IBM's Processor Plans after the 970

[MacRumors]

eWeek reports (http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,1197450,00.asp) that IBM is planning to take on Sun and HP with low-end and ultra-low-end Linux servers.

The new servers will be based on the PowerPC 970 (aka GPUL internally). eWeek reports that by mid-2004, there will be a replacement processor for these servers known as GPUL2 - which is simply described as an updated version of the PowerPC 970.

The rumor-mill has dubbed a Power5 derivative chip to be known as the "980"... but no official IBM announcements have even confirmed the existance of such a project. Speculatively, the GPUL2 could represent the "980" or simply die-shrink of the 970.

[arn]

presumably, the GPUL2 will be the processor that brings us to 3GHz - since it's due in Mid-2004.

arn

[RHutch]

I just want to keep hearing about progress from IBM. I don't even want to think about the kind of stagnation that Motorola gave Apple and us.

[Brother Mugga]

I guess this is a 'yay'?

Not too sure - not really an expert.

Mind you, a friend of mine who works in servers went 'Whooo hoooooooooooo hooooooooOOOOOOOOOOO...yes...yeS...YES YES YES GIVE IT TO ME, BIG BOY!!!!'

And he's British, so, you know...that's pretty extreme...


Brother Mugga

[Freg3000]

So GPLU2 is the 970 at 90nm. Nothing really that we didn't expect. I am surprised that the 980 (although not talked about by IBM) could simply be the 970 at 90nm. I don't know much about the naming of processors, but why would a different name be given to an old product with a smaller die size?

[ennerseed]

I remember when news of updated processors came quarterly, this is sooo much better.

[jouster]

So, who gets first dibs on the 970s, if there isn't enough to go around.......Apple or IBM.

Still, it's not like there might be a shortage, er..........

[MacsRgr8]

So with IBM keeping us informed about the future..... this site should be renamed: MacNews.com :D

I feel so relieved since THE WWDC: Apple is here to stay. The future us bright.

[Sayhey]

I'm just glad Apple is teamed with a chip manufacturer that has a plan! It looks like the PowerPC has a lot of growth in its future. I don't think the folks at Moto every got over Jobs pulling the plug on the clones. They didn't seem to want to put any money in aggressively pushing chip development.

[settledown]

I just had a stupid thought...since Apple is great at the consumer level and just getting started at the low-end business server level (using Unix), and IBM is great at the mid to large sized servers and busines mainframes, (using Linux) ......does anyone think that a partnership/merger between Apple and IBM has any legs or has any business sense?

Apple continuing to make the consumer and portables, and adding user level workstations to their model list.

IBM doing what they do, but making their business servers integrate with OSX

Or do I have no idea what I am saying?

disclaimer: this is just a friday afternoon brainfart, so dont take it too heavily

[Rustus Maximus]

Originally posted by jouster
So, who gets first dibs on the 970s, if there isn't enough to go around.......Apple or IBM.

Still, it's not like there might be a shortage, er..........

I'd say this is a pretty good indicator that the 'production problems' the other article posted today alludes to, are not as severe as some were making them out (hoping them) to be. Obviously there's gonna be enough 970's to go 'round...:cool:

[MacsRgr8]

One happy family, eh settledown?

I like the idea of "keeping out of eachother's water".
I'm sure IBM doesn't want to HAVE to license M$' Windoze on every consumer PC they're making (M$ are not the gr8test friends of IBM, since OS/2).
So IBM sells the PPC 970 to Apple who will be responsible for the sales of IBM's consumer chip. No Intel, no M$.
Apple likes the idea, giving them a gr8 chip, with a pretty stable and predictable future. Apple can also play with the low-end Server market, using it's own Unix.
IBM holds the high- and middle-end Server market (Linux, or AIX)...
Or won't it work: I've probably had one too many already.....

