Me wonders. If the 970 brings Apple back to performance parity...will the Power 5 9xx derivative give Apple the option to go uber Workstation while a .09 970+ takes on and kicks Prescott?
...and a .09 G3 plus 200mhz bus + simd unit to help Moto out the door...?
IBM seems to be on an accelerated cpu schedule, surely wise as yesteryears apathy to PPC would be unwise with Intel eyeing up your Server market... Seems IBM have motivation these days...
One thing seems quite certain and that's the notion that x86 is going to be the mainstay in the Wintelon world for *at least* the next 10 years, given the fact that Yamhill (x86) is Intel's answer to AMD if AMD's x86 chips take off and Itanic withers...
Your points are completely valid and understandable; unfortunately, I have been using similar arguments since before the 386 came out. The x86 architecture has been panned and declared at the end of its life since the move from 8 to 16-bit. Somehow, the chips just keep getting bigger and faster. Intel has gobs of money, the best microprocessor engineers in the world, and the best fab plants. Their philosophy, "we made x86 twice as fast, but, we need $2B to make a new plant" continues to work for them (much to my chagrin).
As long as there are fab and materials advances to be made, Intel will continue to make the x86 chips the speed demons they have become.
Software (OS) is another issue in that they are bound to Windows; however, Linux (and Solaris may jump in there) does give them an alternative to deploying 64-bit.
As long as IBM maintains its interest (which as Matsu points out is not the gamble you want to bet your savings on), then, we can give Intel a run for its money. If Intel says to IBM, hey, we have a Pentium IV chip that is faster than your 970 and we'll sell it to you at 25% of the 970 cost, IBM would most likely allow the 970 to drop into maintenance mode ala the G3. People love to pan Motorola on the G4, but, what has IBM done with the G3? Sahara? Big deal. The G3 has gone through fewer advancements than the G4 in the past 4 years.
Your points are completely valid and understandable; unfortunately, I have been using similar arguments since before the 386 came out. The x86 architecture has been panned and declared at the end of its life since the move from 8 to 16-bit. Somehow, the chips just keep getting bigger and faster. Intel has gobs of money, the best microprocessor engineers in the world, and the best fab plants. Their philosophy, "we made x86 twice as fast, but, we need $2B to make a new plant" continues to work for them (much to my chagrin).
Oh, I remember those arguments well. There was no way x86 could scale past 200MHz...
However, the difference is that the prior arguments assumed that x86 would stall out on its own and some other ISA would supercede it, ignoring the tremendous momentum of legacy compatibility and the fact that x86 was (and remains) a cash cow.
Now, however, it's Intel who are deliberately trying to phase out x86. This is not some handwaving appeal to "market forces" or design elegance. The dominant chip maker has spent years and billions of dollars trying to supplant x86. They have a sort-of backup plan if Itanium fails (Yamhill), but it leaves Intel stuck in 32-bit mode, and that much less able to compete with the likes of IBM. It also opens a big door for AMD.
Ironically, they're also under pressure from Motorola(!) to not focus so much on speed-at-all-costs designs, because of the success of Apple's laptops. If Apple continues to press that advantage with the 970, they'll be able to press into territory that Intel has no answer for.
They'd better be able to, because Mot cancelling the 7457-RM tells me that we won't see much more of the G4.
. . . If Intel says to IBM, hey, we have a Pentium IV chip that is faster than your 970 and we'll sell it to you at 25% of the 970 cost, IBM would most likely allow the 970 to drop into maintenance mode ala the G3. . .
Not likely. It is to IBM's advantage to produce their own chips. If IBM decided to go with Intel chips, there would be little difference between their hardware and that offered by anyone else. This is no way to dominate the market, which IBM likely wishes to do. So, even if the 970 were to cost IBM a little more than a chip from Intel, it gives IBM opportunity to have well differentiated products, which have potential to beat the competition.
Pursuing the mini-me versions of their Power series chips give IBM the hope of taking the lead in CPU performance. If they were stuck with Intel, IBM would not be able to rise above the crowd of other hardware makers. There would be no hope of being any better or any different from all their competitors in the lower end server market.
