Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple and IBM's PowerPC Potential
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
minimax said:
My thought is that Apple wasn't too pleased with Microsoft using the PPC for the XBOX-360 because of the money Apple had invested in the technology. Someone here earlier said that Steve Jobs will be able to be like Dell with processor development. I say that Bill Gates did this with PPC.
I'm guessing that IBM was expecting money from both Apple and Microsoft for the continued development and production of chips. With Apple pulling out, IBM or Microsoft will have to pony-up more money for these activities.
While SJ in `98 (or `99?) said Microsoft wasn't the enemy, I'm thinking that he really does see them as the enemy and doesn't want to subsidize the cost of developing the XBOX-360's processor.
I wonder how close I am to the target with these.
Interesting take... but I don't think Apple would go through that much trouble just to make PowerPC's a little more expensive for Microsoft, it just wouldn't be worth it.
Either they really did go with Intel because of the nice roadmap (I think they're more interested in laptops than supercomputers), or they want a piece of Microsoft. The only real way they could hurt Microsoft is by taking their user base, which being able to dual boot a Mac OS and Windows would be tempting to quite a few who might otherwise not be interested.
progx
macrumors 6502a
my current perception is that we are on the wrong road for hardware. the x86 architecture is on its last legs, plus proven not to be any match for a powerpc based chip. this switch, while it may be a good one, will sneak up and bite us later on.
i agree with the developer that shouted in response to steve's question, "where do this take us," in reply, "the road down to hell."
i agree with the developer that shouted in response to steve's question, "where do this take us," in reply, "the road down to hell."
It'll certainly be interesting where Intel attempts to take the x86 platform, and we'll be in a unique position to watch.progx said:
While most people realise Intel is going down the Pentium-M route, not many have mentioned that at the end of 2007 the Intel server chips (Xeon) will also be pin and chipset compatible with the latest Itaniums.
Intel plans on letting PC makers construct high end x86-64 servers (such as Apples future Xserve), but then give them the option of supporting Itanium just by simply changing the CPU. No idea if that would affect what Apple might do with an Xserve or where Apple might go.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/06/16/intel_integrates_mem_control/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/07/27/intel_xeon_itanium_chipset/
(edit fixed links)
California
macrumors 68040
Well, how weird is it that IBM was sold to the Chinese? I wonder how this figures into Apple's move?
"Earlier this year International Business Machines Corp. was sold to the Lenovo Group of China, a move which met with disapproval from Congress headed up by Rep. Henry Hyde (R-IL) Chairman of the International Relations Committee and Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) Chairman of the Armed Services Committee. They jointly wrote a letter to Treasury Secretary calling for an investigation of the initial bid.
As a direct result, IBM sought out former National Security Advisor to both President Ford and President H.W. Bush, Brent Scowcroft, to help seal the deal. But in the Unocal deal, CNOOC CEO, Fu Chengyu, has engaged no less than three U.S. investment banks, four law firms, two media communications groups and some with direct connections to the White House. The investment banking firms presently on board are J.P Morgan Chase & Co. and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. To deal with political and policy hurdles CNOOC hired lobbying law firm, Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, located in Dallas and well - connected to both Democrats and Republicans. The firm also represented Halliburton when Vice President Dick Cheney was Chairman. Media firm, Public Strategies, Inc., a public relations company out of Austin, TX, led President Bushs 2004 re-election media campaign, and its point person is Mark Palmer, former Enron Corp. communications director. The Brunswick Group which specializes in mergers and acquisitions will also oversee public affairs work. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and Treasury Secretary John Snow appeared before a Senate committee just days before the announced CNOOC bid, and made a comparison to Japans U.S. investments of the 1980s.
However, the current Chinese agenda is actually quite different. Japan remains an ally of the U.S., who depended on the U.S. to help defend herself with U.S. military bases throughout. Japan and was not a major competitor for rare resources or strategic assets which impact national security. In addition, China continues its practice of theft of American intellectual property primarily in the entertainment sector and patent violations with knockoffs of Dell computers and Nike clothing for example, costing the U.S. more the $30 billion dollars a year. Additionally the loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs to China, on behalf of U.S. corporations' desires to pay wages far below a U.S. living wage, continue to eat away what is left of the U.S. industrial base, leaving the U.S. with a ballooning trade deficit with China. It will ultimately be up to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS), an arm of the Treasury Department, which must scrutinize and review the CNOOC bid. Such has already been called for by several members of Congress, raising speculation as to how much of a surprise the bid was to lawmakers.
