Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

IBM Inside - some insider information

Originally posted by Catfish_Man
Actually VLIW (Very Large Instruction Word, or, as Intel calls it, EPIC, Explicitly Parallel Instruction Computing) is to RISC what RISC is to CISC. Putting even more pressure on the compiler to take stuff off the chip (in this case, out of order execution).

As for the 2GHz 750, IBM is certainly capable of making a chip that fast (although I would guess it would be similar in pipeline depth to the 970 to hit 2GHz, so around 14-15 stages), I just can't see why they're calling it a 750 (or why they're making it in the first place. Apple can't be their only customer for it). 750s are G3s. This thing, whatever it is, is definitely not a G3 by any usual definition (Once you've changed the execution core, bus interface, and added a SIMD unit, what's left to change?). The other problem is targetting such a chip. At 2GHz, with the added execution units, it's not going to be anywhere near the 3.6 watts the current 750FX draws, so it'll have to target a different market. It's certainly not high enough end for servers (especially if they keep the G3's limited multiprocessing capabilities), so there only seems to be one market left. AFAICT, that market (Apple/Blade Servers/Workstations) is served more than adequately by the PowerPC 970. I just can't see where IBM would be headed with a chip like this.

Also, Intel's chips are basically RISC chips with a translator stuck on the front. IBM has a slightly more advanced manufacturing process (silicon on insulator), but also relies heavily on automated design (for POWER4/970 anyway) which gets slightly worse performance. I seriously can't see how IBM is "light years" ahead of Intel. I would say, "inches", or perhaps even "meters", but not light years.

Lastly, the 745x series is Moto's property. I would be greatly surprised if Moto were to sell IBM the chip that's been causing IBM so much pain in the high end embedded market. If they did, though, it might be fairly interesting.
Click to expand...

I know Intel started from a RISC design when they put Itanium together. Honestly, I haven't read much on the chip because I haven't cared about it. Had they released it two years ago, as they had intended, I likely would have cared a lot more.

I should have clarified on the Moto bit. I meant to imply a stretching of the pipeline since the 745x has a 7 stager, I think. They did modify that, including extending the pipeline - and it was still a G4 by Apple's standards.

And I would say IBM is light years ahead of Intel. Wanna know why? They've driven the 970 up to 4.2 GHZ at .13. It's too hot for anything but a well cooled, large-cased tower - but it can run without burning up or causing fires. Remember, IBM is ahead in the copper game, giving them a more efficient means of transferring heat energy, etc. They're architecture is also more advanced. To say that IBM is only meters ahead of a chip that is running on a 20 year old architecture is ludicrous. Yes, I know the x86 design has been modified - but only so much.

I'll also admit to not being the chip nut and understanding every detail. My brother is much better at it than I - he's got the Computer Engineering degree and designs stuff. He's a PC guy and likes Intel, but has openly said that IBM is far superior at building chips and making them more efficient.

I do know IBM has a 750 chip running at 2 GHZ that will go to 3 at .09. I'm only guessing the pipeline has been changed. I know the FSB speed has been. Even I know that a chip running with 4 stages @ 2 GHZ isn't gonna happen - although it would make Intel look bad if IBM were able to find a way to make a 4 stager running that fast - and making it cool.

I do know the 1.5 is designed for laptops & that it draws slightly more than the 900 MHZ chip in the new iBook. You think Intel could make a 900MHZ chip with 4 stages and make it power efficient and cool like IBM has? I don't think they could do it in their dreams. I also don't know if it'll still ne called a 750. I do know they started with the 750FX and went from there and have been working on this thing for a year.

I admit to not having all the tech data on these things, but I'm confident that you'll get to see it sometime in the summer.
 
Having OSX available for servers for IBM makes sense right now in light of there current lawsuit with SCO. Sure the SCO suit is nonsense but it never hurts to have another platform available and it makes a nice redunancy for them.
 
This is inline with the lawsuit rumors. If apple is going to cut all ties with MOT they will need to replace the G4.

I would have trouble believing IBM would let an outside source develop their OS after what happened to them with MS and Intel. With the huge investment they have made into opensource I don't think they are wanting more control over linux. Besides the fact OSX is free without the GUI, which is what servers use anyways. IBM really doesn't need apple's permission, they could simply use darwin + x11.
 