There is a lot more than cost-of-CPU at stake here.
Not likely. It is to IBM's advantage to produce their own chips. If IBM decided to go with Intel chips, there would be little difference between their hardware and that offered by anyone else. This is no way to dominate the market, which IBM likely wishes to do. So, even if the 970 were to cost IBM a little more than a chip from Intel, it gives IBM opportunity to have well differentiated products, which have potential to beat the competition.
I disagree. IBM culture has changed dramatically since 93/94 when they lost billions upon billions. They are a business above all else. They want a profit. If the best profit for them is from Intel chips (due to low cost and high demand), they will ditch the 970 out of their Blades and follow the cash. I am actually concerned about IBM's use of the 970. I hope their salesman can get their 970 Blades into customer sites; otherwise, IBM can (and has) lose interest quickly. Already, we are seeing a half-hearted attempt by IBM. They are promoting their "fastest in class" Itanium blades all the while saying they plan to introduce 970 blades. They have three blades to choose from (before long): Xeon, Itanium, and 970. They are hedging their bets before the 970 is out of the door.
If they were in this for dominance, they wouldn't have pulled out of the PC market. They lost money. They pulled out. Business decision.
I hope that the 970 and its future follow-ons prove to be highly successful for IBM because I want them continually advanced and in my Macs. I believe that as soon as there isn't a solid business (read revenue) reason for the 9x0 series, IBM would stop using it. That is not to say they wouldn't still make it, but, like the G3, they may just keep it going and sell it to other contracted users. IBM will have an interest in the 9x0 series for at least 3-5 years, minimum, but, if they can't sell them to their own customers, they may give up and go with what their customers want.
To summarize, all I am saying is that IBM is not going to make 9x0 chips just for the good of Mac customers. If IBM customers don't adapt the 9x0 series and help make it profitable for them, they most likely (and from a business stanpoint should) lose interest in further developing the 9x0 series. Of course, this point is moot if Apple can take 15% of the computer market and then, the profits from Apple's purchasing of IBM chips would probably justify IBM's continued investment.
To summarize, all I am saying is that IBM is not going to make 9x0 chips just for the good of Mac customers. If IBM customers don't adapt the 9x0 series and help make it profitable for them, they most likely (and from a business stanpoint should) lose interest in further developing the 9x0 series. Of course, this point is moot if Apple can take 15% of the computer market and then, the profits from Apple's purchasing of IBM chips would probably justify IBM's continued investment.
Can Linux help us out here? That is to say, can the speed of Linux running on a 970 and compiled with the latest and greatest GCC, out-perform whatever blade based answer for the 970 Intel has, which is also running Linux?
If so, then we're likley to see 970's around for a while.
... and while we're at it, how the hell could Intel sell a comparable blade chip for 25% the price of what IBM can make 970's for, Hmmmmmmmmmm?
... and while we're at it, how the hell could Intel sell a comparable blade chip for 25% the price of what IBM can make 970's for, Hmmmmmmmmmm?
I don't think that they can. It was merely a ridiculous example that IBM--for economic reasons--might lose interest in the 9x0 series. I certainly hope and want IBM to beat out Intel, but, the fact is that Intel is the 800lb gorilla. They have all of the engineering and monetary leverage. Everytime AMD competes directly against them, they just squeeze a little more.
The example was along the lines if Intel wanted to pressure IBM into really pushing its chips by giving them a big incentive... Intel could decide to sell its chips to IBM for a loss if they thought it would help them.
I imagine that Linux on the 970 really rocks. I don't know about IBM's customers, but my fear is that they may have resources tied up in Intel Linux (such as Oracle, etc.). IBM would have to get DB2 running great on it since there isn't (at least the last time I saw) a Linux PPC version of Oracle.
