PDA

View Full Version : IBM claims cold chips possible


MacBytes
Jul 1, 2005, 11:59 PM
http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: 3rd Party Hardware
Link: IBM claims cold chips possible (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20050702005924)

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Mudbug

quagmire
Jul 2, 2005, 12:41 AM
I believe their was a bigger reason for the switch then heat. Jobs just used it to justify the move. I think it had to do with supplying the chips. If was was efficiency they were looking for, AMD would have been a better solution. I still think we should of given IBM more time with the PPC 970 like we did with the PPC G4 family with Moto. We give 2 years to IBM and close to 6-7 years for Moto to get their act straight( which they haven't) with the G4. I see Apple didn't give IBM much of a chance with the chip. That reason was because of the PPC 970FX supply shortages. I am hoping Apple put a clause in the Intel deal they can cancel it anytime they want just in case IBM or Freescale( slim chance) has something very good on the table. I don't know if IBM knows the full details of the Apple-Intel contract, but I feel this is telling apple they were working on a Pentium M killer for the Powerbooks and ibooks. As with disproving apple stretched the truth.

freiheit
Jul 2, 2005, 01:17 AM
I don't think Apple wanted to relive the G4 issues, and with the G5 not scaling well beyond 2.5GHz and no roadmap toward a "G6" -- and Freescale still peddling G4's in 2005 -- Apple had no guarantee of any future designs. A 2GHz G4 is not an upgrade from a 2.7GHz G5, leaving only IBM as a supplier for future PowerPC chips in the Mac.

Intel's chips may pale in comparison on a clock-for-clock basis to the G5 but at least with Intel you know there's going to be a future processor and one after that and another after that; if not from Intel, then from AMD. IBM/Freescale could not (at least not in any public announcements) guarantee Apple that kind of future.

Darwin
Jul 2, 2005, 03:52 AM
I agree with freiheit, Apple started to experience déjà vu and from the 5 years of work with OS X they expected it to happen sooner or later

it's all very well IBM saying they could do something, there was no real progress for those two years, only a 700Mhz boast and even that hasn't been done properly

I think the supply is one of the major issues for the switch, they weren't making enough chips to meet demand and that delayed products in the process

Jobs said that they were looking at the roadmaps, well IBM's kinda went out the window when the whole 90nm crashed and then everything kinda slowed down from there

Hopefully IBM will get its act together and Apple will go back to the PowerPC in the future, that is if something bad happens again

hob
Jul 2, 2005, 05:57 AM
IBM are starting to sound like one of those abusive husbands... Slap their wives (Apple) about a bit, and then when they complain be totally surprised and say you'll change...

(That's page 6 of the wive-abuse manual by the way... :p )

SiliconAddict
Jul 2, 2005, 09:19 AM
I believe their was a bigger reason for the switch then heat. Jobs just used it to justify the move. I think it had to do with supplying the chips. If was was efficiency they were looking for, AMD would have been a better solution. I still think we should of given IBM more time with the PPC 970 like we did with the PPC G4 family with Moto. We give 2 years to IBM and close to 6-7 years for Moto to get their act straight( which they haven't) with the G4.

I disagree. The main reason why Apple chose NOW to make this transition is because Microsoft has never been as vulnerable as they are now. Now stop drooling folks. Its not the end of MS. :rolleyes:

This was the perfect time to make a transition because MS isn't in their best form right now. They are weakened by:
1. Throwing so many resources at Longshot.
2. Having to deal with security patch after security patch.
3. Having to stop everything they are doing for XP SP2.

If Apple gave IBM another 18 months Longshot would be out. As it stand Apple is going to take a hit from this transition and will be weakened by this in the short run but as long as Apple AND MS are weak it means no one has an advantage. If Apple made this transition 18 months from now Longhorn would be out along with all new hardware to support it tempting some to return to Windows.
This was the right choice at the right time. MS won't have (Barring some miracle) Longshot out for another 15 or so months. Where will Apple be at that point? Mac Minis, PowerBooks, iBooks, and if we are lucky iMacs will be converted over. Leaving just the PowerMac. In fact 15 months from now we might be seeing the second rev of the Macintel PowerBook with dual core 64-bit Pentium M's. They aren't going to be in a perfect position to fight longshot but its going to be a better one then if they waited until AFTER MS released longshot.
(Note that I didn't comment on what massive technical glitches that may occur with longshot. If Mac users get a gift of there being moderate to major problems with longshot that get publicized by the local media it could expand Apple’s window of opportunity further.)

