[Millennium]

Well, whaddaya know, Haddi-man? http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/74852/ib...ppc-chips.html

What's this I hear? IBM is delivering the goods after all? You can't tell me Apple didn't know these were coming well in advance of the infamous WWDC announcement. I have no illusions that this will cause Apple to stick with the superior PowerPC architecture, because I never believed that Jobs' crap about 'performance per watt' was ever the real reason they switched in the first place. What it is, I don't claim to know; I have suspicions but no proof. Little matter, though; we'll find out soon enough.

Still, some vindication is nice. For all those who said IBM couldn't deliver the goods, here they are.

[euphras]

They won´t RE-switch. Otherwise developers and consumers would be totally confused. They announced the Intel-switch weeks ago on the Apple HP, so now it´s official.

But like you i would love to see Big Blue processors stay a while within Apple computers

[ReggieX]

It was never a case of IF, it was a case of WHEN. Eug has been cheerleading the MPs for months, posting inumerous stories and links, but there was never any release date. Steve himself said there would be plenty of PPC Macs for the next while anyway.

As with everything in the tech world, I'll believe it exists when I can buy one.

[ManOfSteal]

Whodathunkit.®

[Hawkeye_a]

IBM...too little too late. It took Apple's announcement of a switch to get them to deliver. The G5 was promised to scale much faster than the G4 in MHzs. it didnt....IBM switched gears, put Apple on the back burner and started working on PPCs for SONY, Nintendo and M$. Apple cannot afford to depend on a company that would do something like that.....the announcement of the switch.... meant one thing. Showing IBM that theyre not in as comfortable a position that they thought they were. Jobs didnt say that Apple would DEFINATELY not encorporate PPC tecnology as they became available.

What does that mean ? Jobs stated that OSX is processor independant...that means Apple gets to choose who they do business with. More competition for the desktop from IBM and Intel (and hopefully AMD). Good things are coming to the mac, with less dependancy on IBM/Motorola and increased competition on the processor level.

Cheers

[Zimphire]

Yes, and that dual core would be stuck at the same mhz for 2 years.

[ghporter]

I've been worried about IBM for some time. First they get out of the harddrive business and sell off to Hitachi (not bad for Hitachi, but why?). Then they sell off what is apparently their biggest publicly known brand, the ThinkPad. Now they FINALLY say they've gotten to producing G5s that Apple has been asking for for how long? It does not sound like a company that is paying attention to what's going on, nor to what the public thinks of their reliability.

[wdlove]

It will be interesting to see what becomes of this announcement if anything.

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by Millennium

I have no illusions that this will cause Apple to stick with the superior PowerPC architecture

Not in a million years. The switch has been announced and Apple will stick with it.

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by ghporter

I've been worried about IBM for some time. First they get out of the harddrive business and sell off to Hitachi (not bad for Hitachi, but why?). Then they sell off what is apparently their biggest publicly known brand, the ThinkPad. Now they FINALLY say they've gotten to producing G5s that Apple has been asking for for how long? It does not sound like a company that is paying attention to what's going on, nor to what the public thinks of their reliability.

IBM has been getting out of the personal computer business for the last few years to concentrate on being a solutions provider to other companies, which means both software (their business stuff), hardware (servers), chips and IT.

[RAILhead]

[NYCFarmboy]

well I hope Apple takes advantage and uses this new technology at least in the short run, I certainly would prefer this over anything from Intel.

[xi_hyperon]

Originally Posted by NYCFarmboy

well I hope Apple takes advantage and uses this new technology at least in the short run, I certainly would prefer this over anything from Intel.

That's exactly what they will do. Then, by the time that gets stale, Apple will move on and IBM will introduce something else in, oh, about 5 years from now.

[Cody Dawg]

IBM could kick ass with OS 2 Warp revamped to OS 5 Warp using their own chips.

I'd buy one in a second. I loved OS 2 Warp.

[mitchell_pgh]

Great... we have new dual core and low power systems, but what about the middle and low end systems? The real problem is, IBM can't deliver what Apple wants.

I'm glad Apple made the switch.

[Goldfinger]

Originally Posted by Don Pickett

IBM has been getting out of the personal computer business for the last few years to concentrate on being a solutions provider to other companies, which means both software (their business stuff), hardware (servers), chips and IT.

Yep, services is their number one business. It makes soooo much more money than the PC business.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Millenium

IBM announces low-power and dual-core G5s

Welcome to last week, cuz that when it was officially announced (and mentioned on MacNN no less).

BTW, I hope you aren't taking IBM's power values at face value.