[Abstract]

@Settledown: Its a great idea. However, I'd rather Apple have some autonomy, and they just work out a more detailed and cojoined plan to partner together instead of merge or anything drastic like that. I like Apple as a corporation, not IBM: Apple division. forums.fanhost.com/forums/graemlins/meh.gif

[ffakr]

Originally posted by Freg3000
So GPLU2 is the 970 at 90nm. Nothing really that we didn't expect. I am surprised that the 980 (although not talked about by IBM) could simply be the 970 at 90nm. I don't know much about the naming of processors, but why would a different name be given to an old product with a smaller die size?

I think the article is a bit vague in this respect. They simply said that GPUL2 will be a revision of the 970.
You _could_ say that the Power5 is a revision of the Power4... just like you could make an argument that a die shrink isn't a revision if the logic is the same.

Personally I would be surprised if IBM only delivers a die shrink to .09 micron by next summer. Fishkill was supposed to be bringing .09micron on line this past feburary.
Personally, I'd wager that we'll see a new core, an off shoot of the Power5 by next summer. I think we'll likely see a process shrink late this year with a corresponding power decrease and speed increase. This is just based off of news I've heard about Fishkill and about the progress of the Power5 (working servers running Power5, first boot up months ago...)

[settledown]

I would like apple and ibm to stay somehow separate also, but some type of partnership where IBM stays out of Apples way(no more comsumer desktops)
And Apple stays out of IBMs way(no servers)

something like, Apple xserve powered by ibm, and IBM netvista powered by Apple

not a merger but a partnership

[Jon the Heretic]

I would not be in favor of an IBM-Apple merger. While IBM has traditionally given some of its more independent-minded acquisitions a lot of lattitude (Lotus often forgets they are part of IBM, except when Variable Pay comes rolling along in the spring), it would still not be the best idea.

Apple: Right now they enjoy a lot of success from Jobs and his RDF. MacOS X still needs a lot of work before it fill the *ease of use* boots of its predecessor (yes, it stomps the traditional MacOS to dust in terms of stability and buzzword compliance, but did you expect anything less than this with ANY UNIX variant Apple might have utilized as the basis of their next OS? Stability comes without saying; ease of use is the hard part, and X has a long way to go.) Until X has successfully taken the usability crown, pray that Jobs stays at the helm. X has lots of promise, but Jobs' continual reign is a big reason some Mac users have started to defend it and its foibles as earnestly as they did the many foibles of the traditional MacOS. An IBM merger would destroy this; it would demystify Jobs at best, remove him at worse.

IBM: They don't NEED another hardware company. IBM *loses* money on PCs and struggles (all too often) with other hardware. Servers and mainframes are still profitable but IBM knows how fickle that market is---hence the big push to services. IBM just DUMPED their leading edge hardware business---best hard drives in the world but losing money. Forget it!

IBM has carved out a wonderful niche in manufacturing chips. They are delightfully mercenary and flexible when it comes to chips. IBM works on improving the fab processing, and sells it to anyone who wants to make great chips---On Demand. Bring your own chip design or buy an IBM design---whatever the heck you want. For this to succeed, IBM needs lots of chip customers and Apple looks best at the other end of the spreadsheet. The chip business for IBM has an almost servicey-twist. They don't want to sell chips per se (they have made chips for AMD among others, who DO want to sell them) but want customers to pay them to make chips for them.

Apple+IBM together: A pretty bad mix of cultures. IBM may no longer be the company of career suits (many IBMers work out of their homes. At work, they primarily go Hagar and Dockers. Execs may wear suits but then again they certainly get paid enough for the inconvenience.) Even so, IBMers aren't hippies or into the whole design boutique concept that has driven Apple sales ever since they tossed "ease of use" as their mantra.

Even Apple's most serious folk, their human factors scientists --- their User Experience people --- well, they don't live at Apple anymore. Apple has dumped the scientist (who would feel at home at IBM) for the boutiquey artist, who follows just enough of what yesteryear's Apple UI scientist came up with to fix a few of the most glaring UI issues, but only after gathering a year or two's worth of angry feedback from end users, and then figuring out how much Ease of Use to build in without sacrificing too much Cool. What drives them is COOL, and IBM doesn't get --- or gives a rat's arse -- about cool.

The two companies belong where they are---completely separate but each doing what they do best.

