Slashdot Mirror
Apple Switch to Intel Not a Big Loss for IBM
KaushalParekh writes "An interesting article about how Apple's switch to Intel chips may not be that bad for IBM after all. "Apple sees an opportunity with Intel. But IBM continues the same chip development that allowed Apple to claim several firsts and fastests. Now, Big Blue will plow its research efforts into processors for game consoles and other consumer products that might one day knock the PC down a rung." Also, "a lucrative avenue for IBM in China, where the marriage of the Linux OS to PCs armed with [IBM] PowerPC chips presents some intriguing possibilities." And, "Large firms like Sony, Microsoft and Comcast are betting that a home-entertainment device, evolved from a game console or set-top box, will replace many of the PC's functions. IBM plans to be inside these new systems.""
Haven't we discussed this thing zillion times on slashdot that IBM is not dead. There is still a processor market other than Apple computers.
IBM has so many area they are excellent in that I doubt Apple's departure will be all that bad. They are moving to be a very service oriented business and that seems to be a big market in the future. Add to that their dominance in the supercomputer market and their future looks very positive to me.
Voice your opinion!
What are the possibilities we could have Thinkpads running on PPC chips?
I'd like to see IBM make some inexpensive ($2000) PowerPC workstations (like the PowerMac G5). PowerPC seems to be a nice processor. Especialy if it has a decent OS behind it. If we could get some solid Linux support for a IBM PowerPC workstation, it would be able to do some nice video processing. Look at how good Apple did, even with a hacked (thrown together) OS.
Man is the lowest-cost, 150-pound, nonlinear, all-purpose computer system which can be mass-produced by unskilled labor.
It was already known when Apple announced the switch that it wouldn't mean a huge financial loss for IBM.
;)
The demand from Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo is a lot higher so IBM doesn't need to cry
Game console becomes set-top box; set-top box becomes PC; game console gets invented.
"Forward into the past!" - Firesign Theater
Yesterday I went to a client's home that has 2 PCs and 2 Macs, they are the Design/Publicity kind of crew. They are utterly unaware of the switch, and believe me, the will remain so AFTER it. IBM is probably right in pursuing this path, but I dont honestly see embedded/game consoles taking over corporate turf anytime soon.
To hear IBM, inventor of the "IBM PC" sounding off on the theme that the PC is dead is very signifigant. All us geeks here like the PC chassis for it's customization capabilities... not true of the general public.
Console manufacturers have, I believe, the largest number of non-PC systems sold. They've been pulling their punches as far as turning those systems into a general purpose computing platform, for some unknown reason. This may give them the "go ahead."
Someone had to do it.
"Certainly, Apple sees an opportunity with Intel. But IBM continues the same chip development that allowed Apple to claim several firsts and fastests."
How much of IBM's innovative chip design was pushed forward by Apple? I'm honestly not that familiar with the design/manufacture process but certainly IBM and Apple were working together on new designs for at least Apple hardware.
With Apple and Intel working together now we're sure to (eventually) see some products that Intel wouldn't have developed on their own.
If you get an error, type "OVERRIDE" or "SECURITY OVERRIDE" and then try the optimize command again.
I've heard that Apple was a real pain in the ass for IBM. They may have even broke out the good campaign and threw a big party after Apple sent their "Dear John" letter.
Apple and Intel strategically have very little issues (aside from Intel's current partner Microsoft... but that's another story)
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
I think IBM should make PPC linux PCs made just for running linux and nothing else. put only well supported proven hardware in them. Give us a desktop with dual core G5s and out of the box support for every bit of hardware via linux. They could price this about mac mini cost and give it commodity accessories like ide ram optical pci etc and make a killing by being THE supplier to the world's geeks.
My amigos at Freescale's Apple support division were actually quite happy that the Jobs monkey was finally off their backs.
I will play Mr. Smith: It was inevitable.
The cost of producing new leading edge semiconductor processors has always, and will always, grow at a very high rate. The cost of a chip fab is outrageous. It has been doubling for many years now. A new chip fab today costs about $4 Billion US!!! (For a 65nm fab) Most companies have started renovating there fabs to use ever larger wafers instead of building new fabs. Currently many fabs are using 300mm wafers. Many of the older 150mm fabs that have already upgraded to 200mm don't have the room to upgrade further.
Some big new 300mm fabs are:
D1C in Hillsboro, Oregon
F11X in Albuquerque, New Mexico
F24 in Leixlip, Ireland
The "break even" point for development costs has been skyrocketing!
In the 1980's and early 1990's 50,000 units were required to recoup development costs on a chip. At 130nm, fab costs hit more than $1 billion and the break-even point for chips was about 500,000 units. A chip made with a 65nm process needs approximately 5 million units to break even on development costs. With 45nm processes at the edge of the current horizon for chip manufactures, how many markets are there for a chip that has to sell 50 million units to break even!!!
For many years Motorola, AMD and other chip makers were moving steadily away from having there own fabs. Motorola was outsourcing 7% of its chip manufacturing in 1997, and over 30% in 2003. It seems this might have been a bad idea. Apple sited manufacturing capacity as one of its reasons for choosing Intel over AMD; and well, Motorola it seems just lost the Apple contract... (AMD is expanding its Dresden "Fab 36", and considering building a new fab to be opened early 2008. In the mean time they signed Singapore's Chartered Semiconductor to help make AMD64's starting in 2006.)
Currently chip fabs are operating at about 85% capacity; new fabs traditionally start getting built when 90% capacity is reached.
