PDA

View Full Version : What if Apple bought IBM...?



Neptune
12-12-2007, 06:37 PM
Apple would continue the development of the G5 chip/PowerPC architecture and perhaps would've made an iBook/PowerBook G5 (underclock the G5 processor). The Power6 processor (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070521-ibms-power6-flies-the-coop-at-4-7ghz.html) would be a G7 and would be introduced in the PowerMacs at MacWorld 2008. Apple perhaps in some way would make the G7 "cool enough" to be in a notebook (extreme underclocking) and we would see those G7s in the PowerBook G4s by February and iBook G4s by April/May 2008. What do you think would've happened if Apple stayed with IBM or bought iBM?

tacsniper
12-12-2007, 07:26 PM
What if I become the CEO of Apple? You think I will give all the members on here a free Mac of their choice?..... answer... maybe yes, if I ever become the CEO and I still remember this post.... maybe no, 'cuz I will never become the CEO.... so in conclusion, who knows?

bryphotoguy
12-12-2007, 07:43 PM
Not sure why someone would put a processor in a computer and under-clock it because it ran too hot. Seems sort of wasteful.
Intel was able to keep up with the demand and volume Apple needed when it came to building fast, reliable processors. As a bonus, they can reach a whole new market with the advent of BootCamp.
To me, Intel and Apple fit a lot better.

jonnyd
12-12-2007, 08:58 PM
Wasn't there a joke about this?

Q. What do you get if you cross Apple with IBM?

A. IBM.

Kash
12-12-2007, 09:58 PM
Not sure why someone would put a processor in a computer and under-clock it because it ran too hot. Seems sort of wasteful.
Intel was able to keep up with the demand and volume Apple needed when it came to building fast, reliable processors. As a bonus, they can reach a whole new market with the advent of BootCamp.
To me, Intel and Apple fit a lot better.

Agreed. Going with Intel was a great move for Apple. The option to run Windows on a Mac drove a lot of the huge sales the company has seen the past year.

And underclocking a chip just to fit it into a laptop is a pretty dumb idea when you could just design a better chip like Intel did with its Conroe line.

thedood
12-12-2007, 10:47 PM
Agreed. Going with Intel was a great move for Apple. The option to run Windows on a Mac drove a lot of the huge sales the company has seen the past year.

And underclocking a chip just to fit it into a laptop is a pretty dumb idea when you could just design a better chip like Intel did with its Conroe line.

Agreed. More importantly, so did Steve Jobs, which is why the Mac is now powered with Intel.

mac57
12-13-2007, 12:10 AM
Nonetheless, all I can say is "wow" - 4.7 GHz, 2x the performance of my G5... I *want* one! :D

ki99
12-13-2007, 10:31 AM
what if microsoft owned apple?
...oh ...wait.

mac57
12-13-2007, 10:40 AM
what if microsoft owned apple?
...oh ...wait.

You appear to be suggesting that this is true. Surely you jest?

stevenyc
12-13-2007, 11:20 AM
Going with Intel was a great move for Apple.

Didn't Apple fans bash Intel back in the day?

baggss
12-13-2007, 12:14 PM
what if microsoft owned apple?
...oh ...wait.

I'm curious as to what you mean by that too....

Please tell me you're not referring to the 1996 deal where MS invested some money (as part of patent settlements out of court which MS would have lost) and purchased non-voting shares of Apple Stock. They sold those shares some time back and never owned a controlling stake in Apple no matter what the movie "Pirates of Silicon Valley" might lead you to believe.

Or are you thinking of something else?


Didn't Apple fans bash Intel back in the day?

Yep. In many ways the PPC architecture is still better than Intel's X86 but it was not being developed in such a way that it could be marketed by Apple. The push for IBM was not in desktops but in embedded computing. As such Apple had a hard time selling the PPC when it was compared to the X86, partly due to Intel's "Mhz Myth" (that many still buy into today) and partly due to IBMs priorities. Since perception is 98% of reality in the public mind, the move to Intel was a smart.

mathogre
12-13-2007, 12:21 PM
Q. What do you get if you cross Apple with IBM?
a) A mainframe in every home that comes with stickers for your car

b) Beautiful laptop computers that require the use of JCL (Job Control Language). Here's how you copy a file! :D


