IBM on Apple/Intel and the G5

[MacRumors]

On September 11, IBM published a story on their intranet promoting their Technology Group and their relationship to Apple with regard to the PowerPC 970. This story has been made available to MacRumors.

The item offers some unique insight into Apple, and their relationship with IBM as well as Apple's thoughts on the alternative.

Of particular interest are some comments on Apple's situation and decision to use IBM's PowerPC 970 processor. According to the report, amidst the speculation that Apple would move to an Intel-based processor, Apple felt the transition would be too difficult:

While Intel is aggressive in achieving its performance and speed goals, Apple believed that using Intel would deeply affect its current customer base. Using an Intel architecture might solve Apple's short-term megahertz dilemma, but customers would have to suffer through a slow transition from PowerPC over the long term. Every existing Mac program would potentially have to be recompiled to work on an Intel platform. These massive software changes were something that Apple wanted to avoid, and IBM had the solution."

IBM's Technology Group took on the task for Apple and developed the PowerPC 970 in a 12-18 month timeframe. Beyond the PowerPC 970, IBM is committed to a long-term technology roadmap. According to the report: "IBM has committed to provide several generations of processor development to Apple over the course of five years."

[spinner]

Perhaps this will finally put all of that Marklar crap to rest once and for all. Its nice to have a plan b, but intel based Macs are not going to happen.

[Doraemon]

WOW.

So there was a plan to switch to Intel processors.

I mean, it made sense that Apple considered the options, but I sort of doubted that they would seriously consider moving to Intel CPUs.
Fortunately, "IBM had the sollution"!

:)

[Powerbook G5]

I personally believe that IBM is a much more developed and technologically crucial player in the industry than Intel, anyway. I seriously cannot think of any other processor company out there with as much R&D and resources capable of giving Apple the kind of options that IBM can.

[Mudbug]

wow - so they did think it through...

Interesting to note the 5 year timeframe - that's good news for the solidity of the PowerPC architechture for Apple, and should dispell the rumors of Apple on Intel for a while at least.

[whooleytoo]

Every existing Mac program would potentially have to be recompiled to work on an Intel platform.

This bit's odd. A re-compile would be the best case scenario; most software would have to be, partially to entirely rewritten, depending on whether it was Carbon or Cocoa etc.

Mike.

[deepkid]

would be interesting to read...

[suzerain]

...nice to finally see the obvious pointed out like that. All the 'switch to Intel' idiots fueled the fire so much that this became a story, when any sane Mac watcher knew moving to Intel was pretty much out of the question.

[cc bcc]

On September 11, IBM published a story on their intranet promoting their Technology Group and their relationship to Apple with regard to the PowerPC 970. This story has been made available to MacRumors.
The item offers some unique insight into Apple, and their relationship with IBM as well as Apple's thoughts on the alternative.

Can you post the full article or is this all?

[Makosuke]

Assuming that is accurate, I guess it answers once and for all the debate over exactly how easy a PowerPC to x86 transition would be, and it sounds like the doubters were right this time.

[daveL]

Originally posted by whooleytoo
This bit's odd. A re-compile would be the best case scenario; most software would have to be, partially to entirely rewritten, depending on whether it was Carbon or Cocoa etc.

Mike.
Why? Just because you go to a different CPU doesn't mean you have to throw your frameworks out and start over. Apple would have (and actually did) gotten OS X and the UI framewaorks re-compiled and running on Intel. At that point, the same APIs would be available for Mac applications, which would also, obviously, be re-compiled. That's not to say there wouldn't have been some other changes involved, but certainly not an application rewrite.

Sun's code base for Solaris on Intel is identical to the Sparc code base, except at the drive/HW layer. Getting a GNU app running on both CPUs under Solaris *is* simply a re-compile.

None of this is to say that I think Apple should have gone down that road, because I absolutely think staying with PPC is the right way to go, especially now that IBM is on the scene.

[MadMan]

With Moto failing to deliver on desperately needed improvements and speed ramps, it's no wonder Apple looked for alternatives. They (Apple) were getting their clocks cleaned performance wise and regardless of the "Mhz Myth" , there was no or very little movement in speed increases for Apple.

So I can see why they looked at Intel.

AND, if IBM hadn't been able (or willing) to do the 970 and future families of chips, I'd bet we might have seen a much different "G5" chip (Intel, not IBM). Because at this point, Moto is basically out of the high-end chip business.

What would our world look like then?

I'm just glad there was an IBM there, willing to do so:)

Long live the PowerPC!!

:cool:

MM

[Thirteenva]

Originally posted by daveL
Why? Just because you go to a different CPU doesn't mean you have to throw your frameworks out and start over. Apple would have (and actually did) gotten OS X and the UI framewaorks re-compiled and running on Intel. At that point, the same APIs would be available for Mac applications, which would also, obviously, be re-compiled. That's not to say there wouldn't have been some other changes involved, but certainly not an application rewrite.


I'd be careful saying with much certainty that OS X and its UI frameworks are fully functioning on an intel box. There are reports of a marklar project, yes. And even assuming this to be true, we do not know that it took a simple recompile. If apple says the transition to intel is not worth it, i trust that they've tested the possibility fairly thoroughly.

[freundt]

one thing to remember:

Motorolla also had a 5 year plan with the G series.... and look what heppened to it.

But then, Motorolla is not IBM.

_F

[magitekkn]

I, for one, welcome our new Big Blue overlords.

[DeusOmnis]

IBM and Apple are very similar in the way they treat R&D. Also, IBM takes pride in being able to create excellent solutions for clients. They know their name is on the processors and the success of Apple hardware will directly reflect on them. IBM will not blow off Apple, they are as concerned about the outlook of Apple as Apple is.

Intel is not Apple's *enemy*, they are just hardware makers. If Apple moved to Intel hardware it wouldnt be traitorous or anything, it would just be a good solution to Apple's hardware issues. Apple will get more attention from IBM than they would have from Intel, and IBM will create better solutions for them. Also, I think IBM may actually beat out Intel in those next 5 years as far as technology since Intel's business strategy is more short-term than long-term.

The next few years are going to be very exciting for mac users everywhere.

[JoeRadar]

Originally posted by Doraemon
So there was a plan to switch to Intel processors.
Of course. As we can all see now, especially wrt to the powerbook problems, Motorola has really dropped the ball. If IBM was not there to rescue Apple, Apple would be hard pressed right now not to switch to Intel (or AMD).

