"IBM alliance will take the fight with Intel down to 32nm"
By Jon Stokes | Published: May 24, 2007 - 02:43PM CT
In the immortal words of Rosanne RosannaDanna, " You just never know Mr. Feder."
I don't see how that really changes things from Apple's standpoint. Intel will probably beat IBM to 32nm and have shown that the core microarch. has legs. It would seem to me that IBM would have to go even smaller, faster and lower power than Intel to even get Apple to give them a second look. Why would Apple and Mac users give up the Intel advantages (greater selection of chips, chipsets, Virtualization) just to have ppc chips that are just as fast or only marginally faster than Intels offerings?
I would agree that it's hard to say never but I think Apple will stick with intel through Gesher.
In your previous post, you claimed that the PPC was chosen to emulate 680x0 assembly routines. You were wrong. The PPC was chosen to emulate 680x0 binaries. Learn the difference. In your previous post, you said that PPC processor was the only processor that could do the job. You were wrong. The PPC may have been the best, but there was a huge difference between being the best and being the only. That was true in 1994. It is true now.
I don't mind learning the difference, but the impression that I have is that Apple went with PowerPC because x86 was too slow emulating whatever Assembly code was in the System/Finder software at the time... and if it's so slow that Apple couldn't or wouldn't use it, then yeah, it sounds like PowerPC was essentially their only option. The alternative would be x86 CPUs but System 7 would have been too slow to use and Apple still wasn't capable of getting a new OS out at the time until they bought NeXT.
I don't see how that really changes things from Apple's standpoint. Intel will probably beat IBM to 32nm and have shown that the core microarch. has legs. It would seem to me that IBM would have to go even smaller, faster and lower power than Intel to even get Apple to give them a second look. Why would Apple and Mac users give up the Intel advantages (greater selection of chips, chipsets, Virtualization) just to have ppc chips that are just as fast or only marginally faster than Intels offerings?
I would agree that it's hard to say never but I think Apple will stick with intel through Gesher.
I write out a logical argument, give information. I take you seriously.
You ignore all of it.
You must reply to our points. You refuse to do that.
You are a hard man melgross. No, I don't ignore your information. I might misinterpret what you say, but ignore it? Never. And I take you very seriously. That is why I keep trying to defend myself, and what I say.
Regarding this misunderstanding, onlooker must take half the blame. It's the kind of thing that happens a lot I believe. I took his word literally, rather than seeing the underlying meaning. I'll explain:
Quote:
Originally Posted by onlooker
. . . Apple got into bed with the PPC years ago and stayed with it for the longest time. Now Apple is in bed with intel, and they will remain there for probably longer.
Onlooker said essentially that Apple used the PPC for a long time, but is now using Intel, when it would have been less confusing to me if he said X86. I took this to mean, at least in part, that Apple is locked into Intel the way Apple was locked into the PPC. So my reply was a general one. Apple is, or should be, free to use any 'vendor' and any chip 'architecture' that Apple wishes to use. That's it. My exact words were:
"Why should Apple be more restricted than Dell and HP in what it does? Dell and HP use Intel chips, but do these companies not also use AMD at times? I don't think Intel expects Apple to never use another chip vendor. What about the iPod and iPhone? These are different enough markets to warrant another vendor if the product is right."
but the impression that I have is that Apple went with PowerPC because x86 was too slow emulating whatever Assembly code was in the System/Finder software at the time...
Impressions are not facts. And once again, computers do not run assembly language. Assembly is a low-level human-readable language which is compiled into binary or machine language. Computers run binaries. An emulator runs the binary of one computer on a computer with a different ISA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slewis
and if it's so slow that Apple couldn't or wouldn't use it, then yeah, it sounds like PowerPC was essentially their only option. The alternative would be x86 CPUs but System 7 would have been too slow to use and Apple still wasn't capable of getting a new OS out at the time until they bought NeXT.
...
There are rumors dating back to the late 1980s of Star Trek, an x86-based Mac. However, x86 was not a serious candidate as the replacement for the 680x0:
The early 1990s was the era of the Pentium which couldn't do [floating point] math.
Intel processors of the era--the 386, 486, Pentium, and Pentium II--produced enormous amounts of heat. Each successive family required x86 OEMs to reengineer their offerings to deal with the heat. Heat production was one of the things which killed the Pentium II for general-purpose computing.
There was a general consensus that RISC was the future of computing. The x86 was antediluvian even by CISC standards. There were several RISC alternatives. HP had Precision Architecture. Sun Microsystems had SPARC. DEC had Alpha. IBM had POWER. And Motorola had 88000. The 88x00 was the early frontrunner to replace Motorola's 680x0 as the brains of the Mac. NeXT designed but never sold the NeXT RISC Workstation based on the 88x00. The Data General AViiON midrange was based on the 88x00. The AViiON was the subject of one of the most important books about computers in the 1990s.
Apple's stated reason for going with POWER was that its ISA was better suited for emulation than Motorola's 88x00. This is no doubt true--partially. However, I am convinced that another important consideration was the choice turned IBM into a partner. In the early 1990s, IBM was a pretty good partner to have.
Onlooker said essentially that Apple used the PPC for a long time, but is now using Intel, when it would have been less confusing to me if he said X86. I took this to mean, at least in part, that Apple is locked into Intel the way Apple was locked into the PPC. So my reply was a general one. Apple is, or should be, free to use any 'vendor' and any chip 'architecture' that Apple wishes to use. That's it. My exact words were:
Is this mess getting any clearer?
I used "PPC" because it was more than just IBM. There was the IAM PPC alliance. Now Apple is still innovating, but with intel.
