I just noticed a "Why IBM and why now?". Please keep in mind that while Apple, IBM and Motorola developed the Power PC and Book E architectures, they all participated for their own reasons.
Motorola and IBM both were vehemently at odds over Altivec (Mot. for, IBM against). While they all agreed on core funtionality and design philosophies if you will, they could not have been farther apart on implementation. Obviously we saw the reasons why too. IBM's G3 scaled like crazy and Motorola's G4 didn't scale at all. All the while many in the industry hold that the only difference between the G3 and G4 is SIMD (Altivec) as otherwise performance is comparable. However, please don't forget that Motorola didn't know they wouldn't be able to get the G4 to scale until they tried.
By then, Apple was already on board and in bed with Mot. due to Altivec and it's clear advantages in regards to multimedia. Why would any of us think that multimedia is important by any means to IBM. I would guess that not long after the G4 "Supercomputer" commercials and just before the rest of us figured it out, Apple saw how hard a time Mot. was having keeping to it's own guidance re: the development of the G4 platform.
Not long after that, they were looking to implement IBM G3s in the low end, but couldn't use the best, because Big Blue's G3's were as fast if not faster than the G4's from Mot. MHz wise.
As for why now, we have to keep looking at where IBM has spoken of the 970: Low end server and desktop (presumeably workstation). Itanium & McKinley are not a good comparisons because they are not designed for the desktop. They are server chips period.
Why now, because the biggest baddest desktop processors for 2003 are to be from IBM/Apple (970) and our good friends at AMD (Hammer family) both 64bit processors. Of course Intel will be there with an ever faster Pentium IV oddly still a 32bit processor.
Why now, IBM and AMD have an opportunity to get into the 64bit desktop market perhaps 2+ years before Intel. They are going to get into that market and they are going to dig in and Intel will have the difficult task of trying to storm the beach after the enemy has already dug in.
One more thing ArkAngel, right now is probably the best time since the introduction of OS 2 for IBM to take on the Microsoft/Inter jogernaut. The "market" is not pleased with the licensing that Microsoft is placing on their customers. The opensource community is getting more respect from buisness with the populariaty of Linex. Apple has produced arguably the best Unix "flavor" with OS X and the Aqua GUI. IBM has a relatively small window of opportunity to make some large waves right now. The 970 "server on the desktop" chip is a move in the right direcition.
1. It may not be Apple's intention to compete with *Wintel*. This is something I will discuss later.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
please do so ...
[quote]<strong>
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.
</strong>
<hr></blockquote>
i agree with this comment. i'm in for a new PowerMac next year. but i don't have the feeling that my currently G4/400 is so much slower than a Athlon 1Ghz of a friend. (ok the graphics card is but this is another point). when i see the SPEC-marks for the 1Ghz G4 and the SPEC-marks of the 1Ghz Athlon the G4 must be slower??? but it isn't ... now we have a PPC which shows up with SPEC scores up to 5 times higher than a 1Ghz G4... i think this will be enough for me to buy because i'll buy a new PowerMac after 3 years which is 4-5 times faster overall than my G4/400 is now (and if there will be dual 970s perhaps up to 6 times faster). in the same timeframe my friend could get an athlon 2.8+ or an athlon 64.... i think this is ok and i think i don't be worried that the athlon64 could be faster... and if so - i don't care - i'll have enough processing power and can use all my older apps and have a mac look&feel and i have unix with apache, php, perl, bind, sendmail and all this stuff - and up to it i can use my favourite emagic logic audio platinum.... this will be heaven on a 970-based mac os x machine...
[quote]
<strong>
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.
</strong>
<hr></blockquote>
this have to be interesting thoughts i'm going to hear about the migration i think. and i know many people who want to get a mac but it is too expensive - not too slow! please take care to add a strategy for cutting costs for new apple products to your migration plan.
[quote]
<strong>
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. ---
</strong>
<hr></blockquote>
"no problem gangsta" no i'm not having fun doing mistake-picking....
[quote]By ArkAngel:
<strong>
Motorola and IBM both were vehemently at odds over Altivec (Mot. for, IBM against). While they all agreed on core funtionality and design philosophies if you will, they could not have been farther apart on implementation. Obviously we saw the reasons why too. IBM's G3 scaled like crazy and Motorola's G4 didn't scale at all. However, please don't forget that Motorola didn't know they wouldn't be able to get the G4 to scale until they tried.