The flip side of the coin of IBM's interesting in PowerPC is that their big iron is POWER and will remain POWER. The POWER4, 5, 6 lineage offers advantages over the IA-64 and commands large enough margins that IBM's business model is solid and likely to remain so. Given their continued use of POWER, having PowerPC versions which are compatible and can be used in workstations, desktops, laptops, blades, and massively parallel systems (including the Cel architecture) is very attractive. IA-64 does not offer this kind of scalability and can't / won't for quite some time due to the nature of the EPIC design. PowerPC, on the other hand, scales well from tiny embedded chips to the big iron POWERs.
A bit of prognostication: Personally think the future looks bright for the PowerPC once again, after the dark winter of the last couple of years. Apple will no doubt hedge their bet, and wisely so, but will use PowerPC for the foreseeable future (just maybe not exclusively). IBM is with POWER through to at least POWER6 and whatever PowerPC derivative is based on it (990?). If they happen to get the PS3 and next GameCube contracts too then the volumes of PowerPC processors they sell will be insane, making the PowerPC the jewel of IBM's crown.
One problem I see in Apple licensing 10.3 to IBM for use with their x86 machines is Microsoft. They won't recompile their Office code for "OS X for Intel". Think about it. This summer they'll barely have a native Outlook Exchange client. This would seriously hamper OS X's adobption by big business. The only out I see is a secret Apple branded Office app suite that is MS compatible and just as powerful.
If they were in this for dominance, they wouldn't have pulled out of the PC market. They lost money. They pulled out. Business decision.\t
Wrong, they pulled out because a smart decision... What exactly differentiated their systems from the competition? That's right, NOTHING. It was just another x86 crate running Windows (Yaaaaaawn....) with chips from Intel. You say IBM is a *business* above all else, but they are a smarter business and will avoid the mistakes others have made. The difference is that IBM is in for the long haul (i.e., they are planning on sticking around for a very loooong time. They got out of the desktop PC business because there was no money in it. Why compete, so they can become another Gateway? Compaq? Packard Bell? The trouble is that everyone competing with Dell really has nothing different to offer, In fact, the only thing that differentiates them (and I've said this in the past) is a sticker on the side of a cheesy plastic case and price - nothing else. Apple gives IBM an inroad back into the desktop market by actually allowing them to offer a platform that differentiates itself from the played-out PC OEM offerings, so I'm not convinced that IBM is stupid enough to follow the short-term/quarterly report mode of doing *business* (profit taking). They're smart enough to know *not* to rely on the competitions offerings because it will only allow the competition to become stronger and IBM weaker... Completely unwise and strictly short-term which equates to *not good*. If IBM rejects Intel's offerings at any cost then Intel looses and looses big. Again, I think IBM knows this, since it will make Intel weaker (i.e., they will be selling less chips at higher prices) The flip side is that IBM becomes stronger. Here is a huge "what if?"
What if Apple decides to license OS X to IBM and have it run on some of the bigger-iron IBM systems? Imagine if IBM started offering turn-key OS X solutions to corporations. I'll lay odds that a TON of business would move off of Windows onto an alternative platform which would likely save them money. Just a thought.
One problem I see in Apple licensing 10.3 to IBM for use with their x86 machines is Microsoft. They won't recompile their Office code for "OS X for Intel". Think about it. This summer they'll barely have a native Outlook Exchange client. This would seriously hamper OS X's adobption by big business. The only out I see is a secret Apple branded Office app suite that is MS compatible and just as powerful.
See above...
And who said anything about IBM licensing it for it's x86 offerings?? I was suggesting a REAL alternative to corporate other than something from Micro$oft... Don't forget, IBM was hosed by Micro$oft once, I think IBM is planning a little get-back... Oh, and I'm not convinced the majority of clients are even using all those nifty bells and whistles within Office to their fullest extent. Until now there was nothing. Now there is OS X and it's advancing-- fast.
I disagree. IBM culture has changed dramatically since 93/94 when they lost billions upon billions. They are a business above all else. They want a profit. If the best profit for them is from Intel chips (due to low cost and high demand), they will ditch the 970 out of their Blades and follow the cash. I am actually concerned about IBM's use of the 970. I hope their salesman can get their 970 Blades into customer sites; otherwise, IBM can (and has) lose interest quickly. Already, we are seeing a half-hearted attempt by IBM. They are promoting their "fastest in class" Itanium blades all the while saying they plan to introduce 970 blades. They have three blades to choose from (before long): Xeon, Itanium, and 970. They are hedging their bets before the 970 is out of the door. . .
