IBM’s new $3 billion microprocessor factory in New York – where G5 processors are reportedly manufactured – is losing money, the company announced this week. Reuters reports that production problems are affecting the plant.
IBM’s new $3 billion microprocessor factory in New York – where G5 processors are reportedly manufactured – is losing money, the company announced this week. Reuters reports that production problems are affecting the plant.
“How can you say that it’s a mediocre high end chip?”
You’re right, that sentense should have been more qualified. What I meant to say was that its 32bit capeabilities leave much to be desired, and because many applications will remain 32bit for quite some time, intel should have integrated 32bit performance levels that was not hampered. The chips 64bit capeabilities appear to be very healthy.
“I must admit that SPEC is far from being representative of real world performance).”
Agreed.
>>>“And yet its 32bit applications will run far less than perfectly.”<<<
“That’s because the 32-bit applications uses a completely different architecture. IA64 is very different from x86. 32-bit PPC is not really different from 64-bit PPC. IBM don’t have to deal with backward compatibility for an architecture that was made before the existence of dinosaurs. I must say that Intel could have done their emulation better (they’re the designers of the x86 set, after all), but I don’t think they did a bad job. I don’t think most Itanium buyers plan to run 32-bit applications on it, anyway.”
AMD’s 32bit/64bit compatibility is far more efficient. Intel should adopt AMD’s 64.
“Yes, thanks, I do have stats to back that up.”
Ummm…. wanna post them?
“Yes, thanks, I do have stats to back that up.”
Before you do, its important to illustrate that you CAN’T post such comparative tests because APPLE HASN’T RELEASED THE COMPUTER BEARING THE CHIP YET.
Any stats you claim to have would have to be a fallacy anyways…
That should read:
Because of this, any stats you claim to have would have to be a fallacy anyways…
I2 is a FP powerhouse. cf.
http://www.sgi.com/newsroom/press_releases/2003/june/altix_benchmar…
It doesn’t matter what Apple’s released; we know how well PPC970’s bigger brother performs.
“I2 is a FP powerhouse.”
This chip is not making comparisons against the G5. The G5 (unlike any of IBMs other linup…) employs A.I.M.’s altivec instruction set which make it a FP powerhouse as well.
Regardless, this review does NOT prove that DrPizza’s claim “that the Itanium2 rapes any other 64-bit general purpose processor” nor does it prove the assertation made by him that “the 1.5 GHz 6 MiB cache parts walk all over anything IBM has to offer.”
I’m not saying that its not true, but I’m saying that there is nothing which qualifies him to make such a statement.
“It doesn’t matter what Apple’s released; we know how well PPC970’s bigger brother performs.”
The 970’s bigger brother (Power4) does not include altivec which boosts floating point instructions which is specifically what is being touted as the overal benefit in this comparison: http://www.sgi.com/newsroom/press_releases/2003/june/altix_benchmar…
Also worth noting is the price difference between the Itanium2 and the G5. The G5 will come in WAY less expensive than an Itanium2 machine.
I was still under the impression that these new chips were separate from the server chips. If you recall, there had been tons of speculation about some new server PPC chip many many months back and everyone kept saying “That has nothing to do with desktop computers or consumer market!”
So… I’m wrong.
“If you buy quality hardware who create quality drivers you won’t have any problems.”
Yeah right. What hardware do you consider to be “quality?” What drivers do you consider to be “quality?” Which companies make quality products? How do you know they’re better than anyone else’s?
Drivers are about as good as any other software and have the same guarantee of fitness for use (ie: none).
OS architechtural stupidity aside, one problem is that a lot of decent hardware is manufactured by one part of a company while the drivers are done by another division (with poor communicates with the hardware people), or out to another company entirely. The drivers and the hardware often come from two or more different sources and there is often a great difference in quality between them for lack of centralized development, planning and the usual assumption that the software defects can always be fixed later (which usually ends up not being done – been there done that).
When I worked for Kensington tech support, we came to understand that they had a pretty decent piece of hardware (VideoCAM) but the drivers weren’t worth spit. Because of that, the product sucked. The drivers were an outsourced project, done by a company that should never have been chosen.
The mouse software at Kensington is in-house, but if you own a Kensington mouse, you may notice that there’s a lag in “click & drag” operations… bad event handling; been there since the beginning and they’re too arrogant or ignorant to fix it (when only a small percentage of their users are quick and efficient with the mouse, why bother).
Hardware may be great, but with lousey drivers… sucky product. Drivers might be great, but with bad hardware design… sucky product.
I’ve had only a few good hardware/driver combination experiences. Matrox being one. That’s why I keep going back to Matrox.
But there are far too many different combinations of interactions between all the thousands of OS functions and APIs and so on to just make a blanket statement such as “If you buy quality hardware who create quality drivers you won’t have any problems.” It’s just not realistic.
I have to agree with the poster above who commented about the lousey system involved in device and driver management on Windows compared to Mac OS. I think that OS X is inferior to BeOS, but compared to Windows, it does several things in a much more reliable way. If only the whole OS was as clean as its predecessor…
Fact 1: Macs are way too expensive.
Fact 2: Macs are very easy to use.
Because it’s stupid to buy a Mac when you can get a better PC for much less, and because stupid people need an easy to use system, I conclude that Macs are exclusively used by stupid people.
And anyone who dares to claim otherwise is stupid!
“Fact 1: Macs are way too expensive.”
Expensive? Hardly!
