Reply
post #383 of 441
[quote]Originally posted by xype:
<strong>

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.</strong><hr></blockquote>

There are a lot of posts here making educated guesses as to the direction of the "low end" server market and Apples place in it. I think that a lot of these posts are good, Xype's among them. To add my 2 cents to this, I dont think that Apple is moving in a direction that will conflict much with IBM. Given Apples aquisitions in the past 18 months, I think that we can see a clear picture of Apples server intentions- Animation and Film, where the need for multiple servers linked together to crunch large amounts of data for rendering. This is a nitch market that Apple could do pretty well, better still if they devised a "blade" rack mount, or moved to 4+ processors. It is a market that will pay off for Apple becouse they can sell a whole rack full of servers, instead of one server and a bunch of disks for that server. Some of the "rumoured" future features of OS X work well here as well, like built in clustering. FTP over Firewire might help out as well, linking the servers together over a 50-micron mulitmode glass optical fiber for transfers up to 3.2Gbit/sec, which beats the current ethernet transfer speeds (I'm not sure how this will scale in the next 12-18 months, but FW 2 is due out within that time frame). This could make a pretty powerfull render farm, or a clustered computer for any other task. I'm sure that people at Apple have thought of this, especially with their aquisition of Shake. Most of the technology exists, or will be out soon, and will only take a bit of R&D to add the functions to OS X. The only problem they have right now is the G4, which could be solved with the release and adoption of the 970.
post #384 of 441
[quote]Originally posted by @homenow:
<strong>Given Apples aquisitions in the past 18 months, I think that we can see a clear picture of Apples server intentions- Animation and Film, where the need for multiple servers linked together to crunch large amounts of data for rendering.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Exactly. Do you remember when Jobs met with Hollywood animators and film companies and asked them, "what would it take for you to switch to Apple?" I think we know exactly the answer, and the current push in that direction with faster pro workstations, with a 970, and the xServe are the answer.
...we have assumed control
Reply
...we have assumed control
Reply
post #385 of 441
One of the reasons it seems like Apple & IBM can coexist in the Xserve's market is that the main value of buying IBM Servers has always been in the service contract. Sure the hardware is important, but the main focus at that level from IBM is making sure the customer is happy. Having a full time IBM fellow come set up a desk next to the pile of IBM's you got is amazingly reassuring. (Even if all he does is full mother/daughter board swaps for every error

IBM wouldn't have to stretch at all to add Darwin to the list of OSes that they are willing to tend and provide as a service. And the tools for the Xserve... are better.

Even the Mac-on-Linux threads are interesting in this regard - IBM has an initiative to offer Linux on everything up to and including mainframes.
post #386 of 441
[quote]Originally posted by MacLuv:
<strong>

. . . Does IBM have the resources (money and staff) to compete with Intel? Maybe. Will it allocate enough to compete? Probably not. Most of IBMs research is specialized--becuase that's where their profit design lies. The 970, as a spinoff of the Power4, is simply another product to peddle to penetrate markets. I have not heard IBM say they will attempt to make the 970 an industry standard, nor have I heard them say how far they will push this chip. . .

</strong><hr></blockquote>

So, at last I see where you are coming from. You believe IBM is not sufficiently motivated to commit enough resources to the 970 family, right? Well if this is indeed true, than you have a very good point about going with the x86, because the PPC desktop chips would always lag behind. It has been true to some extent as long as the x86 was no threat to IBM's bread and butter, its server line. But my how times are changing.

An increasing threat to IBM server business is Linux running on x86 processors, and IBM knows it. Within three years, this type of server will make significant inroads in markets that use big servers now. IBM could market their own x86 Linux server to match the competition, but they would be competing head to head with Dell and HP. There would be little or nothing to differentiate an IBM Linux server from any other low cost PC server. IBM needs to give customers a reason to run Linux on an IBM server with an IBM processor. They need the best processor in this class, and they are out to get it. The 970 is just their first attempt to marry top performance and economy. So things do change. Yesterday's business plans are not what drives a successful company.

If anyone wants to believe that IBM is asleep at the switch, is making the 970 just to sell to Apple and a few others, and is not concerned about the threat of low cost PC servers, dream on.

