Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Sovereign Semiconductor

By Trollaxor in Op-Ed
Thu Dec 11, 2003 at 12:12:20 AM EST
Tags: Technology (all tags)
Technology

In the best decision out of Motorola in years — now that Chris Galvin has resigned — the Motorola Semiconductor Product Sector will be spun off into its own independent corporation. After years of mismanagement and dwindling mindshare, setting SPS free could spark the rebirth of the sleepy chipzilla, but sadly for Apple and Mac users the move has come too late to benefit Macintosh.


Quite simply, SPS going on its own isn't really that big of a deal. Motorola is such a vast company that it operates as several independent entities, SPS among them. The biggest potential challenge that an independent SPS will face is that of reduced R&D funding, as SPS will no longer enjoy the bankroll of an aggregate Motorola. A tighter budget will lead to either increased efficiency, the lack of which has stifled Motorola PowerPC efforts since the late Nineties, or oblivion. After starting with a bang, it didn't take Motorola long to stall out with PowerPC.

After IBM's PowerPC 601, Big Blue and Motorola collaborated on the Somerset designs. Among these processors was the venerable PowerPC 603, a low-cost, low-power part targeted at low-end and portable systems. The 603 flourished in the embedded and desktop worlds and acted as the cornerstone for virtually every one of Motorola PowerPC designs after it. It was also the engine behind Apple's first PowerPC PowerBooks and their consumer desktops.

Following up their success with the Somerset designs, IBM and Motorola created the PowerPC 750 — the G3 — from the core of the PowerPC 603. At the time, it was the cheap, fast, and simple processor that Apple required to weather a trying transition period. Soon after the G3, however, IBM and Motorola parted ways, with IBM leaving Motorola the Somerset facility. Sadly, Motorola was dependent upon IBM for architectural innovation, so this move was the beginning of the long, slow end for Motorola's PowerPC.

Not long after the Somerset split, Motorola began an old bad habit of rehashing ad nauseum, extending the 603 core year after year with add-ons, hacks, and kludges. This philosophy of upgrades translates into less performance and an increase in complexity with each new iteration, a recent example being the 500 MHz Fiasco, where Motorola's PowerPC G4 (another 603 derivative) was stuck at 500 MHz for 18 months. Apple was forced to downgrade their new Power Mac G4 processors shortly after introduction and weathered a horrific year and a half standing still while Intel and AMD raced ahead with faster and faster chips.

These problems, alongside a dodgy fabrication process, poor yields, and constantly slipping schedules, caused Apple to move away from its dependence on Motorola and the G4. With Motorola's development efforts pouring into the embedded market with the PowerPC 8500 line — yet another 603 variant — it became clear not only to Apple but to Mac fans as well that moving the Mac platform ahead in speed and performance meant moving away from Motorola as a chip supplier.

In the end, SPS having a go on its own won't really effect Apple as they move toward using IBM's G3 and G5 chips everywhere, especially as IBM's 750 line gains AlitiVec in its next major revision. Motorola has made this last move with SPS far too late to do Apple any good, though it became obvious long ago that retaining Apple as a customer was no longer a significant goal.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o now that Chris Galvin has resigned
o IBM and Motorola parted ways
o Also by Trollaxor


Display: Sort:
Sovereign Semiconductor | 78 comments (70 topical, 8 editorial, 1 hidden)
Well-written, but I disagree. (1.77 / 22) (#8)
by My Trole on Wed Dec 10, 2003 at 08:32:52 PM EST

The problem was never Motorola. It was the PowerPC itself. As IBM has recently shown with its G5, the PPC will never be useful outside of a few areas such as supercomputers, servers, and high-end workstations. A robust SMP design is no substitute for raw clock speed. Intel has created a technological gap that will likely sustain its lead for the rest of this century.

A few specifics that further my position:

  • Intel owns a patent for the fundamental technology of using nanotubes as transistors.
  • Intel is an American company. IBM is a multi-national corporation.
  • IBM is too heavily entrenched into the "core" way of chip making. Distributed systems within a confined space are inherently inefficient. Intel has no such constraints with its lack of concern for power consumption.