Originally posted by Catfish_Man
As for the 2GHz 750, IBM is certainly capable of making a chip that fast (although I would guess it would be similar in pipeline depth to the 970 to hit 2GHz, so around 14-15 stages),.
Click to expand...

Not saying I believe this stuff (though certainly I would like to, but it just sounds too good to be true!), but in all fairness, the Athlon XP has clocked well past 2 Ghz on a .13 micron process, and it has "only" a 10 stage pipeline (I think it almost hit 1.8 Ghz on a .18 micron process). It is a significantly hotter and more complex chip than the 750, and IBM's process technology is certainly better than AMD's, no? So while I would not suggest that the current 750 w/a 4 stage pipeline could hit 2 Ghz on .13 micron, I would be shocked if IBM "needed" a 14-15 stage pipeline to reach 2 Ghz. Heck, even sorry old Moto is planning to hit almost 2 Ghz with the 7-stage 7457 on a .13 micron process. You're telling my IBM can't even design as good a chip as Motorola? Please.
 
Throwing all of those things out on the market during the summer would be suicide. Companies don't just switch everything all at once. G4s aren't going to just disappear. 970s may be introduced, but there will not be a magical switch. Even if the technology is there, it doesn't make sense to flood the market and kill your stock.
 
Originally posted by carletonmusic
Throwing all of those things out on the market during the summer would be suicide. Companies don't just switch everything all at once. G4s aren't going to just disappear. 970s may be introduced, but there will not be a magical switch. Even if the technology is there, it doesn't make sense to flood the market and kill your stock.
Click to expand...

Yeah that 2% market share can really wait. What we should be looking for is the tell tale eof. The reduction in stock and the unavailibilty of current products.
 
Re: OS X Server for IBM maybe?

Originally posted by Sol
y the way, this FSB at 400 MHz could make Apple computers seem one generation behind Windows PCs that run at 800 MHz. I am sure we will hear a lot more about this in the future, from both sides of the fence.
Click to expand...

Why are you comparing what would be their low end chip (in this scenario) with Intel's highest end chip? You should be comparing it to Celeron, or possibly Banias (aka Pentium-M aka Centrino). Both have quad pumped 100 mhz buses. It would toast the Celeron, and certainly be very competitive with Centrino (but really Centrino would be competing with the PB 970 in the scenario put forward by Mr. MacPhisto, whom, I must say, will in a few months either be seen as the Mac rumor god or lose all credibility forever!).
 
Some History

--------------------------------------------------
I believe the last paragraph

Remember that when the NeXT was first announced, it was announced that IBM had bought a license to the OS, NeXTStep (proper capitalization for the time), and that NeXTStep was going to be an option on AIX machines. They got as far as a beta off of the NS1.0 code, but when NeXTStep jumped to 2.0, they didn't follow and the project was cancelled.

This doesn't mean much, but it may provide some backing to the premsie that SJ would allow high-end IBM products to use his OS.
--------------------------------------------------

I've never posted before - in fact, I just registered in order to respond to this post. I occasionally browse this site - great site overall.

Steve Job's relationship with IBM goes back to 1988. He has been open to porting his OS to IBM systems in the past.

From 1981-1988 I worked for IBM (I've been out of the computer industry since 1992). I was part of the lead technical team for the RS6000 RISC family of processors and systems and for AIX.

In 1988 IBM and Steve initiated serious discussions about porting the NeXTStep user interface to AIX. IBM was looking to purchase a state of the art user interface. I had multiple meetings with Steve, Bud Tribble, Avi Tevanian, and the NeXT crew. Steve was eager to convince IBM to port the entire NeXTStep OS and eliminate AIX altogether, and aggressively pushed that option. IBM was the one resistant to this, as they had invested a lot into AIX at that point, and weren't sold on the Mach technology.

Based on this history, I don't think it's entirely ludicrous to suppose that Apple might consider porting OS X to IBM RISC systems. I have no idea if their actually considering doing this - I don't have many close contacts after 15 years - but I don't think it's out of the question. As long as it's a controlled relationship (as opposed to clones) and doesn't directly compete with Apple's line, it makes some sense.
 