</strong>
<hr></blockquote>
i thought the G4 is at 1.2Ghz - where is the G3? i heard i should reach 1Ghz and nothing more before we can await it's successor (not the 970 - so i think there will be another cpu from IBM next year which shoul be placed between the G4 and the 970 performance-wise)
ok people... keep up the nice debates this is fun :cool:
[quote] Intel, on the other hand, has almost *unlimited* resources to push the x86 further as it has already achieved critical mass. <hr></blockquote>
They can't defy the laws of physics or chip design. Their clock speed push at the exclusion of much else could easily be their undoing. If they "push" in what turns out to be the wrong direction, they lose regardless of what money and resources they have to invest. Choosing not to go the 64 bit desktop route could be a mistake as well.
i thought the G4 is at 1.2Ghz - where is the G3? i heard it should reach 1Ghz and nothing more before we can await it's successor
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I could be wrong, but I think a 1GHz G3 is currently in IBM's price list, and has been for awhile. Let's see, 4 stage pipeline @ 1GHz.
Shirley, IBM's next generation 32bit processor will have extended the pipelines, added VMX, very possibly added multiple cores and be SMP capable.(all currently on its' roadmap exept longer pipelines). Think >2GHz and speed lots and lots of speed. Got to make something other than the 970 in their new plant in Intelkill, er um, I mean Fishkill.
<strong>They can't defy the laws of physics or chip design. Their clock speed push at the exclusion of much else could easily be their undoing.</strong><hr></blockquote>
They can still sell their CPUs as kitchen appliances for baking ham and eggs.
Shirley, IBM's next generation 32bit processor will have extended the pipelines, added VMX, very possibly added multiple cores and be SMP capable.(all currently on its' roadmap exept longer pipelines). Think >2GHz and speed lots and lots of speed. Got to make something other than the 970 in their new plant in Intelkill, er um, I mean Fishkill.
<strong>I ask again: Please explain again why you think IBM doesn't havbe the resources to compete with Intel.
You did not answer the question. Your "explanation" was that you didn't think IBM would devote the resources to compete with Intel. So you admit that they have the resources.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Tonton, you're splitting hairs with me. Please, just stick to the topic.
Your approach to debate reminds me of one of my favorite Simpson's episodes, where Lisa decides to become a vegetarian. After announcing her views, Lisa is taunted on the playground:
Janey: Are you going to marry a carrot, Lisa?
Lisa: Hph... yeess, I'm going to marry a carrot.
Janey: Huh! She admitted it, she admitted she was gonna marry a carrot!
You have said nothing basically except that you don't trust IBM, and you have not really explained why, first saying "IBM doesn't have the resources necessary" then changing that on the fly to "I don't think IBM will commit the resources necessary". </strong><hr></blockquote>
1. Here you are suggesting that I change my mind where/when appropriate.
This is not true.
If you could remove your head from your ass for one moment, you would realize that I have not changed my position about "IBM not having the resources to compete". I wrote a damn page about it.
I'm not writing a book, and I don't have editors to look over my posts before they are posted. UBB doesn't even have a "preview" function. If you notice my sig now, I have reserved the right to make mistakes, as well as the right for my comments to be open for interpretation.
Sometimes things I say may need to be elaborated on. I've done my best to do so when asked.
What you're doing, however, is trying to create a ****ing Kenneth Starr Committee with intention to prosecute everything I say as if I've said it under oath.
To this point, I've done my best to maintain myself with you and just opted for the sarcastic route out. Yet, you still continue to harass me and call me *ass*--and persist on getting in the last word to discredit my opinions.
I appreciate your willingness to stick to the topic at this point, but it's a litle too late I'm afraid. You have been more than unfair. Consider yourself ignored for the rest of this thread. My back is turned to you.
If you could remove your head from your ass for one moment, you would realize that I have not changed my position about "IBM not having the resources to compete". I wrote a damn page about it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not to get involved but you wonder why people are 'harassing' you?
How is asking for further information on an opinion (that you don't THINK IBM will devote the resources) or any sort of info/data to back it up splitting hairs?
<strong>Janey: Are you going to marry a carrot, Lisa?
Lisa: Hph... yeess, I'm going to marry a carrot.