As to the future of SPS, I predict that it will be purchased by Research In Motion, which makes the BlackBerry PDA.

I disagree. (2.60 / 5) (#9)
by Trollaxor on Wed Dec 10, 2003 at 08:45:59 PM EST

1. IBM has the patent for Stretched Silicon-on-Insulator technology (SSOI).
2. SPS would be lucky to have IBM buy them out. More accureately, SPS's customers would be so lucky to have IBM migrate them over to better PowerPC solutions.
3. Slower clock cycle + more chips = cheaper than single highly clocked chips.

End of story.

[ Parent ]

RE: I disagree. (2.42 / 7) (#12)
by My Trole on Wed Dec 10, 2003 at 09:24:10 PM EST

  • Steve Jobs has never once publicly stated that Intel is not an option for future Macs.
  • Darwin (the OS X foundation) has an x86 port.
  • Intel CEO Craig Barrett has repeatedly invited Apple to "jump ship".


[ Parent ]
Re: Re: I disagree. (2.40 / 5) (#13)
by Trollaxor on Wed Dec 10, 2003 at 09:34:31 PM EST

1. He's said it's an option that Apple has no need to utilize for the forseeable future.
2. Yes it does.
3. At one point Bill Joy asked Apple to consider jumping to SPARC from 68k instead of PowerPC.

[ Parent ]
Re: Re: Re: I disagree. (2.20 / 5) (#18)
by My Trole on Wed Dec 10, 2003 at 11:06:46 PM EST

  • AIM was the acronym for the Apple-IBM-Motorola alliance. Recently, Apple and IBM have been forced to use the artificial intelligence abbreviation, AI, to signify the new two company alliance without Motorola.
  • The fastest G4 available from the Apple Store is 1.25GHz. It is found in the iMac.
  • The P4 EE w/ HT has an L3 cache of 2MB.


[ Parent ]
Fastest G4... (none / 3) (#27)
by sjl on Thu Dec 11, 2003 at 12:47:09 AM EST

is not the 1.25 GHz. Apple used to sell a dual 1.42 GHz G4 PowerMac; assuming you're talking only about current Apple products, though, the 17" PowerBook boasts a 1.33 GHz G4 processor.

I opted for the 15" PowerBook (1.25 GHz) -- the extra money for the 17" didn't seem worth it to me. If I had the money, the dual 1.8 GHz G5 systems would be very tempting, I must admit...

[ Parent ]

and the p4ee (2.20 / 5) (#42)
by modmans2ndcoming on Thu Dec 11, 2003 at 10:28:54 AM EST

will cost you 50 bucks per month in electricity, costs 500 bucks, and to cool it you have to have a leaf blower on it.

[ Parent ]
um yes, he did (none / 3) (#39)
by modmans2ndcoming on Thu Dec 11, 2003 at 10:26:24 AM EST

2 months ago he was quoted as saying that they considered x86, but since IBM came along, they are happy and going no where.

BTW intel fanboy, you are aware that intel if goign to hit the wall in about a year or so unless it licenses IBMs SOI patentes. the leakage is killing intel now whch is why the power has to increase so much to get to the next .5 GHz.

[ Parent ]

SSOI and nanotube transistors (none / 3) (#50)
by The Archpadre on Thu Dec 11, 2003 at 12:04:08 PM EST

Neither of these patents necessarily indicates that either company has a lock on the future of chips. Sure, SSOI and nanotube transistors have great potential to improve their speed and size, but so do moletronics, spintronics, and quantum-dot cellular automata.

Fact is, there's probably dozens of technologies standing to revolutionize the system. Which one wins is anybody's guess.
__
Where did my waffles go?


[ Parent ]
Problem is PPC itself? (2.40 / 5) (#10)
by wumpus on Wed Dec 10, 2003 at 09:14:10 PM EST

Or rather, the PPC market that won't pay for a fast design. I would be highly surprised if there is any inherent flaw in PPC that keeps it being clocked less than x86. In fact, when PPC was derived from Power, it was inconcievable that an x86 implemantation would be faster than a well designed (i.e. not sparc) RISC.

AMD designs remarkably fast chips in a God-awful architecuture to non-Intel sized volumes. You would think either IBM or SPS could do the same.

