Maybe Mac should have stuck with IBM?

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Maybe Mac should have stuck with IBM? (Page 1 of 2)

Posted: 2/7/2006 6:53:12 AM EDT

IBM to Unveil Details of Microprocessor

Feb 7, 1:44 AM (ET)

By MATTHEW FORDAHL

SAN JOSE, Calif. (AP) - Bucking a trend in the chip industry, IBM Corp. said Tuesday its upcoming Power6 microprocessor for servers will run at unprecedented speeds while keeping a lid on power requirements and heat.

For years, chip makers have improved computer performance by shrinking the size of transistors, squeezing more of them into smaller spaces and ratcheting up the speed at which they process instructions. But recently the benefits have diminished as the chips' power requirements and temperatures have risen.

To get around the problem, the industry has resorted to building two or more computing engines known as "cores" on a single chip and throttling back the clock speed to prevent a silicon meltdown. As a result, performance does increase - but it does not double, even with two computing cores.

IBM's upcoming Power6, which is multicore and designed for higher-end servers running the Unix operating system, was crafted from the ground up to run fast without major losses in power efficiency, said Bernard Meyerson, chief technologist of IBM's Systems and Technology Group.

"In Power6, we basically combined everything we could (throw) at it in terms of fundamental atoms and molecules all the way out to what we knew would be the software that would run on top of that system," he said.

Power6 is expected to run between 4 and 5 gigahertz. Intel Corp. (INTC)'s Itanium 2 server processor today tops out at 1.66 gigahertz. The Pentium 4 for desktops currently reaches speeds of 3.8 gigahertz.

"Despite the speeds, it will have a lower power density than in some chips found in today's desktops," Meyerson said.

Details of the chip, which is scheduled to be available next year, were being presented at the International Solid-State Circuits Conference in San Francisco. The conference runs through Friday.

Oh and IBTMB.

Posted: 2/7/2006 6:54:30 AM EDT

[#1]

Perhaps they should have shared this with Mr. Jobs!

Posted: 2/7/2006 7:01:31 AM EDT

[#2]

...misread it...

Posted: 2/7/2006 7:04:50 AM EDT

[#3]

the problem is the cost is significantly higher on the p5 and p6 series of processors that pretty much put anything in the way of home computing out of reach for most people.

The servers these are going in are generally 10,000.00 and up for a single machine.

Posted: 2/7/2006 7:04:54 AM EDT

[#4]

I thought BigBlue was all hot for the Cell processors?

Posted: 2/7/2006 7:06:45 AM EDT

[#5]

I think the driving factor wasn't the desktop, but the laptop processors. G5 wasn't so bad, but it was never going to make it into a laptop due to power/heat issues, and the G4 is getting long in the tooth.

Posted: 2/7/2006 7:14:04 AM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
I think the driving factor wasn't the desktop, but the laptop processors. G5 wasn't so bad, but it was never going to make it into a laptop due to power/heat issues, and the G4 is getting long in the tooth.

Intel's new dual processor is phat. IBM was a buck short and a day late.

Posted: 2/7/2006 7:19:09 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I think the driving factor wasn't the desktop, but the laptop processors. G5 wasn't so bad, but it was never going to make it into a laptop due to power/heat issues, and the G4 is getting long in the tooth.

Intel's new dual processor is phat. IBM was a buck short and a day late.

And Intel was behind Sun with dual cores. The UltraSparcIV+ will have four of them.

Posted: 2/7/2006 7:20:00 AM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I think the driving factor wasn't the desktop, but the laptop processors. G5 wasn't so bad, but it was never going to make it into a laptop due to power/heat issues, and the G4 is getting long in the tooth.

Intel's new dual processor is phat. IBM was a buck short and a day late.

the intel processor is WAY behind the Pseries processors. it's not even close.

Posted: 2/7/2006 7:20:09 AM EDT

[#9]

They claim 5 GHz. Is that per core or per processor? If it is per core, then I have to call BS unless they found a new unobtanium wafer process. And if so, the Power6 is going to cost like 5-10 times that of the latest Intel multi-core or AMD multi-core processor.