I think Apple could introduce an Intel-based system in a stealth mode (e.g., only for educational purchases, no advertising), and then after about 2 years most developers would have compiled applications for both hardware platforms. Remember -- switching from OS 9 to OS X was probably more difficult than staying with OS X and switching CPUs.

However, with the re-emergence of UNIX (Linux) apps (which the Mac can run, with a recompile :)), the release of the G5, the positive press from VaTech supercomputer, and IBM's POWER 5 waiting in the wings, I think there is much less pressure for Apple to devote many resources to an Intel-based system.

Apple is in a sweet spot in the development cycle right now, and it would be foolish to confuse the consumer by introducing a different architecture.

Thank goodness for IBM.

[DeusOmnis]

BTW, it would be cool to dual-boot w/ windows though.

[tduality]

Originally posted by freundt
one thing to remember:

Motorolla also had a 5 year plan with the G series.... and look what heppened to it.

But then, Motorolla is not IBM.

_F

Most likely any company in hitech business has (or should have) a long term roadmap. It's just that there's hope that IBM once committed to something will do what it can to deliver.

[MadMan]

Thank goodness for IBM.

I just thought of something...

Now I can root for my favorite football team (American Football, that is) and my NEW favorite CPU manufacturer all in the same line:

Let's go BIG BLUE!

:cool:

MM

PS: FYI - That's the NY (Football) Giants, just in case you were wondering ;)

[whooleytoo]

Originally posted by daveL
Why? Just because you go to a different CPU doesn't mean you have to throw your frameworks out and start over. Apple would have (and actually did) gotten OS X and the UI framewaorks re-compiled and running on Intel. At that point, the same APIs would be available for Mac applications, which would also, obviously, be re-compiled. That's not to say there wouldn't have been some other changes involved, but certainly not an application rewrite.

It depends entirely on the app, and how abstracted from the hardware it is. Could you emulate an AltiVec unit using SSE2? As I understand it, SSE2 and the FPU can't be used simultaneously, whereas the PowerPC FPU and Altivec can, how would you get around this?

I'd expect that performance critical apps (such as games) would require substantial re-writes, since any optimizations for Mac hardware would no longer be valid.

I'd imagine many Cocoa apps would be close to just a straight recompile, but I wouldn't be so sure about Carbon apps.

Mike.

[mmontano]

Originally posted by JoeRadar

I think Apple could introduce an Intel-based system in a stealth mode (e.g., only for educational purchases, no advertising), and then after about 2 years most developers would have compiled applications for both hardware platforms. Remember -- switching from OS 9 to OS X was probably more difficult than staying with OS X and switching CPUs.

Apple is in a sweet spot in the development cycle right now, and it would be foolish to confuse the consumer by introducing a different architecture.

Thank goodness for IBM.

Apple/NeXT/IBM has gone through the changes numerous times. Funnily enough, Microsoft is about the one who hasn't.

I used to run like many others, the pre-cursor to the Cocoa side of Mac OS X on Intel/HP-Risc and Motorola 68040. It was called NeXTStep.

NeXT even had many parts of the predecessor to Cocoa frameworks running under Windows NT of all things!

Apple and NeXT learned their lesson many years ago; as a result, the OS has essentially been divorced from the hardware for a long-time.

It just happens, as the article noted, that at this time the IBM 970 offers the best hardware proposition.

Matthew

[DakotaGuy]

Well some x86 fans will be upset by this news, but it looks like PowerPC is here to stay.

[daveL]

Originally posted by Thirteenva
I'd be careful saying with much certainty that OS X and its UI frameworks are fully functioning on an intel box. There are reports of a marklar project, yes. And even assuming this to be true, we do not know that it took a simple recompile. If apple says the transition to intel is not worth it, i trust that they've tested the possibility fairly thoroughly.
Whatever. I didn't say OS X on Intel was a simply re-compile, I said there was no reason applications would be much more than a re-compile. Obviously, the OS has to deal with all the underlying hardware differences, which extend beyond just the differences in CPUs.

OS X is based on the Mach micro kernel and FreeBSD, both of which already run on Intel. FreeBSD, in fact, has a reputation for being very easy to port to new hardware due to its clean hardware abstraction layer.

Even with all this said, it's still a big deal to tell all your developers, who just went through the 68k to PPC transition several years ago, that they have to move (which includes testing and distribution, not just re-compiling) their apps to yet another hardware platform. Not to mention, for some lengthy period of time, they would have to maintain PPC and Intel versions.

[sedarby]

Originally posted by daveL
Whatever. I didn't say OS X on Intel was a simply re-compile, I said there was no reason applications would be much more than a re-compile. Obviously, the OS has to deal with all the underlying hardware differences, which extend beyond just the differences in CPUs.

OS X is based on the Mach micro kernel and FreeBSD, both of which already run on Intel. FreeBSD, in fact, has a reputation for being very easy to port to new hardware due to its clean hardware abstraction layer.

Even with all this said, it's still a big deal to tell all your developers, who just went through the 68k to PPC transition several years ago, that they have to move (which includes testing and distribution, not just re-compiling) their apps to yet another hardware platform. Not to mention, for some lengthy period of time, they would have to maintain PPC and Intel versions.

Not to mention the PR nightmare of embracing Intel who they showed in an earlier ad campaign to be slow and cumbersome.
Intel would have to be a last resort. I'm not sure how fond Steve Jobs is of eating crow.

Granted the chip used could quite possibly not be a Pentium 4 but a PowerPC compatible with enhancements thereby alienating the MS loving faction.

[bluedalmatian]

On a related note, it would be a major boost to Apple in the enterprise market it IBM started to move their staffs desktops & laptops over to Macs.

I know IBM makes their own PCs but they dont really make that much from them, the bulk of their revenue comes from their high end servers, supercomputers, software & of course microprocessor division, so I would suggest IBM could benefit more by using G5 based Macs than by using their own PCs.

If the IT director of a major corporation like IBM was to stand up and say 'we drastically lowered our IT operating expenses and boosted productivity by switching over to Macs' it could kickstart something big.

I can't help feeling IBM is perhaps one of the most likeley enterprises to do this?

[sedarby]

Originally posted by DeusOmnis
BTW, it would be cool to dual-boot w/ windows though.

You know just because the processor would have been from Intel does not mean it would be a Pentium 4 or some derivative. It could quite possibly be a new processor fabricated by Intel but all odds point to the fact that they probably were considering the Pentium 4. I believe a machine from Apple that would boot both OS's would be death to further development on the Apple side, but that's just me. ;)

[cubist]

Originally posted by tduality
Most likely any company in hitech business has (or should have) a long term roadmap. ...

