<strong>At this rate you and Mr. Ed could run for office together.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And I'd vote for them over you in a second.
If you didn't come off as a whiney jerk maybe you wouldn't be "harrased" so much. Just try to understand how people perceive you from your posts and try to adjust.
If you didn't come off as a whiney jerk maybe you wouldn't be "harrased" so much. Just try to understand how people perceive you from your posts and try to adjust.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oooh, a popularity contest... I'd better start baking cupcakes.
Tonton, the object of debate is not to just point out where you think I might be in error but explain why. Rather than ask me to elaborate on misunderstandings, you've made a collection of notes taken out of context.
You, yourself, have offered no supporting evidence of WHY these are errors on my part. If you knew anything about debate, you'd realize you've just created the world's biggest "straw man".
You don't seem to understand that everything you've accused me of doing, you've just done in your own post.
The arguments I've made stand valid within their original content. If you wish to start addressing them instead of me then by all means do so.
Oh? They do? Here's an example for you to ponder: please explain again why you think IBM doesn't have the resources to compete with Intel.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Before I explain why I don't think IBM has the resources to compete with Intel, we must put the argument back into its original context--which is my opinion that putting a 970 in an Apple PC won't guarantee direct competition with *Wintel*. (of course, it may not be Apple's plan to compete, but that's another thread entirely). Since you've asked me to "elaborate" on this some 80 posts later, I'll do my best to explain my side to you.
A step by step guide, if you will.
1. Consider company fundamenals, as taken from Hoover's:
IBM
Big Blue? Try Huge Blue. International Business Machines (IBM) is the world's top provider of computer hardware. Among the leaders in almost every market in which it competes, the company makes desktop and notebook PCs, mainframe and servers, storage systems, and peripherals, among its thousands of products. The company's service arm is the largest in the world. IBM is also one of the largest providers of both software (ranking #2, behind Microsoft) and semiconductors. The company continues to use acquisitions to augment its software and service businesses, while streamlining its hardware operations with divestitures and organizational shifts.
Intel
Kingpin. Top dog. Leviathan. Intel. Any way you phrase it, Intel is by far the world's top semiconductor maker. Even though archrival AMD has eaten into its market share, and while some of its diversification efforts have stalled, Intel still makes several times as much from chips as do any of its rivals. Though best known for its Pentium and Celeron microprocessors -- about four-fifths of all new PCs have them -- Intel also makes flash memories (where it's also #1 globally) and embedded semiconductors for the communications and industrial equipment markets. Most computer makers use Intel processors; PC giant Dell is the company's largest customer.
2. Recognize the difference between both companies.
IBM is big. Sure. But as I recall, Amorph stated this interesting point:
[quote]
Originally posted by Amorph:
IBM is so vast that they have had identically named divisions selling different solutions to the same market, none of which were aware of the others' existence. <hr></blockquote>
Redundancy within a corporation that does not leverage itself defines *poor management*. This isn't to say IBMs management team isn't top notch, it just means they may be trapped within a behemoth bureaucracy that is blind to the cause. Often within an organization the size of IBM divisions lose focus within its own political system and as a result, situations like redundancy are ever-present.
Although the same could be said of Intel, the fact that they only have one goal--to make semiconductors and flash memory--put them above IBM for resource management in that the whole company is dedicated to one cause. This is probably the #1 reason Intel has been able to surpass all expectations of the x86 ISA (!-see, I used it).
Does IBM have the resources (money and staff) to compete with Intel? Maybe. Will it allocate enough to compete? Probably not. Most of IBMs research is specialized--becuase that's where their profit design lies. The 970, as a spinoff of the Power4, is simply another product to peddle to penetrate markets. I have not heard IBM say they will attempt to make the 970 an industry standard, nor have I heard them say how far they will push this chip. If anyone wishes to point out statements from the press, feel free. (*1* see note below*)
Intel, on the other hand, has almost *unlimited* resources to push the x86 further as it has already achieved critical mass. This means that no matter how far IBM tries to push the 970, Intel will be right behind waiting to take up the slack, if there is any. We have already witnessed this with the G3/G4. There's just not enough consumer market for this architechture to survive.
Now, before one says "hold on, IBM has unlimited resources as well because they're so big"--think again. The fact that IBM is so big means quite the opposite. Risk Management is essential for a company like IBM, whereas Intel can almost take all the risk it needs to--because x86 has achieved critical mass.
There's probably more questions this will bring up, but as you can see from the lengthy explanation, it was easier for me just to say: IBM doesn't have the resources. If I had been asked nicely to elaborate on this rather then get flamed I would have taken the time to do so in the first place.
[quote]<strong>
You've tried, and failed to make that argument. If you are so sure of your argument then please produce a single person who's been following this thread that agrees with you. You can't because your argument is not valid. Just because you've made an argument doesn't mean you've made a valid one.</strong><hr></blockquote>
1. I have not failed to make the argument. I may have, in your opinion, failed to produce the evidence neccessary to support my arguments--but that is objectionable. You need only ask me to elaborate. Otherwise I get cranky and strart getting sarcastic and use a lot of smilies.
2. Producing a single person that agrees with me would not validate my point, nor would it yours. Furthermore, just because no one has stepped forward to agree with me does not dismiss my opinions, make my arguments erronous, fallacious, or invalid.
[quote]<strong>
Because of their superior technology, huge financial resources and marketability, IBM has the resources to kick Intel's ass in the workstation and server markets if they go there agressively. And all indication is that they are.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm sorry, I thought this conversation was about Apple.
The point people are making is that the 970 will be agressively marketed. The server market is a relationship market--that is, deals are made by top-level decision makers, not the IT guys who think the technology is superior. All I mean by this is--there's more to the deal than the technology. Politics play an important role here. And although IBM is ready to play, so are its competitors. This isn't easy sailing for anyone.
Meanwhile, where does this leave Apple IMO? In the same place it is now--stuck between a rock and a hardplace. We're still losing high-end Apple users to faster machines on the PC side. Speed sells.
