yes. i heard too the ps3 chip will be powerpc based. it will also have some (and i forget the term) sort of "networking super processor" in it that will all for distributed computing among the PS3's
If Apple and IBM really do get buddy-buddy I wouldn't be surprised to see IBM shipping MacOSX on some machines as an option. Right now they have AIX, Linux, and Windows on their various hardware and IBM seems like a company that likes to have all bases covered. The question is whether Apple would license the OS, and I suspect it might as long as they keep their markets from overlapping. This was always the problem with the little clone vendors -- taking sales away from Apple. BigBlue, however, has a massive reputation in high end machines and in the business market. If IBM were selling MacOSX into markets where it has huge leverage then this would be a huge boon to Apple, and get them into places where they have wanted to be for a long time now. Apple would continue to focus on the consumer and creative markets where they have their strengths.
<strong>If Apple and IBM really do get buddy-buddy I wouldn't be surprised to see IBM shipping MacOSX on some machines as an option. Right now they have AIX, Linux, and Windows on their various hardware and IBM seems like a company that likes to have all bases covered. The question is whether Apple would license the OS, and I suspect it might as long as they keep their markets from overlapping.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Dunno, I don't really see a lot of non-overlappig markets where OS X would be useful.
Sure, it can do quite some stuff no other OS can do right now, but most of this stuff happens to be rather desktop-centric.
Apple covers (or tries to, at least) desktops, portables, workstations, and small servers, and outside of these markets (i.e. for bigger servers), I don't see too many compelling reasons to switch to OS X.
Dunno, I don't really see a lot of non-overlappig markets where OS X would be useful.
Sure, it can do quite some stuff no other OS can do right now, but most of this stuff happens to be rather desktop-centric.
Apple covers (or tries to, at least) desktops, portables, workstations, and small servers, and outside of these markets (i.e. for bigger servers), I don't see too many compelling reasons to switch to OS X.
Bye,
RazzFazz</strong><hr></blockquote>
Those aren't markets that you are listing, they are classes of machines. Markets are the business market, the 3D creative market, the video market, the scientific computing market, the academic market, the consumer market, etc.
Also, the 60x bus is NOT a pipelined bus. Each CPU in a MP G3 system has a seperate bus to the northbridge.
Which means that G3s have higher-bandwidth 2-way systems, but I doubt you could get higher than 2-way on an ATX size motherboard (with the huge amount of pins), and forget about daughtercards.
<strong>If Apple and IBM really do get buddy-buddy I wouldn't be surprised to see IBM shipping MacOSX on some machines as an option. Right now they have AIX, Linux, and Windows on their various hardware and IBM seems like a company that likes to have all bases covered. The question is whether Apple would license the OS, and I suspect it might as long as they keep their markets from overlapping. This was always the problem with the little clone vendors -- taking sales away from Apple. BigBlue, however, has a massive reputation in high end machines and in the business market. If IBM were selling MacOSX into markets where it has huge leverage then this would be a huge boon to Apple, and get them into places where they have wanted to be for a long time now. Apple would continue to focus on the consumer and creative markets where they have their strengths.
Seems like a powerful partnership to me.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yep. One obvious way to manage the relationship would be to restrict the clones to being distributed solely through IBM's consulting services, as opposed to selling on the open market. Perhaps you were implying something like this.
From Apple's perspective this deal would be an enormous win, and from IBM's perspective this would be a satisfying little poke in the eye for Intel and Microsoft.
<strong>Also, the 60x bus is NOT a pipelined bus. Each CPU in a MP G3 system has a seperate bus to the northbridge.
Which means that G3s have higher-bandwidth 2-way systems, but I doubt you could get higher than 2-way on an ATX size motherboard (with the huge amount of pins), and forget about daughtercards.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Bus pipelining has to do with overlapping transactions. What you are talking about is an arbitrated shared bus, and the 60x bus most certainly is that -- look back at the DayStar quad 604e machine which used the 60x bus.
The MPX bus is actually an outgrowth of the 60x bus technology. Also, IBM's latest G3s use an enhanced 60x bus which is 200 MHz and better pipelined but I don't think they have all the MPX enhancements yet. The 7455's bus interface circuitry is also more capable than in IBM's current G3s (i.e. more outstanding transactions).