Posted: 2/7/2006 7:22:08 AM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I think the driving factor wasn't the desktop, but the laptop processors. G5 wasn't so bad, but it was never going to make it into a laptop due to power/heat issues, and the G4 is getting long in the tooth.

Intel's new dual processor is phat. IBM was a buck short and a day late.

the intel processor is WAY behind the Pseries processors. it's not even close.

But who will put a Power6 into a laptop?

(Some geek would, but thats not where the money is)

Posted: 2/7/2006 7:32:23 AM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I think the driving factor wasn't the desktop, but the laptop processors. G5 wasn't so bad, but it was never going to make it into a laptop due to power/heat issues, and the G4 is getting long in the tooth.

Intel's new dual processor is phat. IBM was a buck short and a day late.

the intel processor is WAY behind the Pseries processors. it's not even close.

But who will put a Power6 into a laptop? (Some geek would, but thats not where the money is)

ibm doesn't build laptops and pc's. There is NO money in that market at all anymore. that entire section of the industry is disposable product now. The pseries of processor were never meant or designed to be used in laptops or desktop type systems. The last desktop unix based machine we marketed was a P4 series in the 7043 240. it was sold as a desktop server but was essentially designed as a Catia workstation for high end CAD applications.

as for competition. NO ONE including Sun or HP competes with this in the midrange server arena for performance for dollar.... A 64-way (64-core) IBM eServer p5 595 (1.90GHz). this is as close to a mainframe system as you can get in uptime reliability and performance before going to large systems.

Posted: 2/7/2006 7:36:33 AM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
They claim 5 GHz. Is that per core or per processor? If it is per core, then I have to call BS unless they found a new unobtanium wafer process. And if so, the Power6 is going to cost like 5-10 times that of the latest Intel multi-core or AMD multi-core processor.

my understanding is that is per processor unit. Not engine. i'll see what i can find to confirm that when i get in the office. keep in mind those numbers are a bit misleading as performance isn't as relative to ghz in the risc enviornment as it is in the intel world. These systems also have MAJOR airflow and some use refrigerated cooling on the cp's. 5ghz is not that far out of reach.

Posted: 2/7/2006 7:38:21 AM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
I thought BigBlue was all hot for the Cell processors?

Vaporware still.

Posted: 2/7/2006 7:43:47 AM EDT

[#14]

some good reading here

www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_perf_results.asp

Posted: 2/7/2006 7:45:00 AM EDT

[#15]

Many times companies would announce up coming products, when is this super processor available for shipping, it might be a number of months or years before thay are available.

Posted: 2/7/2006 7:49:11 AM EDT

[#16]

No one in the chip industry has ever falsely claimed to have the heat issue under control...

Posted: 2/7/2006 7:52:18 AM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I think the driving factor wasn't the desktop, but the laptop processors. G5 wasn't so bad, but it was never going to make it into a laptop due to power/heat issues, and the G4 is getting long in the tooth.

Intel's new dual processor is phat. IBM was a buck short and a day late.

And Intel was behind Sun with dual cores. The UltraSparcIV+ will have four of them.

And Sun was behind IBM, who rolled out the dual core POWER4 in 2001.

Posted: 2/7/2006 7:54:12 AM EDT

[#18]

That article is meaningless gibberish… it reads like a IBM press release. For example…

while keeping a lid on power requirements and heat.

WTF does that actually mean…

Uses less power than a Intel chip? Not likely.
Produces less heat than a Intel chip? Not likely.

Gibberish.

Apple might have a problem because Intel cannot get high enough yields on the Duo processor and so there is a severe shortage of chips.

Posted: 2/7/2006 7:57:01 AM EDT

[#19]

i have not looked over all the details on the p6 series. I can say the p5 series runs HOT in anything over a 4 way engine. not sure how much less heat it will use but if the power requirments are less than the p5 as they say, then that will equal lower heat output and operating temp. Although it honestly many not be that significant.