Intel, I don't believe, is as difficult to work with as IBM and motorola were, but I don't see Apple partnering with AMD for anything. They have no reason to. And AMD is in bed with IBM from time to time so I don't really don't see Apple going there. Don't forget that IBM basically told Apple they were not worth their time. Apple didn't take kindly to that. What do you think Apple is going to do? Get big enough to be worth their time and come crawling back to them and say are we big enough now.... Will you do our chips for us again Big Blue? Apple is going to shove it down their throats. And with intel of all people. You never would have believed it 4 years ago.
I don't mind learning the difference, but the impression that I have is that Apple went with PowerPC because x86 was too slow emulating whatever Assembly code was in the System/Finder software at the time... and if it's so slow that Apple couldn't or wouldn't use it, then yeah, it sounds like PowerPC was essentially their only option. The alternative would be x86 CPUs but System 7 would have been too slow to use and Apple still wasn't capable of getting a new OS out at the time until they bought NeXT.
Sebastian
Let's be clear about something here. Going back to 68xxx chips, Apple had a better time of it than x86 users did.
The Moto 68xxx line was simply a better IP. It was a 16/32 bit chip, where Intel's was at first an 8/16 bit chip. The memory model was vastly better, etc. No question about it. At that time, Intel was not quite the powerhouse, or had the best process, just the opposite. IBM invested plenty in Intel, back in the eighties, because it was afraid that Intel might go out of business. That investment required Intel to share their IP with others. IBM itself was making x86 chips for a while, until Intel grew bigger and strong enough that IBM lost the concern that they would be in trouble.
Apple had NO intention of going to x86. It wasn't even a question. I was around back then, and I remember it well. I still have many computer mags from that era, and the idea was not even brought up as speculation. Just the opposite.
Apple went with the PPC because of all of that, and the continuity of remaining with Moto. They were considered to be the high end chip manufacturer then. Don't forget that Apple was also working on OSes with IBM (Pink, Taligent), and had a business relationship. IBM, Moto, and Apple formed the consortium to design, and built the PPC line together. Apple contributed micro code, among other things.
The PPC was a much better processor than the new Pentium.
The prediction was that it would take the computer market over from x86.
And, it might have, if MS didn't decide to discontinue NT for PPC shortly after its appearance.
The PPC line continued to give Apple a big performance advantage over the PC (esp. after Windows 3.1 came out, which wiped out the advantage PC's had over Apple's bitmapped OS)
The Mac was often 30% faster in integer, and 40% faster in float over comparable speed x86 chip machines.
When Altivec came out, that advantage increased to 100%, or more, for those operations that could be vectorized.
When I bought my daughter the new 450MHz G4, it was the fastest personal computer in the world, by a good margin.
It was only after a year, or so, when Moto continued to fail to deliver new higher speed chips secveral times a year as they had been dong previously, that Apple's performance faltered.
It took somewhat over a year, when Intel's chips reached 1 GHz, that PC's began to reliabibly outpace Apple's. Shortly before that, Apple began delivering dual chip machines.
Don't forget that IBM basically told Apple they were not worth their time. Apple didn't take kindly to that. What do you think Apple is going to do? . . .
Yeah, that is one aspect of it that I didn't take into account. Steve didn't take kindly to IBM's actions. He likely got great pleasure making the announcement that Apple is going with Intel chips.
However, I was mentally getting a different picture. IBM sees the profit that can be made selling PPC phone chips to everyone. IBM's design crew whips up a chip that significantly outperforms ARM, and approaches Apple. Apple does the smart thing and designs it into the iPhone, giving Apple yet another advantage over the competition.
IBM picks Apple because the iPhone is an advanced design and gets a lot of attention. IBM knows that the other vendors will follow Apple in selecting the IBM phone chip, in an attempt to stay competitive. IBM approaches business in an intelligent manner and does not mind apologizing to Apple. Business is business, and personal feeling just get in the way.
Will the chip be in the first iPhone? I doubt it, but I'd give it the weather forecast odds of 5 or 10 percent chance of happening sometime. I don't expect you to agree with me. This is just the fun of discussions.
Yeah, that is one aspect of it that I didn't take into account. Steve didn't take kindly to IBM's actions. He likely got great pleasure making the announcement that Apple is going with Intel chips.
However, I was mentally getting a different picture. IBM sees the profit that can be made selling PPC phone chips to everyone. IBM's design crew whips up a chip that significantly outperforms ARM, and approaches Apple. Apple does the smart thing and designs it into the iPhone, giving Apple yet another advantage over the competition.
IBM picks Apple because the iPhone is an advanced design and gets a lot of attention. IBM knows that the other vendors will follow Apple in selecting the IBM phone chip, in an attempt to stay competitive. IBM approaches business in an intelligent manner and does not mind apologizing to Apple. Business is business, and personal feeling just get in the way.
Will the chip be in the first iPhone? I doubt it, but I'd give it the weather forecast odds of 5 or 10 percent chance of happening sometime. I don't expect you to agree with me. This is just the fun of discussions.
Too many assumptions.
It would cost IBM a good $200 million, or more, to develop a chip for a phone. Given the heavy competition in that space, it's unlikely they would consider it.
Why would you assume that IBM, or anyone, could do more than design a new chip that is anything more than incrementally better than what is out at the time?
And are the other leading manufacturers, who have the IP for this, and the patents, standing still? IBM would have to work around that.
And IBM would "pick" Apple? No manufacturer picks a customer. they announce their impending product at the appropriate trade fair, and describe it.
The potential customers look at what is presented, and if they are interested, THEY make advances to see more, under non-disclosure rules.
If they like what they see, they MAY ask for samples, when, and if they are produced, which depends on the interest shown by those potential customers. Mind you, the word is customers. With an "s". They won't produce product without a broad interest level.
