Do we know now that Altivec is included? I don't think this is that clear!!!
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, it's included. Yes, it's clear.
(1) IBM is either making this chip for Apple, for IBM, or for both.
(2) The chip has a vector processor "with over 160 instructions".
(3) Altivec has just over 160 instructions.
(4) IBM has the right to implement the same instruction set as Altivec.
(5) If Apple is one of the initial customers, the chip will be compatible with Altivec.
(6) If Apple is not one of the initial customers, then the customer is IBM itself.
(7) For itself, IBM could choose to either implement the proven Altivec instruction set, implement a completely different instruction set, or implement an instruction set based on the Altivec instructions. Throwing away a completely good design and implementing a completely different design makes no sense at all. So it?s either Altivec or Altivec-based.
(8) Even if the design is not for Apple, IBM knows that Apple would be very interested in this chip.
(9) IBM doesn?t sell a whole lot of CPUs (relative to Apple).
(10) If Apple were to use this chip, IBM would make $$$ more than if Apple didn?t use the chip.
(11) IBM is a business and businesses like to make $$$.
(12) There?s no significant advantage for IBM to implement the Altivec instructions, but make them incompatible with Altivec implementations from Motorola.
(13) There are enormously significant advantages for IBM to implement Altivec instructions and make them compatible with Altivec implementations from Motorola.
(14) If you haven?t gotten it by now, Apple is already a customer and has place an order for this chip, or IBM is vigorously pursuing Apple to purchase this chip.
(15) Apple?s not gonna buy a chip that has an Altivec-like instruction set, but isn?t Altivec compatible.
... in addition, Apple has shifted to using gcc for their development, and returning their PPC & Alitvec optimisations back to the open source community. Hence linux PPC developers will benefit.
Any company that happened to (a) make PPCs and (b) be pushing linux would thus have a lot to gain from this development -- sound like anyone we know?
I personally think that this is Apple's end of the bargain: Apple works to (indirectly) make linux on the PPC a lot more attractive, and IBM builds nice desktop CPUs. Call it synergy, call it win-win, call it a good business plan.
Don't forget that the x86 world faces serious problems moving to 64 bit computing. If PPC can stake out the 64-bit high ground, then this would bode very well indeed for the architecture.
Uhm. the 8500 is the embedded chip... Ah Then I ment the 7500, which would be a proper desktop chip.
Just insert 7500 wherever you find 8500.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Just curious ... is there any concrete evidence that the 7500 even exists? We've all been assuming it does, but is there any basis for it other than a couple of Register/MOSR articles?
Not really. Could get people in trouble. Was told somewhat in confidence. Plus, I would not want to be accused of being "inaccurate" if I happen to be wrong. There is nothing worse in life than being flamed by the all powerful all knowing AI.
The name I heard was not Lixar or anything similar either. It was actually a *very* large org.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hey, maybe I've just missed it before, but I was at the Apple Store site today and notice a "Gov't" category at the top. Is this new?
Hey, maybe I've just missed it before, but I was at the Apple Store site today and notice a "Gov't" category at the top. Is this new?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Seems to be two groups, the Sooners and the Laters. The Sooners say the G5 Mac is close, to be announced on October 15, the same time as IBM, or at least by March. The Laters see more G4 updates for the PowerMacs, and often say a year or longer for the G5 to appear. Both have their points. Could both be right? I thinks the following idea has been posted before, and it does allow both groups to be correct. Regarding the PowerMac, no G5 for 12 to 18 months. In two to six months Apple introduces a workstation duty Mac with the G5. The box is loaded, and designed to make inroads into the SGI workstation market. Price is much higher than PowerMacs, but lower than the competition. That would do it. The G5 would come to the professional PowerMacs when it can be produced in higher quantities and at lower prices. I think there are advantages for Apple to do it this way. A powerful G5 Mac may sell very well in the workstation market. If so, there could be a G5 shortage if it had to cover all normal PowrMac sales too. A single, new, high-end product allows a slower ramp-up for G5 production.