Originally Posted by ReggieX

It was never a case of IF, it was a case of WHEN. Eug has been cheerleading the MPs for months, posting inumerous stories and links, but there was never any release date.

Heh, it's always nice to be remembered.

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by Goldfinger

Yep, services is their number one business. It makes soooo much more money than the PC business.

Definitely. Here's your $150,000 server, your $25,000 per year service contract, your $200,000 worth of software, the $1,500 per month support contract for the software. . .

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Don Pickett

IBM has been getting out of the personal computer business for the last few years to concentrate on being a solutions provider to other companies, which means both software (their business stuff), hardware (servers), chips and IT.

Yeah. Over 80 years of building machines that were the gold standard, and now they're moving into being fancy "systems integrators." The last "systems integrator" I met built vanilla PCs in his garage-and NO, his name was not Dell. "Solutions Provider" is a fancy way of saying "we'll let other people do the creative stuff and then paste it together on a customer by customer basis." My respect for Big Blue, once very high, has plummeted.

And I think the timing of this announcement shows that there was never any love lost between IBM and Apple in either direction; it's a slap in the face.

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by ghporter

Yeah. Over 80 years of building machines that were the gold standard, and now they're moving into being fancy "systems integrators." The last "systems integrator" I met built vanilla PCs in his garage-and NO, his name was not Dell. "Solutions Provider" is a fancy way of saying "we'll let other people do the creative stuff and then paste it together on a customer by customer basis." My respect for Big Blue, once very high, has plummeted.

And I think the timing of this announcement shows that there was never any love lost between IBM and Apple in either direction; it's a slap in the face.

I have a different view on this. I think it can be argued that IBM got into the personal computer business by mistake. The original IBM PC was meant as a business machine; when the home computer revolution blew up IBM was as surprised as anyone. The problem is that IBM has always, always, always been a business which sells to business, not home. I can't think of any other company which understands the corporate mindset as well as they do, which is why their mainframe, server and IT divisions have always done very well. IBM knows what businesses like, and they provide it: reliability, good TCO, and, most importantly, the knowledge that IBM will be here in twenty years when you need to buy your next multi-million dollar system. I'm not talking about selling thousands and thousands of shitbox Dells to Citibank for pennies on the dollar. I mean winning long-term, involved contracts to supply, service and support an entire companies infrastructure.

However, they are completely unsuited for the home market, which is all about buzzword-compliance and staying one step ahead of the marketing curve. I think IBM has wanted out of the personal market for a while, with the sale of the Thinkpad divisions, Apple was about all that was left.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Well well, this is such drama! There is no doubt in my mind that IBM could and can deliver all the G5s Apple would ever need. What I do think is that Apple just doesn't want the PPC architecture running their machines. I sure hope Apple has a good reason to want the x86 architecture.

cheers

W-Y

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

Well well, this is such drama! There is no doubt in my mind that IBM could and can deliver all the G5s Apple would ever need. What I do think is that Apple just doesn't want the PPC architecture running their machines. I sure hope Apple has a good reason to want the x86 architecture.

cheers

W-Y

I don't think the problem is volume: it's speed. All the architecture goodness in the world doesn't mean anything it you're over a gigahertz behind on sheer clock speed, and the low-power G5s just announced don't stack up too well against Intel's current Pentium M offerings. For whatever combination of reasons, no manufacturer has been able to make the PPC platform scale as as promised.

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Still, some vindication is nice. For all those who said IBM couldn't deliver the goods, here they are.

Considering that the current Pentium-M offerings will eat the low power G5 for lunch, it doesn't look that way to me.

[Superchicken]

Are we so sure about that? Sure they're probably a bit faster in some regards. But a 1.6Ghz G5 is nothing to laugh about. I doubt Apple would use the 1.4s in antyhing above an iBook.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

Well well, this is such drama! There is no doubt in my mind that IBM could and can deliver all the G5s Apple would ever need. What I do think is that Apple just doesn't want the PPC architecture running their machines. I sure hope Apple has a good reason to want the x86 architecture.

cheers

W-Y

There is no doubt?

How many times has the G5 CLEARLY beat the Intel offerings? Generally speaking, we have outpaced them in a few niche areas for a very short period of time in the HIGHEST end desktop systems.

The downside is, the Apple middle and lower end offerings are 12-24 months behind the Intel offerings.

I would love to see the hardware benchmarks on the following systems:
Dell (Intel® Pentium® 4 @ 2.80GHz) $639
vs.
eMac (PowerPC G4 @ 1.42GHz) $799.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Don Pickett

I have a different view on this. I think it can be argued that IBM got into the personal computer business by mistake. The original IBM PC was meant as a business machine; when the home computer revolution blew up IBM was as surprised as anyone. The problem is that IBM has always, always, always been a business which sells to business, not home.