Because IBM is in business to make money is exactly why IBM will do their best to make the 970 and 980 succeed. IBM took a beating when they had to be just another vendor of Intel powered PCs. Now, if IBM uses Intel chips in all their lower end servers, the same thing will happen to them again. If they go with the Itanium because it is cheaper for their high end servers, it will happen them in that market too.
IBM will pull out all stops to keep the PC debacle from happening again. That is why they need the Power series and smaller, cheaper versions of these CPUs. They will do everything they can to make these the best performing CPUs in the world.
You misinterpret why they sell products with Intel chips. It's just good marketing. IBM becomes a one stop market for your server needs. "You want a Xeon, we got it. You want an Itanium, we got it. You want a 970 or Power4, its here too. We don't mind which one you choose; we have it to sell." This keeps their sales up while PPC servers get better established. This also makes IBM seem pretty neutral regarding their products, the perfect position to subtilely promote their own CPU.
They'd better be able to, because Mot cancelling the 7457-RM tells me that we won't see much more of the G4.
Tears of sadness... (sniff, ahem...ahw...you got me...yes, tears of joy...)
With the deliriously long delivery time on it, I'm glad it's been canned. Who wants a G4 with most of the G5 tech' in it three years after the fact?
At least its spare endless posts by LBB complaining how slow Apple cpus are and endless posts by apologists saying: 'It's fast enough for email and word processing...and hey, it aint too bad, cos you that mega-hurtz myth...well...er...it's true y'know...an'...why don't you go and buy a PC? Cos sales of 'power'Macs are okay at 55,000 and when the economy rebounds...and when we get Quark for X...' (Cue the tapping of Ruby red slippers..., 'There's no place like home, there's no place like home...')
Lamarola. I hope by early 2004, we've forgotten all about them.
That they lasted four years. Yeesh. Must have been one hell of a contract.
What if Apple decides to license OS X to IBM and have it run on some of the bigger-iron IBM systems? Imagine if IBM started offering turn-key OS X solutions to corporations. I'll lay odds that a TON of business would move off of Windows onto an alternative platform which would likely save them money. Just a thought.
--
Ed
But this is already happenning now - its called Linux. Why do you think MS sees Linux as a REAL threat, than even OSX, for obvious reasons OSX is currently not supported on Intel CPU's.
Further, Programmer echoed my thoughts succinctly. Remember, when you talk about IBM - you should invariably discuss divisions that due to market realities cannot carte blanche support others. The server division WILL purchase from microelectronics in quantities that the market dictates. ie If the 970 Linux Blade sells well - IBM as whole will be happy. The top down development approach by IBM Micro - helps apple (with their little sideline requests - Altivec).
Im not quite convinced there is enough benefit for IBM's server or other product divisions to support Mac OSX &/or Server, unless IBM executed a reseller agreement like Dell and purchased product directly from Apple. Neat.
And who said anything about IBM licensing it for it's x86 offerings?? I was suggesting a REAL alternative to corporate other than something from Micro$oft... Don't forget, IBM was hosed by Micro$oft once, I think IBM is planning a little get-back... Oh, and I'm not convinced the majority of clients are even using all those nifty bells and whistles within Office to their fullest extent. Until now there was nothing. Now there is OS X and it's advancing-- fast.
--
Ed M.
I was out this weekend. I was specifically replying to Programmers speculation in the last page. Sorry!
It is being brought up repeatedly that Motorola canned the MPC7457-RM. I don't believe Motorola has issued a press release concerning this. It's a rumor, maybe true, but still a rumor.
Motorola is developing the MPC8540/MPC8560 which are embedded processors, however, change the core and a version becomes a desktop cpu. Easy, no, feasible, yes. For years, Motorola has been emphasizing modular design strategies.