Posted: 2/7/2006 8:00:23 AM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
That article is meaningless gibberish… it reads like a IBM press release. For example…

while keeping a lid on power requirements and heat.

WTF does that actually mean…

Uses less power than a Intel chip? Not likely.
Produces less heat than a Intel chip? Not likely.

Gibberish.

Apple might have a problem because Intel cannot get high enough yields on the Duo processor and so there is a severe shortage of chips.

as Intel makes nothing even remotely comparable to RISC based processors and these are NOT designed for lowend servers you are really comparing apples to dinosaurs. There is not an intel based server on the market that is comparable. i guess if you consider a full frame of clustered servers you might be coming close to one base machine.

Posted: 2/7/2006 8:01:23 AM EDT

[#21]

One thing's for sure, Jobs should be fired for giving Apple/Mac folks hope and profitability. Then there's Pixar...that guy is pretty lucky, that's for sure.

Posted: 2/7/2006 8:13:42 AM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
Quoted:
That article is meaningless gibberish… it reads like a IBM press release. For example…

while keeping a lid on power requirements and heat.

WTF does that actually mean…

Uses less power than a Intel chip? Not likely.
Produces less heat than a Intel chip? Not likely.

Gibberish.

Apple might have a problem because Intel cannot get high enough yields on the Duo processor and so there is a severe shortage of chips.

as Intel makes nothing even remotely comparable to RISC based processors and these are NOT designed for lowend servers you are really comparing apples to dinosaurs. There is not an intel based server on the market that is comparable. i guess if you consider a full frame of clustered servers you might be coming close to one base machine.

I know it was not I that implied Apple might have wanted to use these chips but was pointing out this was a meaningless comparison and the story still reads like a press release and is meaningless until the actual product is available for testing...

These chips would not have meant squat to Apple. Apple needed a notebook chip not a server chip.

Posted: 2/8/2006 8:04:08 AM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
That article is meaningless gibberish… it reads like a IBM press release. For example…

while keeping a lid on power requirements and heat.

WTF does that actually mean…

Uses less power than a Intel chip? Not likely.
Produces less heat than a Intel chip? Not likely.

Gibberish.

Apple might have a problem because Intel cannot get high enough yields on the Duo processor and so there is a severe shortage of chips.

as Intel makes nothing even remotely comparable to RISC based processors and these are NOT designed for lowend servers you are really comparing apples to dinosaurs. There is not an intel based server on the market that is comparable. i guess if you consider a full frame of clustered servers you might be coming close to one base machine.

I know it was not I that implied Apple might have wanted to use these chips but was pointing out this was a meaningless comparison and the story still reads like a press release and is meaningless until the actual product is available for testing...

These chips would not have meant squat to Apple. Apple needed a notebook chip not a server chip.

exactly.

i am interested to see what happens with the apple platforms now. they are going to sink like a rock or come up with something new that will rock the pc market. I am voting on the sinking like a rock.

Posted: 2/8/2006 8:06:21 AM EDT

[#24]

my 360 has 4 processors

Posted: 2/8/2006 8:16:04 AM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
my 360 has 4 processors

You're dating yourself. 360-model 15 right?

Posted: 2/8/2006 8:19:11 AM EDT

[#26]

when is a computer going to declare,

" I LIVE!!"

in a 1960's robot voice?

that's the question you need to be asking

anyway, who wants to bet this guy "has carnal knowledge of" this robot?

Posted: 2/8/2006 10:46:58 AM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:

exactly.

i am interested to see what happens with the apple platforms now. they are going to sink like a rock or come up with something new that will rock the pc market. I am voting on the sinking like a rock.

Apple needs to get out of hardware and release OSX to the generic PC Intel and AMD platforms… that is if Apple want to be a serious player in the computer world and be viewed as a footnote.

Posted: 2/8/2006 10:55:56 AM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
Quoted:

exactly.

i am interested to see what happens with the apple platforms now. they are going to sink like a rock or come up with something new that will rock the pc market. I am voting on the sinking like a rock.