The PPC Power4 light chip isn't going to be ready for the next 1.5 or so years. So to address the problem Apple is going with a Motorola G5 (We all know they have been working on one, and that some specs have been conveniently "pulled" from motos website as of late).
No. According to what I was told, expect a power4-core tower by this time next year. That's a year from now or sooner, not 1.5 years from now. Also, Mot is out of the picture, at least the desktop one.
the information i had is that the ibm's chip was sampling in march or april. i dunno how long it takes to get from sampling to being in a product. but that info was from a very good source. the same source that told me that ibm was working on the next gen chip rather than moto.
<strong>the information i had is that the ibm's chip was sampling in march or april.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
That would put it about next August at the very earliest, if your source is correct. I think the Sahara for iBook went slightly faster than that, but it was not a totally new chip.
<strong>... in addition, Apple has shifted to using gcc for their development, and returning their PPC & Alitvec optimisations back to the open source community. Hence linux PPC developers will benefit.
Any company that happened to (a) make PPCs and (b) be pushing linux would thus have a lot to gain from this development -- sound like anyone we know?
I personally think that this is Apple's end of the bargain: Apple works to (indirectly) make linux on the PPC a lot more attractive, and IBM builds nice desktop CPUs. Call it synergy, call it win-win, call it a good business plan.
Don't forget that the x86 world faces serious problems moving to 64 bit computing. If PPC can stake out the 64-bit high ground, then this would bode very well indeed for the architecture.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And how much money has IBM been putting into Linux lately?
So here we are, a bunch of AI lamers. Or so most people think. And yet, in this thread, we've done the following:
1. Eliminated Mot from Apple's future desktop plans.
2. Selected IBM as Apple's new source of desktop processors.
3. Established a plan to migrate to a 64-bit OS.
4. Kept Apple viable for a few more years with this strategy.
5. Ensured the safety and well being of every man, woman and child in the free world by giving the the opportunity to purchase aforementioned computer.
I think we should be complimented for implementing a better plan than Apple's board has put together. I'd like my Gulfstream jet in blue, please. And stock it with lots of peanuts. I never get enough on commercial flights.
[quote]Originally posted by GardenOfEarthlyDelights:
<strong>
I think we should be complimented for implementing a better plan than Apple's board has put together. I'd like my Gulfstream jet in blue, please. And stock it with lots of peanuts. I never get enough on commercial flights.</strong><hr></blockquote>
... I'll take mine with the small japanese woman to walk on my back option; and a few minions to hear me opine ... oh, hang on, that's what you're all here for!
That would put it about next August at the very earliest, if your source is correct. I think the Sahara for iBook went slightly faster than that, but it was not a totally new chip.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sampling to production is sixteen+ months?!? I've been doing some google searching and I've not seen that kind of window ever mentioned when it came to previous CPUs. Or could that be sampling to production X months and then X more months for a final computer based on the new chip?
Either way that sure seems like a pretty long time. I'd assume much of the work (chip going from sample to production AND Apple working out a mobo for the new chip) would be done in parallel wouldn't it?
I don't think IBM is trying to bring Linux to the mainstream desktop arena. To be honest, Linux isn't developed enough and there are hardly ANY commercial apps that run on it or the various flavors... So, the big hurdle is convincing applications developers that Linux-PPC is viable to develop for, and 2 things point to it NOT being viable for mainstream work.
First, Linux has been around for about 10 good years or so. It has been around for x86 machines for a LONG time and probably has a good installed base (or maybe not). The point is, the people who are using the OS aren't in the market that IBM needs to make money... The people who use Linux are the "geeky types" and solderheads. Not people at home (which is the BIGGEST market). So if you don't have mainstream apps like Office, Photoshop, Illustrator, Quark, Maya, AutoCAD etc... ALREADY, the outlook for the apps coming in the NEAR future is bleak. It's been around too damn long already and really hasn't amounted to anything but a really nice low to midrange server OS.