Unfortunately, even being "solution providers" doesn't mean they will build machines anymore. That was their real strength; machines for businesses. The only indestructable typewriter was the IBM Selectric (except if you count Isaac Asimov's personal typewriters). The first and arguably best card sorters for general business use were Big Blue. The list goes on. There was no problem when they spun off their printer business because it was completely centered on peripherals, and Lexmark has done well with the products since. I have no doubt that Hitachi will do great with the disk drives, and that the ThinkPad line will remain excellent. But if IBM concentrates on providing solutions instead of making the building blocks of those solutions, I think they and the business world will have lost a real asset.

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by Superchicken

Are we so sure about that? Sure they're probably a bit faster in some regards. But a 1.6Ghz G5 is nothing to laugh about. I doubt Apple would use the 1.4s in antyhing above an iBook.

The Pentium M was at 1.7 GHz in June, 2003 and is currently at 2.13 GHz. Even if we are generous and say the G5 is 25% faster than the P-M at the same clock, the P-M is still faster, and it's shipping now.

[Souljah]

After reading an article on the story behind why Apple could not get Motorola or IBM to deliver the speed they wanted I am beginning to see the light. There is much more going on here.
It appears that Apple wants specialized limited production cpus at normal high volume discounted prices both Moto and IBM had a problem delivering without swallowing a premium.

http://arstechnica.com/columns/mac/mac-20050710.ars

[BasketofPuppies]

Shouldn't MacNN have a policy that doesn't allow for delusional forum moderators?

IBM has delivered the goods one year after they were promised. Intel and AMD have been selling multicore processors for several months and their mobile processors are still faster use far less power than IBM's.

[Demonhood]

why, are you handing out shrooms mr.puppies? everyone has an opinion, try not to take it to a personal level.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh

There is no doubt?

How many times has the G5 CLEARLY beat the Intel offerings? Generally speaking, we have outpaced them in a few niche areas for a very short period of time in the HIGHEST end desktop systems.

The downside is, the Apple middle and lower end offerings are 12-24 months behind the Intel offerings.

I would love to see the hardware benchmarks on the following systems:
Dell (Intel® Pentium® 4 @ 2.80GHz) $639
vs.
eMac (PowerPC G4 @ 1.42GHz) $799.

I'd really like to know for sure why Apple dumped the PPC the way things are looking today. Like the Intels, the PPC is just a microprocessor. Granted it is made by a company that has less resources in the microprocessor business that Intel, but never the less seems to manage to make the cutting edge processors.
Core clock speed only tells half the performance story about a processor (if that even). The other major part is the bus speed. Back in the day of 8 MHz machines core speed and bus speed used to be the same. The G5 is offering insane bus speeds of conistently half the core speed.
What processor does Intel offer that is equal to a G5? The Xeon? And what are the odds that the iMac will be a Xeon machine? I have no idea but I do know the Xeon is more than twice as expensive as the G5 at the high end.

There are a lot of questions that the Intel processors need to answer IMO. It will be interesting to see, mostly because hopefully it will explain this seemingly braindead decision Apple made.

cheers

W-Y

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by Demonhood

why, are you handing out shrooms mr.puppies?

No, tooki is hoarding them all.

[Eug Wanker]

The G5 is offering insane bus speeds of conistently half the core speed.

Yeah, but the Power Mac G5 and iMac G5 designs are high latency.

Not that this really matters in this decision. The main problems IMO are cost, supply, and the existence of low power parts.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by Souljah

After reading an article on the story behind why Apple could not get Motorola or IBM to deliver the speed they wanted I am beginning to see the light. There is much more going on here.
It appears that Apple wants specialized limited production cpus at normal high volume discounted prices both Moto and IBM had a problem delivering without swallowing a premium.

http://arstechnica.com/columns/mac/mac-20050710.ars

Not quite. Partly, but not quite. The article talks about the iPod being a major reason for Apple jumping ship. Behold:

"It's critical to understanding the switch that you not underestimate the importance of Intel's XScale to Apple's decision to leave IBM. The current iPods use an ARM chip from Texas Instruments, but we can expect to see Intel inside future versions of the iPod line. So because Apple is going to become an all-Intel shop like Dell, with Intel providing the processors that power both the Mac and the iPod, Apple will get the same kinds of steep volume discounts across its entire product line that keep Dell from even glancing AMD's way."

