Slashdot Mirror
IBM opens PowerPC design to LinuxPPC
David Snow writes "IBM is opening the door for Linux distributors to use computers with the PowerPC chip. This means Linux-branded G3 and G4 boxes. " Another in a
long series of pretty good Linux related moves on Big Blues part.
IBM has a wider range of products (storage devices, servers, workstations, PC's, etc). If they were able to offer the same OS on all of them, wouldn't it make things better for thier customers, and easier for IBM?
IBM get's CPU's from Motorola, Intel, they use to use a Cyrix 6x86 variant, Linux runs on all of them, and on thier hardware back to thier early 386's (even back to the 8086 if you count ELKS as Linux). By doing this, IBM stands to be "Master of Scaliablity." If, sometime in the near future they funnel some money into porting Linux up to their bigger systems that run AIX now, they would REALLY "have it all." Of course, that would require IBM to put some development resources into Linux, because they would need to bring Linux up to speed on systems with >4 CPU's and gobs of RAM and storage. But, IBM's JFS is better than SGI's XFS, so, they could help out there...
Heck, if SGI and IBM both open up thier file systems, we could eventually merge JFS and XFS to replace EXT2. Add to that the great graphics abilities that SGI is giving Linux, and Linux is the big winner. SGI and IBM are HELPING Linux, not exploiting it. Just because they stand to make a lot of money doesn't mean Linux is going to be damamged.
So, what's the problem here? Of course they have motivation to do this, a new Linux box sold by IBM would be another product in thier bin, and gain them soom good PR with the GNU community.
CHRP just won't die will it? I wonder what happened to those rumoured warehouses of big blue PowerPC boxes that were all ready to run NT 4.0 when it came out? They sure didn't land on any desks i've ever seen.
:)
Of course, last time IBM released specs on a motherboard... Everyone sitting at a machine with an ISA slot in it please raise your hand.
PowerPC's are nice chips compared to intel's stuff. Of course the PowerPC architechture doesn't have quite as much legacy baggage
I have to agree with Linus though... I like the alpha.
Apple is unaffected; they never claimed the MacOs would run on CHRP boxes did they?
Also, I recently bought Civ:CTP, and there's a patch on Loki's web site that includes a PPC binary.
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page
Like Netscape? (possibly the biggest memory-sieve I've ever experienced)
Get lost, troll.
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page
IBM: We took the intel out of Wintel
Linux: We took the Win out of Wintel
IMB Lawyers: Hang on -- who owns the in in Wintel??
John
John_Chalisque
If you dont't like the stories posted here, you can either:
A. Take your toys and go home crying because we won't play the way you like.
B. Submit an article or two about a news story on _your_ favorite operating operating system. This _is_ primarily a user-driven site, you know.
If only "common" sense was actually that common...
It seems to me that it was about three years ago that IBM first announced this, though there was no linux angle at the time.
Assuming that these are the same boards, or descendants of them, there is a *very* simple explanation as to why IBM is doing this. It's *not* the system's division that produced and demonstrated the original boards, but the CPU folks. It was nothing more (or less) than a way to sell CPU's. Fortuneately, I didn't hold out for one, as I needed the new machine for my (now complete) dissertation . . .
(currently testing something about signatures here)
I have a 233 Mhz mac clone that runs netscape (in MacOS) a lot slower than my linux machine does. Granted, the modem's slower, but it still persists if I switch modems. Part of the reason is that netscape *freezes* for long periods of time. Subjectively, Linux is faster, on a much slower piece of hardware.
Phil Fraering "Humans. Go Fig." - Rita
(currently testing something about signatures here)
To the poster asking about the "more expensive" PPC chips, I think they're pretty much in the same range, or cheaper, than X86 chips. The CPU probably costs a small fraction of the cost of the computer, especially on the Apple high-end Blue-and-whites. The Apple Tax is probably larger.
Phil Fraering "Humans. Go Fig." - Rita
(currently testing something about signatures here)
IBM has just as much rights to Altivec as Motorola does, and AFAIK doesn't have to ask permission from anyone to use it...
Phil Fraering "Humans. Go Fig." - Rita
(currently testing something about signatures here)
Actually, I think it would be a lot easier to port something from Linux x86 to Linux PPC than it would be to port from MacOS PPC to Linux PPC. The former would be a recompile, while the latter would require a rewrite. These guys do have the source code to work with!
Phil Fraering "Humans. Go Fig." - Rita
(currently testing something about signatures here)
Umm... that does not follow. What is stopping people from designing new UIs or case designs for non-apple platforms? There's more out there besides Apple and Wintel, you know.
Apple doesn't abide by standards? They're incorporating more and more standard hardware into their models with each release. And since the only OS you can run on a Mac is the MacOS (and Linux) who cares?
Yes, Apple is much better about this than they once were. However, the "Who cares?" attitude is perhaps the reason *why* more OSes don't run on it. And last I checked, there are other operating systems that run on Macs. OpenBSD? NetBSD? BeOS? Ever heard of them? If Apple hadn't been as open as they've been lately, you wouldn't see any of them, including Linux, running on the Mac.
AGP? AGP's useless on PeeCee's ... all it did was take the graphics off the main PCI bus...
Useless? I think not. Yes, it took the graphics off the PCI bus. That in itself is useful, as it frees up bandwidth for other cards. It also provides a significantly faster bus than PCI, which is important when you're trying to feed lots and lots of triangles to your video card so you can play the latest excessively detailed FPS.
But it is entirely possible to innovate. The mere fact that it hasn't been done all that much lately doesn't mean that, should Apple die, it would never happen again, as the original poster implied.
And who but Apple had the guts to color their boxes? No one.
Ever seen an SGI? Or are purple, green, and brown not colors? :-) Besides, the appearance of a case is hardly significant compared to the contents. It's a nice touch, but little more than that.
Next: Why in the world should apple care if another OS runs on their hardware. People who buy Mac's get Mac's. If you don't want a mac, don't buy one.
Because they might sell more hardware to people with no interest in MacOS, but a good bit of interest in the fact that, as of late, the hardware on some of the Macs has been pretty nice. I would never buy a Mac if I could only run MacOS. OTOH, I might consider one if Linux also runs (and I had extra cash burning a hole in my pocket).
I've heard that shortly you'll be able to buy a brand new Alpha System for less than $2000... that's money much better spent!
That's been true for quite a while now... I bought a 164SX mobo+533 MHz 21164PC for $250 on eBay a few months ago. But while the hardware might not be used, you're not going to be able to get a top-of-the-line machine for $2000... on *any* architecture still in production. Besides, why not an alpha *and* a PPC? Diversity is good! :-) Besides, I can't yet run Civ:CTP on my alpha. I could on a PPC. I wish i could find a motherboard with 7 PCI slots, 2 CPU slots, keyboard and mouse controller, and no other integrated peripherals
I'd rather switch two of those PCI slots to ISA (old, cheap ethernet and sound), and I'd gladly take onboard SCSI, floppy controller, serial ports, etc. No need to waste PCI slots for those functions. (Besides, does a PCI floppy controller or serial port (excluding relatively expensive multiport boards) even exist?)
Does this mean that the PPC specs are also going to be open to Be Inc.? Does this mean that Be can stop whining about Apple not giving them the specs? Or does it simply expose Be as just another Intel suck-up?
This could be the smartest business decision ever made in the history of IBM.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
-jafac's law
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
I don't understand: some of the comparably equipped Power Computing clones were more than a few tens of dollars cheaper than the equivalent Apple counterparts (in some cases, hundreds of dollars cheaper). I don't understand why they couldn't have just bought a shrinkwrapped MacOS and tossed it in the box - unless there were some ROM licensing issues that went along with it.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
-jafac's law
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Oh yeah?