Wumpus

[ Parent ]

Re: (2.45 / 11) (#11)
by Trollaxor on Wed Dec 10, 2003 at 09:22:02 PM EST

The PowerPC market is not a bunch of numbers-obsessed ga(y)mers trying to get 234 fps in Quake; rather, their customers care about performance/watt and SMP which allows for more dynamic performance  scaling.

[ Parent ]
IHBT (none / 2) (#34)
by wumpus on Thu Dec 11, 2003 at 08:45:25 AM EST

Performance/Watt matters for embedded (and since that seems to be PPC's market, they keep designing that way, and overall performance goes down), is pretty unimportant elsewhere (transmeta's advantage is irrelevant after you turn on a backlight for your display). SMP is overrated except for servers; writing software that scales well with SMP is asking for bugs to increase at exponential rates.

Basically PPC is wasted on the desktop. The ga(y)mers you mention seem to be main consumers who actually check the software they care about vs. the hardware they buy. If you want better hardware you should encourage them to buy as many $500 video cards as they can, and then buy the same thing next year for $50. You might even emulate PPC faster than any SPS chip runs natively (actually, I suspect that is easy with last years x86).

Wumpus

[ Parent ]

your on crack, SMP helps a lot (2.25 / 4) (#38)
by modmans2ndcoming on Thu Dec 11, 2003 at 10:23:30 AM EST

if you are runing a multitasking OS, SMP is a Luxury most people would die for.

have you ever had a formal education in operating system construction? if you did, you would see that 2 CPUs makes stuff run a heluva lot better.

now, 4 way systems, I would say you are entering the high end workstation/lowend servers realm, just for the fact that you just don't need that much power for home video editing.

[ Parent ]

I don't know what you are serving.. (none / 1) (#49)
by geekmug on Thu Dec 11, 2003 at 11:55:05 AM EST

'cause if a 4-way SMP system is "lowend"... You know what is better tha more processors, more servers; it's cheaper too. Anything more than dual and the performance gain curve rears off quickly.

And it isn't just ga(y)mers, it's people who don't like to wait on things.

-- Why reinvent the square wheel?
[ Parent ]
when you compair the server offering (none / 1) (#51)
by modmans2ndcoming on Thu Dec 11, 2003 at 12:33:42 PM EST

a 4 way is the bottom for any company selling non intel servers.

and clock means nothing unless you are doing processor intesive work.

it is better to have multi CPUs in a server becasue that server can manage more transactions in one place. you are living in the intel world and becasue intel does not scale well, to get parity with a large server from SGI or IBM or SUN you need more intel servers.

also, performance on a server is measured in how many transactions it can handle not how well it can handle a singe process. again you are thinking like a workstation.

SMP is great for workstations up to 4 CPUs, after that it makes no sence at all.

and if you think clock has anything to do with getting soemthign done fast, you are still on crack since after about 1.5 GHz, you do not see a performance hit from the CPU but from the hard drive and system/memory bus. that is why systems are slow, infact, if you put a 4600 RPM hard drive in a 4 GHz CPU system, that system  will be slower than a 1.5 GHz system with a 7200 RPM HD.

[ Parent ]

4600RPM? (none / 0) (#63)
by wumpus on Thu Dec 11, 2003 at 11:16:22 PM EST

I worked at a company that might have put one of these (a current notebook drive, not a then-current drive) in a "server" (heck, I might have been on the project). The only reason you would do it is if you are hard up against power or shock requirments. Since the customer was military, both (especially shock) was far more important than raw bitspersecond.

The other catch is that as long I am "thinking like a workstation" (not all the world is TPC and webserving) I also am going to insist on 64 bits, something not in the "Intel world" you describe. Making large databases and big numerical jobs difficult if not impossible is not going to make me happy.

Wumpus
PS. I want (true) SATA RAID on my next workstation.

[ Parent ]

you totaly missed my point (none / 0) (#68)
by modmans2ndcoming on Sat Dec 13, 2003 at 01:32:08 AM EST

I was pointing out that after a certain point, clock speed means nothing to the speed of the computer.