Find me a PC with the same (or as close as possible) hardware and software components as ships with any Mac and you will find that the Mac is either only slightly more expensive, the same price, slightly less expensive or significantly less expensive.
“Because it’s stupid to buy a Mac when you can get a better PC for much less”
This is simply not true.
“and because stupid people need an easy to use system”
Thankfully, the Macintosh is accommodating to both the less tech savvy among us while also addressing the needs and wants for the advanced computer user.
“I conclude that Macs are exclusively used by stupid people.”
Based on that assessment, people that come to that conclusion are the stupid people.
“And anyone who dares to claim otherwise is stupid!”
The statement doesn’t hold much weight now that we’ve established your intelligence.
Let’s not turn this into a flame fest… Just because you are insecure about your computing purchase doesn’t mean that you need to downplay the strengths of other computing platforms.
Hey, it’s ok. You can continue to pretend your Mac is the greatest thing in the world. Just remember that while you’re sitting in your Apple shrine worshiping your godly Mac box, the rest of the world will be laughing at your stupidity.
“Hey, it’s ok. You can continue to pretend your Mac is the greatest thing in the world.”
Your just trolling. I never said that.
“Just remember that while you’re sitting in your Apple shrine worshiping your godly Mac box”
First of all, I don’t worship my Mac, and Second, my Mac is not a box. It’s a half dome.
“the rest of the world will be laughing at your stupidity.”
Nobody is laughing at me, however it appears that everyone reading your comment will be directing the laughter at you.
Again, stop with the trolling.
Before you go any further, I want you to try to quantify your first argument before you make more uninteligent remarks.
I’ll ask you again, find me a PC with the same (or as close as possible) hardware and software components as ships with any Mac and you will find that the Mac is either only slightly more expensive, the same price, slightly less expensive or significantly less expensive.
Same post, now with spell check turned on…
Before you go any further, I want you to try to quantify your first argument before you make more unintelligent remarks.
I’ll ask you again, find me a PC with the same (or as close as possible) hardware and software components as ships with any Mac and you will find that the Mac is either only slightly more expensive, the same price, slightly less expensive or significantly less expensive.
PS
If you don’t respond, we’ll know what conclusion you came to… if you respond without such a comparison, again… we’ll know which conclusion you came to.
“””Fact 1: Macs are way too expensive.
Fact 2: Macs are very easy to use.
Because it’s stupid to buy a Mac when you can get a better PC for much less, and because stupid people need an easy to use system, I conclude that Macs are exclusively used by stupid people.
And anyone who dares to claim otherwise is stupid!”””
That beyond stupid, it’s lame to say so…….nice job winteller!
Ever price Sony PC or top of the line DElls, or have you ever used Unix in Windows XP,,,,,,,,oh it doesn’t come with it. Hmm but on OS X it’s already there, someone stupid must of built that in there huu?
And yet it produced a less than optimal chip (Itanium/Itanium2) which is mean to compete with IBM. What I was getting at is that despite all Intel’s power, they created a mediocre high end chip. When you’re competing against a company like IBM, that’s not a good idea.
How is the Itanium2 not an optimal chip ? Have you seen any benchmarks from it ? Its a very heavy performer and it will only continue to get better. Are there issues ? Absolutely. There always are. The Itanium2 performs quite well for the job it was designed to do and its available right now.
And yet its 32bit applications will run far less than perfectly.
If I need 32-bit applications I’ll buy a feakin’ P4! Why waste the money on an Itanium2 unless 64-bit computing is NEEDED? Look at the core customers who need 64-bit from intel and MS. Both Intel and MS have delivered to the customers that need 64-bit addressing with products that offer it. Consumer 64-bit desktop computing is a few years off yet.
You guys can talk about the 970 all day long. Its a month away from shipping and the 64-bit offerings will be small at first. The competition is already offering workstations and servers that are 64-bit with software targeted towards their high end customer base TODAY.
That’s not true. Apple DOES plan to offer a fully 64-bit OS on the G5. That comment is pure FUD.
Why do I keep reading that Panther won’t be fully 64-bit then ? Planning to offer it and offering it when the system ship are two different things.
First of all, the only evidence that we have to suggest that we wont is a report published by TheRegister.
Then why do you continue below with the following ? — >
Second, we KNOW that the first OS (code named smegal) is a placeholder OS meant to ship with the G5 until Panther which will be shipped in November and is said to be fully 64 bit.
Ok. Apple won’t even have a 64-bit OS to ship with the hardware ? I’m not exactly knocking them here as Intel didn’t really have an OS either when the Itanium hit the market. I’m just bringing some reality to the situation here. Intel has shipping hardware and software for their high end customers right now.
Third, even if The register is right, it only means that the Finder won’t be 64 bit. Every other aspect of the OS will be 64 bit, including the ability to run 64 bit applications.
Huh ? So first the only proof we have is the register, and now you trying to tell me that IF they are right they have it wrong and YOU somehow know what it will be ? Give me a freakin’ break.
What does this mean? It means that this is a non-issue.
Not if I need 64-bit processing right now today with oh, say a database server like SQL. I can get that from HP right now. Its not a non-issue until the competition is dead and out of business. I don’t see Intel anywhere near that state.
What I was saying is that the Poer4/5 is already a profitable chip and that the G5 doesn’t even have to be self sustaining to make it a profitable chip venture for IBM because it is a scalled back version of an already-sucessful chip.