And what's the fastest Pentium III laptop you can buy right now?
Powerbooks kick ass on any x86 portable.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
-jafac's law
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
This is what I've always said about AGP, a worthless useless waste of time.
Now that Win98 FINALLY caught up with the Mac world, and offers dual monitor support, now the new boxes coming out are blocking this, because now you have an AGP slot, instead of all PCI slots, and being able to install two PCI video cards.
Face it, AGP was just another attempt by Intel to try to corner a market (just like Slot1 - now they're back to sockets again: socket370). It did nothing to advance the state of technology or to make computers more affordable.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
-jafac's law
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Does this almost make up for IBM not finishing OS/2 for PPC?
(Dual PPC? www.daystar.com - also look for upcoming G4 machines, with dual core CPUs)
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
-jafac's law
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
this was FUD.
Intel paid them.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
-jafac's law
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
um - vapor NetWare PPC was NOT vapor. I was onsite at Novell (um, what was that, 1996?) and NetWare PPC was demonstrated to me, running on a Power Mac. Of course, at the time, they told me that the project was officially dead, but a couple of people were still "messing around" with it.
However, I don't refute your statement about "demand". Microsoft had a great role in this, by semi-supporting NT PPC, then cutting it off. Mega FUD builder. SOMEONE owes Bill Gates a favor for that one. (and no, it wasn't Motorola's fault, Microsoft dicated the terms of that contract, and simply elevated their development fee to a level they knew would be unacceptable).
On the other hand, Motorola does need a severe kick in the butt (for lack of enthusiasm for their own damn product), and IBM is just the cowboy to do it.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
-jafac's law
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
WOuldn't a Motorola PPC work on it?
I wonder if AltiVec could be shoehorned in. . .
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
-jafac's law
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Judging by the prices the cloners were charging, I would say that Apple has a HUGE markup - and also, based on some of the early literature I read about PPC back in 93-94-ish, PPC was supposed to be half the production cost of x86 chips - because of the smaller die size, and less need to keep MHz parity. (which was really a false assumption - if you wanted to gain marketshare, MHz is all most people understand, and if you wanted to win over the techies, BYTEMark was not the way to do it. Spec should have been used instead).
As it stands now, the only REAL advantage PPC has (after the bastardized job they did on the G3, by basing it on the FP-weak 603), is in it's power consumption and heat dissipation: it way, way, way outshines x86 in this area - portables.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
-jafac's law
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Didn't Intel also send a chunk of investment cash Be's way?
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
-jafac's law
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
"Yes, perhaps even a re-vitalized NT port?"
No, Motorola's head is way too far up it's ass for that.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
-jafac's law
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
PReP and CHRP are different names for the same thing.
It was my impression that a G3 at the same clock speed beat a Pentium III, so that could be the point to have a PPC. Plus Linux commercial games are also ported to PPC (for Loki titles).
It might be easy for the company to recompile on diffrent hardware after they already ported to Linux, but just because it's Linux doesn't mean it's compatiable.
I can believe that some companies have ported to Linux-PPC... But, AFA x86 binary compatability, you comment is somewhat misleading... (or is there something about PPC-Linux that I wasn't aware of).
We took the Wintel out of Wintel!
I love the PowerPC chips. (probably because the use so little, power.) Now all I need is a dual PPC and I'm set!
Linux is only free if your time has no value. Windows is only free if you threaten to use Linux.
Not that you'd want it, it sucked so bad that IBM went out of its way to bury it. AFAIK from my stint at IBM, if a customer wanted OS/2 for PPC, they had to order it specially, it was not a regular GA'd product.
I wonder if there will ever be the option for the average person to go out and build their own custom PowerPC box. I've never used a power mac, but I'm intrigued by the hardware and would like to test debian ppc out, but I prefer to build my own systems.
Mike
Tigger's like to read
Now things are different, and it looks like IBM has updated the design.
FYI, the original LongTrail specs are at IBM's FTP site. I paid 800 USD for my board (incl. 200 MHz 604e) in May 1997. Although this was an (expensive) prototype board, it was much cheaper than a comparable Pentium II board. Production boards including a 225 MHz 604e would have costed only _450_ USD in quantities of 1000, in September 1997.
they wont. ..) .
If they *really* wanted they could have supported the newer macs (this is not new to all those of you who have followed be's history
Only thing now is they won't be able to say " we don't have the specs"
they'll have to clearly say : We are not interested in the PPC Anymore
But none off these boards are out yet.
none Yet.
It just refers to "Apple competitors" and to the "Linux OS". I guess LinuxPPC is implied, tho.
J.
damned vulpine http://sb.drtwister.com/
If I recall, Be left the PowerPC platform citing problems getting access to specs for the G3 processor itself. Apple wasn't being friendly with them, it seems. This information that IBM is releasing is a motherboard design. It shows how to physically and electrically make a board for the PowerPC. Being a software company, Be certainly doesn't care about this. They just want to know how to program for the proc and chipset.
However, most people I have spoken with who follow Be have told me that this was just an excuse. Infact, Be wanted to switch to x86 anyway, and they just sort of smeared Apple on their way out. Be could have gotten the info they needed, from someone else if not from Apple. If nothing else, they could have approached the LinuxPPC people, who have done just fine working with the G3.
In summary: this doesn't help Be, but I don't think that Be really wanted to be helped. If anyone out there follows this stuff more closely, please add to/correct my statement.
--Lenny, who dreams of an inexpensive PPC clone.
$500? The regular OS retails for about $100. Consumer OS X will pretty certainly be the same. The cloners were licensing the OS for less than $100/copy. If it had gone too high, they could have switched to buying it retail and reselling it, but their margins were too tight to make it effective for them.
More likely you'll see clones with just LinuxPPC but that may (a PPC mb != Mac mb) also support various MacOSes.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
At that time, yes there were ROM issues. The current ROM is mostly implimented in software now. There's a small ROM left, and I'm pretty sure that it is mostly just open firmware.
However, the OS is pretty closely tied to the hardware in a lot of other respects, so I still would like to see a legal, working clone (with MacOS on it - any modern version) before I buy it. A PPC running Linux is not special though; there are PPCs running AIX, BeOS and some even had NT and OS/2.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Makes you wonder what a G4 vs Athlon would result in. ;`)
This might happensooner than you think.
l
"However, Terra Soft's core focus continues to be the G3, Staats said, and its primary goal is working with Apple. Mac users will be able to buy the company's Yellow Dog Linux package pre-installed on G3 hardware from Apple-authorized VARs by early October, Staats said."
Quote from an article on MacWEEK.
http://macweek.zdnet.com/1999/08/08/linuxsw.htm
Simple--they'll sell more PPC chips.
I noticed a quite a few people just fired off closedminded anti-Apple comments and don't quite understand the significance of this. Yes, I'm an "Apple guy" but I'm also a "Linux guy"; please bear with me through a few points:
:), but that doesn't mean the platform is open. AMD and Cyrix probably spends as great a percentage of their income reverse-engineering Intel, and defending themselves from lawsuits, as Intel spends on actual R&D. I'm guessing numbers here - who cares - but my point is *AMD wastes money playing catch up games with Intel* and trying to innovate while not diverging of the ancient x86 architecture. I'm glad AMD pulled ahead... hopefully they won't stay chained to Intel's designs forever, unless they want to spend a fourtune reverse-engineering Merced.
:), scalability (Intel has the higher MHz for now... but word is on Tom's Intel's new CPU's were released early and may suffer from heat failure), optimization advantages and so on. Oh, did I mention new G3's ship with only a small heat sink and NO CPU FAN? Since Linux is capable of running just as well on PPC -- or better, if you believe the above -- wouldn't you want to run Linux on one? (I run Linux on my G3 now... ).
