Will Apple move to the POWER 5 instead of PPC?

12357

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 121
    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
  • Reply 82 of 121
    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?
  • Reply 83 of 121
    onlookeronlooker Posts: 5,252member
    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?
  • Reply 84 of 121
    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.
  • Reply 85 of 121
    pbpb Posts: 4,248member
    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.
  • Reply 86 of 121
    h228h228 Posts: 26member
    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.
  • Reply 87 of 121
    pbpb Posts: 4,248member
    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.
  • Reply 88 of 121
    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).
  • Reply 89 of 121
    pbpb Posts: 4,248member
    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.
  • Reply 90 of 121
    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.
  • Reply 91 of 121
    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.
  • Reply 92 of 121
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    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.
  • Reply 93 of 121
    tidristidris Posts: 214member
    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.
  • Reply 94 of 121
    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.
  • Reply 95 of 121
    onlookeronlooker Posts: 5,252member
    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.
  • Reply 96 of 121
    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!
  • Reply 97 of 121
    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.
  • Reply 98 of 121
    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.
  • Reply 99 of 121
    dwsdws Posts: 108member
    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...
  • Reply 100 of 121
    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.