And so the focus of Apple isn't as much their legacy (personal computers) as it is quite simply their runaway success and reason for growth: the iPod. This move was made to get access to a powerful mobile chip for the iPods. Apple wants volume discounts, well then Apple has to do all their business with Intel.

cheers

W-Y

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by Don Pickett

The Pentium M was at 1.7 GHz in June, 2003 and is currently at 2.13 GHz. Even if we are generous and say the G5 is 25% faster than the P-M at the same clock, the P-M is still faster, and it's shipping now.

One has to ask oneself what the bus speed is like on the P-M, how the FPU compares and if the P-M is all set for more than 4GB RAM. Then we can talk about core clock speed.

cheers

W-Y

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Yeah, but the Power Mac G5 and iMac G5 designs are high latency.

Not that this really matters in this decision. The main problems IMO are cost, supply, and the existence of low power parts.

I don't think so. The iMac and the Books have been selling very well while the high end towers have been enjoying quite a success since they went G5. Frankly Apple doesn't care about anything else than selling machines. They aren't on a quest to supply the fastes machines available, although they don't mind pointing it out when it happens (every now and then).

All they need is a regular update of the G5 from IBM. That's it. It doesn't have to be much, just enough to mention. That ensures they can sell and sell Macs.

Apple knew very well of the availability of the 970FX and that means that they weren't desperate for low power parts. IBM seems to be able to cater for an immense supply need from Sony, MS and Nintendo at the same time. Supply just doesn't enter into it. IBM can deliver. Cost, yes but not the way you present it. Not cost for the Macs, cost for the iPods.

For after all, that is where Apple is growing and the real money is being made.

cheers

W-Y

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

I don't think so. The iMac and the Books have been selling very well while the high end towers have been enjoying quite a success since they went G5.

Actually, the towers are selling quite poorly. The PowerBooks aren't doing that well either.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Actually, the towers are selling quite poorly. The PowerBooks aren't doing that well either.

Towers always do poorly compared to iMacs. Now that they are sharing the same processor that becomes even more obvious. The G5 towers were quite a success when they were released, demonstrating that the people who needed them had been holding back for quite some time.

The 970FX has been announced and may just grace a powerbook G5 before the camp switches to Intel over the entire line. Who knows. I'd be willing to bet that a PB G5 would sell very well. The G4 was a runaway success. Of course it won't sell as well now that Apple has declared the PPC to be dead on the Mac, but a PB G5 is still a pretty neat item.

Apple was ready to hurt it's Mac sales for an unknown amount of time by switching to Intel. They did it mostly for the future of the iPod. No biggie but it is kind of strange when the Mac isn't the driving force in the company's decisions.

cheers

W-Y

[Todd Madson]

-I can see some other reasons:

-iPods with sickeningly long battery runtimes.
-Laptops that don't melt your private parts with 178 degree farenheit heat.

-I've heard many stories:
-G5 Xserves cannabalizing Power4 server sales causing IBM to cry that they lost money to Apple,
thus they raised the price of the G5 chips significantly to counter lost revenue causing Steve to
drop them.

-Steve getting upset that IBM was selling PowerPC to Apple Competitors (Microsoft/Sony/etc)
and at a higher clock speed at that. Nevermind that the 3.2 ghz core they're going to get isn't
as powerful as the G5 970 chip is, the public perception is that Apple didn't make it to 3+ ghz
and the competition did.

-Other issues are afoot - laptops with slow buses, stuck under 2 ghz, etc.

[budster101]

Insider eh?
You have made some convincing arguments here.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

Towers always do poorly compared to iMacs. Now that they are sharing the same processor that becomes even more obvious. The G5 towers were quite a success when they were released, demonstrating that the people who needed them had been holding back for quite some time.

The towers are selling quite poorly now, and have been steadily getting worse since 2003. In fact, G4 tower sales in 2002 were better than G5 tower sales are now. However, this is not due to the G5 per se. It's due to the lack of a reasonably priced low end tower.

The 970FX has been announced and may just grace a powerbook G5 before the camp switches to Intel over the entire line. Who knows. I'd be willing to bet that a PB G5 would sell very well.

I agree it would sell relatively well, in 2005. Not so much in early 2006, when dual-core Pentium M chips become available.

The G4 was a runaway success.

No it wasn't, by any measure, even for laptops. The G4 PowerBook is doing OK, but not great.

Apple was ready to hurt it's Mac sales for an unknown amount of time by switching to Intel. They did it mostly for the future of the iPod.

No, they did it for the future of Macs. Remember, iPods and Macs do use different CPUs.

[Weyland-Yutani]

To clarify, I meant the PB G4 not just "G4" and today iPods and Macs used different CPUs but the near future is another thing entirely. Likely Apple will become an all Intel shop.

cheers

W-Y