[Love Calm Quiet]

[Moderator: please re-edit my title from "What do..." to "Are..."; I actually do speak English]

I realize they won't run OSX (for lack of firmware, etc), but do moves like this bode well or poorly for OSX... more competition? (I've read about Unix camps getting to be popular spots for PowerBooks these years). First there were Intel laptops running 'nix; now Power5 servers with Linux. Maybe IBM can envision its own Power5 laptop?

Or is OSX helped by having more people moving to alternatives to Windows?

http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml...toryID=6214273

[Turnpike]

I think OS X (and computing in general) stands to gain from any move that gets people away from MS. MS isn't able to keep market share because everybody else has a tiny market share... they keep it because they have huge market share.

What I mean to say is this: If there are 5 major operating systems, each with 20% share in every market (home, business, server, et al) then when somebody buys a new computer/OS they will buy it based on its ability to do what they need it to do, how they want it to do it. If one company, on the other hand, has 95% market share, then people will go for that simply because A) They feel it is going to be around longer (VHS vs Betamax), B) They feel it will integrate with the world better, and C) They figure if 95% have made this choice, they should to.

Certainly in a 5 way split there would be some people who just kept with what they knew, not what was best... but there wouldn't be any sort of intimidation factor as there is with MS.

[utidjian]

Originally posted by Love Calm Quiet:
[Moderator: please re-edit my title from "What do..." to "Are..."; I actually do speak English]

I realize they won't run OSX (for lack of firmware, etc), but do moves like this bode well or poorly for OSX... more competition? (I've read about Unix camps getting to be popular spots for PowerBooks these years). First there were Intel laptops running 'nix; now Power5 servers with Linux. Maybe IBM can envision its own Power5 laptop?

Or is OSX helped by having more people moving to alternatives to Windows?

http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml...toryID=6214273

Linux has run on POWER arch for a long time. IBM has been supporting directly it for at least 5 years IIRC. See:
http://www.ibm.com/servers/eserver/l...ite=Blade_JS20
and
http://www.terrasoftsolutions.com/tss_home.shtml
for more details.

Not necessary for IBM to make a POWER laptop because Apple already makes a really good one! ;-)
Linux runs fine on them:
http://www.terrasoftsolutions.com/store/
Though not all functions are as well supported as they are under Mac OS X.

[Arkham_c]

IBM still uses Intel for its desktop systems. They have embraced Linux on the server side, but not really on the desktop. As a server OS, Linux has a lot of advantages over OSX (primarily commodity hardware and enterprise vendor support), but on the desktop I think OSX's advantages far outweigh those of Linux. UNIX people like me use OSX because we get all of the benefits of the MacOS, plus the UNIX stuff we all know and love. Linux has the UNIX stuff, but the GUI is not as good, there are no games, there are very limited commercial productivity apps, and the consumer hardware isn't as good (Linux is notoriously bad about supporting the video chips in PC laptops).

IBM's Power series are the basis for the G4/970 processor. The Power 5 will likely be the basis for the next generation chip Apple uses in their G5s. IBM and Apple have a symbiotic relationship right now. I don't really see that changing.

[Millennium]

Given that they start at $5000 with only one POWER5 chip, I would say that these are probably no threat.

IBM's machines compete in very different markets from Apple's. Apple's sole server-oriented system, the XServe, is intended for clustering environments, where many relatively low-end machines work as one larger machine. These are excellent at both the very low end of the server market (low barrier to entry, because they're relatively cheap) and also at the very high end (potentially more power than any single computer on the market today can give you).

This new IBM machine, on the other hand, looks like it's going for the mid-range market. Clusters don't do very well here, because each machine gives you much more bang for the buck. You would need two or three XServes to get the same raw power as one of these, and so this machine is cheaper for what it is. However, if you need significantly more (or less) power than what this machine offers, it eventually becomes more economical to go back to blade servers like the XServe.

[Angus_D]

Any R&D on IBM's processors is good for Macs, which, uh, use IBM processors

[lngtones]

Originally posted by Angus_D:
Any R&D on IBM's processors is good for Macs, which, uh, use IBM processors

d00d Macs are IBM-Compatible!!!

[fiesta cat]

As utidjian said, this is an old story (Linux running on IBM PPC machines). This goes back 5 years or so (at least officially).

OS X is a danger to Linux, not the other way around. I know of just as many Linux users who have switched to OS X as have Windows users, and some say that OS X eats into Linux markets much more than it does into the Windows markets. It's easy to see why - you get all of the benefits of having a *nix based OS, with all of the benefits of having an Apple-designed UI as well as the hardware.

I'm all for IBM doing this, it lowers the cost of the Power5 processors (the more out there the better) and it offers viable alternatives to Windows servers.

[CaptainHaddock]

"Given that they start at $5000 with only one POWER5 chip, I would say that these are probably no threat."

Although with 8 cores IIRC, that's a smoking processor! Basically like 8 G5s in one machine. I'd sure like to try running OS X on that. It's probably do-able, but you might need some custom hardware drivers.

"OS X is a danger to Linux, not the other way around. I know of just as many Linux users who have switched to OS X as have Windows users, and some say that OS X eats into Linux markets much more than it does into the Windows markets."

I agree that OS X is attracting Linux users; after all, that's how I made the transition myself. First from Windows to Linux, then Linux to OS X. Not that Linux is any danger � all my old PCs have to run *something*, and Linux will run on anything. They say that at a lot of technical conferences lately, half the attendees have Linux laptops and the other half have Powerbooks.