Apple needs to get out of hardware and release OSX to the generic PC Intel and AMD platforms… that is if Apple want to be a serious player in the computer world and be viewed as a footnote.

I disagree - I think their hardware is what has kept them afloat. Why would they want to take Microsoft on directly in Microsoft's own space?

Remember OS/2? It ran on the PC platform, but suffered from driver issues and a lack of Windows software compatibility. Apple neatly sidesteps both issues with their own hardware - they don't have to support every two dollar part imported from China and they don't have to worry about software compatibility because it is a "different machine".

I think that if Apple did release OSX for generic PCs, they would end up as a footnote in computing history.

Posted: 2/8/2006 11:04:50 AM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

exactly.

i am interested to see what happens with the apple platforms now. they are going to sink like a rock or come up with something new that will rock the pc market. I am voting on the sinking like a rock.

Apple needs to get out of hardware and release OSX to the generic PC Intel and AMD platforms… that is if Apple want to be a serious player in the computer world and be viewed as a footnote.

I disagree - I think their hardware is what has kept them afloat. Why would they want to take Microsoft on directly in Microsoft's own space?

Remember OS/2? It ran on the PC platform, but suffered from driver issues and a lack of Windows software compatibility. Apple neatly sidesteps both issues with their own hardware - they don't have to support every two dollar part imported from China and they don't have to worry about software compatibility because it is a "different machine".

I think that if Apple did release OSX for generic PCs, they would end up as a footnote in computing history.

Hardware is a boat anchor tied around Apples neck. What is keeping Apple afloat is the iPod.

The driver issues is an excuse… all Apple has to do is have an approved hardware list, If a component maker wants on the list they furnish working drivers first. Let the manufactures Dell, HP ect worry about making sure drivers work on the systems they sell. Really there are only 2 major video card makers and a handful of motherboard chip manufactures… drivers are not the issue they were 10 years ago.

Posted: 2/8/2006 11:40:08 AM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:
Hardware is a boat anchor tied around Apples neck. What is keeping Apple afloat is the iPod.

The driver issues is an excuse… all Apple has to do is have an approved hardware list, If a component maker wants on the list they furnish working drivers first. Let the manufactures Dell, HP ect worry about making sure drivers work on the systems they sell. Really there are only 2 major video card makers and a handful of motherboard chip manufactures… drivers are not the issue they were 10 years ago.

Here's a list of all the companies which have successful commercial operating systems on PC hardware:

1) Microsoft.

Apple makes its money on the hardware, not OSX. Ditching the thing with the margin would be suicidal to Apple.

Posted: 2/8/2006 11:48:24 AM EDT

[#31]

Say what you will about OS/2, it WAS bulletproof...

Posted: 2/8/2006 11:48:55 AM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Hardware is a boat anchor tied around Apples neck. What is keeping Apple afloat is the iPod.

The driver issues is an excuse… all Apple has to do is have an approved hardware list, If a component maker wants on the list they furnish working drivers first. Let the manufactures Dell, HP ect worry about making sure drivers work on the systems they sell. Really there are only 2 major video card makers and a handful of motherboard chip manufactures… drivers are not the issue they were 10 years ago.

Here's a list of all the companies which have successful commercial operating systems on PC hardware:

1) Microsoft.

Apple makes its money on the hardware, not OSX. Ditching the thing with the margin would be suicidal to Apple.

NO

Apple makes very LITTLE money on computer hardware the vast majority of Apples profits come from iPod sales.

If Apple goes in to OS only sales and drops computer hardware at this point it would be virtually all profit… if they were to increase their market share by just a few point by doing this it would mean BILLIONS in profits is just a few years.

The big money is in OS sales NOT hardware. If Apple wants to continue being a curious footnote they should by all means keep making computers… If Apple wants to be a serious major player the they need to stop making computers and sell the OS.

I personally believe Apple has already decided to do this in 2 to 4 years when OSX has a track record on the PC.

Posted: 2/8/2006 11:54:14 AM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
NO

Apple makes very LITTLE money on computer hardware the vast majority of Apples profits come from iPod sales.