1) There is competition on the x86 architecture (with AMD recently beating the PANTS off Intel
2) Costs - largely a factor of manufacturing scale, aside, the PowerPC is an AWESOME chip family that is in every other respect superior to x86. Don't believe me - lookup Spec scores, MMX vs. Altivec (what do you mean Intel can't multitask MMX and floating point data at the same time??
3) Good, honest competition between different architectures means great things for all of us. I always wished Apple would open up and distrubute $700 computers with Linux, but their business model doesn't support it right now. Lighten up and accept it. PowerPC is not Apple. Think PPC is only good for embedded applications? Think "MP3 Linux Player" for your home stereo -- *without* noisy fans and overheat issues.
4) What's with the fudders here saying there'll never be games for Linux PowerPC?? LOKISOFT? "Hello..??" Didn't people say the same about Linux? That arguement is as dumb as the one where people said 'iMac will fail without a floppy drive'. If the libraries are there, it's trivial to port from one Linux to another. Even if a PowerPC isn't in your plans for your next system, you'll still benefit from it competing with Merced.
5) The fact that Linux IS truly portable to competing CPU's is exactly why I distrust Intel's "Linux initiatives"... why would Intel push an OS that is portable over an OS that is TIED to Intel? My answer is they don't know what to do for now so they're just playing along.
6) BeOS =does= run on PowerPC G3's. It just doesn't run on Apple motherboards. There's he-said/she-said between Be and Apple, and I don't entirely blame Apple. Want to see if Be's decision to ditch PowerPC support was because of Apple or because of Intel's investment? Ask them to announce support for this design when it becomes available. Surely Intel would not mind seeing their children play with PowerPC's... >:-D
>If I recall, Be left the PowerPC platform citing problems getting access to specs for the G3 processor itself.
;)
That's incorrect - BeOS ability to run is tied to the chipset - not the CPU. A Mac 9600 upgraded with a G3 processor will continue to run BeOS - although Be will not provide support for systems upgraded in this manner (strange, they support Intel systems upgraded this way...
It's a challenge to intel.
It's only a challenge to Apple indirectly in that they're taking a market Apple *could* take if they'd produce cheap enough boxes.
Cheap, volume produced PPC boxes, using off the shelf parts... and people see that as challenging *Apple*?! Am I watching the same market as everyone else, or have I accidentally slipped into a world where Mac users actually consider using something other then MacOS?
US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!
Apple probably isn't concerned about this move opening the door to clones: their custom ASICs and of course the ROM chips are still firmly under their copyright. Cobbling up something to run the MacOS without those chips will always be flaky at best.
But Apple has invested a great deal of money and image in promoting "their CPU" as superior to Intel. When a salesdroid shows PowerPCs side-by-side, one running MacOS and one Linux (especially with a cool Enlightenment theme), and says "these run the same CPU but the one on the right costs $x less," that's got to make Apple's marketing department groan.
Jamie McCarthy
Jamie McCarthy
jamie.mccarthy.vg
In theory, the 450Mhz MoBo/cpu combo will run about the price of a PII-500 cpu/Mobo combo. PPCs cost about the same as high end PII's at retail.
My story on this, with comment from Jason Haas (I learned about this during MacWorld Expo but was sworn to secrecy) should be running sometime today, but this thing has been in the works for quite awhile.
The funny thing is, anyone could have really done this because the specs have been sitting on IBM's public ftp site for years. After Apple killed clone licensing, nobody saw any reason to make the things.
Thank God for Linux.
One day, you'll learn to watch what you post...
Apple would not license MacOS to them.
From AMD's website
Athlon/
K7 -- SPECfp95 - SPECint95
650 - 22.4 -------- 29.4
600 - 21.6 -------- 27.2
550 - 20.6 -------- 25.1
Very nice numbers. Sorry for the formatting, no tables.
Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see. - Mark Twain
Yep, they do both stand for the same thing -- an totally open PowerPC platform, that is flexable enought to run a verity of OS's including:
- Mac OS 8.0/8.1 with an enabler on early CHRP/PreP. Mac OS 8.5 doesn't work or has several issues depending on your motherboard.
- Windows NT 4.0 or was it 3.5.1?/PowerPC, also on the orginal PreP/CHRP boxes.
- Workstation OS/PowerPC aka PowerPC OS/2, ran on the orginal PreP/CHRP.
Most of those OS's won't or will have issues with these more modern PreP/CHRP boxes, since things have changed a bit.
Apple pretty much dumped CHRP/PreP with dumping cloning, although you can tell that the iBook, Blue G3 and the iMac are distant CHRP/PreP relatives. As are several of IBM/Motorla's workstations like the newish PowerPC RS/6000.
CHRP - Common Hardware Reference Platform
PreP - PowerPC Reference Platform
They are basically the same thing, the name CHRP was introduced after the PreP, since CHRP was believed to be the most advanced hardware platform out there -- and it was flexable as heck, it ran NT, OS/2, AIX and MacOS -- not bad at all -- except for the fact you can buy a CHRP machine currently for slightly more then a real nice used car. (I'm talking $6000+).
The hope is that these CHRP/PreP based machines, finally allow for cheap PowerPC machines -- Apple's machines are way to expensive and limited -- and if you don't have the budget the size of a rich CEO, you can forget buying another CHRP/PReP machine.
Yes, with the help of some of the Linux/PPC (eg; Terrasoft and LinuxPPC, Inc.) companies, we have been able to get some decent software ported to the PowerPC, including several games.
It's not that hard for companies to port to the PowerPC, especially if the PowerPC Linux companies help supply them with PowerPC boxes.
That's how we have CTP: Civilization, Myst2 and AppplixWare, Netscape Communicator, and soon (hopefully) Acrobat Reader on the PowerPC.
Yes, that would be a great thing... Hopefully this deal with lead to nice cheap Powerful PowerPC boxes, for running LinuxPPC or Yellow Dog Linx on, for example.
I would really love to have a 6-slot PCI, G3 machine built on CHRP/PreP design, that I can actually afford in my life time.
The PowerPC is a well designed general processor--it's not the best at all areas, but in general it scores pretty good compared to Alphas or PIII or K7, and runs a hell of alot cooler.
Well... Apple did some werid stuff with the first generation G3's, we will never no if they were just really buggy, or Apple was trying to savatage anything not Apple or Apple just rushed the product out the door / was smoking something illegal.
Well, here is a few things they broke in the first generation G3's (it was fixed in the Colorful Genration II G3's), broken OF, broken OF IDE support, beside half a dozen of other things that were messed up. Forently, Apple manged to patch the major issues with those machines (like the Open Firmware patches), although they never fixed the problems with booting kernels off the hard drive or the other issues.
Forently Apple has gone pretty standard with the second generation machines -- and the irony of it all is the PowerPC Linux developers haven't kept up with the 'fixed' Apple OpenFirmware, which is more standard based -- the Linux/PPC kernel ix broken so it won't boot on iMacs or Blue G3's normally (obviously excluding cheesy Mac OS booters like BootX) -- and they don't seem to be to excited to fix this right away.
And yes, NetBSD boots on these machines without a problem -- NetBSD doesn't have the broken OF header's problem.
If you have the cash, IBM or Motorla (and some of the RS/6000 clone companies), will be happy to sell you a PowerPC based computer -- such as a screamer 604e running at 350 mhz (which in some benchmarks literally makes Apple's 450mhz G3 machines look like toys).
You got the bucks, you can certainly get a PowerPC computer not from Apple -- but you will pay for it, more then $2000 bucks more then an Apple Machine in many cases.
But these machines, are much faster then Apple's machines, and can run either AIX or NT or Linux. Nice machines, I must say.