That dosen’t mean a thing. They still invested heavy money into the design of the 970. The 970 sure as hell DOES have to be self-sustaining or you can forget about the 980 ever seeing the light of day. IBM is out to make money, not loose it. Jeez.
Again, the processor was already designed. The only engineering involved was in scaling back the chip to accomidate a consumer level processor as well as add technologies like hypertransport and AltiVec. (Trivial expenses for a chip of this calibar)
I love this. Engineering is engineering pal. They ADDED technologies to it ? Yeah that sounds like a processor that was already developed alright. I’ve worked with embedded systems. I understand how changing and scaling a design happens. Its expensive regardless of what you start with.
There is nothing trivial about it. Its expensive and if it dosen’t pay off they WON’T do it again. Thats how things happen in the real world.
Thankfully, the Macintosh is accommodating to both the less tech savvy among us while also addressing the needs and wants for the advanced computer user.
I am an advanced computer user. I want to build a Macintosh tower myself and keep the cost under $1000. What are my options ? oops. thats right! THERE ARE NONE!
any moron can put a computer together. putting a computer together does not make you a power user any more than knowing 5 programming languages makes you a Computer Scientist.
“If you buy quality hardware who create quality drivers you won’t have any problems.”
Yeah right. What hardware do you consider to be “quality?” What drivers do you consider to be “quality?” Which companies make quality products? How do you know they’re better than anyone else’s?
Matrox, Intel, Maestro, Canon, Creative, 3DLabs, Pinnacle, LG. Just to name a few. There are vendors out there, however, there are also a large number of no-name, semi-decent hardware manufacturers who only care about volume, volume and volume rather than quality, quality, quality.
Drivers are about as good as any other software and have the same guarantee of fitness for use (ie: none).
Yet, most BSOD’s, if you read the memory dump, can be CLEARLY traced right back to a buggy driver or a buggy piece of hardware. One only needs to look at the Nvidia/VIA combo which gave ELQ alot of grief when using Linux.
OS architechtural stupidity aside, one problem is that a lot of decent hardware is manufactured by one part of a company while the drivers are done by another division (with poor communicates with the hardware people), or out to another company entirely. The drivers and the hardware often come from two or more different sources and there is often a great difference in quality between them for lack of centralized development, planning and the usual assumption that the software defects can always be fixed later (which usually ends up not being done – been there done that).
The other problem is that many hardware producers rush their product to market without adequately testing their product. For example, how many buggy releases were their from Nvidia before they finally produced something which was a buggy and bloated pile of crap?
Rather than trying to produce a quality product, these companies want to grab the “first [archictecture] to market”. Sure, Apple could have probably pushed out the PPC 970 last year, but at what cost? a quickly developed solution half baked and shows hence the reason I have happy they waited until this year, and I too will be one to buy of these number crunchers.
When I worked for Kensington tech support, we came to understand that they had a pretty decent piece of hardware (VideoCAM) but the drivers weren’t worth spit. Because of that, the product sucked. The drivers were an outsourced project, done by a company that should never have been chosen.
Eek.Well, one could also argue that the informatio provided to the driver company was sub-par, with that being said, however, seperating the hardware and software division was always a recipie for disaster. Just look at the x86 world as an example of this split and the net result for any OS vendor trying to produce an operating system which will be stable under multiple hardware combinations.
The mouse software at Kensington is in-house, but if you own a Kensington mouse, you may notice that there’s a lag in “click & drag” operations… bad event handling; been there since the beginning and they’re too arrogant or ignorant to fix it (when only a small percentage of their users are quick and efficient with the mouse, why bother).
Well, since I’ve never bought a Kensington product, I can’t comment, however, I have looked. The mouses are pretty shocking and the keyboards, well, why promote crap like “Multi-media keyboard”? it is crap! give me a steel re-enforced keyboad from IBM or DEC any day.
I have to agree with the poster above who commented about the lousey system involved in device and driver management on Windows compared to Mac OS. I think that OS X is inferior to BeOS, but compared to Windows, it does several things in a much more reliable way. If only the whole OS was as clean as its predecessor…
Well, that is a UNIX traight. Unlike Windows, UNIX was developed as a technical solution not as some anti-product dogma speared by a disgruntled former employee who has a chip on his sholder.
“How is the Itanium2 not an optimal chip?”
If you read here: http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=4071&offset=90&rows=105#1…
I said, “You’re right, that sentense should have been more qualified. What I meant to say was that its 32bit capeabilities leave much to be desired, and because many applications will remain 32bit for quite some time, intel should have integrated 32bit performance levels that was not hampered. The chips 64bit capeabilities appear to be very healthy.”
“Have you seen any benchmarks from it?”
Yes.
“Its a very heavy performer and it will only continue to get better.”
Again, I qualified my statement by referring to its less then stellar 32bit capabilities.
“If I need 32-bit applications I’ll buy a feakin’ P4!”
What I was referring to is the fact that users of the intanium2 will come across instances where they have to run 32 bit applications as well as 64 bit applications. Solutions from AMD and IBM are far more qualified in this regard.
“Why waste the money on an Itanium2 unless 64-bit computing is NEEDED?”
The issue at hand was whether or not the Itanium2 was the ideal processor. I don’t believe it is because its 32bit capabilities are lacking and because there will be countless instances where running 32 bit applications will be needed, it leaves much to be desired from a processor that is already very expensive. A better 64bit solution is had from AMD or IBM.