As OSX is now capable of running on both architectures and mosr apps universal binaries, this leaves the door open to use the best of both worlds. Is it likely that say a Power 6 could be used in a high end server whilst using Intel in desktop machines?
yeah, heard about the all-powerful, Power 6, could be. I think AMD has a lot to bring to the table the future too, perhaps that is why the santa rosa didn't make it in the macbooks, they could be waiting for AMD, which historically has been innovative where it needs to be. Power 6 on the server side though, should get interesting.
yeah, heard about the all-powerful, Power 6, could be. . . . Power 6 on the server side though, should get interesting.
I'm a little out of date, but the last I heard, the Power Series were huge processors in a cast the size of a VCR tape. (Well, that may be exagerating a little. ) The Power Series is for mainframe computers, nothing that Apple would be building anytime soon.
Apple used the PPC, a condensed version of the Power Series. The G5 or 970 PPC was modeled after the Power 4. So a PPC modeled after the Power 6 might be called a G6. Since there is no PPC modeled on the Power 5, the G numbers would finally be even with the Power Series number.
Now that Apple is partnered with Intel, we may have a future Mac chip based on the Itanium. Lord help us if that happens.
yeah, heard about the all-powerful, Power 6, could be. I think AMD has a lot to bring to the table the future too, perhaps that is why the santa rosa didn't make it in the macbooks, they could be waiting for AMD, which historically has been innovative where it needs to be. Power 6 on the server side though, should get interesting.
I wouldn't count out Santa Rosa in a MBP. I think Apple doing to the MacBook what they always do with the MacBook. Keep the price down so it's affordable. MBP is a completely different monster. And it needs to run Apples Pro Apps with speed. It's not built, or marketed around affordability. That would be a bad idea.
Nothing like a cold dose of reality to spoil a perfectly wonderful theory.
Seriously though, I think your criticisms are over zealous, though they have a lot of merit. When a company proceeds very cautiously, there is danger of not doing anything really significant. A successful entrepreneur once told me my business plan was garbage, because I had contingencies for everything, in the event it didn't succeed. "You can't be a success if you plan for everything to fail," were his words to me. He may have been too extreme, but there is something to what he said.
Quote:
It would cost IBM a good $200 million, or more, to develop a chip for a phone. Given the heavy competition in that space, it's unlikely they would consider it.
This admonition is valid when a company does not have a better mouse trap. If the market is large enough, IBM could have been exploring a phone processor for some time now. If preliminary studies were promising, IBM may have gone on to building prototypes.
Quote:
Why would you assume that IBM, or anyone, could do more than design a new chip that is anything more than incrementally better than what is out at the time?. . . And are the other leading manufacturers, who have the IP for this, and the patents, standing still? IBM would have to work around that.
This is IBM, big IBM with some top talent. If the market is big enough, IBM may consider it worth pursuing.
Quote:
And IBM would "pick" Apple? No manufacturer picks a customer. they announce their impending product at the appropriate trade fair, and describe it.
Normal procedure, true. Yet, is it against the rules to do something different? In the case of a phone processor, which is an established market, a new strategy could be called for. Get it into a high profile product like the iPhone. It would call attention to the processor. Typically, nobody gives a rip about what processor is in a phone. This approach could change things, and make all cell phone vendors take notice, because the public is taking notice.
Nothing like a cold dose of reality to spoil a perfectly wonderful theory.
Seriously though, I think your criticisms are over zealous, though they have a lot of merit. When a company proceeds very cautiously, there is danger of not doing anything really significant. A successful entrepreneur once told me my business plan was garbage, because I had contingencies for everything, in the event it didn't succeed. "You can't be a success if you plan for everything to fail," were his words to me. He may have been too extreme, but there is something to what he said.
Having had two sucessful businesses, I would have to say that you must always have a backup plan or two. you also must be fully financed. One reason why many businesses fail is because they haven't enough capital.
Quote:
This admonition is valid when a company does not have a better mouse trap. If the market is large enough, IBM could have been exploring a phone processor for some time now. If preliminary studies were promising, IBM may have gone on to building prototypes.
We would have heard about a new processor from IBM long before prototypes are built. That's the very last process in a long drawn out string of steps that must be taken. Before they are ready to tape out, all potential customers have been thoroughly informed at the public forums, as I said earlier. Just as almost all new processes are announced years before they are undertaken, new chip families are also announced well before any possible manufacture.
That's just the way it's done.
Quote:
This is IBM, big IBM with some top talent. If the market is big enough, IBM may consider it worth pursuing.
Everyone has top talent. IBM is not special here. How do you think Intel was able to turn their shjp around so quickly? And what about Broadcom, and Qualcomm, and others? They almost invented the industry. They also have top talent.
If their talent was so great, what happened to the G5, both desktop and portable?
Quote:
Normal procedure, true. Yet, is it against the rules to do something different? In the case of a phone processor, which is an established market, a new strategy could be called for. Get it into a high profile product like the iPhone. It would call attention to the processor. Typically, nobody gives a rip about what processor is in a phone. This approach could change things, and make all cell phone vendors take notice, because the public is taking notice.
It's normal procedure, because that's the way it's done. Always. They MAY ask a company if it's interested, but that's all.
If their product is so superior, they certainly don't need Apple as a special customer. After all, even Apple expects to take only 1% of the business. These aren't iPods.
We would have heard about a new processor from IBM long before prototypes are built. That's the very last process in a long drawn out string of steps that must be taken. Before they are ready to tape out, all potential customers have been thoroughly informed at the public forums, as I said earlier. Just as almost all new processes are announced years before they are undertaken, new chip families are also announced well before any possible manufacture.
That's just the way it's done.
Well, we didn't hear about the G5 except for a vague paper to be given at a future microprocessor conference. There were rumors, but the information came after Apple announced it. I could be a little off on that, but not much. I was following the rumors.
We would have known even less about the 970 MP dual core G5, if someone hadn't posted a PDF spec sheet of it on AppleInsider forum. Since security has gotten tighter, I suspect a cell phone chip development program could be kept secret today.