<a href="http://www.mackido.com/CodeNames/Processors.html"; target="_blank">This</a> site says that VMX is the IBM/generic name for AltiVec. VMX = "PowerPC Video and Multimedia Extension".</strong><hr></blockquote>
C'mon guys. You're making this worse.
VMX is the codename for IBMs SIMD proposal. It could be completely different from Altivec. Given that Mackido shows it parallel to Altivec, you'd be safer assuming that it's not Altive than that it is Altivec.
VMX is the codename for IBMs SIMD proposal. It could be completely different from Altivec. Given that Mackido shows it parallel to Altivec, you'd be safer assuming that it's not Altive than that it is Altivec.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The name VMX came before AltiVec and Velocity Engine -- it was the working name for the PowerPC SIMD project and I remember being very disappointed when Moto and Apple announced their actual respective brand names for it. I thought VMX was pretty good, actually. That IBM is using the term VMX is actually a pretty good indication that they are looking at a compatible extension.
Back to the IBM building OSX capable machines, I think the primary interest lies in servers. IBM could have a whole line of PPC servers that could run OSX as well as Linux or whatever. This benefits both as it gives Apple a huge hand in developing server components and it assists IBM with their small server market, where they are weak.
I harp on this every couple of months, but I think that you will see tremendous inroads for Apple in terms of server share once the hardware arrives and the software matures. It is running LDAPv3 directory service in the 10.2 release, all the UNIX scripts are easily portable, and it is better than Linux at multi-processors and cheaper than everyone else. MS .Net is going to prevent server upgrades, HP's server share is going to drop due to the merger and many larger companies like to have UNIX servers at the departmental level to help distribute data/services from the large UNIX pool which typically holds the financials, etc. (again, something Windows is poor at).
Ok. Question ya'll, seein' as I'm getting a little confused by something....
I keep seeing/hearing that Altivec is owned by Moto. Why? The SIMD instructions that comprise AltiVec (Moto), Velocity Engine (Apple), and VMX(? IBM) were developed by the PPC alliance, so why wouldn't this be jointly owned? Perhaps specific implementations might be privately held, but the whole thing? Nuh-uh, I just don't see it.
Forgive me if someone has mentioned this already, but Apple was really smart (or lucky) to use the term 'Velocity Engine' instead of 'Altivec.' If another company (IBM for instance) designs a chip with a compatible SIMD, then Apple can go on using VE terminology like nothing happened. Makes you wonder if Apple had planned for this contingency from the start...
<strong>Ok. Question ya'll, seein' as I'm getting a little confused by something....
I keep seeing/hearing that Altivec is owned by Moto. Why? The SIMD instructions that comprise AltiVec (Moto), Velocity Engine (Apple), and VMX(? IBM) were developed by the PPC alliance, so why wouldn't this be jointly owned? Perhaps specific implementations might be privately held, but the whole thing? Nuh-uh, I just don't see it.
So, I could understand Apple having to buy Moto's specific hardware design for the use of it, but the whole thing?</strong><hr></blockquote>
While we're not privvy to the agreements between the 3 companies, I tend to agree. My guess is that the AltiVec implementation is owned by Motorola, but the other two are free to build their own implementations. IBM decided against using the VMX extensions back in 97/98 or so... but they seem to have changed their tune recently, particuarly after they saw how effective and usable Moto's implementation turned out to be. With Apple wanting IBM to build them a processor with VMX I doubt they would say no.
Comments
can't remember where i read it though.
Seems like a powerful partnership to me.
<strong>If Apple and IBM really do get buddy-buddy I wouldn't be surprised to see IBM shipping MacOSX on some machines as an option. Right now they have AIX, Linux, and Windows on their various hardware and IBM seems like a company that likes to have all bases covered. The question is whether Apple would license the OS, and I suspect it might as long as they keep their markets from overlapping.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Dunno, I don't really see a lot of non-overlappig markets where OS X would be useful.