Secondly, Linux-PPC has already been out there for some time as well. IBM isn't introducing anything new here (i.e., Linux on PPC). Regardless what any Linux fan thinks, Linux development is moving slowly... Again, it's been out in the open-source community for how long now?? Anyway, back to the Linux-PPC point. Since Linux was ALREADY able to run on the Mac AND the Mac enjoys a relatively LARGE installed base (enough to make money if the developers thought it was viable). So, the question still remains, who is going to bring all these new and wonderful apps to the platform? Which apps will they be? which market is IBM trying to capture? Which flavors of Linux will these apps be compatible with? How long will it take the apps to develop and mature on this new platform? Will there be consistency of interface through ALL flavors of Linux UI? the questions keep mounting... OS X on the other hand is a completely different story...
Its been out for a very short time and has ALREADY passed Linux in probably every way imaginable and its evolution is progressing at an incredibly fast rate. OS X is mature and consistent TODAY and it will only get better. It has a UI that far more advanced and usable than ANYTHING on Linux AND it's more familiar to people AND it has a larger installed base (OS X is the #1 shipping UNIX in volume commercial or otherwise). It's had its shakedown period and more importantly... It already HAS A LOT OF GREAT COMMERCIAL APPLICATIONS as well as developer commitment. So, IBM is probably trying to cement some other *smaller* market thought it's still unclear.
To quota a few of my friends on their views of Linux...
(and I know I posted one of these in a different thread somewhere)
[[[There's a lot more to a desktop platform than just the OS; it's the entire infrastructure that matters. A solid desktop OS needs all manner of support from font foundries, file conversion utilities, installers and a general ability to open and work with documents across all other platforms in friendly fashion.
In general, my personal experience has been fairly grim when it comes to these issues. OS X provides an answer to all this that is so strong that the question of desktop Linux has gone from "How?" to "Why?" Those who like X86 boxes will slide glacier-like to Windows while the independent folks will tend to Macintosh, OS X and a mainstream Unix with a robust interface and mature applications.]]] - Del Miller, Aerospace Engineer
[[[Linux, and Unix interfaces in general are designed by committee. Large groups of people hashing, arguing, testing ideas, until they get the one that they can all agree on.
Examples of this are: KDE CDE OpenWindows WorkPlace Shell Gnome Windows...
All of them horrid.
To design a good interface, you need talent, but you also need vision. Committees never have vision. They have meetings. ]]] - John C. Welch
[[[There's sort of a fallacy with LINUX. LINUX never has been, and never will be a viable consumer desktop. To be such, it would have to be designed for the consumer.
LINUX is what it has always been -- a reasonable implementation of a UNIX based operating system, that is not bad as a low-end server (that has grown into the mid-end -- and may someday grow higher). It is not a bad foundation to build a turnkey system for some enterprises to use (as
turnkey solutions go. IBM?). But that is not the same as "consumer desktop".
The ultimate operating system is not a command line with a thin graphics shell on top. So, LINUX has never really been anything close to a desktop solution (let alone a consumer desktop solution) by anyone but the completely self-deluded. ]]] - David K. Every
[[[OSX is already the unit leader in terms of a UNIX distribution, BUT... Other people that rely on UNIX (corporate entities et. al.) are learning that IT IS ALREADY THE INTERFACE LEADER as well. And this is 12 months out of the gate. Jaguar looks to fix/improve many things... And in another 12-18 months, I think it will be the standard by which most UNIXXES are measured... OSX delivers today on what LINUX has been promising for 10 years... ]]] - Dave K. Every
So, the larger picture shows that people simply don't trust Linux as a viable solution. Sure, People will always mess around with it and there will always be open-source development and such, but in the end, I'm not convinced that these people and organizations are going to trust it enough to switch their entire computer base over to it. Simply put, it isn't what Linux was intended for and there are just too many additional hurdles to clear before any of this can even begin to to sound viable.