Originally posted by type_r503
This is inline with the lawsuit rumors. If apple is going to cut all ties with MOT they will need to replace the G4.

I would have trouble believing IBM would let an outside source develop their OS after what happened to them with MS and Intel. With the huge investment they have made into opensource I don't think they are wanting more control over linux. Besides the fact OSX is free without the GUI, which is what servers use anyways. IBM really doesn't need apple's permission, they could simply use darwin + x11.
Click to expand...

Note sure this is true. If I recall, Darwin and OS X were built off of BSD Unix which is not entirely open-source. As long as proper credit is given, modifications become proprietary. Thus, you would have to license Darwin from Apple. Could be wrong on this one, but I believe that's correct. And Apple is certainly capable of creating a disc that could install the GUI or leave it out - completely at user discretion.

And, as someone mentioned, IBM has been having problems with SCO. It's not to say that IBM would abandon Linux, it just wouldn't be their preferred install.
 
Originally posted by Mr. MacPhisto
Note sure this is true. If I recall, Darwin and OS X were built off of BSD Unix which is not entirely open-source. As long as proper credit is given, modifications become proprietary. Thus, you would have to license Darwin from Apple. Could be wrong on this one, but I believe that's correct. And Apple is certainly capable of creating a disc that could install the GUI or leave it out - completely at user discretion.

And, as someone mentioned, IBM has been having problems with SCO. It's not to say that IBM would abandon Linux, it just wouldn't be their preferred install.
Click to expand...
Actually, Darwin is open source. It is just not the GPL. There is nothing to stop anyone from releasing a computer based on Darwin. Apple explicitly supports Darwin on x86. Presumeably, you can port it to Alpha, HP-PA, Itanium, MIPS, UltraSPARC, or whatever. The only thing that you cannot do is sell the proprietary MacOS X layer.

I have no idea if the original post is correct or not. However, my gut tells me that this is the way to go for Apple to extend MacOS X beyond its own hardware. A lot of the children who post here whine that Apple should go downmarket to x86 and clones with MacOS X. I would argue that it should go upmarket. Imagine if MacOS X were running on the workstations, servers, and clusters from the likes of SGI, IBM, and Sun. Apple would gain enormously from having its OS drive hardware of unquestioned reputation. The upmarket vendors gain access to the plethora of MacOS applications as well as the best UI in the business. What is more, they don't steal any of Apple's sales, but everyone gains. The Wintel weenies could shout that they play the latest shoot 'em up game. Mac users could retort that MacOS X just beat Kaparov in the latest computer human chess match or simulated the ignition of the USA's latest nuclear munition.
 
I think that I'd love to see the link with Big Blue to come true...providing there were some controls in place to protect one of Apples key strength's - control over hardware and software that means they can push through whatever they want. This makes Apples almost like a console in some respects as they can garentee software and accessories will work on a certain generation of Apples.

What I'd like to see is a consortium of trusted partners that can licence OS X and become Mac compatible. These trusted partners would have to have regular meetings to flesh out the Mac direction, pref with Apple having a veto vote. This would be to say for eg all consumer desktops will have at least firewire, USB 1.1, a DVD drive and a processor at x Ghz and so on. Of course the partner could add specs to this to add value or customise their line (maybe with a ceiling spec so they didn't cross over to the next line such as the prof line). If this was in place then Apple would have no problem releasing say an iPod device as they'd know every one of their target audience had the technology to run it just like now. Maybe some design rules would be laid down too, like beige banned ;) . Apple would have to choose carefully who joined to make sure things ran smoothly. I would like to see IBM cause they would bring respect to the business and server market and apple wouldn't lose any market share there as they don't have much anyway so to speak so thats a near enough win win partner...and likely if the previous posts are to be belived. Maybe Sun would be a good partner for the business market too and a useful allie with them controlling Java and having a lot of server tool experience...just what OS X server needs. Next SGI like someone mentioned before would be good as it brings in high end graphics sales that Apple hasn't focused on as yet and gives a bigger market for Shake and FCP to be marketed to. Lastly I'd really love to see Sony on board. There have been many rumours of sony talking to Apply and it just seems so misplaced seeing M$ on a sony product, especially when their pdas use palm instead of windows ce. Their computers have a way to go yet but they are probably some of the most stylish PC's around and they are one of the few pc's that come with firewire (iLink)...and with sony liking to use different technology to everyone else (think different?) then using a different os like OS X would be ideal. sony are also very like Apple in that they have a big fan base that stick by rthem, so i could see a hoard of snny fans switching to mac if there was a Sony Mac. It could also help sell more powerbooks as well if all the sony heads used macs and saw how cool the powerbook was and needed a laptop as it would be compatible with their sony desktops. Plus all those cool sony toys would come firstly with mac software so all their camera, aibo's etc would work better on than the pc world...and their hifi's could conect to itunes to stream content to your living room and giga pocket would move to mac and allow your sony tv to connect to a mac. Pihilips may also be a good partner. I can't see it hitting Apples sales too badly as most company's mantioned aim for a different market to apple except maybe sony but the benifits of sony on board, for brand value alone would be huge and sony would brobably focus on consumer only while leaving Apples strong hand to be in creative profs and education as always and the iMac could compete well with sony anyway. Imagine IBM, Sony and possibly SUn, and SGI all running mac os x, it would be hard for them to be ignored much longer and the revenue from os x licencing would be pretty big anyway. Ok i'm a dreamer...but some of the best business ideas have been dreams.
 
