All I care about is that apple produces a killer system based around a killer processor. From what I'v read (and I am by no means an expert at all), the 970 sounds good but in no way does it sound like a killer processor. I find it alarming that our hope for the future rests with a processor that will allow us to "at least keep pace with the competition".
having now moved to X full time I find it to be dog slow. its unresponsive (compared to 9), sluggish and my dual 450s seem to make little difference in X as aopposed to 9. the whole system feels like a vast molithic OS has been shoehorned into a hardware spec 5 years too soon for it.
I agree that moving to AMD/ Intel etc would sound the death knell for apple although I still can't put my finger on why - maybe I'm just conditioned to think of it that way. I know that if apple moved to AMD/Intel, my bosses would replace our 100+ G4s with intels at half the price. Sooner or later someone would find a way to run hack windows xp to run on Macs. Its just too fraught with sharp edges and spiky bits.
I actually find it sad that more mac users are not clammering for a killer processor becuase they feel that it just dosn't seem possible right now, and e should look at the costs, and the R&D and the economy etc.
when did it become unacceptable for mac users to reach for the stars. That's what the mac has meant to me - no limits in thinking.
Home users don't need 10Ghz mchines right now (maybe in a year or two) but I want real time rendering and the death of the progress bar. I ran a radial blur in Photoshop 2 on my son's 9500 and the progress bar popped up as it worked it out. I did the saem thing on my X dual 450 Photoshop 7 set up and sure enough here comes the progress bar. The dual 450 did it much faster than the 9500 but the bar is still fricking there!. several years, millions of dollars later and I still get faced with a progress bar - exactly how far have we really come?
why do we put up with it?
Just think what apple could do technologically with a killer system . . .
How about the fact that IBM is cutting edge technology with millions to invest in R&D on new chip technologies and they have some of the best, reliable and fastest workstations and servers on the planet? Or the fact that they have the best chip manufacturing capabilities in the world. 90nm?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
That IBM is cutting edge is opinion, not fact. (That would hardly get one a job if put on a resume.) That IBM has millions to invest in R&D is opinion, not fact. To compete with Intel over the long term, they would need to invest billions. Your opinion of their workstatios and servers is irrelevant in a conversation about consumer PCs and CPUs.
[quote]<strong>
How about 45nm? Can AMD touch that? Are you truely that dense? What does AMD bring to the table in terms of long-term stability and reliable manufacturing? Not much more than Motorola did way back when. Look at them now. Not to mention the fact that their CEO is spouting some marketing BS about how companies should stop releasing technology or technology's sake and introduce innovative products. Pot, meet kettle, if you ask me. IBM is where the future lies for Apple.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
What AMD has being doing is keeping pace with Intel and has become very popular with the PC crowd. They are about(?) to release Hammer which is the competition to the 970.
When AMD mentioned that they were going to follow technology rather than the market, this was AMDs way of telling investors that AMD will diversify. This isn't "marketing BS" as you suggest. In a commodoties market, there are only two paths a company may take: chase the market and try to dominate it, or chase the technology and be innovative within niche markets.
(Before people start suggesting that Apple is chasing the technology as well-don't-as that's a subject for another thread... they're not.)
You're suggesting that IBM is a great choice for Apple because they are big and people think they have great products. You don't mention IBMs history of poor management, its ability to kill innovative actions with an ancient bureaucracy, its redundancy, its misappropriation of funds, its proven inability to hold on to markets...
Please everyone take a breather! With all this speculation on future AMD chips I am going crazy. What evidence do we have for a move to x86? NONE. Now what evidence do we have of apple using the 970? Well the 970 is made by IBM, is supposed to be a great chip, and would be a lot easier for apple to use than an AMD chip. As well, IBM has been part of the PPC alliance for many years and knows what they are doing. IBM has a strong market, strong stock prices, and good reason to produce a new PPC chip for apple. Apple needs a new CPU badly and I doubt they can afford another huge migration. Can you imagine just as people are settling into OS X apple moves to x86! Do you guys realize how crazy this notion is? Goodness use some sense! The AMD idea is interesting, but some of you are putting way to much faith in to a baseless and defunct argument.
\t
\tI suspect a combination of PPC7457 and PPC970. Apple is not leaving motorola they are just switching places with IBM. IBM will now produce the high end chips and moto will produce the low end chip.
I agree that moving to AMD/ Intel etc would sound the death knell for apple although I still can't put my finger on why - <strong>maybe I'm just conditioned to think of it that way. </strong><hr></blockquote>
You're the fist person I've ever seen come to this conclusion on your own--congratulations.
It seems the only suggestions to why IBM should be Apple's speed savior are based on the hyperbole generated from the excitement of moving off of the G4. I have seen nothing in this thread but glorius praise for a behemouth company that is so poorly managed it gave the key to the city away to Microsoft in its hasty, greedy attempt to dominate the PC industry (Bill Lowe got one year to develop the IBM PC. One year.) No one has assured me that IBM would look after Apple in it's best interests. No one has assured me that the lack of demand for the 970 will not keep Apple behind in terms of speed, no matter what initial benefits the 970 will have over the current industry standard.
That IBM is cutting edge is opinion, not fact. (That would hardly get one a job if put on a resume.) That IBM has millions to invest in R&D is opinion, not fact. </strong><hr></blockquote>
IBM is being granted more patents every year than any other company - that's fact, not opinion. IBM covers far more areas of fundamental research than the rest of the computer industry - combined. Look up their home page, or do a Google search. They release large numbers of papers detailing this research. There is NO (rational) way you can deny this.
Having said that, I admire AMD and their approach to processor design. They caught up with Intel, partly by making better business and planning decisions, partly by forcing through a crash research program - which then succeeded. But if they were to make an OEM chip for Apple, its unit price would be rather higher than what they deliver to the standard PC producers. This gives no financial advantages for Apple.