Comments
<strong>
Do we know now that Altivec is included? I don't think this is that clear!!!
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, it's included. Yes, it's clear.
(1) IBM is either making this chip for Apple, for IBM, or for both.
(2) The chip has a vector processor "with over 160 instructions".
(3) Altivec has just over 160 instructions.
(4) IBM has the right to implement the same instruction set as Altivec.
(5) If Apple is one of the initial customers, the chip will be compatible with Altivec.
(6) If Apple is not one of the initial customers, then the customer is IBM itself.
(7) For itself, IBM could choose to either implement the proven Altivec instruction set, implement a completely different instruction set, or implement an instruction set based on the Altivec instructions. Throwing away a completely good design and implementing a completely different design makes no sense at all. So it?s either Altivec or Altivec-based.
(8) Even if the design is not for Apple, IBM knows that Apple would be very interested in this chip.
(9) IBM doesn?t sell a whole lot of CPUs (relative to Apple).
(10) If Apple were to use this chip, IBM would make $$$ more than if Apple didn?t use the chip.
(11) IBM is a business and businesses like to make $$$.
(12) There?s no significant advantage for IBM to implement the Altivec instructions, but make them incompatible with Altivec implementations from Motorola.
(13) There are enormously significant advantages for IBM to implement Altivec instructions and make them compatible with Altivec implementations from Motorola.
(14) If you haven?t gotten it by now, Apple is already a customer and has place an order for this chip, or IBM is vigorously pursuing Apple to purchase this chip.
(15) Apple?s not gonna buy a chip that has an Altivec-like instruction set, but isn?t Altivec compatible.
[ 08-21-2002: Message edited by: Faeylyn ]</p>
Any company that happened to (a) make PPCs and (b) be pushing linux would thus have a lot to gain from this development -- sound like anyone we know?
I personally think that this is Apple's end of the bargain: Apple works to (indirectly) make linux on the PPC a lot more attractive, and IBM builds nice desktop CPUs. Call it synergy, call it win-win, call it a good business plan.
Don't forget that the x86 world faces serious problems moving to 64 bit computing. If PPC can stake out the 64-bit high ground, then this would bode very well indeed for the architecture.
<strong>
Uhm. the 8500 is the embedded chip... Ah Then I ment the 7500, which would be a proper desktop chip.
Just insert 7500 wherever you find 8500.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Just curious ... is there any concrete evidence that the 7500 even exists? We've all been assuming it does, but is there any basis for it other than a couple of Register/MOSR articles?
<strong>
Not really. Could get people in trouble. Was told somewhat in confidence. Plus, I would not want to be accused of being "inaccurate" if I happen to be wrong. There is nothing worse in life than being flamed by the all powerful all knowing AI.
The name I heard was not Lixar or anything similar either. It was actually a *very* large org.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hey, maybe I've just missed it before, but I was at the Apple Store site today and notice a "Gov't" category at the top. Is this new?
<strong>
Hey, maybe I've just missed it before, but I was at the Apple Store site today and notice a "Gov't" category at the top. Is this new?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Short Answer: no.
<strong>2 GHz by Feb.
"A Very Large Organization" is buying a bunch of Macs soon and is concerned about lack of MHz...</strong><hr></blockquote>
This "Large Organization" is all family if you know what I mean
Edit for spelling
[ 08-21-2002: Message edited by: Kurt ]</p>
<strong>What about this solution:
Just like the G3/G4 situation, just reversed.
The PPC Power4 light chip isn't going to be ready for the next 1.5 or so years. So to address the problem Apple is going with a Motorola G5 (We all know they have been working on one, and that some specs have been conveniently "pulled" from motos website as of late).
[ 08-21-2002: Message edited by: BoeManE ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
No. According to what I was told, expect a power4-core tower by this time next year. That's a year from now or sooner, not 1.5 years from now. Also, Mot is out of the picture, at least the desktop one.