Only time will tell, because I doubt we'll ever see a press release from Motorola claiming we dropped the MPC7457-RM because....
Comments
Originally posted by shawk
Custom 64bit Intel chip for Apple w/ Altavec. Options.
...and a .09 G3 plus 200mhz bus + simd unit to help Moto out the door...?
IBM seems to be on an accelerated cpu schedule, surely wise as yesteryears apathy to PPC would be unwise with Intel eyeing up your Server market... Seems IBM have motivation these days...
Lemon Bon Bon
Originally posted by Ed M.
One thing seems quite certain and that's the notion that x86 is going to be the mainstay in the Wintelon world for *at least* the next 10 years, given the fact that Yamhill (x86) is Intel's answer to AMD if AMD's x86 chips take off and Itanic withers...
Your points are completely valid and understandable; unfortunately, I have been using similar arguments since before the 386 came out. The x86 architecture has been panned and declared at the end of its life since the move from 8 to 16-bit. Somehow, the chips just keep getting bigger and faster. Intel has gobs of money, the best microprocessor engineers in the world, and the best fab plants. Their philosophy, "we made x86 twice as fast, but, we need $2B to make a new plant" continues to work for them (much to my chagrin).
As long as there are fab and materials advances to be made, Intel will continue to make the x86 chips the speed demons they have become.
Software (OS) is another issue in that they are bound to Windows; however, Linux (and Solaris may jump in there) does give them an alternative to deploying 64-bit.
As long as IBM maintains its interest (which as Matsu points out is not the gamble you want to bet your savings on), then, we can give Intel a run for its money. If Intel says to IBM, hey, we have a Pentium IV chip that is faster than your 970 and we'll sell it to you at 25% of the 970 cost, IBM would most likely allow the 970 to drop into maintenance mode ala the G3. People love to pan Motorola on the G4, but, what has IBM done with the G3? Sahara? Big deal. The G3 has gone through fewer advancements than the G4 in the past 4 years.
Originally posted by atomicham
Your points are completely valid and understandable; unfortunately, I have been using similar arguments since before the 386 came out. The x86 architecture has been panned and declared at the end of its life since the move from 8 to 16-bit. Somehow, the chips just keep getting bigger and faster. Intel has gobs of money, the best microprocessor engineers in the world, and the best fab plants. Their philosophy, "we made x86 twice as fast, but, we need $2B to make a new plant" continues to work for them (much to my chagrin).
Oh, I remember those arguments well. There was no way x86 could scale past 200MHz...
However, the difference is that the prior arguments assumed that x86 would stall out on its own and some other ISA would supercede it, ignoring the tremendous momentum of legacy compatibility and the fact that x86 was (and remains) a cash cow.
Now, however, it's Intel who are deliberately trying to phase out x86. This is not some handwaving appeal to "market forces" or design elegance. The dominant chip maker has spent years and billions of dollars trying to supplant x86. They have a sort-of backup plan if Itanium fails (Yamhill), but it leaves Intel stuck in 32-bit mode, and that much less able to compete with the likes of IBM. It also opens a big door for AMD.
Ironically, they're also under pressure from Motorola(!) to not focus so much on speed-at-all-costs designs, because of the success of Apple's laptops. If Apple continues to press that advantage with the 970, they'll be able to press into territory that Intel has no answer for.
They'd better be able to, because Mot cancelling the 7457-RM tells me that we won't see much more of the G4.
I guess this next year will prove us all right or wrong.
The 970 will be the beginning of the end of the G4 but it is IBM's 9xx roadmap that will change everything.
As for IBM's handling of the G3. I've a quiet side bet that in the next year the G3 will show Moto' how the G4 should have been done.
Hey, just my gut...
Lemon Bon Bon
Originally posted by atomicham
. . . If Intel says to IBM, hey, we have a Pentium IV chip that is faster than your 970 and we'll sell it to you at 25% of the 970 cost, IBM would most likely allow the 970 to drop into maintenance mode ala the G3. . .