The biggest financial problem that chip manufactures face is the wavelength of light. For several generations of chips we have been using 193nm light. How is this possible you ask when chip feature sizes have been shrinking well below that size for several years now? Well I will let someone else explain:
Quote:
Since the 180nm technology node, the feature size has fallen BELOW the stepper wavelength. How can a 193nm wavelength of light expose gaps and widths that are 180nm wide? The laws of optics tell us that in order to resolve or "see" a gap of X nm in width, we must use a wavelength of light that is itself LESS than X nm in width. Today's feature sizes are down to 65nm and are still being printed with 193nm light! This seeming violation of the laws of physics and optics is being achieved by very clever techniques generally known as RET or Resolution Enhancement Techniques. Since the 180nm technology node, RET has been growing in cost and complexity from simple OPC (optical proximity correction) to PSM (phase shift mask) to the combination of OPC plus PSM, and now on to SRAF (sub-resolution assist features) which is ushering in a new category of RET called X-RET or Extreme-RET. The industry could have reduced the stepper wavelength from 193nm to 154nm, but a detailed analysis showed that simply shortening the stepper wavelength would be cost-prohibitive! Instead, use of 193nm has been extended to the 45nm technology node, but the gap between 193nm and 45nm is quite large and cannot be completely resolved even by the most advanced RET.
Fortunately, something called Immersion Lithography has been introduced. It has been tried before with mixed results, but the need for it has never been as urgent as it is now. By immersing the wafer in water, one can reduce the effective numerical aperture (NA), allowing 193nm light to act as if it were a shorter wavelength. The wafer now has to be immersed in water, however, and this creates new challenges for new types of resist and topcoat materials that can withstand the effects of water contamination. Today, however
"Furthermore, nVidia and ATI are marketing their GPUs as capable of taking over more primary PC functions"
Have a link for that info? I think this is the first I've heard of it.
Well, I think it is just the point that IBM has many places where to place their chips apart from Apple and that maybe Apple isn't such a big market anyway.
Apple is definitely not a high % in personal computers out there, and personal computers are not that many when you compare them with mobile devices... So, when it comes to using cpus, apple is a not so big player in a market that is not the biggest.
"one reason Apple switched is because it said IBM could not keep up with Intel's power-consumption technologies" A simple chart on power consumption of Intel/Itanium/AMD/AMD64/AMD_Opteron processors shows that Intel is far behind on increasing performance while stabilizing growth in power use in wattage. While I don't have data on PPC chips - AMD is clearly the leader in keeping power consumption down, while increasing processor performance. The article comment seems a little backwards to me... If taken literally, yep, Intel is on top of sucking more and more watts with each release, and although Intel states they will stabilize power use by 2007, I don't see the trend today.
And everyone thought IBM was at a loss when it chose the three largest game console manufacturers instead of a computer manufacturer with 4% market share.
Mozilla stole tabs from NetCaptor. So what? Right?
Is anyone else completly skeptical of the theroy that the home entertainment center will take over the pc? I mean personally I'm not gonna want to do what I do on the computer, on my television. My opinion is surely not indicative of mainstream... but I'm sure there are tons of people who have similar sentiments
And Intel is a candy girl.
Because Intel/AMD/x86 are not anywhere nearly as entrenched there as they are here, as very few people (percentage-wise) in China *have* computers yet.
This is a (nearly) level playing field for other architectures in China.
Also, if other architectures gain ground in China, they might start cropping up outside of China as well, giving us relief from x86 hell -- and a big boost to IBM's processor division.
Go IBM.
multifariam.net -- yet another nerd blog
do you guys realize that the apple systems aren't where all of IBM's POWER chips go? all of their enterprise servers(pseries,iseries,zseries), use the POWER platform. putting the chips into apple computers is but a tiny tiny fraction of the number of systems running the POWER processor. All the AIX, AS/400 and Z/OS systems are still going to run POWER, and IBM will still continue to churn those out. losing apple as a purchaser is not going to affect IBM's overall plan or development of the POWER chips.
considering that IBM's enterprise level offerings cost anywhere from $10,000 to several $million, i dont' think this affects their bottom line as much as everyone here seems to think it will.
look at the ten-millions of consoles that sell each year, then look at the (hopeful here) millions of apples that sell each year. which one is the better market to be in? especially considering that whatever next-gen console you buy, you're buying ibm.
seeing how the consoles seem to be a pissing contest for each company in terms of features and speeds, and that ibm's chips are both easier to develop for (i'm a risc fan) and are generally considered better, i think they do have an inside track.
best college pickem site ever: pickem.terrbear.org
"IBM plans to be inside these new systems." Last I checked, they already are ;)
Viable Slashdot alternatives: https://pipedot.org/ and http://soylentnews.org/
Because they ARE inside these new systems. The Revolution will use an IBM CPU (PowerPC variant). The PS3 will use an IBM CPU (Cell). The Xbox 360 uses an IBM CPU (Microsoft even dropped Intel to switch to IBM). The war will go on for years but IBM has secured quite a beachhead in the opening salvo.
The fact that IBM wouldn't be hurt by losing Apple came out within days of Apple's announcement, including the part about IBM wanting to make more headway in consoles. Why are we hearing it again?
rooooar
all this "IBM doesn't need Apple" and "IBM glad to see Apple go" is typical of somebody who just got dumped big time. they are just covering up the fact that Intel was a better mate. Let's face it, Intel processors aren't the best around, but at least Intel knows how to make a laptop chip, and Apple's laptops are way more important to them than their desktops. the only loss i see for apple is possibly their Xserves. I don't see Xeons competing. Hopefully, maybe Apple can keep their servers on the PowerPC hardware forever. Apple was never a server company, but they really hit something on those G5 servers that everybody uses as a cheap supercomputer solution.
Microsoft must have or will declare this in the future "Apple is just a technology fad that will not be known in 5 years. We will conquor Apple."
So it doesn't matter what chips apple uses since mircosoft will conquor them like all others. :)
What does your Credit Report look like?
IBM has a lock on the next-generation game consoles. "Computer Business Review" reports that Microsoft, Nintendo, and Sony (MNS) are collaborating with IBM to build the next-generation processors for game consoles. "PC World" reports that MNS will incorporate IBM processors in their next-generation game consoles.
The hidden sub-text is that the future IBM processors will be excellent for pornographic games, providing life-like flesh tones and smooth-motion "thrusting", "quivering", and "wiggling". Pornography has traditionally be a significant driver of video-processing technology.
Because Intel/AMD/x86 are not anywhere nearly as entrenched there as they are here, as very few people (percentage-wise) in China *have* computers yet. This is a (nearly) level playing field for other architectures in China.