It is also true that relying on a single supplier is a less than optimal solution; however, Apple would basically be in the same situation if using AMD processors - Intel is no alternative. Producing two fundamentally different product lines, one based on AMD, one based on PPC, would negate all the advantages gained from the UMA strategy by steeply increasing h/w development costs and diminishing bulk rebates for a number of components.
And you think there is any company out there that will?
Look, companies look out for their OWN intrests, no one elses. ANY company has only it's own intrests at heart. You make it sound like apple needs a big brother to keep the bullies from picking on it.
No one has assured me that IBM would look after Apple in it's best interests. No one has assured me that the lack of demand for the 970 will not keep Apple behind in terms of speed, no matter what initial benefits the 970 will have over the current industry standard.
Not sure what you're expecting to get, it seems like you are stuck on AMD and have it in for IBM. However, your statement about 'lack of demand for the 970' I think is baseless. Apple will have the demand, especailly if it makes it's way into the Xserve. There was a recent article about Apple servers really taking off. So Apple wouyld use the 970 in the towers, possibly the Xserve and maybe the PB initially. Additionally, I just read somewhere that IBM will be using the 970 in it's on servers. So IBM isn't making the 970 solely for Apple. IBM will use it itself and I'm sure they are other server clients who will buy the 970.
The 970 and beyond will rock scale better and not have the bottlenecks the G4 has, Moto is dead and gone, and I don't see how AMD would be better for Apple. I'm not against the AMD idea, but I don't see how you can be blinded to IBM being a good thing. We all know what a great chip the G3 is, along with the power4. IBM knows what they are doing.
<strong>Not one post in this thread has convinced me that IBM is the right choice for Apple</strong><hr></blockquote>
We're supposed to care what you "think"?
After reading pages of your spew, it's obvious that you are either just another effing troll (and we already have a kennel-full, thanks), or just another ignorant jerk who's impervious to facts, reason, argument.
None of which you've bothered to put forth in any of your "articles".
I vote for "troll", since you sound / act / smell / spew / piss like a troll. (Is this a New Zealand thing, or am I just unlucky in my acquaintance w/ kiwis?)
IBM is being granted more patents every year than any other company - that's fact, not opinion.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> This does not imply that these patents are innovative or would be the basis of an agrument to suggest that IBM is "cutting edge."
The revised version of Appendix D of the League for Programming Freedom's submission to the Patent Office suggests that IBMs patents are often trivial:
[quote]IBM has a very strong software patent portfolio. It is oversized even in proportion to the size of IBM itself. This is a result of IBM's patenting every single trivial idea every employee ever comes up with, rather than having any great propensity to be truly innovative. IBM has never been considered synonymous with innovative software. IBM even has a patent, #5,247,661, on a software application to permit employees to automatically document ideas for later patenting.
<hr></blockquote>
A software application to permit employees to automatically document ideas for later patenting doesn't sound very "cutting edge" to me.
[quote]<strong>
IBM covers far more areas of fundamental research than the rest of the computer industry - combined. Look up their home page, or do a Google search. They release large numbers of papers detailing this research. There is NO (rational) way you can deny this.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Are you suggesting that quantity creates quality? If this were the case no one here would be arguing with me about porting Mac to x86. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
[quote]<strong>
But if they were to make an OEM chip for Apple, its unit price would be rather higher than what they deliver to the standard PC producers. This gives no financial advantages for Apple.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
AMD is already making CPUs that could be sold to Apple. What evidence do you have that would support your claim that AMDs PPU would be higher if it's the same product?
[quote]<strong>
It is also true that relying on a single supplier is a less than optimal solution; however, Apple would basically be in the same situation if using AMD processors - Intel is no alternative.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, but if one were to refer to the Gates/Sculley memo, putting the Apple plaftorm on an industry standard almost guarantees industry-wide support. If x86 weren't locked into Windows only (for the most part, excluding Linux, etc) then the future may invite more competition. I don't disagree with your statement but there are other ways to look at it.
I could spend an entire day in here going over any number of flaws in your posts, which are for the most part full of opinionated nonsense. You show little actual grounding in the subjects at hand or underlying knowledge of the market. In fact if I had to hazard a guess I'd say you are a student fresh out of some form of business course. You like to throw a lot of theory about but you really don't seem to have a true grasp or understanding on what it exactly means.
Maybe one day when I have endless hours of nothing to do on my hands I'll even go through it for you but for now I'll just comment on this.
[quote]Originally posted by MacLuv:
<strong>
You're suggesting that IBM is a great choice for Apple because they are big and people think they have great products. You don't mention IBMs history of poor management, its ability to kill innovative actions with an ancient bureaucracy, its redundancy, its misappropriation of funds, its proven inability to hold on to markets...</strong><hr></blockquote>
IBM's name is such that there are companies around who will only buy and trust only IBM. In fact there are a lot of them because in the IT market, whether it be consulting or hardware and particularly in the big iron market, IBM is one of the market leaders and is holding its ground well (Sun on the otherhand...).
In case you aren't familiar with this market, and judging by what you say you quite clearly aren't, reliability is key. Around half the price of your payment go in support costs. People don't pick IBM in that market because they sell low quality products, they buy IBM because it is IBM and IBM has built up a name for quality and reliability in the industry. At some point you would have likely heard the old saying, "You won't get fired for suggesting IBM." and it still remains very true.
As for management at IBM it is among the best that is out there. That doesn't mean mistakes don't get made though and like a great many companies IBM has taken some chances that didn't pay off. Like any large company, and IBM is massive, IBM has seen its share of wasteage between departments. Unlike many company's IBM has shown a willingness to deal with such problems and learn from the errors. That is a sign of very good management.