According to a 1988 law, CFIUS has the power to stop a foreign country from such a takeover if evidence is found that such will threaten national security and, that relevant laws do not have adequate authority in order to protect U.S. security. One such scenario could be the under-sea oil drilling or oil prospecting which might help Chinas nuclear testing capabilities. Most CFIUS reviews take about 30 days. The fear in Washington is that if the CNOOC bid is not accepted, that China would then become more closely allied with oil-producing Russia and Venezuela in addition to the rogue states of Iran and Sudan. U.S. interests also include protecting Taiwan as well as South Korea.
The larger the economy of China grows economically its military prowess likewise grows. The missing component in Chinas quest for global power is now related to the energy area. It is essential for China to acquire the energy resources it needs to gain superiority. The manufacturing and technology sectors having been largely outsourced and the ownership of Western firms have combined with a technological weaponry buildup to give China the ability to pursue that quest..."
"Earlier this year International Business Machines Corp. was sold to the Lenovo Group of China, a move which met with disapproval from Congress headed up by Rep. Henry Hyde (R-IL) Chairman of the International Relations Committee and Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) Chairman of the Armed Services Committee. They jointly wrote a letter to Treasury Secretary calling for an investigation of the initial bid.
As a direct result, IBM sought out former National Security Advisor to both President Ford and President H.W. Bush, Brent Scowcroft, to help seal the deal. But in the Unocal deal, CNOOC CEO, Fu Chengyu, has engaged no less than three U.S. investment banks, four law firms, two media communications groups and some with direct connections to the White House. The investment banking firms presently on board are J.P Morgan Chase & Co. and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. To deal with political and policy hurdles CNOOC hired lobbying law firm, Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, located in Dallas and well - connected to both Democrats and Republicans. The firm also represented Halliburton when Vice President Dick Cheney was Chairman. Media firm, Public Strategies, Inc., a public relations company out of Austin, TX, led President Bushs 2004 re-election media campaign, and its point person is Mark Palmer, former Enron Corp. communications director. The Brunswick Group which specializes in mergers and acquisitions will also oversee public affairs work. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and Treasury Secretary John Snow appeared before a Senate committee just days before the announced CNOOC bid, and made a comparison to Japans U.S. investments of the 1980s.
However, the current Chinese agenda is actually quite different. Japan remains an ally of the U.S., who depended on the U.S. to help defend herself with U.S. military bases throughout. Japan and was not a major competitor for rare resources or strategic assets which impact national security. In addition, China continues its practice of theft of American intellectual property primarily in the entertainment sector and patent violations with knockoffs of Dell computers and Nike clothing for example, costing the U.S. more the $30 billion dollars a year. Additionally the loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs to China, on behalf of U.S. corporations' desires to pay wages far below a U.S. living wage, continue to eat away what is left of the U.S. industrial base, leaving the U.S. with a ballooning trade deficit with China. It will ultimately be up to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS), an arm of the Treasury Department, which must scrutinize and review the CNOOC bid. Such has already been called for by several members of Congress, raising speculation as to how much of a surprise the bid was to lawmakers.
According to a 1988 law, CFIUS has the power to stop a foreign country from such a takeover if evidence is found that such will threaten national security and, that relevant laws do not have adequate authority in order to protect U.S. security. One such scenario could be the under-sea oil drilling or oil prospecting which might help Chinas nuclear testing capabilities. Most CFIUS reviews take about 30 days. The fear in Washington is that if the CNOOC bid is not accepted, that China would then become more closely allied with oil-producing Russia and Venezuela in addition to the rogue states of Iran and Sudan. U.S. interests also include protecting Taiwan as well as South Korea.
The larger the economy of China grows economically its military prowess likewise grows. The missing component in Chinas quest for global power is now related to the energy area. It is essential for China to acquire the energy resources it needs to gain superiority. The manufacturing and technology sectors having been largely outsourced and the ownership of Western firms have combined with a technological weaponry buildup to give China the ability to pursue that quest..."
psycho bob
macrumors 6502a
California said:
I thought IBM only sold the PC making part of the company. The chipmaking, high end server and services businesses all remain US owned.
