or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Will Apple move to the POWER 5 instead of PPC?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Will Apple move to the POWER 5 instead of PPC? - Page 3

post #81 of 122
Quote:
Originally posted by Tidris
So, by my way of thinking, a POWER4/POWER5 Mac is very feasible because all it takes is porting OSX to any of the fine IBM POWER5 boxes. All Apple has to do is refrain from suing whoever is doing the porting .

Right, so you go ahead and port it then. I'll just wait over here.
"Spec" is short for "specification" not "speculation".
Reply
"Spec" is short for "specification" not "speculation".
Reply
post #82 of 122
Quote:
Originally posted by Programmer
Normally I post here freely because I don't know anything about Apple's plans either.

Well IBM has just spilled the beans about the next gen cpu in the PPC970 family. Apple will use it, its coming in 2005 and it supports partitioning.

Doesn't seem like there's much left for your NDA to cover anymore, now does it?

C|Net story
"Spec" is short for "specification" not "speculation".
Reply
"Spec" is short for "specification" not "speculation".
Reply
post #83 of 122
Quote:
Originally posted by wizard69
Now IBM has indicated that they are moving Hypervisor support or something similar into one of the next PPC chips.

Really? Got a link for that?
"Spec" is short for "specification" not "speculation".
Reply
"Spec" is short for "specification" not "speculation".
Reply
post #84 of 122
Quote:
Originally posted by wizard69
Niether do I so post away I will!

Lots of news coming out lately. Now IBM has indicated that they are moving Hypervisor support or something similar into one of the next PPC chips. If SMT support is there also then I'd have to say it is pretty clear that the next or 2nd to the next PPC is in fact derived from Power5.

Now the question is how soon can Apple and IBM actually deliver working systems? I'm still thinking that something this big will probally wait for WWDC though a big boost at MWSF would be nice.

Dave


How long ago did you hear this, and wouldn't this take like a year of development?
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #85 of 122
Quote:
Originally posted by Tomb of the Unknown
Well IBM has just spilled the beans about the next gen cpu in the PPC970 family. Apple will use it, its coming in 2005 and it supports partitioning.

Doesn't seem like there's much left for your NDA to cover anymore, now does it?

Sorry, what I can't talk about is nothing to do with that article or Apple. It'll be a couple months yet before this is public.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #86 of 122
Quote:
Originally posted by Programmer
Sorry, what I can't talk about is nothing to do with that article or Apple. It'll be a couple months yet before this is public.

As you state it, it looks like this is of no interest here.
post #87 of 122
The cnet article states that Apple plans to use the chip with the virtualization feature, but would Apple use this feature? What advantage would it offer Apple?

I guess a machine could run more than one instance of OS X, but it's unclear to me how this ability would be valuable.
post #88 of 122
Quote:
Originally posted by h228
What advantage would it offer Apple?

I see zero advantage for the desktop machines. However, this feature could be valuable in a server (XServe?) environment.
post #89 of 122
Quote:
Originally posted by PB
I see zero advantage for the desktop machines.

What about as a replacement for Virtual PC?

Let's see, we have a Mac that can run Unix and MacOS right now. In the future we'll have a Mac that can run Unix, MacOS, and Windows (personally I don''t want to run Windows).
post #90 of 122
Quote:
Originally posted by Leonard
What about as a replacement for Virtual PC?

I am not sure if running natively Windows in Mac desktops is a good thing for the platfrom.
post #91 of 122
Somehow I doubt this "partitioning" would allow software built for other architectures. More along the lines of two simultaneous OSes built to run on PPC hardware.

Being able to run Windows natively is about as bad of an idea as Apple shipping a two-button mouse.
post #92 of 122
Quote:
Originally posted by Programmer
Sorry, what I can't talk about is nothing to do with that article or Apple. It'll be a couple months yet before this is public.

It must be "cell" related then.
"Spec" is short for "specification" not "speculation".
Reply
"Spec" is short for "specification" not "speculation".
Reply
post #93 of 122
Quote:
Originally posted by h228
The cnet article states that Apple plans to use the chip with the virtualization feature, but would Apple use this feature? What advantage would it offer Apple?

The virtualization feature or partitioning is what I'm refering to when I mentioned Hypervisor support. Would Apple use it, that I'm not sure about but would have to say that support for it would likely be a ways off.

The advantages to Apple would be significant if they want to exploit the technology. Things like running a instance of Linux that doesn't interfer with MAC/OS or having management access to a server outside of the OS. Not to mention having multiple instances of the OS itself running, which would be significant to developers and people running servers.