“Look at the core customers who need 64-bit from intel and MS. Both Intel and MS have delivered to the customers that need 64-bit addressing with products that offer it.”
Yes, but those customers will almost certinly be running 32bit applications alongside their 64bit ones, so as long as you’re going to make such a heavy investment, it would be wise to purchase the best tool for the job.
“Consumer 64-bit desktop computing is a few years off yet.”
yes, According to Microsoft, but this is only because Intel hasn’t made a consumer 64bit processor… not because its not yet ready for consumers. Other companies such as IBM and Apple are making Applications that will benefit consumers/non workstation users.
“You guys can talk about the 970 all day long. Its a month away from shipping and the 64-bit offerings will be small at first.”
Yet will be growing fast. Compared to Microsoft and Intel… it will be getting a massive head start.
“The competition is already offering workstations and servers that are 64-bit with software targeted towards their high end customer base TODAY.”
Today or in a month… its a moot point really…
“Why do I keep reading that Panther won’t be fully 64-bit then?”
The news comes from one source… The Register. What TheRegister said less than clearly was that the first operating system that Apple will ship with the G5 won’t be 64 bit. They are right… although the first OS on the G5 is not Panther. It is a variant of Jaguar code named Smeagol.
However, even if Panther were not fully 64bit, it would ONLY be the OSes finder. That means that Applications written to take advantage of 64bit will be able to do so.
“why do you continue below with the following?”
>>>Second, we KNOW that the first OS (code named smegal) is a placeholder OS meant to ship with the G5 until Panther which will be shipped in November and is said to be fully 64 bit.<<<
I said it because we know that Smeagol won’t be 64bit. And we’ve been told that Panther will be 64bit. The only source that remotely says otherwise is TheRegister… who indirectly was referring to Smeagol but didn’t make it clear… hence the confusion.
“Ok. Apple won’t even have a 64-bit OS to ship with the hardware?”
According to what is going around the rumor mills… no. However, Panther (64bit) will be released a few months after… Likely in November.
“I’m not exactly knocking them here as Intel didn’t really have an OS either when the Itanium hit the market. I’m just bringing some reality to the situation here. Intel has shipping hardware and software for their high end customers right now.”
Make no mistake about it, Smeagol will run very fast and will be able to address the needs of individuals that require a LOT of speed… however, just not 64bit speed until Panther is shipped.
“Huh ? So first the only proof we have is the register, and now you trying to tell me that IF they are right they have it wrong and YOU somehow know what it will be ? Give me a freakin’ break.”
I’m trying to address an issue that is based solely on speculation, so my response is going to sound wishy-washy… although no more so than the rumor that has eluded to the lack of 64bit to which you have already accepted as gold.
I’ll repeat it again so that there is no confusion.
If Apple ships the G5 without Panther, it will likely be on a non-64bit operating system named Smeagol. However, from what we know, Panther will be fully 64bit. If it is not, the only element that will not be is the finder. Applications will be able to take full advantage of 64bit applications.
“Not if I need 64-bit processing right now today”
if you (consumers) need 64-bit processing now and cant wait between a month and can’t wait between 1-3 months… then get whatever you want. If you (consumers) need to get maximum return on investment and can wait 1-3 months… it would be wise to do so.
“Its not a non-issue until the competition is dead and out of business. I don’t see Intel anywhere near that state.”
I didn’t say that Intel would be out of business or is close to it. I did say that concerns about 64bit and the G5/OSX are a non issue when you consider the information (above). When both are available and can be had at the same time… considering the fact that itanium2 has 32bit capabilities that are lacking, it might be wise to reevaluate the purchase and consider other options.
>>>”[/i]What I was saying is that the Poer4/5 is already a profitable chip and that the G5 doesn’t even have to be self sustaining to make it a profitable chip venture for IBM because it is a scalled back version of an already-sucessful chip.”[/i]<<<
“That dosen’t mean a thing. They still invested heavy money into the design of the 970.”
The vast majority of that money was invested with the R&D made for the original Power4. Whatever R&D expenses that were incurred afterwards are trivial because they scaled back the chip then only added already-existent technologies on to it.
To reiterate this point, the PPC970 doesn’t even have to be self-sustaining for the majority of its lifetime because, (as I mentioned earlier) Apple’s inclusion into this venture is just gravy revenue on top of an already-profitable chip venture. Apple and IBM will probably recoup what little investment they made in scaling back the Power4 and adding AltiVec and Hypertransport in the first few months of operation. It’s a non issue.
“The 970 sure as hell DOES have to be self-sustaining or you can forget about the 980 ever seeing the light of day.”
Considering the fact that the expense associated with the 970’s R&D will probably be recouped in a few months, and that everything beyond that is just gravy, the 980 will be a no brainer to create as it too is a scaled back version of the Power5. (I.E. the vast majority of the R&D was already paid for with the development of the Power5)
“IBM is out to make money, not loose it. Jeez.”
How do you figure that they will loose money if the use of the 970 is just gravy from an already-profitable chip venture? Jeez.
>>>“Again, the processor was already designed. The only engineering involved was in scaling back the chip to accomidate a consumer level processor as well as add technologies like hypertransport and AltiVec. (Trivial expenses for a chip of this calibar)”<<<
“I love this. Engineering is engineering pal. They ADDED technologies to it ? Yeah that sounds like a processor that was already developed alright.”