BenRoethig
macrumors 68030
IBM sold the ThinkPad and ThinkCentre personal computers to Lenovo, not the entire company. Everything else, including the server/workstation and microelectronics divisions, still belongs to IBM
Correct.BenRoethig said:
That the article started out inaccurately with "Earlier this year International Business Machines Corp. was sold to the Lenovo Group of China" and that the poster didn't cite its origin were good enough reasons I didn't bother reading past that first line.
lgoss007 said:
I think people are missing the boat with this dual booting stuff. Dual booting a Mac with Windows (Longhorn) is going to do nothing but help Microsoft because it sells another copy of Windows and further encourages software and hardware development for Windows.
Dual booting a Mac might sell more Apple hardware but all it does is make every Mac user a Windows user (or at least license owner). THAT INCREASES MICROSOFT'S USER BASE.
Contray to popular belief Apple and Microsoft aren't enemies. Nothing Apple does except putting out QT hurts Microsoft's bottom line. In fact, Apple not licensing their OS and Fairplay DRM has done nothing but make Windows and Windows Media the default choice for anyone trying to compete with Apple hardware (Macs or iPods). All Apple has done is increase Microsoft's sales. If there were no iPod and Fairplay DRM then some other company would be competing against Windows Media and licensing their product for use by anyone. Then Microsoft would have to fight to show Creative, iRiver, Archos etc. why they should support Windows Media. As of now, Microsoft has it easy because all the iPod/Fairplay competitors are banding together for strength against the iPod by going with PlaysForSure.
OT: I don't think real Mactels will be very good at booting into Windows because the video card firmware is vastly different. Longhorn doesn't even support any resolution lower than 1024x768 so the default 600x800 that most video cards resort to when you don't have drivers for them will not allow Longhorn to run.
dsharits said:
It's completely wrong though.
All the current gen consoles are using PPC because that's the architecture where all the speciality designs are being made and because IBM is making them cheaper than AMD and Intel are making X86's.
TiVO's and tons of other consumer devices use PPC also and will continue to do so long after Apple leaves the platform. It's a platform that does very well with specialized computing and consumer devices. Microsoft only used X86's in the first Xbox because they wanted to get something out quickly and all of their hardware partners and in-house software already were comfortable with it. Now that they've had 4 years to design another Xbox, they are going with the best architecture for the job... which is PPC.
While this might be true (but it's tough to imagine Jobs not wanting to topple Microsoft), I'm sure Apple wants to expand it's user base. And really the only way to do that is by taking on Microsoft.
Not quite. While some OSX users might also want to use Windows, I doubt that it would represent the majority. I would think that most OSX users would want to stay away from Windows. But at the same time it might allow Windows users to try OSX as an option. Apple could be betting that once they used OSX they wouldn't want to go back to Windows.
Maybe increase software sales for the Windows operating system, but why should Apple care about that? I don't think any other company could compete against Windows Media. Winamp was the closest at one time, but then Microsoft just took over. If there was no iPod then competing companies would have their players and maybe software, but it would only work with Windows (at least the big ones). By making a name for themselves with the iPod, Apple is increasing their market awareness which might help them sell computers. It also allows people to switch to a Mac later if their using Windows, because iTunes works on either operating system. If iTunes was only for Mac, the iPod wouldn't be such a big deal.
Apple is competing with Microsoft on the operating system level, they want to increase their market share there. The operating system is what gives Microsoft all of their power. They can break things on other platforms and make people have to use their OS if they want it to work (they've done this with IE, DirectX, etc.), and then software developers can make the excuse that most computers use Windows so they'll just make a solution for that. If Apple increases their market share on the OS level, Microsoft loses some of it's power.
I don't think they want a lot more marketshare. They want profits and margin. The only way they can get marketshare is by lowering margin. Why lower margin to get about the same profit when you don't have to? The Mac user base is very agile and dedicated, increasing the user base too much will eliminate those traits.
No Windows user is going to pay the Apple tax to just "try out" OS X unless they have money to burn. Also Macs are typically non-upgradable or not very upgradable which clashes with the PC mentaility. I don't think Windows users or PC users are going to want Macs with their current philosophy (even with Intel processors).