[Brent Turbo]

It would be terribly embarassing if IBM's PPC970 machines were much cheaper than Apple's G5s.

[MacsRgr8]

I agree with you guys...
In my "own water" post I merely stated that Apple and IBM don't compete, which is a good thing for both of them. Brothers in arms, if ya like.

I wish Apple will ALWAYS be an independant compay! And I hope that Steve or someone like Steve (his "visions") will remain the CEO.
Apple and IBM are culturally (if I can may describe them like this) so very different. IBM is THE example of a business model, Apple is THE example of creativity.

[Jon the Heretic]

Originally posted by Brent Turbo
It would be terribly embarassing if IBM's PPC970 machines were much cheaper than Apple's G5s.

Doubtful: IBM won't be building G5 PCs---they will build G5 *servers*. It is possible (but still unlikely) that IBM's G5 servers will be cheaper than Apple's G5 Xserves, but don't count on it. IBM likes to build rock solid, hardhitting servers which great reliability and performance characteristics and thus with a nice profit margin compared to commodity PCs. They won't look cool but they will do their jobs well and be well engineered.

Want cheap? Buy a crappy PC and stick Linux on it: IBM will help you do that for you too, if you wanna :)

Different topic: I wonder if an IBM G5 system will even run MacOS X out of the box? (Licensing aside...just technically, is it possible?) Many RS/6000s (PPC 601 and 604e) were running MacOS 8.x during the CHRP days, and X is more portable, not less, than MacOS 8.x was.

[ffakr]

Originally posted by Jon the Heretic
Doubtful: IBM won't be building G5 PCs---they will build G5 *servers*. It is possible (but still unlikely) that IBM's G5 servers will be cheaper than Apple's G5 Xserves, but don't count on it. IBM likes to build rock solid, hardhitting servers which great reliability and performance characteristics and thus with a nice profit margin compared to commodity PCs. They won't look cool but they will do their jobs well and be well engineered.
that looks like an accurate assessment. I just looked at their site and their dual xeon 1U servers are pretty pricey, even with no OS
Different topic: I wonder if an IBM G5 system will even run MacOS X out of the box? (Licensing aside...just technically, is it possible?) Many RS/6000s (PPC 601 and 604e) were running MacOS 8.x during the CHRP days, and X is more portable, not less, than MacOS 8.x was.
It will still lack the Apple licensed rom. It may not boot strap with OF (though it could)... it will likely have different AISCs unless IBM licenses Apple's design (which it very well could). At the very least it will likely have different components on the board for which Apple doesn't include drivers.
I don't recall any CHRP machine every running OS 8 btw. CHRP (and PReP) were kind of failures... IBM released a free design for a PPC machine and no one showed up for the party (with an OS or a product based off of it). I could be wrong, but that's how I remember it. Are you thinking of the clones as being CHRP? I don't think they were (Moto was the only one with a non Apple chipset and Apple had to OK the design.. and they still needed the proprietary ROM)

I think the big news here has been missed up till now. If IBM markets a quad processor PPC 970 server. Apple has a ready supplier for a 4 way PPC chipset!!! This would make it somewhat trivial for Apple to release a 4 way server if they want to.

[settledown]

i think some od you are missing the piont here. the fact that they ARE different cultures, is good. IBM doesnt make appealing consumer desktops because of their stuffed shirts, they should let apple do that for them. Apple doesnt make big servers well, because they are too busy being cool....they should let ibm do that for them.

the key is for ibms servers to work well with apples desktops for the business market. the windows stronghold (business workstations) would get a good run for its money from the appeal and solid osX of apples computers, but only if they have the server backoffice of good ol reliable and trustworthy, stuffed shirt IBM.

again not a merger, but let each company do what they do well, but with the other company in mind, and as a compliment

[MacsRgr8]

Originally posted by settledown
i think some od you are missing the piont here. the fact that they ARE different cultures, is good. IBM doesnt make appealing consumer desktops because of their stuffed shirts, they should let apple do that for them. Apple doesnt make big servers well, because they are too busy being cool....they should let ibm do that for them.

the key is for ibms servers to work well with apples desktops for the business market. the windows stronghold (business workstations) would get a good run for its money from the appeal and solid osX of apples computers, but only if they have the server backoffice of good ol reliable and trustworthy, stuffed shirt IBM.

again not a merger, but let each company do what they do well, but with the other company in mind, and as a compliment

exactly

[Phil Of Mac]

Heh.