[ 12-09-2002: Message edited by: snoopy ]</p>
post #387 of 441
[quote]Originally posted by snoopy:
<strong>

If anyone wants to believe that IBM is asleep at the switch, is only doing the 970 to sell some chips to Apple and other such customers, and is not concerned about the threat of low cost PC servers, dream on.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I agree Snoopy, I'm sure that IBM knows that the desktop is encroaching on thier server market, and to combat this they need a lower cost solution than the Power 4 to compete. Going with a non-Intel processor allows them to keep more of the profits in house, or to market them at a more competative price, possibly even a loss (on the processor) to establish a brand recognition for their platform. The 970 by all accounts is a powerfull chip, and it has the potential of bridging the gap that has formed between the PowerPC and the x86 processor lines, with a "rapid move" to the 0.09 process, this gap should close even more, possibly by the end of 03. IBM has made some large investments in Linex over the past year, I doubt that those were made without a solid plan toward their server market, particularly on the PowerPC platform, again becouse they can keep more of the profits from the systems in house. They could also license the mother board design to other companies, thus increasing their profits from the chips, and increasing the total market share ofthe PowerPC computer platform, which in turn will bring more development dollars to the platform, which will help sell more computers based on that platform, and so on.....Bottom line, IBM has a lot to gain in a successfull Power PC platform.
post #388 of 441
Snoopy. Excellent post. Single handedly destroyed most of Macluv's posts in a relatively succinct paragraph.

Though, I have to give Macluv some credit for keeping going in the face of overwhelming odds. (ie I think the only part of his body still working in this boxing match has to be his mouth gurgling from the canvas floor as the rest of the Appleinsider board weighed in beat the beejeezus out of him ! ) Kinda reminded me of JD in early days...

Some of what Macluv is intimating is not without some merit.

For Apple, IBM have seemed (and Matsu has often argued this...) very disinterest or laid back in advancing the PPC cause. Why would IBM suddenly be Apple's saviour? Those IBM billions haven't appeared to do much for Apple so far in the face of the x86 mhz cat fight between amd/intel.

Common enemy. Intel Linux workstation/server erosion. Dell box United. Itanics 1 and 2 and making a fair showing in benches against the Power 4.

A reason for IBM to be duly concerned: ie send a few alarm bells ringing. Intel after IBM's coveted Server and Services Crown? Shock, horror? Gee, does this mean IBM actually have to set aside some of their PPC/x86 ambiguity? What? Get off their backside and actually make a decent server/desktop PPC processor that can attract the ant hordes of Linux? Investing in Linux? In Unix? Surprise. When you're about to lose your lunch, it can be motivating.

Reducing the Power4/5/6 R&D bill? If it serves Apple's interests as well. All the better. If Apple take off the load and help design the bus as well for the desktop side of things. IBM has a partner in crime. The old enemy is the new friend. Strange times.

I hear what Macluv is saying in some respects, but this time, it's different. It's all right when there are ants in Apple's cupboard. But when those ants are in IBM's cupboard too? Dey gonna get off ass and do something about it.

Will the 970 coincide with the frequent skirmish like updates 'tween amd and intel? Maybe not.

But you can guarantee that every six/9 months or so, the Power line 'light' line will deliver one hell of an update! Crashing in with a 'wow', less frequently than 'x86' but, hey, it one splash, we've got a CPU line that can land with a big splash when it does arrive. When it lands. And how. Macluv may not like the idea of Apple's cpu line hanging on the coat tails of Power R$D. However, in the face of struggling Moto' G4 development, a company, like AMD, bleeding money...if you'd have offered that to Apple watchers a year ago. We'd or rather, 'I' would have taken it.

Power 4 GPUL? Yes please. Power 5 derived GPUL? Yes please. Die shrunk and in a Powerbook? YES PLEASE.

I think that's pretty good from a formerly 'disinterested' PPC partner. And IBM are only getting warmed up by whisphered accounts.

The Macluv x86 question. Unlike some posters on this board. I can't discount some form of 'x86' strategy comeing from Apple. I don't think it will be 'Itanic'. It 'COULD' be 'Clawhammer'.

Some businesses have intimated they won't touch Apple (970 or not - though they may change their minds when they see it in an X-serve/Grid...) without 'x86' being in there. I still find it staggering that Apple can 'ignore' 95% of the market. Sure, the 'switch' campaign hints that some of that 'attitude' maybe changing. Relations between Dell and Apple are on the thaw as Dell shifts, shock, Apple iPods...