You really don’t understand. AltiVec and Hypertransport were already-existent technologies. They didn’t have to invest any more R&D to develop the technologies because THEY WERE ALREADY CREATED. What little R&D they invested with in simply taking them on.
“I’ve worked with embedded systems. I understand how changing and scaling a design happens. Its expensive regardless of what you start with.”
Expensive is a relative term when you consider the fact that they will be recouping the investment in a meer matter of months and that everything beyond that point is just gravy.
“There is nothing trivial about it.”
Sure there is if they are going to see a return on that investment in a mere mater of months and that everything beyond that point is just gravy.
“if it dosen’t pay off they WON’T do it again.”
Well of course they wouldn’t but because making a profit will be trivial because they will recoup their investment in a mere matter of months they will certainly be inclined to further the technology.
>>>“Thankfully, the Macintosh is accommodating to both the less tech savvy among us while also addressing the needs and wants for the advanced computer user.”<<<
“I am an advanced computer user. I want to build a Macintosh tower myself and keep the cost under $1000. What are my options ? oops. thats right! THERE ARE NONE!”
That shows that the PC is more expandible… not cheaper.
What I was referring to is the fact that users of the intanium2 will come across instances where they have to run 32 bit applications as well as 64 bit applications. Solutions from AMD and IBM are far more qualified in this regard.
Depends on the situation. Thats the nice thing about having 2 companies like AMD and Intel taking different paths. If you need heavy 32-bit performance out of a 64-bit chip you can use an AMD opteron. Commodity markets offer flexability like this.
The issue at hand was whether or not the Itanium2 was the ideal processor. A better 64bit solution is had from AMD or IBM.
I agree. I also believe there is no ‘ideal’ processor. There is an upside and a downside to every architecture out there.
Yes, but those customers will almost certinly be running 32bit applications alongside their 64bit ones, so as long as you’re going to make such a heavy investment, it would be wise to purchase the best tool for the job.
Yes. I know of 2 instances where I’ve seen this happen. The solution was quite simple. There is this thing called ethernet. It allows you to network systems together. The 32-bit systems talk to the 64-bit ones over a network. You don’t even have to replace your existing hardware. You just add the 64-bit system to the network and you keep on truckin’.
yes, According to Microsoft, but this is only because Intel hasn’t made a consumer 64bit processor… not because its not yet ready for consumers.
Its not ready for consumers. Name me one consumer based 64-bit system right now ? there aren’t any! The G5 ? Its a month away from shipping and the first OS isn’t fully 64-bit. Hell even when the OS is 64-bit you’ll be running the vast majority of your software compiled as 32-bit. Thats not ready. Thats the start of a transition.
Other companies such as IBM and Apple are making Applications that will benefit consumers/non workstation users.
*yawn* I’m starting to recognize a theme here. I won’t even bother to give you a hint. You should see it yourself.
Yet will be growing fast. Compared to Microsoft and Intel… it will be getting a massive head start.
A massive headstart ? The competition has shipping hardware AND software. Windows XP 64-bit is a shipping OS on Itanium. Windows Server 2003 is SHIPPING. SQL Server SHIPPING, BizTalk SHIPPING! Apple is where Intel was a couple of years ago. They are releasing their first 64-bit system. The 970 is a great migration path and it makes sense for Apple. It dosen’t do anything to change the fact that right now Intel offers 64-bit systems that ship with a fully 64-bit OS and applications targeted to the customers who have thus far needed 64-bit memory addressing.
Today or in a month… its a moot point really…
What are you ? An AMIGA USER? Only Amiga users would discredit the competition and claim that being behind is a *moot* point!
However, even if Panther were not fully 64bit, it would ONLY be the OSes finder. That means that Applications written to take advantage of 64bit will be able to do so.
So its basically Apple’s version of Windows 95 is what you are telling me ?
I’m trying to address an issue that is based solely on speculation, so my response is going to sound wishy-washy… although no more so than the rumor that has eluded to the lack of 64bit to which you have already accepted as gold.
You just told me yourself that the first version that ships with the G5 won’t be 64-bit! Who is “they” that you keep bringing up? APPLE? Apple said that Panther will be 64-bit but not unil November? Apple makes the G5 right ? So apple themselves have said that the first version won’t be 64-bit and the register ran with it? I can accept that.
Applications will be able to take full advantage of 64bit applications.
GOOD. Cause they are already behind the competition!
if you (consumers) need 64-bit processing now and cant wait between a month and can’t wait between 1-3 months…
I’m not talking about consumers as there is not a consumer 64-bit system on the market right now. I’m talking about the people that NEED 64-bit addressing. They can get it right now and they don’t have to wait a month for a computer that won’t have a 64-bit OS until November.
then get whatever you want. If you (consumers) need to get maximum return on investment and can wait 1-3 months… it would be wise to do so.
It might be worth the wait. I hear the Opteron will be dropping in price when the Athlon64 ships!
I did say that concerns about 64bit and the G5/OSX are a non issue when you consider the information (above).
If its a non issue then why is apple saying anything about releasing a 64-bit OS in November? Why bother? Its a non issue right? Why not just wait a year and release a 64-bit OS with a ton of 64-bit apps at the same time? I mean they can’t loose right? Its a non issue moving to 64-bit and the processor itself is just gravy for IBM correct ?
Get a grip!
The vast majority of that money was invested with the R&D made for the original Power4. Whatever R&D expenses that were incurred afterwards are trivial because they scaled back the chip then only added already-existent technologies on to it.