It doesn't really matter what processor your neighbor has, its what processor does most the software support that matters.
"reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert
"Yeah, well, so do Intel and AMD. Why does IBM think they have the inside track all of a sudden?
2 19.html
Furthermore, nVidia and ATI are marketing their GPUs as capable of taking over more primary PC functions, thus, thet makes 4 HUGE opponents for this kind of stuff. Personally, I believe this is IBM's attempt at wagging the dog. They're still screwed."
Except that Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft are already using IBM's PowerPC processors (yes, Sony's Cell has a PowerPC core as the primary processor). Which means that all THREE consoles are using IBM processors, for sure. And that means for the next five years, every console sold (about 150 million were sold this last generation IIRC) will have an IBM processor in it. There's only 10-20 million Macs, on the other hand.
Not only will these hundreds of millions of consoles have IBM processors...but they'll have to CONTINUE to use IBM processors to retain backwards compatability unless there is a massive speed breakthrough enough to get a competing processor and emulate the PowerPC's. That's why the XBox 360 will have to have backwards compatability with 'top selling games' via recompiled patches preinstalled on the hard drive; the processor architecture change. It won't have full compatabilty while PS3 and Revolution will.
So IBM is set for the next five years and unless the console manufacturers DESPERATELy want to change architectures and forfeit backwards compatability, they're set for the next ten.
IBM already is inside these new systems.
And the PS3, btw, may even boot Linux by default when you buy the hard drive, turning it into a full PC with six USB ports, a powerful graphics card, a decent processor, WiFi, Bluetooth, and three gigabit ethernet ports.
http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/06/09/news_6127
Come on, big blue, show me the PPC-based linux desktops! I know they're hiding somewhere.
"An interesting article about how Apple's switch to Intel chips may not be that bad for IBM after all."
With the size of IBM and Apple's PC business, this alone makes things "not that bad" for IBM automatically.
"Big Blue will plow its research efforts into processors for game consoles and other consumer products that might one day knock the PC down a rung."
Fat wish. To be fair and reasonable, it could be true. However, look at Intel, AMD and x86 market, and the battle between Risc and cisc, I don't see IBM could go far from where they're are now. To be clear, it's not Risc or Cisc who one that matters, but it's the companies behind the tech originally that matters. By originally, I meant for Intel for example, they were behind Cisc, then dev their stuffs to wrap RISC. So, with the market they have now, I can say they won (as of today).
"a lucrative avenue for IBM in China, where the marriage of the Linux OS to PCs armed with [IBM] PowerPC chips presents some intriguing possibilities."
IBM just sold their PC business. I never see them compete with Intel or AMD directory on the PC chips end head on (they supply stuff to Apple, but that's too small a slice of pie of PC chips business, and I don't see them doing anything to bolster this, such as trying to get other PC vendor builg PC on their chips). They did manufacture some of chips for other chip makers, but this is not competition, it's cooperation, and they never get a title for market share for this (in the consume mind and heart).
"And, "Large firms like Sony, Microsoft and Comcast are betting that a home-entertainment device, evolved from a game console or set-top box, will replace many of the PC's functions. IBM plans to be inside these new systems."
As someone pointed out, other people plans to. "Plans" == Vaporware == saleman promise == day dreams.
Deliver baby. Deliver! IBM did deliver, but never the type of crops that Intel or AMD, I don't expect them to get any where much farther than that. I don't see IBM go to the mass with low cost, high volume shipment of chips. The xbox, psp3, etc can change from one generation to another.
Yeah, well, so do Intel and AMD. Why does IBM think they have the inside track all of a sudden?
Probably because they are supplying the processors for the Xbox 360 and the Playstation 3?
Yeah, well, so do Intel and AMD. Why does IBM think they have the inside track all of a sudden?
Supplying the processors for every next gen console doesn't count as the inside track?
Large firms like Sony, Microsoft and Comcast are betting that a home-entertainment device, evolved from a game console or set-top box, will replace many of the PC's functions. IBM plans to be inside these new systems" What? A system that the wife can learn how to use? The "LARGE FIRMS" will have to pry the complicated and wife un-friendly PC from my cold dead hands - it's the only retreat I've got!
Resident of Skara Brae since 1985
http://www.maconintel.com/news.php?article=29 ( MacOnIntel link )
blakespot
-- Heisenberg may have slept here.
iPod Hacks.com
That's what the Cell processor is for. It is a POWER-like processor with several number-chunching sub-processors on the same die. This allows much better communication between the units that the classic CPU/GPU couple, besides the sub-processors are more general purpose than GPUs.
If they can demonstrate that it can be programmed efficiently, I think the PC has real competition. Initially, it will probably be most interesting to game developers and scientists who are willing to invest time in performance.
These home entertainment devices are evolving into computers. What will end up determining how well they succeed or fail is the software. If people can't do stuff more complicated than play games and surf the web, they won't find much use for these. People need to be able to:
-Play games
-Do office functions
-Do web stuff to communicate
-Play music and movies
And most of that needs to be done all at once. A device that switches between modes won't cut it for regular use. It'll be great for families to have a console that can become a DVD player, a music player and that can do basic web stuff, but if it can't do several of those at once, it'll be no more than an entertainment machine.
The problem is that there are too many people who want to be able to do it all at once. I'd buy a console that could do several things in different modes, but it'd never be a replacement for my computers. It'd certainly never replace my mom's PC and she's got next to zero interest in ever seriously learning how to use one. I just don't see these things killing the PC.
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
you forgot the Nintendo Revolution, which is also PowerPC.
And IBM is supplying the current GameCube processor as well.
> "IBM plans to be inside these new systems."
>
> Yeah, well, so do Intel and AMD. Why does IBM think they have the inside track all of a sudden?
Maybe because as of yet, consoles have not managed to be more than just game machines. The next generation consoles are all IBM powered, and (at least Sony and MS's) are pushing more in this direction that the previous generation. At least, according to the hype. We have heard this sort of thing before, so whether it will actually happen this time remains to be seen.
