🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <DEttoL.GL7@rp.CSIRO.AU>,  <pevans@galah> wrote:
>Is Intel in trouble?
>

	Ok, I live in the heart of the Silicon valley ( five minute drive
from Apple, 10 minute drive from Intel ), having taken in and flooded
myself with tech media hype daily, here are my observations and response.

>
>This might sound rehashed to a lot of people, but I haven't seen any 
>debate about it for a while, so I thought I'd take a swing. This is about 
>the affect that the IBM/Motorola/Apple developed PowerPC processor 
>line might have on Intel's future. Apologies if this sounds dreadfully 
>naive.
>
>At present, Intel's flagship is the P5 (Pentium), with the P6 due out 
>next year, and the P7 sometime after. Intel have stated that the P7 will 
>be the end of the line for the 80X86 line of processors - that, 
>realistically, no more computing power can be extracted from that 
>particular architecture pathway. However, they have jumped into bed 
>with HP to develop a new line of processors, not due out till the end of 
>the decade. There was some marketing hype at the time about how 
>these processors would transcend RISC technology, but surely HP's PA-
>RISC processor capability won't be ignored completely. HP are 
>reportedly a little annoyed at Intel's approach to working with them - 
>what Intel says goes. I have no idea about compatibility between the 
>new HP-Intel processors and the old P series chips.

	P7 maybe the end of the line, but from all speculation it
would incorporate the so called "new" technology from HP that is supposed 
to trascend "RISC" technology ( whatever that is.  People think it is
VLIW which is sort of an extension to the so called "RISC" technolgy )
I am not going into what VLIW is, other people will be happy to tell you.
As far as it being the end of the line, I don't know, they may chose to do 
that.  But in my view, the only way to catagorically say that X86 
architiecture has been squeezed of all its "computation power" is if you
assume the manufacturing technolgy remains constant.  I mean to make a 
chip faster all one has to do is speed up the clock!  This of course is 
a simplistic view, but I just wanted to point out "RISC", "X86", "VLIW"
sometimes are just marketing terms that people throw  around.  And 
Instruction Set Architecture is not the only thing that determines 
the success of a chip. 

	Well, I think HP/Intel deal would probably not end up in 
some earth shattering product.  However, the result of the 
joint reseach may be highly technically interesting.  HP and Intel,
like IBM, don't work well with other companies.  Everyone of these
Giants wants an upper hand on the valuable technology.  So while
HP is peeved about Intels attitude, same things may be said the 
other way around.   But stay tuned,  it should be intereseting.


>So far, IBM and Apple are the principle users of PowerPC chips, with 
>AIX, Solaris, OS/2, Windows NT, and almost certainly MacOS 8.0 (to run 
>on the new CHRP machines). Microsoft have made some petulant 
>comments to the effect that Windows 95 and it's lineal successors will 
>never be ported to PowerPC platforms (to keep Intel happy?), but seeing 
>as recompiling apps from W95 to WNT is not to difficult, and the 
>ability to do so is part of meeting full Windows compliance, I see no 
>reason why developers wouldn't offer their software on both OSs. Apple 
>are also promising CHRP compliance, so as of next year, assuming their 
>promises are good, Apple machines will also run the above mentioned 
>bevy of operating systems. Believe it when I see it.

	That is probably the best attitude to take as a consumer.
But I just wanted to point out one thing, the only think IBM and
APPLE have in common at this piont is that they both use the 
PowerPC chips.  Anybody who have any illusion as to IBM and APPLE
working together to produce a all world machine would probably have
to wait awile.  IBM never had the intention to work with APPLE 
to develop a machine which both would benefit.  IBM is much more
interested in how they can take control ofthe technology and 
try and dominate the market.  This alliance was not optimistic from 
the beginning.  The fact remains, the most profitable division
among the PCs at IBM are still X86 based machines.
 
>Anyway, the point is that suppose a major PC manufacturer, say 
>Compaq or Toshiba or Dell, or whatever, decided that they'd better get 
>into the PowerPC game. The PowerPC market could grow enormously 
>and do serious damage to Intel. Existing PowerPC processors are 

	Lets put it this way, these PC manufactures wouldn't get into
the PPC market unless there is a market.   So someone else would have to 
figure out where this PPC market is.  The fact remains, the successs
of the PPC does not depend on its architecture, but software.  There
are no demonstrable OS and software on the PPC as of today that 
people can trust and buy into.  That is your market, right there,
and it isn't big.

>probably more powerful than the P5 (the 620 is a daemon) and kill the 
>P5 stone dead in the low power market (603e, I think). Another factor 
>is the 615 chip, due out RSN, which can execute P4 instructions in 
>native mode, as well as PowerPC instructions. That chip has a big 
>future. Major PC OEMs must be looking long and hard at the PC 
>marketplace. Importantly, Microsoft need not suffer at all as Intel 
>declines - there's no reason that their marketing emphasis couldn't 
>shift from Windows/Intel to Windows/PowerPC, although if CHRP 
>machines and the OpenDoc consortium deliver their promise of more 
>software markets may become harder to maintain. Intel needs 
>Microsoft very much more than Microsoft needs Intel.

	That of course, assume that people have a reason to buy PPC
over the Pentium series.  Like I said, the key is software.  As of 
today there are absolutely no momentum for people to develop softwares
based on the PPC since there are no OS that is in the same mode as 
Windows in terms of popularity.  In truth, the best platform today
are SGI machines, however their popularity are limited by a lack of 
market.  And this is the same reason taht is hampering the PPC. 

>
>I'm not predicting anything drastic will happen soon, or that change 
>will be swift when (if) it does happen. This is just my own summary of 
>the way I see the processor market going, and I'm sure that Intel must 
>be worried.

	It is hard to predict what would happen, but it is a war out there.
I am not so sure if Intel is worried because they have so much fundamental 
technologies that Apple  don't have, so, they have a lot more flexibility 
than Apple to shift into different market segments.  As of now, the 
announcement of W95 have clearly affect the PC market.  And you can 
already see the affect, almost all of the companies that produce 
PC components are going to see a huge jump in sales as the market 
"adjusts" to W95 by upgrading and buying new machines. 

	Frankly, I really don't know what Apple management is doing 
right now.  I am not so sure if they are sincere in opening up the 
Mac architecture and sacrifice their control to gain more market share.
desperately need pre-emptive multitasking and better memory protection. 
In doing so, the OS is going to be bloated like W95 and better and faster
machines will be necessary to do all the tasks that the users have been
doing before.  

	As a proud owner of an ancient  Quadra 700, I am a fan 
Apple.  But the fact remains, Intel is still doing all the right things
to keep X86's momentum going.  In fact, Intel just landed a multi-billion 
dollar government contract to build a parallel machine based on the P6.
It is supposed to be the fastest thing ever known to man.  In truth
there is nothing tha IBM/Apple has done recently that would suggest 
that they are able to make a dent in the Microsoft/Intel conglomerate.  
IBM and Apple are still bickering, Taligent is led by a confusing management
and as of yet there is no deliverable and substantial product.  That 
is no way to gain market share.   Finally, I think they just have to get
organized and try to win converts one by one.  But before that they have 
to win consumer confidence to delivering something substantial. 

- C.










 
 

 


>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>Peter Evans                                        pevans@rp.csiro.au
>Radio Systems Group                             Phone:  +61 2 3724438
>CSIRO Division of Radiophysics                  Fax:    +61 2 3724490
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>