At the end of the day any company that doesn't have managerial errors after operating for the time period IBM has isn't a real company. Intel, Sony, Microsoft, AMD have all made some large gambles and massive failures. All of them have had times of restructuring to cut costs and improve operating efficiencies. Every single one has made errors of the same type as IBM.
As for IBM not being at the cutting edge of R&D that's nonsense. Every single year IBM makes more patent applications than any other company (NEC is second from memory). They have a goal to be 2 years ahead in developing technologies and in many cases they are. They are at the forefront of quantum computing and are one of the largest IP companies in the world.
They have very solid CPU roadmaps well into the future based on the needs of their own markets. It just so happens their needs in the lower end workstation tie very closely with Apple's needs. As long as Intel or anyone else provides competitive solutions in that market IBM will plan to do the same.
As a business proposition I couldn't think of a more appealing company than IBM and the markets generally would agree with that. They're a stalwart icon of the technology and computing industry and a good option for Apple if IBM chooses.
<strong> Not sure what you're expecting to get, it seems like you are stuck on AMD and have it in for IBM. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't "have it in" for anyone. I'm simply trying to get at why people think the 970 is going to be Apple's best approach to competing with faster processors on the market. You guys can give me all the technical data you want, it still doesn't change my view that Intel will outperform whatever IBM throws at us. No matter how much dedication and funding IBM could possibly put into this project, Intel will always have more. So how do you beat them? You join them.
[quote]<strong>
However, your statement about 'lack of demand for the 970' I think is baseless. Apple will have the demand, especailly if it makes it's way into the Xserve. </strong><hr></blockquote>
According to Gartner research for Preliminary U.S. Server Unit Shipment Estimates for 3Q02, Apple is expected to ship only 5,700 units. This is only 1.2% of total market share. This implies a lack of demand for Xserve.
[quote]<strong>
There was a recent article about Apple servers really taking off.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Could you please refer me to the article? I'd like to read it.
[quote]<strong>
So Apple wouyld use the 970 in the towers, possibly the Xserve and maybe the PB initially. Additionally, I just read somewhere that IBM will be using the 970 in it's on servers. So IBM isn't making the 970 solely for Apple. IBM will use it itself and I'm sure they are other server clients who will buy the 970.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The market for the 970 will never be as big as CPUs that support Windows. This is the basis for my whole argument.
[quote]<strong>
The 970 and beyond will rock scale better and not have the bottlenecks the G4 has, Moto is dead and gone, and I don't see how AMD would be better for Apple. I'm not against the AMD idea, but I don't see how you can be blinded to IBM being a good thing. We all know what a great chip the G3 is, along with the power4. IBM knows what they are doing.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It seems you're now using the same argument that was once used to support the G4 to bash it. I've already stated that the G4's current problems are not all of MOTUs fault--the AIM alliance consists of Apple, IBM, and Motorola. I am not "blinded" to IBM being a good thing... i've offered enough points to dispute this perception of Big Blue.
TidBits: Forums update, IBM & Moto agreement, more...
Architosh Forums Update
Previously we mentioned the Thanksgiving timeframe (which just ended yesterday) for the update to our forums. They will be integrated into the MacNN forums. However the tech team at MacNN may have gotten carried away with too much turkey and wine! We'll miss that target but not by much. We'll keep you updated.
IBM and Motorola PowerPC Agreement Ends?
A MacNN forum poster is stating that IBM and Motorola's PowerPC agreement ends on January 14, 2003. Whether this is true or not is not so interesting to us here at Architosh, as we have previously been told that IBM and Motorola were taking the PowerPC platform in different directions: the former very interested in the powerful but power-lite G3 architecture for embedded markets, and still interested in powerful and specialized PowerPC processors for the desktop and game machine market (GameCube and Playstation 3) , while the latter more interested in the embedded market period.
What is very interesting about this post is the statement that terms of the current agreement (the one that ends Jan 14) is the source of holdup on the now mythical Motorola G5 chip! The source of that disagreement appears to be HyperTransport vs RapidIO. Apple is a member of the HyperTransport Consortium. The assumption is that both companies are refusing to license each other's design technologies as originally agreed upon in the AIM alliance agreements. Moto is behind RapidIO while IBM may be behind HyperTransport.
Our take is that this rumor -- while very believable and in compliance with other information we have obtained -- is not totally correct. We believe that the real reason behind the Moto's G5 failure to come to market is the demand Apple placed on the use of the proprietary Apple Processor Interconnect (ApplePI-BIU) technology, something Moto had no use for with other G5 customers. Furthermore, we believe it may be that Apple's proprietary bus interface unit technology may have found better performance fit with HyperTransport rather than with RapidIO technology.
And contrary to other posts on the Net, Apple actually architected and created the ApplePI-BIU (Apple Processor Bus-Interface Unit) technology, not IBM. The "ApplePI" (trademarked perhaps?) moniker actually appears on Motorola G5 (code named Eleven) chip floor plan documents we have obtained going as far back as 2000. What we actually know is that back in 2000 some critical issues for Motorola's progress on the G5 chip included resolving the ApplePI technology from Apple both at the legal and specification level. We suspect that the legal issue back in 2000 involved the major PowerPC Alliance agreements between IBM and Motorola. The specification issue likely revolved around convincing Apple that RapidIO was the preferred technology for the ApplePI-BIU.
If the MacNN forum poster is correct about the PowerPC agreement terminations this January 14th, then one may imagine a future wherein IBM and Moto actually implement substantially different technologies with their PowerPC offerings, while still collaborating and sharing core technologies -- something that has been of much value to PowerPC customers. Apple would ultimately be better served if both Moto and IBM had products suitable for Apple's gear.
Nitpick: MOTU is Mark of the Unicorn, a developer of music production hardware and software that has been a Mac stalwart for years. Motorola is Mot, or Moto.