Speaking of roadmaps, if we are not going to see the full article, Arn, can you see if it says anything about 3GHz parts?

[Frobozz]

Will everyone that shouted for Intel on Mac finally put it to rest now?

:-)

[elvisizer]

Originally posted by magitekkn
I, for one, welcome our new Big Blue overlords.

That is one of my favorite simpsons EVER!!! especially that particular line . . . The graphic that they pop up behind Kent is great, too- a huge ant applying a bullwhip to some hapless human slaves. Priceless!!!!! And all because homer wanted some potato chips . . . ."Careful!! they're ruffled!!"

elvisizer

[Frobozz]

Originally posted by MadMan
With Moto failing to deliver on desperately needed improvements and speed ramps, it's no wonder Apple looked for alternatives. They (Apple) were getting their clocks cleaned performance wise and regardless of the "Mhz Myth" , there was no or very little movement in speed increases for Apple.

So I can see why they looked at Intel.

AND, if IBM hadn't been able (or willing) to do the 970 and future families of chips, I'd bet we might have seen a much different "G5" chip (Intel, not IBM). Because at this point, Moto is basically out of the high-end chip business.

What would our world look like then?

I'm just glad there was an IBM there, willing to do so:)

Long live the PowerPC!!

:cool:

MM

I agree 100%. Of course it makes sense for Apple to look at all alternatives. We're all very lucky that IBM got involved and that we ended up with PowerPC. The roadmap lokos healthy and fruitful for the first time in 3 or 4 years.

[TMay]

I recall that NEXT was in line to use Motorola's 88000 RISC processor (as was Ford for an imbedded version), but that processor died when the three (IBM, Apple, Motorola) created the PPC, which was, at the time, a single chip version of the POWER Processor. Motorola at that time was top notch in microcontrollers and microprocessors, and did an amazing job of putting the POWER instruction set on the single chip.

Whatever happened to Motorola since the intro of the G4, everybody should at least note that there was quite a long period of time in the 80's and 90's when Motorola was king of the hill in performance. I can only hope that the rumors of an additional PPC partner coming on board are actually are true. Intel/AMD could use a little more competition.

[iPC]

Originally posted by magitekkn
I, for one, welcome our new Big Blue overlords.
This is not slashdot.

Although it was funny to see here.

I am still anxiously awaiting my overlord - Marklar.

:cool:

[crees!]

Originally posted by MadMan
American Football, that is

Good band too ;)

[MadMan]

Originally posted by TMay
I recall that NEXT was in line to use Motorola's 88000 RISC processor (as was Ford for an imbedded version), but that processor died when the three (IBM, Apple, Motorola) created the PPC, which was, at the time, a single chip version of the POWER Processor. Motorola at that time was top notch in microcontrollers and microprocessors, and did an amazing job of putting the POWER instruction set on the single chip.

Whatever happened to Motorola since the intro of the G4, everybody should at least note that there was quite a long period of time in the 80's and 90's when Motorola was king of the hill in performance. I can only hope that the rumors of an additional PPC partner coming on board are actually are true. Intel/AMD could use a little more competition.

IIRC, NeXT was also waiting on Moto to release the 68040 for their Cube. I think they actually released a brief version of their Cube with a 68030 while waiting for Moto to release the 68040. (Please correct me if I'm wrong).

But then they stalled. The 68060 was supposed to be the next CPU for the Mac, but got delayed so long, Moto HAD to team up with Apple and IBM to create the PPC or lose Apple's business altogether.

I remember this was also about the time cell phones, at least the big luggable ones, started taking off. I think Moto lost it's focus on desktop CPU's when it saw other, perhaps more lucrative markets develop.

So while they were KOTH for a long time, Moto's inability (or more than likely, no desire) to really drive performance cost them huge. When the drive to 500 mhz stalled and then being stuck there for over a year hit home, Apple really had no choice but to look at all of the options.

Just like they did when it became apparent Copeland had failed.

So while I'll give them credit where due, I'll also give credit to Apple for looking at it's options.

Luckily for us OS X was choosen and now IBM and it's 970 for the G5.

:cool:

MM

[mmontano]

Originally posted by TMay
I recall that NEXT was in line to use Motorola's 88000 RISC processor (as was Ford for an imbedded version), but that processor died when the three (IBM, Apple, Motorola) created the PPC, which was, at the time, a single chip version of the POWER Processor. Motorola at that time was top notch in microcontrollers and microprocessors, and did an amazing job of putting the POWER instruction set on the single chip..

I remember the promise of the 88000 very well. Prototype boards running it were shown by Apple and NeXT I believe.

But IBM's Power architecture was nicely refined and Motorola was permitted to build and enhance it -> becoming the PowerPC.

[chadfromdallas]

Originally posted by bluedalmatian
I know IBM makes their own PCs but they dont really make that much from them




Sorry, I just busted up laughing when I read this.....lol Yea, IBM doesn't make much from them. :rolleyes:

[tazznb]

"According to the report: "IBM has committed to provide several generations of processor development to Apple over the course of five years."

Gee, that's more towards Apple chips than Moto put out in 15 years!:eek:

[MacsRgr8]

I like reading stuff like this.
12-18 months.... So way back in January 2002 (introduction Flat Panel iMac :) ), Steve probably knew by what his "next generation" PowerMacs would be powered.... cool :cool:

BTW, the rumorboards were correct a long, long time ago too.;)

[cliffm]

Originally posted by chadfromdallas
Sorry, I just busted up laughing when I read this.....lol Yea, IBM doesn't make much from them. :rolleyes:

True, our renderfarm consists of 500 IBM X333 Xeon machines.

No complaints about them here.

[daveL]

Originally posted by mmontano
I remember the promise of the 88000 very well. Prototype boards running it were shown by Apple and NeXT I believe.

But IBM's Power architecture was nicely refined and Motorola was permitted to build and enhance it -> becoming the PowerPC.
Data General produced an entire line of Unix machines based on the 88k. Aviion was the product name, if memory servers me. They were quite nice, at the time (1992/3).

[Rincewind42]

Originally posted by whooley
I'd imagine many Cocoa apps would be close to just a straight recompile, but I wouldn't be so sure about Carbon apps.