I guess you guys have never used Internet Exploiter for Macintosh -- leave that baby open for a couple of hours and view half a dozen complex web sites, and look, it uses much more memory (like 70 megs of RAM when it's set to only 7 meg max) then it was suppost to have in the Finder setting, and it doesn't give the memory back to the Mac OS when it's needed.
That's a bad memory leak. Netscape in my experience also leaks memory, but it seems to at least give it back to the system on the Mac OS when really needed badily. The Linux/PPC version of Netscape works without many problems with me -- it uses more memory when you load a complex site, and gives back the memory when it's done with it.
Apple has never made a direct profit on the Mac OS, but then again Microsoft has never made a direct profit on Windows. Development costs for OS's are humogous -- they are large masses of code, and people expect so much out of them.
.... err 9x, with every release of the 9x series.
So how do they make there money?
- Microsoft relies on it's properity Windows add-ons like NT Server, Microsoft Office (aka Cash Cow), and other things.
- Apple has always been a hardware company and that's not changing. Until recently 1% of Apple's profits were made by selling the Mac OS, now it's like 4.5% of there profits, but still that's not enough to support OS development. The idea, is that the money you spend on the hardware will justify the expense of developing the Mac OS and related projects. Until, 1995, Apple gave the Mac OS away for free -- as long as you used Apple hardware -- or for like $30 bucks for the disk -- and you were free to copy it from Mac to Mac (this excludes 7.1 Pro -- that was something different).
Apple would have to pull a 'sgi' to make it as a software company -- and if they did that, it would be by the skin of their teath. Not something that keeps those ever so important investors happy. They might be able to pull it off (just like SGI might become a ever so sucessful Linux company), it's just too much of a risk.
What happens if Mac OS X Server is a flop? Then they are left with nothing at all. If it flops, and they continue to be a dominent hardware company -- they have alot to fall back on to -- like Linux or Mac OS Classic (which is really not that bad, unlike what people call it lately).
It's too bad most people associate Mac OS Classic with accient crap code, it's certianly more then that. Major parts have been re-written, it has little m68k assembly left in it, and has many populuar programs ported to it. Apple could continue improving Mac OS Classic, without a problem, as does Microsoft Improves Windows 3.1
This is the main reason why Mac OS cloning would not work decently -- unless clone companies payed Apple big bucks for essentaily life time ROM and system software licenses.
Hardware is a proven hit for Apple--software is just an incentive to buy Apple hardware and not some other platform.
Yes, when Mac-On-Linux or SheepShaver gets ported to these new CHRP boxes, you could run the Mac OS on top of Linux without problems -- just use a ROM image from a reguluar Mac.
Of course, this isn't a perfect solution -- there will be a need for new drivers, and not everything will not perectly work, but it should be do-able.
PowerPC processors (well at least the 604ev vs. the PII) are cheaper megahertz to megahertz.
Unforently, when you try to build a PowerPC box, it's the add on's that drive the price up -- things like fast SCSI and RAM and other things aren't cheap.
In lots of 1000, the PowerPC 604e/225 in 1997 costed like 225 bucks, while the 233 PII cost like 600 dollars (well at that time).
PC hardware, is more populuar and is cheaper then PowerPC hardware, that's were the price difference comes in mainly -- the PowerPC chip in general is pretty cheap compared to the Pentium III / K6 or K7. The celrons are cheaper in some cases, but there preformance is slower then the PowerPC in most cases.
Unforently, most of the CHRP/PreP boxes in the past have been very expensive (think like $6000), but if a cheap no name company becomes involed (and they choose standard like cheap ATAPI drives, etc), this will change greatly.
And lets not forget, sound hooked directly to the processor is a feature that isn't found on any x86 box, yet it is found on most PowerPCs (saving the PCI bus from wasting bandwith on sound data [producing smoother better sounding sound]--although it currently still wastes it on video data).
That's the main reason why all of IBM's low end RS/6000's ship with 604ev's and not G3 processors.
Right now there are 3 companies (at least) producing PowerPC motherboards for all kinds of different uses -- consumer, embeded and server.
For Example:
IBM and Motorala - Low End RS/6000 Servers/Workstations Motherboards
IBM and Motorala - Lots of werid Motherboards for embeded systems.
Apple - Consumer level systems.
So there is a least 3 companies producing motherboards -- a while back there was a third that made RS/6000 clones (MicroVax or something?), but I don't know what happend to the company.
Does this spec include portables? The lower power requirements of the PPC make this chip the best choice for these machines. I would love to have a portable running linux on a 466 G3.
Also what about Altivec, it would be nice to take advantage of this in Linux. Ohh the possibilities!
-B
I remember hearing something like that, too. Buy cheaper to manufacture and cheaper to buy are two different things.
So why, exactly, have you read this far down into the thread?
Go away, troll.
Ethan
450 mHz... 500 within a month or so...
yeah, it's good to know what you're talking about...
I've made a few calls to price this all out. If it looks possible, you'll be hearing from me. :) But to tell the truth, I'm not too optimistic about being able to match x86's price/performance ratio. (I'm especially interested in entry-level boxen.) And if you can't do that, why bother?
If any businesspeople are interested in helping out with getting cheap PPC boxen together, send me a note. The e-mail address is on my site.
--Tom
Tom Geller
Interestingly enough, MacOS X might run on these machines, depending on how far off the hardware is... OS X DOES NOT require a boot ROM from Apple (uses a totally different design). While MacOS 9 doesn't require a boot ROM either, it's got specific system enablers for certain motherboards...
RateVegas.com - Vegas Reviews
Check www.spec.org. It provides standard benchmarking code, and collects benchmarks for everything from PCs up to Big Iron. It will certainly have comparisons between PIIIs and the PPC-750, and should have Athlon data as soon as AMD gets around to compiling the benchmark software.
I wonder... there was a version of OS/2 Warp for the Power PC that barely came out (it shipped after IBM had given up on desktop Powerstations); will that run on a machine with one of these boards?
Save Maine's economy: write stuff down. All comments are exclusively my own, not my employer.
My understanding is that newer MacOS versions don't need the Apple ROM to boot, so IBM PPC board + MacOS = Macintosh for less scratch.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Well, I don't think that Linux is any competition to Apple's "Power User" market, simply because the Mac power applications aren't running on LInux.
A white box PPC could really sell to the Mac Power User market. I know a few folks that would love a 6 slot G3 box with a fast integrated RAID system. Right now they have to piece together a 9600, an upgrade board, and a bunch of other parts.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
As someone else mentioned, an open PPC design is really nothing new - IBM's had one available for years. Think of this move as a little marketing to sell it to the Linux community.
The original intention of CHRP was to provide a mass market computing platform to compete with Intel. IBM would have made their money off the PPC and the chipsets, not the board design. Unfortunately, there's been very little demand for NT, AIX, vapor OS/2, vapor Solaris, and vapor NetWare running on commodity PPC systems. The Linux 'hobbyist' market could revive this. (Anyone have an estimate on Linux on Alpha system sales?)
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
I don't know about your setup, but NS 4.61/WinNT leaks memory like a sieve on my box.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
I've been looking for this "free motherboard design" and don't see any mention of it on ibm's website. Has anyone else had any luck finding it?
/. brand motherboards, indeed!
Already sent a note to the author of the MacWeek article, so no need to mail bomb them. Can't seem to find an address for Steve Faure, and there's only a link to the story on linuxppc.com. I'll post more info if I hear anything back.
As for one-offs, I think that's a great idea! I suspect you want to run at least a thousand, though--that way they'll only be fantastically expensive.
>Besides piraters, Apple just won't give those OEMs a license to MacOS.
All you have to do it buy a commercially wrapped version of Mac OS and bingo you have a license.
The Mac ROMs are the difficult part to get. But if these boards are CHRP compliant, then there is a good chance that you can run Mac OS 8.0 on them.