*1* -- I realize that IBM has been positioning this chip as a contender in the desktop arena, but it will take the right business relationships to make this venture profitable. Apple doesn't really offer IBM that much incentive as far as a market is concerned. As IBM is second behind Microsoft in software design, I now doubt the plausability of IBM slapping Aqua into any of its solutions. I also realize that IBM will use the Power4/970 in a great deal of its proprietary solutions, but that does not guarantee production to the scale of Intel/AMD.
--- I reserve the right to make mistakes. If there are any questions, please ask me nicely to elaborate. ---
If the G5 is dead and the 970 is the only viable options for the next few years.
Can anyone tell how heat scale with core size and clock speed?
For the eMac and iMac a CPU load of 40W or even 2x 40W can be managed but for the 970 to migrate to the PB and iBook the heat has to be reduced.</strong><hr></blockquote>
i heard the 970 will be:
19W @ 1.2Ghz and 42W @ 1.8Ghz
which means the 970 at 0.9µ will be <19W @1.2Ghz which is ok for the Titanium.
Well, I was going to put this in another thread, but I'll post some considerations here since you've asked
[quote]Originally posted by Krassy:
<strong>
why is intel itself moving away from x86 if this ISA offers a better price-performance than other solutions? do we know how many years x86 will stay in the game before it will be replaced by itanium or other cpus? how is multiprocessing with intels P4 by the way? is it an easy task like with the 970? </strong><hr></blockquote>
Considerations about x86:
1. 4/5 of all PCs in the world use x86 ISA.
2. Legacy support for x86 ISA is a billion dollar business.
3. Because of legacy support and market size, x86 will be around for some time--it has achieved critical mass as an industry standard.
4. Intel will evolve and the x86 market will follow. AMDs Athlon 64 & Opteron are good indication of x86 investment.
5. Yes, the 970 was built for SMP in a desktop system, the P4 is not. There is much anticipation for an Opteron comparison to the 970, however. Intel is not the choice for Apple I am suggesting.
[quote]<strong>
ibm will build a new supercomputer with 120.000 Power5-processors for - ahem - big money i think they will put enough of it in R&D to reach their final mark of a 10 times faster system than todays fastest (see top 500-supercomputer-list</strong><hr></blockquote>
Considerations:
1. IBMs R&D will not necc. scale to the consumer market as quickly as Apple needs it to to keep up with AMD/Intel.
2. Apple has a longer product-cycle--consumer investment. If pro users needs a high-speed machine, they may opt out of Apple if x86 offers better speed performance.
[quote]<strong>
ok apples sales are not as good as we all like them to be - but if they try to compete with Wintel they won't win the game. instead they're doing the right thing to be 'different' ... the computing-experience is a reason for buying a mac - not the performance. x86 won't change this. and if the 970 will top todays</strong><hr></blockquote>
Considerations:
1. It may not be Apple's intention to compete with *Wintel*. This is something I will discuss later.
2. Apple does not sell a computing experience, it sells one a lifestyle choice. One may interpret that as a computing experience. Another may consider it a good choice that the Cube matches her new home office decor. Pro users, however, are being let down in the speed department, and the transition to OSX has been slow in the pro department. These high-end users are important to Apple, as the products they buy have the most profit margin.
3. The average consumer is aware of the current lack of speed in the Mac department.
4. I will have to present arguments/strategies for an x86 migration later, for they're too complicated to get into at 4AM.
I'll answer the rest of your stuff later... when I have more time--and more sleep!
Hope this helps, rebut at your leisure.
<-- i wish i had the dancing banana guy here.
--- I reserve the right to make mistakes. If there are any questions, please ask me nicely to elaborate. ---
My opinion. What we are currently seeing develop at IBM and Apple is the fruition of AIM's decision long ago to ensure 32bit/64bit compatibility. Original references to what has become the 970 can be found on the web as far back as 1998.
Few OS's handled 64 bit when this decision was made. Technology for 64bit low end servers and especially desktop computers couldn't be made at this time.
The single most important decision made by AIM was this compatibility. Intel, AMD and Sun are about to see the fruits of this. IBM is serious about the 970, it's potential uses range across the board for uses, even down to the high end embedded market Motorola so covets.
[quote]Originally posted by MacLuv:
<strong>
....By the time the 970 is ready to go to market, Intel will be so far ahead of the game Apple won't have a chance. .....
If Apple doesn't approach a standard platform to compete head-on with Microsoft it will show a blatant disregard for the needs of its customers.
:eek:
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Just exactly how do you know that when the 970 goes to market Intel will be so far ahead. Have you seen the 970 perform Photoshop, 3-D rendering, database manipulation??? For that matter have you seen Intel's future processors perform these tasks.
"blatant disregard for the needs of its customers." A blatant disregard for its customers at this time would be switch to X86, the loss of software compatibility would be devastating. Apple apparently is maintaining an X86 build of Darwin, who knows why, I don't, but I'd bet Apple has valid reasons.
X86 ISA will die, when is anyone's guess, but for Apple to switch to an aging ISA that even Intel broke compatibility with in their 64 bit cpu's(emulation only) offers me proof that Apple shouldn't pursue this ISA.
Get over it. Apple won't be using X86. Future ISA's, possibly, in my lifetime who knows?
To be honest Apple doesn't have the resources to enter any bigger a server Market than what can be achieved with up to 4-way CPU servers (lowe end) because the higher segments demand, like Amorph said, quality that has to be proven and that costs a lot. IBM has a reputation of a few decades they can build upon and that's ecactly the reason people with loads of cash to spend but IBM hardware - because for 10.000.000 you better get something that works - and works the way you want. Which is also the reason SGI stayed afloat, because they went back to do what they know best - powerful computing. And not "imagine a Beowulf cluster of these" wannabe power-computing.
The Rack-mountable approach Apple is taking is perfectly fine because it's a market where they could in theory live off their current customer base and compete with cheap Linux boxes. Plus the R&D cost is not really high so the risk is far lower than going head to head with IBM/SGI/Sun for the real server market. Just like their RAID system is neat for the Apple market, but no way they could ever challenge EMC and Hitachi.