Carbon apps and Cocoa apps are the same as far as porting goes. The framework comes along, the developer code gets revised. There is no reason to think that Carbon apps couldn't be ported to any architecture in the same amount of time that Cocoa apps could be. To say otherwise is to say that the trip from Orlando to Oakland is longer because you take American Airlines instead of Delta :D

[Loopy]

In five years time will I have to buy a Windoze PC, Just to "think different" from the rest of the world.


Still wating for my G52G

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by whooleytoo
This bit's odd. A re-compile would be the best case scenario; most software would have to be, partially to entirely rewritten, depending on whether it was Carbon or Cocoa etc.

Mike.

I assume the "better-case scenario" would have been Apple supplying a PPC emulator for Intel on which less performance-critical apps could run in the transition.

[ewinemiller]

Originally posted by whooley
It depends entirely on the app, and how abstracted from the hardware it is. Could you emulate an AltiVec unit using SSE2? As I understand it, SSE2 and the FPU can't be used simultaneously, whereas the PowerPC FPU and Altivec can, how would you get around this?

SSE1 or 2 can coexist with floating point. In the original MMX (integer only stuff) Intel reused the floating point registers, but the SSE stuff has it's own. Having written a little SSE and Altivec, they are not really very different. Altivec was a little easier because it has more registers to play with and for the task I was doing had an instruction that did a mutiply and accumulate whereas I had to do two seperate instructions in SSE. In the end the performance boost was similar between the two. I haven't explored SSE2 to be able to comment on that, but I didn't see anything between SSE and Altivec that a compiler couldn't do a little shuffling to compile one set of typed instructions into a different set of CPU instructions.

I'm not saying Intel is the way to go, but if Apple had wanted to do it, they could make it so that it was a recompile no matter what the language or underlying API (carbon or cocoa) used by the application. It's just a matter of building the compiler and porting the libraries. MS compiled NT for Power PC, Alpha, Mips and Intel. Win32 applications could be compiled for any platform usually with a minimal amount of tweaking.

[JoeRadar]

Originally posted by chadfromdallas
Sorry, I just busted up laughing when I read this.....lol Yea, IBM doesn't make much from them. :rolleyes:
I believe IBM's PC division frequently loses money. For example, for the quarter ending March 31, 2003 that division had a loss of $69 million on $2.4 billion in revenue. For the quarter ending June 30, IBM lost $8 million on $2.7 billion in revenue.

When Steve Jobs says only Apple and Dell are making money in the personal computer business, he isn't kidding.

[themadchemist]

I look forward to the day when we a full transition to IBM processors has been made...No more MOTO!!!

On the other day, I believe that the negatives of Intel processors are definitely real...That report shows that both Apple and IBM realize that the x86 architecture is going to hit a brick wall, soon, what with that mention of solving the megahertz dilemma SHORT-TERM.

I never want to see us using Intel chips, unless Intel chips get a major overhaul. The entire philosophy at Intel is wrong. Everything is about megahertz, at the cost of efficiency, power consumption, and even performance.

The PowerPC architecture is like a well-thought-out, masterfully crafted luxury car. The x86 architecture is like a car that started out well, but is showing its age...Now the car has new doors, a new roof, a new trunk cover, and they're all a different color. It's a sloppy mess, and though each new part adds to the performance, it detracts from the efficiency.

[fourthtunz]

Originally posted by Loopy
In five years time will I have to buy a Windoze PC, Just to "think different" from the rest of the world.


Still wating for my G52G

Yea, I bought a windoz machine I'm thinkin it ain't gonna happen again:rolleyes:
daniel

[Somebody]

Originally posted by whooley
It depends entirely on the app, and how abstracted from the hardware it is. Could you emulate an AltiVec unit using SSE2? As I understand it, SSE2 and the FPU can't be used simultaneously, whereas the PowerPC FPU and Altivec can, how would you get around this?

I'd expect that performance critical apps (such as games) would require substantial re-writes, since any optimizations for Mac hardware would no longer be valid.



For one thing, even in performance critical apps, the truly performance critical pieces are generally pretty small; Porting these components from AltiVect to SSE2 would be, while nontrivial, not anywhere near the biggest problem a port would face.

For another, you should consider that many performance critical apps exist in both PPC and x86 versions (e.g. Photoshop). And most of the games on the Mac started out as x86 code, and were ported to the PPC later. Either way, the vendors likely already have good x86 code for the parts where speed matters.

The AltiVec/SSE2 problems aren't trivial, but I don't think they're very big compared to many of the others that could come up if Apple moved to x86.

[plinkoman]

Originally posted by whooleytoo
This bit's odd. A re-compile would be the best case scenario; most software would have to be, partially to entirely rewritten, depending on whether it was Carbon or Cocoa etc.

Mike.

why would you say that? a switch to intel would not mean a swith to x86, it would just mean that intel would make a ppc. this has nothing to do with marklar either, marklar is to run on x86, an intel chip in an apple would be a ppc

[mmmbop]

Originally posted by Loopy
In five years time will I have to buy a Windoze PC, Just to "think different" from the rest of the world.

Windows has had it too easy but the next five years could be interesting. Linux is ramping up in the server market, the Asia-Pacific nations are clubbing together to build a customised Linux-based OS for their desktop machines, and IBM is committed to producing dazzling CPUs for Apple.

I can't wait to see what's in store :cool:

[Photorun]

All I got to say is "yay!" I'm happy Apple was on the ball exploring all options... happier still that they were able to work out something with IBM.

[MacsRgr8]

The future is bright..... the future is Mac!

[MacFan25]

I'm just glad to see that Apple chose IBM. I think that it is an excellent decision. The next 5 years should be very bright for Apple.

[daveL]

Originally posted by plinkoman
why would you say that? a switch to intel would not mean a swith to x86, it would just mean that intel would make a ppc. this has nothing to do with marklar either, marklar is to run on x86, an intel chip in an apple would be a ppc
I don't believe Intel has every done outside contract work. 100% of Intel's capacity is devoted to producing Intel products. The idea of them using some of their capacity to make a competing processor for Apple sounds a bit off to me.

[maclamb]

I have heard this too - and believe it.
Where IBM REALLY cleans up ios in the Patent area - I think, they really don't care about pc sales - vs what they make on patents -Bob Cringley had a good article on this many months ago

[johnnowak]

Originally posted by daveL
Why? Just because you go to a different CPU doesn't mean you have to throw your frameworks out and start over. Apple would have (and actually did) gotten OS X and the UI framewaorks re-compiled and running on Intel. At that point, the same APIs would be available for Mac applications, which would also, obviously, be re-compiled. That's not to say there wouldn't have been some other changes involved, but certainly not an application rewrite.

