ejbehr@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu (Eric Behr) (06/12/91)
A Mr. Ken Flamm (sp ?) from Brookings Institution, talking on the radio about the reported Apple/IBM discussions, said that "Apple needs IBM's RISC technology to stay competitive". It sounds strange, since Motorola also makes RISC chips, doesn't it? Not to mention other manufacturers. So, is IBM that much ahead in RISC? or is the whole explanation baloney? Just curious. -- Eric Behr, Illinois State University, Mathematics Department Internet: ejbehr@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu Bitnet: ebehr@ilstu
sjhg9320@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (K-29 Brown) (06/12/91)
ejbehr@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu (Eric Behr) writes: >So, is IBM that much ahead in RISC? or is the whole explanation baloney? >Just curious. Motorola has had tremendous problems getting its chips out in Market-Sized Quantities- that's why Sun designed its own SPARC Standard. Motorola owned the workstation market a few years ago, but their inability to get their products out the door is rapidly reducing their Market-Share. (See Xerox and GM for other examples of this disease.) -- ================================================================================ | June 4th, 1989. || |================================================================================
philip@pescadero.Stanford.EDU (Philip Machanick) (06/12/91)
In article <1991Jun11.211857.7834@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu>, ejbehr@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu (Eric Behr) writes: |> A Mr. Ken Flamm (sp ?) from Brookings Institution, talking on the radio |> about the reported Apple/IBM discussions, said that "Apple needs IBM's RISC |> technology to stay competitive". It sounds strange, since Motorola also |> makes RISC chips, doesn't it? Not to mention other manufacturers. |> |> So, is IBM that much ahead in RISC? or is the whole explanation baloney? |> Just curious. Not all RISC chips are created equal. IBM's has been reported to give impressive performance compared with some of the older designs, like SPARC. (In fact, SPARC performance has become something of a soft target for rival advertizers). I don't know the Motorola design - maybe someone else will comment. An issue in evaluating processors, aside from performance, is whether they offer support for multiple CPUs (e.g., enough flexibility in cache management) - assuming Apple is after a new line that would take them well above their current niche. Another interesting possibility is 64-bit architectures, such as the MIPS R4000. Can you imagine - 5 years from now - angry <whatever-comes-after-Mac> users threatening Apple with lawsuits for selling them machines that aren't 64-bit clean? -- Philip Machanick philip@pescadero.stanford.edu
starta@tosh.UUCP (John Starta) (06/13/91)
ejbehr@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu (Eric Behr) writes: > A Mr. Ken Flamm (sp ?) from Brookings Institution, talking on the radio > about the reported Apple/IBM discussions, said that "Apple needs IBM's RISC > technology to stay competitive". It sounds strange, since Motorola also > makes RISC chips, doesn't it? Not to mention other manufacturers. Yes they do, and it's a fantastic chip! > So, is IBM that much ahead in RISC? or is the whole explanation baloney? > Just curious. I haven't looked at the IBM RISC chip, so I can't comment on how far ahead or behind they are technologically speaking, but according to a WSJ article on the discussions, Motorola is reportedly having difficulties delivering their chips in large quanities. I don't know if this is actually true, or if the WSJ writers where just fishing for an explanation. John -- John A. Starta Internet: tosh!starta@asuvax.eas.asu.edu Chief Technologist UUCP: ...ncar!noao!asuvax!tosh!starta Micro Orchard Co. AOL: AFA John; CompuServe: 71520,3556
stevewi@hpspdra.spd.HP.COM (Steve Witten) (06/15/91)