[quote]Originally posted by MacLuv:
quote:
Originally posted by engpjp:
IBM is being granted more patents every year than any other company - that's fact, not opinion.
<strong>This does not imply that these patents are innovative or would be the basis of an agrument to suggest that IBM is "cutting edge."</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, but you have tellingly made no effort to find all the work they've done that is.
Our very own Belle is currently an IBM researcher working on building computers at the atomic (or quantum?) level. That's way past anything Intel is doing.
And yes, IBM shovels billions into R&D. Their research prowess is ranked with Xerox PARC's at the top of the scale, and it has been for decades. They produce quantity and quality as well. (BTW, the micro-patenting technique you criticize was instigated by the Japanese tech firms, who still practice it. IBM's just playing along there.)
I suppose that next you will say that Xerox PARC has no reputation for research?
[quote]<strong>quote:
But if they were to make an OEM chip for Apple, its unit price would be rather higher than what they deliver to the standard PC producers. This gives no financial advantages for Apple.
AMD is already making CPUs that could be sold to Apple. What evidence do you have that would support your claim that AMDs PPU would be higher if it's the same product?</strong><hr></blockquote>
He said OEM, meaning that he was speculating on AMD making or customizing a chip specially for Apple. For example - and this has been tossed around - an Athlon with the x86 translation layer ripped off and a (much smaller) PPC layer bolted on.
The x86 chips would still cost more than anything coming out of Moto right now. Moto's processors are much smaller (which translates directly to cheaper), and as a member of AIM Apple gets sweet deals on them. The only firm price I have is for the processor that shipped in the original, $1299 iMac - which was also shipping in Apple's low-end PowerMac at the time. It cost Apple $25 a pop. That was a 233MHz G3. Apple now has two 867MHz processors in their low-end tower, and an 800MHz G4 shipping in a $1000 machine. I'd be surprised it they're paying more than $15 or $20 apiece for those.
[quote]<strong>No, but if one were to refer to the Gates/Sculley memo, putting the Apple plaftorm on an industry standard almost guarantees industry-wide support. If x86 weren't locked into Windows only (for the most part, excluding Linux, etc) then the future may invite more competition. I don't disagree with your statement but there are other ways to look at it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
If one were to refer to the antitrust trial, Gates is completely unafraid to lie under oath - baldly - to serve his self-interest. He has a long, sad history of screwing over companies who try to cooperate with him. Just ask any DEC engineer (I have. I work in a shop that had a long and close relationship with DEC.)
At this point, I place no stock whatsoever in what he says publicly - it's all insincere whitewash at best. The man's got politics in his marrow, and he's never hesitated to use misdirection, dirty tricks and split hairs to get what he wants.
As for x86 being a standard platform, you apparently haven't yet understood that I don't consider it a standard platform in any meaningful sense. I called it a common platform, which is altogether different. Since you're fond of the videotape metaphor: VHS got where it got mostly because there was no gatekeeper - anyone who wanted to make VHS tapes or players could, just as easily as that. Betamax had a gatekeeper - Sony - who required licensing fees and set terms and conditions. x86 has a gatekeeper that makes Sony look like a puppy dog: Microsoft. They've successfully kept every other commercial vendor from having any significant presence on their hardware platform (Solaris/x86 is something of a joke). If you look at things from high up, there's a nearly 1:1 ratio between OS' and ISAs: Windows has x86, Sun has SPARC, the various IBM OS' have POWER/PPC, Macintosh has PPC, IRIX has MIPS, etc. Windows just happens to be really large, which makes its platform of choice look standard. But as soon as you try to actually treat it like a standard - never mind a public domain technology like VHS - the gatekeeper arrives and locks you out. Or tries to, anyway. In sum, there hasn't been a VHS-like hardware platform yet - just lots of variously successful Betas, and one especially successful (Alpha? ) Beta. So your metaphor doesn't apply.
Given that, the issue is: which proprietary, non-standard technology best serves Apple's needs? Will it continue to do so for the next 15 years? I wouldn't assume that IBM will, but the 970 and its siblings are derived from a CPU that whomps on anything Intel offers despite being almost 2 years old and taking a 30% performance hit to be built more ruggedly, and which runs - in groups of 4, 8, 16 and more - in hardware that Intel could only dream of powering. IBM's next generation POWER processor is right around the corner, too.
Also, per-chip comparisons miss the point. The Pentium IV is designed to be the only processor in the system. Maybe there can be one more. The 970 easily supports up to 32 processors working together. As I've said repeatedly, this is the future of high-performance computing according to the organizations that do high-performance computing. IBM is going that way. Intel isn't. So if you want high performance, why go Intel?
<strong>All I care about is that apple produces a killer system based around a killer processor. From what I'v read (and I am by no means an expert at all), the 970 sounds good but in no way does it sound like a killer processor.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The devil's in the details. For what I want, the 970 has all the details I was looking for: dramatically faster FSB, better SMP support, a second FPU, better Sprecmarks... without being out of reach for a desktop machine in price or heat.
When you look at spec chart comparisons between the IBM970, G4, AMD, Xeon, and P4, and realize just how bloody far down the list the G4 currently is, it is pretty clear that this isn't just 'keeping up with the Joneses'. It won't _pass_ anybody necessarily - but it seems like a tremendous first step. 5x speed on a particular task in a year isn't something to sneeze at.
<a href="http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,635220,00.asp"; target="_blank">ExtremeTech</a> has the ppc970's estimated specs, but I don't see the chart I was looking for right this second. It showed the current Xeons & Athalons as the only things in the same ballpark with the 970. And with the list stopping at the top 20 chips or so - the G4 isn't even on the list!