Re: IBM and OS X
Actually this makes some crazy sense if Apple really wants to enter the business market. People laugh now at the suggestion of installing an Apple XServe - unless you have a graphics dept. that already uses Macs. IBM on the other hand would get serious consideration in almost every industry - then XServes as support, dev, and backup would be a shoe-in. If IBM supports the XServes and XRaid - and even the regular lines, then you may see more businesses open to ditching some of their win32 machines. That <5% market share is pretty much 0% in the office.

Re: Fab technology
I wouldn't say IBM is miles ahead, but it is generally agreed that their Fishkill NY Fab is the most advanced in the world right now. Whether or not they can deliver high-volume, high-yield on the 970 or anything remains to be seen. I think they need a yield of only a few POWER4 chips a wafer to make a profit, but if the 970 is going to be affordable I think the rule of thumb target is a 60% yield - and that's well over 100 chips at 300mm. Cross our fingers this thing can be made in volume, otherwise we might have a traditional Apple announcement with product shipping... eventually. ;)

-Wyrm
 
IBM is about as solid as the whole wintel industry right now so any partnership with Apple is only going to help. Breaching the corporate sector is going to be tough - but it's like a domino effect when it goes well. (Fewer tech support staff means better cost efficiency!)
 
A couple of things about a IBM Mac -

There is an age old saying - 'No one gets sacked for buying IBM' so this would take much of the preceived resk out of buying Mac (though maybe not apple in the short term).

Dell the number one retailer of IBM and campatible PC's. IBM make Mac & compatible machines, not IBM...that would confuse people big time ;)...its an IBM but its not.... though of course they wouldn't stop selling PC's, only add OS X to their power pc line...which makes huge sence as the architecture isn't x86 anyway and quite closely related to mac anyway with the same brain, and its still unix so its not as if they need whole new software, just recompile for unix apps, which probs already have been as part of x11 or the fink project i guess.
 
Mr. MacPhisto, I'm going to be honest, I'm a bit skeptical. I have nothing against you, but99.9% of the I heard it from my friend at (insert company name here) turns out to be false. However, what you say does make a lot of sense. Apple needs a new processor badly. IBM has the capability to build such a processor and since it's a PowerPC, Apple does not have to change the architecture to incorporate it. IBM wants a user friendly unix based operating system for its servers and workstations. Apple has one that works on PowerPCs for sure and could be modifed to work on Power and perhaps even IBM's x86 machines. Apple and IBM are strong on different segments of the market. Apple's bread and butter has always been home computers and education. IBM is the king of business. Apple also gets a big help in the marketing department. With IBM branded PowerMacs (MacVista?), Macs will be available from even more dealers. The sales of these machines shouldn't effect Apple negatively since in all likelihood they would be purchased instead of a windows machine. Also, Apples sales are mostly in low and medium range PCs and portable and most Mac users will stay loyal and buy Apple.
 
hey Olar...

do you think IBM might consider working with Apple to write a
"brand new OS"...something like Taligent was supposed to have been?