Anyone here remember when IBM was the enemy? :)

[raschild]

lol

Sure do

[Jon the Heretic]

Originally posted by ffakr
I don't recall any CHRP machine every running OS 8 btw. CHRP (and PReP) were kind of failures... IBM released a free design for a PPC machine and no one showed up for the party (with an OS or a product based off of it). I could be wrong, but that's how I remember it. Are you thinking of the clones as being CHRP? I don't think they were (Moto was the only one with a non Apple chipset and Apple had to OK the design.. and they still needed the proprietary ROM)


Yes, these existed and probably still do somewhere. They weren't clones, but RS/6000s (PPC 601 or PPC 604e) which used the CHRP architecture. They could run a CHRP version of MacOS 8.x. A buddy of mine was at IBM Research and played with one of these a few years ago.

Although they did exist, running the MacOS on a multiprocessor $10,000+ RS/6000 isn't exactly cost effective, nor did the traditional MacOS make very good use of the multiple processor 604/604e systems. IBM still makes good use of the 604e, if you must know. It is a great multiprocessor chip without all of the altivec baggage they could have cared less about.

Clones: Not CHRP per se---they used Apple-designed motherboards and parts! CHRP was intended to allieve the reliance on Apple components and the need for Apple to design reference motherboards for their own Mac-cloning competitors. As far as I know, only Apple and IBM ever released anything based on CHRP (all of Apple's New World systems were heavily influenced by the CHRP design). I can't recall if the BeBox was CHRP but that is pretty moribund, may the BeOS rest in peace.

[ffakr]

Originally posted by Jon the Heretic
Yes, these existed and probably still do somewhere. They weren't clones, but RS/6000s (PPC 601 or PPC 604e) which used the CHRP architecture. They could run a CHRP version of MacOS 8.x. A buddy of mine was at IBM Research and played with one of these a few years ago.
These never made it out of IBM research then. Apple never shipped a chrp machine, and the public versions of OS 8 could never boot without Apple firmware.

Although they did exist, running the MacOS on a multiprocessor $10,000+ RS/6000 isn't exactly cost effective, nor did the traditional MacOS make very good use of the multiple processor 604/604e systems. IBM still makes good use of the 604e, if you must know. It is a great multiprocessor chip ... The Mac OS (8) actually couldn't take any advantage of a SMP system. SMP support was shimmed in with a system library that was mostly designed by Daystar systems (and licensed by Apple). The library allows aware applications to use SMP on the classic Mac OS (Photoshop for example), but the OS never took advantage of this, at least not the core of the OS.

Clones: Not CHRP per se---they used Apple-designed motherboards and parts! CHRP was intended to allieve the reliance on Apple components and the need for Apple to design reference motherboards for their own Mac-cloning competitors. As far as I know, only Apple and IBM ever released anything based on CHRP (all of Apple's New World systems were heavily influenced by the CHRP design). I can't recall if the BeBox was CHRP but that is pretty moribund, may the BeOS rest in peace. I actually can't comment on how much New World was based on CHRP. NW does use less ROM than previous systems, the bulk of the proprietary ROM was moved into the System Folder, though as far as I understand about 600k still remains in a PROM, even today.
I think it may be more fair to say that IBM designed CHRP not for Apple, but as another way to advance the uptake of the PowerPC platform. The idea was, why design your own systems when IBM will give you a reference design for free. They actually claimed that CHRP would lead to cheaper systems as the PPC was smaller than x86 processors in transistor count.
As I recall, CHRP seemed to be targeted at other potential PPC customers like Linux vendors, Amiga, maybe Be....

At least that's how I remember it... but memory is often colored isn't it?