-- OpenVerse Visual Chat: http://openverse.com
-or- Thank you, Captain Obvious.
Doesn't anyone remember PReP / CHRP / OS2-PPC?
No one argues that Apple's business was financially insignificant to IBM. That is totally uninteresting and a waste of bandwidth. However, what it clearly shows is that any one customer's needs is also insignificant to IBM - no matter how large the customer. It also shows that IBM does not honor commitments they make to their "partners". While the same thing can be potentially said for any large company, if you're a company who is a partner or looking at partnering with IBM for some reason, Apple-IBM should be a case study to consider when making your decision. I suspect this will be discussed in b-schools for years (they'll say IBM did the right thing in screwing their customer Apple).
I think its mostly that the PC market (Apple) doesn't have the potential to give the same ROI as the big iron or game consoles -the requirements and dynamic are very different.
Especially looking at the game consoles, its a different dynamic. For the PS3, IBM needs to produce a processor that meets requirements A,B and C. In general those requirements won't change for the life of the PS3. IOW, as the years go by, the processor will be cheaper and cheaper to make.
In contrast, for the PC market, nobody's going to be happy with a processor 5 years from now that's essentially the same speed as the one being sold today. That means continuously pushing the envelope, which means continously spending money on R&D. That's a lot of money spent on chips without the volume of the game systems and without the high margins of the servers.
Nobody was saying IBM couldn't do it. The question is did they want to do it for the money they would make?
Read "Showstopper", the book on the development of NT which details how OS/2 was deprioritised by MS leading to their eventually ditching it.
(That said you'd think they'd have learned after DOS and all)
It's a pretty entertaining book in any case.
... so soon, everything will be PowerPC, and Apple will once again be running rare, obscure Intel processors.
My opinion, based on vague things I've seen and heard and a lot of guessing, is that IBM never really wanted Apple's business in the first place. The plan for the PPC alliance always seemed to be that IBM would take the high-end kinda stuff, Motorola would target the PPC area, and Apple would buy chips from Motorola.
Unfortunately then Motorola lost interest in the CPU market, their CPU group started getting neglected and sucky, Motorola spun off their CPU group into Freescale, and Freescale turned out to be sucky as well. So Apple wound up pretty much having to buy from IBM instead. But IBM never seemed very enthusiastic about this-- for example there were reports they didn't really want to bother with altivec/VMX/"velocity engine", and altivec was the or a cornerstone of Apple's CPU strategy. (Though, ironically, VMX is a really big part of all those new video game CPUs IBM is making, so I guess that kinda turned out well for IBM...) When I heard Apple really was going to Intel, honestly one of my first responses was to wonder whether this happened because Apple was pushing IBM away, or because IBM was trying to push Apple away and Apple was just complying..
I really wonder what's going to happen to Freescale at this point.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
apple probably was a small volume but high profile buyer. they bought a few million units every year but the cache of apple and PowerPC, yada yada, carried more weight than the dollars from Steve and the boys. are PPC chips in the iPod? I don't know, but I'd gather that that's at least as vital a chip demand.
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
I believe that the reason that MS switched to the PPC platform was software. They knew that Nintendo and Sony were using PPC and, if they continued on x86 they would be the odd man out. If you were a game developer and two of the three platforms were PPC, would you invest a lot of money to port your game to x86? MS's move to PPC opens up the xbox to more developers. This all builds critical mass for IBM and PPC.
Game consoles as home computers are a disruptive technology. PC's cost too much(even at $500) and are too flexible for the vast majority of computer users. Artificially limiting choice(software applications and features) is comforting to people who are overwhelmed by computer terms that they don't really understand.
Look at cars. Do you really care if cars on your shopping list have EGR, preheat CATs, electronic throttles, etc. No, you determine if you like how it looks(color, shape), how may cupholders it has, the HP, and maybe 3-5 other features.
I posted this the one of the first Apple switches to Intel /. stories and it was given a troll mod. I'll go AC this time.
I do not have the link now but when this story broke, IBM stated that Apple makes up less then 2% of IBM's total microprocessor sales. The speculation by the interviewer was IBM could not meet Apples price point because they could not make up the loss with the expected relative low quantity Apple would need. This was a statement made by IBM and the interviewer, not my opinion or not my guess as to what happened.
Just from a high-level perspective, it's a mistake to believe that IBM will continue to dominate Intel in chip sophistication and performance. Honestly, you don't think Intel's got some hot stuff they'd like to put in a desktop, but can't right now? Intel, like any other company, has its secrets.
As far as desktop chip manufacturing goes, I'd have to give Intel the trophy for best performer overall. Compared to Intel's track record, IBM's entry into modern desktop processors is far more recent, and not as solid, especially where cost, quantity, and build quality are concerned.
In the end, as I see it, IBM makes processors that can cure cancer, and save the world. Intel makes processors that can run my desktop computer really well, really fast, and fairly inexpensively.
Well your new pronunciation is actually closer to correct than the typical American version. So the wine store clerks were probably like "well at least he's making an effort..."
Also, "a lucrative avenue for IBM in China, where the marriage of the Linux OS to PCs armed with [IBM] PowerPC chips presents some intriguing possibilities.
The problem is, Apple is (soon to be was) the least expensive and most practical way for hackers and programmers to get machines running PPC Linux. Without Apple making PPC machines, it seems to me that fewer people will be developing software for PPC Linux, at least if we're still discussing traditional PCs.
(If the sentence above refers to set-top boxes of some kind, then my comment isn't as valid.)
Which market sells its hardware at a loss for the first several years?
It's now obvious the long-held rumor that Apple had an Intel version of Mac OS X was true. So of course they'll make sure Mac OS X runs on any new chips IBM comes out with. If IBM wins out over Intel Apple will be ready.
Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft are selling at loss. IBM is selling the chips to those three at profit.
I've upped my standards, so up yours.