Several sources at IBM I know of want to go 'beyond the VM situation'..and leave Sun hanging with Java. Something like a "complete server a.i. implemenatation"..that could use its Zos
or even Doug Lenat's OPENCYC more efficiently. Multiple os's on a
single chip..or complete system emulation...like say a 256 bit chip..
say Transmeta's TM8000 running 3 small footprint high availability systems..and a major human GUI for porting in and out .

MacOSX with a Plan 9 mini-kernal..plus a souped up Java VM..or
even VS..would be nice. Have you seen some of the "LCARS crazyness" going on a bennisoft? http://www.bennisoft.com

We are going to get SOMEONE to write us a 21st century system..complete with the a.i. promised back in the late seventies
(remember the Lisa box..it was supposed to have had an "intelligent explorer chip"..that was just a simple search engine..but who knew?

Yes..please tell IBM we "embedded people" want a 970 chip wired into a MPC 7540, 7550, or 7560...with Infiniband 12X, 32X
or 64X when it comes down the road.

<--no longer drools at MOto's web page...
 
thoughts

First off I disagree that IBM would "want" to use Apples OS X for another operating system to their Windows or Linux. They have spent so many billions of $$ and the last 3 years developing, supporting and manufacturing systems based on Linux to bother with Apples OS.

Currently, until Intel completes their manufacturing of their CPU plant in the China or is it the Phillipeans then right now IBM is ahead of Intel in terms of manufacturing & shipping of CPUs to clients.

Next Apple definately needs this PowerPC4/970 cpu more than ever. Hopefully They also will be smart in using a 6.4Gb/sec bus throughout the MOBO for higher PCI memory and HDD connections.

If the next iteration of the PowerMac has a 970 CPU and NO HyperTransport between bus connections then I'll wait till they do!!!! no point if I cant connect 4 Serial ATA/150 or ATA/300 (MBps) HDD into my PowerMac. If the XServe does then they'll be game.

Apple needs to work more closely with AMD--HyperTransport licenses, IBM MOBO design & chip design, Seagate--Serial ATA HDD.....to improve overall performance of their systems. ALso current rumors suggest that Panther will be a 64-bit OS!!!
 
Originally posted by BenRoethig
Mr. MacPhisto, I'm going to be honest, I'm a bit skeptical. I have nothing against you, but99.9% of the I heard it from my friend at (insert company name here) turns out to be false. However, what you say does make a lot of sense. Apple needs a new processor badly. IBM has the capability to build such a processor and since it's a PowerPC, Apple does not have to change the architecture to incorporate it. IBM wants a user friendly unix based operating system for its servers and workstations. Apple has one that works on PowerPCs for sure and could be modifed to work on Power and perhaps even IBM's x86 machines. Apple and IBM are strong on different segments of the market. Apple's bread and butter has always been home computers and education. IBM is the king of business. Apple also gets a big help in the marketing department. With IBM branded PowerMacs (MacVista?), Macs will be available from even more dealers. The sales of these machines shouldn't effect Apple negatively since in all likelihood they would be purchased instead of a windows machine. Also, Apples sales are mostly in low and medium range PCs and portable and most Mac users will stay loyal and buy Apple.
Click to expand...

You don't have to apologize for being skeptical.

Anyhow, also remember Apple's user-friendliness. IBM is not known for being great in that dept. I worked on OS/2 inside the company (not developing it, although I did interact with those guys) and nobody on that team could have come up with the ease-of-use stuff that Apple has. Installers were troublesome, drivers were a pain to install. Shame too, cause I still prefer the WorkPlace Shell over any GUI interface. Point is, IBM thinks Apple can help them gain more marketshare in the server and consumer market. The consumer market isn't a big deal to IBM, but it would allow them to make money and kick MS in the teeth - just like they feel MS did to them when they took 3.0 (which was a scaled down OS/2 that IBM allowed MS to hold licenses to) and abandoned IBM to pursue NT and 9x stuff instead. The threats of overcharging if IBM still made OS/2 didn't endear MS to IBM either.

So, IBM thinks it has a strong partner in Apple. Ironic, huh? Seeing as IBM designed the PC to steal the market away from Apple, which dominated with the Apple ][ series until Big Blue laid down its hand.