Apple is playing some well tought out moves lately and if it weren't for their bus/cpu cripple they'd be in a really good position.</strong><hr></blockquote>
There are a lot of posts here making educated guesses as to the direction of the "low end" server market and Apples place in it. I think that a lot of these posts are good, Xype's among them. To add my 2 cents to this, I dont think that Apple is moving in a direction that will conflict much with IBM. Given Apples aquisitions in the past 18 months, I think that we can see a clear picture of Apples server intentions- Animation and Film, where the need for multiple servers linked together to crunch large amounts of data for rendering. This is a nitch market that Apple could do pretty well, better still if they devised a "blade" rack mount, or moved to 4+ processors. It is a market that will pay off for Apple becouse they can sell a whole rack full of servers, instead of one server and a bunch of disks for that server. Some of the "rumoured" future features of OS X work well here as well, like built in clustering. FTP over Firewire might help out as well, linking the servers together over a 50-micron mulitmode glass optical fiber for transfers up to 3.2Gbit/sec, which beats the current ethernet transfer speeds (I'm not sure how this will scale in the next 12-18 months, but FW 2 is due out within that time frame). This could make a pretty powerfull render farm, or a clustered computer for any other task. I'm sure that people at Apple have thought of this, especially with their aquisition of Shake. Most of the technology exists, or will be out soon, and will only take a bit of R&D to add the functions to OS X. The only problem they have right now is the G4, which could be solved with the release and adoption of the 970.
<strong>Given Apples aquisitions in the past 18 months, I think that we can see a clear picture of Apples server intentions- Animation and Film, where the need for multiple servers linked together to crunch large amounts of data for rendering.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Exactly. Do you remember when Jobs met with Hollywood animators and film companies and asked them, "what would it take for you to switch to Apple?" I think we know exactly the answer, and the current push in that direction with faster pro workstations, with a 970, and the xServe are the answer.
One of the reasons it seems like Apple & IBM can coexist in the Xserve's market is that the main value of buying IBM Servers has always been in the service contract. Sure the hardware is important, but the main focus at that level from IBM is making sure the customer is happy. Having a full time IBM fellow come set up a desk next to the pile of IBM's you got is amazingly reassuring. (Even if all he does is full mother/daughter board swaps for every error
IBM wouldn't have to stretch at all to add Darwin to the list of OSes that they are willing to tend and provide as a service. And the tools for the Xserve... are better.
Even the Mac-on-Linux threads are interesting in this regard - IBM has an initiative to offer Linux on everything up to and including mainframes.
. . . Does IBM have the resources (money and staff) to compete with Intel? Maybe. Will it allocate enough to compete? Probably not. Most of IBMs research is specialized--becuase that's where their profit design lies. The 970, as a spinoff of the Power4, is simply another product to peddle to penetrate markets. I have not heard IBM say they will attempt to make the 970 an industry standard, nor have I heard them say how far they will push this chip. . .
</strong><hr></blockquote>
So, at last I see where you are coming from. You believe IBM is not sufficiently motivated to commit enough resources to the 970 family, right? Well if this is indeed true, than you have a very good point about going with the x86, because the PPC desktop chips would always lag behind. It has been true to some extent as long as the x86 was no threat to IBM's bread and butter, its server line. But my how times are changing.
An increasing threat to IBM server business is Linux running on x86 processors, and IBM knows it. Within three years, this type of server will make significant inroads in markets that use big servers now. IBM could market their own x86 Linux server to match the competition, but they would be competing head to head with Dell and HP. There would be little or nothing to differentiate an IBM Linux server from any other low cost PC server. IBM needs to give customers a reason to run Linux on an IBM server with an IBM processor. They need the best processor in this class, and they are out to get it. The 970 is just their first attempt to marry top performance and economy. So things do change. Yesterday's business plans are not what drives a successful company.
If anyone wants to believe that IBM is asleep at the switch, is making the 970 just to sell to Apple and a few others, and is not concerned about the threat of low cost PC servers, dream on.
If anyone wants to believe that IBM is asleep at the switch, is only doing the 970 to sell some chips to Apple and other such customers, and is not concerned about the threat of low cost PC servers, dream on.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree Snoopy, I'm sure that IBM knows that the desktop is encroaching on thier server market, and to combat this they need a lower cost solution than the Power 4 to compete. Going with a non-Intel processor allows them to keep more of the profits in house, or to market them at a more competative price, possibly even a loss (on the processor) to establish a brand recognition for their platform. The 970 by all accounts is a powerfull chip, and it has the potential of bridging the gap that has formed between the PowerPC and the x86 processor lines, with a "rapid move" to the 0.09 process, this gap should close even more, possibly by the end of 03. IBM has made some large investments in Linex over the past year, I doubt that those were made without a solid plan toward their server market, particularly on the PowerPC platform, again becouse they can keep more of the profits from the systems in house. They could also license the mother board design to other companies, thus increasing their profits from the chips, and increasing the total market share ofthe PowerPC computer platform, which in turn will bring more development dollars to the platform, which will help sell more computers based on that platform, and so on.....Bottom line, IBM has a lot to gain in a successfull Power PC platform.
Snoopy. Excellent post. Single handedly destroyed most of Macluv's posts in a relatively succinct paragraph.
Though, I have to give Macluv some credit for keeping going in the face of overwhelming odds. (ie I think the only part of his body still working in this boxing match has to be his mouth gurgling from the canvas floor as the rest of the Appleinsider board weighed in beat the beejeezus out of him ! ) Kinda reminded me of JD in early days...
Some of what Macluv is intimating is not without some merit.
For Apple, IBM have seemed (and Matsu has often argued this...) very disinterest or laid back in advancing the PPC cause. Why would IBM suddenly be Apple's saviour? Those IBM billions haven't appeared to do much for Apple so far in the face of the x86 mhz cat fight between amd/intel.
Common enemy. Intel Linux workstation/server erosion. Dell box United. Itanics 1 and 2 and making a fair showing in benches against the Power 4.
A reason for IBM to be duly concerned: ie send a few alarm bells ringing. Intel after IBM's coveted Server and Services Crown? Shock, horror? Gee, does this mean IBM actually have to set aside some of their PPC/x86 ambiguity? What? Get off their backside and actually make a decent server/desktop PPC processor that can attract the ant hordes of Linux? Investing in Linux? In Unix? Surprise. When you're about to lose your lunch, it can be motivating.