Because it would decrease OS X software development. Imagine if no one made any games for Mac because they just expected you to boot into Windows everytime you wanted to play a game? Or (assuming Longhorn has Media Center built in to ever install) the same thing could happen with media center capabilites.
I'm talking about Windows Media file format not Windows Media Player. Real domintated online content until WM8 came out. If the iPod didn't exist then Real wouldn't be banding together with Microsoft against Fairplay.
Before the iPod because huge virtually all players worked with iTunes and the Mac. It's only been since the explosion of the iPod that companies have decided that marketing to or making music players for Mac users is pointless. Mac users typically buy Apple brand products before anything else. That's why very few companies make a music store for Mac or a media player for Mac or a video editing application for Mac.
OpenGL is losing against DirectX because it sucks. DirectX is constantly on the cutting edge, much more standardized for hardware differences, and is better optimized. Not a good example. Microsoft never broke OpenGL in Windows because obviously may programs still use it. In fact, Microsoft's OpenGL is faster and better supported than Apple's-- OpenGL just sucks for gaming. The only advantage it has is that it's cross-platform.
Apple may gain some developers because of more sales but Microsoft isn't going to lose any-- those developers will just develop for both platforms.
But my point is that Apple dual-booting with Windows on their MAchines is just putting more money in Microsoft's pocket because it sells another copy of Windows. Even if Apple took all of Dell and HP's marketshare because they were dual booting with Windows, Microsoft wouldn't care because they're still selling Windows licenses.
I haven't read the entire thread, but here's my take on switching from Power to x86:
Apple is a relatively small buyer of Power-series CPUs from IBM and other suppliers but by far their most visible. When major players in the game console arena like Sony and Microsoft are using Power-based CPUs in their next-generation gaming consoles and IBM already using the Power CPUs in a wide variety of servers and supercomputers, Apple's buying volume just doesn't count for much overall. Many more PlayStation 3's will be sold in one quarter than Apple computers sold in an entire year. IBM will try to save face by trying to keep Apple as a customer a little longer but in the long-run it means little to them. The Power architecture is versatile and has thus far been around for over a decade and is only getting stronger with time and IBM will still be a huge chipmaker with or without Apple.
Intel's x86 architecture is the longest-lived CPU architecture still in production today and it's obvious that in personal computers it still dominates over PowerPC. Intel smartly kept around the Pentium 3 architecture in the form of the Pentium M which clock-for-clock is the only 32-bit x86 CPU that can compete with AMD Athlon CPUs. AMD has stronger math processing capabilities, but the Pentium M, like other Intels, is a stronger multi-tasker. It kicks the Athlon's butt in power consumption and heat levels and is far more suitable for mobile use than anything AMD makes and yet competes with similarly clocked AMD desktop chips for speed. The Pentium M is ideal for lots of computers Apple makes due to its heat and power-consumption specs. Intel focuses on personal computer makers and has products available now to use that beat the PowerPC chips currently available and can produce the volume of chips needed for a company like Apple.
I'm sad to see Apple moving towards x86 and away from the Power architecture that it helped champion over a decade ago but it really does make sense for them. IBM makes lots of promises that it doesn't deliver on and Intel has had something suitable in production for years already. Apple gets to watch as x86 PCs continually broaden the performance gap between them and Apple's computers at a superior performance-for-dollar value which makes the premium already paid for their computers all the more questionable. Sticking with the PowerPC chips would be pointless in the long-term and would make Apple even more of a niche player in the personal computer industry than it already is, so switching to x86 makes a lot of sense if it helps them regain ground in the performance arena. I'd really rather see them use AMD chips since I am an AMD fan but for their smaller form-factor computers and portables, Intel undoubtedly produces the more suitable CPU for those purposes.
On Saturday I ordered an iBook (should arrive next week hopefully), the first time I have purchased an Apple Macintosh and only my second ever Mac, my first one being a PowerBook 140 that was given to me 6-years ago. I'm not worried that it will suddenly become obsolete when x86-based Macs come out. If my ancient PowerBook 140 was still useful 5 years after Apple transitioned to PowerPC and 10 years after it was made, then my iBook should be just fine in the next few years. The PB 140 was my first laptop and although on the desktop I prefer Windows, it sold me on Apple laptops being ideal for a portable computer and is why Apple was my first choice when I thought of laptops.