I'm sure all the program written in PPC assembly would just love being ported to intel.

[mstecker]

Originally posted by johnnowak
I'm sure all the program written in PPC assembly would just love being ported to intel.

Oh come on. What's still written in assembly in this day and age?

[Fender2112]

Originally posted by DeusOmnis
BTW, it would be cool to dual-boot w/ windows though.

No it wouldn't. The only thing "cool" about Windows is "Shut Down".

[macphoria]

Go IBM! Don't let us down!

[chadfromdallas]

Originally posted by DeusOmnis
BTW, it would be cool to dual-boot w/ windows though.


That would be cool. Would have no reason to own VPC. You could own a gaming machine AND a Mac. That would just be great :D

[stingerman]

Originally posted by chadfromdallas
Sorry, I just busted up laughing when I read this.....lol Yea, IBM doesn't make much from them. :rolleyes:

IBM's PC business loses money, it has for some time. IBM sees it as an important loss leader. Right now, only Dell and Apple are making money selling PCs, whether thy are Macs or Wintels. Money is the driver and I am sure there are many at IBM wondering why they are making money for their competitors Intel and MSFT with every IBM Wintel PC they sell.

[NoVi]

Originally posted by sedarby
Not to mention the PR nightmare of embracing Intel who they showed in an earlier ad campaign to be slow and cumbersome.
Intel would have to be a last resort. I'm not sure how fond Steve Jobs is of eating crow.

Granted the chip used could quite possibly not be a Pentium 4 but a PowerPC compatible with enhancements thereby alienating the MS loving faction.

Well, I've seen Steve declaring *the end of the CRT*, while a new generation of eMacs were announced and *the year of the notebook* with no processor upgrades so far. So you could absolutely leave that up to Steve...:cool:

What strikes me is that everyone seems to think that 'Apple going Intel' should mean, using available Intel processors.
Couldn't it mean Intel developing processors to Apple's taste, so a bit like what IBM did?

[daveL]

Originally posted by NoVi
Well, I've seen Steve declaring *the end of the CRT*, while a new generation of eMacs were announced and *the year of the notebook* with no processor upgrades so far. So you could absolutely leave that up to Steve...:cool:

What strikes me is that everyone seems to think that 'Apple going Intel' should mean, using available Intel processors.
Couldn't it mean Intel developing processors to Apple's taste, so a bit like what IBM did?
As I mentioned above, Intel doesn't do outside contract work. In particular, why would they use some of their capcity to produce a competing microprocessor for someone else?

[eytan]

I imagine it's been noted by others many times before, but as a mac user since 1985, I find it strange that Apple would end up seeking rescue from IBM. I still remember well famous Superbowl ad of the evil empire versus the Mac. And I remember when IBM was the enemy much more than M$.

Who could have predicted this??

[elmimmo]

What I do see is how rumors about Apple switching to AMD processor had not any base, considering that AMD hires IBM to build them.

[NoVi]

Originally posted by daveL
As I mentioned above, Intel doesn't do outside contract work. In particular, why would they use some of their capcity to produce a competing microprocessor for someone else?

Because it would (or could) mean new profitable business to them. And if they did, it wouldn't be a 'competing' microprocessor anymore, wouldn't it?

But I admit, an Intel PPC would probably not really be interesting, compared to the amount of PC processors Intel produces.

[Stike]

Originally posted by chadfromdallas
That would be cool. Would have no reason to own VPC. You could own a gaming machine AND a Mac. That would just be great :D

Well, I REALLY have no problem... I have a Mac and a PS2. Happy camper: Comp & games. Cant complain...

Lets sing the new IBM song!

"We love I B M,
So get me a G5 ´n start iTunes,
baby
We love I B M
So come an' boot it up an' cheer with me..."

;) :D

[daveL]

Originally posted by Stike
Well, I REALLY have no problem... I have a Mac and a PS2. Happy camper: Comp & games. Cant complain...

Lets sing the new IBM song!

"We love I B M,
So get me a G5 ´n start iTunes,
baby
We love I B M
So come an' boot it up an' cheer with me..."

;) :D
Uh, please don't quit your day job :)

[gloftis]

No question, IBM PPC is the best bet. They have a problem with marketing their technology, but it is really good.

The Apple OS X/IBM partnership may be what it takes to get all those "serious" users off dead center.

Now, when will I be able to get a dual 2 Ghz 750VX ZIF upgrade with velocity engine support for my G3?

[plinkoman]

Originally posted by NoVi
What strikes me is that everyone seems to think that 'Apple going Intel' should mean, using available Intel processors.
Couldn't it mean Intel developing processors to Apple's taste, so a bit like what IBM did?

yea, thats what i said too, it seems most people think intel automatically means x86. intel would be more then happy to produce a ppc chip for apple, plain and simple, alot more money for them. they already have half(or more) of all pc's with their chips in them, they would love to have that plus all apple chips. infact, i even remember reading an article several months ago where someone from intel said just that.

[Rincewind42]

Originally posted by plinkoman
yea, thats what i said too, it seems most people think intel automatically means x86. intel would be more then happy to produce a ppc chip for apple, plain and simple, alot more money for them. they already have half(or more) of all pc's with their chips in them, they would love to have that plus all apple chips. infact, i even remember reading an article several months ago where someone from intel said just that.

If I'm remembering the same article you are, they said that they think Apple should be using one of their chips. Intel never has, and given the culture, never will produce chips of someone else's design. And PowerPC pretty much fits that bill. I'm certain that Intel would love Apple's business - but it will be on their terms and one of their processors.

[rjstanford]

Originally posted by tduality
Most likely any company in hitech business has (or should have) a long term roadmap. Oh, very much agreed. Don't you wish, at least sometimes, that Apple did? Or at least let us see it...

-Richard, still waiting for a powerbook announcement ... any one at all ...

[Swift]

Back in January, I spoke with a close relative -- very close -- who works in IBM upper management. He has seen the four or five year "plan", and tells me simply that Macs will be the fastest or near the fastest computers for a good time. It's just started.

There was some thought of Intel, but it didn't get that far. The IBM offer is just too good.

[panphage]

Originally posted by plinkoman
yea, thats what i said too, it seems most people think intel automatically means x86. intel would be more then happy to produce a ppc chip for apple, plain and simple, alot more money for them. they already have half(or more) of all pc's with their chips in them, they would love to have that plus all apple chips. infact, i even remember reading an article several months ago where someone from intel said just that.