Reducing the Power4/5/6 R&D bill? If it serves Apple's interests as well. All the better. If Apple take off the load and help design the bus as well for the desktop side of things. IBM has a partner in crime. The old enemy is the new friend. Strange times.
I hear what Macluv is saying in some respects, but this time, it's different. It's all right when there are ants in Apple's cupboard. But when those ants are in IBM's cupboard too? Dey gonna get off ass and do something about it.
Will the 970 coincide with the frequent skirmish like updates 'tween amd and intel? Maybe not.
But you can guarantee that every six/9 months or so, the Power line 'light' line will deliver one hell of an update! Crashing in with a 'wow', less frequently than 'x86' but, hey, it one splash, we've got a CPU line that can land with a big splash when it does arrive. When it lands. And how. Macluv may not like the idea of Apple's cpu line hanging on the coat tails of Power R$D. However, in the face of struggling Moto' G4 development, a company, like AMD, bleeding money...if you'd have offered that to Apple watchers a year ago. We'd or rather, 'I' would have taken it.
Power 4 GPUL? Yes please. Power 5 derived GPUL? Yes please. Die shrunk and in a Powerbook? YES PLEASE.
I think that's pretty good from a formerly 'disinterested' PPC partner. And IBM are only getting warmed up by whisphered accounts.
The Macluv x86 question. Unlike some posters on this board. I can't discount some form of 'x86' strategy comeing from Apple. I don't think it will be 'Itanic'. It 'COULD' be 'Clawhammer'.
Some businesses have intimated they won't touch Apple (970 or not - though they may change their minds when they see it in an X-serve/Grid...) without 'x86' being in there. I still find it staggering that Apple can 'ignore' 95% of the market. Sure, the 'switch' campaign hints that some of that 'attitude' maybe changing. Relations between Dell and Apple are on the thaw as Dell shifts, shock, Apple iPods...
Apple ARE on the hypertransport panel. Apple are making servers now. Proper ones.
Several big business 'server' style contracts could certainly boost Apple's bottom line, I wouldn't rule out a dual PPC/Clawhammer m/board strategy. They get their security blanket. Try out cheap PPC X-serve licensing. Apple gets big sales. Sure, they sleep with the 'x86' enemy. But they get a PPC sale too. Half of something is better than nothing. How would they do a 'x86' machine?
Well, I think every argument in the book has been done to death on these boards. But a VPC style 'classic' x86 mode? Or a licenses M$ x86 board in the same PPC box? A 'clawhammer' grafted onto the same PPC m'board? Endian issues? But Apple moving their whole line of CPUs to AMD? Nope. Not to a company bleeding to death. Not when Apple have just transitioned from 9 to 10! M$ may try to put the squeeze on AMD if they try it... Mind you, the DoJ is watching them closely this time. I wouldn't rule out a motherboard/cpu level of involvement somewhere. But not as a 'main' or 'sole' strategy. Too risky. But as part of an Apple strategy to grab some of that 'x86' server/business market to pad out the bottom line? Who knows. And would Dell sell an Apple dual boot machine? I dunno. iPod on x86 is with us. Think Different.
Whatever the answer. Knowing Apple: a. They won't lose control of the hardware bus' and b. it will be uniquely brilliant. We can argue whether IBM or Intel has more billions. But IBM is a player and look uniquely placed to 'dream team' the Apple.
Lemon Bon Bon :cool:
Another thought. An enterprise Apple might have been laughable a few years ago.
But now? Surprise. Apple 'business' winning a few fans.
An Apple 'Clawhammer' 'X86' version of X-serve or at least an x86 compatability layer? Fill it with Clawhammers?
Maybe more business folks would bite. Politics we have on 'insider boards. But Apple have shown they would stick Bill Gates on a Macworld giant screen if it served the ultimated good. Apple dollars.
'X86' is going to be a relic in the next few years. An end of an era. Sure. We'll have legacy. But with Itanic and Clawhammer? Going forwards...?
What strategy would Apple be serving up to catch onto this next wave? (The 'after x86' wave...) This kind of opportunity won't be coming again for another 7 years as a rough guess.
Apple would be foolish to let politics get in the way of billions in profits.
And on that level, Macluv's argument has plenty of merit. <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
I keep seeing references to IBM potentially competing with Intel, whether or not IBM is committed to the 970 and how ultimately, a 970 based Xserve from Apple could find itself toe to toe against 970 solutions from IBM.
We have to keep in mind that IBM competes in so many markets to so many degrees, it is hard to make clean comparisons of the company to its peers let along evaluate it comprehensively enough to tell if it has any.
If we're talking AIX(Unix) on an IBM homegrown processor (Power4) does that make the competitor Sun (Solaris/Spark). Then what would happen if Sun released (Solaris/Xeon) and IBM (AIX/Xeon). Is IBM competing with Intel when you look at their Xeon solutions running Linux or are they competing with all the other Xeon OEMs or are they competing with themselves.
Honestly, it is always difficult to tell, but I think it's very revealing to consider IBM in the Xeon market. Typically, IBM differentiates it's products, based on memory/chipset (very cost sensitive), OS, support/configuration. Hence the reason why an IBM Xeon solution can run substantially higher than one from say HP.
Obviously, Apple's highend is nothing compared to IBM's highend. Thus, IBM more than likely would not see Apple being a direct competitor as I'm sure it doesn't see itself when it comes to selling Xeon products vs. Power4. Why, because for IBM Xeon and .NET be bottom of the barrel and Power4/5 and anything else is the promised land [a little bias is good ].
Consider that while highend servers and workstations from Apple based on the 970 might come no where close to the midrange 970 offerings of Big Blue, for Apple's core customer (education,media, medical, engineering, chemistry) and so forth a proper 970 solution from Big Blue would be overkill and overspending where the value added by Apple's bundling of it's software, system tweaks and experience in those perspective fields would be invaluable and exponential.
As for businesses saying "we only take what has x86 inside, coz that's the standard" - those are companies where uberpotent managers make decisions because they feel like having to prove stuff. The "serious" customers, where engineers decide what the best tool for the job is will jump on anything that they feel is good and has value. If 970 and OSX is "a desktop frienly unix-like OS on a powerful 64bit CPU" they will go for that, reglardless of the price.
