Intel strikes back with a parallel x86 design

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jim Brooks
  • Start date Start date
|>
|> [ PowerPC ]
|>
|> Coulda woulda shoulda? It failed to dislodge x86 because they tried
|> to force a hardware solution without software to support it. How many
|> applications ever got ported to Windows/PowerPC?

That was one of the points I was making. Application vendors and
others were lined up, and many had joined the consortium, but IBM
dithered and dithered. By the time that a system was released,
they had lost interest as the 386/486 had established itself in
the market that the PowerPC was aimed at.

|> Hardware = Cheap. Software = Expensive. This is why x86 dominated
|> the market once it got it's HUGE lead in software.

Well, vaguely. But it hadn't got its huge lead back then. The
number of critical programs that ran on everything major EXCEPT
x86 systems (largely because of the crocks than passed for operating
systems) was legion.

|> What chances would you have to sell it, period? With no software
|> support you're already dead in the water. Best look towards the
|> embedded market for you're design and hope that you can get the power
|> consumption down.

Why do you think that I have forgotten that? Look at my record.

As has been proved time and time again, it is FAR easier to port
to a new architecture than is often made out. Compiler writers
and adeuately competent programmers are cheap, and Linux and BSD
are fairly portable. I wouldn't need more than $10 million of
that $1 billion to get Linux up, and wouldn't need more than
perhaps $20 million to bribe a significant number of major
application vendors to support the system.

Look - I wasn't saying that this can be done by one man and his
dog in a garage - those days are over.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
 
YKhan said:
Right, "I swear IBM could've delivered this hardware six years before
they actually delivered it. They were just holding back."
Click to expand...

That's entirely possible. Lots of midrange offering got canceled or
crippled because they competed with the low end of the mainframe lines.
The RT (early powerpc) systems were rumored to be crippled to make them
fit into IBM's product line price/performance curve. IBM couldn't have
cheaper machines outperforming more expensive machines.
 
|> > Nick Maclaren wrote:
|> >
|> >>You are posting as an outsider. I am not. My point is that IBM
|> >>could have delivered a lot earlier than they did.
|> >
|> > Right, "I swear IBM could've delivered this hardware six years before
|> > they actually delivered it. They were just holding back."
|>
|> That's entirely possible. Lots of midrange offering got canceled or
|> crippled because they competed with the low end of the mainframe lines.

That is true, but the delay was only about 18 months - and then
the PowerPC was delivered in a crippled form.

|> The RT (early powerpc) systems were rumored to be crippled to make them
|> fit into IBM's product line price/performance curve. IBM couldn't have
|> cheaper machines outperforming more expensive machines.

The Wheelers have provided some pretty convincing explanations as
to why that conspiracy theory was false. There WERE some such
decisions, but that was not one.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
 
Nick said:
The point about the PowerPC project is not that it would have
competed with Intel's dominance of the cheap desktop market, but
that it could have dominated both the performance desktop and
(more importantly) small server market. Intel would then have
been trapped in a ghetto of negligible margins, and would then have
been gradually squeezed as the prices of PowerPC systems came down.
Click to expand...

Well, would PowerPC have moved down, or would X86 have moved up? I
don't think Intel would have been "trapped" at all.
 
Tony said:
And just how much do you need to change existing software to work with
your new model?
Click to expand...

That's a fair question, and it looks somewhat like this:
- some of the CPU change is internal and needs no software support
- some needs a compiler change, people build Linux with the IntelC
so that's not a HUGE step for C and C++ programs
- the O/S will need to play with thread priorities, no issue for
Linux/Mac, probably minor in Windows.

I'm guessing that if the benefit was large the implementation would
happen in less than a year. Note that doesn't mean I buy into the idea
that this design will actually produce a huge gain in anything but
complexity.
 
Joe said:
Along with the (transputer | iAPX-432 | TMS9900) coulda ruled the world
types. I only mention TMS9900 because even though it had memory mapped
registers, to a programmer it looked real good compared to the 8088 ISA.
You can substitute your favorite failed obscure processor there.
Click to expand...
These are not similar in potential. The 432 was just slow for real world
problems. The only time the slow rule the world is when they're elected
President.