[ Parent ]
True, for most applications. (none / 0) (#69)
by wumpus on Sat Dec 13, 2003 at 08:58:34 AM EST

Of course, for any application, there will be a bottleneck, and often it isn't the processor. The other catch is that my original response was to Trollaxor's flame of "ga(y)mers", which seemed to center on wanting more processor speed. Since plenty of sites cater to said gamers showing them exactly the results of said clockspeed, they could be hardly said to be unknowingly buying useless speed.

Now if Annard could be convinced to pair Duron testing with something other than a $400 video card, these sites might actually be usefull for those not obsessed with framerates well over 60 fps.

Finally, my post was more a reflex due to the nonsense of stuffing 4600rpm drives in a server. Servers often have high clockspeeds since after paying all that money for bandwidth, it would be a shame to slow down the machine when it actually finds a bit of data in cache since the processor should be a small part of the price. That and a pointy haired boss might review the budget with a "Ghz=performance" mentality.

Wumpus

[ Parent ]

Super high clock speeds only exist in wintel world (none / 0) (#71)
by modmans2ndcoming on Sat Dec 13, 2003 at 09:16:53 PM EST

look at Alpha, Sparc or Power4/5

their clock speeds (save for Alpha, RIP) are JUST getting into the GHz realm. did that effect the performance of the server systems? hell no. why? because they have more procs for more side by side processing, their Bus speeds are normaly much faster though that hs changed in the last year and a half with Hyper transport, and they sport the fastest hard drives.

hell, with windows moving all GUI work to the GPU in Longhorn, the need for high power CPUs in desktop use is minimized, and if windows moves all sound work off to the sound card processor (the audology and such) what else will the CPU need all that power for?

[ Parent ]

I know this thread is old.. (none / 0) (#79)
by geekmug on Wed Jan 07, 2004 at 10:14:32 PM EST

But, I wanted to say that I agree increasing the clock speed is less affective than increasing the number of SMPs.

My point was that in a server enviroment, is even more efficient to simply build another server. Seperation of tasks will increase individual task performance, you can allocate resources more appropriately, and in general most tasks are not CPU intensive but intensive on the other resources in a server.

I would take N*4 server(s) over N*4-SMP server(s) any day of the week.


-- Why reinvent the square wheel?
[ Parent ]
Nope, nothing about OS construction. (none / 1) (#62)
by wumpus on Thu Dec 11, 2003 at 11:05:48 PM EST

I do know a few things about memory subsystem construction (I'm an electrical engineer), and going above 2-way SMP will make your memory system either extremely expensive, or will starve all the processor's bandwidth.

AMD's (Opteron) solution is pretty good for 2-4 way systems, and the big boys have serious systems with serious bandwidth and serious prices. Since this started out discussing PPC, I just can't see SPS trying to compete with IBMs Power4 and upcoming Power5. That system seems to be what you are describing.

Wumpus

[ Parent ]

RIM buys SPS! (2.00 / 4) (#20)
by ghjm on Thu Dec 11, 2003 at 12:10:15 AM EST

You're insane. Why would RIM want any part of that deal?

[ Parent ]
Raw Clockspeed? (2.71 / 7) (#33)
by jameth on Thu Dec 11, 2003 at 07:48:32 AM EST

Is that why Intel just got beat in about half of all benchmarks by a low-clockspeed low-power AMD chip?

Most importantly, power drain is now more important than clockspeed. Just think, the Pentium4 Extreme (The only one to reliably outperform an Athlon64-FX) draws about 110 watts compared to around 60 watts from the AMD processor.

PowerPC users have just realized from years than watts were as important as hertz. (I think they were wrong for several years, as computers were still too slow, but things have changed)

[ Parent ]

umm, you are aware (2.50 / 4) (#37)
by modmans2ndcoming on Thu Dec 11, 2003 at 10:18:25 AM EST

that Intel off shores its production and IBM keeps their fabs here in the US, right?

[ Parent ]
Hi! (2.25 / 4) (#57)
by it certainly is on Thu Dec 11, 2003 at 03:11:39 PM EST

I'm part of IBM's Semiconductor Research Group. To take a lead over Intel, we are now packing an 8.5 GHz oscillator onto the PPC to drive our new 400 stage pipeline. How do you like them bananas?