Not likely. It is to IBM's advantage to produce their own chips. If IBM decided to go with Intel chips, there would be little difference between their hardware and that offered by anyone else. This is no way to dominate the market, which IBM likely wishes to do. So, even if the 970 were to cost IBM a little more than a chip from Intel, it gives IBM opportunity to have well differentiated products, which have potential to beat the competition.
Pursuing the mini-me versions of their Power series chips give IBM the hope of taking the lead in CPU performance. If they were stuck with Intel, IBM would not be able to rise above the crowd of other hardware makers. There would be no hope of being any better or any different from all their competitors in the lower end server market.
There is a lot more than cost-of-CPU at stake here.
Originally posted by snoopy
Not likely. It is to IBM's advantage to produce their own chips. If IBM decided to go with Intel chips, there would be little difference between their hardware and that offered by anyone else. This is no way to dominate the market, which IBM likely wishes to do. So, even if the 970 were to cost IBM a little more than a chip from Intel, it gives IBM opportunity to have well differentiated products, which have potential to beat the competition.
I disagree. IBM culture has changed dramatically since 93/94 when they lost billions upon billions. They are a business above all else. They want a profit. If the best profit for them is from Intel chips (due to low cost and high demand), they will ditch the 970 out of their Blades and follow the cash. I am actually concerned about IBM's use of the 970. I hope their salesman can get their 970 Blades into customer sites; otherwise, IBM can (and has) lose interest quickly. Already, we are seeing a half-hearted attempt by IBM. They are promoting their "fastest in class" Itanium blades all the while saying they plan to introduce 970 blades. They have three blades to choose from (before long): Xeon, Itanium, and 970. They are hedging their bets before the 970 is out of the door.
If they were in this for dominance, they wouldn't have pulled out of the PC market. They lost money. They pulled out. Business decision.
I hope that the 970 and its future follow-ons prove to be highly successful for IBM because I want them continually advanced and in my Macs. I believe that as soon as there isn't a solid business (read revenue) reason for the 9x0 series, IBM would stop using it. That is not to say they wouldn't still make it, but, like the G3, they may just keep it going and sell it to other contracted users. IBM will have an interest in the 9x0 series for at least 3-5 years, minimum, but, if they can't sell them to their own customers, they may give up and go with what their customers want.
To summarize, all I am saying is that IBM is not going to make 9x0 chips just for the good of Mac customers. If IBM customers don't adapt the 9x0 series and help make it profitable for them, they most likely (and from a business stanpoint should) lose interest in further developing the 9x0 series. Of course, this point is moot if Apple can take 15% of the computer market and then, the profits from Apple's purchasing of IBM chips would probably justify IBM's continued investment.
Originally posted by atomicham
To summarize, all I am saying is that IBM is not going to make 9x0 chips just for the good of Mac customers. If IBM customers don't adapt the 9x0 series and help make it profitable for them, they most likely (and from a business stanpoint should) lose interest in further developing the 9x0 series. Of course, this point is moot if Apple can take 15% of the computer market and then, the profits from Apple's purchasing of IBM chips would probably justify IBM's continued investment.
Can Linux help us out here? That is to say, can the speed of Linux running on a 970 and compiled with the latest and greatest GCC, out-perform whatever blade based answer for the 970 Intel has, which is also running Linux?
If so, then we're likley to see 970's around for a while.
... and while we're at it, how the hell could Intel sell a comparable blade chip for 25% the price of what IBM can make 970's for, Hmmmmmmmmmm?
Originally posted by OverToasty
... and while we're at it, how the hell could Intel sell a comparable blade chip for 25% the price of what IBM can make 970's for, Hmmmmmmmmmm?
I don't think that they can. It was merely a ridiculous example that IBM--for economic reasons--might lose interest in the 9x0 series. I certainly hope and want IBM to beat out Intel, but, the fact is that Intel is the 800lb gorilla. They have all of the engineering and monetary leverage. Everytime AMD competes directly against them, they just squeeze a little more.
The example was along the lines if Intel wanted to pressure IBM into really pushing its chips by giving them a big incentive... Intel could decide to sell its chips to IBM for a loss if they thought it would help them.