The other thing to note is that there are still applications for which the G4 is one of the top chips at - even though there's a slew of benchmarks at which it sucks! AV is the only thing that has kept the G4 anywhere _near_ the pack - and the IBM970 has both raw performance in int & fp tasks - plus the full AV engine. Plus MERSI. Plus a reasonable power budget.
And Apple has been buying out companies that need a LOT more power than the G4. Either a) REALLY dumb, b) there's a plan.
Comments
<strong>tube amplifiers! hahahaha</strong><hr></blockquote>
Naw, lets go back to Babages Diference Engine.....lol <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
having now moved to X full time I find it to be dog slow. its unresponsive (compared to 9), sluggish and my dual 450s seem to make little difference in X as aopposed to 9. the whole system feels like a vast molithic OS has been shoehorned into a hardware spec 5 years too soon for it.
I agree that moving to AMD/ Intel etc would sound the death knell for apple although I still can't put my finger on why - maybe I'm just conditioned to think of it that way. I know that if apple moved to AMD/Intel, my bosses would replace our 100+ G4s with intels at half the price. Sooner or later someone would find a way to run hack windows xp to run on Macs. Its just too fraught with sharp edges and spiky bits.
I actually find it sad that more mac users are not clammering for a killer processor becuase they feel that it just dosn't seem possible right now, and e should look at the costs, and the R&D and the economy etc.
when did it become unacceptable for mac users to reach for the stars. That's what the mac has meant to me - no limits in thinking.
Home users don't need 10Ghz mchines right now (maybe in a year or two) but I want real time rendering and the death of the progress bar. I ran a radial blur in Photoshop 2 on my son's 9500 and the progress bar popped up as it worked it out. I did the saem thing on my X dual 450 Photoshop 7 set up and sure enough here comes the progress bar. The dual 450 did it much faster than the 9500 but the bar is still fricking there!. several years, millions of dollars later and I still get faced with a progress bar - exactly how far have we really come?
why do we put up with it?
Just think what apple could do technologically with a killer system . . .
10Ghz . . . Ummmm . . .
<strong>
How about the fact that IBM is cutting edge technology with millions to invest in R&D on new chip technologies and they have some of the best, reliable and fastest workstations and servers on the planet? Or the fact that they have the best chip manufacturing capabilities in the world. 90nm?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
That IBM is cutting edge is opinion, not fact. (That would hardly get one a job if put on a resume.) That IBM has millions to invest in R&D is opinion, not fact. To compete with Intel over the long term, they would need to invest billions. Your opinion of their workstatios and servers is irrelevant in a conversation about consumer PCs and CPUs.
[quote]<strong>
How about 45nm? Can AMD touch that? Are you truely that dense? What does AMD bring to the table in terms of long-term stability and reliable manufacturing? Not much more than Motorola did way back when. Look at them now. Not to mention the fact that their CEO is spouting some marketing BS about how companies should stop releasing technology or technology's sake and introduce innovative products. Pot, meet kettle, if you ask me. IBM is where the future lies for Apple.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
What AMD has being doing is keeping pace with Intel and has become very popular with the PC crowd. They are about(?) to release Hammer which is the competition to the 970.
When AMD mentioned that they were going to follow technology rather than the market, this was AMDs way of telling investors that AMD will diversify. This isn't "marketing BS" as you suggest. In a commodoties market, there are only two paths a company may take: chase the market and try to dominate it, or chase the technology and be innovative within niche markets.
(Before people start suggesting that Apple is chasing the technology as well-don't-as that's a subject for another thread... they're not.)
You're suggesting that IBM is a great choice for Apple because they are big and people think they have great products. You don't mention IBMs history of poor management, its ability to kill innovative actions with an ancient bureaucracy, its redundancy, its misappropriation of funds, its proven inability to hold on to markets...
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
[ 12-04-2002: Message edited by: MacLuv ]</p>
<strong>
Development time, costs and viability.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, that's the beauty of design--making things work.
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
<img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
\t
\tI suspect a combination of PPC7457 and PPC970. Apple is not leaving motorola they are just switching places with IBM. IBM will now produce the high end chips and moto will produce the low end chip.
I agree that moving to AMD/ Intel etc would sound the death knell for apple although I still can't put my finger on why - <strong>maybe I'm just conditioned to think of it that way. </strong><hr></blockquote>
You're the fist person I've ever seen come to this conclusion on your own--congratulations.
It seems the only suggestions to why IBM should be Apple's speed savior are based on the hyperbole generated from the excitement of moving off of the G4. I have seen nothing in this thread but glorius praise for a behemouth company that is so poorly managed it gave the key to the city away to Microsoft in its hasty, greedy attempt to dominate the PC industry (Bill Lowe got one year to develop the IBM PC. One year.) No one has assured me that IBM would look after Apple in it's best interests. No one has assured me that the lack of demand for the 970 will not keep Apple behind in terms of speed, no matter what initial benefits the 970 will have over the current industry standard.
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
[ 12-04-2002: Message edited by: MacLuv ]</p>
<strong>
That IBM is cutting edge is opinion, not fact. (That would hardly get one a job if put on a resume.) That IBM has millions to invest in R&D is opinion, not fact. </strong><hr></blockquote>
IBM is being granted more patents every year than any other company - that's fact, not opinion. IBM covers far more areas of fundamental research than the rest of the computer industry - combined. Look up their home page, or do a Google search. They release large numbers of papers detailing this research. There is NO (rational) way you can deny this.
Having said that, I admire AMD and their approach to processor design. They caught up with Intel, partly by making better business and planning decisions, partly by forcing through a crash research program - which then succeeded. But if they were to make an OEM chip for Apple, its unit price would be rather higher than what they deliver to the standard PC producers. This gives no financial advantages for Apple.