My personal belief is that if/when the Linux desktop is really ready for
prime time, there will be a chance for a non-x86 processor to be very
popular. Or if there's some reason to port Windows to a non-x86
platform. 64 bit Windows is really not much of a leap.
 
Nick said:
That was one of the points I was making. Application vendors and
others were lined up, and many had joined the consortium, but IBM
dithered and dithered. By the time that a system was released,
they had lost interest as the 386/486 had established itself in
the market that the PowerPC was aimed at.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't have mattered if IBM was absolutely supersonic in its
response, with absolutely no dithering, it still would've failed.
Saying that the 386/486 had a chance to establish themselves because of
IBM's dithering is moronic. The 386/486 didn't *have* to establish
themselves into any market, they were *already* established the day
they were born. They were the heirs to the x86 crown at the time; the
third and fourth generations of an empire built long before them. That
means that they inherited their market from the 286, which itself
inherited its crown from the 8088. The x86 market was already *huge* by
the time the 386 came to market, it only made it bigger. PowerPC was
the upstart that had to establish itself against the x86 empire.
|> Hardware = Cheap. Software = Expensive. This is why x86 dominated
|> the market once it got it's HUGE lead in software.

Well, vaguely. But it hadn't got its huge lead back then. The
number of critical programs that ran on everything major EXCEPT
x86 systems (largely because of the crocks than passed for operating
systems) was legion.
Click to expand...

X86 hadn't got its huge lead back then yet? It was already selling into
the tens of millions of systems back then, bigger than the entire rest
of the computer world put together in terms of units.

Back then x86 was not really a serious server platform, nor was it
trying to be. The best server OS was Netware for it back then. That's
about the extent of serving that PC's required back then. Whether there
were "critical apps" running on it irrelevent, it's not the market it
was going after. However, these days it has translated its
establishment in the PC marketplace into an establishment in the server
marketplace, including critical apps.
As has been proved time and time again, it is FAR easier to port
to a new architecture than is often made out. Compiler writers
and adeuately competent programmers are cheap, and Linux and BSD
are fairly portable. I wouldn't need more than $10 million of
that $1 billion to get Linux up, and wouldn't need more than
perhaps $20 million to bribe a significant number of major
application vendors to support the system.
Click to expand...

Even in the linux world, you have portablity problems. Especially with
drivers. You need Linux drivers for your video? Get the proprietary
pre-compiled binaries from the manufacturer's website. Maybe they'll be
nice and include drivers for your non-x86 Linux system.

Yousuf Khan
 
YKhan said:
Which market exactly was the 386 going to cannibalize? The 286 market?
Click to expand...

The minicomputer market. The rack mount server of the mid-90's was the
R20 and R30, which did not compete well against the 386/496 in terms of
compute power. They were used because they had a large address space and
lots of i/o bandwidth, and because there was a server OS (AIX) for them.
By 2000 IBM was offering rack mount Intel systems, ostensibly for
Windows server, but many running that "toy OS" Linux.
 
Nick said:
Ancient history. 68K had a chance, though they blew it. PowerPC as an
x86 killer was a dream. Remember 615?
Click to expand...


The 615 was part of the way that IBM blew it. You are wrong if you
think that project wasn't viable, in principle, but it relied on
IBM keeping its nerve, putting enough resources in to maintain
schedules, and taking pragmatic, technically competent decisions.
IBM failed in all three ....


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.[/QUOTE]

I don't think you should lecture Keith about 615. I wouldn't be
surprised to find out that he worked on it. And the 615 chip guys got
everything that wanted so far as I know... People, hardware, money.
Other folks got squeezed to feed the 615.

When you say things like this, Nick, it makes me wonder about the other
things you say.
 