Just think about the consequences of Microsoft switching to PPC just as Apple switched to Intel. They could claim "superior performance" while maintaining x86 compatibility via our friends at transitive http://www.transitive.com/, and if PC users flocked to this new platform, it would bury Apple's attempts at x86 by claiming that Apple is using an inefficient and outdated architecture.
Ok,
this is unlikely, but we've all seen stranger things recently.
PowerPC is a standard developed jointly by IBM, Apple, and Motorola (now Freescale). It was written in the mid nineties and was based on and extended the instruction set for IBM's POWER series. A processor can is a PowerPC processor if it implements the PowerPC instruction set. So the Revolution will use a PPC chip. The Cell is a PPC chip. The XBox 360 will use a PPC chip. Every processor in the current POWER line is a PPC chip. G3 and G4, manufactured by Motorola/Freescale are PPC chips. I'm sure there are other PPC chips out there too.
After all, I am strangely colored.
Most owners of a PC can tell you whether they run an Intel, AMD, VIA, Transmeta or other CPU. The same is not true for game consoles.
Console makers have used many processors, among them Z80s, 68000, MIPS, Intel, et al. Users remained blissfully ignorant of the architecture of their systems.
IBM is conquering a market where brand loyalty is not possible. If Intel elects to enter this market and pours r&d money towards the effort, can IBM hold them off? It remains to be seen if this will be a Phyrric victory.
You should see the eight highly technical articles about how anaadtech doesn't really understand what they were doing and why there results are bogus.
Here's a hint about the benchmarking, why test only one database? Postgres performance is much much better on the same hardware and more comparable to PC performance.
People like to take shots at the x86, but it is hard to deny that there are brilliant people working on it, really making implementations that fly. Intel's development team has a long proud history (they pretty much single-handedly turned the perception of CISC/RISC around with the Pentium Pro after all), and the AMD K8 team looked suspiciously much like the Alpha team at one point.
That is not to say that the POWER4 and derivatives are not impressive, they are, but the performance of chips like the AMD K8 really proves that if you have a competent team small details like the ISA don't matter all that much. I see no easy way for IBM to sneak into China, and it is actually a good thing; We are all better off with:
By comparison the PPC would be a fairly serious case of lock-in, only two companies manufacture chips (Freescale/Motorola and IBM), and Freescale mostly bothers with embedded applications.In summary, having some PPC around is nice, but having it take over a market would be a bad thing at this point.
I think the coming wave of production for the next-gen XB/PS/Nin was one of the reasons Apple dumped IBM in the first place. Apple was already unhappy with (what they felt was) IBM's insufficient attention to their PC/notebook needs. How much less responsive would IBM be once Apple became only their fourth most important client?
If IBM was unable to produce 3Ghz G5s and laptop G5s when Apple was their primary client, it's hard to see that situation improving once Apple's business was dwarfed by the demands of the console makers.
While I would like purchase a G5 Powerbook I'm kind of glad that my G4 Powerbook is not totally obsolete yet. I bought one of the original 17" Powebooks about 3 years ago and it's still not that much slower then the current line. I didn't expect to have my current laptop for this long but there's nothing to upgrade to. On the other hand, I did purchase a G5 iMac 3 months ago.
The switch is a huge mindshare loss for PPC. While most people dont' care what processor is in there computer, it hurts the PPC in software development/ mindshare.
its only a short matter of time (5 years I guess) before gcc and associated free software stuff is not ported to PPC. Linux will be much more expensive, if available at all. You will still be able to buy compilers from IBM/Freescale and development kits and the like, but for the home hobbiest the platform is dead. Nobody is buying POWER boxes from IBM to develop Linux on due to excessive cost.
I work on HPUX which is a platform on the outs. Some gnu tools come our way, but not a lot compared to linux/freebsd/solaris. There are not a lot of HP pa-risc machines floating around that allow development testing and optimization to occur.
Also I know a couple of folks working in the embeded space with PPC. Have a supply of workers that can get up to speed on PPC is much easier when you have a computer platform based on it.
Just recently, Apple had been seeing some reasonable success in scientific/HP computing (see http://www.tcf.vt.edu/systemX.html, http://www.apple.com/science/profiles/colsa/) and seemed keen to promote small xServe clusters to scientists http://www.apple.com/science/.
It would seem that the advantages of a xServe cluster (altivec, 64-bit and good performance per watt) would be lost when Apple produces an x86 version when compared to a (inevitably) cheaper x86 Linux system. and, although this is probably quite a small market, it would be sad to see Apple loose it.
Does anyone have any opinions to how the loss of PPC will affect Apple in this area - are researchers more interested in OS than price:performance ?
Nothing sucks like a Vax, nothing blows like a PowerMac G4
What, no "no shit, Sherlock!"?
I see 57005 people
If this had anything to do with reality, PS3 wouldnt use a bolted on nvidia gpu.
If you'd use cells SPE as a 3d accelerator, i would be surprised to see it even reach geforce2 levels.
HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
IBM loosing Apple is more of a marketing shot to IBM that a $$ one. Now IBM is the only major company producing PowerPC based server/workstations. Not a good sign for the power architecture long term.
I doubt Apple's move to Intel is particularly harmful to IBM either.
But it does paint a bleak picture for the future in locking consumers into one architecture (x86) and this is an extremely dangerous and uncompetitive situation for consumers.
Sure Apple are under no moral responsibility to keep using PPC to avert that outcome, but it hardly represents a step forward for choice.
Whilst someone could theoretically put G5s into a new desktop PC and bundle Linux with it that doesn't seem a very likely outcome, and you have to wonder about IBM's appetite for continuing a line in PowerPCs suitable for a desktop machine when most of their stuff seems to be geared toward consoles these days.
The repurcussions of Apple moving to Intel are, in a wider sense no joke and a very real. Quite frankly customers deserve better.
It's still interesting to ponder that scenario though.....IBM hardware with a factory installed Linux or BSD. I'd get one in a heart beat.
But an argument that "great, now IBM can focus on the future of non-PC computing" is silly. Apple has proven time and again that it is the leader in this space. Whatever the "non-PC future" will be, bet that Apple will have created, evolved or otherwise brought it to mass market, as they have with every other "commodity" technology today (USB, IEEE-1394, WiFi, DVI, etc.). By no longer being a part of that, IBM stands to miss out.