//IS198CPY JOB (IS198T30500),'COPY JOB',CLASS=L,MSGCLASS=X
//COPY01 EXEC PGM=IEBGENER
//SYSPRINT DD SYSOUT=*
//SYSUT1 DD DSN=OLDFILE,DISP=SHR
//SYSUT2 DD DSN=NEWFILE,
// DISP=(NEW,CATLG,DELETE),
// SPACE=(CYL,(40,5),RLSE),
// DCB=(LRECL=115,BLKSIZE=1150)
//SYSIN DD DUMMY

mac57
12-13-2007, 01:04 PM
Excellent MO, just excellent! A true ROFL moment! :D

technologist
12-13-2007, 01:36 PM
a) A mainframe in every home that comes with stickers for your car

b) Beautiful laptop computers that require the use of JCL (Job Control Language). ...

c) You will not be able to buy a new iMac; you just buy a iMac Service Agreement. A team of consultants will deliver your new iMac, set it up, and run it for you. For this, you will pay $800 a month.

rman
12-13-2007, 01:57 PM
a) A mainframe in every home that comes with stickers for your car

b) Beautiful laptop computers that require the use of JCL (Job Control Language). Here's how you copy a file! :D


//IS198CPY JOB (IS198T30500),'COPY JOB',CLASS=L,MSGCLASS=X
//COPY01 EXEC PGM=IEBGENER
//SYSPRINT DD SYSOUT=*
//SYSUT1 DD DSN=OLDFILE,DISP=SHR
//SYSUT2 DD DSN=NEWFILE,
// DISP=(NEW,CATLG,DELETE),
// SPACE=(CYL,(40,5),RLSE),
// DCB=(LRECL=115,BLKSIZE=1150)
//SYSIN DD DUMMY

I had forgotten about jcl code. Use to work with that back in the day.

baggss
12-13-2007, 02:33 PM
+Rep for MO!

PapaNoHair
12-13-2007, 03:00 PM
Well......in my opinion their new logo would be "IBMac" :D :D

Zoolook
12-13-2007, 03:21 PM
I think the power of the G5 processor was grossly over-stated by both IBM and Apple. Jobs compared it to the 1st Gen Pentium 4, which was a pretty poor processor, but never compared it to the AMD64, out at the same time. Why? Because in almost every 64-bit benchmark, it lost, by a lot - in fact an Anadtech roundup shows the G5, Xeon and Opteron 250 (1st AMD64 CPU) compared on Linux and the G5 came last in every benchmark.

IBM really have little interest in developing the PPC. The Xbox360 uses 3 of them, and the Wii uses one too. IBM are pursuing Cell and other technologies, but the Notebook market owned by Apple was too small to make it worth investing a lot of money in a low powered CPU.

I am no Intel fanboy, I used AMD chips for the last 6 years of my PC days, but you have to give them credit in the Laptop market. Their chips have been great for years. Pentium M and Centrino were great for battery life, and were a lot faster, clock for clock, than the P4 ever was.

rman
12-13-2007, 03:40 PM
Well......in my opinion their new logo would be "IBMac" :D :D
So would IBM mean I Buy Mac?

jonnyd
12-13-2007, 07:45 PM
I'm curious as to what you mean by that too....

Please tell me you're not referring to the 1996 deal where MS invested some money (as part of patent settlements out of court which MS would have lost) and purchased non-voting shares of Apple Stock. They sold those shares some time back and never owned a controlling stake in Apple no matter what the movie "Pirates of Silicon Valley" might lead you to believe.

Or are you thinking of something else?



I think he meant 'pwned'.

thedood
12-13-2007, 08:37 PM
Didn't Apple fans bash Intel back in the day?
Actually it was Apple themselves who bashed Intel at a Keynote - where a Pentium III processor was torched.

Here is the ad where Apple (jokingly) apologized for doing such a thing.
http://pulsar.esm.psu.edu/Faculty/Gray/graphics/movies/toasted.mov

Intel CEO Paul Otellini made reference (jokingly) at the Keynote where Jobs announced Apple was switching to Intel. If you missed it, a good laugh was had by all.

Amen-Moses
12-14-2007, 04:30 AM
IBM really have little interest in developing the PPC. The Xbox360 uses 3 of them, and the Wii uses one too. IBM are pursuing Cell and other technologies, but the Notebook market owned by Apple was too small to make it worth investing a lot of money in a low powered CPU.


You've just made two classic errors, firstly you contradicted yourself as the first sentence is immediately countered by the following two! Secondly IBM never produced the laptop/notebook processors for Apple!

The real reason behind Apples move away from PowerPC chips was simple enonomics, Intel were willing to provide Apple with cheap chips whereas IBM and Freescale (Motorola) were not.

