G6 -3+Ghz and up ??
- Thread starter bobw
- Start date
We're accustomed to slow progress from Motorola's G4, but IBM and Apple have started this development longer ago. We're now seeing the fruits. If we were at PC development speeds, we wouldn't have seen the mid model moved from 1.8 to .. erh. 1.8 GHz, we'd have seen at least a 200 MHz step by now. However, Apple likes to keep their models for 5-7 months.
ocelot
Registered
chevy said:
I think they will rebrand the 980 as the G6 simply because the chips are so different. The 980 is a Power5 cut in half but still has some of the add-ons of the Power5... i.e. memory controller on the die and a whole new method of dynamic processor and memory frequency control. Also, the 980 is rumored to be just as impressive a leap as the G4 was to the G5. Finally, Apple has Big Blue backing them with true, intense, and inovative chip development that, in my opinion, will at least keep pace with Intel and AMD. Keep in mind IBM is not just developing these chips for Apple - they will soon offer low cost, powerful LINUX servers using the new 900 series processor family as well as deliver the chips to other hardware manufacturers interested in developing low cost 64 bit LINUX machines. You can bet that IBM hates buying chips from Intel when they know they can equip their entry level servers with a better chip made in house. Windows can't run on this silicon and Intel has to dig themselves out of the clock frequency marketing hole they've dug. Intel has yet to offer a 64 bit chip at >2GHz for a price competitive with IBM and AMD. The days of total Intel and Windows control of server computing are numbered; LINUX has been slowly and increasingly widdling away at MS's control over the server OS market. Now that the 64 bit cat is out of the bag, MS and Intel have catch up with cost effective hardware and an OS that can use it. Steve Jobs and Apple saw LINUX rising and that's the main reason Apple totally rewrote their OS based on BSD. Now Apple just needs to stand by and reap the benefits of IBM's aggressive stance in the face of Intel and MS. And who knows... there's no reason why OS X couldn't run on any IBM PPC based box - john.
Arden
Where mah "any" keys at?
ocelot said:Except that Apple is a hardware company first, meaning their bottom line is based on selling computers. If anybody were able to run OS X (simply a solution to sell computers: "Want a good OS? Buy our machine.") on other, cheaper machines, Apple would slowly lose hardware business and, eventually, money, leading to a dramatic decrease in the innovations we have come to know and love.
However, I think the rest of your arguments are valid and on track.
ocelot
Registered
arden said:ocelot said:Except that Apple is a hardware company first, meaning their bottom line is based on selling computers. If anybody were able to run OS X (simply a solution to sell computers: "Want a good OS? Buy our machine.") on other, cheaper machines, Apple would slowly lose hardware business and, eventually, money, leading to a dramatic decrease in the innovations we have come to know and love.
However, I think the rest of your arguments are valid and on track.
I agree that Apple is a vertical model at this time but the profit margin from selling software is much much greater than selling hardware - this is why all the PC clone companies have been struggling. I want Apple to make money and gain influence in the computer industry as a whole. I don't think Apple would lose much of their already small hardware market share offering their OS to other hardware platforms. They only stand to make more money in an OS market that is becoming more and more frustrated with Microsoft's monopoly. The big question is: when is the market ripe for a release of OS X for other than Mac hardware so that Apple, even if they lose hardware sales, can make money with it. - john.
Arden
Where mah "any" keys at?
That's nice, but it's unfortunately wishful thinking. These are the last numbers I saw (and I doubt it's changed much since then, I think this was late 2002 or early 2003):ocelot said:
- Profits from computer sales: $1.1 billion
- Profits from software sales (including OS X): $160 million
ocelot
Registered
arden said:
I didn't say any old pc hardware - any hardware with the new PPC 900 series processors made by IBM (remember what this thread is about) which would only put Apple in competition with LINUX at this point in time. I have lots of IT friends who would love to have a UNIX based OS with a great front end and support from a good company (Sun is going under so don't go there). IBM's PPC 900 series line can only be tapped by LINUX and OS X at this time. It would be an opportunity for Apple to compete with LINUX (not Windows) as the OS for this hardware. Do you really think Apple can compete with IBM in the UNIX server market... NOT! IBM probably sells more servers in a week than all the Apple Xserve's sold to date. What Apple CAN do is offer their OS to IBM and other companies making entry level servers based on the PPC line, ditch the Xserve (which will be squashed out of existence by the new IBM PPC 900 series based servers), and try to make some cash for the shareholders - john.
That was 1.1 billion in sales, not profit.
Stridder44
Universal Traveler
This is true. Sales and profit, HUGE difference.