Still, IBM isn't a powerhouse because it makes lots of chips. Rather, it utilizes a lot of technology on behalf of its customers. This won't affect them much.
There exists no way of exchanging information without making judgments. --Bene Gesserit Axiom
IBM sells clusterable systems too--the BladeCenters. And they're a hell of a lot cheaper than the overpriced Xserve. The Xserve might be great if you want an easy-to-administer server, but once you start talking about hundreds of them, the premium you are paying for them is not worth it.
More accurately, I'm sure it would happen. It's just a question of whether it would be released to the public or not. Since IBM has been vying for mindshare on the OSS front, it's almost a given that they would assume responsibility for PPC generation in GCC if it were dropped.
> ...a lucrative avenue for IBM in China, where
> the marriage of the Linux OS to PCs armed with
> [IBM] PowerPC chips presents some intriguing
> possibilities...
I suppose profit knows no morals. As a member of
the Linux community I'm pretty disgusted with
companies like IBM for turning a blind eye
towards the oppression of the Chinese people.
China is a country where you can be summarily
executed for possessing certain types of political
or religious material. I'm just wondering how
others in the Linux community feel about IBM
cozying up with the Chinese (and yes, I know,
they have been for a while now).
Fifteen or so years ago when U.S. businesses
started setting up operations in China I felt
there was a glimmer of hope that the U.S.pres-
sence would bring about changes in the country.
But, alas, it hasn't one bit. In fact, in some
ways it has gotten worse (if that's possible).
Its time we made U.S. companies to be held
accountable for reaping huge profits on the backs
of an oppressed people.
Having them watch me edit config files using vi on my 52 inch projection screen TV will definitely confirm it.
Besides, what would be the use? Running Yellow Dog Linux?
Is too small a market for IBM or Lenovo to be interested....
*** Suerte a todos y Feliz dia!
http://osviews.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=New s&file=article&sid=4954
Go read it...
Just don't take what IBM says as gold -- they have the same ego and saving face job Apple does.
I don't think anyone's suggesting that after switching to X86, Apple will switch *again* to Intanium.
So, yes, Intel's got talent (or has stolen some great ideas from DEC). But what's this got to do with Apple preferring X86 over PowerPC.
The main thing Intel's got going for it is the mass market and volume production, though I guess there may be something to the problem of getting G5's into laptops, but I'll bet that the G4's in there perform as well as Centrinos. Maybe Apple wants to be able to 'justify' the price of their high-end laptops by using the same 'high-end' chips as their competitors. Or maybe the X86 'standard' was compelling in its own right.
What I'm wondering is how will they build the equivalent of the Mac mini at that price point? Does Intel have a chip cool enough to run in a tiny fanless box at the price point of the mini?
How about the iMac. Or even the eMac. Are these machines fanless? Or cool 'enough' to be able to use quiet fans? Can they do that with cheap Intel chips?
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
Hasty generalization, Appeal to the 'knowledge of large populations'. I have a hard time believing it was "insignificant". However, we will certainly see over the next few years whether it is a drag on IBM's finances.
However, what it clearly shows is that any one customer's needs is also insignificant to IBM - no matter how large the customer.
Assumption (Fallacy of interrogation): Your statement presumes facts which are not in evidence: You are assuming that IBM had a hand in Apple's decision. The truth is that there has been a LOT of speculation in the press - and very few facts - regarding why Apple switched to Intel. I certainly don't know the truth, and without further evidence, will doubt you do either... but keep in mind Apple has the most control, since they are the customer.
It also shows that IBM does not honor commitments they make to their "partners".
Non-sequitur; speculation without basis. Even ignoring the fallacy of interrogation above, that does not necessarily lead to failure to meet commitments. More importantly, there is no evidence of failure to honor commitments. If you're referring to the "3GHz" issue, part of the speculation in the press has been that IBM never made the 3GHz commitment to Apple (that Jobs made it up to push IBM into it). Note the treatment of the issue in this article (and subsequent discussion on the Ars dicussion boards). If you have evidence to tip the balance, by all means present it... otherwise it seems you're just out to find a way to tarnish IBM's image.
While the same thing can be potentially said for any large company, if you're a company who is a partner or looking at partnering with IBM for some reason, Apple-IBM should be a case study to consider when making your decision
Sweeping Generalization, shifting the burden of proof, potentially Post-Hoc argument: Your argument is based on what material facts? The problem is, you apply culture of "any large company" to IBM, claim IBM must defend against the claim without you providing any evidence (shifting the burden of proof to the defense) and make an argument based on a result (the proper term isn't post-hoc, but I forget the actual name at the moment). Importantly, in order to use it, you need data to be both measurable and actionable. In this case, there is a lot of speculation, which leads me to conclude that you can't meet the first criteria - you can't measure it. You have an output (relationship ended) without understanding the root cause. Making decisions based on such data is risky, at best.
I suspect this will be discussed in b-schools for years (they'll say IBM did the right thing in screwing their customer Apple).
Speculation, Appeal to the virtuous poor: Any of my professors who said that would have been called on it on the spot. One of the things you learn in business school is the cost of acquiring a new customer. Another is the (intangible) cost of dealing with a public relations issue (which could lead to morale/productivity issues, etc. in your employees). I highly doubt this is fun for IBM. IBM's finances over the next few years may tell us it worked out okay, but even then, I suspect that IBM's general silence on the issue (like many other issues) would make it hard for any professor to get enough data to know the decision was conscious. If any improvement was an accident, it's not very insteresting for a b-school to talk about it, since it's pretty hard to learn how to act from accidents (not impossible, just rarely hit on in b-school).
The reasons for the shift are one thing
The reasons for the shift cited by Jobs are a different thing.
They went to Intel for many reasons, fab capacity, better performance per watt in 2007, breadth of offer (Intel can give anithing from processors to chipsets, to freescale procesors), discounts, et cetera.