>You can't just go to CompUSA and buy MacOS and install it on your cool new PPC workstation.
Incorrect, if the machine is CHRP based, then you can run 8.0 on it.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
>It may be CHRP based but I highly doubt it will have an Apple ROM on board. No ROM, no Mac OS.
I'm sorry, but you are incorrect. MacOS 8.0 has been loaded onto IBM PowerPC machines with no MacOS ROM. From what I understand it's a real bitch to tinker with the open firmware to make it work, but it IS possible.
These may or may not be able to run it, but the MacOS ROM is not necessarily needed. After all the iMac and Blue & White G3 have a Mac OS ROM file on the Hard drive in addition to the physical chips.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
You have a license for *one* machine... Just as you're not supposed to take one copy of MS office and install it across your organization. So the theory would be that you'd have to decomission the old mac, yet hold on to it as your "proof of purchase."... I some how doubt apple would mind if the only way you could legally run MacOS on 3rd party PPC hardware was to first purchase an iMac with which you could transfer the license from.
If Apple goes down, we'll be forever doomed to beige boxes and the current UI's we see on all platforms. Apple doesn't abide by standards? They're incorporating more and more standard hardware into their models with each release. And since the only OS you can run on a Mac is the MacOS (and Linux) who cares? Everything works (PCI, PnP, USB)...
... all it did was take the graphics off the main PCI bus... Why isn't AGP using system memory, instead you now buy AGP boards with 32 Megs of RAM on them...
AGP? AGP's useless on PeeCee's
Top Speed 333 MHz... don't bash ANYTHING unless you know enough about it that it's justified. For instance, Apple ships Mac's with 450 MHz processors on 100 MHz system busses... with 3 64-bit PCI slots, and 1 32-bit 66 MHz PCI slot.
PowerPC's are much much cheaper than x86 chips... they're so much smaller that more fit on the wafer and therefore you get more chips per run...
Apple pads their prices a bit, because if they only sold hardware at cost +15% that'd kill off all future development in terms of the OS or anything else... QuickTime, FireWire, etc etc etc...
So, I'd expect that if volume gets pushed up, you'll eventually be able to find these boards, with CPU at equal or lower prices than the Intel equivilants... Or maybe that's just wishful thinking?
Linux really needs to sit still on a couple platforms, lest it become another Java: "Write once, debug everywhere"... Dare I say, maybe even pair down a little?
If PPC can better the performance of Alpha (NOT likely), then it could take the place at the high end... but you need x86, because that's the cheap, commodity hardware, and that's also where most people start trying out Linux...
Aside from X, which I'm really fond of for it's ability to display across a network, the only real GUI innovation that the world has seen since the Mac popularized the concept of it has been the, ahem, integration of IE in Windows... Past that, everyone basically uses the "Folder" metaphor... Or, at least everyone with a somewhat mainstream UI... I haven't ever used Gnome, but KDE seems to be a much better implentation of what Microsoft was trying to do.
And who but Apple had the guts to color their boxes? No one. Every trade magazine ragged on Apple to end when the iMac first appeared... now you have Future Power and eMachines knocking of the basic idea of the iMac saying it was an evolutionary step... too bad they can't even think of original colors!
Next: Why in the world should apple care if another OS runs on their hardware. People who buy Mac's get Mac's. If you don't want a mac, don't buy one. Yes, other people have ported OS's to the Mac platform, but aside from Be, they've been second tier products. Show me an Oracle binary i can download that runs on LinuxPPC, and i'll change my tune... If you want to run a Unix (aside from Mac OS X), you really don't want to buy a Mac... I've heard that shortly you'll be able to buy a brand new Alpha System for less than $2000... that's money much better spent!
And Lastly: AGP... With all it was hyped up to be, I'm quite disappointed to see AGP being used as a replacement PCI slot. Intel could have just pushed 64 bit PCI and then we'd all have interchangable slots... Now, you've got 5 PCI slots, if you're lucky, 2 ISA slots, plus an AGP...
I wish i could find a motherboard with 7 PCI slots, 2 CPU slots, keyboard and mouse controller, and no other integrated peripherals
I'm too lazy to check, but i think i was the original poster of this thread...
:)
But it is entirely possible to innovate. The mere fact that it hasn't been done all that much lately doesn't mean that, should Apple die, it would never happen again, as the original poster implied.
True, SGI has had colored boxes for quite some time... But i wouldn't necesarily call them "Mainstream"... Let's face it, aside from Apple, no ones really differentiated their machines with any success... They only differntiat based on price. And given the iMac's popularity, I'd have to say that apparently some people do care for how their computers look. If you just care about what's inside the box, an iMac is quite a rip-off... There's more to it though.
And just because it's possible to innovate, I'd really like to see some real innovation prior to Apple going under (which I don't at all think will happen! but some people seem to instist that they will...)
Because they might sell more hardware to people with no interest in MacOS, but a good bit of interest in the fact that, as of late, the hardware on some of the Macs has been pretty nice. I would never buy a Mac if I could only run MacOS. OTOH, I might consider one if Linux also runs (and I had extra cash burning a hole in my pocket).
Apple isn't a hardware vendor. They're not saying here's the hardware, go do whatever you want with it. They're a systems vendor. Their systems are Mac OS systems. That's what they sell.
I don't think that they would add barely any sales by opening their platforms for others to use because of peoples pre-concieved notion of Apple. Using the iMac as a base unit, and figuring that they make a 10% profit on each machine sold, that's about $120 dollars per machine. If people had the option of buying one without an OS, they'ed probably expect a discout. Figuring a $60 dollar discount, that's now $60 per machine that they're earning. If 10,000 Linux or Be people buy these machines, that's an extra $600,000 in sales. That's a drop in the bucket, for them, for anyone (besides me, of course! What could I do with $600,000, i wonder?
You can still get much more of a machine buy buying Wintel. Or you can get a much more powerful machine by buying Alpha or Sparc. PowerPC doesn't fill in any real demand. Therefore, I don't really see what IBM hopes to accomplish by doing this. It is pretty nice of them, and all... But I can't see what the end result will be.
Yes, I have heard of them all. I was quite a fan of the BeOS, as a matter of fact. I do think that the wisest move they made was moving to Intel, even if their hand was forced. Since they sell an OS and not a system, Intel is the place for them, simply due to the economies of scale.
FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and NetBSD (and anyother's i'm forgetting, BSD or otherwise) exist for the Mac, but that's not where they flourish (I know, Apple is using NetBSD as part of the basis of OS-X). They don't have the developer mindshare needed to support any other OS's.
How would you react, if Apple said, we're completely opening the Mac platform? Cool right? How about all the times they've recanted their plans and promises? That doesn't inspire my confidence to develop on a platform which may be pulled out from under me, or simply abandoned on their part.
As for Linux ever competing with the Mac? We're so far away from that happening. Linux is (in my eyes) geared for developers and variety of different servers. The extreme power user can switch to it right now as well, but the mainstream "windows" audience will be completely lost on it. Mac people don't care about the innards of their computer or the factors at play in how things operate. They simply want a machine to do what they want it to do. Linux is currently light years from this goal. Okay, not light years, but at LEAST 5 years, in my eyes. It's not even a Linux issue so much as a KDE, Gnome, or whatever other GUI becomes popular...
Sorry, no I haven't ever programmed for AGP. If it eases and speeds the programming, that's great!
My comment was based on the idea that (I think I've heard a while back) that Intel was originally saying that AGP would become a sort of shared memory architecture (ala UMA) where there would be no need for memory on the video controller - the controller would just dip into system RAM when needed.