Sure, it can do quite some stuff no other OS can do right now, but most of this stuff happens to be rather desktop-centric.
Apple covers (or tries to, at least) desktops, portables, workstations, and small servers, and outside of these markets (i.e. for bigger servers), I don't see too many compelling reasons to switch to OS X.
Bye,
RazzFazz
Dave
If I remember correctly the original programming for the PS 2 had to be done on a Mac.
<strong>
Dunno, I don't really see a lot of non-overlappig markets where OS X would be useful.
Sure, it can do quite some stuff no other OS can do right now, but most of this stuff happens to be rather desktop-centric.
Apple covers (or tries to, at least) desktops, portables, workstations, and small servers, and outside of these markets (i.e. for bigger servers), I don't see too many compelling reasons to switch to OS X.
Bye,
RazzFazz</strong><hr></blockquote>
Those aren't markets that you are listing, they are classes of machines. Markets are the business market, the 3D creative market, the video market, the scientific computing market, the academic market, the consumer market, etc.
AFAIK the only PowerPC-Compatible consoles were/are the Bandi Pippin (flop) and the GameCube (G3+Gaming oriented SIMD unit)
Barto
<strong>
Yeah, on a nice 60x bus.
(At 200MHz, admittedly, but still...)
Bye,
RazzFazz</strong><hr></blockquote>
Also, the 60x bus is NOT a pipelined bus. Each CPU in a MP G3 system has a seperate bus to the northbridge.
Which means that G3s have higher-bandwidth 2-way systems, but I doubt you could get higher than 2-way on an ATX size motherboard (with the huge amount of pins), and forget about daughtercards.
Barto
<strong>If Apple and IBM really do get buddy-buddy I wouldn't be surprised to see IBM shipping MacOSX on some machines as an option. Right now they have AIX, Linux, and Windows on their various hardware and IBM seems like a company that likes to have all bases covered. The question is whether Apple would license the OS, and I suspect it might as long as they keep their markets from overlapping. This was always the problem with the little clone vendors -- taking sales away from Apple. BigBlue, however, has a massive reputation in high end machines and in the business market. If IBM were selling MacOSX into markets where it has huge leverage then this would be a huge boon to Apple, and get them into places where they have wanted to be for a long time now. Apple would continue to focus on the consumer and creative markets where they have their strengths.
Seems like a powerful partnership to me.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yep. One obvious way to manage the relationship would be to restrict the clones to being distributed solely through IBM's consulting services, as opposed to selling on the open market. Perhaps you were implying something like this.
From Apple's perspective this deal would be an enormous win, and from IBM's perspective this would be a satisfying little poke in the eye for Intel and Microsoft.
<strong>Also, the 60x bus is NOT a pipelined bus. Each CPU in a MP G3 system has a seperate bus to the northbridge.
Which means that G3s have higher-bandwidth 2-way systems, but I doubt you could get higher than 2-way on an ATX size motherboard (with the huge amount of pins), and forget about daughtercards.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Bus pipelining has to do with overlapping transactions. What you are talking about is an arbitrated shared bus, and the 60x bus most certainly is that -- look back at the DayStar quad 604e machine which used the 60x bus.
The MPX bus is actually an outgrowth of the 60x bus technology. Also, IBM's latest G3s use an enhanced 60x bus which is 200 MHz and better pipelined but I don't think they have all the MPX enhancements yet. The 7455's bus interface circuitry is also more capable than in IBM's current G3s (i.e. more outstanding transactions).
<a href="http://www.mackido.com/CodeNames/Processors.html"; target="_blank">This</a> site says that VMX is the IBM/generic name for AltiVec. VMX = "PowerPC Video and Multimedia Extension".
Barto
<strong>As did the GameCube.
AFAIK the only PowerPC-Compatible consoles were/are the Bandi Pippin (flop) and the GameCube (G3+Gaming oriented SIMD unit)
Barto</strong><hr></blockquote>
You are right. I said PS 2 when I meant GameCube. Obviously I am not a gamer (if that is the correct term).
Thanks.