> So, is IBM that much ahead in RISC? or is the whole explanation baloney? > Just curious. The San Jose Mercury News reported that it would take IBM at least 2 years to modify the RS6000 chipset so that it would be usable by Apple in there systems (not to mention all the legal hassles that would have to be worked out and all the $$$ that would have to change hands!). The SJMN also reported that Apple has been working with Motorola from the very beginning on its RISC chipset (MC880x0) and that the Motorola chipset was "Mac-ready" now... The SJMN speculated that a "future" MacOS could appear on IBM's workstations (I believe it is common knowledge that Apple is working on a portable successor to the MacOS but that it will be some time before this effort sees the light of day). The SF Bay Area TV news reported that the talks were very preliminary and were aimed primarily at network interoperability. While the talks may be sincere, the hype that was made of them to the press (as evidenced by the Apple spokesman's remarks in the SJMN) was definitely spin aimed at the controlling the damage that the recent layoff announcement (despite staggering sales figures for the new Macs) has done to Apple's public image. My opinions only... not my employer's. =============================================================================== Steve Witten stevewi%hpspdra@hplabs.hp.com Intelligent Networks Operation ...!hplabs!hpspdra!stevewi Hewlett-Packard Co. stevewi@hpspdra.spd.hp.com
cavrak@kira.UUCP (Steve Cavrak) (06/15/91)
In article <1991Jun11.211857.7834@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu>, ejbehr@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu (Eric Behr) writes: A Mr. Ken Flamm (sp ?) from Brookings Institution, talking on the radio about the reported Apple/IBM discussions, said that "Apple needs IBM's RISC technology to stay competitive". It sounds strange, since Motorola also makes RISC chips, doesn't it? Not to mention other manufacturers. So, is IBM that much ahead in RISC? or is the whole explanation baloney? Just curious. The explanation may be more mundane. What was signed was a cross- licensing agreement. Apple will be "able" to use some IBM technology, and IBM will be "able" to use some Apple technology. There is no requirement that either actually use the others technology, and this is where the agreement works best. Suppose IBM develops its own user interface that looks a lot like Apple's. Will the agreement prevent Apple from entering a "look and feel suit" ? Probably. And suppose IBM decides that some of their patents cover ALL risc technology. Will this protect Apple ? Of course, Apple might really want to use the RISC 6000 chip (and they would certainly be negligent if they didn't evaluate it seriously). It's got very good floating point, something important in the engineering market, and a stable supplier. I'd expect that Apple is also looking at the HP chips too. IBM, of course, is always harder to phanthom. The recent "rediscovery" of the AT bus with concurrent recommittment to the MicroChannel was covered by a "The customer is always right but the customer is really wrong" attitude. OS/2 has not taken the world by storm, leaving IBM with some poor alternatives (proprietary but obsolete OS/360 style things, wide open UNIX, or things like Microsoft or Apple). The steady erosion of market share bothers IBM -- even when it's only a few percent. See ya Steve
vladimir@Eng.Sun.COM (Vladimir G. Ivanovic) (06/16/91)
In article <21480009@hpspdra.spd.HP.COM> stevewi@hpspdra.spd.HP.COM (Steve Witten) writes:
The San Jose Mercury News reported that it would take IBM at least 2
years to modify the RS6000 chipset so that it would be usable by
Apple in there [sic] systems ...
Did the SJMN say what was not usable by Apple or did they just start an
unfounded rumor? And two years is a long time. I'd be willing to wager that
two years was over 50% of the development time of the RS/6000. This implies a
complete revamping of the chip set and I have a hard time buying that. (I
have been wrong a few times in the past ... ;-)
More information would be appreciated.
-- Vladimir
--
==============================================================================
Vladimir G. Ivanovic Sun Microsystems, Inc
(415) 336-2315 MTV12-33
vladimir@Eng.Sun.COM 2550 Garcia Ave.
{decwrl,hplabs,ucbvax}!sun!Eng!vladimir Mountain View, CA 94043-1100
Disclaimer: I speak for myself.
==============================================================================wangh@beasley.CS.ORST.EDU (Haiyan Wang) (06/17/91)
In article <1991Jun12.000240.1910@neon.Stanford.EDU> philip@pescadero.stanford.edu writes: > - 5 years from now - angry ><whatever-comes-after-Mac> users threatening Apple with lawsuits >for selling them machines that aren't 64-bit clean? >-- It will certainly happen if Apple advertized something and failed to do it. ^^^^^^ >Philip Machanick >philip@pescadero.stanford.edu