Apple ARE on the hypertransport panel. Apple are making servers now. Proper ones.

Several big business 'server' style contracts could certainly boost Apple's bottom line, I wouldn't rule out a dual PPC/Clawhammer m/board strategy. They get their security blanket. Try out cheap PPC X-serve licensing. Apple gets big sales. Sure, they sleep with the 'x86' enemy. But they get a PPC sale too. Half of something is better than nothing. How would they do a 'x86' machine?

Well, I think every argument in the book has been done to death on these boards. But a VPC style 'classic' x86 mode? Or a licenses M$ x86 board in the same PPC box? A 'clawhammer' grafted onto the same PPC m'board? Endian issues? But Apple moving their whole line of CPUs to AMD? Nope. Not to a company bleeding to death. Not when Apple have just transitioned from 9 to 10! M$ may try to put the squeeze on AMD if they try it... Mind you, the DoJ is watching them closely this time. I wouldn't rule out a motherboard/cpu level of involvement somewhere. But not as a 'main' or 'sole' strategy. Too risky. But as part of an Apple strategy to grab some of that 'x86' server/business market to pad out the bottom line? Who knows. And would Dell sell an Apple dual boot machine? I dunno. iPod on x86 is with us. Think Different.

Whatever the answer. Knowing Apple: a. They won't lose control of the hardware bus' and b. it will be uniquely brilliant. We can argue whether IBM or Intel has more billions. But IBM is a player and look uniquely placed to 'dream team' the Apple.

Lemon Bon Bon :cool:

Another thought. An enterprise Apple might have been laughable a few years ago.

But now? Surprise. Apple 'business' winning a few fans.

An Apple 'Clawhammer' 'X86' version of X-serve or at least an x86 compatability layer? Fill it with Clawhammers?

Maybe more business folks would bite. Politics we have on 'insider boards. But Apple have shown they would stick Bill Gates on a Macworld giant screen if it served the ultimated good. Apple dollars.

'X86' is going to be a relic in the next few years. An end of an era. Sure. We'll have legacy. But with Itanic and Clawhammer? Going forwards...?

What strategy would Apple be serving up to catch onto this next wave? (The 'after x86' wave...) This kind of opportunity won't be coming again for another 7 years as a rough guess.

Apple would be foolish to let politics get in the way of billions in profits.

And on that level, Macluv's argument has plenty of merit. <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />

[ 12-09-2002: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]</p>
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
post #389 of 441
I keep seeing references to IBM potentially competing with Intel, whether or not IBM is committed to the 970 and how ultimately, a 970 based Xserve from Apple could find itself toe to toe against 970 solutions from IBM.

We have to keep in mind that IBM competes in so many markets to so many degrees, it is hard to make clean comparisons of the company to its peers let along evaluate it comprehensively enough to tell if it has any.

If we're talking AIX(Unix) on an IBM homegrown processor (Power4) does that make the competitor Sun (Solaris/Spark). Then what would happen if Sun released (Solaris/Xeon) and IBM (AIX/Xeon). Is IBM competing with Intel when you look at their Xeon solutions running Linux or are they competing with all the other Xeon OEMs or are they competing with themselves.

Honestly, it is always difficult to tell, but I think it's very revealing to consider IBM in the Xeon market. Typically, IBM differentiates it's products, based on memory/chipset (very cost sensitive), OS, support/configuration. Hence the reason why an IBM Xeon solution can run substantially higher than one from say HP.

Obviously, Apple's highend is nothing compared to IBM's highend. Thus, IBM more than likely would not see Apple being a direct competitor as I'm sure it doesn't see itself when it comes to selling Xeon products vs. Power4. Why, because for IBM Xeon and .NET be bottom of the barrel and Power4/5 and anything else is the promised land [a little bias is good =)].

Consider that while highend servers and workstations from Apple based on the 970 might come no where close to the midrange 970 offerings of Big Blue, for Apple's core customer (education,media, medical, engineering, chemistry) and so forth a proper 970 solution from Big Blue would be overkill and overspending where the value added by Apple's bundling of it's software, system tweaks and experience in those perspective fields would be invaluable and exponential.
post #390 of 441
As for businesses saying "we only take what has x86 inside, coz that's the standard" - those are companies where uberpotent managers make decisions because they feel like having to prove stuff. The "serious" customers, where engineers decide what the best tool for the job is will jump on anything that they feel is good and has value. If 970 and OSX is "a desktop frienly unix-like OS on a powerful 64bit CPU" they will go for that, reglardless of the price.