Will Apple use it. Very possibly maybe in ways we don't expect.
Quote:

I guess a machine could run more than one instance of OS X, but it's unclear to me how this ability would be valuable.

It would be very valuable for servers. If you look at the work that goes into things like this on Linux or the good $$$$$ that VMWare gets for its software you will see there is a demand. The question in my mind is can Apple find a way to make use of this technology in a novel way woth MAC/OS so that all users benefit.
post #94 of 122
Quote:
Originally posted by Tomb of the Unknown
Right, so you go ahead and port it then. I'll just wait over here.

Nah. I would be surprised if IBM hasn't already ported Darwin to POWER5 hardware. Once you have done that, the rest is a matter of inserting a standard OSX DVD in the drive and finishing the installation. Then reboot and off you go running all the standard OSX PPC software.
post #95 of 122
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by wizard69
The virtualization feature or partitioning is what I'm refering to when I mentioned Hypervisor support. Would Apple use it, that I'm not sure about but would have to say that support for it would likely be a ways off.

The advantages to Apple would be significant if they want to exploit the technology. Things like running a instance of Linux that doesn't interfer with MAC/OS or having management access to a server outside of the OS. Not to mention having multiple instances of the OS itself running, which would be significant to developers and people running servers.

Will Apple use it. Very possibly maybe in ways we don't expect.


It would be very valuable for servers. If you look at the work that goes into things like this on Linux or the good $$$$$ that VMWare gets for its software you will see there is a demand. The question in my mind is can Apple find a way to make use of this technology in a novel way woth MAC/OS so that all users benefit.

IBM may want to put MacOS Server on their POWER server line as well as push Apple servers to their customers. Well push may be strong. IBM makes the real money on the service contracts that they sell to their customers. Making the servers just helps get them in the door for the real money. So I can see how IBM would want to sell Apple servers, which would not be confused with computers, servers only.
Please consider throwing extra cycles at better understanding Alzheimer's, Mad Cow (CJD), ALS, and Parkinson's disease go here <a href="http://folding.stanford.edu/" target="_blank">http://folding....
Reply
Please consider throwing extra cycles at better understanding Alzheimer's, Mad Cow (CJD), ALS, and Parkinson's disease go here <a href="http://folding.stanford.edu/" target="_blank">http://folding....
Reply
post #96 of 122
Incidentally a fairly strict "Macintosh news" site MacCentral has taken this discussion for a ride TWICE in the past two days.
It appears they are very interested in where this heading suddenly.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #97 of 122
These publications certainly reenforce our discussions in these forums.

I'm grateful for the contributions everyone has made to this community.

Looks like we're going to have a very cool Christmas 2006

Merry Christmas!
post #98 of 122
Quote:
Originally posted by Brendon
IBM may want to put MacOS Server on their POWER server line as well as push Apple servers to their customers. Well push may be strong. IBM makes the real money on the service contracts that they sell to their customers. Making the servers just helps get them in the door for the real money. So I can see how IBM would want to sell Apple servers, which would not be confused with computers, servers only.

In a perfect World for Mac users, IBM and Apple would partner to offer OSX server on all IBM iron. That's in addition to OSX biz edition on desktops for the enterprise. The licensing fees from IBM's enterprise accounts alone would dwarf iPod profits.

Now about the benefits of being able to run multiple OSes on the platform.

Wizard69 asks a good question: "can Apple find a way to make use of this technology in a novel way woth MAC/OS so that all users benefit."

While an indirect benefit, developers (developers, developers, developers...) will find this very useful (especially Xbox developers) to create new programs for the platform. This will benefit all users.

New classes of programs may be able to leverage this ability into increased performance by running a stripped down OS directly under their programs for better response.

I seem to recall that Doom loaded it's own environment to run under on the Windows platform, thereby increasing performance on underpowered (by today's standard) Wintel boxes.

Putting these capabilities in the hands of developers can't hurt.
OSX + Duals, Quads & Octos = World Domination
Reply
OSX + Duals, Quads & Octos = World Domination
Reply
post #99 of 122
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Aphelion
In a perfect World for Mac users, IBM and Apple would partner to offer OSX server on all IBM iron. That's in addition to OSX biz edition on desktops for the enterprise. The licensing fees from IBM's enterprise accounts alone would dwarf iPod profits.

