IBM's PPC 970, AMD's Opteron, and Apple 520
Posted
by
pudge
from the oh-my dept.
from the oh-my dept.
Pharmboy writes "I haven't seen enough info on the new IBM PowerPC 970 CPU expected shortly. I found some info direct from IBM here plus more info in a couple other places. For those of us wanting to get away from Windows, but feel Linux is still not ready for the desktop yet, this might make Apple a more viable alternative. This also raises issues about the potential partnership with Apple and AMD. Will we see Mac OS X running on two different platforms/CPUs? Could we be that lucky?"
PPC 970 == Vaporware (Score:-1, Insightful)
If... (Score:5, Insightful)
MacOS on x86 talk yet again? (Score:3, Insightful)
Move away from Linux? (Score:5, Insightful)
Open Source requires participation; coding and community.
Step up! Not down.
Re:Stolen, but insightful. (Score:5, Insightful)
Then again the fact they've done it so many times before could mean they're likely to bash their head against this particular wall one more time
Re:Stolen, but insightful. (Score:3, Insightful)
Wild speculation or not, it's fun to think about.
An obvious explaination.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, they could make some money off selling OS/X. However, they would then have to become MUCH more interested in ensuring their software is not being pirated, and that means some kind of DRM. A lot of folk love Apple because of their anti-DRM stance, and a lot of that love would disappeaer if Apple went down this route. As it is, Apple don't seem THAT concerned about piracy of their software, instead relying on those that want to 'do the Right Thing' with Apple, which is a fair percentage of their user base.
Instead, this is my theory on the Apple/AMD relationship, if there is one.
- It would be STUPID of Apple to rely on a single-source for their new processors, so, who better than to ask as a 'second source' than AMD? Yes, I'm sure Apple/IBM will get a leetle percentage out of all the chips that AMD make, but I'd bet my dollars that's what's going on.
Of course, the other possiblity is that AMD HAD talks with Apple, and they consisted of "Hey, lets go do lunch." "No."
Enough already! (Score:4, Insightful)
-psy
this is NOT offtopic (Score:3, Insightful)
Stop it. AMD + Apple == Hypertransport (Score:5, Insightful)
Besides, are they or any of the Mac software vendors going to support two versions of their Mac products? No.
Re:Missed an option: (Score:5, Insightful)
True - the desktops are still somewhat pricey. $1000 more? No. Not if we're talking iMacs, and if you're comparing them to a machine purchased from a major manufacturer like Dell or Compaq - If you're talking beige-boxes, well then yes. Apple computers are $1000 more than a beige box
But keep in mind, Apple is really focusing on the portable market segment this year, so that's where most of the value is going to be.
Hypertransport (Score:5, Insightful)
AMD == Hypertransport && IBM == P970
Lucky? (Score:4, Insightful)
Define "lucky". You mean, not only having to find Mac software, but now having to find software for your particular Mac platform? appleppc.slashdot.org along with appleamd.slashdot.org? Developers throwing up their hands in disgust and walking away when confronted with a platform redesign two years after the last one? Sounds lucky to me.
Seriously, give whatever Jobs has up his sleeve a chance. If he wants a decent PowerPC chip, he'll get one.
Re:Move away from Linux? (Score:5, Insightful)
Something It Seems Everyone's Forgetting (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple has heavily optimized OS X and the so-called iLife apps (iTunes, iPhoto, etc.) for AltiVec, the special vector instruction set that the G4 has. That's why OS X runs much more nicely on G4's (which have AltiVec) than on G3's (which don't). The reason all the buzz started about Apple migrating new Macs to the 64-bit IBM chips in the first place was that IBM introduced AltiVec workalike instructions for their new chips, so Apple could move up without sacrificing the AltiVec optimizations. Moving to x86-ish hardware would mean that they'd lose all the AltiVec optimizations they've made, so it seems unlikely to me.
Re:Maybe for a while... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the biggest reason I've doubted the Apple/Opteron rumors from the start. When Apple switched from 68k to PPC they chose a processor that was capable of emulating the old platform at full speed to ensure a seamless transition from the user perspective. I doubt Apple would be interested in anything but a seamless transition this time as well. Opteron, however, doesn't have enough registers (among other problems) to do a good job at emulation the PPC architecture. I would guess that there would have to be AMD chips that are 10x faster than PPC chips (they're getting there, but PPC isn't that far behind yet) or Apple would not be satisfied with the PPC emulation experience. I would believe the use of Itanium more that the use of Opteron, just because Itanium is much better suited to PPC emulation. Unfortunatly a single Itanium CPU costs more than most complete Apple systems right now, so that's probably unrealistic as well.