And as someone else did say, IBM gives Mac big business credibility. It will no longer be just for artists, kids, teachers, etc. Apple will finally improve the overall image. Apple gives IBM a partner that can simplify, innovate, and improve on IBM's own products. Both these companies feel they can work together in a mutually beneficial atmosphere - and with IBM being able to build Mac OS machines, it gives IBM some incentive to continue to work on chips more than Moto ever did.
 
I think IBM shipping OS X in hardware is a great idea. When Apple gets more acceptance in the IT market they'll grow there PC business. I think OS X should be licensed to other OEM's too..

Apple can stick to the iBook, aiBook, iMac and eMac. Let other's compete in the PowerMac market. The first three models appeal because they are great looking products. The iMac being the most unusual of all.. Apple needs market share and I think OS X can give them the market, but they need competition in the hardware area, even if it's to keep Apple in check.

I know many disagree as past experience has show the opposite, but I think we all learn from are mistakes. They first need to establish themselves in the business market with servers. Then they can license the consumer market as it will make sense to do so to gain a larger foothold.

Note:
The threat of MS taking OfficeX off the market may be a deterrent to license OS X in the beginning. If the document application becomes a reality and when OpenOffice for OS X becomes a public release, apple will have more room to play with MS.
 
Originally posted by pgwalsh
I think IBM shipping OS X in hardware is a great idea. When Apple gets more acceptance in the IT market they'll grow there PC business. I think OS X should be licensed to other OEM's too..

Apple can stick to the iBook, aiBook, iMac and eMac. Let other's compete in the PowerMac market. The first three models appeal because they are great looking products. The iMac being the most unusual of all.. Apple needs market share and I think OS X can give them the market, but they need competition in the hardware area, even if it's to keep Apple in check.

I know many disagree as past experience has show the opposite, but I think we all learn from are mistakes. They first need to establish themselves in the business market with servers. Then they can license the consumer market as it will make sense to do so to gain a larger foothold.

The threat of MS taking OfficeX off the market may be a deterrent to license OS X in the beginning. If the document application becomes a reality and when OpenOffice for OS X becomes a public release, apple will have more room to play with MS.
Click to expand...

Too much market saturation is a bad thing. If IBM wants to put out a tower, let them. However, I wouldn't bring the clones back until Macs are around 15-20% of PC sales. Even then I'd limit it no more than two or three licensees other than IBM.
 
Originally posted by BenRoethig
Too much market saturation is a bad thing. If IBM wants to put out a tower, let them. However, I wouldn't bring the clones back until Macs are around 15-20% of PC sales. Even then I'd limit it no more than two or three licensees other than IBM.
Click to expand...
I agree with you. My point they need to approach it differently and I think through the IT department and into the corporate offices first. Limiting the licenses is a good idea. But get IT to buy into it before anything else.
 
Mr. MacPhisto it seems like your story is a mixture of rumors and information from the internet and from your sources as well as speculation on your own part. Your story sounds quite plausible, and I suspect you do have real sources.

I am hoping you could help us out by letting us know what parts of yoru story are facts obtained from your sources and what is simply speculation on your part based on the facts you ahve been given.

This is a real problem with rumor sites. They often try to interpret facts or speculate as to what may happen, but give the users no idea what is real fact and what is speculation.

Please lets us know what you know so we may draw our own conclusions. I think you quite possibly have some interesting information, but it is just difficult to figure out what is real and what is not based on your original post.
 
Originally posted by AmbitiousLemon
Mr. MacPhisto it seems like your story is a mixture of rumors and information from the internet and from your sources as well as speculation on your own part. Your story sounds quite plausible, and I suspect you do have real sources.

I am hoping you could help us out by letting us know what parts of yoru story are facts obtained from your sources and what is simply speculation on your part based on the facts you ahve been given.

This is a real problem with rumor sites. They often try to interpret facts or speculate as to what may happen, but give the users no idea what is real fact and what is speculation.

Please lets us know what you know so we may draw our own conclusions. I think you quite possibly have some interesting information, but it is just difficult to figure out what is real and what is not based on your original post.
Click to expand...