While AMD has the best microporcesors Where are the embeded ones for the iPod? And the Chipsets?. The same can be said for every other possible supplier. Possibly only Intel, VIA, Motorola and IBM coud offer the entire line. In the end, Apple chose Intel, well, big deal, suck it up, let's all dela with it!
*** Suerte a todos y Feliz dia!
They put out Windows NT for Alphas however when you get down to it and try to install software that runs in NT on Intel PCs more than likely it won't happen. I got an Alpha from Microway with NT in 1997. The only commercial app I was able to install on it was Borland's C++ Powerbuilder. And by 2000 MS stopped supporting NT on Alphas.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Although it sounds like Apple was pissed off about the lack of mobile G5 action, I wonder whether part of the reason for this was to stop Apple being bought by IBM.
This was the obvious thing to happen the way things were panning out, and it looked like IBM binned its consumer (PC) hardware to make the switch (tm) easily. With Apple in bed with Intel, that doesn't look so likely, and is effectively a poison pill.
On the positive side, the prospect of a 12" powerbook which can drive dual displays, which can run vmware has got my wallet out already.
Humorous signatures are over-rated.
How much of IBM's innovative chip design was pushed forward by Apple?
Almost none. Apple is less than 2% of IBM's PowerPC business.
Apple/Intel FAQ
would anyone think that Apple going to Intel would affect IBM at all? Apple only started buying their chips with the Power5 arch. There is not lack of customers who are using the new chips in consumer level products. Apple was actually a pretty small customer.
a Laptop with a PPC CPU is NOT a PC so IBM could build and sell it...
They may however not call it a ThinkPad...
The market ???
Anyone interested in running a superior OS, such as
on superior HW.
The world do NOT depend on Microsoft and Windows... Wich btw. is medicore OS on medicore HW.
Here's the dream:
Gee I hope Apple has to abandon all of their interesting form factors and stick with the grey putty mini tower of Chairman Bill. Because all that borderline melting 75W Intel goodness will need it.
A Mac with 6 fans and a heatsink the size of a car battery. Wowie.
I'm pretty certain that the G3's were also made predominantly by IBM and that while the G4's were a Moto only product at first (due to Alti Vec) IBM eventually licensed AV from Moto and got into G4 production.
"Aside from you and a handful of other PPC fetishists there is no market for what you're proposing."
This my not be true. You are forgetting that their are a few large markets that the X86 has not come to completely dominate.
China. Could IBM start making a super low power G4 in China? A G4 local G4 combined with a local Linux would mean that Billions of dollars would not be flowing to the US.
Without the Windows baggage China that the US has China could adopt Linux/BSD as a standard and give Microsoft and Intel the finger.
Their are a lot of Chinese.
How likley this is is up to debate but the US is not the only market and frankly probably not even the one that will show the most growth in the future.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
If IBM was supposed to lose money if Apple ditch them, then I am very sure they would've give Apple the discounts they wanted... Otherwise, it only means they could care less, it won't affect them.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Actually, programming for the Cell and other game console processors is going to be extremely difficult, as these chips don't support out of order execution, and put a HUGE burden on the programmer and compiler designer to get things right.
Ars Technica has a long article on why using a Pentium M would have probably been a lot easier and more powerful than the XBox 360's PowerPCs or the PS3 Cell.
Don't believe the hype, because that's exactly what it is.
I don't know what kind of crack I was on, but I suspect it was decaf.
Well, fuck. Ignore that, looks like it a) was AnandTech, and b) they pulled it.
;)
Don't believe the web, because that's exactly what it is - a web of lies.
I don't know what kind of crack I was on, but I suspect it was decaf.
I guess there may be something to the problem of getting G5's into laptops
The heat generated by G5s is enough to fry your lap in a laptop. Apple was waiting for G5s from IBM, and maybe Freescale, that they could use in laptopts for more than two years yet the heat problem hadn't been fixed.
FalconShould there be a Law?
To have a better understanding on how wavelength and numerical aperture are limiting the maximum resolution of lithography, here are a few formulas :
: /(2*NA)
If R is the radius of the Airy disk made by the diffraction of light in the objective, then
R = 1.22 * lambda
where lambda is the wavelength, and NA the numerical aperture of the lens.
You cannot print details smaller than the size of the Airy disk. Therefore, decreasing the wavelength of the light used or using a larger numerical aperture will result in more precise lithography.
The numerical aperture can be expressed as:
NA = n sin(a/2)
where n is the refraction index of the medium, and a the angle of aperture of the objective.
As the water has a higher index than air, immersing the wafer in water will result in a higher numerical aperture.
[Zapp Brannigan offers Leela some champagne]
Captain Zapp Brannigan: Cham-paggin?
Leela: I didn't realize you were such a "coin-asseur."
Captain Zapp Brannigan: Well, I have studied abroad... or two.
Your stance presupposes that doing business with China does not promote human rights for Chinese citizens. Or at the very least, it presupposes that it doesn't promote human rights to the same extent as some other alternative. On what evidence do you claim that the involvement of US companies with China has, in fact, made the Chinese government more oppressive? Economists from the Marxian school as well as the neo-classical school would argue that such trade necessarily makes the people of China more free.
I agree that 3D acceleration is best done by the highly specialised GPU, but if the purpose is "taking over more primary PC functions", a would look for general purpose units with better CPU connectivity. A point where games can improve is on the physics engine, which works on quite different principles than rendering.
When light enters a medium with n>1, the frequency stays constant, but the speed drops to c/n, so the wavelength drops to lambda/n as well.
I think this is the same effect as mentioned above, so you don't get a quadratic effect, but it's a much easier way to explain it quantitatively without needing to explain Airy discs.
its only a short matter of time (5 years I guess) before gcc and associated free software stuff is not ported to PPC
Nonsense. People still maintain Linux (with gcc and GNU tools) ports for Motorola 68k machines, even though the 68k Amigas, Ataris, HPs, Macs, and Suns are all far more than five-years-discontinued. Support for OS X on PPC is going to dry up, sure, but PPC Linux support won't be going anywhere.