If Apple goes in to OS only sales and drops computer hardware at this point it would be virtually all profit… if they were to increase their market share by just a few point by doing this it would mean BILLIONS in profits is just a few years.

The big money is in OS sales NOT hardware. If Apple wants to continue being a curious footnote they should by all means keep making computers… If Apple wants to be a serious major player the they need to stop making computers and sell the OS.

I personally believe Apple has already decided to do this in 2 to 4 years when OSX has a track record on the PC.

We'll have to agree to disagree and leave it at that.

Posted: 2/8/2006 11:58:22 AM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

exactly.

i am interested to see what happens with the apple platforms now. they are going to sink like a rock or come up with something new that will rock the pc market. I am voting on the sinking like a rock.

Apple needs to get out of hardware and release OSX to the generic PC Intel and AMD platforms… that is if Apple want to be a serious player in the computer world and be viewed as a footnote.

I disagree - I think their hardware is what has kept them afloat. Why would they want to take Microsoft on directly in Microsoft's own space?

Remember OS/2? It ran on the PC platform, but suffered from driver issues and a lack of Windows software compatibility. Apple neatly sidesteps both issues with their own hardware - they don't have to support every two dollar part imported from China and they don't have to worry about software compatibility because it is a "different machine".

I think that if Apple did release OSX for generic PCs, they would end up as a footnote in computing history.

OS2 was not designed for home recreational use. it was designed by IBM originally as a standalone OS for banking systems to make pc's useable for the average employee in a corporate enviornment. at the end of it's development they were begining to attempt to develop it to compete with windows but the market share was too far behind and it never caught on. OS2 warp is still used in many banking systems enviornments.

Apples hardware days are over. trying to redesign the PC on the same platform isn't going to buy them anything when PC based system can be had for 1/2 the price. As for OSX it's good but like OS2 the market share is so small it's going to dryup and blow away like OS2 unless they find a way to market it to the corporate world.

Posted: 2/8/2006 12:48:36 PM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:
OS2 was not designed for home recreational use. it was designed by IBM originally as a standalone OS for banking systems to make pc's useable for the average employee in a corporate enviornment. at the end of it's development they were begining to attempt to develop it to compete with windows but the market share was too far behind and it never caught on. OS2 warp is still used in many banking systems enviornments.

Apples hardware days are over. trying to redesign the PC on the same platform isn't going to buy them anything when PC based system can be had for 1/2 the price. As for OSX it's good but like OS2 the market share is so small it's going to dryup and blow away like OS2 unless they find a way to market it to the corporate world.

That is NEVER going to happen if Apple keeps making the computers. No large corporation is going to pay Apple a hardware premium when they can go to Dell and save millions on a single large scale purchase.

You would think Apple would have learned this lesson the way Dell was able to eat in to Apples classroom sales with lower pricing… I think they do know it and that is one of the reason they will eventually abandon making computers for the more profitable OS only.

If a corporation can go to Dell and get the computers at a good price with OSX I do not see how Apple loses… Dell handles the hardware headaches and Apple sucks in almost pure profit.

Posted: 2/8/2006 12:54:06 PM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:
Quoted:
OS2 was not designed for home recreational use. it was designed by IBM originally as a standalone OS for banking systems to make pc's useable for the average employee in a corporate enviornment. at the end of it's development they were begining to attempt to develop it to compete with windows but the market share was too far behind and it never caught on. OS2 warp is still used in many banking systems enviornments.

Apples hardware days are over. trying to redesign the PC on the same platform isn't going to buy them anything when PC based system can be had for 1/2 the price. As for OSX it's good but like OS2 the market share is so small it's going to dryup and blow away like OS2 unless they find a way to market it to the corporate world.

That is NEVER going to happen if Apple keeps making the computers. No large corporation is going to pay Apple a hardware premium when they can go to Dell and save millions on a single large scale purchase.

You would think Apple would have learned this lesson the way Dell was able to eat in to Apples classroom sales with lower pricing… I think they do know it and that is one of the reason they will eventually abandon making computers for the more profitable OS only.