Comments
<strong>At this rate you and Mr. Ed could run for office together.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And I'd vote for them over you in a second.
If you didn't come off as a whiney jerk maybe you wouldn't be "harrased" so much. Just try to understand how people perceive you from your posts and try to adjust.
<strong>
And I'd vote for them over you in a second.
If you didn't come off as a whiney jerk maybe you wouldn't be "harrased" so much. Just try to understand how people perceive you from your posts and try to adjust.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oooh, a popularity contest... I'd better start baking cupcakes.
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
That kind of reply does nothing but add to your poor rep.
I don't care if you don't, just thought I'd try to offer a different perspective.
Oh well, on with the thread - forgive the interruption.
<strong>See, it seems you have no clue.
That kind of reply does nothing but add to your poor rep.
I don't care if you don't, just thought I'd try to offer a different perspective.
Oh well, on with the thread - forgive the interruption.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Would you like a cupcake?
You, yourself, have offered no supporting evidence of WHY these are errors on my part. If you knew anything about debate, you'd realize you've just created the world's biggest "straw man".
You don't seem to understand that everything you've accused me of doing, you've just done in your own post.
The arguments I've made stand valid within their original content. If you wish to start addressing them instead of me then by all means do so.
You might as well just give me the finger.
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
PS. All of the examples you've shown w/fallacies are incorrect. I may suggest you take a proper course in debate before practicing on me. Thanks.
<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
[ 12-09-2002: Message edited by: MacLuv ]</p>
[ 12-09-2002: Message edited by: MacLuv ]</p>
<strong>
Oh? They do? Here's an example for you to ponder: please explain again why you think IBM doesn't have the resources to compete with Intel.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Before I explain why I don't think IBM has the resources to compete with Intel, we must put the argument back into its original context--which is my opinion that putting a 970 in an Apple PC won't guarantee direct competition with *Wintel*. (of course, it may not be Apple's plan to compete, but that's another thread entirely). Since you've asked me to "elaborate" on this some 80 posts later, I'll do my best to explain my side to you.
A step by step guide, if you will.
1. Consider company fundamenals, as taken from Hoover's:
IBM
Big Blue? Try Huge Blue. International Business Machines (IBM) is the world's top provider of computer hardware. Among the leaders in almost every market in which it competes, the company makes desktop and notebook PCs, mainframe and servers, storage systems, and peripherals, among its thousands of products. The company's service arm is the largest in the world. IBM is also one of the largest providers of both software (ranking #2, behind Microsoft) and semiconductors. The company continues to use acquisitions to augment its software and service businesses, while streamlining its hardware operations with divestitures and organizational shifts.
Intel
Kingpin. Top dog. Leviathan. Intel. Any way you phrase it, Intel is by far the world's top semiconductor maker. Even though archrival AMD has eaten into its market share, and while some of its diversification efforts have stalled, Intel still makes several times as much from chips as do any of its rivals. Though best known for its Pentium and Celeron microprocessors -- about four-fifths of all new PCs have them -- Intel also makes flash memories (where it's also #1 globally) and embedded semiconductors for the communications and industrial equipment markets. Most computer makers use Intel processors; PC giant Dell is the company's largest customer.
2. Recognize the difference between both companies.
IBM is big. Sure. But as I recall, Amorph stated this interesting point:
[quote]
Originally posted by Amorph:
IBM is so vast that they have had identically named divisions selling different solutions to the same market, none of which were aware of the others' existence. <hr></blockquote>
Redundancy within a corporation that does not leverage itself defines *poor management*. This isn't to say IBMs management team isn't top notch, it just means they may be trapped within a behemoth bureaucracy that is blind to the cause. Often within an organization the size of IBM divisions lose focus within its own political system and as a result, situations like redundancy are ever-present.
Although the same could be said of Intel, the fact that they only have one goal--to make semiconductors and flash memory--put them above IBM for resource management in that the whole company is dedicated to one cause. This is probably the #1 reason Intel has been able to surpass all expectations of the x86 ISA (!-see, I used it).
Does IBM have the resources (money and staff) to compete with Intel? Maybe. Will it allocate enough to compete? Probably not. Most of IBMs research is specialized--becuase that's where their profit design lies. The 970, as a spinoff of the Power4, is simply another product to peddle to penetrate markets. I have not heard IBM say they will attempt to make the 970 an industry standard, nor have I heard them say how far they will push this chip. If anyone wishes to point out statements from the press, feel free. (*1* see note below*)
Intel, on the other hand, has almost *unlimited* resources to push the x86 further as it has already achieved critical mass. This means that no matter how far IBM tries to push the 970, Intel will be right behind waiting to take up the slack, if there is any. We have already witnessed this with the G3/G4. There's just not enough consumer market for this architechture to survive.
Now, before one says "hold on, IBM has unlimited resources as well because they're so big"--think again. The fact that IBM is so big means quite the opposite. Risk Management is essential for a company like IBM, whereas Intel can almost take all the risk it needs to--because x86 has achieved critical mass.
There's probably more questions this will bring up, but as you can see from the lengthy explanation, it was easier for me just to say: IBM doesn't have the resources. If I had been asked nicely to elaborate on this rather then get flamed I would have taken the time to do so in the first place.
[quote]<strong>
You've tried, and failed to make that argument. If you are so sure of your argument then please produce a single person who's been following this thread that agrees with you. You can't because your argument is not valid. Just because you've made an argument doesn't mean you've made a valid one.</strong><hr></blockquote>
1. I have not failed to make the argument. I may have, in your opinion, failed to produce the evidence neccessary to support my arguments--but that is objectionable. You need only ask me to elaborate. Otherwise I get cranky and strart getting sarcastic and use a lot of smilies.
2. Producing a single person that agrees with me would not validate my point, nor would it yours. Furthermore, just because no one has stepped forward to agree with me does not dismiss my opinions, make my arguments erronous, fallacious, or invalid.
[quote]<strong>
Because of their superior technology, huge financial resources and marketability, IBM has the resources to kick Intel's ass in the workstation and server markets if they go there agressively. And all indication is that they are.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm sorry, I thought this conversation was about Apple.