I imagine that Linux on the 970 really rocks. I don't know about IBM's customers, but my fear is that they may have resources tied up in Intel Linux (such as Oracle, etc.). IBM would have to get DB2 running great on it since there isn't (at least the last time I saw) a Linux PPC version of Oracle.
A bit of prognostication: Personally think the future looks bright for the PowerPC once again, after the dark winter of the last couple of years. Apple will no doubt hedge their bet, and wisely so, but will use PowerPC for the foreseeable future (just maybe not exclusively). IBM is with POWER through to at least POWER6 and whatever PowerPC derivative is based on it (990?). If they happen to get the PS3 and next GameCube contracts too then the volumes of PowerPC processors they sell will be insane, making the PowerPC the jewel of IBM's crown.
Hmm.
If they were in this for dominance, they wouldn't have pulled out of the PC market. They lost money. They pulled out. Business decision.\t
Wrong, they pulled out because a smart decision... What exactly differentiated their systems from the competition? That's right, NOTHING. It was just another x86 crate running Windows (Yaaaaaawn....) with chips from Intel. You say IBM is a *business* above all else, but they are a smarter business and will avoid the mistakes others have made. The difference is that IBM is in for the long haul (i.e., they are planning on sticking around for a very loooong time. They got out of the desktop PC business because there was no money in it. Why compete, so they can become another Gateway? Compaq? Packard Bell? The trouble is that everyone competing with Dell really has nothing different to offer, In fact, the only thing that differentiates them (and I've said this in the past) is a sticker on the side of a cheesy plastic case and price - nothing else. Apple gives IBM an inroad back into the desktop market by actually allowing them to offer a platform that differentiates itself from the played-out PC OEM offerings, so I'm not convinced that IBM is stupid enough to follow the short-term/quarterly report mode of doing *business* (profit taking). They're smart enough to know *not* to rely on the competitions offerings because it will only allow the competition to become stronger and IBM weaker... Completely unwise and strictly short-term which equates to *not good*. If IBM rejects Intel's offerings at any cost then Intel looses and looses big. Again, I think IBM knows this, since it will make Intel weaker (i.e., they will be selling less chips at higher prices) The flip side is that IBM becomes stronger. Here is a huge "what if?"
What if Apple decides to license OS X to IBM and have it run on some of the bigger-iron IBM systems? Imagine if IBM started offering turn-key OS X solutions to corporations. I'll lay odds that a TON of business would move off of Windows onto an alternative platform which would likely save them money. Just a thought.
--
Ed
unless apple makes mail.app exchange compatible.
Originally posted by Outsider
One problem I see in Apple licensing 10.3 to IBM for use with their x86 machines is Microsoft. They won't recompile their Office code for "OS X for Intel". Think about it. This summer they'll barely have a native Outlook Exchange client. This would seriously hamper OS X's adobption by big business. The only out I see is a secret Apple branded Office app suite that is MS compatible and just as powerful.
See above...
And who said anything about IBM licensing it for it's x86 offerings?? I was suggesting a REAL alternative to corporate other than something from Micro$oft... Don't forget, IBM was hosed by Micro$oft once, I think IBM is planning a little get-back... Oh, and I'm not convinced the majority of clients are even using all those nifty bells and whistles within Office to their fullest extent. Until now there was nothing. Now there is OS X and it's advancing-- fast.
--
Ed M.
Originally posted by atomicham
I disagree. IBM culture has changed dramatically since 93/94 when they lost billions upon billions. They are a business above all else. They want a profit. If the best profit for them is from Intel chips (due to low cost and high demand), they will ditch the 970 out of their Blades and follow the cash. I am actually concerned about IBM's use of the 970. I hope their salesman can get their 970 Blades into customer sites; otherwise, IBM can (and has) lose interest quickly. Already, we are seeing a half-hearted attempt by IBM. They are promoting their "fastest in class" Itanium blades all the while saying they plan to introduce 970 blades. They have three blades to choose from (before long): Xeon, Itanium, and 970. They are hedging their bets before the 970 is out of the door. . .