Jesus I’m glad you aren’t an engineer. I’d hands down fire the first moron that told me ANY R&D expenses incurred are trivial. You flip burgers right? There is no way in hell you work in the industry with an attitude like that.
To reiterate this point, the PPC970 doesn’t even have to be self-sustaining for the majority of its lifetime because, (as I mentioned earlier) Apple’s inclusion into this venture is just gravy revenue on top of an already-profitable chip venture.
If the 970 does not pull its own weight it will be dropped. No 2 ways about it. To do it any other way would show IBM to be incompetant and it would be a mistake from a business standpoint which is what this is all about anyway.
It’s a non issue.
No such thing in this business.
Considering the fact that the expense associated with the 970’s R&D will probably be recouped in a few months, and that everything beyond that is just gravy, the 980 will be a no brainer to create as it too is a scaled back version of the Power5. (I.E. the vast majority of the R&D was already paid for with the development of the Power5)
They built a new plant. They re-engineered an existing processor which DID cost money. Its not gravy. Its not trivial and it sure as hell isn’t a non issue. You don’t just add this and remove that and go home for the night! They re-engineered a processor. That is serious business and you can bet your butt they’ll expect it to produce revenue. A LOT OF REVENUE.
How do you figure that they will loose money if the use of the 970 is just gravy from an already-profitable chip venture? Jeez.
You keep saying its just gravy. I’m telling you its NOT. They built a new plant to make processors, the 970 being one of them. They are counting on the 970 to bring in the money along with everything else they sell. Its not a moot point or non issue processor. Its a part of the plan and if it dosen’t pan out they’ll dump it.
You really don’t understand. AltiVec and Hypertransport were already-existent technologies. They didn’t have to invest any more R&D to develop the technologies because THEY WERE ALREADY CREATED. What little R&D they invested with in simply taking them on.
You can’t just throw existing technologies around like legos. This isn’t freakin’ hasbro here and we aren’t working with lincoln logs. They took an existing processor and they re-engineered it into a new one. The Power4 was not capable of doing Altivec. You don’t just add something like that over the weekend. They created a new processor that was derived from an existing design. In the process they had hurdles and technical issues to address which did cost money. They’ll be expecting that money back and then some or they won’t do it again. No ‘non issue’ you can think of will change that fact.
Expensive is a relative term when you consider the fact that they will be recouping the investment in a meer matter of months and that everything beyond that point is just gravy.
Why are there articles about IBM making claims about a slow start on a fab plant if its all gravy ? Why would there be any concern at all if in 2 months they made all their money back. This is a little more involved than I think you are capable of grasping. Sorry.
Well of course they wouldn’t but because making a profit will be trivial because they will recoup their investment in a mere matter of months they will certainly be inclined to further the technology.
Making a profit isn’t trivial! Its what the business is about PERIOD! They will only further the technology if it pays for iteslf and they can see a big return on future investments in the technology. Until that happens the 980, 990 and 1000 super G8 whatever don’t mean a thing.
That shows that the PC is more expandible… not cheaper.
More expandable AND cheaper!
If I can’t get a Mac Tower at the same price as the competition is selling one then its a more expensive computer! If Apple can’t match the competition in features and price then its more expensive!
It sounds like they have 1/10 of the equation covered. If I need to drop 2 grand on a highend P4 then a Mac Tower is a comparable buy.
Beyond that they don’t compete on many levels in which the PC is configured and offered to the general public.
That adds up to 2 things here. The PC is more expandable and generally a CHEAPER buy than a macintosh.
“Depends on the situation. Thats the nice thing about having 2 companies like AMD and Intel taking different paths. If you need heavy 32-bit performance out of a 64-bit chip you can use an AMD opteron. Commodity markets offer flexability like this.”
Therein lies the problem with the AMD64 and Intel64. The two 64bit standards aren’t interchangeable. Commodity markets cause problems like this.
>>>“The issue at hand was whether or not the Itanium2 was the ideal processor. A better 64bit solution is had from AMD or IBM.”<<<
“I agree. I also believe there is no ‘ideal’ processor. There is an upside and a downside to every architecture out there.”
I agree. I just don’t think Intel’s 64 is the answer… assuming a consumer is dead set on x86-64
>>>“Yes, but those customers will almost certinly be running 32bit applications alongside their 64bit ones, so as long as you’re going to make such a heavy investment, it would be wise to purchase the best tool for the job.”<<<
“Yes. I know of 2 instances where I’ve seen this happen. The solution was quite simple. There is this thing called ethernet. It allows you to network systems together. The 32-bit systems talk to the 64-bit ones over a network. You don’t even have to replace your existing hardware. You just add the 64-bit system to the network and you keep on truckin’.”
And yet a company would be more efficient if the computer they were using was fully 32bit (no slowdowns) as well as fully 64bit. Ethernet still has a bottleneck… something that would be exemplified when communicating between the two computers… not to mention the inconvenience associated with copying files back and fourth between computers so that one doesn;t have to work off a network hard drive.
“Its not ready for consumers. Name me one consumer based 64-bit system right now? there aren’t any!”
Assuming we’re classifying consumer as being anything written for a computer that is not a workstation, Apple’s multimedia applications are said to be to 64bit-enabled with their next update.
“[The G5 is] a month away from shipping and the first OS isn’t fully 64-bit.”