Janey: Huh! She admitted it, she admitted she was gonna marry a carrot!</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's exactly comments like this - which you post a ton of - that prevents others to have a normal discussion here. F_ck, if you want to debate "in depth" with someone telling him Simpsons anecdotes do this via e-mail!
Even _if_ you are the only one who's right here you should have noticed that your dicsussion doesn't lead to anyhint. Just leave it at that.
How is asking for further information on an opinion (that you don't THINK IBM will devote the resources) or any sort of info/data to back it up splitting hairs?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Because I've already been asked for it and I've already responded to it
<strong>If you are pushing the 970, where do you see the 970 within the consumer market within the next 15 years</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'll play!
Replaced by the next 2 generations of microprocessors. There have been advancements in both gallium arsenide and germanium seeding into sillycon that show considerable promise in increasing GHz.
Being uninformed as I am, I have seen reports from IBM and Motorola on these laboratory animals, but not a peep from Intel. Has Intel also made breakthroughs?? or are they going to license this tech from someone??
[ 12-10-2002: Message edited by: rickag ]
Just a footnote. Several years ago I read an article that included statements from Intel basically saying that SOI would not contribute significantly to processor design once the processor reached 0.1µm and they would not develop this tech. Seems they may be backtracking somewhat - aren't they going to include SOI now???
Just a footnote. Several years ago I read an article that included statements from Intel basically saying that SOI would not contribute significantly to processor design once the processor reached 0.1µm and they would not develop this tech. Seems they may be backtracking somewhat - aren't they going to include SOI now???
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't think so -- I read just recently that Intel is adopting a technique that will let them get below 0.09 micron, whereas IBM is going to take SOI down to 0.09 micron before switching to this other new technique. I can't remember the details, but it sounds like there are different roads to travel and Intel and IBM aren't following eachother. IMO this is a good thing.
Comments
I just noticed a "Why IBM and why now?". Please keep in mind that while Apple, IBM and Motorola developed the Power PC and Book E architectures, they all participated for their own reasons.
Motorola and IBM both were vehemently at odds over Altivec (Mot. for, IBM against). While they all agreed on core funtionality and design philosophies if you will, they could not have been farther apart on implementation. Obviously we saw the reasons why too. IBM's G3 scaled like crazy and Motorola's G4 didn't scale at all. All the while many in the industry hold that the only difference between the G3 and G4 is SIMD (Altivec) as otherwise performance is comparable. However, please don't forget that Motorola didn't know they wouldn't be able to get the G4 to scale until they tried.
By then, Apple was already on board and in bed with Mot. due to Altivec and it's clear advantages in regards to multimedia. Why would any of us think that multimedia is important by any means to IBM. I would guess that not long after the G4 "Supercomputer" commercials and just before the rest of us figured it out, Apple saw how hard a time Mot. was having keeping to it's own guidance re: the development of the G4 platform.
Not long after that, they were looking to implement IBM G3s in the low end, but couldn't use the best, because Big Blue's G3's were as fast if not faster than the G4's from Mot. MHz wise.
As for why now, we have to keep looking at where IBM has spoken of the 970: Low end server and desktop (presumeably workstation). Itanium & McKinley are not a good comparisons because they are not designed for the desktop. They are server chips period.
Why now, because the biggest baddest desktop processors for 2003 are to be from IBM/Apple (970) and our good friends at AMD (Hammer family) both 64bit processors. Of course Intel will be there with an ever faster Pentium IV oddly still a 32bit processor.
Why now, IBM and AMD have an opportunity to get into the 64bit desktop market perhaps 2+ years before Intel. They are going to get into that market and they are going to dig in and Intel will have the difficult task of trying to storm the beach after the enemy has already dug in.
That's why!
[ 12-09-2002: Message edited by: ArkAngel ]</p>
[quote]Originally posted by MacLuv:
<strong>
1. It may not be Apple's intention to compete with *Wintel*. This is something I will discuss later.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
please do so ...
[quote]<strong>
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.