Similarly, Linux on PA-RISC will be a going concern years after nobody bothers with HPUX on PA-RISC anymore. It's a hell of a lot easier to have to adjust just for the hardware than for both the OS and the hardware.
A single specification with multiple competing suppliers is dangerous and uncompetitive?
Good, I'll remember that for the next time somebody complains about Internet Explorer not following standards.
Sure the comment was a throw away, but considering the difficulty IBM has in bringing its user appeal up to scratch with its technical achievment, i reakon they will miss apple - who were a constant (whining, bitching, complaining, sneaky) reminder that there is more to life than tech spec. Just think of OS2 vs Win, OS2 technically great but just not friendly to anyone without a comsci qualification.
I don't understand, or care.
Except... Duz this mean Duke Nukem Forever will run INCREDIBLY FAST!?!?@#?!!?!
No, Apple, with its 2% share of the PC space, will not materially affect Intel's financial performance. And it probably wouldn't affect IBM too much...
But boy is it bad PR.
And stop with all this "cell" nonsense. Cell is a great ASIC, used as an ASIC by all those game developers, but it's going to be just as bad of a general-purpose processor as all prior generations of game console processors.
Enough, already. by the time Cell has a chance to become a platform in the living room, intel processors will be so cheap, it will become king.
Right.. that's a troll and this isn't.
My memory is bad, but, as I recall, the 7.0 install disks included, but did not install, a small DOS floppy reading app. (Maybe it was a control panel?) I also recall reading some CDs with that app. (I don't remember it's name, offhand, and all my old Mac stuff is at home under a pile of my kids textbooks and toys, so I can't go look right now.)
Again, IIRC, 7.1 install disks included, but did not install, an extension that allowed mounting DOS volumes. I think that extension was installed by default from 7.5 on (and was sometimes a source of system instability conflicts).
It was not perfect. One particular trouble was with the way it represented the trash directories. In my projects at the time, I tended to use a directory I called "trash" to dump experimental paths that got lopped off. When I moved an entire project directory over to a DOS volume, DOS/MSWindows machines would go into infinite recursion when trying to read the trash directories. So I changed those directories from "trash" to "junkheap" or just "junk".
(Reminds me. I need to figure subversion out sometime.)
Personally, I preferred programming Macintosh System 7.
And OS-9/6809. Can't forget that one. And FORTH!
Heh.
There ain't no such thing as a perfect OS, of course, but I'd personally rather write my own OS from scratch than program for MSWxxx.
(Problem is, I can't get anyone to pay me to write my own OS from scratch.)
monoculture is great for virii.
IE being incompatible with standards is like iNTEL futzing the compiler output to re-route the execution path of non-iNTEL processors down the 386 path, or even straight into the wall.
Having PPC and x86 would be better compared to having Firefox and MSIE.
the title brought a song to my head: i will survive!
all together now!
So if Apple iw moving to Intel, maybe the time is ripe for Microsoft to push PowerWindows128! How about Windows128 for Power Clusters? And maybe a little one for the old Data Centers?
If you knew in which words Steve Jobs explained the Mactel decision and post it to Slashdot on an irrelevant apple.slashdot.org hardware story, you'd get either -1 troll or -1 flamebait. People would blame you for being a moron not knowing Mhz doesn't matter that much, some would even take time to joke about Cray CPU speed like me.
;)
Must admit guy knows zealotry in macintosh world too well.
No, the speech of Steve Jobs is pure flamebait and troll, it's just his name makes him immune.
I wouldn't mess with IBM that way and I guess some unpredictable type AMD CPU's are OTW.
You know, Apple lines will be empty now
IBM has two options: to trade with China or to not trade with China.
/and/ (2) the decision to not trade with China makes things better for the people of China /and/ if (3) IBM chooses to trade with China /and/ (4) the decision to trade with China does not make things better for the people of China] /or/ [(1) IBM chooses to not trade with China /and/ (2) the decision to not trade with China does not make things better for the people of China /and/ if (3) IBM chooses to trade with China /and/ (4) the decision to trade with China does not make things better for the people of China /and/ (5) the consequences of the decision to trade with China are *worse* than the consequences of the decision to not trade with China]
/than they would have been all other things being equal and IBM had decided to not trade with China/, then you have a point.
/not/ had an influx of trade have more or less freedom relative to fifteen years ago in their past?
Each of these options has two possible consequences: to make things better for the people of China or to not make things better for the people of China.
Your criticism of IBM's actions are only valid if it is the case that if [(1) IBM chooses to not trade with China
In other words, if you have reason to believe that the people of China are worse off
Personally, I'm not convinced. I see no reason to think that freedom in China would be more prevalent if western companies had decided to not trade with China. Further, most economic theories predict that the freedom would have been less prevalent without that trade. And, lastly, there are numerous examples of similar situations to compare. Do the people in similar regimes that have
If you can give me some concrete evidence on this, I'll gladly change my mind. Until then, I'll be skeptical.
Despite whether the powerpc arch was good or not, the x86 arch is cheaper, and Jobs is impressed by the mhz myth more than the performance.
Also, the other contributing factor for apple switching to intel: Powerpc is a dead arch.
It's slowly dying. It has no future.
Why?
two words: RISC based.
RISC cant scale as well as x86 can. meaning, the powerpc is at its speed limit, sure, it'll be great for game consoles and little things for about 3 more years, then it'll be overshadowed by arm or x86. Unless they figure out a way to overcome the limits that RISC has, the powerpc arch will be dead in a few short years.
For the desktop, powerpc is already dead.
Supercomputers alone will probably keep the PowerPC family healthy. They have proven with BlueGene/L that they are powerful, and IBM's aggressive marketing of BlueGene is quite daring.... I never thought I'd ever see ads for supercomputers on TV....
In undeveloped countries, the consumer controls the market. In capitalist America, the market controls you.
So everyone profitted from the Apple-Intel deal? That's not cool. There has to be a lawsuit somewhere. /Someone/ has to be revealed as a crossdresser.
Pelé!