IBM had no need for Apples business when it was gearing up to provide the chips for ALL of the words games consoles (talk about a monopoly!) at the same time, Apple was always a tiny percentage of IBMs business, i.e probably less than one percent.

The funny thing is that anyone could seriously suggest that Apple could "buy IBM", they are an order of magnitude apart at least.

Amen-Moses

Kash
12-14-2007, 04:54 AM
You've just made two classic errors, firstly you contradicted yourself as the first sentence is immediately countered by the following two! Secondly IBM never produced the laptop/notebook processors for Apple!


So the G3 and G4 processors in the iBooks and Powerbooks were just undervolted and underclocked desktop chips? Interesting, I figured they were actual mobile versions of the desktop variations.

hondagus87
12-14-2007, 06:37 AM
So the G3 and G4 processors in the iBooks and Powerbooks were just undervolted and underclocked desktop chips? Interesting, I figured they were actual mobile versions of the desktop variations.

I believe what he is trying to say is that Motorola made the chips for the laptops, not IBM.

Zoolook
12-14-2007, 12:30 PM
You've just made two classic errors, firstly you contradicted yourself as the first sentence is immediately countered by the following two! Secondly IBM never produced the laptop/notebook processors for Apple!


I beg your pardon?

On the second point, I never said that IBM produced the chips for Apple's notebooks, I said it was not economically viable to invest money into R&D for chips designed for notebooks - IBM was the major investor in these technologies. You made a typical forum move of telling someone what they said (which was not the case) and then pulling it apart. :Oops:

On your first point, I don't see it as a contradiction, although I didn't finish what I set out to say (the joys of posting from work) I admit. Just because a current technology is selling well, in a one-off product like a console, doesn't mean that you'd want to develop that technology. In fact, consoles very rarely (if ever) use generationally developed technology, so it'd be foolish to do so.

The Cell is a different matter, because it is the future of IBM Blade Servers and a scalable technology they see as being key in media dominated devices. It'll be interesting to see how it does in the next 5 years.




IBM had no need for Apples business when it was gearing up to provide the chips for ALL of the words games consoles (talk about a monopoly!) at the same time, Apple was always a tiny percentage of IBMs business, i.e probably less than one percent.


Which is exactly what I said in my 1st paragraph, albeit not very clearly. I completely agree

Amen-Moses
12-14-2007, 04:10 PM
So the G3 and G4 processors in the iBooks and Powerbooks were just undervolted and underclocked desktop chips? Interesting, I figured they were actual mobile versions of the desktop variations.

No the desktop chips were just cut down Power chips, the mobile chips came from a completely different company, Motorola as already pointed out, with a completely different design.

Freescale (nee Motorola) are still developing the mobile chips and no doubt would have been quite happy selling them to Apple, just not as cheaply as Intel are willing to sell at.

Amen-Moses

Amen-Moses
12-14-2007, 04:20 PM
I beg your pardon?

On the second point, I never said that IBM produced the chips for Apple's notebooks, I said it was not economically viable to invest money into R&D for chips designed for notebooks - IBM was the major investor in these technologies. You made a typical forum move of telling someone what they said (which was not the case) and then pulling it apart. :Oops:

On your first point, I don't see it as a contradiction, although I didn't finish what I set out to say (the joys of posting from work) I admit. Just because a current technology is selling well, in a one-off product like a console, doesn't mean that you'd want to develop that technology. In fact, consoles very rarely (if ever) use generationally developed technology, so it'd be foolish to do so.

The Cell is a different matter, because it is the future of IBM Blade Servers and a scalable technology they see as being key in media dominated devices. It'll be interesting to see how it does in the next 5 years.



Which is exactly what I said in my 1st paragraph, albeit not very clearly. I completely agree

Firstly the chips were not designed for notebooks they are standard off the shelf processors from Freescale and are used in hundreds of different devices.

Secondly IBM had very little to do with the R&D of the processors used in Apple mobile computers.

Thirdly the Cell processor IS the development of the PPC architecture which IBM are still improving.

Apple could easily have used Cell processors in a next generation of desktop machines and judging by the performance of the PS3 (which if you noticed is now dominating the charts in the distributed processing projects) would have made for some pretty impressive machines.

Similarly they could have used Freescale processors in the mobile machines.

Amen-Moses

louishen
12-14-2007, 04:42 PM
what if microsoft owned apple?
...oh ...wait.


There is a joke that Apple isn't in fact an independent company. Its the R&D arm of Microsoft. Where else would Microsoft get all their ideas for Vista?