CHRP or no CHRP, these systems will still be as or more expensive than x86 systems. PPC is not pin or binary compatible with wintel. You can't plug a PPC 750 chip in a 440BX mother board (never mind the different pin configurations) and expect it to work. That'll require new parts, core logic chips, et al... Therefore, the economies of scale will lower the price of a PPC system if they catch on, but they won't catch up to the x86 crowd... 100 million units vs. 10 million units - it's jsut not happening!
I know that Be was forced to pretty much abandon the PowerPC platform as a result of Apple's pigheaded decision not to share the technical details of their G3 motherboards with Be. Hopefully this means Be can once again begin releasing PowerPC versions of their OS...
A G3 is faster in integer calculations than a PII running at comparable clock speeds. It is not faster in floating point when compared to the PII.
It ought to be a lot cheaper, see my earlier post Re:22 million transistors?
Erik
Has it ever occurred to you that God might be a committee?
Has it ever occurred to you that God might be a committee?
--- Jubal Harshaw
Linux for games ??
..
You know, xbill is cool but after a while you probably would want to move on to something else
:-)
M$ stuff leaks no more ( and no less ) than anything else on the market.
...
It is not like M$ people are some sort of outcasts
who never seen or programmed for other operating systems. Some of them even have Unix background
We are quite far from being able to develop usable popular OS with a language that offers built-in garbage collector ( which right now would probably mean Java)
Could you explain what did you use Mac for and based on that response tell us what Linux offers that was not available on Mac ?
I just got myself BeOS and .. well, as a workstation it rocks. I just have a question...
Is there any way to change windows decoration on the Be desktop ? I don't really like default configuration ( I know I can move them around but what about exctending them to cover whole window ? )
You are obviously very ill informed about apple computer, and macs in general. First of all, all g3 based macs and other non apple comps like prep beboxes etc. currently have the capability to run at 464 mhz with a g3 upgrade card. The standard ibm/motorola powerpc g3(750) currently scales from 233 to 450 mhz (I think they are trying to phase out the lower speeds though). Anyways as far as low busspeeds all the newer powermac g3(revision2's) run on the 100mhz busspeed and contain 1mb of half core clock backside l2 cache. Models under 350 mhz contain only 512k though... As for agp current macs dont have it, but they have a graphics pci slot that runs at 66mhz (like agp slots) but doesnt make use of the agp2x stuff.
Currently imho agp isnt all that important now.. it will be with 4x but what current game really honestly takes advantage of agp. The games that will are the large texture based games that can take advantage of agp texturing. Btw. my g3 400 with a ati rage128 with 32megs of ram runs q3 just about the same as a voodoo2 equipped pentium3 450.
Not to mention in 32bit....
The Mac's processor tends to be faster at integer calculations than equivalent Intel family chips. And that's all.
Anyway - I'm not a Mac fan, but if you're going to criticize the hardware, know what it is you're criticizing.
Uh... are you sure? I know that at least one of the recent game ports to Linux does support LinuxPPC: Myth 2.
---
Have a Sloppy night!
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
It sounds like Amiga Inc is going to try to do something stupid^H^H^H^H^Hradical, so I doubt they'll get in on it. But I sure hope that Phase 5 and QNX do. A common hardware platform (other than the 20-year-old IBM PC) that could run Neutrino, Linux, and BeOS would be cool. And bonus points if it turns out to be able to run MacOS too.
---
Have a Sloppy night!
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Java
Eiffel
Smalltalk
Lisp
Dylan
OCaml
APL
That's all that I can think of off the top of my head (leaving out discontinued languages and dialects). I'm sure that there are many others. Personally, I think that Eiffel seems the most reasonable, but I do seem to recall that at one time CDC was planning on using APL as the assembler level language for the machine that eventually turned into the STAR (with a much more normal assembles...pity).
Eiffel's advantage is that it is implemented in and links easily with C code. Design by contract is nice. So is the set of existing classes.
The defect of all of these languages is that they tend to be slow when run on a standard instruction set... Although the Lisp Machine proved that with properly designed hardware speed is much less of an issue.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Well... If someone were to port Linux, Darwin, etc. (the rest of the stuff that they've released as open source) to one of these machines, how much work would be required of Apple to get their OS working there? Any? They might have a very good reason to be interested.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
I'm guessing with no more info than anyone else, but the way I read the cards:
Apple OS is basically a slick user interface over a user shell, so...
Apple opens the source to the low level stuff which is basically the kind of things that an OS needs to implement anyway, but keeps the User Interface stuff proprietary.
At this point, several groups of people have the capability to migrate the base code to lots of different machines. Also, there are hooks that the interface calls, etc. Lots of API's spec'd, some with source code, some without.
Eventually, all routines that are called from the upper levels are documented. Then Apple adds enough new calls to allow one to open a bash window inside the MacOS (as a totally separate process.. not just a thread [possibly even with defined logon id's, etc.]).
Now any Linux routine can be run within the MacOS, which is, itself, essentially hosted on linux.
Apple may need to specify a few additional hardware spec's that need to be met, for some direct calls from the upper level, but perhaps not.
At this point, the Apple software can be ported to any platform that supports Linux. But only Apple can sell it. (Of course it's in competition with KDE, GNOME, etc., for those who want a light weight protocol, and with pure command shells for those who want a REALLY light protocol).
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
price due to the fact that the PowerPC chip is more expensive to make?
PowerPC chips are much cheaper to build than x86 chips. As someone said below, cheaper to make doesn't mean cheaper to buy.
There are several vendors offering processor upgrades (non of them Apple), so there is competition, but the supply and demand isn't there. You don't have hundreds of OEM's buying millions of CPU's every year to bring the price down.
Not that Apple would willingly put any of their OS's on it aside from maybe Darwin (they're still a hardware company). But it will hopefully mean faster development and adoption of PowerPC's.
I belive there were 350 mhz 604e's back in '97, when Mac clones were still around. Apple only moved to a 450 mhz within the last few months. If Power Computing and the others were still in the biz, we'd probably have 800 mhz G4's by now.
This is because when Apple killed cloning, they also took away a large incentive for IBM and Motorola to aggressivly develop the PowerPC for desktop systems. Motorola in particular was pissed off (and rightly so) becuase they were offering 5 year warraties on their line of SuperMacs when Apple cut em off; IBM also sublicensed the MacOS to other companies.
It will also be nice to have a low cost kickass RISC system for Linux. Hopefully Penguin or some other Linux OEM will jump on this in the next year or so.
You are right, they can't do anything to prevent Darwin from being used on these machines. But they could make it so it would be difficult to MacOS X on em, as the GUI is still closed source.
> But, how come the top sped you have is only 333mhz
:P
What's "top sped?"
Hey Idiot, go to the Apple store and get a clue.
Top speed as of today is 450MHz.
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
Damnit you beat me to my post. I've busy playing Redhat stock boy all day ;) First time I've read slashdot since I got up. hehehe
"Fighting the underpants gnomes since 1998!" "Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger's cat"
You can get a Mac with a 450 MHz chip these days. Very soon there should be 500 MHz versions available, tho I don't know exactly when.
Very soon, Apple is drying up the supply of existing models. You can get the B&W G3 at a steal.
Look for them to make big strides in the high end laptop due to the delay in shipping the PIII for laptops. Intel is self destructing, and AMD and the PPC will profit.
photosMy Photostream
But this is just a sideshow, the real action centers around firewire and QuickTime. Just wait, Jobs is going to blow everyone out of the water. While the Wintel world is responding to the iMac and iBook, Apple will be charging off in some other direction.
Folks, quit complaining about What Apple did, and what you don't like about the former behavior of Apple, just sit back and enjoy the show. This is pure entertainment. We will all profit from what Apple is doing now. they are pushing the technology, breaking the industry out of the doldrums of the mid nineties.
I am a Mac user and an aapl investor, and I generally cruise the investor boards. I am a Linux user, and if I could have, I'd be aRedHat investor.