OSX on x86 would be a complete waste.
oy!
Reply
oy!
Reply
post #391 of 441
One other thing.

I just noticed a "Why IBM and why now?". Please keep in mind that while Apple, IBM and Motorola developed the Power PC and Book E architectures, they all participated for their own reasons.

Motorola and IBM both were vehemently at odds over Altivec (Mot. for, IBM against). While they all agreed on core funtionality and design philosophies if you will, they could not have been farther apart on implementation. Obviously we saw the reasons why too. IBM's G3 scaled like crazy and Motorola's G4 didn't scale at all. All the while many in the industry hold that the only difference between the G3 and G4 is SIMD (Altivec) as otherwise performance is comparable. However, please don't forget that Motorola didn't know they wouldn't be able to get the G4 to scale until they tried.

By then, Apple was already on board and in bed with Mot. due to Altivec and it's clear advantages in regards to multimedia. Why would any of us think that multimedia is important by any means to IBM. I would guess that not long after the G4 "Supercomputer" commercials and just before the rest of us figured it out, Apple saw how hard a time Mot. was having keeping to it's own guidance re: the development of the G4 platform.

Not long after that, they were looking to implement IBM G3s in the low end, but couldn't use the best, because Big Blue's G3's were as fast if not faster than the G4's from Mot. MHz wise.

As for why now, we have to keep looking at where IBM has spoken of the 970: Low end server and desktop (presumeably workstation). Itanium & McKinley are not a good comparisons because they are not designed for the desktop. They are server chips period.

Why now, because the biggest baddest desktop processors for 2003 are to be from IBM/Apple (970) and our good friends at AMD (Hammer family) both 64bit processors. Of course Intel will be there with an ever faster Pentium IV oddly still a 32bit processor.

Why now, IBM and AMD have an opportunity to get into the 64bit desktop market perhaps 2+ years before Intel. They are going to get into that market and they are going to dig in and Intel will have the difficult task of trying to storm the beach after the enemy has already dug in.

That's why!

[ 12-09-2002: Message edited by: ArkAngel ]</p>
post #392 of 441
One more thing ArkAngel, right now is probably the best time since the introduction of OS 2 for IBM to take on the Microsoft/Inter jogernaut. The "market" is not pleased with the licensing that Microsoft is placing on their customers. The opensource community is getting more respect from buisness with the populariaty of Linex. Apple has produced arguably the best Unix "flavor" with OS X and the Aqua GUI. IBM has a relatively small window of opportunity to make some large waves right now. The 970 "server on the desktop" chip is a move in the right direcition.
post #393 of 441
thx for the fast answer, macluv.

[quote]Originally posted by MacLuv:
<strong>
1. It may not be Apple's intention to compete with *Wintel*. This is something I will discuss later.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
please do so ...
[quote]<strong>
2. Apple does not sell a computing experience, it sells one a lifestyle choice. One may interpret that as a computing experience. Another may consider it a good choice that the Cube matches her new home office decor. Pro users, however, are being let down in the speed department, and the transition to OSX has been slow in the pro department. These high-end users are important to Apple, as the products they buy have the most profit margin.
</strong>
<hr></blockquote>
i agree with this comment. i'm in for a new PowerMac next year. but i don't have the feeling that my currently G4/400 is so much slower than a Athlon 1Ghz of a friend. (ok the graphics card is but this is another point). when i see the SPEC-marks for the 1Ghz G4 and the SPEC-marks of the 1Ghz Athlon the G4 must be slower??? but it isn't ... now we have a PPC which shows up with SPEC scores up to 5 times higher than a 1Ghz G4... i think this will be enough for me to buy because i'll buy a new PowerMac after 3 years which is 4-5 times faster overall than my G4/400 is now (and if there will be dual 970s perhaps up to 6 times faster). in the same timeframe my friend could get an athlon 2.8+ or an athlon 64.... i think this is ok and i think i don't be worried that the athlon64 could be faster... and if so - i don't care - i'll have enough processing power and can use all my older apps and have a mac look&feel and i have unix with apache, php, perl, bind, sendmail and all this stuff - and up to it i can use my favourite emagic logic audio platinum.... this will be heaven on a 970-based mac os x machine...