<strong>the information i had is that the ibm's chip was sampling in march or april.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
That would put it about next August at the very earliest, if your source is correct. I think the Sahara for iBook went slightly faster than that, but it was not a totally new chip.
<strong>... in addition, Apple has shifted to using gcc for their development, and returning their PPC & Alitvec optimisations back to the open source community. Hence linux PPC developers will benefit.
Any company that happened to (a) make PPCs and (b) be pushing linux would thus have a lot to gain from this development -- sound like anyone we know?
I personally think that this is Apple's end of the bargain: Apple works to (indirectly) make linux on the PPC a lot more attractive, and IBM builds nice desktop CPUs. Call it synergy, call it win-win, call it a good business plan.
Don't forget that the x86 world faces serious problems moving to 64 bit computing. If PPC can stake out the 64-bit high ground, then this would bode very well indeed for the architecture.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And how much money has IBM been putting into Linux lately?
1. Eliminated Mot from Apple's future desktop plans.
2. Selected IBM as Apple's new source of desktop processors.
3. Established a plan to migrate to a 64-bit OS.
4. Kept Apple viable for a few more years with this strategy.
5. Ensured the safety and well being of every man, woman and child in the free world by giving the the opportunity to purchase aforementioned computer.
I think we should be complimented for implementing a better plan than Apple's board has put together. I'd like my Gulfstream jet in blue, please. And stock it with lots of peanuts. I never get enough on commercial flights.
<strong>
I think we should be complimented for implementing a better plan than Apple's board has put together. I'd like my Gulfstream jet in blue, please. And stock it with lots of peanuts. I never get enough on commercial flights.</strong><hr></blockquote>
... I'll take mine with the small japanese woman to walk on my back option; and a few minions to hear me opine ... oh, hang on, that's what you're all here for!
You lucky lucky people.
(just play along and nobody gets hurt)
<strong>
And how much money has IBM been putting into Linux lately?</strong><hr></blockquote>
According to <a href="http://www-916.ibm.com/press/prnews.nsf/jan/5E218E910A3C7D0A8525694B00586B26"; target="_blank">this page</a>, 200 Million over 4 years in the Asia Pacific region alone. Moreover, if you go to IBM's site, you'll find a whole portal of linux stuff.
[ 08-22-2002: Message edited by: boy_analog ]</p>
<strong>And how much money has IBM been putting into Linux lately?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Enought to get one of their blow up Penguins sitting in my office
Please try to clarify this thread.
<strong>
That would put it about next August at the very earliest, if your source is correct. I think the Sahara for iBook went slightly faster than that, but it was not a totally new chip.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sampling to production is sixteen+ months?!? I've been doing some google searching and I've not seen that kind of window ever mentioned when it came to previous CPUs. Or could that be sampling to production X months and then X more months for a final computer based on the new chip?
Either way that sure seems like a pretty long time. I'd assume much of the work (chip going from sample to production AND Apple working out a mobo for the new chip) would be done in parallel wouldn't it?
Dave
[ 08-22-2002: Message edited by: DaveGee ]</p>
Paris it is then.
First, Linux has been around for about 10 good years or so. It has been around for x86 machines for a LONG time and probably has a good installed base (or maybe not). The point is, the people who are using the OS aren't in the market that IBM needs to make money... The people who use Linux are the "geeky types" and solderheads. Not people at home (which is the BIGGEST market). So if you don't have mainstream apps like Office, Photoshop, Illustrator, Quark, Maya, AutoCAD etc... ALREADY, the outlook for the apps coming in the NEAR future is bleak. It's been around too damn long already and really hasn't amounted to anything but a really nice low to midrange server OS.