The reason IBM might offer it to Apple first would be strictly marketing. Get it into a high profile product first to show off its advantages. The rest of the market will come when the demand for the new chip grows. This is not such a far out scheme.
Well, we didn't hear about the G5 except for a vague paper to be given at a future microprocessor conference. There were rumors, but the information came after Apple announced it. I could be a little off on that, but not much. I was following the rumors.
No, we heard about the G5 well in advance of its appearance, at the annual microprocessor conference. that's where all the chip companies make announcements about new technology, and products. They also show off their wares, and pre-production samples, working, if possible.
This isn't a rumors conference, even though that may be the way you get your news.
We would have known even less about the 970 MP dual core G5, if someone hadn't posted a PDF spec sheet of it on AppleInsider forum. Since security has gotten tighter, I suspect a cell phone chip development program could be kept secret today.
No, YOU wouldn't have known.
Quote:
The reason IBM might offer it to Apple first would be strictly marketing. Get it into a high profile product first to show off its advantages. The rest of the market will come when the demand for the new chip grows. This is not such a far out scheme.
What they do is make it known to the industry in plenty of time for everyone to find out what they need. Whoever is interested makes it known.
I don't know why you have to make up scenarios that don't exist.
No, we heard about the G5 well in advance of its appearance, at the annual microprocessor conference.
Did you check the dates of both this conference and the G5 Power Macintosh introduction? We heard the G5 paper just a couple weeks or so before Apple showed off the G5 Mac, just enough time to peak everybody's interest in Apple's announcement. This is not what you implied at all in a previous statement you made.
Quote:
We would have heard about a new processor from IBM long before prototypes are built.
So, rather than hearing about the G5 long before prototypes were built, as you claim, we in fact heard about it only after G5s was already in production at IBM's Fishkill manufacturing facility. Your estimate is off by about 18 months, no?
Quote:
I don't know why you have to make up scenarios that don't exist.
Regarding the G5, IBM already did what I suggested that IBM do with a phone processor, keep it a secret until it is announced in a fairly high profile product. So why is my phone chip scenario that difficult to believe? Unless it has been disclosed otherwise, IBM could be in full production of a PPC phone chip at this very moment. I don't expect it, but there is already a precedence for something like this.
Apple had NO intention of going to x86. It wasn't even a question. I was around back then, and I remember it well. I still have many computer mags from that era, and the idea was not even brought up as speculation. Just the opposite.
Apple went with the PPC because of all of that, and the continuity of remaining with Moto. They were considered to be the high end chip manufacturer then. Don't forget that Apple was also working on OSes with IBM (Pink, Taligent), and had a business relationship. IBM, Moto, and Apple formed the consortium to design, and built the PPC line together. Apple contributed micro code, among other things.
The PPC was a much better processor than the new Pentium.
The prediction was that it would take the computer market over from x86.
And, it might have, if MS didn't decide to discontinue NT for PPC shortly after its appearance.
The PPC line continued to give Apple a big performance advantage over the PC (esp. after Windows 3.1 came out, which wiped out the advantage PC's had over Apple's bitmapped OS)
The Mac was often 30% faster in integer, and 40% faster in float over comparable speed x86 chip machines.
When Altivec came out, that advantage increased to 100%, or more, for those operations that could be vectorized.
When I bought my daughter the new 450MHz G4, it was the fastest personal computer in the world, by a good margin.
It was only after a year, or so, when Moto continued to fail to deliver new higher speed chips secveral times a year as they had been dong previously, that Apple's performance faltered.
It took somewhat over a year, when Intel's chips reached 1 GHz, that PC's began to reliabibly outpace Apple's. Shortly before that, Apple began delivering dual chip machines.
Thank god some people here are old enough to remember that...
I remember the days where everyone was naive enough to believe that the whole PC industry was going to move to the PPC based Common Hardware Reference Platform (CHRP). At the time, the x86 platform was really a mess (it got much better since then), and the goal was to move personal computing forward to a well defined platform basis. RISC cpus were seen as the "cpus of the future" and many believed that they would replace CISC chips.
CHRP PCs would've run a variety of OSes, Windows NT, UNIX, Mac OS (Copland), Taligent and other futuristic vaporware OSes. Everything appeared to be going nice and well, until Microsoft decided to back-off and discontinue work on the PPC version of NT. With MS out of the picture, CHRP simply couldn't have become what it was intended for.
As for the PPC, as you mentioned, in the first few years it was noticeably faster than Pentiums. And not only because it was faster at the same clock speed, but during those days Moto was releasing PPC that had a faster clock speed than the fastest Pentium.
But around the time the PPC hit 500Mhz, troubles began... Not only Moto had problems actually producing and shipping the chips, but it took something like a year and a half until they were able to break the 500Mhz barrier. It took them an eternity to reach 1Ghz, and Moto never reached 2Ghz with the G4. Then we have the G5 IBM story, which the rest of you kids should know about.
Did you check the dates of both this conference and the G5 Power Macintosh introduction? We heard the G5 paper just a couple weeks or so before Apple showed off the G5 Mac, just enough time to peak everybody's interest in Apple's announcement. This is not what you implied at all in a previous statement you made.
What are you talking about? That's wrong.
Quote:
So, rather than hearing about the G5 long before prototypes were built, as you claim, we in fact heard about it only after G5s was already in production at IBM's Fishkill manufacturing facility. Your estimate is off by about 18 months, no?
No.
Quote:
Regarding the G5, IBM already did what I suggested that IBM do with a phone processor, keep it a secret until it is announced in a fairly high profile product. So why is my phone chip scenario that difficult to believe? Unless it has been disclosed otherwise, IBM could be in full production of a PPC phone chip at this very moment. I don't expect it, but there is already a precedence for something like this.