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
[ Parent ]

+1FP Trollaxor (1.10 / 10) (#15)
by Ronald Reagan3 on Wed Dec 10, 2003 at 09:46:26 PM EST



+1 Section (1.85 / 7) (#16)
by idontgno on Wed Dec 10, 2003 at 09:58:58 PM EST

Bring back the 680x0!

--- We are here to protect you from the terrible secret of space. - Pusher Robot

Word. (none / 2) (#17)
by strlen on Wed Dec 10, 2003 at 10:20:11 PM EST

Bring back the VAX too. Best CISC architectures, without a question. Coding in assembly on the vax or the m68k is a pure pleasure.

You gotta love the instruction set of the m68k.

Yeah, yeah, the RISC is the future, they can pull huge MIPS figures out of their ass obtain really impressive performance, even the x86 nowadays breaks down their instruction into RISC. But nothing beats the elegance of m68k, or vax assembly.

--
[T]he strongest man in the world is he who stands most alone. - Henrik Ibsen.
[ Parent ]

Gotcha beat (none / 1) (#19)
by ghjm on Thu Dec 11, 2003 at 12:08:13 AM EST

6809. I'm not saying it beats anyone on performance or capability, but for sheer elegance I don't believe it has ever been topped.

[ Parent ]
Well, there is a limit of practically (none / 1) (#26)
by strlen on Thu Dec 11, 2003 at 12:38:31 AM EST

I'm also quite fond of AVR's assembly (8-bit RISC), but there's a practically limit: the 680x0 can easily run UNIX[1], and in case of Amiga do real time video editing.

[1]- Sun's pre-SPARC machines were 680x0 based, and pretty much launched the workstation revolution. NetBSD and Linux have also been ported to m68k based  Amigas and Macs, and its quite the standard on VME based 68k-powered SBCs.


--
[T]he strongest man in the world is he who stands most alone. - Henrik Ibsen.
[ Parent ]

Bring back the Amiga!!1! (none / 2) (#44)
by porkchop_d_clown on Thu Dec 11, 2003 at 10:54:36 AM EST

:-)

The last OS that really blew my socks off. Watching C= kill the Amiga was like watching your sister die of anorexia.

--
"Leftists believe they are the creators of a new world. They see themselves as godlike. That's why they are so rude and so dangerous" - D
[ Parent ]

Re: Bring back the Amiga!!1! (2.11 / 9) (#45)
by Trollaxor on Thu Dec 11, 2003 at 11:05:46 AM EST

Watching C= kill the Amiga was like watching your sister die of anorexia.

It gives you a hard-on?



[ Parent ]
You are a very bad man. (none / 1) (#48)
by porkchop_d_clown on Thu Dec 11, 2003 at 11:44:55 AM EST

Funny, but you're still gonna burn in hell.

You just can't make fun of the Amiga and get away with it!1!

--
"Leftists believe they are the creators of a new world. They see themselves as godlike. That's why they are so rude and so dangerous" - D
[ Parent ]

Your Amiga seems (none / 2) (#52)
by glor on Thu Dec 11, 2003 at 02:23:55 PM EST

to have a broken exclamation point key.  Occasionally it prints a spurious numeral one.

--
Disclaimer: I am not the most intelligent kuron.
[ Parent ]

I am l33t!!1! (none / 0) (#59)
by porkchop_d_clown on Thu Dec 11, 2003 at 03:49:54 PM EST

and besides, if teh ridlar can do it, why can't I?

--
"Leftists believe they are the creators of a new world. They see themselves as godlike. That's why they are so rude and so dangerous" - D
[ Parent ]

They did (none / 2) (#36)
by Ig0r on Thu Dec 11, 2003 at 10:13:54 AM EST

Their new ColdFire CPU uses roughly the same instruction set and register/memory layout as the 68k.

[ Parent ]
Dragonball, baby! (none / 1) (#43)
by porkchop_d_clown on Thu Dec 11, 2003 at 10:53:16 AM EST

Although, sadly, it seems that even Dragonball is pushing up daisies.