BTW, I like Apple, but I LOVE the aapl stock. Doubled my money in a few months.
photosMy Photostream
Does IBM's PPC motherboard spec include the Apple ROM?
I doubt it.
Without that ROM MacOS won't run.
this is Slashdot, formerly "News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters" soon to be renamed "If its not Linux its CRAP!" A good source for BeOS related stuff is BeNews /. is now mostly a circle-jerk site for Linux fans. I like linux too so thats why I read /. but its isn't really a general nerd-news site anymore.
Im a big fan of BeOS, but
For a good comparison of these chips check out David Every's page on the Athlon chip specs.
"I have a cunning plan..."
I added this a few posts up but it's worth repeating. For a good rundown of specs and performance between the K7 and G4 with a few references to the Pentiums check out www.MacKiDo.com/Hardware/K7.html.
"I have a cunning plan..."
The sooner you can buy PowerPC computers from someone other than Apple the better. The PowerPC is a great chip and once many people can use it, its price will go down even further and its speed should go up. This means more competition for Intel and yet another blow to Apple, a company even more proprietary than microsoft.
But, how come the top sped you have is only 333mhz
Small correction of your facts: the fastest G3 runs at 450 MHz nowadays. Again, check your facts before you spout off about something you obviously know nothing about. I'm not a Mac-Evangelist, I prefer PC's. But Macs aren't bad machines to work on, especially for graphic design. And don't forget about the standards they're pushing that actually is *good* for the computer industry: USB and IEEE 1394 (FireWire). Their machines have begun to move from the completely propietary format they were in to standard formats now. Oh well. Enough time wasted correcting ignorance.
My assumption is that they want to sell more of their processors. As was mentioned, the motherboard design was freely released. OEMs would still need to purchase the processor from IBM. I wonder if Motorola's version of the PPC will work in this design. Remember also that IBM and Moto disagreed about altivec for the G4.
:)
Just my random thoughts on the subject. All I know is my prayers have finally been answered..
Actually, we have an aging (IBM) PPC box that runs a brand new copy of AIX. I suppose we could NOT buy a new box from IBM (for WAY more than it's worth) and buy a cool OEMer. Hmmm...
Monty
"Also it should be obvious that this interest in lunux will kill Monterey."
Probably not. Monterey is practically an OS wrapper for huge Databases. Yea, some zealot will run a 1Tb Db on Linux once or twice, but most companies will see that Monterey was designed from the start to only serve Db and they will make an intelligent choice.
This isn't to say that Linux with XFS and IBM's DB2 wouldn't be able to handle it, but Monterey has the advantage of being designed from the start to serve this purpose.
I've never used any software, OS or application, that doesn't leak some memory, however slowly.
What about Squeak?
http://www.squeak.org/
If IBM is giving away the entire board spec, including layout, partspec and even circuit board art, well.. what do these things cost to get made in short runs of, say, 5 or 10 or 25 or 100? I can see it now: Slashdot-branded motherboards!
IBM's providing the "source", all we need is to "compile" it. It'd be cool to order my motherboard from a local board shop instead of overseas or whatever...
--Z
333? The iMac is not the only computer Apple makes. Apple's "pro" machines are up to 450MHz (yes, with 100MHz system buses). A 450 MHz G3 is about on par with a PIII/550. My G3/400 runs Quake3Test quite well. And Apple's "pro" laptops are up to 400MHz (same version of the chip as the desktop machines), *and* get 5 hours of battery life off a single battery.
Apple's "twice as fast" claims are a joke, but most companies do that kind of thing. MS calls NT "the most powerful network operating system in the world", for example.
AGP is due this fall (rumored to be 4x).
This space unintentionally left unblank.
Actually junior, the top Apple G3 system is 450.
Why do I have this feeling that until just recently you had Windows installed on your machine and hung out in the Windows advocacy groups. Then you found out how "kewl" Linux was.
You post has the tone of someone who seriously thinks that that the OS they use, car they drive or beer they drink reflects what kind of person they are. It's just a tool, use it to do what you need it to do.
Another thing, this whole (tm) thing is really tired, give it a rest.
You may be speculating, but you're certainly not stupid. I just wonder how they could make their OS a techies OS. Isn't that what linux, BSD, etc already are? I think that OS X is going to be amazing because of its ability to appeal to a wide range of technical abilities. You can have one-click buttons on one end and compile your favorite shell on the other. The thing is, I don't expect Apple to trumpet the fact, they'll always be talking about Mac OS's ease of use so as not to scare anyone away.
cheers,
Matthew Reilly
Repeatedly, they have released new technologies (quicktime, qtvr, OpenDoc) only to see them fail because of lack of choice regarding hardware/platform and their marketing focus on their hardware.
-------
Just a sec, quicktime? FAIL? It's the most widespread video software around, when did it fail?
Anothing thing to keep in mind is that the reason Mac OS works (for the most part) so painlessly is that Apple controls the hardware. They don't have to support the wide range of hardware that other OS do. I think it's great that IBM is releasing the specs for these mobos (I don't think they will be making any themselves.) They'll make some nice servers. I really doubt that even Mac OS X will run on them. Apple has pared their new motherboards down to a much simpler boot rom so I guess it would be physically possible but I really can't see them cutting their own throats by letting people get the Mac experience and not buy their hardware from Apple. Gee, we could sell a $90.00 OS CD-ROM or $1,500-$4,000 worth of hardware. And before everyone starts screaming about how proprietary Apple is let's just remember that if you don't want to run Mac OS, don't. Linux is just as good a desktop system, right?
cheers,
Matthew Reilly
Why do you care? I'm serious, not trying to flame here. Explain to me why you care that Apple is so "proprietary." Do you use their software or hardware? Or is it just a sense of moral outrage?
I use their hardware and software on a daily basis, I'm a a graphic designer, and I have to say it does what it is supposed to do. I think the concept of open source software is great but I don't see any open source tools that I could do my job with so I use the proprietary ones. Apple has spent a great deal of money developing the tools I use, shouldn't they expect to get a return on them? They get their return selling their hardware for a premium. If this doesn't agree with you don't buy their stuff but you'll have a hard time doing print design without them. Now web design/production, that's another story.
cheers,
Matthew Reilly
Ergo, a no-brainer for IBM.
Remember, Apple is IBM's #1 PowerPC customer by a long shot. They wouldn't do anything to get them angry. It's very possible that this will facilitate the return of cloning on the Mac. This time Apple would have no responsibility to the clone maker - they simply would make a volume licensing deal. They'd say that as long as it conforms to certain guidelines, it will work. And if a cloner wants to deviate from them, like introducing a new kind of data bus for example, they can simply make the necessary patches to Darwin.
-Rafi Remove the Spanish to email me.
So this means the BeOS guys can finaly realize their original plan of putting BeOS in a G3? I'd love to see that.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
So how much of the cost of the PowerPC is just Apple charging its loyal customers lots of money and how much is its price due to the fact that the PowerPC chip is more expensive to make?
I really like the PowerPC chip, but I don't want to wait for these boxes only to find that they too are out of my price range.
I'm very excited about the possibility of making my own PPC box. Also, loading the MacOS X on this machine should be trivial since there is no boot code needed for it to boot. A simple hack may be needed perhaps. Also if you notice the info on the MTX motherboards Motorola sells, they DO run the MacOS with the correctly configured CHRP configuration file (OS 8.0 and 8.1 only. I hear it may be easy to hack one for the other versions such as 8.5, 8.6 and 9.0). I do beleive you may need to load the ROM from a PowerMac though, into the OF. There may be legal issues to overcome unless you are a developer. Call MCG for more info.
;)
Anyone want to go into business with me?
tpires@mediaone.net
Don't lead me into temptation... I can find it myself.