[Abstract]

Originally posted by settledown
i think some od you are missing the piont here. the fact that they ARE different cultures, is good. IBM doesnt make appealing consumer desktops because of their stuffed shirts, they should let apple do that for them. Apple doesnt make big servers well, because they are too busy being cool....they should let ibm do that for them.

the key is for ibms servers to work well with apples desktops for the business market. the windows stronghold (business workstations) would get a good run for its money from the appeal and solid osX of apples computers, but only if they have the server backoffice of good ol reliable and trustworthy, stuffed shirt IBM.

again not a merger, but let each company do what they do well, but with the other company in mind, and as a compliment

Okay, I digress. Great idea. ;)

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by ffakr
These never made it out of IBM research then. Apple never shipped a chrp machine, and the public versions of OS 8 could never boot without Apple firmware.


The one and only CHRP system was the Motorola StarMax 6000 :)

The iMac was based largely on CHRP technology as well.

[Jon the Heretic]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
The one and only CHRP system was the Motorola StarMax 6000 :)

The iMac was based largely on CHRP technology as well.

I can't comment on the StarMax, but yes, CHRP is the foundation upon which all newer Macs since the iMac have been built ("New World"). Granted, we don't call it "CHRP" anymore, and I doubt they comply with that specification anymore, but Apple has leveraged that technology considerably.

There is a misperception that CHRP and even Copland "failed". It depends on how you defined success! They failed as "products"---without a doubt---but the underlying technology has been very successful and have been included in many Apple systems. CHRP technology has been used to make cheaper Apple-branded Macs---using cheaper components---and to reduce reliance on the classic ROM. Just because it is no longer called "CHRP" doesn't mean it hasn't been included to a significant degree in every Mac since 1997 or so... Businesses aren't quite THAT stupid to throw away perfectly good intellectual property.

Same goes for Copland. Yes, the underlying OS constructs are "real dead", things like NuKernal, etc. I doubt the NeXT crew at Apple even bothered to look to see if there was anything at the OS level to utilize. They are too entranced with the NeXT technologies to look at their Apple predecessors's ideas from before NeXT acquired Apple [sic]. But other Copland technologies have been very successful in Apple products.

The GUIs of MacOS 8 - 9 have been dramatically enhanced by inclusion of Copland UI elements, from HFS+ to Sherlock to pop-up windows, etc. Almost every new UI element since System 7.6 until (but not including) MacOS X was released was based on Copland UI design concepts. Apple *mined* that intellectual property and milked it for **years**. I have a hunch that Piles and Expose are probably Copland-era concepts, too, so new Copland-era UI concepts may be entering X directly rather than by copying of Classic features which already incorporated them.

Apple has *NO* significant UI research component, but is sitting on a mountain of great UI patents and ideas from Copland-era UI scientists who now work elsewhere. Eventually, they will run out of these old but never implemented concepts and not be able to replace them --- Apple doesn't employ real human factors scientists any longer, just boutique artists --- but fortunately the Copland legacy left them a mountain of great ideas. Pretty good for a "failure".

CHRP and Copland were the most successful "failed products" Apple ever had. The products failed but the technology, well, we've been using it for years.

[Jon the Heretic]

Originally posted by ffakr
These never made it out of IBM research then. Apple never shipped a chrp machine, and the public versions of OS 8 could never boot without Apple firmware.

Actually, no.

Because he was in research he had access to big expensive *shipping* RS/6000 systems that ran a CHRP version of MacOS 8.x. No one in his area worked on those systems, they just had access to them. They weren't dedicated Mac boxes, just a curiousity. Too expensive. He is a big Mac fan and thought it was pretty cool way back when. (He worked on things like foldable keyboards, if you must know. Remember that ThinkPad that had a keyboard which unfolded into a full length keyboard? That was an example.)

CHRP wasn't just to run the MacOS, you know, but to run a number of OSes on a common reference platform, including the MacOS. IBM delivered on this platform, though not for the express purpose of running the MacOS, it could. Apple delivered too----there were CHRP-supported builds of MacOS 8.x. I know even the shrinkwrap version of 8.x had at least some CHRP support in it but can't recall how much. I wouldn't be surprised if it could boot a CHRP machine right out of the box. (CHRP required OF support, if you recall. A hardware ROM was not required).