I'm not buying into the secret phone processor deal one bit. IBM has never had any secrets. We knew about the G5 prior to two weeks before WWDC; that's just not true. I Think you were just un informed at the time, and had no clue IBM was working on the G5.
Comments
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...n-to-32nm.html
Kind of relevant in an indirect sort of way.
"IBM alliance will take the fight with Intel down to 32nm"
By Jon Stokes | Published: May 24, 2007 - 02:43PM CT
In the immortal words of Rosanne RosannaDanna, " You just never know Mr. Feder."
I don't see how that really changes things from Apple's standpoint. Intel will probably beat IBM to 32nm and have shown that the core microarch. has legs. It would seem to me that IBM would have to go even smaller, faster and lower power than Intel to even get Apple to give them a second look. Why would Apple and Mac users give up the Intel advantages (greater selection of chips, chipsets, Virtualization) just to have ppc chips that are just as fast or only marginally faster than Intels offerings?
I would agree that it's hard to say never but I think Apple will stick with intel through Gesher.
In your previous post, you claimed that the PPC was chosen to emulate 680x0 assembly routines. You were wrong. The PPC was chosen to emulate 680x0 binaries. Learn the difference. In your previous post, you said that PPC processor was the only processor that could do the job. You were wrong. The PPC may have been the best, but there was a huge difference between being the best and being the only. That was true in 1994. It is true now.
I don't mind learning the difference, but the impression that I have is that Apple went with PowerPC because x86 was too slow emulating whatever Assembly code was in the System/Finder software at the time... and if it's so slow that Apple couldn't or wouldn't use it, then yeah, it sounds like PowerPC was essentially their only option. The alternative would be x86 CPUs but System 7 would have been too slow to use and Apple still wasn't capable of getting a new OS out at the time until they bought NeXT.
Sebastian
I don't see how that really changes things from Apple's standpoint. Intel will probably beat IBM to 32nm and have shown that the core microarch. has legs. It would seem to me that IBM would have to go even smaller, faster and lower power than Intel to even get Apple to give them a second look. Why would Apple and Mac users give up the Intel advantages (greater selection of chips, chipsets, Virtualization) just to have ppc chips that are just as fast or only marginally faster than Intels offerings?
I would agree that it's hard to say never but I think Apple will stick with intel through Gesher.
No problem here, and yes never is a long time.
I write out a logical argument, give information. I take you seriously.
You ignore all of it.
You must reply to our points. You refuse to do that.
You are a hard man melgross.
Regarding this misunderstanding, onlooker must take half the blame. It's the kind of thing that happens a lot I believe. I took his word literally, rather than seeing the underlying meaning. I'll explain:
. . . Apple got into bed with the PPC years ago and stayed with it for the longest time. Now Apple is in bed with intel, and they will remain there for probably longer.
Onlooker said essentially that Apple used the PPC for a long time, but is now using Intel, when it would have been less confusing to me if he said X86. I took this to mean, at least in part, that Apple is locked into Intel the way Apple was locked into the PPC. So my reply was a general one. Apple is, or should be, free to use any 'vendor' and any chip 'architecture' that Apple wishes to use. That's it. My exact words were:
"Why should Apple be more restricted than Dell and HP in what it does? Dell and HP use Intel chips, but do these companies not also use AMD at times? I don't think Intel expects Apple to never use another chip vendor. What about the iPod and iPhone? These are different enough markets to warrant another vendor if the product is right."
Is this mess getting any clearer?
I don't mind learning the difference,
There is no better time than the present.
but the impression that I have is that Apple went with PowerPC because x86 was too slow emulating whatever Assembly code was in the System/Finder software at the time...
Impressions are not facts. And once again, computers do not run assembly language. Assembly is a low-level human-readable language which is compiled into binary or machine language. Computers run binaries. An emulator runs the binary of one computer on a computer with a different ISA.
and if it's so slow that Apple couldn't or wouldn't use it, then yeah, it sounds like PowerPC was essentially their only option. The alternative would be x86 CPUs but System 7 would have been too slow to use and Apple still wasn't capable of getting a new OS out at the time until they bought NeXT.
...
There are rumors dating back to the late 1980s of Star Trek, an x86-based Mac. However, x86 was not a serious candidate as the replacement for the 680x0:
The early 1990s was the era of the Pentium which couldn't do [floating point] math.
Intel processors of the era--the 386, 486, Pentium, and Pentium II--produced enormous amounts of heat. Each successive family required x86 OEMs to reengineer their offerings to deal with the heat. Heat production was one of the things which killed the Pentium II for general-purpose computing.
There was a general consensus that RISC was the future of computing. The x86 was antediluvian even by CISC standards. There were several RISC alternatives. HP had Precision Architecture. Sun Microsystems had SPARC. DEC had Alpha. IBM had POWER. And Motorola had 88000. The 88x00 was the early frontrunner to replace Motorola's 680x0 as the brains of the Mac. NeXT designed but never sold the NeXT RISC Workstation based on the 88x00. The Data General AViiON midrange was based on the 88x00. The AViiON was the subject of one of the most important books about computers in the 1990s.
Apple's stated reason for going with POWER was that its ISA was better suited for emulation than Motorola's 88x00. This is no doubt true--partially. However, I am convinced that another important consideration was the choice turned IBM into a partner. In the early 1990s, IBM was a pretty good partner to have.
Onlooker said essentially that Apple used the PPC for a long time, but is now using Intel, when it would have been less confusing to me if he said X86. I took this to mean, at least in part, that Apple is locked into Intel the way Apple was locked into the PPC. So my reply was a general one. Apple is, or should be, free to use any 'vendor' and any chip 'architecture' that Apple wishes to use. That's it. My exact words were:
Is this mess getting any clearer?
I used "PPC" because it was more than just IBM. There was the IAM PPC alliance. Now Apple is still innovating, but with intel.