I don't think that big iron is threatened. But entry level servers and small server applications may be that nitch. And IBM still gets the service contract on all of these sales. What is in this for Apple? Maybe delivering on the promise of expanding the market. I don't think that Apples enterprise sales group is ready to out sell IBM in the enterprise market. With IBM backing the apple servers, now that may turn some heads, and I'm sure that IBM wants to get into the larger volume markets at the low end.
Please consider throwing extra cycles at better understanding Alzheimer's, Mad Cow (CJD), ALS, and Parkinson's disease go here <a href="http://folding.stanford.edu/" target="_blank">http://folding....
Reply
Please consider throwing extra cycles at better understanding Alzheimer's, Mad Cow (CJD), ALS, and Parkinson's disease go here <a href="http://folding.stanford.edu/" target="_blank">http://folding....
Reply
post #100 of 122
One consumer possibility that comes to mind from this discussion would be for Apple to develop a computer that will A) Boot up as a normal OS X computer OR B) Instantly boot up as an entertainment server box for the home.

OS X would continue to have all of its wonderful creative functions, but the additional OS would offer a dead-simple interface for shuttling content to various devices around the home.

While this would certainly under-utilize this incredible technology; it would create a dual-purpose box that could be highly marketable.

Just a thought...
post #101 of 122
Quote:
Originally posted by Brendon
I don't think that big iron is threatened... I don't think that Apples enterprise sales group is ready to out sell IBM in the enterprise market...

Brendon, I'm talking about a partnership, not a competition for sales. Apple would continue to offer Xserves and possibly offer a blade server for use in IBM's blade center chassis, Which by the way, IBM has recently offered as an "open" spec for third parties to build on.

IBM would simply offer OSX along with AIX, Linux, and (ugh!) Windows as a supported option on their "iron" both large and small. The first thing this would do is break IBM's dependance on Windows for customers who must have Microsoft Office on their desktops.

Apple has been reluctant to offer a business class box (headless Mac) so they should just let IBM do it. IBM could build a PowerPC desktop for enterprise accounts (sold by the pallet only) that could take Apple into accounts that they would never be able to crack with iMacs.

IBM would be able to sell all of Apple's gear as well, as an approved Apple vendor. Powerbooks would be HOT in this environment.

I see this type of partnering as a "Win" for both Apple and IBM. IBM gets to offer what is the best OS on the market, not to mention the gravy of support contracts for the same, while Apple gets instant and total legitimacy in the enterprise market. This is something it will never get as a "sole source" supplier. Apple sales into businesses large and small would skyrocket as a result of this partnership.

Let me repeat, in my estimation Apple profits from this licensing of OSX into the enterprise would quickly outstrip profits from the iPod's remarkable popularity.
OSX + Duals, Quads & Octos = World Domination
Reply
OSX + Duals, Quads & Octos = World Domination
Reply
post #102 of 122
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Aphelion
Brendon, I'm talking about a partnership, not a competition for sales. Apple would continue to offer Xserves and possibly offer a blade server for use in IBM's blade center chassis, Which by the way, IBM has recently offered as an "open" spec for third parties to build on.

IBM would simply offer OSX along with AIX, Linux, and (ugh!) Windows as a supported option on their "iron" both large and small. The first thing this would do is break IBM's dependance on Windows for customers who must have Microsoft Office on their desktops.

Apple has been reluctant to offer a business class box (headless Mac) so they should just let IBM do it. IBM could build a PowerPC desktop for enterprise accounts (sold by the pallet only) that could take Apple into accounts that they would never be able to crack with iMacs.

IBM would be able to sell all of Apple's gear as well, as an approved Apple vendor. Powerbooks would be HOT in this environment.

I see this type of partnering as a "Win" for both Apple and IBM. IBM gets to offer what is the best OS on the market, not to mention the gravy of support contracts for the same, while Apple gets instant and total legitimacy in the enterprise market. This is something it will never get as a "sole source" supplier. Apple sales into businesses large and small would skyrocket as a result of this partnership.

Let me repeat, in my estimation Apple profits from this licensing of OSX into the enterprise would quickly outstrip profits from the iPod's remarkable popularity.

I guess I can see only Xserves in this deal, the other way (desktops running OSX) could violate the deal IBM signed with the company that bought their PC division. That is what I meant by servers only, but this is a huge guess. I still think that small and mid size businesses are where Xserve would shine, and that is a market that IBM would love to play more in. Big and huge corps could run Xserve but I think that these folks are happy with Linux and Windows and Sun for their heavy loads, not to say that Xserve cannot rub elbows but it will take lots of time to convince them that Xserve will serve their needs. They will want a partner like IBM so they can run a few Xserve and shake them out.