I thought the whole point of buying Apple computers was the OS, not the hardware? Why would Apple care that there are Linux based PPC systems?
I have used macs for years and I am glad to see this happen. I only hope that IBM can get someone to start making computers. Recently I have starting working with linuxPPC and I am on the verge of switching over to it. All that I am waiting for is sheepshaver or a mac-on-linux that doesn't freeze the system.
There is also another aspect to this. I imagine that if others start making PPC machines, Apple will reduce their prices a little. It likely will not be very competitive, but enough so that they can prevent some from buying other people's computers. Competition is a good thing.
You see? It's like I've always said. You can get more with a kind word and a 2x4 than you can with just a kind word.
I remember back when the mac clones were starting to die out because Apple killed it, some of them offered a deal where you could buy the clone which was compatable with the new macos but came with an older version of the MacOS. The reason:
When Apple killed the clones, they did it by suspending the license. The clones could still license the old MacOS, but not the new one. People bought the clones, and then the new version of the MacOS from Apple.
If the PPC machines made are able to run the MacOS, what prevents people from buying the MacOS from Apple. For that matter, they may be able to bundle it, just not ship the computer with it pre-installed.
You see? It's like I've always said. You can get more with a kind word and a 2x4 than you can with just a kind word.
You've obviously never used AGP at a programming level have you. It is a godsend when you are making a game with a bunch of sprites that don't fit in video memory. It allows HW blitting for system to video memory, a thing you can't do with PCI no matter how fast the slot is. AGP was not meant to advane the technology, or make them more affordable. It was meant to take the existing PCI slot (AGP is a PCI slot with some special stuff) and allow large textures to be stored in video memory. Have you seen Unreal with S3TC. That shows you what AGP can do. If more HW manufacturerers support texture compression, and when 4X comes out, more games will look like that. (If you haven't seen it, take a look at the screen shots. 2048 X 2048 textures at no loss of speed!)
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Well? Lots of noise but I want to know what will the boards be like? What will they support?
But if you already have a MacOS license from an old machine, couldn't you legally install MacOS on one of these machines and save yourself the $500 Apple tax? That is, until UCITA gets passed. Also, if you're a naughty person, couldn't you just install the OS and not license it? Won't this eventually force Apple's hand to begin licensing the OS again?
Funny that nobody has mentioned Darwin. True macophiles know that Apple has been putting most of its ROM in RAM nowadays, and that with OSX running on a microkernel and using the Darwin project's "open source" underpinnings (the basis of OSX), there is no theoretical reason that somebody couldn't get OSX to run on any PPC based machine.
This is, however, *if* Apple doesn't sabotage its own good intentions by going back on their word as they have so many times before.
An earlier post mentioned that the PPC was *more* expensive to produce than the Pentium -- AFAIK, this is a total fallacy; perhaps the quantities are lower, but the die size is much much smaller.
It's good to finally see the underappreciated PPC get its due, and Linux may be its ticket out of obscurity (one can only hope). Can't wait for some G4 lovin'!
just my blog and pix
Finally, Apple will be forced to face a non monopolitic position in its hardware market. Which is a Good Thing (tm). For years Apple has ignored keeping it's OS on the cutting edge (because, lets face it, it was when it came out), choosing instead to cash in on the fact that if you /did/ want to run MacOS, you had to buy their hardware. Apple has NEVER understood what it does well - software. Repeatedly, they have released new technologies (quicktime, qtvr, OpenDoc) only to see them fail because of lack of choice regarding hardware/platform and their marketing focus on their hardware. Maybe this will finally force them to do what they do best when they put their minds to it - making software that takes the hassle out of /some things/. People have always complained you had no power under Mac, but at least it never had the gull, like some other WindOSes, to actually take over and do things for you without permission. MacOS X only gets better - built on the NexT kernel, a dynamite development environment (according to, for example, John Carmack of ID Software), and an open source initiative. Finally, I will have the power to choose, again (not to mention afford). I'm all for it. Thank YOU, IBM!
"Old man yells at systemd"
Despite the stereotypes, I know of a good many tech-types who appreciate the MacOS for it's no hassle ease of use (I don't care what anyone says, sometimes I just don't need the configurability). I just wanted to dispell the notion that real Mac Users tend to be non-power users. Remember that MacOS runs in alot of school/library environments, and that the users who work with MacOS there are not even truely computer users. I think if you did a survey among Mac users by choice, you'd find them to be more technology saavy than you'd have expected.
For instance, for art and music, I'd be running Mac if I could afford it. For development, games, and such, Linux all the way. I'd happily run both systems, and leave Windows in the dust. If only I could afford it. And now, perhaps, maybe I can.
"Old man yells at systemd"
Maybe not CompUSA, but why not Egghead? If the hardware's cheap enough, this is the route I'd take ..... ? prod_id= 0000104561&sesid=^bpi!S15660263^cen!Y^ies!DF01^ces !DF01^ ? prod_id= 0000090176&sesid=^bpi!S15660263^cen!Y^ies!DF01^ces !DF01^
Mac OS 8.5:
http://www.egghead.com/store/ent/eggs_prod.browse
Mac OS X server:
http://www.egghead.com/store/ent/eggs_prod.browse
"Old man yells at systemd"
Whereas I see posts being made by Anonymous Coward all over the place, so clearly you've been contributing your part.
Along a different line: I heared rumors that Linux PPC has some memory-leak problems? I thought Linux is immune to such crap.
Sigged!
Apple can always diversify how they make money.
If people want to buy Linux PPC boxes, there's no reason Apple itself couldn't cater to their tastes, selling machines with Linux (and, better yet, maybe both OS's preinstalled).
If they want to focus on making everything based on MacOS, they could sell versions of their OS which run on machines built by other companies (again), plus, since MacOS is based on Next, doing a port to Intel isn't at all an unrealistic goal. Diversification is the key.
It's good to see that there will now be g3/g4 desktops produced by someone besides apple. The article seemed to take the tone that linuxpc is somehow in competition with the macos. I don't think the majority of the mac users out there are going to go bolting to linuxppc because you can buy a g3 with it on it(speaking for myself I use both, but would only buy a non apple g3/g4 if I could run the macos on it as well). If ibm puts out a cheaper chrp box than apple,and they most definitley will be cheaper than the motorola altivec g4s, they might compete with the tiny macosx server market. I'm sure apple will try to do something that will prevent the macos from running on the ibm machines
Big Money! Big Prizes! I love it!
Of course, if it costs half of what a CHRP board cost a friend ($800 m'thinks) I'll probably get it, even though it's not strictly a dollar.
Why... it could run BeOS DR4.0 [probably 4.5 too], or MacOS 8.5... with the ROM from my PMAC8500. There is an Apple ROM Slot in this design isn't there? There probably isn't; I'll live. Most importantly it could run Linux/PPC. Well.
If it had a ZIF socket (or 4) and was G4 ready, that'd be extra jolly nice of the people.
Q: Does anyone here dislike Intel at least half as much as they dislike Microsoft? I've vowed against supporting either... I've also vowed against snuff videos, but thats different. I mean that whole Intel/Digital thing was bad.
I'd keep my 604; even though its only 120 MHz.
After all, FatBoySlim says: Everybody needs a 604.
No I don't think so. CHRP is open, and has been for some time. Be has been supporting CHRP hardware, the problem has been that none of the clones (but the StarMax 4000) nor the new Apple designs were CHRP. Be had access to the clone style designs and supported them, but it does not have similar info for Apple's new designs.
Be wants to have a market; if that means sucking up to intel since apple user's ignore Be by-and-large, then so be it.
If they can "force" manufactures to build the somewhat updated CHRP design that no-one's built before, and if they can "force" end-users to buy the things, then you're right. It helps to have a CHRP design using the latest CPU, but the trick remains marketing it.