I'm not really a "switcher" in any sense since my desktop Windows machine is not being supplanted, just that I believe I have ordered the best machine for the job for the money as a portable supplement to my desktop. The first computers I really learned how to use back in 1996 were Macs running system 7.x and I have never quite given up an attachment to Macs since then. I hope OS X is as easy to use, simple, and reliable as the old versions were. I have only played with it once before, a couple years ago on an iBook in CompUSA, but not enough to really get to know it.
Apple is a relatively small buyer of Power-series CPUs from IBM and other suppliers but by far their most visible. When major players in the game console arena like Sony and Microsoft are using Power-based CPUs in their next-generation gaming consoles and IBM already using the Power CPUs in a wide variety of servers and supercomputers, Apple's buying volume just doesn't count for much overall. Many more PlayStation 3's will be sold in one quarter than Apple computers sold in an entire year. IBM will try to save face by trying to keep Apple as a customer a little longer but in the long-run it means little to them. The Power architecture is versatile and has thus far been around for over a decade and is only getting stronger with time and IBM will still be a huge chipmaker with or without Apple.
Intel's x86 architecture is the longest-lived CPU architecture still in production today and it's obvious that in personal computers it still dominates over PowerPC. Intel smartly kept around the Pentium 3 architecture in the form of the Pentium M which clock-for-clock is the only 32-bit x86 CPU that can compete with AMD Athlon CPUs. AMD has stronger math processing capabilities, but the Pentium M, like other Intels, is a stronger multi-tasker. It kicks the Athlon's butt in power consumption and heat levels and is far more suitable for mobile use than anything AMD makes and yet competes with similarly clocked AMD desktop chips for speed. The Pentium M is ideal for lots of computers Apple makes due to its heat and power-consumption specs. Intel focuses on personal computer makers and has products available now to use that beat the PowerPC chips currently available and can produce the volume of chips needed for a company like Apple.
I'm sad to see Apple moving towards x86 and away from the Power architecture that it helped champion over a decade ago but it really does make sense for them. IBM makes lots of promises that it doesn't deliver on and Intel has had something suitable in production for years already. Apple gets to watch as x86 PCs continually broaden the performance gap between them and Apple's computers at a superior performance-for-dollar value which makes the premium already paid for their computers all the more questionable. Sticking with the PowerPC chips would be pointless in the long-term and would make Apple even more of a niche player in the personal computer industry than it already is, so switching to x86 makes a lot of sense if it helps them regain ground in the performance arena. I'd really rather see them use AMD chips since I am an AMD fan but for their smaller form-factor computers and portables, Intel undoubtedly produces the more suitable CPU for those purposes.
On Saturday I ordered an iBook (should arrive next week hopefully), the first time I have purchased an Apple Macintosh and only my second ever Mac, my first one being a PowerBook 140 that was given to me 6-years ago. I'm not worried that it will suddenly become obsolete when x86-based Macs come out. If my ancient PowerBook 140 was still useful 5 years after Apple transitioned to PowerPC and 10 years after it was made, then my iBook should be just fine in the next few years. The PB 140 was my first laptop and although on the desktop I prefer Windows, it sold me on Apple laptops being ideal for a portable computer and is why Apple was my first choice when I thought of laptops.
I'm not really a "switcher" in any sense since my desktop Windows machine is not being supplanted, just that I believe I have ordered the best machine for the job for the money as a portable supplement to my desktop. The first computers I really learned how to use back in 1996 were Macs running system 7.x and I have never quite given up an attachment to Macs since then. I hope OS X is as easy to use, simple, and reliable as the old versions were. I have only played with it once before, a couple years ago on an iBook in CompUSA, but not enough to really get to know it.
I don't think so. Apple won't sell Windows dual booted with their machines. So really the only people that would dual boot are mostly those that already have Windows. But ok, the dual boot may not be a major reason.
Ok, the other points you make could be plausible, but I really disagree with this one:
No way. OpenGL right now is better than DirectX. DirectX is better optimized on ATI, but OpenGL on nVidia is just as good. Microsoft's OpenGL is horrible (still 1.1 I believe). The card manufacturers (nVidia, ATI, and others) make the good drivers for OpenGL. These manufacturers have unified drivers and could make Mac drivers, but Apple keeps the system to themselves and makes their own video drivers. Uh, Doom 3 uses OpenGL and I don't think that I'd say it sucks. This site has a pretty good history on the OpenGL/DirectX war: http://www.azillionmonkeys.com/windoze/OpenGLvsDirect3D.html
Microsoft would like you to think that DirectX is so much better, and why not? If they get most of the game developers to use it then gamers won't want to switch platforms. If gamers don't switch, then the demand for Windows games stays high and developers must follow the gamers. I know quite a few people that would like to use something besides Windows, but won't switch because of games. OpenGL may have lagged behind a few times, but so has DirectX. Right now they are both around the same level.