Intel, I don't believe, is as difficult to work with as IBM and motorola were, but I don't see Apple partnering with AMD for anything. They have no reason to. And AMD is in bed with IBM from time to time so I don't really don't see Apple going there. Don't forget that IBM basically told Apple they were not worth their time. Apple didn't take kindly to that. What do you think Apple is going to do? Get big enough to be worth their time and come crawling back to them and say are we big enough now.... Will you do our chips for us again Big Blue? Apple is going to shove it down their throats. And with intel of all people. You never would have believed it 4 years ago.
I don't mind learning the difference, but the impression that I have is that Apple went with PowerPC because x86 was too slow emulating whatever Assembly code was in the System/Finder software at the time... and if it's so slow that Apple couldn't or wouldn't use it, then yeah, it sounds like PowerPC was essentially their only option. The alternative would be x86 CPUs but System 7 would have been too slow to use and Apple still wasn't capable of getting a new OS out at the time until they bought NeXT.
Sebastian
Let's be clear about something here. Going back to 68xxx chips, Apple had a better time of it than x86 users did.
The Moto 68xxx line was simply a better IP. It was a 16/32 bit chip, where Intel's was at first an 8/16 bit chip. The memory model was vastly better, etc. No question about it. At that time, Intel was not quite the powerhouse, or had the best process, just the opposite. IBM invested plenty in Intel, back in the eighties, because it was afraid that Intel might go out of business. That investment required Intel to share their IP with others. IBM itself was making x86 chips for a while, until Intel grew bigger and strong enough that IBM lost the concern that they would be in trouble.
Apple had NO intention of going to x86. It wasn't even a question. I was around back then, and I remember it well. I still have many computer mags from that era, and the idea was not even brought up as speculation. Just the opposite.
Apple went with the PPC because of all of that, and the continuity of remaining with Moto. They were considered to be the high end chip manufacturer then. Don't forget that Apple was also working on OSes with IBM (Pink, Taligent), and had a business relationship. IBM, Moto, and Apple formed the consortium to design, and built the PPC line together. Apple contributed micro code, among other things.
The PPC was a much better processor than the new Pentium.
The prediction was that it would take the computer market over from x86.
And, it might have, if MS didn't decide to discontinue NT for PPC shortly after its appearance.
The PPC line continued to give Apple a big performance advantage over the PC (esp. after Windows 3.1 came out, which wiped out the advantage PC's had over Apple's bitmapped OS)
The Mac was often 30% faster in integer, and 40% faster in float over comparable speed x86 chip machines.
When Altivec came out, that advantage increased to 100%, or more, for those operations that could be vectorized.
When I bought my daughter the new 450MHz G4, it was the fastest personal computer in the world, by a good margin.
It was only after a year, or so, when Moto continued to fail to deliver new higher speed chips secveral times a year as they had been dong previously, that Apple's performance faltered.
It took somewhat over a year, when Intel's chips reached 1 GHz, that PC's began to reliabibly outpace Apple's. Shortly before that, Apple began delivering dual chip machines.
Don't forget that IBM basically told Apple they were not worth their time. Apple didn't take kindly to that. What do you think Apple is going to do? . . .
Yeah, that is one aspect of it that I didn't take into account. Steve didn't take kindly to IBM's actions. He likely got great pleasure making the announcement that Apple is going with Intel chips.
However, I was mentally getting a different picture. IBM sees the profit that can be made selling PPC phone chips to everyone. IBM's design crew whips up a chip that significantly outperforms ARM, and approaches Apple. Apple does the smart thing and designs it into the iPhone, giving Apple yet another advantage over the competition.
IBM picks Apple because the iPhone is an advanced design and gets a lot of attention. IBM knows that the other vendors will follow Apple in selecting the IBM phone chip, in an attempt to stay competitive. IBM approaches business in an intelligent manner and does not mind apologizing to Apple. Business is business, and personal feeling just get in the way.
Will the chip be in the first iPhone? I doubt it, but I'd give it the weather forecast odds of 5 or 10 percent chance of happening sometime. I don't expect you to agree with me. This is just the fun of discussions.
Yeah, that is one aspect of it that I didn't take into account. Steve didn't take kindly to IBM's actions. He likely got great pleasure making the announcement that Apple is going with Intel chips.
However, I was mentally getting a different picture. IBM sees the profit that can be made selling PPC phone chips to everyone. IBM's design crew whips up a chip that significantly outperforms ARM, and approaches Apple. Apple does the smart thing and designs it into the iPhone, giving Apple yet another advantage over the competition.
IBM picks Apple because the iPhone is an advanced design and gets a lot of attention. IBM knows that the other vendors will follow Apple in selecting the IBM phone chip, in an attempt to stay competitive. IBM approaches business in an intelligent manner and does not mind apologizing to Apple. Business is business, and personal feeling just get in the way.
Will the chip be in the first iPhone? I doubt it, but I'd give it the weather forecast odds of 5 or 10 percent chance of happening sometime. I don't expect you to agree with me. This is just the fun of discussions.
Too many assumptions.
It would cost IBM a good $200 million, or more, to develop a chip for a phone. Given the heavy competition in that space, it's unlikely they would consider it.
Why would you assume that IBM, or anyone, could do more than design a new chip that is anything more than incrementally better than what is out at the time?
And are the other leading manufacturers, who have the IP for this, and the patents, standing still? IBM would have to work around that.
And IBM would "pick" Apple? No manufacturer picks a customer. they announce their impending product at the appropriate trade fair, and describe it.
The potential customers look at what is presented, and if they are interested, THEY make advances to see more, under non-disclosure rules.
If they like what they see, they MAY ask for samples, when, and if they are produced, which depends on the interest shown by those potential customers. Mind you, the word is customers. With an "s". They won't produce product without a broad interest level.