Assuming the reports about Smeagol are true, its virtually a non issue when you consider that Panther is said to be available in November… (I must preface this by saying that Panther may in fact be ready with the G5 and be fully 64bit. We’re working solely with mis-matched rumors here)
“Hell even when the OS is 64-bit you’ll be running the vast majority of your software compiled as 32-bit. Thats not ready. Thats the start of a transition.”
Agreed, but its a start that will be years ahead Microsoft and intel regarding 64bit and consumer computers.
>>>“Yet will be growing fast. Compared to Microsoft and Intel… it will be getting a massive head start.”<<<
“A massive headstart? The competition has shipping hardware AND software.”
Not for consumers. The head start (approximately 2-3 years) in consumer applications is what I was referring to.
>>>“However, even if Panther were not fully 64bit, it would ONLY be the OSes finder. That means that Applications written to take advantage of 64bit will be able to do so.<<<“
“So its basically Apple’s version of Windows 95 is what you are telling me ?”
Why would you say that? The finder doesn’t even have a use for being 64bit. As a matter of fact, some have said that the finder would actually be slowed-down if it were 64 bit. What you’re arguing with is akin to me saying that the calculator, or notepad (textedit) won’t be 64bit and that somehow the OS will experience a major stumbling block as a result.
Again, its a non issue.
“You just told me yourself that the first version that ships with the G5 won’t be 64-bit!”
I should have prefaced that statement by saying that everything we know so far is based on rumor reports.
“Who is “they” that you keep bringing up? APPLE?”
Apple hasn’t announced specifically when Panther will be released other than that Panther will be released before the new year. The reports are coming from a handful of rumor sites, so as you might expect, you can take them with a grain of salt.
“Apple said that Panther will be 64-bit but not unil November?
No, thats just the time frame that is most commonly accepted. Nothing more. (i believe I prefaced that earlier in this thread, but i should have done so again.
“Apple makes the G5 right ? So apple themselves have said that the first version won’t be 64-bit and the register ran with it? I can accept that.”
No, Apple didn’t say that. TheRegister drew conclusions based on a thread that one of their reporters supposedly read on one of Apple’s developer connection web sites which caused them to believe that the first OS won’t be fully 64bit.
For that point forward, sites like OS news published the report in such a way which lead its readers to believe that the information was gold. Hence the problem with the report, and hence the problem with sites like TheRegister and OSNews.
>>>“Applications will be able to take full advantage of 64bit applications.”<<<
“GOOD. Cause they are already behind the competition!”
It depends on how you look at it. They’re a bit behind with regard to 64bit work stations. They’re ahead with regard to 64bit desktops
“I’m not talking about consumers as there is not a consumer 64-bit system on the market right now.”
There will be in 1-3 months. (However, only on the Mac side of the platform debate)
“I’m talking about the people that NEED 64-bit addressing. They can get it right now and they don’t have to wait a month for a computer that won’t have a 64-bit OS until November.”
If a company is so anxious to get a 64 bit solution right now even though systems that are similar in speed and yet don’t experience 32bit slowdowns are right around the corner that may suit them better… then they should get them. But it has always been my experience that companies making such purchases as expensive as the Intanium would be are typically willing to wait if they can have a better solution at a significantly discounted rate.
“It might be worth the wait. I hear the Opteron will be dropping in price when the Athlon64 ships!”
I too am really excited about the 64 bit offerings from AMD.
“If its a non issue then why is apple saying anything about releasing a 64-bit OS in November?”
Again, Apple hasn’t said it.
“Why not just wait a year and release a 64-bit OS with a ton of 64-bit apps at the same time?”
64 bit applications wont be coming solely from Apple. Apple’s increasing developer presence will be creating a considerable number of applications as well. They’ll want to use the 64 bit hardware/OS as soon as possible. To wait would only delay developer support.
>>>“I mean they can’t loose right? Its a non issue moving to 64-bit and the processor itself is just gravy for IBM correct ?”
They’ll want to recoup their investment sooner rather than later. Besides, even 32bit applications will be greatly benefited by the G5’s increased speed and God knows Apple’s professional towers could sure use that added speed.
“Get a grip!”
pardon me?
“If the 970 does not pull its own weight it will be dropped.”
ofcourse that’s true, but you’re not understanding… it will have pulled its weight (recouped its investment) in a short period of time because the chip is based on an already-sucessful chip design which was just scaled back.
“They built a new plant. They re-engineered an existing processor which DID cost money. Its not gravy.”
The new plant wasn’t just for the G5. The re-engineering of the processor did cost money, but money that was so trivial compared to the expense of the Power4’s development. The expense will be recouped in a mere matter of months. This means (as I’ve said repeatedly) that anything beyond that recouping of investment is just gravy.
“Its not trivial and it sure as hell isn’t a non issue.”
It IS trivial when you consider that the investment will be recouped in a mere matter of months rather than years as might be the case if they engineerd the processor from scratch. Again, IBM already paid for the engineering for the Power4. The scaling down of the chip and adding already-existant technologies IS a trivial expense because it will be recouped quickly. Therefore concerns about fears that it may not sell in mass quantities thus not recouping a return on investment ARE in fact a NON ISSUE because the investment will be recouped in a mere matter of months.
“You don’t just add this and remove that and go home for the night! They re-engineered a processor. That is serious business and you can bet your butt they’ll expect it to produce revenue. A LOT OF REVENUE.”