Secondly, Linux-PPC has already been out there for some time as well. IBM isn't introducing anything new here (i.e., Linux on PPC). Regardless what any Linux fan thinks, Linux development is moving slowly... Again, it's been out in the open-source community for how long now?? Anyway, back to the Linux-PPC point. Since Linux was ALREADY able to run on the Mac AND the Mac enjoys a relatively LARGE installed base (enough to make money if the developers thought it was viable). So, the question still remains, who is going to bring all these new and wonderful apps to the platform? Which apps will they be? which market is IBM trying to capture? Which flavors of Linux will these apps be compatible with? How long will it take the apps to develop and mature on this new platform? Will there be consistency of interface through ALL flavors of Linux UI? the questions keep mounting... OS X on the other hand is a completely different story...
Its been out for a very short time and has ALREADY passed Linux in probably every way imaginable and its evolution is progressing at an incredibly fast rate. OS X is mature and consistent TODAY and it will only get better. It has a UI that far more advanced and usable than ANYTHING on Linux AND it's more familiar to people AND it has a larger installed base (OS X is the #1 shipping UNIX in volume commercial or otherwise). It's had its shakedown period and more importantly... It already HAS A LOT OF GREAT COMMERCIAL APPLICATIONS as well as developer commitment. So, IBM is probably trying to cement some other *smaller* market thought it's still unclear.
To quota a few of my friends on their views of Linux...
(and I know I posted one of these in a different thread somewhere)
[[[There's a lot more to a desktop platform than just the OS; it's the entire infrastructure that matters. A solid desktop OS needs all manner of support from font foundries, file conversion utilities, installers and a general ability to open and work with documents across all other platforms in friendly fashion.
In general, my personal experience has been fairly grim when it comes to these issues. OS X provides an answer to all this that is so strong that the question of desktop Linux has gone from "How?" to "Why?" Those who like X86 boxes will slide glacier-like to Windows while the independent folks will tend to Macintosh, OS X and a mainstream Unix with a robust interface and mature applications.]]] - Del Miller, Aerospace Engineer
[[[Linux, and Unix interfaces in general are designed by committee. Large groups of people hashing, arguing, testing ideas, until they get the one that they can all agree on.
Examples of this are: KDE CDE OpenWindows WorkPlace Shell Gnome Windows...
All of them horrid.
To design a good interface, you need talent, but you also need vision. Committees never have vision. They have meetings. ]]] - John C. Welch
[[[There's sort of a fallacy with LINUX. LINUX never has been, and never will be a viable consumer desktop. To be such, it would have to be designed for the consumer.
LINUX is what it has always been -- a reasonable implementation of a UNIX based operating system, that is not bad as a low-end server (that has grown into the mid-end -- and may someday grow higher). It is not a bad foundation to build a turnkey system for some enterprises to use (as
turnkey solutions go. IBM?). But that is not the same as "consumer desktop".
The ultimate operating system is not a command line with a thin graphics shell on top. So, LINUX has never really been anything close to a desktop solution (let alone a consumer desktop solution) by anyone but the completely self-deluded. ]]] - David K. Every
[[[OSX is already the unit leader in terms of a UNIX distribution, BUT... Other people that rely on UNIX (corporate entities et. al.) are learning that IT IS ALREADY THE INTERFACE LEADER as well. And this is 12 months out of the gate. Jaguar looks to fix/improve many things... And in another 12-18 months, I think it will be the standard by which most UNIXXES are measured... OSX delivers today on what LINUX has been promising for 10 years... ]]] - Dave K. Every
So, the larger picture shows that people simply don't trust Linux as a viable solution. Sure, People will always mess around with it and there will always be open-source development and such, but in the end, I'm not convinced that these people and organizations are going to trust it enough to switch their entire computer base over to it. Simply put, it isn't what Linux was intended for and there are just too many additional hurdles to clear before any of this can even begin to to sound viable.
--
Ed M.
And no, the bird doesn't work for any retailer or anything that stupid. This bird would know.
[ 08-22-2002: Message edited by: Transcendental Octothorpe ]</p>