[quote]
<strong>
3. The average consumer is aware of the current lack of speed in the Mac department.
4. I will have to present arguments/strategies for an x86 migration later, for they're too complicated to get into at 4AM.
</strong>
<hr></blockquote>
this have to be interesting thoughts i'm going to hear about the migration i think. and i know many people who want to get a mac but it is too expensive - not too slow! please take care to add a strategy for cutting costs for new apple products to your migration plan.
[quote]
<strong>
I'll answer the rest of your stuff later... when I have more time--and more sleep!
Hope this helps, rebut at your leisure.

&lt;-- i wish i had the dancing banana guy here.
--- I reserve the right to make mistakes. If there are any questions, please ask me nicely to elaborate. ---
</strong>
<hr></blockquote>
"no problem gangsta" no i'm not having fun doing mistake-picking....

[quote]By ArkAngel:
<strong>
Motorola and IBM both were vehemently at odds over Altivec (Mot. for, IBM against). While they all agreed on core funtionality and design philosophies if you will, they could not have been farther apart on implementation. Obviously we saw the reasons why too. IBM's G3 scaled like crazy and Motorola's G4 didn't scale at all. However, please don't forget that Motorola didn't know they wouldn't be able to get the G4 to scale until they tried.
</strong>
<hr></blockquote>
i thought the G4 is at 1.2Ghz - where is the G3? i heard i should reach 1Ghz and nothing more before we can await it's successor (not the 970 - so i think there will be another cpu from IBM next year which shoul be placed between the G4 and the 970 performance-wise)

ok people... keep up the nice debates this is fun :cool:

[ 12-09-2002: Message edited by: Krassy ]</p>
go AAPL, go to $70 !!! © 2004
Reply
go AAPL, go to $70 !!! © 2004
Reply
post #394 of 441
[quote] Intel, on the other hand, has almost *unlimited* resources to push the x86 further as it has already achieved critical mass. <hr></blockquote>

They can't defy the laws of physics or chip design. Their clock speed push at the exclusion of much else could easily be their undoing. If they "push" in what turns out to be the wrong direction, they lose regardless of what money and resources they have to invest. Choosing not to go the 64 bit desktop route could be a mistake as well.
post #395 of 441
[quote]Originally posted by Krassy:
<strong>thx for the fast answer, macluv.
i thought the G4 is at 1.2Ghz - where is the G3? i heard it should reach 1Ghz and nothing more before we can await it's successor
</strong><hr></blockquote>

I could be wrong, but I think a 1GHz G3 is currently in IBM's price list, and has been for awhile. Let's see, 4 stage pipeline @ 1GHz.

Shirley, IBM's next generation 32bit processor will have extended the pipelines, added VMX, very possibly added multiple cores and be SMP capable.(all currently on its' roadmap exept longer pipelines). Think &gt;2GHz and speed lots and lots of speed. Got to make something other than the 970 in their new plant in Intelkill, er um, I mean Fishkill.

Question is when??????
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
Reply
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
Reply
post #396 of 441
[quote]Originally posted by nebcon65:
<strong>They can't defy the laws of physics or chip design. Their clock speed push at the exclusion of much else could easily be their undoing.</strong><hr></blockquote>

They can still sell their CPUs as kitchen appliances for baking ham and eggs.
oy!
Reply
oy!
Reply
post #397 of 441
[quote]Originally posted by rickag:
<strong>
....
Shirley, IBM's next generation 32bit processor will have extended the pipelines, added VMX, very possibly added multiple cores and be SMP capable.(all currently on its' roadmap exept longer pipelines). Think &gt;2GHz and speed lots and lots of speed. Got to make something other than the 970 in their new plant in Intelkill, er um, I mean Fishkill.

Question is when??????</strong><hr></blockquote>

Don't call me Shirley

<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
I heard that geeks are a dime a dozen, I just want to find out who's been passin' out the dimes
----- Fred Blassie 1964
Reply
I heard that geeks are a dime a dozen, I just want to find out who's been passin' out the dimes
----- Fred Blassie 1964
Reply
post #398 of 441
:confused:

Need input--open question:

If you are pushing the 970, where do you see the 970 within the consumer market within the next 15 years?

