According to this Computerworld report, industry hype surrounding Microsoft’s decision to go with IBM’s Power processors over Intel for its next generation Xbox, won’t translate into Windows for Power servers in the near future, despite a pledge by IBM to support the operating system.
We’ll see in 10 years when IBM drops Linux. Like they did (and want to do) with every other OSes that comes across they’re path.
They can dig up the OS/2 for PPC (remember Workplace OS?) Or beg Apple for a quick port.
We’ll see in 10 years when IBM drops Linux. Like they did (and want to do) with every other OSes that comes across they’re path.
They can dig up the OS/2 for PPC (remember Workplace OS?) Or beg Apple for a quick port.
When NT was on the drawing board and relatively young, it was alot easier to justify x86,mips,alpha,ppc versions, besides it kept Intel in check (that was the idea back then). I bet over time that most of the Windows development has gotten pretty x86 specific and that only the kernal is relatively portable.
But its the apps as well, the other 3 cpus never got any traction so they all got canned. Only the Alpha ever showed a glimmer of being a credible PC with it FX translator, but that meant no native apps. Once the Alpha fell behind the later pentiums, FX couldn’t cover the absence of native SW.
MS using PPC with NT kernal doesn’t mean PPC is back on the Windows radar, you can’t reawaken the support monster that this would entail.
I think MS already had enough of supporting multiple cpus already, gaming can be a nice exception since the mega games are few in no and don’t last long. Supporting Windows on PPC would mean supporting 1000s of apps for ever and there wouldn’t likely ever be much PPC penetration.
DOes anybody in the server space even want to run Windows on PPC, seems only IBM is asking for it.
This sounds like IBM just trying to sell more servers. Microsoft’s CPU choice for the XBOX 360 was likely just a cost/performance/IP control decision. IBM has programs in place for providing custom solutions and that’s likely a large part of why they were chosen.
Also, a Windows port wouldn’t have required a large rewrite as the IBM guy suggests. NT (and Windows CE) have run on Power platforms before. In any case, the XBOX OS is a fraction of the NT desktop OS, has the benefit of being on a closed system, and MS doesn’t have to worry about possibly supporting a large number of x86 applications on Power (beyond original XBOX games). Maybe when there is a larger number of managed applications (and greater demand), NT on Power will resurface.
“Maybe when there is a larger number of managed applications (and greater demand), NT on Power will resurface.”
With your choice of AIX, Linux and BSD why would anyone want it.
If MS chose PowerPC for Xbox 360 to lower the *cost*, then why does everyone think that Apple will suddenly put out cheap Macs if they eventually develop an Intel Macintosh?
All IBM would be asking for is a Windows Server Edition for PPC and some of Microsoft’s top mission critical applications such as SQL.
They are not begging for Office or Server apps like Office Meeting.
You’re forgetting that MS owns the plans of this “custom” PPC chip in the XBox 360 rather than using an existing design (Pentium 3). I’m just reiterating what I read in an interview, that was MS’ explanation for why PPC and how it means the 360 will be cheaper to make.
But you’re right. The CPU cost is insignificant considering all the other parts that go into making a computer, and on top of that Apple’s tax.
Mac Mini is already a “cheap mac” with a dedicated Video Card.
I could be wrong about this but doesn’t the .NET Framework run on any platform/cpu arch? If so then later on, say around 2007 making a version of Windows Server for Power could be done. If you think about it, only the native core code would need to be ported, the top level bits which are writen in .NET would then be simple to port over, you’d just basically need the framework to run on Power and all the .NET apps would work more or less.
I could be totally wrong, but if .NET works this way, then anything is possible.
I could be wrong about this but doesn’t the .NET Framework run on any platform/cpu arch?
In theory, yes. I suspect it’ll be roughly as portable as Java or C code. If the developer does it right, it might work. If the developer doesn’t pay attention, you’ll have references to registry keys and c:documents….