Okay, what is real based on my sources (2 of them located at 2 different sites, my third contact is not involved with an area @ IBM that would deal with this stuff, so I'm not using any info from that one):

IBM has the 970 and will deliver 1.5-2.5 GHZ chips to Apple by June. What systems these chips will be in is specualtion on my part because I have no contacts inside Apple. I know the 1.5 GHZ is best suited for a small laptop and is slightly more power hungry than the 1.2 specs released officially. The 1.2 exists, but Apple won't be getting any.

IBM has a "modified" 750FX that can hit 2GHZ and can have a FSB up to 450. I don't have any pipeline info on this one, just know how fast it is. I know IBM will deliver speeds from 1.4-2 GHZ to Apple by June. Where they go is speculative, but the 1.4 should be the most laptop friendly, so my guess is the iBook.

IBM is designing a next generation 32-bit PPC processor that will supersede this new chip. The next gen chip is scheduled to be ready in the spring of next year.

IBM is working on a Power 5 derivative with hyperthreading and dual cores that may be ready as early as next summer.
Apple is already committed to purchasing both of these next generation chips.

Apple using 64-bit chips on the high end and 32 bit chips on the low end is an assumption on my part.

IBM will build OS-X based servers and will build OS-X desktops that will serve primarily as workstations. IBM likely will not sell to the consumer market until next year - although there is a possibility that they could sell them by Christmas.

IBM and Apple do have a deal that provides for tech sharing & allows for the companies to compensate for the others weaknesses.

Unmentioned rumor within the company: IBM will be gradually switching to OS-X internally. The only snag is the laptops issued, because IBM isn't licensed to make OSX laptops. This one is a rumor within. However, if Apple does manage to begin to infiltrate the market better, I could see IBM making Mac laptops as well. That's speculation on my part.
 
Originally posted by Mr. MacPhisto
Okay, what is real based on my sources (2 of them located at 2 different sites, my third contact is not involved with an area @ IBM that would deal with this stuff, so I'm not using any info from that one):

IBM has the 970 and will deliver 1.5-2.5 GHZ chips to Apple by June. What systems these chips will be in is specualtion on my part because I have no contacts inside Apple. I know the 1.5 GHZ is best suited for a small laptop and is slightly more power hungry than the 1.2 specs released officially. The 1.2 exists, but Apple won't be getting any.
Click to expand...

It is unclear how these "facts" would match up with MacBidouille's assertions that Apple will shortly begin shipping 1.4 Ghz 970 based PowerMacs. If Apple has 2.5 Ghz processors available to them (which the IBM rep at CeBit supposedly denied would be immediately available), then I would find it difficult to believe that the PowerMac would start as low as 1.4 Ghz...there would be too much of a disparity between a single processor 1.4 Ghz machine and a dual processor 2.5 Ghz machine (hehehe...I can only dream about the latter...my desktop computer would literally have more processing power than our department's "heavy duty" quad-Xeon Dell PowerEdge server). Not that I necessarily consider MacBidouille to be a credible source either, of course!

Oh, also, if Apple does not actually receive these processors until June, then I doubt that they could release the machines until August or September at the earliest. It's not like the PowerMacs can just be manufactured instantaneously as soon as the new chips show up! (I would assume they have had samples for some time now, however, so at least the preliminary designs should be done) Same thing would go for new iBooks/iMacs.

One question - I thought in one of your earlier posts you said that you were still in college (a senior?). So when were you working at IBM?

If even half of what you claim turns out to be true, that will be awesome. Everyone knows the 970 is coming to the PowerMac (but not necessarily what frequencies and whether it would be suitable for the Powerbook too), but I particularly like the idea of a new "low end" (and low power) processor for the iBook/iMac. Even the Moto 7457 is a little disappointing (though still far superior to what we have today) in that it only supports a bus speed of up to 200 mhz. And I find the idea of IBM using OS X fascinating (and definitely a desirable thing), though I have to say it really strains credibility (even though I think it would be a great idea for both Apple and IBM). At the end of the day, though, I have to be very skeptical because I remember too many other rumors (e.g. the Moto G5 rumor back in late 2001) that turned out to be false. Nothing personal of course - and if any of it does turn out to be true then you will certainly have my compliments for posting this info!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back