Maybe those of you saying this should read the article you're commenting on:

quote from IBM memo (emphasis mine):
While Intel is aggressive in achieving its performance and speed goals, Apple believed that using Intel would deeply affect its current customer base. Using an Intel architecture might solve Apple's short-term megahertz dilemma, but customers would have to suffer through a slow transition from PowerPC over the long term. Every existing Mac program would potentially have to be recompiled to work on an Intel platform. These massive software changes were something that Apple wanted to avoid, and IBM had the solution."

[the future]

Originally posted by Swift
Back in January, I spoke with a close relative -- very close -- who works in IBM upper management. He has seen the four or five year "plan", and tells me simply that Macs will be the fastest or near the fastest computers for a good time. It's just started.

Surely you can milk your close relative for more details regarding IBM's roadmap for PPCs, can't you...?

[iMeowbot]

Originally posted by Rincewind42
Intel never has, and given the culture, never will produce chips of someone else's design.

Huh? Intel's Xscale/ARM architecture came from Acorn, and Itanium's architectutre came from HP.

(If Apple were considering Intel, the sensible thing to look at would have been Itanium rather than x86, unless they had felt that sticking to 32 bits for a long time was reasonable.)

[mmmbop]

Originally posted by iMeowbot
Huh? Intel's Xscale/ARM architecture came from Acorn, and Itanium's architectutre came from HP.

I was just thinking that.

Was ARM initially a joint venture between Acorn and Apple (and possibly some other minor stakeholder), but with Acorn expertise on the designs?

Ahh, I used to have a RiscPC 600. Them were the days...

[iMeowbot]

Originally posted by mmmbop
I was just thinking that.

Was ARM initially a joint venture between Acorn and Apple (and possibly some other minor stakeholder), but with Acorn expertise on the designs?

One of the really cool things about the ARM series is that a smallish company like Acorn pulled it off pretty much alone, and got better performance than the Intel chips of the time offered.

Apple got directly involved a bit later, when ARM was spun off about 1990. The third big investor was VLSI (now part of Philips).

[mmmbop]

Originally posted by iMeowbot
One of the really cool things about the ARM series is that a smallish company like Acorn pulled it off pretty much alone, and got better performance than the Intel chips of the time offered.

Acorn were in many ways just as innovative as Apple are now. The craft they put into designing their machines from the CPU, the OS and even the case design was clearly evident. While they were squeezed out of the market, a lot of their technology lives on.

And now some commentators call Apple a niche company. :rolleyes:

[whooleytoo]

Originally posted by Rincewind42
There is no reason to think that Carbon apps couldn't be ported to any architecture in the same amount of time that Cocoa apps could be. To say otherwise is to say that the trip from Orlando to Oakland is longer because you take American Airlines instead of Delta :D

Does that include the time spent in the queue at the check-in desk? :)

I wouldn't be so sure though that there's no difference between porting Carbon and Cocoa apps. The fact that many Carbon apps are 'legacy' apps which I'd expect would have built up platform dependencies over time, newer Cocoa apps are less likely to do so.

Plus, Carbon apps are more readily optimised, IMO. Carbon is more of a set of APIs dressed as a framework than a true framework; your average Cocoa app is likely to involve significantly less code than a Carbon app, and thus there's less scope for tinkering. And generally the more optimised an app is, the less portable it is.

Mike.

[whooleytoo]

Originally posted by jettredmont
I assume the "better-case scenario" would have been Apple supplying a PPC emulator for Intel on which less performance-critical apps could run in the transition.

Well okay, if Apple could provide a full compatibility, fast emulator, then that would be the best case scenario, I grant you that.. :)

Mike.

[whooleytoo]

Originally posted by ewinemiller
but I didn't see anything between SSE and Altivec that a compiler couldn't do a little shuffling to compile one set of typed instructions into a different set of CPU instructions.

That is interesting, any idea how the performance of the two would compare?


I'm not saying Intel is the way to go, but if Apple had wanted to do it, they could make it so that it was a recompile no matter what the language or underlying API (carbon or cocoa) used by the application.

Sorry, but that's a bit misleading. If an app is tidily written, then yes, it should just recompile for any platform the OS runs on. But I've seen first hand some truly awful, sloppy dependencies in 3rd party apps which would require re-coding. Whether that re-coding is just tweaking or substantial re-writes is anyone's guess.

Mike.

[whooleytoo]

Originally posted by Somebody
For another, you should consider that many performance critical apps exist in both PPC and x86 versions (e.g. Photoshop). And most of the games on the Mac started out as x86 code, and were ported to the PPC later. Either way, the vendors likely already have good x86 code for the parts where speed matters.

But that would still involve porting, from Windows x86 code to OSX x86 code. It might be relatively easy, but it's still more than a straight recompile.

Mike.

[TMay]

Intel has been having problems migrating users to the Itanium for much the same reason that Apple would have migrating to x86. Itanium is different (EPIC instruction set from HP) than x86 and it has to emulate (not very efficiently evidently) x86, and it can't switch from 32 to 64 bit on the fly like the opteron can. That and the fact that it is very pricey right now, so sales have been pathetic, especially for chief proponent HP.

Note as well that the PPC architecture scales downward (IBM 405LP) as well as upward so I wouldn't be surprised if the iPod was running OSX (reduced fat version) at some point in the future (just don't call it a PDA).

[Rincewind42]

Originally posted by whooley
I wouldn't be so sure though that there's no difference between porting Carbon and Cocoa apps. The fact that many Carbon apps are 'legacy' apps which I'd expect would have built up platform dependencies over time, newer Cocoa apps are less likely to do so.

Ok, let me qualify what I said a little then. When I speak of Carbon, I talk of Carbon Applications that run on OS X. If it is a Carbon app that doesn't run on OS X (there are a few) or an app that is source compatable but still only runs on pre-OS X (and there are a few of those too) then I don't consider it a true Carbon application. The former are CarbonLib apps, the latter Classic (InterfaceLib) apps. This is basically the terminology used by Apple as well, as Carbon is a specification of APIs that provide source compatability for existing applications (the moral equivalent of Win32) while CarbonLib is an implementation for OS 9 (similar to the old Win32 libraries that ran on Windows 3.1x).

Plus, Carbon apps are more readily optimised, IMO. Carbon is more of a set of APIs dressed as a framework than a true framework; your average Cocoa app is likely to involve significantly less code than a Carbon app, and thus there's less scope for tinkering. And generally the more optimised an app is, the less portable it is.

