From: cody@bvsd.co.edu (Cody Doerfler)
Subject: Re: IBM SUCKS!
Organization: Boulder Valley School District
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 03:09:32 GMT

coolidge@sirius.aux.apple.com (John L. Coolidge) writes:

>sfuller@tamsun.tamu.edu (Steve Fuller) writes:
>>In article <6161.2ad576d0@hayes.com> bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:
>>>In article <FISCHER.92Oct6031152@steiner.iesd.auc.dk>, fischer@iesd.auc.dk (Lars Peter Fischer) writes:
>>>> If IBM sucks, how come Apple is going to use their chips and is
>>>> developing their new OS with 'em? Does this mean that 3 years from
>>>> now, "Apple suck" will be true?
>>>
>>>* Apple isn't using IBM's chips. They are using Motorolas chips. Motorola is

>>Sorry Bill, You are wrong. The PowerPC 601 is an IBM. Motorola is licencing
>>the architecture. The later models (603,604,620) will come from both. 

>To echo what Bill and Mike have said: the PowerPC architecture is
>different from the POWER architecture. All PowerPC processors have a
>common architecture (the 601 included). The PowerPC architecture is
>based on POWER, but it is not the same. A number of instructions have
>been deleted and others added. Much of the VM and I/O infrastructure
>has been redesigned. Parts of the floating point support have been
>changed. 64-bit extensions have been added (while the 601 will not be
>a 64-bit chip, many or all of the follow-on chips will be). Most of
>the changes are intended to remove performance bottlenecks and/or
>make the entire architecture implementable (with high performance) on
>a single chip (unlike POWER, where all but one design -- the slowest
>-- is multi-chip).

>Note also that the PowerPC architecture is being jointly developed by
>Apple, IBM, and Motorola, with Motorola doing the bulk of the actual
>chip layout (especially for 603+; 601 steals from a lot of IBM design
>work). The PowerPC architecture is "open", in the sense that (like
>the SPARC and others) there is a procedure for licensing the
>architecture; it is possible that other vendors will eventually
>produce PowerPC compliant processors. Also, there is a group (the
>PowerPC Association) of vendors who plan on using the PowerPC; this
>group currently includes IBM, Apple, Motorola, Siemens, Bull, and
>(some Japanese manufacturer, possibly Hitachi or Fujitsu) (and there
>may be others I've forgotten; the membership has been changing a bit).

>>>  basing their chips on IBM's architecture. In actuality, the PowerPC
>>>  is a simplified version of the RISC 6000 architecture. And tons faster.
>>pssst. The Power architecture (ie R/S 6000) is pure IBM.  

>The POWER architecture is indeed pure IBM; however, the PowerPC is
>different and is neither a proper superset nor subset of POWER. Also,
>IBM is continuing to develop POWER into POWER-2 for some high-end
>workstations.

>--John

>        Communists, dictatorships, democracies, hypocrisies
>        Ask not what your country can do? To a one world governmental zoo
>                -- Extreme, "Politicalamity", _III_Sides_To_Every_Story_

>+++John L. Coolidge++++++++++++++++coolidge@apple.com+++++++++++++++++++++++
>I speak for myself, not for Apple Computer. Copyright 1992 John L. Coolidge.
>Copying allowed only if attributed, and if all copies may be further copied.


	Hey, Who cares?? As long as it works I'm a happy dude. Don't get
me wrong, I am pure apple and I love them all the way, but I like 'em
because they work, not because they have a funkey name, if the Power-PC
works, hey all is cool, I don't care who makes it, or where
the architecture comes from, as long as it kicks ass!!

Cody Doerfler                                               cody@bvsd.co.edu