The point people are making is that the 970 will be agressively marketed. The server market is a relationship market--that is, deals are made by top-level decision makers, not the IT guys who think the technology is superior. All I mean by this is--there's more to the deal than the technology. Politics play an important role here. And although IBM is ready to play, so are its competitors. This isn't easy sailing for anyone.
Meanwhile, where does this leave Apple IMO? In the same place it is now--stuck between a rock and a hardplace. We're still losing high-end Apple users to faster machines on the PC side. Speed sells.
*1* -- I realize that IBM has been positioning this chip as a contender in the desktop arena, but it will take the right business relationships to make this venture profitable. Apple doesn't really offer IBM that much incentive as far as a market is concerned. As IBM is second behind Microsoft in software design, I now doubt the plausability of IBM slapping Aqua into any of its solutions. I also realize that IBM will use the Power4/970 in a great deal of its proprietary solutions, but that does not guarantee production to the scale of Intel/AMD.
--- I reserve the right to make mistakes. If there are any questions, please ask me nicely to elaborate. ---
[ 12-09-2002: Message edited by: MacLuv ]</p>
greets,krassy
If the G5 is dead and the 970 is the only viable options for the next few years.
Can anyone tell how heat scale with core size and clock speed?
For the eMac and iMac a CPU load of 40W or even 2x 40W can be managed but for the 970 to migrate to the PB and iBook the heat has to be reduced.
<strong>Back to the topic of this thread, sort of
If the G5 is dead and the 970 is the only viable options for the next few years.
Can anyone tell how heat scale with core size and clock speed?
For the eMac and iMac a CPU load of 40W or even 2x 40W can be managed but for the 970 to migrate to the PB and iBook the heat has to be reduced.</strong><hr></blockquote>
i heard the 970 will be:
19W @ 1.2Ghz and 42W @ 1.8Ghz
which means the 970 at 0.9µ will be <19W @1.2Ghz which is ok for the Titanium.
[ 12-09-2002: Message edited by: Krassy ]</p>
[quote]Originally posted by Krassy:
<strong>
why is intel itself moving away from x86 if this ISA offers a better price-performance than other solutions? do we know how many years x86 will stay in the game before it will be replaced by itanium or other cpus? how is multiprocessing with intels P4 by the way? is it an easy task like with the 970? </strong><hr></blockquote>
Considerations about x86:
1. 4/5 of all PCs in the world use x86 ISA.
2. Legacy support for x86 ISA is a billion dollar business.
3. Because of legacy support and market size, x86 will be around for some time--it has achieved critical mass as an industry standard.
4. Intel will evolve and the x86 market will follow. AMDs Athlon 64 & Opteron are good indication of x86 investment.
5. Yes, the 970 was built for SMP in a desktop system, the P4 is not. There is much anticipation for an Opteron comparison to the 970, however. Intel is not the choice for Apple I am suggesting.
[quote]<strong>
ibm will build a new supercomputer with 120.000 Power5-processors for - ahem - big money i think they will put enough of it in R&D to reach their final mark of a 10 times faster system than todays fastest (see top 500-supercomputer-list</strong><hr></blockquote>
Considerations:
1. IBMs R&D will not necc. scale to the consumer market as quickly as Apple needs it to to keep up with AMD/Intel.
2. Apple has a longer product-cycle--consumer investment. If pro users needs a high-speed machine, they may opt out of Apple if x86 offers better speed performance.
[quote]<strong>
ok apples sales are not as good as we all like them to be - but if they try to compete with Wintel they won't win the game. instead they're doing the right thing to be 'different' ... the computing-experience is a reason for buying a mac - not the performance. x86 won't change this. and if the 970 will top todays</strong><hr></blockquote>
Considerations:
1. It may not be Apple's intention to compete with *Wintel*. This is something I will discuss later.
2. Apple does not sell a computing experience, it sells one a lifestyle choice. One may interpret that as a computing experience. Another may consider it a good choice that the Cube matches her new home office decor. Pro users, however, are being let down in the speed department, and the transition to OSX has been slow in the pro department. These high-end users are important to Apple, as the products they buy have the most profit margin.
3. The average consumer is aware of the current lack of speed in the Mac department.
4. I will have to present arguments/strategies for an x86 migration later, for they're too complicated to get into at 4AM.
I'll answer the rest of your stuff later... when I have more time--and more sleep!
Hope this helps, rebut at your leisure.
--- I reserve the right to make mistakes. If there are any questions, please ask me nicely to elaborate. ---
[ 12-09-2002: Message edited by: MacLuv ]</p>
Few OS's handled 64 bit when this decision was made. Technology for 64bit low end servers and especially desktop computers couldn't be made at this time.
The single most important decision made by AIM was this compatibility. Intel, AMD and Sun are about to see the fruits of this. IBM is serious about the 970, it's potential uses range across the board for uses, even down to the high end embedded market Motorola so covets.
[quote]Originally posted by MacLuv:
<strong>
....By the time the 970 is ready to go to market, Intel will be so far ahead of the game Apple won't have a chance. .....
If Apple doesn't approach a standard platform to compete head-on with Microsoft it will show a blatant disregard for the needs of its customers.
:eek:
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Just exactly how do you know that when the 970 goes to market Intel will be so far ahead. Have you seen the 970 perform Photoshop, 3-D rendering, database manipulation??? For that matter have you seen Intel's future processors perform these tasks.
"blatant disregard for the needs of its customers." A blatant disregard for its customers at this time would be switch to X86, the loss of software compatibility would be devastating. Apple apparently is maintaining an X86 build of Darwin, who knows why, I don't, but I'd bet Apple has valid reasons.
X86 ISA will die, when is anyone's guess, but for Apple to switch to an aging ISA that even Intel broke compatibility with in their 64 bit cpu's(emulation only) offers me proof that Apple shouldn't pursue this ISA.
Get over it. Apple won't be using X86. Future ISA's, possibly, in my lifetime who knows?