It is also true that relying on a single supplier is a less than optimal solution; however, Apple would basically be in the same situation if using AMD processors - Intel is no alternative. Producing two fundamentally different product lines, one based on AMD, one based on PPC, would negate all the advantages gained from the UMA strategy by steeply increasing h/w development costs and diminishing bulk rebates for a number of components.
engpjp
<strong>
No one has assured me that IBM would look after Apple in it's best interests.
[ 12-04-2002: Message edited by: MacLuv ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
And you think there is any company out there that will?
Look, companies look out for their OWN intrests, no one elses. ANY company has only it's own intrests at heart. You make it sound like apple needs a big brother to keep the bullies from picking on it.
[ 12-04-2002: Message edited by: Flounder ]</p>
<strong>
No one has assured me that IBM would look after Apple in it's best interests. No one has assured me that the lack of demand for the 970 will not keep Apple behind in terms of speed, no matter what initial benefits the 970 will have over the current industry standard.
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
[ 12-04-2002: Message edited by: MacLuv ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not sure what you're expecting to get, it seems like you are stuck on AMD and have it in for IBM. However, your statement about 'lack of demand for the 970' I think is baseless. Apple will have the demand, especailly if it makes it's way into the Xserve. There was a recent article about Apple servers really taking off. So Apple wouyld use the 970 in the towers, possibly the Xserve and maybe the PB initially. Additionally, I just read somewhere that IBM will be using the 970 in it's on servers. So IBM isn't making the 970 solely for Apple. IBM will use it itself and I'm sure they are other server clients who will buy the 970.
The 970 and beyond will rock scale better and not have the bottlenecks the G4 has, Moto is dead and gone, and I don't see how AMD would be better for Apple. I'm not against the AMD idea, but I don't see how you can be blinded to IBM being a good thing. We all know what a great chip the G3 is, along with the power4. IBM knows what they are doing.
<strong>Not one post in this thread has convinced me that IBM is the right choice for Apple</strong><hr></blockquote>
We're supposed to care what you "think"?
After reading pages of your spew, it's obvious that you are either just another effing troll (and we already have a kennel-full, thanks), or just another ignorant jerk who's impervious to facts, reason, argument.
None of which you've bothered to put forth in any of your "articles".
I vote for "troll", since you sound / act / smell / spew / piss like a troll. (Is this a New Zealand thing, or am I just unlucky in my acquaintance w/ kiwis?)
So - piss off, troll.
[ 12-04-2002: Message edited by: Capt. Obvious ]</p>
<strong>
IBM is being granted more patents every year than any other company - that's fact, not opinion.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> This does not imply that these patents are innovative or would be the basis of an agrument to suggest that IBM is "cutting edge."
The revised version of Appendix D of the League for Programming Freedom's submission to the Patent Office suggests that IBMs patents are often trivial:
[quote]IBM has a very strong software patent portfolio. It is oversized even in proportion to the size of IBM itself. This is a result of IBM's patenting every single trivial idea every employee ever comes up with, rather than having any great propensity to be truly innovative. IBM has never been considered synonymous with innovative software. IBM even has a patent, #5,247,661, on a software application to permit employees to automatically document ideas for later patenting.
<hr></blockquote>
A software application to permit employees to automatically document ideas for later patenting doesn't sound very "cutting edge" to me.
[quote]<strong>
IBM covers far more areas of fundamental research than the rest of the computer industry - combined. Look up their home page, or do a Google search. They release large numbers of papers detailing this research. There is NO (rational) way you can deny this.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Are you suggesting that quantity creates quality? If this were the case no one here would be arguing with me about porting Mac to x86. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
[quote]<strong>
But if they were to make an OEM chip for Apple, its unit price would be rather higher than what they deliver to the standard PC producers. This gives no financial advantages for Apple.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
AMD is already making CPUs that could be sold to Apple. What evidence do you have that would support your claim that AMDs PPU would be higher if it's the same product?
[quote]<strong>
It is also true that relying on a single supplier is a less than optimal solution; however, Apple would basically be in the same situation if using AMD processors - Intel is no alternative.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, but if one were to refer to the Gates/Sculley memo, putting the Apple plaftorm on an industry standard almost guarantees industry-wide support. If x86 weren't locked into Windows only (for the most part, excluding Linux, etc) then the future may invite more competition. I don't disagree with your statement but there are other ways to look at it.
<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
Maybe one day when I have endless hours of nothing to do on my hands I'll even go through it for you but for now I'll just comment on this.
[quote]Originally posted by MacLuv:
<strong>
You're suggesting that IBM is a great choice for Apple because they are big and people think they have great products. You don't mention IBMs history of poor management, its ability to kill innovative actions with an ancient bureaucracy, its redundancy, its misappropriation of funds, its proven inability to hold on to markets...</strong><hr></blockquote>
IBM's name is such that there are companies around who will only buy and trust only IBM. In fact there are a lot of them because in the IT market, whether it be consulting or hardware and particularly in the big iron market, IBM is one of the market leaders and is holding its ground well (Sun on the otherhand...).
In case you aren't familiar with this market, and judging by what you say you quite clearly aren't, reliability is key. Around half the price of your payment go in support costs. People don't pick IBM in that market because they sell low quality products, they buy IBM because it is IBM and IBM has built up a name for quality and reliability in the industry. At some point you would have likely heard the old saying, "You won't get fired for suggesting IBM." and it still remains very true.
As for management at IBM it is among the best that is out there. That doesn't mean mistakes don't get made though and like a great many companies IBM has taken some chances that didn't pay off. Like any large company, and IBM is massive, IBM has seen its share of wasteage between departments. Unlike many company's IBM has shown a willingness to deal with such problems and learn from the errors. That is a sign of very good management.
At the end of the day any company that doesn't have managerial errors after operating for the time period IBM has isn't a real company. Intel, Sony, Microsoft, AMD have all made some large gambles and massive failures. All of them have had times of restructuring to cut costs and improve operating efficiencies. Every single one has made errors of the same type as IBM.