</strong>
<hr></blockquote>
i agree with this comment. i'm in for a new PowerMac next year. but i don't have the feeling that my currently G4/400 is so much slower than a Athlon 1Ghz of a friend. (ok the graphics card is but this is another point). when i see the SPEC-marks for the 1Ghz G4 and the SPEC-marks of the 1Ghz Athlon the G4 must be slower??? but it isn't ... now we have a PPC which shows up with SPEC scores up to 5 times higher than a 1Ghz G4... i think this will be enough for me to buy because i'll buy a new PowerMac after 3 years which is 4-5 times faster overall than my G4/400 is now (and if there will be dual 970s perhaps up to 6 times faster). in the same timeframe my friend could get an athlon 2.8+ or an athlon 64.... i think this is ok and i think i don't be worried that the athlon64 could be faster... and if so - i don't care - i'll have enough processing power and can use all my older apps and have a mac look&feel and i have unix with apache, php, perl, bind, sendmail and all this stuff - and up to it i can use my favourite emagic logic audio platinum.... this will be heaven on a 970-based mac os x machine...
[quote]
<strong>
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.
</strong>
<hr></blockquote>
this have to be interesting thoughts i'm going to hear about the migration i think. and i know many people who want to get a mac but it is too expensive - not too slow! please take care to add a strategy for cutting costs for new apple products to your migration plan.
[quote]
<strong>
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. ---
</strong>
<hr></blockquote>
"no problem gangsta"
[quote]By ArkAngel:
<strong>
Motorola and IBM both were vehemently at odds over Altivec (Mot. for, IBM against). While they all agreed on core funtionality and design philosophies if you will, they could not have been farther apart on implementation. Obviously we saw the reasons why too. IBM's G3 scaled like crazy and Motorola's G4 didn't scale at all. However, please don't forget that Motorola didn't know they wouldn't be able to get the G4 to scale until they tried.
</strong>
<hr></blockquote>
i thought the G4 is at 1.2Ghz - where is the G3? i heard i should reach 1Ghz and nothing more before we can await it's successor (not the 970 - so i think there will be another cpu from IBM next year which shoul be placed between the G4 and the 970 performance-wise)
ok people... keep up the nice debates this is fun :cool:
[ 12-09-2002: Message edited by: Krassy ]</p>
They can't defy the laws of physics or chip design. Their clock speed push at the exclusion of much else could easily be their undoing. If they "push" in what turns out to be the wrong direction, they lose regardless of what money and resources they have to invest. Choosing not to go the 64 bit desktop route could be a mistake as well.
<strong>thx for the fast answer, macluv.
i thought the G4 is at 1.2Ghz - where is the G3? i heard it should reach 1Ghz and nothing more before we can await it's successor
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I could be wrong, but I think a 1GHz G3 is currently in IBM's price list, and has been for awhile. Let's see, 4 stage pipeline @ 1GHz.
Shirley, IBM's next generation 32bit processor will have extended the pipelines, added VMX, very possibly added multiple cores and be SMP capable.(all currently on its' roadmap exept longer pipelines). Think >2GHz and speed lots and lots of speed. Got to make something other than the 970 in their new plant in Intelkill, er um, I mean Fishkill.
Question is when??????
<strong>They can't defy the laws of physics or chip design. Their clock speed push at the exclusion of much else could easily be their undoing.</strong><hr></blockquote>
They can still sell their CPUs as kitchen appliances for baking ham and eggs.
<strong>
....
Shirley, IBM's next generation 32bit processor will have extended the pipelines, added VMX, very possibly added multiple cores and be SMP capable.(all currently on its' roadmap exept longer pipelines). Think >2GHz and speed lots and lots of speed. Got to make something other than the 970 in their new plant in Intelkill, er um, I mean Fishkill.
Question is when??????</strong><hr></blockquote>
Don't call me Shirley
<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
Need input--open question:
If you are pushing the 970, where do you see the 970 within the consumer market within the next 15 years?
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> @shirley
[ 12-09-2002: Message edited by: MacLuv ]</p>
<strong>I ask again: Please explain again why you think IBM doesn't havbe the resources to compete with Intel.
You did not answer the question. Your "explanation" was that you didn't think IBM would devote the resources to compete with Intel. So you admit that they have the resources.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Tonton, you're splitting hairs with me. Please, just stick to the topic.
Your approach to debate reminds me of one of my favorite Simpson's episodes, where Lisa decides to become a vegetarian. After announcing her views, Lisa is taunted on the playground:
Janey: Are you going to marry a carrot, Lisa?
Lisa: Hph... yeess, I'm going to marry a carrot.
Janey: Huh! She admitted it, she admitted she was gonna marry a carrot!
Yes tonton, I'm going to marry a carrot.