<strong>
To be honest Apple doesn't have the resources to enter any bigger a server Market than what can be achieved with up to 4-way CPU servers (lowe end) because the higher segments demand, like Amorph said, quality that has to be proven and that costs a lot. IBM has a reputation of a few decades they can build upon and that's ecactly the reason people with loads of cash to spend but IBM hardware - because for 10.000.000 you better get something that works - and works the way you want. Which is also the reason SGI stayed afloat, because they went back to do what they know best - powerful computing. And not "imagine a Beowulf cluster of these" wannabe power-computing.
The Rack-mountable approach Apple is taking is perfectly fine because it's a market where they could in theory live off their current customer base and compete with cheap Linux boxes. Plus the R&D cost is not really high so the risk is far lower than going head to head with IBM/SGI/Sun for the real server market. Just like their RAID system is neat for the Apple market, but no way they could ever challenge EMC and Hitachi.
Apple is playing some well tought out moves lately and if it weren't for their bus/cpu cripple they'd be in a really good position.</strong><hr></blockquote>
There are a lot of posts here making educated guesses as to the direction of the "low end" server market and Apples place in it. I think that a lot of these posts are good, Xype's among them. To add my 2 cents to this, I dont think that Apple is moving in a direction that will conflict much with IBM. Given Apples aquisitions in the past 18 months, I think that we can see a clear picture of Apples server intentions- Animation and Film, where the need for multiple servers linked together to crunch large amounts of data for rendering. This is a nitch market that Apple could do pretty well, better still if they devised a "blade" rack mount, or moved to 4+ processors. It is a market that will pay off for Apple becouse they can sell a whole rack full of servers, instead of one server and a bunch of disks for that server. Some of the "rumoured" future features of OS X work well here as well, like built in clustering. FTP over Firewire might help out as well, linking the servers together over a 50-micron mulitmode glass optical fiber for transfers up to 3.2Gbit/sec, which beats the current ethernet transfer speeds (I'm not sure how this will scale in the next 12-18 months, but FW 2 is due out within that time frame). This could make a pretty powerfull render farm, or a clustered computer for any other task. I'm sure that people at Apple have thought of this, especially with their aquisition of Shake. Most of the technology exists, or will be out soon, and will only take a bit of R&D to add the functions to OS X. The only problem they have right now is the G4, which could be solved with the release and adoption of the 970.
<strong>Given Apples aquisitions in the past 18 months, I think that we can see a clear picture of Apples server intentions- Animation and Film, where the need for multiple servers linked together to crunch large amounts of data for rendering.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Exactly. Do you remember when Jobs met with Hollywood animators and film companies and asked them, "what would it take for you to switch to Apple?" I think we know exactly the answer, and the current push in that direction with faster pro workstations, with a 970, and the xServe are the answer.
IBM wouldn't have to stretch at all to add Darwin to the list of OSes that they are willing to tend and provide as a service. And the tools for the Xserve... are better.
Even the Mac-on-Linux threads are interesting in this regard - IBM has an initiative to offer Linux on everything up to and including mainframes.
<strong>
. . . Does IBM have the resources (money and staff) to compete with Intel? Maybe. Will it allocate enough to compete? Probably not. Most of IBMs research is specialized--becuase that's where their profit design lies. The 970, as a spinoff of the Power4, is simply another product to peddle to penetrate markets. I have not heard IBM say they will attempt to make the 970 an industry standard, nor have I heard them say how far they will push this chip. . .
</strong><hr></blockquote>
So, at last I see where you are coming from. You believe IBM is not sufficiently motivated to commit enough resources to the 970 family, right? Well if this is indeed true, than you have a very good point about going with the x86, because the PPC desktop chips would always lag behind. It has been true to some extent as long as the x86 was no threat to IBM's bread and butter, its server line. But my how times are changing.
An increasing threat to IBM server business is Linux running on x86 processors, and IBM knows it. Within three years, this type of server will make significant inroads in markets that use big servers now. IBM could market their own x86 Linux server to match the competition, but they would be competing head to head with Dell and HP. There would be little or nothing to differentiate an IBM Linux server from any other low cost PC server. IBM needs to give customers a reason to run Linux on an IBM server with an IBM processor. They need the best processor in this class, and they are out to get it. The 970 is just their first attempt to marry top performance and economy. So things do change. Yesterday's business plans are not what drives a successful company.
If anyone wants to believe that IBM is asleep at the switch, is making the 970 just to sell to Apple and a few others, and is not concerned about the threat of low cost PC servers, dream on.
[ 12-09-2002: Message edited by: snoopy ]</p>
<strong>
If anyone wants to believe that IBM is asleep at the switch, is only doing the 970 to sell some chips to Apple and other such customers, and is not concerned about the threat of low cost PC servers, dream on.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree Snoopy, I'm sure that IBM knows that the desktop is encroaching on thier server market, and to combat this they need a lower cost solution than the Power 4 to compete. Going with a non-Intel processor allows them to keep more of the profits in house, or to market them at a more competative price, possibly even a loss (on the processor) to establish a brand recognition for their platform. The 970 by all accounts is a powerfull chip, and it has the potential of bridging the gap that has formed between the PowerPC and the x86 processor lines, with a "rapid move" to the 0.09 process, this gap should close even more, possibly by the end of 03. IBM has made some large investments in Linex over the past year, I doubt that those were made without a solid plan toward their server market, particularly on the PowerPC platform, again becouse they can keep more of the profits from the systems in house. They could also license the mother board design to other companies, thus increasing their profits from the chips, and increasing the total market share ofthe PowerPC computer platform, which in turn will bring more development dollars to the platform, which will help sell more computers based on that platform, and so on.....Bottom line, IBM has a lot to gain in a successfull Power PC platform.
Though, I have to give Macluv some credit for keeping going in the face of overwhelming odds. (ie I think the only part of his body still working in this boxing match has to be his mouth gurgling from the canvas floor as the rest of the Appleinsider board weighed in beat the beejeezus out of him
Some of what Macluv is intimating is not without some merit.
For Apple, IBM have seemed (and Matsu has often argued this...) very disinterest or laid back in advancing the PPC cause. Why would IBM suddenly be Apple's saviour? Those IBM billions haven't appeared to do much for Apple so far in the face of the x86 mhz cat fight between amd/intel.
Common enemy. Intel Linux workstation/server erosion. Dell box United. Itanics 1 and 2 and making a fair showing in benches against the Power 4.