Amiga and BeBox: I had heard they were going CHRP, too, but don't know if they ever made it.

[granex]

Many of you may not know that IBM and NeXT once had a pretty close relationship that didn't really end up working too well. When NextStep first came around, IBM licensed it to serve as the OS on some of thier higher end workstations. Apparently this was a far bit of work, because it took some time. By the time IBM was ready to release v1.0 of their offering, NeXT released v2.0 of NextStep, and IBM decided to kill the deal. I don't exactly why NeXT didn't try to help them mature the code as they were working on it, but I assume that they didn't want the competition.

Anyway, IBM might be a little gun shy of Jobs and using the OS X on IBM hardware (don't want to be second class citizens), but I think that it would be amazing for them to port it to noncompeting highend workstations and servers. Servers might not actually make sense, but highend workstations would help Apple to continue to penetrate scientific and video production applications.

<I>Capitalization note<\I>: NeXT and NextStep exist in about ten different capitalization forms (especially the latter), so don't nitpick. I've always prefered the "NeXT" form. NEXTSTEP and NextSTEP were the worst, IMHO.

[IJ Reilly]

I put my hands on the first IBM CHRP box at MW-SF. Must have been '97. For some reason, it was not drawing a huge crowd on the floor.

Anyway, why Linux and why not Darwin?

[Phil Of Mac]

Yeah, I read that the work on CHRP reduced iMac development time remarkably. (So did building it out of PowerBook parts.)

There was also a CHRP version of Windows NT, incidentally.

[MisterMe]

Originally posted by Jon the Heretic
Actually, no.

Because he was in research he had access to big expensive *shipping* RS/6000 systems that ran a CHRP version of MacOS 8.x. No one in his area worked on those systems, they just had access to them. They weren't dedicated Mac boxes, just a curiousity. Too expensive. He is a big Mac fan and thought it was pretty cool way back when. (He worked on things like foldable keyboards, if you must know. Remember that ThinkPad that had a keyboard which unfolded into a full length keyboard? That was an example.)

CHRP wasn't just to run the MacOS, you know, but to run a number of OSes on a common reference platform, including the MacOS. IBM delivered on this platform, though not for the express purpose of running the MacOS, it could. Apple delivered too----there were CHRP-supported builds of MacOS 8.x. I know even the shrinkwrap version of 8.x had at least some CHRP support in it but can't recall how much. I wouldn't be surprised if it could boot a CHRP machine right out of the box. (CHRP required OF support, if you recall. A hardware ROM was not required).

Amiga and BeBox: I had heard they were going CHRP, too, but don't know if they ever made it. Start up your MacOS X computer in single user mode. You will find that Darwin is targeted to CHRP.

[billyboy]

Brokering deals with IBM, VW, the Big Five in the Music Industry. This makes great business sense for Apple to consolidate and grow. I wonder where Apple is heading next? A deal with Bill Gates to take over of M$´ GUI department...

[Kermit]

Originally posted by Jon the Heretic
Apple has *NO* significant UI research component, but is sitting on a mountain of great UI patents and ideas from Copland-era UI scientists who now work elsewhere. Eventually, they will run out of these old but never implemented concepts and not be able to replace them --- Apple doesn't employ real human factors scientists any longer, just boutique artists --- but fortunately the Copland legacy left them a mountain of great ideas. Pretty good for a "failure"

If this is true then I am a little worried. Why would Apple not put some of all that cash-reserve they have on some possible revolutionary UI research? The Macs selling point in my mind is its ease-of-use, and good UI design is the very essence of that concept. I read somewhere that Apple had disbanded their Human Interface Group a while back and that that is the reason why Mac OS X and Apples other software suffers from UI inconsistencies. Could all this really be true and if so could someone please try to explain to me what the plan is behind all this. Also if someone could point me in the direction of more articles to read on the subject I would be very thankful.