If a corporation can go to Dell and get the computers at a good price with OSX I do not see how Apple loses… Dell handles the hardware headaches and Apple sucks in almost pure profit.

yep, although OSX has a LOOOOONG way to go to convince corporate IT departments to shoose it over Windows/linux/unix. Frankly i think apple is on it's last leg in the serious computing realm. they will be relegated to specialty things like IPODS and other entertainment media type devices. they will continue to lose market share and toss money into an already flooded PC based market and go under or change directions completely.

Posted: 2/8/2006 12:57:52 PM EDT

[#37]

Mike/The_Beer_Slayer: I doubt that Bill Gates would let Apple go under, Apple is window dressing competitor to Windows. I agree, Apple is a hare's breathe away from being irrelevant if not already there in the desktop computer market.

Posted: 2/8/2006 12:59:03 PM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
That article is meaningless gibberish… it reads like a IBM press release. For example…

while keeping a lid on power requirements and heat.

WTF does that actually mean…

Uses less power than a Intel chip? Not likely.
Produces less heat than a Intel chip? Not likely.

Gibberish.

Apple might have a problem because Intel cannot get high enough yields on the Duo processor and so there is a severe shortage of chips.

as Intel makes nothing even remotely comparable to RISC based processors and these are NOT designed for lowend servers you are really comparing apples to dinosaurs. There is not an intel based server on the market that is comparable. i guess if you consider a full frame of clustered servers you might be coming close to one base machine.

I know it was not I that implied Apple might have wanted to use these chips but was pointing out this was a meaningless comparison and the story still reads like a press release and is meaningless until the actual product is available for testing...

These chips would not have meant squat to Apple. Apple needed a notebook chip not a server chip.

exactly.

i am interested to see what happens with the apple platforms now. they are going to sink like a rock or come up with something new that will rock the pc market. I am voting on the sinking like a rock.

I bet Bill won't come back to save the day ... again.

Posted: 2/8/2006 1:03:09 PM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:
.
.
I bet Bill won't come back to save the day ... again.

Apple is such a small player, Bill Gates, could probably save it with the cash he gots around the house or in petty cash.

Posted: 2/8/2006 1:04:27 PM EDT

[#40]

Bring back the Alpha!

Posted: 2/8/2006 1:15:20 PM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:
Mike/The_Beer_Slayer: I doubt that Bill Gates would let Apple go under, Apple is window dressing competitor to Windows. I agree, Apple is a hare's breathe away from being irrelevant if not already there in the desktop computer market.

I agree that Apple at this point is Windows dressing (nice pun by the way) but I don't want a strawman for MS to point to I would like to see real competition. Apple owners are apparently scared of that idea.

I think Apple could make in the home or school markets… IF they let other people make the computers.

Apple elitist snobs don’t seem to get it that the computer buyers Apple needs in the home market are the mom and pop low end buyers… the people who will NOT spend the extra money to buy Apple hardware when they can get a Windows PC cheaper. Mom and pop don't pay extra for style.

Apple made $565 million last quarter BUT maybe 90% of that profit was on iPod sales… God help them if someone does come out with an iPod killer.

How smart to you have to be to figure this out… if Apple sells only the OS at $50 a pop and manages to increase market share in to the 8% range they would be making BILLIONS more in PROFITS on COMPUTER alone just a couple of years.

Posted: 2/8/2006 1:48:24 PM EDT

[#42]

not to mention the the reduction in costs associated with hardware support, warranty repairs, training for techs etc etc. OSX at 50-60.00 would be an XP killer IF they were to be able to get windows apps and games to run properly and efficently on the same hardware.

The PC industry is dead for profitibility with the exception of intel based servers and HIGH end gamers. the average home PC is a revenue loser for most vendors when repairs are figured in. Apple needs to realise this QUICK.

Posted: 2/8/2006 2:07:16 PM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:
OS2 was not designed for home recreational use. it was designed by IBM originally as a standalone OS for banking systems to make pc's useable for the average employee in a corporate enviornment. at the end of it's development they were begining to attempt to develop it to compete with windows but the market share was too far behind and it never caught on. OS2 warp is still used in many banking systems enviornments.