As OSX is now capable of running on both architectures and mosr apps universal binaries, this leaves the door open to use the best of both worlds. Is it likely that say a Power 6 could be used in a high end server whilst using Intel in desktop machines?
yeah, heard about the all-powerful, Power 6, could be. I think AMD has a lot to bring to the table the future too, perhaps that is why the santa rosa didn't make it in the macbooks, they could be waiting for AMD, which historically has been innovative where it needs to be. Power 6 on the server side though, should get interesting.
yeah, heard about the all-powerful, Power 6, could be. . . . Power 6 on the server side though, should get interesting.
I'm a little out of date, but the last I heard, the Power Series were huge processors in a cast the size of a VCR tape. (Well, that may be exagerating a little.
Apple used the PPC, a condensed version of the Power Series. The G5 or 970 PPC was modeled after the Power 4. So a PPC modeled after the Power 6 might be called a G6. Since there is no PPC modeled on the Power 5, the G numbers would finally be even with the Power Series number.
Now that Apple is partnered with Intel, we may have a future Mac chip based on the Itanium.
yeah, heard about the all-powerful, Power 6, could be. I think AMD has a lot to bring to the table the future too, perhaps that is why the santa rosa didn't make it in the macbooks, they could be waiting for AMD, which historically has been innovative where it needs to be. Power 6 on the server side though, should get interesting.
I wouldn't count out Santa Rosa in a MBP. I think Apple doing to the MacBook what they always do with the MacBook. Keep the price down so it's affordable. MBP is a completely different monster. And it needs to run Apples Pro Apps with speed. It's not built, or marketed around affordability. That would be a bad idea.
Too many assumptions.
Nothing like a cold dose of reality to spoil a perfectly wonderful theory.
Seriously though, I think your criticisms are over zealous, though they have a lot of merit. When a company proceeds very cautiously, there is danger of not doing anything really significant. A successful entrepreneur once told me my business plan was garbage, because I had contingencies for everything, in the event it didn't succeed. "You can't be a success if you plan for everything to fail," were his words to me. He may have been too extreme, but there is something to what he said.
It would cost IBM a good $200 million, or more, to develop a chip for a phone. Given the heavy competition in that space, it's unlikely they would consider it.
This admonition is valid when a company does not have a better mouse trap. If the market is large enough, IBM could have been exploring a phone processor for some time now. If preliminary studies were promising, IBM may have gone on to building prototypes.
Why would you assume that IBM, or anyone, could do more than design a new chip that is anything more than incrementally better than what is out at the time?. . . And are the other leading manufacturers, who have the IP for this, and the patents, standing still? IBM would have to work around that.
This is IBM, big IBM with some top talent. If the market is big enough, IBM may consider it worth pursuing.
And IBM would "pick" Apple? No manufacturer picks a customer. they announce their impending product at the appropriate trade fair, and describe it.
Normal procedure, true. Yet, is it against the rules to do something different? In the case of a phone processor, which is an established market, a new strategy could be called for. Get it into a high profile product like the iPhone. It would call attention to the processor. Typically, nobody gives a rip about what processor is in a phone. This approach could change things, and make all cell phone vendors take notice, because the public is taking notice.
Nothing like a cold dose of reality to spoil a perfectly wonderful theory.
Seriously though, I think your criticisms are over zealous, though they have a lot of merit. When a company proceeds very cautiously, there is danger of not doing anything really significant. A successful entrepreneur once told me my business plan was garbage, because I had contingencies for everything, in the event it didn't succeed. "You can't be a success if you plan for everything to fail," were his words to me. He may have been too extreme, but there is something to what he said.
Having had two sucessful businesses, I would have to say that you must always have a backup plan or two. you also must be fully financed. One reason why many businesses fail is because they haven't enough capital.
This admonition is valid when a company does not have a better mouse trap. If the market is large enough, IBM could have been exploring a phone processor for some time now. If preliminary studies were promising, IBM may have gone on to building prototypes.
We would have heard about a new processor from IBM long before prototypes are built. That's the very last process in a long drawn out string of steps that must be taken. Before they are ready to tape out, all potential customers have been thoroughly informed at the public forums, as I said earlier. Just as almost all new processes are announced years before they are undertaken, new chip families are also announced well before any possible manufacture.
That's just the way it's done.
This is IBM, big IBM with some top talent. If the market is big enough, IBM may consider it worth pursuing.
Everyone has top talent. IBM is not special here. How do you think Intel was able to turn their shjp around so quickly? And what about Broadcom, and Qualcomm, and others? They almost invented the industry. They also have top talent.
If their talent was so great, what happened to the G5, both desktop and portable?
Normal procedure, true. Yet, is it against the rules to do something different? In the case of a phone processor, which is an established market, a new strategy could be called for. Get it into a high profile product like the iPhone. It would call attention to the processor. Typically, nobody gives a rip about what processor is in a phone. This approach could change things, and make all cell phone vendors take notice, because the public is taking notice.
It's normal procedure, because that's the way it's done. Always. They MAY ask a company if it's interested, but that's all.
If their product is so superior, they certainly don't need Apple as a special customer. After all, even Apple expects to take only 1% of the business. These aren't iPods.
We would have heard about a new processor from IBM long before prototypes are built. That's the very last process in a long drawn out string of steps that must be taken. Before they are ready to tape out, all potential customers have been thoroughly informed at the public forums, as I said earlier. Just as almost all new processes are announced years before they are undertaken, new chip families are also announced well before any possible manufacture.
That's just the way it's done.
Well, we didn't hear about the G5 except for a vague paper to be given at a future microprocessor conference. There were rumors, but the information came after Apple announced it. I could be a little off on that, but not much. I was following the rumors.
We would have known even less about the 970 MP dual core G5, if someone hadn't posted a PDF spec sheet of it on AppleInsider forum. Since security has gotten tighter, I suspect a cell phone chip development program could be kept secret today.