[ 12-09-2002: Message edited by: MacLuv ]</p>
<strong>MacLuv
You have said nothing basically except that you don't trust IBM, and you have not really explained why, first saying "IBM doesn't have the resources necessary" then changing that on the fly to "I don't think IBM will commit the resources necessary". </strong><hr></blockquote>
1. Here you are suggesting that I change my mind where/when appropriate.
This is not true.
If you could remove your head from your ass for one moment, you would realize that I have not changed my position about "IBM not having the resources to compete". I wrote a damn page about it.
I'm not writing a book, and I don't have editors to look over my posts before they are posted. UBB doesn't even have a "preview" function. If you notice my sig now, I have reserved the right to make mistakes, as well as the right for my comments to be open for interpretation.
Sometimes things I say may need to be elaborated on. I've done my best to do so when asked.
What you're doing, however, is trying to create a ****ing Kenneth Starr Committee with intention to prosecute everything I say as if I've said it under oath.
To this point, I've done my best to maintain myself with you and just opted for the sarcastic route out. Yet, you still continue to harass me and call me *ass*--and persist on getting in the last word to discredit my opinions.
I appreciate your willingness to stick to the topic at this point, but it's a litle too late I'm afraid. You have been more than unfair. Consider yourself ignored for the rest of this thread. My back is turned to you.
[ 12-09-2002: Message edited by: MacLuv ]</p>
<strong>
If you could remove your head from your ass for one moment, you would realize that I have not changed my position about "IBM not having the resources to compete". I wrote a damn page about it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not to get involved but you wonder why people are 'harassing' you?
<strong>
Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah</strong><hr></blockquote>
I couldn't have put it better myself.
<strong>
Tonton, you're splitting hairs with me. Please, just stick to the topic.
[ 12-09-2002: Message edited by: MacLuv ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
How is asking for further information on an opinion (that you don't THINK IBM will devote the resources) or any sort of info/data to back it up splitting hairs?
...somebody kill this thread. It's going, like, around in circles, 'n stuff. <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
Lisa: Hph... yeess, I'm going to marry a carrot.
Janey: Huh! She admitted it, she admitted she was gonna marry a carrot!
<strong>Janey: Are you going to marry a carrot, Lisa?
Lisa: Hph... yeess, I'm going to marry a carrot.
Janey: Huh! She admitted it, she admitted she was gonna marry a carrot!</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's exactly comments like this - which you post a ton of - that prevents others to have a normal discussion here. F_ck, if you want to debate "in depth" with someone telling him Simpsons anecdotes do this via e-mail!
Even _if_ you are the only one who's right here you should have noticed that your dicsussion doesn't lead to anyhint. Just leave it at that.
<strong>
How is asking for further information on an opinion (that you don't THINK IBM will devote the resources) or any sort of info/data to back it up splitting hairs?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Because I've already been asked for it and I've already responded to it
<a href="http://forums.appleinsider.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=002700&p=10#000 376" target="_blank">here.</a>
[ 12-10-2002: Message edited by: MacLuv ]</p>
<strong>If you are pushing the 970, where do you see the 970 within the consumer market within the next 15 years</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'll play!
Replaced by the next 2 generations of microprocessors. There have been advancements in both gallium arsenide and germanium seeding into sillycon that show considerable promise in increasing GHz.
Being uninformed as I am, I have seen reports from IBM and Motorola on these laboratory animals, but not a peep from Intel. Has Intel also made breakthroughs?? or are they going to license this tech from someone??
[ 12-10-2002: Message edited by: rickag ]
Just a footnote. Several years ago I read an article that included statements from Intel basically saying that SOI would not contribute significantly to processor design once the processor reached 0.1µm and they would not develop this tech. Seems they may be backtracking somewhat - aren't they going to include SOI now???
[ 12-10-2002: Message edited by: rickag ]</p>
<strong>
Just a footnote. Several years ago I read an article that included statements from Intel basically saying that SOI would not contribute significantly to processor design once the processor reached 0.1µm and they would not develop this tech. Seems they may be backtracking somewhat - aren't they going to include SOI now???
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't think so -- I read just recently that Intel is adopting a technique that will let them get below 0.09 micron, whereas IBM is going to take SOI down to 0.09 micron before switching to this other new technique. I can't remember the details, but it sounds like there are different roads to travel and Intel and IBM aren't following eachother. IMO this is a good thing.