Apples hardware days are over. trying to redesign the PC on the same platform isn't going to buy them anything when PC based system can be had for 1/2 the price. As for OSX it's good but like OS2 the market share is so small it's going to dryup and blow away like OS2 unless they find a way to market it to the corporate world.

I have to disagree with you on OS/2, if only because I lived and breathed it for a number of years. OS/2 1.x was corporate only (and I really liked OS/2 1.2 - 1.3 was even better). OS/2 2.x, 3.x, and 4.x tried to be both. I had talked with both Lee Reiswig and John Soyring (head of IBM PSP at the time) about this - IBM wanted the home user in addition to the corporate clients, figuring (rightly so) that the geeks who drove technology within the corporate environment would push what they were using at home. They sponsored industry groups that were trying to accomplish this as well, such as "The 32-bit Alliance". They heavily promoted gaming development on OS/2, to the point that Doom for OS/2 was ready before Doom for Windows was. MMPM/2, the multimedia extensions to the user interface, was tailored for the home & gaming markets.

In the end, IBM stopped pushing it for anything other than specialty markets. OS/2 PPC died on the vine after being "marketed" for only three months (I still have a Power Series 750 and OS/2 PPC from those days). Hardware support was cited as a key cost and problem, since they could never keep up with all the hardware being introduced. USB support never achieved the maturity that it had on Windows, for example.

The big factor, however, was preloads. IBM just couldn't convince people to spend $70 for an operating system to replace one that came free with their systems. I don't think that has changed, and I don't see any reason why it would.

OS/2 was a great idea and I still boot it up now and again and think of what could have been. But the business world operates in Windows - most all new ATMs are built around Windows, for example - and OS/2 is completely dead and unsupported by IBM.

Posted: 2/8/2006 2:09:19 PM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:
not to mention the the reduction in costs associated with hardware support, warranty repairs, training for techs etc etc. OSX at 50-60.00 would be an XP killer IF they were to be able to get windows apps and games to run properly and efficently on the same hardware.

And that's exactly the problem - why would I as an end-user pay $50-$60 to run OSX to run the same programs and games I have now? Windows XP comes with my system for free, and does all those things already. If I'm a computer geek, I'm going to run Linux or (Free|Open|Net)BSD. Apple has no opportunity here.

Posted: 2/8/2006 2:16:17 PM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:
Quoted:
not to mention the the reduction in costs associated with hardware support, warranty repairs, training for techs etc etc. OSX at 50-60.00 would be an XP killer IF they were to be able to get windows apps and games to run properly and efficently on the same hardware.

And that's exactly the problem - why would I as an end-user pay $50-$60 to run OSX to run the same programs and games I have now? Windows XP comes with my system for free, and does all those things already. If I'm a computer geek, I'm going to run Linux or (Free|Open|Net)BSD. Apple has no opportunity here.

I wasn't refering to the "BOX" pc's that come with an OS. I was refering to those of us who build our own and are now forced to actually buy an OS if you expect to be able to get the patches to make it work properly. Not to mention there are more than a few PC vendors that would love nothing more than to tell MS to shove windows up their collective asses IF a viable alternative was available. MS compatibility MUST be there for any new OS to make it on the consumer market.

Posted: 2/8/2006 2:18:24 PM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:
Quoted:
not to mention the the reduction in costs associated with hardware support, warranty repairs, training for techs etc etc. OSX at 50-60.00 would be an XP killer IF they were to be able to get windows apps and games to run properly and efficently on the same hardware.

And that's exactly the problem - why would I as an end-user pay $50-$60 to run OSX to run the same programs and games I have now? Windows XP comes with my system for free, and does all those things already. If I'm a computer geek, I'm going to run Linux or (Free|Open|Net)BSD. Apple has no opportunity here.

Linux is still a pipe dream even in the geek community right now. I have been playing with it since it hit and it's still nothing more than an amusement from a functional perspective for real world use from a consumer point of view. The gaming industry drives the home market and always has. Linux SUCKS for that use.