As for IBM not being at the cutting edge of R&D that's nonsense. Every single year IBM makes more patent applications than any other company (NEC is second from memory). They have a goal to be 2 years ahead in developing technologies and in many cases they are. They are at the forefront of quantum computing and are one of the largest IP companies in the world.
They have very solid CPU roadmaps well into the future based on the needs of their own markets. It just so happens their needs in the lower end workstation tie very closely with Apple's needs. As long as Intel or anyone else provides competitive solutions in that market IBM will plan to do the same.
As a business proposition I couldn't think of a more appealing company than IBM and the markets generally would agree with that. They're a stalwart icon of the technology and computing industry and a good option for Apple if IBM chooses.
<strong> Not sure what you're expecting to get, it seems like you are stuck on AMD and have it in for IBM. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't "have it in" for anyone. I'm simply trying to get at why people think the 970 is going to be Apple's best approach to competing with faster processors on the market. You guys can give me all the technical data you want, it still doesn't change my view that Intel will outperform whatever IBM throws at us. No matter how much dedication and funding IBM could possibly put into this project, Intel will always have more. So how do you beat them? You join them.
[quote]<strong>
However, your statement about 'lack of demand for the 970' I think is baseless. Apple will have the demand, especailly if it makes it's way into the Xserve. </strong><hr></blockquote>
According to Gartner research for Preliminary U.S. Server Unit Shipment Estimates for 3Q02, Apple is expected to ship only 5,700 units. This is only 1.2% of total market share. This implies a lack of demand for Xserve.
[quote]<strong>
There was a recent article about Apple servers really taking off.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Could you please refer me to the article? I'd like to read it.
[quote]<strong>
So Apple wouyld use the 970 in the towers, possibly the Xserve and maybe the PB initially. Additionally, I just read somewhere that IBM will be using the 970 in it's on servers. So IBM isn't making the 970 solely for Apple. IBM will use it itself and I'm sure they are other server clients who will buy the 970.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The market for the 970 will never be as big as CPUs that support Windows. This is the basis for my whole argument.
[quote]<strong>
The 970 and beyond will rock scale better and not have the bottlenecks the G4 has, Moto is dead and gone, and I don't see how AMD would be better for Apple. I'm not against the AMD idea, but I don't see how you can be blinded to IBM being a good thing. We all know what a great chip the G3 is, along with the power4. IBM knows what they are doing.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It seems you're now using the same argument that was once used to support the G4 to bash it. I've already stated that the G4's current problems are not all of MOTUs fault--the AIM alliance consists of Apple, IBM, and Motorola. I am not "blinded" to IBM being a good thing... i've offered enough points to dispute this perception of Big Blue.
<img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
Architosh Forums Update
Previously we mentioned the Thanksgiving timeframe (which just ended yesterday) for the update to our forums. They will be integrated into the MacNN forums. However the tech team at MacNN may have gotten carried away with too much turkey and wine! We'll miss that target but not by much. We'll keep you updated.
IBM and Motorola PowerPC Agreement Ends?
A MacNN forum poster is stating that IBM and Motorola's PowerPC agreement ends on January 14, 2003. Whether this is true or not is not so interesting to us here at Architosh, as we have previously been told that IBM and Motorola were taking the PowerPC platform in different directions: the former very interested in the powerful but power-lite G3 architecture for embedded markets, and still interested in powerful and specialized PowerPC processors for the desktop and game machine market (GameCube and Playstation 3) , while the latter more interested in the embedded market period.
What is very interesting about this post is the statement that terms of the current agreement (the one that ends Jan 14) is the source of holdup on the now mythical Motorola G5 chip! The source of that disagreement appears to be HyperTransport vs RapidIO. Apple is a member of the HyperTransport Consortium. The assumption is that both companies are refusing to license each other's design technologies as originally agreed upon in the AIM alliance agreements. Moto is behind RapidIO while IBM may be behind HyperTransport.
Our take is that this rumor -- while very believable and in compliance with other information we have obtained -- is not totally correct. We believe that the real reason behind the Moto's G5 failure to come to market is the demand Apple placed on the use of the proprietary Apple Processor Interconnect (ApplePI-BIU) technology, something Moto had no use for with other G5 customers. Furthermore, we believe it may be that Apple's proprietary bus interface unit technology may have found better performance fit with HyperTransport rather than with RapidIO technology.
And contrary to other posts on the Net, Apple actually architected and created the ApplePI-BIU (Apple Processor Bus-Interface Unit) technology, not IBM. The "ApplePI" (trademarked perhaps?) moniker actually appears on Motorola G5 (code named Eleven) chip floor plan documents we have obtained going as far back as 2000. What we actually know is that back in 2000 some critical issues for Motorola's progress on the G5 chip included resolving the ApplePI technology from Apple both at the legal and specification level. We suspect that the legal issue back in 2000 involved the major PowerPC Alliance agreements between IBM and Motorola. The specification issue likely revolved around convincing Apple that RapidIO was the preferred technology for the ApplePI-BIU.
If the MacNN forum poster is correct about the PowerPC agreement terminations this January 14th, then one may imagine a future wherein IBM and Moto actually implement substantially different technologies with their PowerPC offerings, while still collaborating and sharing core technologies -- something that has been of much value to PowerPC customers. Apple would ultimately be better served if both Moto and IBM had products suitable for Apple's gear.
[quote]Originally posted by MacLuv:
quote:
Originally posted by engpjp:
IBM is being granted more patents every year than any other company - that's fact, not opinion.
<strong>This does not imply that these patents are innovative or would be the basis of an agrument to suggest that IBM is "cutting edge."</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, but you have tellingly made no effort to find all the work they've done that is.