I do also think that we are picking nits, because we both agree about the concept but disagree about the details. This area is vague at best for me, so I'll agree that in concept we are both correct.
Please consider throwing extra cycles at better understanding Alzheimer's, Mad Cow (CJD), ALS, and Parkinson's disease go here <a href="http://folding.stanford.edu/" target="_blank">http://folding....
Reply
Please consider throwing extra cycles at better understanding Alzheimer's, Mad Cow (CJD), ALS, and Parkinson's disease go here <a href="http://folding.stanford.edu/" target="_blank">http://folding....
Reply
post #103 of 122
Quote:
Originally posted by Brendon
I guess I can see only Xserves in this deal, the other way (desktops running OSX) could violate the deal IBM signed with the company that bought their PC division. That is what I meant by servers only, but this is a huge guess. I still think that small and mid size businesses are where Xserve would shine, and that is a market that IBM would love to play more in. Big and huge corps could run Xserve but I think that these folks are happy with Linux and Windows and Sun for their heavy loads, not to say that Xserve cannot rub elbows but it will take lots of time to convince them that Xserve will serve their needs. They will want a partner like IBM so they can run a few Xserve and shake them out.

I do also think that we are picking nits, because we both agree about the concept but disagree about the details. This area is vague at best for me, so I'll agree that in concept we are both correct.

Without actually knowing what the agreement was on the sale of the X86 PC division one could imagine that IBM wants to start a new PC division. One which uses their CPUs and an OS that they control and integrates better with their larger systems. Apple could integrate into their lineup to fill certain product categories which could benefit Apple as an opening to corporations that would not otherwise give them the time of day.

IBM has been promoting a standards group for their CPU so that there may be a non-X86 PC movement even outside of IBM.
post #104 of 122
Would the production of a "business class workstation"
violate a non-competitive p/c agreement in theory???
post #105 of 122
Quote:
Originally posted by RBR
Without actually knowing what the agreement was on the sale of the X86 PC division one could imagine that IBM wants to start a new PC division. One which uses their CPUs and an OS that they control and integrates better with their larger systems.

Or they are perfectly willing to leave the low-end computer business (i.e. anything sub-$10000) to other parties, as long as they are using their CPUs and/or fabs. If Apple and other (Linux-based, presumably) computer manufacturers pick up the slack at the low end, IBM's solutions teams could buy these units off the shelf and IBM's microprocessor division could supply the guts. There is no requirement that they produce ever single piece of the puzzle themselves.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #106 of 122
Another article about how IBM is screwing Apple and how the Cell will rule. Apparently Sun is our only hope..... A little doom to go with your pre-Macworld hype.
When they said "Think Different", I ran with it.
Reply
When they said "Think Different", I ran with it.
Reply
post #107 of 122
Quote:
Originally posted by murk
Another article about how IBM is screwing Apple and how the Cell will rule. Apparently Sun is our only hope..... A little doom to go with your pre-Macworld hype.

Heh, sorry but that guy has no clue.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #108 of 122
how many people use vpc 6/7??? i would love to have a mac/pb to run windows natively because i have one program that i need a dell to run. everything else i use my ibook/ imac dv i would love to get rid of my dell and get a PB to run IE for this net based imaging software.

also, the big reason MS bought vpc was not to expand the mac access to windows but allow servers to use different window os's

it would allow mac to expand easier to business (remember the enterprise focus by apple)

is this at the request of ibm or apple, is apple being pushed this way or is it a joint benefit??
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
post #109 of 122
Quote:
Originally posted by murk
Another article about how IBM is screwing Apple and how the Cell will rule. Apparently Sun is our only hope..... A little doom to go with your pre-Macworld hype.

Does anyone read the entire effing story???

Quote:
This story was originally published on July 8, 2004, and is brought to you today as part of our Best of ECT News series



Crap before, still crap now.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #110 of 122
I put a in there for a reason.
When they said "Think Different", I ran with it.
Reply
When they said "Think Different", I ran with it.
Reply
post #111 of 122
Quote:
Originally posted by Programmer
Or they are perfectly willing to leave the low-end computer business (i.e. anything sub-$10000) to other parties, as long as they are using their CPUs and/or fabs. If Apple and other (Linux-based, presumably) computer manufacturers pick up the slack at the low end, IBM's solutions teams could buy these units off the shelf and IBM's microprocessor division could supply the guts. There is no requirement that they produce ever single piece of the puzzle themselves.

I don't know much about this source, but it is more speculation about the prospects of a new (non-X86) IBM PC. http://www.audiogogo.com/content/view/62/80/
post #112 of 122
Quote:
Originally posted by RBR
I don't know much about this source, but it is more speculation about the prospects of a new (non-X86) IBM PC. http://www.audiogogo.com/content/view/62/80/

It their contract with Lenovo IBM agreed to not build a competing PC (in a quite broad sense) for at least 5 years.