Posted: 2/8/2006 2:37:15 PM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:
Linux is still a pipe dream even in the geek community right now. I have been playing with it since it hit and it's still nothing more than an amusement from a functional perspective for real world use from a consumer point of view. The gaming industry drives the home market and always has. Linux SUCKS for that use.

You're right - Linux is a failure for a gaming machine. OSX is no better, and is worse in several ways. Leaving aside hardware support for popular gaming hardware (3D accelerators, input controllers, etc.) it lacks anything close to Direct X for a gaming API. OpenGL doesn't cut it, at least without some major work. And since gaming is a big driver in the home market, as you point out, Apple can't compete with Microsoft in this space.

Posted: 2/8/2006 2:40:32 PM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:
I wasn't refering to the "BOX" pc's that come with an OS. I was refering to those of us who build our own and are now forced to actually buy an OS if you expect to be able to get the patches to make it work properly. Not to mention there are more than a few PC vendors that would love nothing more than to tell MS to shove windows up their collective asses IF a viable alternative was available. MS compatibility MUST be there for any new OS to make it on the consumer market.

Fair enough - but you must realize that folks like you and me are a tiny segment of the market. Very few people actually assemble their own machine from components.

The compatibility game is a losing proposition - every time MS comes out with a service pack, you will be playing catch up. If a company with the resources and techincal prowess of IBM couldn't do it (and they couldn't - MS tweaked Win32 in such as way as to conflict with the OS/2 kernel), I doubt Apple will be able to either. They could only ever hope to be compatible with the previous version.

Posted: 2/8/2006 5:30:30 PM EDT

[#49]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I think the driving factor wasn't the desktop, but the laptop processors. G5 wasn't so bad, but it was never going to make it into a laptop due to power/heat issues, and the G4 is getting long in the tooth.

Intel's new dual processor is phat. IBM was a buck short and a day late.

the intel processor is WAY behind the Pseries processors. it's not even close.

It'd be interesting to see if they really got a handle on the heat.

I spent last weekend in very,very close proximity to a too long row full of racks packed with p595s. I felt like I should have been marinated and turned every half hour.

Posted: 2/9/2006 5:13:19 AM EDT

[#50]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I wasn't refering to the "BOX" pc's that come with an OS. I was refering to those of us who build our own and are now forced to actually buy an OS if you expect to be able to get the patches to make it work properly. Not to mention there are more than a few PC vendors that would love nothing more than to tell MS to shove windows up their collective asses IF a viable alternative was available. MS compatibility MUST be there for any new OS to make it on the consumer market.

Fair enough - but you must realize that folks like you and me are a tiny segment of the market. Very few people actually assemble their own machine from components.

The compatibility game is a losing proposition - every time MS comes out with a service pack, you will be playing catch up. If a company with the resources and techincal prowess of IBM couldn't do it (and they couldn't - MS tweaked Win32 in such as way as to conflict with the OS/2 kernel), I doubt Apple will be able to either. They could only ever hope to be compatible with the previous version.

The major problem with marketing OS2 was IBM. they never really gave it the development resources it needed to make it a real competetor with windows. After working with IBM for the last 11 years or so i am firmly convinced the ONLY reason IBM sold PC's was because corporate customers demanded them. IBM NEVER gave a damn about the home market and their PC reflected that. Always over priced with features that didn't stand up to what the competition genrally offered. IBM was effectively out of the PC game 10 years ago. Thus the selling off of the PC company to Lenovo last year.

The R&D within IBM has NEVER felt PC's were real computers and didn't want to waste resources on them. why make 2-5% profit on a PC with no services when you can be the big dog in the large systems arena and make 30%+ on large systems and get the associated revenue from maintance and services to go with them.

That is what killed OS2. That is why OS2 was NEVER intended to be used in the home market. IBM gave it a shot and quickly realised the home based OS war was lost before they even began to fight. Apple may very likely be in the same boat.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Maybe Mac should have stuck with IBM? (Page 1 of 2)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us