I concur with what Turnpike said � diversification of the desktop market is good for all alternative OSes, including OS X and Linux. Soon SkyOS will be yet another polished option. Monoculture is bad for competition, bad for innovation, and bad for security.

[Catfish_Man]

Originally posted by CaptainHaddock:

Although with 8 cores IIRC, that's a smoking processor! Basically like 8 G5s in one machine.

A POWER5 is two cores, each capable of running 2 threads. You may be thinking of a 4-way POWER5 MCM (multi-chip module), which has 8 cores and can run 16 threads. Still hella fast though. 2700 SPECfp peak!

[CaptainHaddock]

"You may be thinking of a 4-way POWER5 MCM (multi-chip module), which has 8 cores and can run 16 threads."

You're right, I was thinking of the wrong thing. Hmm, how about one of those running OS X instead?

[Graymalkin]

These Linux systems compete more with 4-way Xeon and Opteron x86 systems than they do with any current Mac. As cool as the XServes are they fit into two niches on networks, cluster nodes and workgroup servers. A 4-way POWER5 server is meant to handle millions of business transactions a day or provide 32GB+ of RAM to a DB2 database, not share files and printers over a network or handle domain name resolutions. As a workgroup server the XServes perform extraordinarily well and have impressed even hardcore Linux geeks (Europe's Linux Magazine had really nice things to say about them). IBM's never really shown interest in using their POWER/PowerPC chips in workgroup-class servers since it is a very price conscious market.

I doubt IBM necessarily wants to offer POWER/PowerPC workstations or workgroup-class servers of their own running Linux. As it is they make money off of every Mac sold yet don't have to provide any support or system development of their own. Their efforts making new and better chips for Apple has a side effect of them having new and better chips to offer their own customers paying through the nose for 8-way mid-range servers and their premium service and consulting contracts. If they offered their own smaller systems running Linux they'd run into a serious market problem, there's plenty of support for x86 Linux distributions but very little PPC support. Without any big software packages to offer customers there'd be little incentive to go with IBM's PowerPC Linux workstations over a Mac or a Linux-based x86 workstation. The Macs at least would have the plethora of Mac software available and Linux on x86 would have the huge support base that already exists.

[mitchell_pgh]

We are gaining from Power5 as we use scaled down IBM processors.

[utidjian]

This just in:
http://www.linuxjournal.com//article.php?sid=7789

As far as the Xserves go... why should Apple care? They sold a bunch of Xserves.

As far as the rest of the article about PPC the spin is that mebbe Apple does have something to think about.

[Gavin]

I've always thought that it would make sense for Apple to license OSX to IBM for use on their high end PPC server hardware. They could coexist nicely without competing.

Apple would benefit by having more people using and writing apps for the platform but with a totally different niche. Having the OS run on different architecture would only be good as well.

IBM would get cocoa for writing enterprise level admin apps to manage the servers.

Users would get a serious upgrade path.

[ThisGuy]

Originally posted by CaptainHaddock:
Monoculture is bad for competition, bad for innovation, and bad for security.

i love that quote. may i use it in the future?

[Angus_D]

Originally posted by Gavin:
I've always thought that it would make sense for Apple to license OSX to IBM for use on their high end PPC server hardware.

OS X doesn't really cut it as a high-end server OS, though.

[CaptainHaddock]

"i love that quote. may i use it in the future?"

Heh, sure.

[Superchicken]

I would not be surprised if in the future we see IBM and maybe even HP or Sony or someone along with IBM, begin selling Linux and OS X based PPC based computers designed to fill the same market as x86 PCs.

We might even see AMD get on board with PPC compatible procs.

I would love to see both a move to Linux and a move to the PPC platform for more than just Mac users.

[Catfish_Man]

Originally posted by Superchicken:
I would not be surprised if in the future we see IBM and maybe even HP or Sony or someone along with IBM, begin selling Linux and OS X based PPC based computers designed to fill the same market as x86 PCs.

We might even see AMD get on board with PPC compatible procs.

I would love to see both a move to Linux and a move to the PPC platform for more than just Mac users.

I don't see AMD having the budget to develop high end procs for two different archs simultaneously. Maybe in a while, if they keep doing well, but not anytime soon. Also, Apple would have to open up their ROM for anyone else to make OSX compatible comps (unless they used mac-on-linux).

[Link]

Originally posted by Catfish_Man:
I don't see AMD having the budget to develop high end procs for two different archs simultaneously. Maybe in a while, if they keep doing well, but not anytime soon. Also, Apple would have to open up their ROM for anyone else to make OSX compatible comps (unless they used mac-on-linux).

Have you ever heard of OpenFirmware? That's what macs use

[Gavin]

Originally posted by Angus_D:
OS X doesn't really cut it as a high-end server OS, though.

Neither did Linux until IBM and HP, etc. got into the act not too long ago.

The main work on Linux lately is in the area of high end enterprise server systems. Multiple processors are just the start. Work is being done on: abstracting the way the processor talks to the ram which allows it to run on odd mother board configurations. Real Time file systems and OS which benifits scientific and video work. Security; hardended this, trusted that, etc.; think goverment contracts. A lot of this is useful for a desktop machine.

The more platforms the system runs on, the more capabilities the system has, the more it snowballs as private concerns add in and push for the features they need. With OS X running on IBM's systems Darwin could be one with 3rd party resources thrown at it.

I think apple has missed an opportunity.

[Catfish_Man]

Originally posted by Link:
Have you ever heard of OpenFirmware? That's what macs use

iirc there's still an Apple rom chip involved in the boot process, but I could be misremembering.