<strong>
<a href="http://www.mackido.com/CodeNames/Processors.html"; target="_blank">This</a> site says that VMX is the IBM/generic name for AltiVec. VMX = "PowerPC Video and Multimedia Extension".</strong><hr></blockquote>
C'mon guys. You're making this worse.
VMX is the codename for IBMs SIMD proposal. It could be completely different from Altivec. Given that Mackido shows it parallel to Altivec, you'd be safer assuming that it's not Altive than that it is Altivec.
<strong>C'mon guys. You're making this worse.
VMX is the codename for IBMs SIMD proposal. It could be completely different from Altivec. Given that Mackido shows it parallel to Altivec, you'd be safer assuming that it's not Altive than that it is Altivec.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The name VMX came before AltiVec and Velocity Engine -- it was the working name for the PowerPC SIMD project and I remember being very disappointed when Moto and Apple announced their actual respective brand names for it. I thought VMX was pretty good, actually. That IBM is using the term VMX is actually a pretty good indication that they are looking at a compatible extension.
I harp on this every couple of months, but I think that you will see tremendous inroads for Apple in terms of server share once the hardware arrives and the software matures. It is running LDAPv3 directory service in the 10.2 release, all the UNIX scripts are easily portable, and it is better than Linux at multi-processors and cheaper than everyone else. MS .Net is going to prevent server upgrades, HP's server share is going to drop due to the merger and many larger companies like to have UNIX servers at the departmental level to help distribute data/services from the large UNIX pool which typically holds the financials, etc. (again, something Windows is poor at).
Erk, I'm drooling again...
I keep seeing/hearing that Altivec is owned by Moto. Why? The SIMD instructions that comprise AltiVec (Moto), Velocity Engine (Apple), and VMX(? IBM) were developed by the PPC alliance, so why wouldn't this be jointly owned? Perhaps specific implementations might be privately held, but the whole thing? Nuh-uh, I just don't see it.
If you want an indicator, try <a href="http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1='6,334,176'.WKU.+'5,99 6,057'.WKU.&OS=PN/6,334,176+OR+PN/5,996,057&RS=PN/6,334,176+OR+PN/5,996,057" target="_blank">here</a> or <a href="http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=2&f=G&l=50&s1='6,334,176'.WKU.+'5,99 6,057'.WKU.&OS=PN/6,334,176+OR+PN/5,996,057&RS=PN/6,334,176+OR+PN/5,996,057" target="_blank">there</a>
So, I could understand Apple having to buy Moto's specific hardware design for the use of it, but the whole thing?
<strong>Ok. Question ya'll, seein' as I'm getting a little confused by something....
I keep seeing/hearing that Altivec is owned by Moto. Why? The SIMD instructions that comprise AltiVec (Moto), Velocity Engine (Apple), and VMX(? IBM) were developed by the PPC alliance, so why wouldn't this be jointly owned? Perhaps specific implementations might be privately held, but the whole thing? Nuh-uh, I just don't see it.
If you want an indicator, try <a href="http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1='6,334,176'.WKU.+'5,99 6,057'.WKU.&OS=PN/6,334,176+OR+PN/5,996,057&RS=PN/6,334,176+OR+PN/5,996,057" target="_blank">here</a> or <a href="http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=2&f=G&l=50&s1='6,334,176'.WKU.+'5,99 6,057'.WKU.&OS=PN/6,334,176+OR+PN/5,996,057&RS=PN/6,334,176+OR+PN/5,996,057" target="_blank">there</a>
So, I could understand Apple having to buy Moto's specific hardware design for the use of it, but the whole thing?</strong><hr></blockquote>
While we're not privvy to the agreements between the 3 companies, I tend to agree. My guess is that the AltiVec implementation is owned by Motorola, but the other two are free to build their own implementations. IBM decided against using the VMX extensions back in 97/98 or so... but they seem to have changed their tune recently, particuarly after they saw how effective and usable Moto's implementation turned out to be. With Apple wanting IBM to build them a processor with VMX I doubt they would say no.
<strong>GP = IBM's POWER4 Gigaprocessor
UL = What do you think?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Unlimited Licensing?
Unbelievably Lame?
Unsubstantiated Leak?