.NET is just a thin, managed wrapper around legacy native code that’s been in Windows forever.
You’re better off with something like Mono, it’s more abstract from the native stuff.
Better yet, you could use Java which is abstracted to a larger degree than Mono.
This headline is very sensationalist compared to the actual article which is basically a soapbox for IBM to evangelize the Power architechure.
The “snubbing” from Microsoft amounts to less than a paragraph where some M$ guy says “its not in the roadmap”. Its not like he says anything bad about the system or in any way belittles IBM.
Not all .NET code is a wrapper around Win32. Some functionality is completely managed, and more will be in the future as Win32 is depricated (starting with “Longhorn”). In any case, these are implementation details that wouldn’t keep apps written for the Framework from running on a Power implementation of Windows nor an implementation of .NET on other platforms. As long as the Framework class libraries are present, the IL will compile to native Power code and run. The only apps that may run into problems would be those that use “unsafe” code or call out to native libraries.
IBM’s problem is they want to keep their Power CPUs all to themselves. They should at least try to compete with Intel by offering Power CPUs to consumers, like me, to build my own system. And encourage motherboard manufacturers to build boards to compete with x86 PC boards.
But try telling a 900lb gorilla what to do..
The point is IBM has chips that would compete well with the x86 if only they offered them to us consumers who drive x86 sales and are starting to demand x86 compatible servers. Hope they realize this before Power becomes as relevant as Sparc.
http://www.pegasosppc.com
IBM’s problem is they want to keep their Power CPUs all to themselves. They should at least try to compete with Intel by offering Power CPUs to consumers, like me, to build my own system. And encourage motherboard manufacturers to build boards to compete with x86 PC boards.
You are aware that the BYO market comprises less than 1% of the value of all computer hardware sold, correct?
“Hope they realize this before Power becomes as relevant as Sparc.”
Possibly today, you interacted with more PPC and SPARC based products than with X86 processors… and more likely than not you were unaware of that. LOL!
I always get a kick out of these armchair quaterbacks. Build your own cheapo PC from parts and suddenly everyone is an industry expert!
You are aware that the BYO market comprises less than 1% of the value of all computer hardware sold, correct?
No, I wasn’t. Can you provide me some stats?
Regardless, these are the trends I see:
http://news.com.com/IBM+extends+lead+in+server+market/2100-1010_3-5…
Looks like blade systems and x86 systems are gaining on these RISC chips. Doesn’t that trend have some significance?
And would there be more competition and innovation for the PPC architecture if it were pushed out into the hands of consumers? I guess Apple and Pegasos do provide that service, like Dell and HP, but you got to admit there is less incentive for the computer geek to buy those systems or recommend them if they can’t replace a CPU at Frys. Now that may be insignificant, I don’t know. But it is possible it has some impact on the market. That’s all I’m saying..
I always get a kick out of these armchair quaterbacks. Build your own cheapo PC from parts and suddenly everyone is an industry expert!
An industry expert wouldn’t ignore the fact that blade servers are made of those so-called cheapo PC parts.
“IBM’s problem is they want to keep their Power CPUs all to themselves. They should at least try to compete with Intel by offering Power CPUs to consumers, like me, to build my own system. And encourage motherboard manufacturers to build boards to compete with x86 PC boards.”
You are aware that the BYO market comprises less than 1% of the value of all computer hardware sold, correct?
I think what he was trying to get at is POWER based systems at more accessible pricing; not necessarily rock bottom $300 PC, but around PowerMac pricing. You could say, what he is requesting is the equivilant of a Blade 150, but running a POWER CPU.
It will be interesting if Windows will be ported to SPARC architecture CPUs (Fujitsu, Sun Microsystems). Microsoft and Sun Microsystems are big friends.
MSFT would have to be mad to port to PowerPC. If Dell started selling PowerPC XP boxes how long do you think it would take people to delete Windows and install OSX? About an hour, I think.