--
"Leftists believe they are the creators of a new world. They see themselves as godlike. That's why they are so rude and so dangerous" - D
[ Parent ]

+1FP... It's Trollaxor for God's sake! -n/t (1.27 / 11) (#21)
by Azmeen on Thu Dec 11, 2003 at 12:11:01 AM EST




HTNet | Blings.info
ALERT!!! (1.44 / 9) (#22)
by fae on Thu Dec 11, 2003 at 12:15:05 AM EST

AUTHOR STOLE THIS STORY FROM OWN SITE! (article dated oct 7, 2003)

-- fae: but an atom in the great mass of humanity
Wrong. (none / 2) (#30)
by Trollaxor on Thu Dec 11, 2003 at 01:41:09 AM EST

That would be September, not Ocotber. But thanks anyways.

[ Parent ]
it says right in it (none / 0) (#53)
by fae on Thu Dec 11, 2003 at 02:39:16 PM EST

Right under the title "Tuesday, October 07, 2003"

-- fae: but an atom in the great mass of humanity
[ Parent ]
Yes, you're ultimately right. (none / 2) (#55)
by Trollaxor on Thu Dec 11, 2003 at 03:00:53 PM EST

I went and checked some dates and it turns out that I did write the piece in October. Time flies.

[ Parent ]
Time flies (none / 1) (#67)
by Paradise Pete on Fri Dec 12, 2003 at 10:02:50 PM EST

Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana. But seriously, nice articles.

[ Parent ]
Thank you, sir. nt (none / 0) (#70)
by Trollaxor on Sat Dec 13, 2003 at 11:23:09 AM EST



[ Parent ]
About friggin' time (1.53 / 13) (#23)
by Hide The Hamster on Thu Dec 11, 2003 at 12:18:22 AM EST

You know, every once in a while an article is posted that deviates from the K5 Liberalist political circlejerk. Finally some technology, from the trenches, stuff that matters.


Free spirits are a liability.

August 8, 2004: "it certainly is" and I had engaged in a homosexual tryst.

Yeah, you're right. (none / 1) (#29)
by baron samedi on Thu Dec 11, 2003 at 01:27:47 AM EST

It's good stuff. Where's your article? Where's mine?


"Hands that help are better by far than lips that pray."- Robert G. Ingersoll
[ Parent ]

eh.. (1.66 / 6) (#40)
by Hide The Hamster on Thu Dec 11, 2003 at 10:26:43 AM EST

I do quite enough technical writing for my occupation, so I'd rather be a crapflooding cretin and give praise to my motivated associates' submissions.


Free spirits are a liability.

August 8, 2004: "it certainly is" and I had engaged in a homosexual tryst.

[ Parent ]
Do you work for Motorola? (1.60 / 5) (#24)
by Kasreyn on Thu Dec 11, 2003 at 12:24:44 AM EST

And if the answer is yes: what does "erin go bragh" mean? Just curious. ^_^


-Kasreyn


"Extenuating circumstance to be mentioned on Judgement Day:
We never asked to be born in the first place."

R.I.P. Kurt. You will be missed.
Idiomatic Expression: Irish (none / 3) (#28)
by baron samedi on Thu Dec 11, 2003 at 01:25:52 AM EST

"Ireland Forever", I think literally: 'Ireland until doomsday'...


"Hands that help are better by far than lips that pray."- Robert G. Ingersoll
[ Parent ]

as gaelige... (2.50 / 4) (#32)
by lazyBastardMurphy on Thu Dec 11, 2003 at 07:22:35 AM EST

Eire go brach Ireland for ever. Associated with repbulicans and there's usually a "free" in there somewhere. Eire saor go brach.

[ Parent ]
Ah, 'Irish American' (1.12 / 8) (#46)
by jonathan_ingram on Thu Dec 11, 2003 at 11:16:59 AM EST

So it's yet another thing said by Americans who think it's cool to call themselves Irish and support terrorists because their great-great-grandmother once fellated an Irish immigrant?
-- Jon
[ Parent ]
so americans (none / 0) (#64)
by the sixth replicant on Fri Dec 12, 2003 at 07:08:08 AM EST

support terrorists...blah blah blah

Ciao

[ Parent ]

I did... (none / 2) (#31)
by tarpy on Thu Dec 11, 2003 at 04:35:56 AM EST

And am glad to finally see Mot shake off the sluggishness of Chris and his horrible (mis)management.