As for all the people that say the 970 is vaporware because of the lack of hype, well there's always been much less hype from IBM and Motorola about their new CPUs than from Intel, AMD, and (formerly) Digital (remember the old Digital Alpha CPU ads back in the late 80s/early 90s? "We're on our third generation 64bit architecture. Our compitition hasn't even started designing their first." It was the first CPU specific TV ad I remember seeing. Classic). IBM markets to manufacturers, not to end users, so unless you're a developer you don't see the hype. IBM and Apple are well suited for each other because IBM has a history of licensing portions of their CPU cores and using them to put together custom processors for the customers. Apple would love to have that kind of control, and they won't get it anywhere else.
desktop (Score:4, Insightful)
Come on, don't hide behind "not ready yet". Just spit it out: "I don't like the Linux desktops". Now, that wasn't too hard, was it?
That's fine, I don't like the OS X or Windows desktops either. That's why they make so many different kinds. But let's not pretend that there is a single desktop that is oh-so-much-better for everybody than any of the others.
Your statement makes about as much sense as saying that "vanilla ice cream isn't ready yet for the kids of America, but strawberry, which is clearly so much better, is too expensive".
Apple will not use two platforms (Score:5, Insightful)
Using two simultaneous platforms is a big problem for sales and developer relations. Which is better? Why even bother with the other platform then? Or, why is the new platform so much better yet it has little available software? Why bother porting to the second platform when sales are sluggish on that platform? Then existing customers get angry. Why is my platform being abandonned? New customers feel the same if the gamble doesn't pay off and gets killed. The only partial exception is if one platform does not substitute for the other, say appliances vs. desktops and servers. Think Sun's purchase of Cobalt.
Re:Reading OSnews lately? (Score:2, Insightful)
It's always been a case of "just wait, the next release will solve everything!". Zealots chant it as their mantra.
It's not going to happen. FOSS, by it's very nature, will never produce anything more than a patchwork clone of other desktops.
There's no technical reason that a desktop as slick as OS/X couldn't be built on top of linux the way OS/X is on top of BSD, but that kind of effort requires management and discipline. Only a corporate effort can pull that off.
In the OSS world, if you dont like the way a projects going, you go ahead in your own direction. And that's fine, after all, its unpaid hobbyists doing the work.
But in a corporate environment all the coders have to be thickskinned when their nifty super-duper new subsystem proposal gets nixed, and buckle down and get the job done. If linux desktop was a corporate project, there would be no KDE vs Gnome vs Enlightenment vs blah vs blah discussions. There would be one project.
Short of some for-profit coming in and getting it done (which I think may eventually be the case), I just cant see it happening.
Re:Enough already! (Score:4, Insightful)
Because so many x86 users want Mac OS X on their cheap-ass boxes, and so many Mac users want Mac OS X on a cheap-ass box. Put simply: wishful thinking.
Re:Stop it. AMD + Apple == Hypertransport (Score:4, Insightful)
A common claim. Unfortunately it's wrong. Athlon XP doesn't really run any hotter than Pentium 4 does for example. In fact, you coulöd say that XP runs cooler than P4 does.
For facts on this issue, go here:
http://www.aceshardware.com/read.jsp?id=5000036
all wrong... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Chimera Cons (Score:2, Insightful)
What are you talking about? Didn't you at least read the post? Aren't you a little curious about the PPC970 and what kind of performance to expect? Why would you even write a three-paragraph post on a subject you have no clue about? I hope you're just trolling.
if MS can port windows to handhelds, why can't Apple do it?
Apple did it before anyone. Ever hear of the Newton?
Re: That would mean the end of Mac apps (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's pull it all together... (Score:5, Insightful)
In short, NO.
Firstly, as everyone knows, Apple makes money off one thing, and one thing only - HARDWARE. They make great software only to sell their hardware.
The benefits of controlling the hardware are
- A better user experience
- Lower tech support costs
- Better quality control
- Specialized/customized designs with an eye toward aesthetics
They CANNOT allow others to create hardware upon which their software will run. This means that they have to use a special BIOS, and manufacture their own boards. IF they switch to an OS that can be run on an x86 processor (and custom mothboard/bios/etc), you will find, the very next day, a crack for the software which will allow it to run on any generic motherboard, and further down the line a BIOS image which will allow an unmodified software to run on a non-custom motherboard.Right now they can control it because a 'commodity' PPC motherboard costs more than the same apple motherboard. It would surprise me if Apple wasn't applying some pressure to various suppliers to prevent the widespread availability of commodity PPC equipment which is very similar to Apple's own. This is common in the industry. Furthermore, they may even have a slightly altered/customized version of the various PPC chips they use.