It depends on the nature of the optimizations, but in general optimizations don't always "need" to be ported. The kind of optimizations that you can't port are generally the kind that you can foist on any app anyway (e.g. inline assembly, altivec). Some optimizations may not be optimal on some platforms, but that doesn't mean the code won't work. The only major exception that I can think of offhand are endian issues if your platform is moving from big to little endian or vice versa.

In most applications, most of the code optimization is done by the compiler. The parts that aren't are generally well known if the application is already cross platform. The framework that you write your application to generally doesn't affect the non-hand optimized code in your application. It may be more code to do something in one framework or the other, but the code to do it is generally pretty standard and not optimized because event/interface code generally doesn't need (or benefit from) many optimizations.

And I admit, there are always exceptions. I'm sure there are some Carbon/Cocoa applications out there that would be an immense pain in the arse to port to a different architecture (heck, VirtualPC is going to be giving M$ some pain just to make it to the G5 and that isn't a huge change of platform!). But generally these issues aren't a matter of the framework they use (VPC would be just as hard to get working on the G5 if it were Cocoa based - the problem is with the emulation engine, not the interface). I've been doing Carbon work for a long time (I jumped on the bandwagon back in the OS X Public Beta days when Carbon Events weren't even documented!) and I can't see anyway in which the framework of apis it provides would cause headaches in porting from one 32-bit architecture to another 32-bit architecture (yes, there may have to be changes to Carbon to support 64-bit memory spaces, fortunately, they aren't that many).

[wms121]

IBM has "some" optical chips in high end servers.

HP also has a few based on high speed switches.

Questions:

1) IBM Federal Systems Division has a "elite set" of POWER proto
chips..some clocking above 20GHz in custom modules....ask
if any "20Gig IBM protos for optical might make it into a Apple
box?".

2) Also..IBM experiments with some radical operating systems for
the US and Foreign Governments. IBM Sweden was rumored
several years ago to have prototype a 256 bit os for NATO usage
(sattellite recon identifier stuff..listed under "VLIW and ULIW"
codes)..will certain newer AI type os's be available for large
systems (like VA Tech's boxes?) ..or even a "Doug Lenat" OS?

3) ahem..last one...Mr. Steve back before 99 had several people
wanting to do "special macs and futuristic macs'..does IBM
need a $100K custom desktop for any usefull purpose? NASA
other Gov stuff (we need to have Al Gore walk through IBM
Research and talk real loud)..just ask your uncle if Big Al might
walk through Site4 at Area51...(no don't let him near the green
alien test tubes..that stuff is still going to Bill G's playroom in
Redmond...

:00 don't hurt me..i have an embedded chip

[kristianm]

Originally posted by DeusOmnis
BTW, it would be cool to dual-boot w/ windows though.

Dual boot is the work of the devil. Even though I like linux better than windows, my dual boot machine is always stuck in windows. The virtual PC solution is better. Slow as hell and quick to get back to the mac.

[chadfromdallas]

Originally posted by stingerman
IBM's PC business loses money, it has for some time. IBM sees it as an important loss leader. Right now, only Dell and Apple are making money selling PCs, whether thy are Macs or Wintels. Money is the driver and I am sure there are many at IBM wondering why they are making money for their competitors Intel and MSFT with every IBM Wintel PC they sell.

Well I couldn't find anything on this, except that Dell and Apple are not the only ones making money selling PCs, :rolleyes: Don't know where you got that, but its just not true.

[MacIke]

Reading all these replies makes me think it would be a good idea to wait for G5 15" powerbooks.

[crees!]

Originally posted by MacIke
Reading all these replies makes me think it would be a good idea to wait for G5 15" powerbooks.

Welp.. if you have a good amount of patience then wait. Other-wise if you're like me I'm going to grab whatever Apple throws at us next.

[Sol]

Originally posted by eytan
I still remember well famous Superbowl ad of the evil empire versus the Mac. And I remember when IBM was the enemy much more than M$.

If the same advertisement was done today it would be Microsoft in the role of Big Brother. Perhaps Apple will advertise this way in the 2004 SuperBowl.

[MacIke]

Originally posted by crees!
Welp.. if you have a good amount of patience then wait. Other-wise if you're like me I'm going to grab whatever Apple throws at us next.

Of course the odds are I will be there with Mr Credit Card in hand on Tueday morning ready to buy. I really need a new powerbook. My 550 is just getting so hold and slow.

[Somebody]

Originally posted by whooley
But that would still involve porting, from Windows x86 code to OSX x86 code. It might be relatively easy, but it's still more than a straight recompile.

Mike.


Now you're talking about a different part of a program than I am. I'm specifically discussing the small performance critical pieces of an application -- things like the inner loop of a Photoshop filter, for example. Pieces of code like this often are very hardware-specific, but rarely OS-specific. They have to do a lot of heavy computation, but don't really need to talk to the OS in any way while they're running. So there probably wouldn't be any "Windows x86 to MacOS x86" conversion that needed to be done in such code.


This isn't a purely academic discussion, for me; In a program I'm working on now, I'm thinking of adding some AltiVec optimizations. There are only two functions where it might make sense to do so (one encodes a block of data in a particular way, and the other decodes previously-encoded data). Neither of these functions cares a bit about the OS it's running under. Both simply read a bunch of data from one area of memory, and write altered data back out to another. If I were porting this program to run under another OS (say, Linux PPC), those functions are probably the only part of the code that I <i>wouldn't</i> have to alter.


Again, I'm not suggesting that porting a MacOS PPC app to MacOS x86 is going to be trivial. My point is simply that for most vendors doing such a port, the performance critical code is going to be a relatively small problem compared to the others they'll face.

[socbyset]

Originally posted by plinkoman
yea, thats what i said too, it seems most people think intel automatically means x86. intel would be more then happy to produce a ppc chip for apple, plain and simple, alot more money for them. they already have half(or more) of all pc's with their chips in them, they would love to have that plus all apple chips. infact, i even remember reading an article several months ago where someone from intel said just that.

But what would the point be? The reason for looking at intel was that they could use commodity parts, gain in price/performance, and avoid dealing with the "mhz myth." None of these advantages would be gained by Intel designing and producing a new ppc, with the added disadvantage that Intel would never do it in a million years. Why produce a competing platform that would use the same POWER architecture that they are trying to kill in the workstation space with Itanium? Their whole marketing picture would lose coherence..