Bill Davidsen said:
My personal belief is that if/when the Linux desktop is really ready for
prime time, there will be a chance for a non-x86 processor to be very
popular. Or if there's some reason to port Windows to a non-x86
platform. 64 bit Windows is really not much of a leap.
Click to expand...

Really? "Software" is still the key and there isn't a whole
lot for "Linux on non-x86". It's just a recompile just doesn't
impress the ISVs.

Casper
 
Nick said:
Well, when you have graduated from your comforter to peppermints,
please let us know.

You might like to ask yourself why SCSI disks and, later, Fibrechannel
ones ever sold - they are considerably more than 40% more expensive
than the IDE etc. equivalents and always have been. Perhaps you don't
work in a field where people buy SCSI and Fibrechannel systems, but
I and many other posters here do.
Click to expand...

We were clearly not talking about fibre channel or scsi here. We were
talking about what it took to establish world dominance in the mass
market back in the 80's and early 90's. Let me recap, you were
comparing a $5000 68K PC with no software against a $3500 x86 PC with
tons of software, and saying that the 68K was compelling because it was
only 40% more expensive.

The significant history of the 80386 and its successors was Intel's
long haul out of the cheap and nasty market (with high turnover but
no margins) into the medium and large business market (with much
lower turnover but vastly larger margins). The IA64 project was an
attempt to cement this but, in THAT case, it is Intel that blew it!
Click to expand...

Intel's server solutions were an evolution of their desktop solutions.
People were using their PC chips as server chips even before Intel had
any official server solution available, because Netware was available
pretty much within a few years of DOS. Netware was just running on
PC's. First real server solution that Intel had was Pentium Pro, which
later morphed into Xeon. Intel didn't seek to invent a server role for
x86, it was just accomodating what was already an established reality
at the time -- PC processors were being used as cheap servers.

The point about the PowerPC project is not that it would have
competed with Intel's dominance of the cheap desktop market, but
that it could have dominated both the performance desktop and
(more importantly) small server market. Intel would then have
been trapped in a ghetto of negligible margins, and would then have
been gradually squeezed as the prices of PowerPC systems came down.

As history relates, IBM blew it.
Click to expand...

Well as history relates, Intel blew it too, with Itanium. So history
now has provided us with a clear template for the path to future world
dominance: start out small and cheap and push your way up, not start
out big and expensive and push your way down.

Yousuf Khan
 
Tony said:
Coulda woulda shoulda? It failed to dislodge x86 because they tried
to force a hardware solution without software to support it. How many
applications ever got ported to Windows/PowerPC?
Click to expand...

What makes you think there wasn't going to be a software solution.
There were several operating systems, including "workplace", pink,
talegent etc.
Hardware = Cheap. Software = Expensive. This is why x86 dominated
the market once it got its HUGE lead in software
Click to expand...

Software can be ported. And at the time there wasn't as much.
Sony and Microsoft arguably are doing it for game consoles. What market
would you target this here wonder cpu at?
What chances would you have to sell it, period? With no software
support you're already dead in the water. Best look towards the
embedded market for you're design and hope that you can get the power
consumption down.

Everyone looking to revolutionize the computer world by forcing a new
software model onto people have doomed themselves to failure. Once
people realize this then they might stop wasting their money and start
innovating in ways that people will actually use.
Click to expand...

Microsoft and IBM did it. Apple did it. Hell, IBM did it with 360 and
OS. It could happen again. The most likely candidate that I see is the
game console, although the cell phone is a secondary possibility.
 
I don't think you should lecture Keith about 615. I wouldn't be
surprised to find out that he worked on it. And the 615 chip guys got
everything that wanted so far as I know... People, hardware, money.
Other folks got squeezed to feed the 615.
Click to expand...

Reread what I said - and remember that I was talking about the PowerPC
PROJECT.

The 615 always was a demented idea - when it was first proposed in
SHARE Europe, the universal reaction was "You are off your mind!"
It may have been well received when talking to bean counters, but
none of the geeks were even interested in presentations on it. As
I said, the 615 was part of the way that IBM blew it - it should
have been binned at first proposal.
When you say things like this, Nick, it makes me wonder about the other
things you say.
Click to expand...