Our very own Belle is currently an IBM researcher working on building computers at the atomic (or quantum?) level. That's way past anything Intel is doing.
And yes, IBM shovels billions into R&D. Their research prowess is ranked with Xerox PARC's at the top of the scale, and it has been for decades. They produce quantity and quality as well. (BTW, the micro-patenting technique you criticize was instigated by the Japanese tech firms, who still practice it. IBM's just playing along there.)
I suppose that next you will say that Xerox PARC has no reputation for research?
[quote]<strong>quote:
But if they were to make an OEM chip for Apple, its unit price would be rather higher than what they deliver to the standard PC producers. This gives no financial advantages for Apple.
AMD is already making CPUs that could be sold to Apple. What evidence do you have that would support your claim that AMDs PPU would be higher if it's the same product?</strong><hr></blockquote>
He said OEM, meaning that he was speculating on AMD making or customizing a chip specially for Apple. For example - and this has been tossed around - an Athlon with the x86 translation layer ripped off and a (much smaller) PPC layer bolted on.
The x86 chips would still cost more than anything coming out of Moto right now. Moto's processors are much smaller (which translates directly to cheaper), and as a member of AIM Apple gets sweet deals on them. The only firm price I have is for the processor that shipped in the original, $1299 iMac - which was also shipping in Apple's low-end PowerMac at the time. It cost Apple $25 a pop. That was a 233MHz G3. Apple now has two 867MHz processors in their low-end tower, and an 800MHz G4 shipping in a $1000 machine. I'd be surprised it they're paying more than $15 or $20 apiece for those.
[quote]<strong>No, but if one were to refer to the Gates/Sculley memo, putting the Apple plaftorm on an industry standard almost guarantees industry-wide support. If x86 weren't locked into Windows only (for the most part, excluding Linux, etc) then the future may invite more competition. I don't disagree with your statement but there are other ways to look at it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
If one were to refer to the antitrust trial, Gates is completely unafraid to lie under oath - baldly - to serve his self-interest. He has a long, sad history of screwing over companies who try to cooperate with him. Just ask any DEC engineer (I have. I work in a shop that had a long and close relationship with DEC.)
At this point, I place no stock whatsoever in what he says publicly - it's all insincere whitewash at best. The man's got politics in his marrow, and he's never hesitated to use misdirection, dirty tricks and split hairs to get what he wants.
As for x86 being a standard platform, you apparently haven't yet understood that I don't consider it a standard platform in any meaningful sense. I called it a common platform, which is altogether different. Since you're fond of the videotape metaphor: VHS got where it got mostly because there was no gatekeeper - anyone who wanted to make VHS tapes or players could, just as easily as that. Betamax had a gatekeeper - Sony - who required licensing fees and set terms and conditions. x86 has a gatekeeper that makes Sony look like a puppy dog: Microsoft. They've successfully kept every other commercial vendor from having any significant presence on their hardware platform (Solaris/x86 is something of a joke). If you look at things from high up, there's a nearly 1:1 ratio between OS' and ISAs: Windows has x86, Sun has SPARC, the various IBM OS' have POWER/PPC, Macintosh has PPC, IRIX has MIPS, etc. Windows just happens to be really large, which makes its platform of choice look standard. But as soon as you try to actually treat it like a standard - never mind a public domain technology like VHS - the gatekeeper arrives and locks you out. Or tries to, anyway. In sum, there hasn't been a VHS-like hardware platform yet - just lots of variously successful Betas, and one especially successful (Alpha?
Given that, the issue is: which proprietary, non-standard technology best serves Apple's needs? Will it continue to do so for the next 15 years? I wouldn't assume that IBM will, but the 970 and its siblings are derived from a CPU that whomps on anything Intel offers despite being almost 2 years old and taking a 30% performance hit to be built more ruggedly, and which runs - in groups of 4, 8, 16 and more - in hardware that Intel could only dream of powering. IBM's next generation POWER processor is right around the corner, too.
Also, per-chip comparisons miss the point. The Pentium IV is designed to be the only processor in the system. Maybe there can be one more. The 970 easily supports up to 32 processors working together. As I've said repeatedly, this is the future of high-performance computing according to the organizations that do high-performance computing. IBM is going that way. Intel isn't. So if you want high performance, why go Intel?
[ 12-05-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]
[ 12-05-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
<strong>All I care about is that apple produces a killer system based around a killer processor. From what I'v read (and I am by no means an expert at all), the 970 sounds good but in no way does it sound like a killer processor.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The devil's in the details. For what I want, the 970 has all the details I was looking for: dramatically faster FSB, better SMP support, a second FPU, better Sprecmarks... without being out of reach for a desktop machine in price or heat.
When you look at spec chart comparisons between the IBM970, G4, AMD, Xeon, and P4, and realize just how bloody far down the list the G4 currently is, it is pretty clear that this isn't just 'keeping up with the Joneses'. It won't _pass_ anybody necessarily - but it seems like a tremendous first step. 5x speed on a particular task in a year isn't something to sneeze at.
<a href="http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,635220,00.asp"; target="_blank">ExtremeTech</a> has the ppc970's estimated specs, but I don't see the chart I was looking for right this second. It showed the current Xeons & Athalons as the only things in the same ballpark with the 970. And with the list stopping at the top 20 chips or so - the G4 isn't even on the list!
The other thing to note is that there are still applications for which the G4 is one of the top chips at - even though there's a slew of benchmarks at which it sucks! AV is the only thing that has kept the G4 anywhere _near_ the pack - and the IBM970 has both raw performance in int & fp tasks - plus the full AV engine. Plus MERSI. Plus a reasonable power budget.
And Apple has been buying out companies that need a LOT more power than the G4. Either a) REALLY dumb, b) there's a plan.
<strong>b.) There's a plan.</strong><hr></blockquote>
...and hopefully not Plan a)