Zoolook
12-14-2007, 05:04 PM
Firstly the chips were not designed for notebooks they are standard off the shelf processors from Freescale and are used in hundreds of different devices.

Secondly IBM had very little to do with the R&D of the processors used in Apple mobile computers.


Sorry, but this is not entirely correct.

"IBM continued developing the 750 line and introduced 750CX (codename Sidewinder) in 2000 with 256 KiB on-die L2 cache; this increased performance while reducing power consumption and complexity. At 400 MHz, it drew under 4 W. The 750CX had 20 million transistors including its L2 cache. It had a die size of 43 mm˛ through a 0.18 μm copper process. 750CX was only used in one iMac and iBook revision."
Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PowerPC_G3)

So IBM did customise the chips for Apple back in the day.

As for the G4 and G5... Well Apple fell out with Motorola in 1999 and turned to IBM for help in developing the G4.

"IBM, the third member of the AIM alliance, did design the chip together with Motorola in its Somerset design center, but chose not to manufacture it"

and

"The 970 family was created through a collaboration between IBM and Apple[1][2]. The project went under the codename GP-UL or Giga Processor Ultra Light, where Giga Processor was the codename for the POWER4 from which the core was derived."

I am sorry to throw so many Wiki quotes at you, but your assertions that these CPUs were not designed specifically for either Apple or Notebooks (in the case of the G3) are simply not the case.




Apple could easily have used Cell processors in a next generation of desktop machines and judging by the performance of the PS3 (which if you noticed is now dominating the charts in the distributed processing projects) would have made for some pretty impressive machines.

Amen-Moses

The Cell doesn't actually make a very good general purpose CPU, AFAIK, although it seems to do some tasks exceptionally well. I'm a big fan of the Cell, but the consensus seems to be that it would not make a great CPU for home computers.

PapaNoHair
12-14-2007, 05:04 PM
There is a joke that Apple isn't in fact an independent company. Its the R&D arm of Microsoft. Where else would Microsoft get all their ideas for Vista?

LOL!! :D :D

PinkLemonade
12-15-2007, 02:14 AM
I'd rather Apple still use PPC. It set the Mac apart, and now it seems they're just becoming PC clones. :(

Amen-Moses
12-15-2007, 05:24 AM
I am sorry to throw so many Wiki quotes at you, but your assertions that these CPUs were not designed specifically for either Apple or Notebooks (in the case of the G3) are simply not the case.


You can throw all the quotes you want but it doesn't change the facts, IBM produced the desktop chips and Motorola produced the mobile chips. All the partners were involved in the development of the PPC architecture (after all that's what a partnership means) and Apple being a partner meant they had input in driving the design but the chips were all off-the-shelf components. The G3, G4 and G5 names were just that, names, they weren't special chips only made for Apple!

The Cell IS a PPC chip! It also happens to have a bunch of coprocessors to use as it sees fit but the architecture of the main CPU itself is PPC and is just as general purpose as any other PPC. In fact a Quad Cell PowerMac would be a beast in general processing and absolutely awesome in specialist uses where the extra coprocessors could be used. Such a machine would be like having a render farm on your desk!

Amen-Moses

Neptune
12-15-2007, 03:03 PM
I'd rather Apple still use PPC. It set the Mac apart, and now it seems they're just becoming PC clones. :(

PowerPC is what set Apple apart from the rest of the industry.
Intel Macs are still Macs, just different insides.
Also, what if Microsoft and the rest of the PC industry moved to the PowerPC architecture while Macs are the only ones at x86 architecture? Will that make Macs "unique" again as they were with the PowerPC architecture and the PCs having x86 architecture?

louishen
12-15-2007, 03:14 PM
back to what if apple bought IBM?

Why would they want to, and why would they want to keep PPC chips

The move to intel was smart - Intel were pleased and Apple could sell machines as fast as any PC and users could run windows at native speeds at last.

Buying IBM might buy some qudos for Apple in the corporate world, but that doesn't alter the fact that all corporate IT departments are not usually staffed by IT experts - your so called IT worker normally knows about one operating system - Microsoft's.

Also Apple would inherit a company with a very conservative mindset and a history of being left behind, while Apple has a culture of innovation and being a leader in the technology industry.

Apple doesn't need IBM, it seems to be do very nicely by itself - and long may that be so.

PinkLemonade
12-15-2007, 07:19 PM
Also, what if Microsoft and the rest of the PC industry moved to the PowerPC architecture while Macs are the only ones at x86 architecture? Will that make Macs "unique" again as they were with the PowerPC architecture and the PCs having x86 architecture?

As stupid as it sounds, yes.