Remember when Gil Amelio was talking about moving to intel and even licensing Win NT? What a different world we would be living in now..:eek:

Anyway, after asking developers to move to PowerPC and then OS X I can't imagine the platform would survive another big fundamental change. Apple has had enough problems with defecting developers, they don't need to actively chase them away. I'm skeptical that they gave switching to intel serious thought in the past five years or so.

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by chadfromdallas
Sorry, I just busted up laughing when I read this.....lol Yea, IBM doesn't make much from them. :rolleyes:

We all know that the money's in hardware, and not software :)

Originally posted by plinkoman
why would you say that? a switch to intel would not mean a swith to x86, it would just mean that intel would make a ppc. this has nothing to do with marklar either, marklar is to run on x86, an intel chip in an apple would be a ppc

If you think Intel would make a PPC, you're deluding yourself.

Originally posted by stingerman
IBM's PC business loses money, it has for some time. IBM sees it as an important loss leader. Right now, only Dell and Apple are making money selling PCs, whether thy are Macs or Wintels. Money is the driver and I am sure there are many at IBM wondering why they are making money for their competitors Intel and MSFT with every IBM Wintel PC they sell.

Back in the clone days, IBM was planning to (but never did) make a Mac clone.

Originally posted by mmmbop
I was just thinking that.

Was ARM initially a joint venture between Acorn and Apple (and possibly some other minor stakeholder), but with Acorn expertise on the designs?

Ahh, I used to have a RiscPC 600. Them were the days...

Didn't the Newton use an ARM processor?

[chadfromdallas]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
We all know that the money's in hardware, and not software :)

Yup, and IBM is a hardware company when it comes to PCs :D

[daveL]

Originally posted by chadfromdallas
Yup, and IBM is a hardware company when it comes to PCs :D
Actually, IBM is a services company. They make most of their revenue from services. They employe something like 100k people in IGS (IBM Global Services). They will practically give you their hardware and/or software to make the sale, then follow up with multi-year service contracts where they stick it to you. A couple of years ago, they had a services revenue backlog of some $80B.

BTW, I'm not interested in a discussion of this, since the numbers are on their balance sheet. If you don't agree with me, fine, but at least look it up before you tell me how wrong I am. And, yes, IBM does regularly lose money on its PC devision, but they need PCs in order to offer complete solutions to their customers.

[ssamani]

Originally posted by MadMan
Let's go BIG BLUE!


Aah the sweet irony. Apple launches the Mac, knocking down IBM in the infamous Big (Blue) Brother ad and now almost 20 years later IBM is hailed by "the rest of us" as Apple and our saviour.

[iMeowbot]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Didn't the Newton use an ARM processor?

Yep. That's how Apple ended up doing a joint venture with Acorn. Newton was going to use AT&T's CRISP/Hobbit at one point, but AT&T ended up pushing development out of Apple's price range.

I'm sure it didn't hurt much that the ARM was designed as an upgrade path from the 6502, so that Apple already knew a thing or two about how to make good use of it.

[Jon the Heretic]

Originally posted by daveL
Actually, IBM is a services company. They make most of their revenue from services. They employe something like 100k people in IGS (IBM Global Services).

Over 150 thousand....

[Jon the Heretic]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Back in the clone days, IBM was planning to (but never did) make a Mac clone.

IBM never made a "clone" per se but they did make PReP/CHRP boxes which could run MacOS 8.x (not an advertised feature). These were 601 and 604e-based RS/6000s and were vastly more expensive than a Mac or Mac clone.

[wms121]

Sun posted this earlier this month..

Seems that Java Os is making a comeback..check out the "Jinux info" at:

http://www.sun.com/smi/Press/sunflash/2003-08/sunflash.20030805.2html

hmm...connect two OS's via a mini-kernal of Linux...mebbe you could plug in Darwin or even 64 bit DOS?

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by daveL
Actually, IBM is a services company. They make most of their revenue from services.

Definitely. For those of us who watch TV, we know that IBM doesn't advertise their PC's or workstations, they advertise their IS services. After all, there are no magic business beans.

[bcsimac]

I am just glad that
Apple didn't go with Intel. IBM is easier to swallow in my mind than Intel. Long live the PowerPC processor!

[ginoledesma]

The only hardware stuff that IBM may be even making a slight profit on is their ThinkPad line of laptops and their high-end servers. And even then, their regular customers with these products are most often big corporations, and not the average home user.

To say that IBM is not making money on their software because they are a "hardware company" is simply wrong. When they acquired Lotus, the whole suite of Domino and Notes became theirs, and that means getting the businesses of thousands of corporations that rely on the collaboration platform. The same goes for their development software, such as the Rational suite, WebSphere, and everything else, which costs quite a bunlde in annual licensing terms.

When they make a sale to clients, they really do in fact almost "give away" their hardware and software, and in return their money comes from long-term licensing.

IBM's realm is the high-end or enterprise market, where money is constantly flowing. While they have a Consumer PC division, don't expect that one to be critical to IBM's financial health, since even mass sales is pocket change to what they can earn elsewhere.

[ginoledesma]

We were cheering IBM on for far longer than most realize, since the PowerPC 601 chips (the first PPC chips for the Mac) were made by IBM early on. Its just that IBM has come to the forefront now.

[gloftis]

The only hardware stuff that IBM may be even making a slight profit on is their ThinkPad line of laptops and their high-end servers. And even then, their regular customers with these products are most often big corporations, and not the average home user.

To say that IBM is not making money on their software because they are a "hardware company" is simply wrong. When they acquired Lotus, the whole suite of Domino and Notes became theirs, and that means getting the businesses of thousands of corporations that rely on the collaboration platform. The same goes for their development software, such as the Rational suite, WebSphere, and everything else, which costs quite a bunlde in annual licensing terms.

When they make a sale to clients, they really do in fact almost "give away" their hardware and software, and in return their money comes from long-term licensing.

IBM's realm is the high-end or enterprise market, where money is constantly flowing. While they have a Consumer PC division, don't expect that one to be critical to IBM's financial health, since even mass sales is pocket change to what they can earn elsewhere.

Licensing or support fees have been the traditional cash cow for proprietary systems. However, with the advent of distributed computing and applicaiton software written for the X environment, hardware will become more important in the future.

IBM dropped the ball in 1984 by not foreseeing the advent of consumer computing. Today, they have adopted LINUX and are major players in Apple's hardware innovations. I would not expect to see them miss the next technology leap!