Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!stanford.edu!neon.Stanford.EDU!pescadero.Stanford.EDU!philip
From: philip@pescadero.Stanford.EDU (Philip Machanick)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc
Subject: Re: Apple talking to IBM
Message-ID: <1991Jun12.000240.1910@neon.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 12 Jun 91 00:02:40 GMT
References: <1991Jun11.211857.7834@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu>
Sender: news@neon.Stanford.EDU (USENET News System)
Reply-To: philip@pescadero.stanford.edu
Organization: Stanford University
Lines: 27

In article <1991Jun11.211857.7834@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu>, ejbehr@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu (Eric Behr) writes:
|> A Mr. Ken Flamm (sp ?) from Brookings Institution, talking on the radio
|> about the reported Apple/IBM discussions, said that "Apple needs IBM's RISC
|> technology to stay competitive". It sounds strange, since Motorola also
|> makes RISC chips, doesn't it? Not to mention other manufacturers.
|> 
|> So, is IBM that much ahead in RISC? or is the whole explanation baloney?
|> Just curious.

Not all RISC chips are created equal. IBM's has been reported to
give impressive performance compared with some of the older designs,
like SPARC. (In fact, SPARC performance has become something of a
soft target for rival advertizers). I don't know the Motorola
design - maybe someone else will comment.

An issue in evaluating processors, aside from performance, is
whether they offer support for multiple CPUs (e.g., enough
flexibility in cache management) - assuming Apple is after
a new line that would take them well above their current niche.

Another interesting possibility is 64-bit architectures, such as
the MIPS R4000. Can you imagine - 5 years from now - angry
<whatever-comes-after-Mac> users threatening Apple with lawsuits
for selling them machines that aren't 64-bit clean?
-- 
Philip Machanick
philip@pescadero.stanford.edu