SiliconAddict
Jul 2, 2005, 09:22 AM
IBM are starting to sound like one of those abusive husbands... Slap their wives (Apple) about a bit, and then when they complain be totally surprised and say you'll change...

(That's page 6 of the wive-abuse manual by the way... :p )

Yah well in this case Apple or the house wife put her foot way up her husband's rear shooting for a field goal that is Intel. I just think IBM is soar because their nicked the field goal polls.

iGary
Jul 2, 2005, 09:41 AM
As long as we don't have to live by Intel's stupid processor names, I'm starting to realize this switch is a good thing.

Sun Baked
Jul 2, 2005, 10:19 AM
As long as we don't have to live by Intel's stupid processor names, I'm starting to realize this switch is a good thing.All depends on how much "marketing support" Apple wants.

But the economics of Intel are generally in Intel's favor.

Apple will go from paying $10s of millions of dollars to Freescale and IBM to expidite whatever technology needed in order to use their chips ...

to Intel paying Apple $10s of millions of dollars to use their weasel words in the marketing campaign.

---

Sure the "colder" chips are possible, but IBM keeps failing to tell the public how much Apple will have to pay to get them.

Which is the opposite of Intel, as a top tier customer Apple will probably get the newest and best quite quick -- and be paid quite a bit to market the hell out of Intel's latest and greatest technologies.

IBM's "newest technologies" are an endless money sink... :rolleyes:

nagromme
Jul 2, 2005, 10:34 AM
With enough money, Garden Weasel could make cold G5 chips.

The question is, how much more would Macs cost with Apple footing the R&D bill to make up for the manufacturer's shortcomings?

Apple had a 5-year-old "secret escape plan." They used it.

milzay
Jul 2, 2005, 11:53 AM
Too little, too late... on a consistent basis.

dontmatter
Jul 2, 2005, 12:38 PM
details:

"nothing about the POWER PC ARCHITECTURE prohibits cool chips"

True, true. Just the manufactures making PowerPC chips. No?

dontmatter
Jul 2, 2005, 12:42 PM
I believe their was a bigger reason for the switch then heat. Jobs just used it to justify the move. I think it had to do with supplying the chips. If was was efficiency they were looking for, AMD would have been a better solution. I still think we should of given IBM more time with the PPC 970 like we did with the PPC G4 family with Moto. We give 2 years to IBM and close to 6-7 years for Moto to get their act straight( which they haven't) with the G4. I see Apple didn't give IBM much of a chance with the chip. That reason was because of the PPC 970FX supply shortages. I am hoping Apple put a clause in the Intel deal they can cancel it anytime they want just in case IBM or Freescale( slim chance) has something very good on the table. I don't know if IBM knows the full details of the Apple-Intel contract, but I feel this is telling apple they were working on a Pentium M killer for the Powerbooks and ibooks. As with disproving apple stretched the truth.

Clearly inconsistant supply didn't help IBM. But... why should we have given IBM more time, like moto? It sure didn't do much, in moto's case, did it? apple shouldn't need to bet on another company's getting their act together to allow them to stay competitive, and having lost market share and goodwill from doing that with one company, apple learned from it's mistakes, and wasn't going to let IBM screw them.

shamino
Jul 2, 2005, 01:49 PM
As long as we don't have to live by Intel's stupid processor names...
What names? Pentium-M? Xeon?

The names you hear so much (Yonah, etc.) are internal project code-names. And IBM has them too (remember "Antares"?)

When the chip finally ships, it will have a far more mundane name (like "Pentium-M dual-code with Hyperthreading").

shamino
Jul 2, 2005, 01:53 PM
IBM has been going on and on about how they could make a fast PPC, and how they could make a cool PPC, and how the architecture doesn't prevent development of any such chip.

That's all well and good, but the fact is that IBM is not making any such chips, and they aren't showing any desire to make them. The fact that their architecture could theoretically permit them is meaningless if nobody plans on actually building them.

24C
Jul 2, 2005, 02:17 PM
Interestingly IBM seem to being the biggest bleaters at the moment. Apple are a small market share company that 'distorts' the truth, and IBM are dropping press releases like confetti.