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

[ 12-09-2002: Message edited by: MacLuv ]</p>
post #399 of 441
[quote]Originally posted by MacLuv:
<strong>Does IBM have the resources (money and staff) to compete with Intel? Maybe. Will it allocate enough to compete? Probably not. Most of IBMs research is specialized--becuase that's where their profit design lies. The 970, as a spinoff of the Power4, is simply another product to peddle to penetrate markets. I have not heard IBM say they will attempt to make the 970 an industry standard, nor have I heard them say how far they will push this chip. If anyone wishes to point out statements from the press, feel free. (*1* see note below*)</strong><hr></blockquote>

I ask again: Please explain again why you think IBM doesn't havbe the resources to compete with Intel.

You did not answer the question. Your "explanation" was that you didn't think IBM would devote the resources to compete with Intel. So you admit that they have the resources.

Look again at Snoopy's excellent post. I believe he has expressed very clearly the position most of us hold that IBM at this point would be foolish not to compete directly, and aggressively, with Intel/AMD in the mid-range server market, a market that, though not their only source of income, still generates billions in revenues. Of course, if you were the IBM CEO, you'd just drop the mid-range server line, right?

The fact that IBM had developed the PPC 970 specifically for this market should indicate their intentions.

And now we get back to Apple.

IBM has a 64-bit desktop chip that looks likely to surpass the specs of the AMD Hammers, with a comparitively low (less than half) energy usage (a point very important to Apple), excellent MP capabilities (also a point very important to Apple), excellent scalability (Apple won't make the same mistake twice), and likely lower price. Meanwhile Intel is still lagging with the behemoth PIV gas guzzler that can melt steel. Not to mention that the MAC OS is built on the PPC ISA, and programs would require more than a simple recompile to run over Darwin on the Hammer.

Apple has been having trouble with Motorola and the G4 fiasco. The rumor is that Moto have dropped G5 development (and we have every reason to believe that even if they haven't, we may not be able to rely on them to continue aggressive development in the future).

Despite the poor economy, Apple have maintained their market share and maintained profitability while every hardware manufacturer except Dell have been losing big time. All Apple needs is to regain the performance edge, and marketshare will leap forward. People want Macs. So many people are waiting for the killer Mac to be released, the one that eliminates the progress bar in Photoshop or the lag-time in Illustrator or the render time in FCP, that when it finally is, sales will shoot through the roof. That will create momentum and press coverage.

Meanwhile, people all across the globe want more than anything to get rid of Microsoft. Apple seems to be their best corporate solution to do so, if there is ever enough incentive to convince corporate conservatives and ignorant Mom and Pops to make the switch.

All in all, it looks to be a great situation for Apple within a year or two, thanks to the 970. Without it, Apple would have to stick with Moto, awho have already shown that they either don't give a damn about improving the platform, or are simply unable to do so, or go to the Hammer, an option which reduces the effect of the very market segmentation which kept them afloat during the IT collapse.

MacLuv seems to believe whole heartedly that Apple has already lost their market viability and it's time to throw in the towel, discard their market niche and go head to head with Microsoft. This would be suicide, and would be enough to finally convince me, who held out as a stalwart through the Amelio years, that Apple was doomed.

The day Apple announces a switch to x86 is the day I build a Windows or Linux box and hope for OS X emulation. I'm sure there are a lot of others who feel the same way. That can't bode well for Apple's hardware sales if the "faithful" start switching. Their only option then would be to drop the hardware business altogether and license the Mac OS. With the hardware compatibility nightmare that would be caused by such a move, I certainly wouldn't want to hold any stock in viability of that option.
post #400 of 441
[quote]Originally posted by tonton:
<strong>I ask again: Please explain again why you think IBM doesn't havbe the resources to compete with Intel.

You did not answer the question. Your "explanation" was that you didn't think IBM would devote the resources to compete with Intel. So you admit that they have the resources.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Tonton, you're splitting hairs with me. Please, just stick to the topic.

Your approach to debate reminds me of one of my favorite Simpson's episodes, where Lisa decides to become a vegetarian. After announcing her views, Lisa is taunted on the playground:

Janey: Are you going to marry a carrot, Lisa?
Lisa: Hph... yeess, I'm going to marry a carrot.
Janey: Huh! She admitted it, she admitted she was gonna marry a carrot!


Yes tonton, I'm going to marry a carrot.



[ 12-09-2002: Message edited by: MacLuv ]</p>
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Finally an interesting G5 story