Inside the switch
"Inside the big switch" article:
http://arstechnica.com/columns/mac/mac-20050710.ars
Best explanation I've heard.
"Inside the big switch" article:
http://arstechnica.com/columns/mac/mac-20050710.ars
Best explanation I've heard.
BenRoethig
macrumors 68030
Can't say I'm very surprised about what was revealed in that article. It's all about Steve Jobs and his ego.
lgoss007 said:
It's a weak case, read the discussions that follows on the ARS forum. iPod the central business for Apple, yah right. Perhaps Jon Stokes knows computers, but anybody saying that needs some lessons in economics. There is a difference between your core business and the possibilities it gives you (the milking cows).
The Xscale claim is very weak as well. Ipod has enough sales on it's own to dictate volume discounts, but to base a whole platform macintosh switch on perhaps a tiny winy little extra discount is so hilarious I just crapt my pants 😱
shompa said:
Not based on what developers are saying today. It looks like the Intel destroys the PPC speedwise.
Wrong road?
I think you're incorrect. What Apple gains here is the ability to leverage the advantages of a CPU that's being built for 90%+ of the computers sold on the market today. Which would you rather base your latest computer technology on? A CPU primarily used in game consoles, or one that's an industry standard for computers built by practically all of your competitors?
The x86 architecture itself is far from being "on its last legs". I think some people say that because of some of Intel's recent failures in particular lines of CPUs. (The "Pentium 4 Extreme" CPUs were horribly overpriced for what you got, for example.) But Intel is also known for going back to the drawing board and designing up a whole new variation of processor whenever they hit a "brick wall" with one particular version. And at some point, they surely have a "Pentium 5" generation of chip coming down the pipe too.
I think IBM's PowerPC G5 was an excellent CPU design in many ways, but one of the initial promises IBM touted when it was announced was the fact that it was "just at the very beginning of its roadmap" and that big speed increases were practically inevitable as it evolved. Since then, it looks like IBM's design didn't actually help them overcome any of the speed barriers that everyone else was running up against - and they haven't illustrated any real ability to advance on their roadmap at all. (Consider that even the 2.7Ghz G5 seems to only be achieving that speed through water-cooling; a procedure Intel has *never* had to resort to on any of their products!)
I think you're incorrect. What Apple gains here is the ability to leverage the advantages of a CPU that's being built for 90%+ of the computers sold on the market today. Which would you rather base your latest computer technology on? A CPU primarily used in game consoles, or one that's an industry standard for computers built by practically all of your competitors?
The x86 architecture itself is far from being "on its last legs". I think some people say that because of some of Intel's recent failures in particular lines of CPUs. (The "Pentium 4 Extreme" CPUs were horribly overpriced for what you got, for example.) But Intel is also known for going back to the drawing board and designing up a whole new variation of processor whenever they hit a "brick wall" with one particular version. And at some point, they surely have a "Pentium 5" generation of chip coming down the pipe too.
I think IBM's PowerPC G5 was an excellent CPU design in many ways, but one of the initial promises IBM touted when it was announced was the fact that it was "just at the very beginning of its roadmap" and that big speed increases were practically inevitable as it evolved. Since then, it looks like IBM's design didn't actually help them overcome any of the speed barriers that everyone else was running up against - and they haven't illustrated any real ability to advance on their roadmap at all. (Consider that even the 2.7Ghz G5 seems to only be achieving that speed through water-cooling; a procedure Intel has *never* had to resort to on any of their products!)
progx said:
I think it's interesting to notice that everyone here is assuming that IBM laid out the "3ghz by next summer" roadmap and Jobs was just the messenger. We saw IBM roadmaps and announcements and no where did I see anything about 3GHz. So far, Jobs is the only one to say tout 3ghz. Maybe he just made it up, maybe he figured they could easily make it with water cooling?