The only way for Apple to play against WINTEL is to not compete - not competing means selling essentially different products. Apple would die if they had to sell their OS and try to make a profit at it - the company is simply not designed to compete against MS. (Although if they did Windows would improve dramatically)
Put another way, Apple is a whole user experience company. They don't want the user to go to a generic theatre, sit in seats made by some strange company, eat food purchased from GFS, and watch a movie made by three different movie studios. They want you in their theater, their seats eating their food, and watching their entirely controlled movie.
This is good for those who only want to deal with one company, and are willing to pay for it. They know their market. They may be trying to expand it a little towards the geek segment that play with software but don't care about hardware (we run unix!). It is unlikely that they will ever capture the imagination of the hardware geek, they know it, and they aren't courting us.
So stop posting freaking stories about OS X on any commodity hardware, ok?
-Adam
Why do we need x86? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:An obvious explaination.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Hardware is a tough place for Windows PC makers to make money. Apple has been doing pretty well there. Dell and Gateway have problems and losses because they're in competition with each other and with your cousin who makes PCs in his garage. Your suggestion that Apple would make more money by competing with Dell and your cousin is strange.
Microsoft and VPC (Score:5, Insightful)
The Itanium's x86 emulation is only so-so. VPC makes a product which allows an entirely alien architecture to run x86 apps almost perfectly providing you have an x86 OS. It would be possible for the VPC guys to take their PPC code and recreate it for Itanium to create the same level of compatability for Itanium architectures. That would be functionality that Microsoft would want to offer their customer base.
Re:two suppliers (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Microsoft and VPC (Score:5, Insightful)
As strange as this may seem at first, it makes sense: Microsoft is now in the process of stopping support for Windows 95 and Windows NT 4.0. But some customers still have to run applications that requires these operating systems, and VPC will allow them to do just that:
Quote from an article in Server Watch [serverwatch.com]:
Re:apple hardware is dead (Score:5, Insightful)
The PowerPC isn't a proprietary processor. If you'd like to design a motherboard that uses it, go ahead. No one's stopping you (unless it infringes on an Apple design, that is). The hard part would be selling it...
Apple will not destroy its PPC customer- and developer-bases by tossing them aside after all the time, money, and effort expended on Mac OS X. Apple will adopt the PPC 970, take Motorola out of the CPU development loop, and provide Mac OS X for a tightly proscribed x86 configuration (including its own branded boxes--almost everything but the CPU in a Mac is now commodity parts, so that perceived barrier is long gone).
Steve Jobs is a patient man when it comes to the world-at-large. He knows that Apple probably won't ever replace Microsoft as the dominant player in the x86 market, but he also knows that this is probably the perfect time to give them some competition. Microsoft faces a number of challenges to its dominance: its attitude toward DRM, its "trusted computing" initiative, the quiet debacle it's weathering vis-a-vis virtual weekly security updates to XP and other critical software, the growing popularity of open source software, its enterprise licensing scheme, and the increased scrutiny it's under after losing the anti-trust case (like IBM before it, the loss itself will prove more damaging than the punishment).
Apple will continue to produce Mac OS X for PPC. The x86 version would be--in the beginning--a loss-leader. It would get noses into the tent from every market segment. That interest would fuel developer interest (notice how quickly the "there's no software for the Mac" discussion abated in the flood of Open Source offerings it now enjoys).
Once that interest is cultivated, Apple has a whole slew of products/ideas "on the shelf" that would benefit from this renewed interest. There's an advantage to being ahead of your time if you survive long enough.
Re:Speculation du jour (Score:3, Insightful)
I think everyone(*) wants their computer to be able to take care of what they want it to, and everyone(**) is probably pretty happy with where Apple's hardware is right now, because everyone(***) knows how much more efficient they are on those computers.
(* everyone except the vocal minority of computer users represented on
(** everyone who isn't in college living off Mom and Dad's money so they've got cash to burn on the latest and greatest hardware)
(*** everyone who's actually used a modern Mac day-to-day, and just smiles knowingly when they see stories talking about how Macs are overpriced, underpowered, or destined to fail when Linux wins the desktop on Slashdot)
Re:Stolen, but insightful. (Score:3, Insightful)
Remember that the feasibility of something is quite apart from the practicality and advisability of following that course.
What are you talkign about? (Score:0, Insightful)
I have to comment on this:
"For those of us wanting to get away from Windows, but feel Linux is still not ready for the desktop yet, this might make Apple a more viable alternative."
You have to be kidding me, Linux(and FreeBSD) are ready, and are being used for the desktop! I am irate!
Blasphemer!
The only thing that Linux needs to improve on is games, and that is not important.
GET A FREAKING CONSOLE!
Who writes these posts anyway?
Re:AMD thing in bigger context (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. A year ago it might have made sense for Apple to switch to x86, but with the impending 970 release it would be silly. It would substantially reduce the currently huge demand for the 970, as buyers would fear the machines being obsoleted if Apple abandoned the PowerPC entirely. But HyperTransport is win-win for everybody (well, not MS and Intel, darn).
Re:Stolen, but insightful. (Score:3, Insightful)
I know. The point I was making was that just because you can it doesn't mean you should.
Where would Apple place Opterons on their marketing? Would they market to the high-end desktop crowd? If they did, would the makers of high-end software actually create two versions of their code, one optimized for each platform (Opteron might be fast but it won't have Altivec)? Even assuming that development for the two environments would simply be a checkbox away ("Compile for PPC or Opteron?") Apple would basically be either killing PPC or dooming Opteron to failure. Software companies would probably pick one system to optimize for and ignore the other (heck, many don't even optimize for Altivec now).
And with all this risk, what exactly would the reward be? What is the prize? Avoiding some future that may never come where IBM doesn't produce a fast enough PPC chip? Not worth it. Why kill the company over a pipe-nightmare?
Re:Missed an option: (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly. At least with the Dells et al. you have an alternative where you can be in the same league. People keep going on about how much you get for your money with a mac. I don't dispute that. I also don't want half that crap.
If I just want an x86, to run linux, I have to spend about $300.
If I want anything that will run OSX, it's going to cost me at least $1000. I don't have that kind of money. And if I did, I could sure as hell think of something better to spend it on than computer hardware.
Yes you can make the same Ferrari argument as everyone always does, but I wish people would stop preaching at me to use OSX.
Do you go around saying Ferraris aren't expensive?
Do you go up to an econobox driver and start preaching that they should get a Ferrari?
I don't care about value, I care about price.
Re:Stolen, but insightful. (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, except those OS X users who use QuarkXPress or need to connect to an Exchange server for mail and calendaring (so no, turning on IMAP or POP/SMTP and using Mail.app wouldn't cut the mustard). Almost all of my clients are now in this category. I could not in good conscience let my clients pay the ripoff prices Apple is charging for their G4s that still boot into OS 9, so they got X-only G4s and I thought Classic would work well enough for them to tide them over-- it's only two apps, right? Wrong! They not only crash with amazing frequency, they often can bring down the whole Classic environment in the background, without the Mac even telling me-- I don't notice until I want to switch back to do something in one of them, and notice the "active app" triangle under the dock icon is gone.
I always thought Quark were a bunch of customer-hostile dicks, but lately the amount of grief I've had to endure because their fucking app still isn't OS X-native has changed my opinion: Now I think they're bunch of customer-hostile dicks who need to die, as slowly and painfully as possible. And Microsoft, while the state of their Mac apps has improved dramatically in recent years, deserve to eat shit over not starting an X-native Exchange client for so long. People were clamoring for it since 10.0 was released, for Christ's sake. It was probably a strategic decision, to keep OS X from gaining a foothold in businesses for a while.
Re:Microsoft and VPC (Score:2, Insightful)
Microsoft has always had enough of cash to just buy whole companies to get the technology.
Re:There is NO conspiracy theory, AMD isn't just x (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you have this backwards. AMD just recently signed up to use IBM's new manufacturing plant to increase production yield on chips and allow for higher process manufacturing (.09 micron.) IBM wouldn't be disrupting anything to "just" manufacture chips for Apple. Since AMD will be booming in the embedded business when/if HyperTransport takes off, they'll need the extra manufacturing space to produce their chipsets.
You're also overlooking a very obvious clue to the PowerPC 970 being the chip of choice for Apple: the fact that IBM has included an AltiVec engine (and by that name, too.) IBM has stated before and stated again that they will not be using AltiVec, that it's simply there for 2nd and 3rd party vendors to take advantage of.
Can you name one practical vendor that utilizes AltiVec other than Apple? I highly doubt IBM is catering to Amiga.
The whole thing about Apple being in talks with AMD is more plausible if it's put in terms of HyperTransport chipsets and software compatability, and not switching their entire platform over to AMD64. As noted before, IBM and Apple are both on the HyperTransport consortium, it's only reasonable that they need to talk to each other now and again regarding HyperTransport issues. If you see on The Register or some other place about Apple being a purchaser for chips from AMD, please keep in mind that it's most likely HyperTransport chipsets and not Opterons.
How Does a Cheaper CPU = Less Profit for Apple? (Score:5, Insightful)
I also suspect that OSX (if written properly for a small set of sound/video cards) would be faster than Windows on the same machine. Even if it isn't, people crave the Mac experience. Mac users have never minded paying more. They don't even care that Macs are the slowest on the block right now. It's about the user experience folks. Plain and simple.
Re:Stolen, but insightful. (Score:5, Insightful)
Niche marketing can be counter-intuitive, but it's also the classic question of whether you want to be a big fish in a little pond, or a little fish in a big pond. Apple chose the former, exerts great influence in its chosen market, and makes a profit in probably some of the worst years ever in the industry.
There are far worse business models, and technically it's nearly impossible to provide the kind of hardware-software integration that Apple currently sells without controlling the hardware. It's not so much they like being a hardware and software company as that they can only distinguish themselves in the market by also selling hardware.
Let's examine your business plan, where:
Apple could make a very nice transition to Opteron/Athlon64. [...] I also feel Apple should stick with PPC on the notebook side.
which in effect nearly triples the development effort for a Mac software vendor. First, you need to build and test an Athlon version (which is not going to be compatible with the Windows version), build and test a PPC version, and then test the PPC emulation version. Thereby making Apple's already small marketshare even more fragmented, when the obvious sensible thing to do is to get a new high end PPC CPU, drop the G3, and improve G4 compiler optimizations.
If PPC 980 (or whatever) turns out to be a big win over Opteron2, it's not that big of a deal to switch back.
That would be plainly insane. Apple's third party software vendors tend to be smaller, and would have a very hard time hopping from platform to platform. Even some big ones have not completed the OS X transition, and you're talking about going to x86 and back?
Re:Stolen, but insightful. (Score:3, Insightful)
And what, exactly, would Apple gain by doing that?
Pretty much OSX without the ability to run Mac apps. I'd buy!
Ok, so there would be one customer. Unless you're willing to spend about $50M for your copy, it's really not a good prospect for Apple to release a BSD with X windows on intel.
-jcr
Re:Stolen, but insightful. (Score:5, Insightful)
Spoken like someone who has absolutely no idea what he's talking about.
If you can't make the shift to OO concepts in programming, then yes: Cocoa's not going to be any fun for you. For those of us who don't like doing the same work over and over again for each app we write, Cocoa is a godsend.
-jcr
Re:two suppliers (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Conversions & Consumers (Score:3, Insightful)
If Apple splits its market in to two incompatible processor technologies, it would be even LESS likely that new software would be ported, and it would have to be ported twice. That means twice as many SKUs, twice the inventory and shipping problems, twice the testing issues, all for what? Perhaps 20% grater market share?
Re:two suppliers (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:two suppliers (Score:3, Insightful)
Linux, the cousin of BSD (the parent of OS X) runs on many processors, as do many of the other *nix varients. It would be much easier to run a *nix based OS on multiple platforms than Windows, because it already runs on other platforms, and was designed to from the very beginning. Berkeley designed 4BSD to do exactly this. Windows' support of other CPUs, is a less sucessful story.
Even though the one article focuses on 4 to 8 way desktops, the server market would be the likely first target: You can get more per unit out of the gate, and less application support is need to get them in the field. Put a 4 to 8 way box, with 16 to 64 gigs of ram, and you have a great web server. It might take longer to get all the multimedia and other desktop niceties up to snuff, but I would bet that support for apache, bind, sql, and other OSS services would come fast, since OSS can potentially develop faster when properly motivated.
Since the 970s are designed specifically for SMP and to be reasonably priced, and the server market is not sold purely by the gigahertz rating, but rather by real world performance, AND it being produced by IBM who is very likely to support Linux and *nix in general on this CPU, these could get popular fast.
I wouldn't want to own any SUN stock when it comes out.
Re:two suppliers (Score:5, Insightful)
There are several big differences though.
1. Most people using Unix on non-i386 platforms (or just Linux at all), are far more advanced than your average Windows/Mac users.
2. Most applications used on Unix are open source... That means the CPU hardly matters at all.
For Windows/Mac OS X, most software is binary-only, and companies are going to decide that it's not worth the effort of supporting processor X, when it only has a fraction of the users. So, which ever gains popularity will be the defacto only system to use, and users of the other will be out of luck.
AMD and Intel chips are too hot for Apple's taste (Score:3, Insightful)
More importantly, a 1.2 GHz PPC 970 burns only 19 W, which makes it possible for Apple to design cool and sexy fortables without huge heat sinks or noisy fans.
The low energy consumption is also critical for 24/7 servers, it reduces electricity bills and hardware failures. So I can't really see why Apple or anyone else should be too excited about the hot chip.