It's not what I say - it's what you hear.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
 
YKhan said:
The x86 market was already *huge* by
the time the 386 came to market, it only made it bigger. PowerPC was
the upstart that had to establish itself against the x86 empire.
Click to expand...

At least back than, it seemed that alternate architectures had at
least a chance of becoming viable. Think Amiga and Atari ST. If
those efforts had been combined into one, and handled properly... who
knows?

Today, the thought of launching a new non-compatible general-purpose
PC is laughable.
 
YKhan said:
Well as history relates, Intel blew it too, with Itanium. So history
now has provided us with a clear template for the path to future world
dominance: start out small and cheap and push your way up, not start
out big and expensive and push your way down.
Click to expand...

Other examples: DOS vs CP/M and whatnot, Windows vs. OS/2, Linux vs
Windows (okay, the jury's still out, I guess), SGI vs. 3dfx and
nVidia, Toyota vs. Mercedes, Wal-mart/Aldi/Lidl/IKEA. Compaq vs. IBM,
later Dell vs. Compaq.

Seems that monetary success is very often grown from the mass-market
by undercutting the established competition. Often better products in
the end as well.

Any counterexamples?

-k
 
In comp.arch Ken Hagan said:
True, and when Microsoft finally did deliver an OS for the x86
family, it was also pitched at MIPS, Alpha and (later?) PowerPC.
Click to expand...

No. When MS finanly arrived at a good OS, it was designed for MIPS
with ports to x86 and Alpha and others possible. Just look at what
the address map looks like.
 
Nick said:
Reread what I said - and remember that I was talking about the PowerPC
PROJECT.

The 615 always was a demented idea - when it was first proposed in
SHARE Europe, the universal reaction was "You are off your mind!"
It may have been well received when talking to bean counters, but
none of the geeks were even interested in presentations on it. As
I said, the 615 was part of the way that IBM blew it - it should
have been binned at first proposal.




It's not what I say - it's what you hear.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Click to expand...

You wrote, in response to Keith's comment about "remember 615"

quote from above...
The 615 was part of the way that IBM blew it. You are wrong if you
think that project wasn't viable, in principle, but it relied on
IBM keeping its nerve, putting enough resources in to maintain
schedules, and taking pragmatic, technically competent decisions.
IBM failed in all three.

end quote

Silly me, I read "that project" in the above sentence to refer to the
615. If you had meant that sentence to say that the 615 was a bad idea
but there was some other plan that would have succeeded, then spit it
out. Don't claim later that what you wrote didn't mean what it clearly
said.

del
 
Silly me, I read "that project" in the above sentence to refer to the
615. If you had meant that sentence to say that the 615 was a bad idea
but there was some other plan that would have succeeded, then spit it
out. Don't claim later that what you wrote didn't mean what it clearly
said.
Click to expand...

Please don't be a clot. You can justifiably accuse me of being confusing,
but to claim that I meant something other than what I did is at best
nonsense. English is an ambiguous language - live with it.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
 
chrisv said:
Well, would PowerPC have moved down, or would X86 have moved up? I
don't think Intel would have been "trapped" at all.
Click to expand...

Both could have been possibilities. These days the x86 has such a hugh
economy of scale and fabs are so expensive that a chip that is server only
initially hasn't much of a chance. Back then the difference was smaller, and
IBM could well have eaten the difference for a few iterations.
 
Nick said:
Please don't be a clot. You can justifiably accuse me of being confusing,
but to claim that I meant something other than what I did is at best
nonsense. English is an ambiguous language - live with it.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Click to expand...

As ronald reagan said "there you go again" I didn't say what you meant.
I said what you wrote meant. That is similar to being confusing, eh?

So ok, you were confusing and what you wrote didn't communicate what you
meant to communicate. And English is not ambiguous unless the writer is
careless, particularly in watching pronoun references.
 
Back
Top