Because IBM is in business to make money is exactly why IBM will do their best to make the 970 and 980 succeed. IBM took a beating when they had to be just another vendor of Intel powered PCs. Now, if IBM uses Intel chips in all their lower end servers, the same thing will happen to them again. If they go with the Itanium because it is cheaper for their high end servers, it will happen them in that market too.
IBM will pull out all stops to keep the PC debacle from happening again. That is why they need the Power series and smaller, cheaper versions of these CPUs. They will do everything they can to make these the best performing CPUs in the world.
You misinterpret why they sell products with Intel chips. It's just good marketing. IBM becomes a one stop market for your server needs. "You want a Xeon, we got it. You want an Itanium, we got it. You want a 970 or Power4, its here too. We don't mind which one you choose; we have it to sell." This keeps their sales up while PPC servers get better established. This also makes IBM seem pretty neutral regarding their products, the perfect position to subtilely promote their own CPU.
Originally posted by Outsider
. . . The only out I see is a secret Apple branded Office app suite that is MS compatible and just as powerful.
If it's secret, how will people know to buy it?
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
They'd better be able to, because Mot cancelling the 7457-RM tells me that we won't see much more of the G4.
Tears of sadness... (sniff, ahem...ahw...you got me...yes, tears of joy...)
With the deliriously long delivery time on it, I'm glad it's been canned. Who wants a G4 with most of the G5 tech' in it three years after the fact?
At least its spare endless posts by LBB complaining how slow Apple cpus are and endless posts by apologists saying: 'It's fast enough for email and word processing...and hey, it aint too bad, cos you that mega-hurtz myth...well...er...it's true y'know...an'...why don't you go and buy a PC? Cos sales of 'power'Macs are okay at 55,000 and when the economy rebounds...and when we get Quark for X...' (Cue the tapping of Ruby red slippers..., 'There's no place like home, there's no place like home...')
Lamarola. I hope by early 2004, we've forgotten all about them.
That they lasted four years. Yeesh. Must have been one hell of a contract.
Lemon Bon Bon
Originally posted by Ed M.
What if Apple decides to license OS X to IBM and have it run on some of the bigger-iron IBM systems? Imagine if IBM started offering turn-key OS X solutions to corporations. I'll lay odds that a TON of business would move off of Windows onto an alternative platform which would likely save them money. Just a thought.
--
Ed
But this is already happenning now - its called Linux. Why do you think MS sees Linux as a REAL threat, than even OSX, for obvious reasons OSX is currently not supported on Intel CPU's.
Further, Programmer echoed my thoughts succinctly. Remember, when you talk about IBM - you should invariably discuss divisions that due to market realities cannot carte blanche support others. The server division WILL purchase from microelectronics in quantities that the market dictates. ie If the 970 Linux Blade sells well - IBM as whole will be happy. The top down development approach by IBM Micro - helps apple (with their little sideline requests - Altivec).
Im not quite convinced there is enough benefit for IBM's server or other product divisions to support Mac OSX &/or Server, unless IBM executed a reseller agreement like Dell and purchased product directly from Apple. Neat.
Originally posted by Ed M.
See above...
And who said anything about IBM licensing it for it's x86 offerings?? I was suggesting a REAL alternative to corporate other than something from Micro$oft... Don't forget, IBM was hosed by Micro$oft once, I think IBM is planning a little get-back... Oh, and I'm not convinced the majority of clients are even using all those nifty bells and whistles within Office to their fullest extent. Until now there was nothing. Now there is OS X and it's advancing-- fast.
--
Ed M.
I was out this weekend. I was specifically replying to Programmers speculation in the last page. Sorry!
Motorola is developing the MPC8540/MPC8560 which are embedded processors, however, change the core and a version becomes a desktop cpu. Easy, no, feasible, yes. For years, Motorola has been emphasizing modular design strategies.
Only time will tell, because I doubt we'll ever see a press release from Motorola claiming we dropped the MPC7457-RM because....