And.. IBM doesn't care to much for OSX but they do care about Linux quite much.

However.. IBM might build a PowerPC/Cell based platform for others to build computers on. That would probably not violate their agreement with Lenovo. It would probably not compete with IBMs core business nor Apple's. If IBM did license OSX, and built a PPC plattform on with it could run, they would be back in the Clone Wars again, and that's probably not what Steve wants.
post #113 of 122
Quote:
Originally posted by Henriok
It their contract with Lenovo IBM agreed to not build a competing PC (in a quite broad sense) for at least 5 years.

Actually, it jsut gives Lenovo rights to the IBM brand for 5 years.

But the point is moot, since IBM no longer has a division with which to build and sell PPC workstations. If they really were going to market PPC based PCs, they'd have to startup a new division all over again. Not going to happen.
"Spec" is short for "specification" not "speculation".
Reply
"Spec" is short for "specification" not "speculation".
Reply
post #114 of 122
Quote:
Originally posted by Tomb of the Unknown
Actually, it jsut gives Lenovo rights to the IBM brand for 5 years.

Then you obviously haven't read page 8 of The Contract (PDF) where it clearly states that..

IBM agrees and undertakes with the Company, subject to certain limitations and exceptions, that it will not, and will cause its existing and future subsidiaries not to, directly or indirectly anywhere in the world engage in: (A) the manufacture of Personal Computers; (B) sale of Personal Computers; or (C) the licence, sub-licence or other grant to any third party of the right to use the IBM logo on Personal Computers as a primary or shared product name; provided that on and after the third anniversary of the Closing, the term Personal Computers shall not include thin clients.

and on page 36 where they define "Personal Computer" as..

any self-contained, programmable, general purpose computing device in a desktop (including a thin client and a desktop system designed for media distribution for residential use), mobile or tablet platform, generally used by a single local user at a time, consisting of microprocessor hardware architecture, on-board memory, multiple input/output capabilities and a single user desk-top/mobile/tablet operating system, other than Excluded Products
post #115 of 122
Quote:
Originally posted by Henriok
Then you obviously haven't read page 8 of The Contract (PDF) [/i]

Thanks for the interesting reference to the contract. It raises a bunch of questions. I just do not see IBM getting out of the desktop arena altogether.

IBM is plainly working on something that could be called "PC II" and is working on a standardized architecture for the Power PC (it is one way to increase the sale of their chips). I keep coming back to something along the lines of the Intel/Dell relationship. Intel does much, if not most, of the design of the logic boards and so on and, of course, sells Dell lots of chips. Could it be that IBM is going to have them manufacturing the computers that IBM wants to sell as "PC IIs"? How about the other companies which IBM is attracting to the project. As I understand it, IBM wants the platform to be very Linux/Unix friendly.

And then there are the continuing rumors of an IBM/Apple relationship beyond its present one.

Cheers!
post #116 of 122
Quote:
Originally posted by Henriok
[B]Then you obviously haven't read page 8 of The Contract (PDF) where it clearly states that..

I stand corrected. This language also seems to shoot down the idea of PPC (or Cell) "workstations" from IBM.
"Spec" is short for "specification" not "speculation".
Reply
"Spec" is short for "specification" not "speculation".
Reply
post #117 of 122
Quote:
Originally posted by Tomb of the Unknown
I stand corrected. This language also seems to shoot down the idea of PPC (or Cell) "workstations" from IBM.

Unless IBM simply provides the reference design and licenses it to whichever manufacturer wants it -- much like Intel does.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #118 of 122
The contract also does not prevent recommendation of other PCs by IBM acting in it's consultant capacity. Just direct selling of PCs. Be sure, IBM is not feeling the least bit constrained in the signing of that deal. There are many ways to skin the cat.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #119 of 122
Quote:
Originally posted by Hiro
The contract also does not prevent recommendation of other PCs by IBM acting in it's consultant capacity. Just direct selling of PCs. Be sure, IBM is not feeling the least bit constrained in the signing of that deal. There are many ways to skin the cat.

Well, the services group does a huge amount of leasing - not sales. When you need a gazillion machines and know that you'll roll them regularly, you just lease them. IBM can also just broker the transaction between Apple and the client. I can't imagine that this is any way a hindrance - after all, it's not like their services group just stopped working last month.
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
Reply
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
Reply
post #120 of 122
The contract wording seems to be fairly clear.

IBM is prohibited from marketing a competing IBM brand
Desktop or Laptop for individual personal home use.

No where do I see any wording that prohibits them from
manufacturing processors or mainframe servers.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Will Apple move to the POWER 5 instead of PPC?