A reason for IBM to be duly concerned: ie send a few alarm bells ringing. Intel after IBM's coveted Server and Services Crown? Shock, horror? Gee, does this mean IBM actually have to set aside some of their PPC/x86 ambiguity? What? Get off their backside and actually make a decent server/desktop PPC processor that can attract the ant hordes of Linux? Investing in Linux? In Unix? Surprise. When you're about to lose your lunch, it can be motivating.
Reducing the Power4/5/6 R&D bill? If it serves Apple's interests as well. All the better. If Apple take off the load and help design the bus as well for the desktop side of things. IBM has a partner in crime. The old enemy is the new friend. Strange times.
I hear what Macluv is saying in some respects, but this time, it's different. It's all right when there are ants in Apple's cupboard. But when those ants are in IBM's cupboard too? Dey gonna get off ass and do something about it.
Will the 970 coincide with the frequent skirmish like updates 'tween amd and intel? Maybe not.
But you can guarantee that every six/9 months or so, the Power line 'light' line will deliver one hell of an update! Crashing in with a 'wow', less frequently than 'x86' but, hey, it one splash, we've got a CPU line that can land with a big splash when it does arrive. When it lands. And how. Macluv may not like the idea of Apple's cpu line hanging on the coat tails of Power R$D. However, in the face of struggling Moto' G4 development, a company, like AMD, bleeding money...if you'd have offered that to Apple watchers a year ago. We'd or rather, 'I' would have taken it.
Power 4 GPUL? Yes please. Power 5 derived GPUL? Yes please. Die shrunk and in a Powerbook? YES PLEASE.
I think that's pretty good from a formerly 'disinterested' PPC partner. And IBM are only getting warmed up by whisphered accounts.
The Macluv x86 question. Unlike some posters on this board. I can't discount some form of 'x86' strategy comeing from Apple. I don't think it will be 'Itanic'. It 'COULD' be 'Clawhammer'.
Some businesses have intimated they won't touch Apple (970 or not - though they may change their minds when they see it in an X-serve/Grid...) without 'x86' being in there. I still find it staggering that Apple can 'ignore' 95% of the market. Sure, the 'switch' campaign hints that some of that 'attitude' maybe changing. Relations between Dell and Apple are on the thaw as Dell shifts, shock, Apple iPods...
Apple ARE on the hypertransport panel. Apple are making servers now. Proper ones.
Several big business 'server' style contracts could certainly boost Apple's bottom line, I wouldn't rule out a dual PPC/Clawhammer m/board strategy. They get their security blanket. Try out cheap PPC X-serve licensing. Apple gets big sales. Sure, they sleep with the 'x86' enemy. But they get a PPC sale too. Half of something is better than nothing. How would they do a 'x86' machine?
Well, I think every argument in the book has been done to death on these boards. But a VPC style 'classic' x86 mode? Or a licenses M$ x86 board in the same PPC box? A 'clawhammer' grafted onto the same PPC m'board? Endian issues? But Apple moving their whole line of CPUs to AMD? Nope. Not to a company bleeding to death. Not when Apple have just transitioned from 9 to 10! M$ may try to put the squeeze on AMD if they try it... Mind you, the DoJ is watching them closely this time. I wouldn't rule out a motherboard/cpu level of involvement somewhere. But not as a 'main' or 'sole' strategy. Too risky. But as part of an Apple strategy to grab some of that 'x86' server/business market to pad out the bottom line? Who knows. And would Dell sell an Apple dual boot machine? I dunno. iPod on x86 is with us. Think Different.
Whatever the answer. Knowing Apple: a. They won't lose control of the hardware bus' and b. it will be uniquely brilliant. We can argue whether IBM or Intel has more billions. But IBM is a player and look uniquely placed to 'dream team' the Apple.
Lemon Bon Bon :cool:
Another thought. An enterprise Apple might have been laughable a few years ago.
But now? Surprise. Apple 'business' winning a few fans.
An Apple 'Clawhammer' 'X86' version of X-serve or at least an x86 compatability layer? Fill it with Clawhammers?
Maybe more business folks would bite. Politics we have on 'insider boards. But Apple have shown they would stick Bill Gates on a Macworld giant screen if it served the ultimated good. Apple dollars.
'X86' is going to be a relic in the next few years. An end of an era. Sure. We'll have legacy. But with Itanic and Clawhammer? Going forwards...?
What strategy would Apple be serving up to catch onto this next wave? (The 'after x86' wave...) This kind of opportunity won't be coming again for another 7 years as a rough guess.
Apple would be foolish to let politics get in the way of billions in profits.
And on that level, Macluv's argument has plenty of merit. <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
[ 12-09-2002: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]</p>
We have to keep in mind that IBM competes in so many markets to so many degrees, it is hard to make clean comparisons of the company to its peers let along evaluate it comprehensively enough to tell if it has any.
If we're talking AIX(Unix) on an IBM homegrown processor (Power4) does that make the competitor Sun (Solaris/Spark). Then what would happen if Sun released (Solaris/Xeon) and IBM (AIX/Xeon). Is IBM competing with Intel when you look at their Xeon solutions running Linux or are they competing with all the other Xeon OEMs or are they competing with themselves.
Honestly, it is always difficult to tell, but I think it's very revealing to consider IBM in the Xeon market. Typically, IBM differentiates it's products, based on memory/chipset (very cost sensitive), OS, support/configuration. Hence the reason why an IBM Xeon solution can run substantially higher than one from say HP.
Obviously, Apple's highend is nothing compared to IBM's highend. Thus, IBM more than likely would not see Apple being a direct competitor as I'm sure it doesn't see itself when it comes to selling Xeon products vs. Power4. Why, because for IBM Xeon and .NET be bottom of the barrel and Power4/5 and anything else is the promised land [a little bias is good
Consider that while highend servers and workstations from Apple based on the 970 might come no where close to the midrange 970 offerings of Big Blue, for Apple's core customer (education,media, medical, engineering, chemistry) and so forth a proper 970 solution from Big Blue would be overkill and overspending where the value added by Apple's bundling of it's software, system tweaks and experience in those perspective fields would be invaluable and exponential.
OSX on x86 would be a complete waste.