The investment that they made is a trivial one when you consider that the Power4’s engineering was already paid for. Yes, the scaling back of the chip did cost a lot of money, but only a fraction of the R&D costs associated with developing the Power4. Because that R&D will be paid for in a matter of months they will certainly produce revenue. A LOT OF REVENUE… because everything beyond the relatively small scaling back expense will be paid for in a mere matter of months.
“You keep saying its just gravy. I’m telling you its NOT. They built a new plant to make processors, the 970 being one of them.”
The plant was developed to create many types of chips of which the 970 is among them. This business relationship was so ideal because the power4 had already been developed. The cost associated with scaling it back is trivial when you consider that that investment will be reimbursed with the 970s sales in a matter of months. Everything beyond that puts revenue in IBM’s pocket.
“They are counting on the 970 to bring in the money along with everything else they sell.”
Of course. I never said otherwise. The 970 will be a cash cow because it required a fraction of the R&D associated with creating a new chip design, yet they will be able to reap the benefits as if they did develop it from scratch.
“Its not a moot point or non issue processor.”
Of course its not, but the expense associated with scaling it back is… when you consider that they didn’t have to develop a new chip from scratch but instead scaled down an already-existant chip that had already incurred its return on investment. Now, the primary expenses are paying back the small associated with scaling back the chip and fabbing it. (Keep in mind, fabbing a chip is a small in relation to the cost associated with developing it… something that was already done in this case)
“Its a part of the plan and if it dosen’t pan out they’ll dump it.”
Of course. Thankfully, for it to “pan out” will occur in a mere matter of months as opposed to several years as would be the case if they developed the chip from scratch.
“You can’t just throw existing technologies around like legos. This isn’t freakin’ hasbro here and we aren’t working with lincoln logs. They took an existing processor and they re-engineered it into a new one. The Power4 was not capable of doing Altivec. You don’t just add something like that over the weekend. They created a new processor that was derived from an existing design.”
Don;t get me wrong… the expense is a big… but its something that will be easily recouped in a matter of months because they didn’t have to design the chip from scratch, but instead added 2 already-existant technologies.
“In the process they had hurdles and technical issues to address which did cost money.”
Ofcourse it did. Don;t get me wrong… I know it cost money… a lot of it, but that amount of money will be easily recouped because they’re not having to pay for the complete development of a chip but instead, the expense associated with scaling it back and adding 2 technologies.
“They’ll be expecting that money back and then some or they won’t do it again.”
Of course they’re going to want to get a return on that investment. Thankfully, that will not be dificult to do because the expense associated with scaling back the Power 4 and adding AltiVec and Hypertransport is something that can be recouped in a meer matter of months… as opposed to years as would be the cause if the chip was custom developed for Apple.
“No ‘non issue’ you can think of will change that fact.”
I never said that this non issue will mean that they don’t have to recoup their expense. I’m simply saying that its far easier to do now that they didn’t have to incur the expense associated with design a new custom chip from scratch.
“Why are there articles about IBM making claims about a slow start on a fab plant if its all gravy?”
because they built a state of the art plant and yet haven’t had the benefit of inuring the benefit associated with creating that plant.
In essence the story is FUD.
“Why would there be any concern at all if in 2 months they made all their money back.”
There shouldn’t… and there isn’t. Again, the story is FUD.
“This is a little more involved than I think you are capable of grasping. Sorry.”
No, I grasp it perfectly.
“Making a profit isn’t trivial!”
It is when you consider the fact that the R&D will be recouped in a mere matter of months and that everything beyond that is gravy for IBM.
“[IBM] will only further the technology if it pays for iteslf and they can see a big return on future investments in the technology.”
Of course. Thankfully, the R&D was all but entirely paid for and that the additional R&D expense will be paid for in a mere matter of months rather than years… as would have been the case if they developed the chip from scratch. IBM will see this for the cash cow that it is, and will be developing the 980 (and all successive releases) as planned because it reinforces the company’s bottom line.
“Until that happens the 980, 990 and 1000 super G8 whatever don’t mean a thing.”
Thankfully, it will happen in a mere matter of months.
That shows that the PC is more expandable… not cheaper.
“More expandable AND cheaper!”
That would be the case if the PC was less expensive than a Mac with the same (or as close as possible) specs regarding hardware and software… but its not.
What you will find when you make such a comparison is that the Mac is either slightly more expensive, the same price, slightly less expensive or significantly less expensive when you compare the exact (or as close as possible) specs in hardware and software to a PC.
“If I can’t get a Mac Tower at the same price as the competition is selling one then its a more expensive computer!”
Your statement is misleading. Because the PC is more expandable than a Mac you can pay less because you get less.
“If Apple can’t match the competition in features and price then its more expensive!”
Apple is is less expandable and has less options and therefore you will have to buy a Mac with more options which will cost more money. But a Mac is either slightly more expensive, the same price, slightly less expensive or significantly less expensive when you compare the exact (or as close as possible) specs in hrdware and software to a PC.
“It sounds like they have 1/10 of the equation covered. If I need to drop 2 grand on a highend P4 then a Mac Tower is a comparable buy.”
Mac’s do come in configurations that are as inexpensive as $799 and yet in every computer Apple sells the pricing equation mentioned above works out for each of them.
“Beyond that they don’t compete on many levels in which the PC is configured and offered to the general public.”
Agreed… hence the reason why I said that a PC is more expandable and configurable.
“That adds up to 2 things here. The PC is more expandable”
You’re right here.
“and generally a CHEAPER buy than a macintosh.”
You’re wrong here.