The reason IBM might offer it to Apple first would be strictly marketing. Get it into a high profile product first to show off its advantages. The rest of the market will come when the demand for the new chip grows. This is not such a far out scheme.
Well, we didn't hear about the G5 except for a vague paper to be given at a future microprocessor conference. There were rumors, but the information came after Apple announced it. I could be a little off on that, but not much. I was following the rumors.
No, we heard about the G5 well in advance of its appearance, at the annual microprocessor conference. that's where all the chip companies make announcements about new technology, and products. They also show off their wares, and pre-production samples, working, if possible.
This isn't a rumors conference, even though that may be the way you get your news.
Try this site. It's from the conferences.
http://www.mdronline.com/mpr/index.html
We would have known even less about the 970 MP dual core G5, if someone hadn't posted a PDF spec sheet of it on AppleInsider forum. Since security has gotten tighter, I suspect a cell phone chip development program could be kept secret today.
No, YOU wouldn't have known.
The reason IBM might offer it to Apple first would be strictly marketing. Get it into a high profile product first to show off its advantages. The rest of the market will come when the demand for the new chip grows. This is not such a far out scheme.
What they do is make it known to the industry in plenty of time for everyone to find out what they need. Whoever is interested makes it known.
I don't know why you have to make up scenarios that don't exist.
No, we heard about the G5 well in advance of its appearance, at the annual microprocessor conference.
Did you check the dates of both this conference and the G5 Power Macintosh introduction? We heard the G5 paper just a couple weeks or so before Apple showed off the G5 Mac, just enough time to peak everybody's interest in Apple's announcement. This is not what you implied at all in a previous statement you made.
We would have heard about a new processor from IBM long before prototypes are built.
So, rather than hearing about the G5 long before prototypes were built, as you claim, we in fact heard about it only after G5s was already in production at IBM's Fishkill manufacturing facility. Your estimate is off by about 18 months, no?
I don't know why you have to make up scenarios that don't exist.
Regarding the G5, IBM already did what I suggested that IBM do with a phone processor, keep it a secret until it is announced in a fairly high profile product. So why is my phone chip scenario that difficult to believe? Unless it has been disclosed otherwise, IBM could be in full production of a PPC phone chip at this very moment. I don't expect it, but there is already a precedence for something like this.
Apple had NO intention of going to x86. It wasn't even a question. I was around back then, and I remember it well. I still have many computer mags from that era, and the idea was not even brought up as speculation. Just the opposite.
Apple went with the PPC because of all of that, and the continuity of remaining with Moto. They were considered to be the high end chip manufacturer then. Don't forget that Apple was also working on OSes with IBM (Pink, Taligent), and had a business relationship. IBM, Moto, and Apple formed the consortium to design, and built the PPC line together. Apple contributed micro code, among other things.
The PPC was a much better processor than the new Pentium.
The prediction was that it would take the computer market over from x86.
And, it might have, if MS didn't decide to discontinue NT for PPC shortly after its appearance.
The PPC line continued to give Apple a big performance advantage over the PC (esp. after Windows 3.1 came out, which wiped out the advantage PC's had over Apple's bitmapped OS)
The Mac was often 30% faster in integer, and 40% faster in float over comparable speed x86 chip machines.
When Altivec came out, that advantage increased to 100%, or more, for those operations that could be vectorized.
When I bought my daughter the new 450MHz G4, it was the fastest personal computer in the world, by a good margin.
It was only after a year, or so, when Moto continued to fail to deliver new higher speed chips secveral times a year as they had been dong previously, that Apple's performance faltered.
It took somewhat over a year, when Intel's chips reached 1 GHz, that PC's began to reliabibly outpace Apple's. Shortly before that, Apple began delivering dual chip machines.
Thank god some people here are old enough to remember that...
I remember the days where everyone was naive enough to believe that the whole PC industry was going to move to the PPC based Common Hardware Reference Platform (CHRP). At the time, the x86 platform was really a mess (it got much better since then), and the goal was to move personal computing forward to a well defined platform basis. RISC cpus were seen as the "cpus of the future" and many believed that they would replace CISC chips.
CHRP PCs would've run a variety of OSes, Windows NT, UNIX, Mac OS (Copland), Taligent and other futuristic vaporware OSes. Everything appeared to be going nice and well, until Microsoft decided to back-off and discontinue work on the PPC version of NT. With MS out of the picture, CHRP simply couldn't have become what it was intended for.
As for the PPC, as you mentioned, in the first few years it was noticeably faster than Pentiums. And not only because it was faster at the same clock speed, but during those days Moto was releasing PPC that had a faster clock speed than the fastest Pentium.
But around the time the PPC hit 500Mhz, troubles began... Not only Moto had problems actually producing and shipping the chips, but it took something like a year and a half until they were able to break the 500Mhz barrier. It took them an eternity to reach 1Ghz, and Moto never reached 2Ghz with the G4. Then we have the G5 IBM story, which the rest of you kids should know about.
Did you check the dates of both this conference and the G5 Power Macintosh introduction? We heard the G5 paper just a couple weeks or so before Apple showed off the G5 Mac, just enough time to peak everybody's interest in Apple's announcement. This is not what you implied at all in a previous statement you made.
What are you talking about? That's wrong.
So, rather than hearing about the G5 long before prototypes were built, as you claim, we in fact heard about it only after G5s was already in production at IBM's Fishkill manufacturing facility. Your estimate is off by about 18 months, no?
No.
Regarding the G5, IBM already did what I suggested that IBM do with a phone processor, keep it a secret until it is announced in a fairly high profile product. So why is my phone chip scenario that difficult to believe? Unless it has been disclosed otherwise, IBM could be in full production of a PPC phone chip at this very moment. I don't expect it, but there is already a precedence for something like this.
No.