The most interesting about the Intel move is we should get chips that get faster on a regular basis, which is what the market/consumers expect. There should be less confusion in the processor department when consumers come to buy new hardware and most importantly...you think you need to run Windows...well Apple aren't going to stop you and I doubt M$ will either :cool:

shamino
Jul 4, 2005, 10:52 AM
... and most importantly...you think you need to run Windows...well Apple aren't going to stop you and I doubt M$ will either :cool:
Until people find out how inconvenient dual-booting really is.

Having to quit all apps and restart whenever you switch OS's is really inconvenient. If you have to do it a lot, you'll end up settling on one OS and ignoring the other.

The alternatives (Virtual PC or a second computer sharing I/O via a KVM switch) are far more attractive, even given the additional price if you actually need to use both operating systems.

While I'm sure somebody (maybe even Microsoft) will port Windows to the MacTel boxes, I don't think you'll find a lot of people buying them for use in that capacity. As dual-boot machines, it will be too inconvenient, and as a Windows-only box, you'll almost certainly get a better price and better support from a different vendor.

VanMac
Jul 4, 2005, 03:33 PM
IBM is very good at marketing/communications.

Poor on implementation and delivery.

Always gauge what they say based on the facts. Fact is they did no deliver.

xrayzed
Jul 4, 2005, 10:12 PM
IBM has been going on and on about how they could make a fast PPC, and how they could make a cool PPC, and how the architecture doesn't prevent development of any such chip.

That's all well and good, but the fact is that IBM is not making any such chips, and they aren't showing any desire to make them. The fact that their architecture could theoretically permit them is meaningless if nobody plans on actually building them.
Agreed. If it was actually such a trivial issue then it begs the question why the chips haven't been delivered.

Sun Baked
Jul 4, 2005, 10:22 PM
Agreed. If it was actually such a trivial issue then it begs the question why the chips haven't been delivered.For the same reason crap flavored cola isn't yielding a bunch of spinoff products like clear, cherry, 1 calorie, etc.

Because the market is too small to waste time on developing new products for it.

xrayzed
Jul 5, 2005, 09:48 PM
For the same reason crap flavored cola isn't yielding a bunch of spinoff products like clear, cherry, 1 calorie, etc.

Because the market is too small to waste time on developing new products for it.That doesn't appear to be IBM's position. From the article:

"... IBM claims that it could build PowerPC processors that meet Apple's desktop and notebook needs...

...IBM and Apple are still working together on a "number of products".

Now I suppose that IBM may be distinguishing between what they are technically capable of and what they are prepared to commercially commit to, but the IBM response neither states nor implies that. Indeed the reference to working together on a number of products implies the opposite.

Sun Baked
Jul 5, 2005, 10:08 PM
Now I suppose that IBM may be distinguishing between what they are technically capable of and what they are prepared to commercially commit to, but the IBM response neither states nor implies that. Indeed the reference to working together on a number of products implies the opposite.You really think that IBM is going to deliver the next genration of a crap** flavored product?

Or offer to switch Apple to a new flavor, which happens to be Cell.

The PPC970GX/MP may still arrive, but this branch of the roadmap has a dead end sign on it.

IBM will switch people to Power or Cell.

---

Chances are that the Power5-UL would have worked in the PowerBook, but we will never know, and likely never see it.

Sure IBM was perfectly willing to deliver the chips if Apple pays for their development.

** -- Lot's of companies tried it, signed up with IBM and ran screaming the other way when the aftertaste hit and they found out what this chip takes to work.

It's a great chip, but a PIA to work with -- a bad combo when the knowledge/technical base for embedded chips is rather cheap and easy to work with.

xrayzed
Jul 6, 2005, 05:47 AM
You really think that IBM is going to deliver the next genration of a crap** flavored product?
What I think is that IBM claimed that they could deliver "PowerPC processors that meet Apple's desktop and notebook needs", and to date they haven't done so.

I haven't expressed an opinion on how IBM would have/could have/should have delivered, because frankly I don't care.

shamino
Jul 6, 2005, 11:07 AM
Agreed. If it was actually such a trivial issue then it begs the question why the chips haven't been delivered.
That's simple. They don't want to.

They made a business decison and concluded that they don't make enough money making chips to Apple's specs. So they told Apple to pay more for the chips (probably a lot more, since IBM used the term "invest").

When Apple refused the deal, IBM probably said "then you don't get your new chips." At which point, Steve said "fine, we'll start making Macs with Intel's chips, have fun with Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft."