[DPG4450Guy]

IBM responds over at eWeek
Interesting, and sad. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif

[Rugby]

well nothing new as he is "supposed" to defend his hardware, but I agree it is kind of sad.
Following the article (next link in the story) I believe the big issue has been the mobile solution. Apple has been very keen to upgrade their Powerbooks and IBM has not been able to deliver a cool processor for the PB range.
Still that being said I do NOT regret buying my G5 just recently (2,7 DP tower), actually I am glad I did, as I anticipate it will take long time for the Tower series to implement a good Intel solution.
Nothing like Jobs to keep you on your toes eh ? /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[Martian]

FACT: There are no more easy performance increases. Future gains must be earned through substantial, ongoing R&D.
FACT: The PPC market can support only a fraction of the R&D that the Pentium or successor can.
FACT: Microprocessors are the very core of Intel's business. IBM's core has been transitioning away from PC's and from manufacturing altogether.
CONCLUSION: Obvious. No need to micro-analyze the individual technical issues.

MY OPINION: Switching to Intel may be the final hardware move needed to save Mac by switching to off-the-shelf, mainstream key components. This compliments the software move to the brilliant OS X.

[Rugby]

fact according to ... ? I fail to see the facts just because "you say so"

[MacCheetah3]

Hi
Could and would are two different things. They most certainly could and can. But apparently IBM felt that the miniscule (to them) profit return for such is not motivating. Now, IBM is trying to kill this bad press. It's unfortunate but IBM likely felt that the amount of money and time involved with Apple used revision of the 970 and future chips was not worth the small amount of sales compared to other items.

[DPG4450Guy]

Hmmm, wasn't aware that the Macintosh needed "saving."
Sales are up, Apple's in the best financial shape it ever has been in.

[maflynn]

IBM begs to differ - could build PowerPC chips that satisfy the needs of the entire range of Apple's product lines, IBM VP says.
Talk is cheap and the proof is in the pudding
Just looking at the road map that apple wanted to pursue.
Desktops
3GHz within a year (maybe I foget what Jobs promised) of the inital release of the G5. Did they, nope infact they had to institute a kludge with liquid cooling to get the speed up to 2.5
Laptops
When did we last see a major revision in the PB and iBook line? IBM unequivocally failed to provide a cool running G5. There can be no argument here. Laptops are an important segment to Apple's Line and IBM was unable to deliver the goods.
consumer models
While Apple did get a G5 into the iMac it took a lot of engineering and work. I'm not sure why they decided to abandon the lampshade design but one reason could be that the G5 would have melted inside it. the G5 iMac was delayed, remember apple stopped making the G4 iMac and then found the G5 iMac still had issues. There was a time where they had no iMacs because of design/heat issues.
Now I'm not knocking the current iMac, its an engineering marvel, but I do miss the lampshade design.
overall either because a shift in strategy or technical obstacles, IBM was unable/unwilling to provide Apple the cpus in a timely fashion.
Mike

[Rugby]

That is exactly the point : IBM ofcourse claim they could have delivered but in the end they really didnt....
so we will have to assume that Jobs was presented with (an offer he couldnt refuse) technology we have not seen or potentials for long term hardware thar IBM couldnt present.
So IBM got the game console industry this time, fine, but that really does not say anything as this market is not interested in long term potentials but what can you deliver right now..

[Martian]

In reply to:

---

Hmmm, wasn't aware that the Macintosh needed "saving."
Sales are up, Apple's in the best financial shape it ever has been in.

---

General Motors has dropped from 60% U.S. market share to 20somthing%, yet it is still powerful. Suppose it had instead dropped from 3% to 1%. It would have gone the way of Studebaker Packard or American Motors.
Unlike the Windows hardware and software industry, Mac does not have the leeway to make very many mistakes without cascading into a customer/developer spiral decline. Apple must stay sharp and smart. And switching to Intel is sharp and smart.
As for Apples financial shape the iPod/iTunes division has helped just a bit!

[mdawson]

In reply to:

---

There are no more easy performance increases. Future gains must be earned through substantial, ongoing R&D.

---

Ok, I will give you that.

In reply to:

---

The PPC market can support only a fraction of the R&D that the Pentium or successor can.

---

And you are basing this on what? Just because Intel has the large market share does not mean that IBM and Freescale do not have the ability to keep the PowerPC platform moving forward. The PowerPC is based on newer technologies and continues to incorporate newer technologies faster than any x86 chip despite Intels market share.
Try comparing something like the two platforms SIMD technologies. Altivec beats the pants off of MME. You see articles that still mention Altivec (Velocity Engine) optimization of software, how often has the PC press talked about MME since the first MME enhanced Pentiums hit the market in the late 1990s? Intels SIMD vector processing is sub par and no one talks about it anymore.
The PowerPC family of processors is technologically superior to x86 and has much more room to grow. Any stalling on the advancement of the PowerPC has had more to do with the divergent philosophies of IBM and Freescale than the potential of the technology. Both IBM and Freescale are prioritizing their R&D toward their ultimate objectives rather than the desktop/laptop market and Apple has suffered the results of that divide.

In reply to:

---

Switching to Intel may be the final hardware move needed to save Mac by switching to off-the-shelf, mainstream key components.

---

What makes you think for one second that Apple is going to relinquish its quality control? First and foremost, most of what is in the Mac are mainstream components. The only area where Macs differ is that unlike the vast majority of Wintel OEMs, Apple designs and manufactures its own motherboards. It is unlikely that they will discontinue doing so. You do not get computers like the iMac (any generation), eMac or Mac mini when you have a company that is content with buying prefabricated motherboards. Also, FireWire 400 is not standard on most Wintel desktops to this day let alone FireWire 800, what prefab motherboard would you suggest Apple waste their money on?
The Mac works as seamlessly as it does because Apple has absolute control over the design of the operating system and the hardware. Adopting the design philosophy of the Wintel camp defeats that purpose.

[DPG4450Guy]

Well, we don't know yet if the move to Intel is "sharp" yet, or not.
A higher clock doesn't mean a faster computer, the higher-end dual G5's blow Wintel away . . .
Legacy PPC software will not run very well (at this point) under the MacIntel emulation - and getting enterprise and embedded customers to change to Intel-native SW is not going to be easy, or fast.

[Martian]

In reply to:

---

And you are basing this on what? Just because Intel has the large market share does not mean that IBM and Freescale do not have the ability to keep the PowerPC platform moving forward. The PowerPC is based on newer technologies and continues to incorporate newer technologies faster than any x86 chip despite Intels market share.

---

We are not talking about technical ability, we are talking about proper fiscal management whereby a company must consider return on investment. Larger sales produces larger returns to justify related investment.
Also, I repeat that processors are Intels core business, and they MUST innovate in processors. Processors are hardly core at IBM, and Freescale is not into G5.
As for newer technologies, the fabulous OS X is built on a stone age OS older than Mac OS 1; far older than its chief competitor, XP.

In reply to:

---

You do not get computers like the iMac (any generation), eMac or Mac mini when you have a company that is content with buying prefabricated motherboards.

---

I am referring to off-the-shelf purchases of Apples components. Apple BUYS the CHIPS that go onto the boards it designs and fabricates.
Business considerations trump technical considerations when you consider just what a supplier will do.

[fpoon]

IBM is just trying save face. They've dealt with Apple much longer than their other two big customers/partners at this point-Sony (with the Cell) and Nintendo (with what I want to say they're calling the Broadway CPU, although that could be the GPU, so my bad in advance), yet IBM realizes theres more money to be made in producing console chips that tons upon tons of folks will use, vs. putting all the time and effort into making chips for a computer company that controls around 5% of the market.
The split is a good thing for both companies. IBM can focus on the Cell with Sony and all of its future applications outside of the gaming industry (which I remain mighty sceptical on, seeing how the PS2 was supposed to change the world which it most certainly did not, and the XBOX changed the gaming industry a lot more) and Apple gets a dedicated CPU company who knows how to put out quality chips in massive, nigh unlimited quantities. That being said, I think AMD's desktop chips are far better than what Intel has, but Intel mobile chips are light years beyond AMD. And since mobility is important to Apple, it was an easy decision. In my humble opinion, hardware is what has been holding Apple back for the last couple of years, and with Intel on-board, that is about to end.
And besides, if they could figure how to run OS X on an Amiga, it'd still be better than the best IBM hardware running whatever else.