Man would have never been CEO except for his daddy and granddaddy.


Sir, this is old skool. Old skool. I salute you! - Knot In The Face
[ Parent ]

E-ffects A-ffect things. (1.54 / 11) (#25)
by metalfan on Thu Dec 11, 2003 at 12:32:47 AM EST

If I had caught this story in the queue I would have voted it down for that very reason.

Sir: (none / 0) (#56)
by Trollaxor on Thu Dec 11, 2003 at 03:03:52 PM EST

Thanks, the fix is in the mail.

[ Parent ]
why is this unfortunate? (none / 3) (#35)
by modmans2ndcoming on Thu Dec 11, 2003 at 10:09:37 AM EST

the best thing to happen to the mac was Motorola messign up the way they did.

IBM is a much better chip maker and a more reliable partner, the PPC 9X0 series is a much better chip than anything motorola was putting out and since IBM uses them in their own low end servers and in their new workstations, IBM will not ignore the needs of a  computer when designing the chip as motorola did.

But how are they manufactured? (1.28 / 7) (#47)
by UncannyVortex on Thu Dec 11, 2003 at 11:42:22 AM EST

Has anyone even thought to investigate the manufacturing practices used by IBM for these chips? Third-world labor may be cheap, but at what cost to the conscience of humanity?

Note: If you do find any disturbing facts about IBM's manufacturing, please don't post them to K5. Other sites have been taken offline for less.

UncannyVortex

UncannyVortex, you are SOOO not with it. (2.25 / 3) (#54)
by it certainly is on Thu Dec 11, 2003 at 02:57:29 PM EST

That joke was funny, like, six years ago when the AQ editors started telling it -- on Slashdot, obviously. It took them four more years to open a website for publishing their back catalogue of deadpan technological canards.

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
[ Parent ]

RE: Your inability to recognize genius (none / 1) (#58)
by UncannyVortex on Thu Dec 11, 2003 at 03:20:06 PM EST

I'll be the judge of what's funny, sirrah.

Apparently you have some personal beef with the Adequacy editors, and are unable to appreciate the brilliance that emerged from their work.

In the future, try not to drag your personal problems into a public forum.  It's rather tacky, to say the least.

--UncannyVortex


[ Parent ]

Attn AQ editors -- price list. (2.33 / 6) (#61)
by it certainly is on Thu Dec 11, 2003 at 04:15:15 PM EST

I am well aware of the Adequacy team's current drive to their freshly reopened archive. Good shills are hard to find. My rates are very reasonable and represent excellent value for money.

  • For just 5, I will personally commend streetlawyer's "Why The Bombings Mean We Must Support My Politics".
  • 10 will buy you a K5 comment with hyperlink to any Adequacy story with accompanying sycophantic text
  • 20 is sufficient for me to turn a blind eye to James Skinner's substance abuse and squatting.
  • 200 a night is what Michael Osbourne normally pays me in my secret life as a TG dominatrix escort.
  • For 800, I'll mindlessly repeat the deadpan "there was no trolling on Adequacy" meme for a whole year.
  • Give me 2000 and I'll personally fly to Seattle, give Ed Slocomb a firm, manly handshake and apologise for denigrating him as a pedantic misanthrope all these years. Heck, I might even buy him dinner.


kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
[ Parent ]

I was just wondering (3.00 / 2) (#73)
by elby on Tue Dec 16, 2003 at 03:09:06 PM EST

how much would it cost to get a respected, thought leader like yourself to proselytize my poor, neglected Adequacy archive.  I just don't sleep well unless there's people reading it, you know?

It seems like it would be so much more simple and efficient than our current, clandestine emails to all the old Adequacy fans telling them to "omg post a link to adequacy everywhere LOL."

Love,
Elby

[ Parent ]

I've authored many books on this. (none / 0) (#74)
by it certainly is on Tue Dec 16, 2003 at 03:35:38 PM EST

The best way to get thronging traffic to your website is to have what we experts call "content".

Given Adequacy's remit, perhaps you could add some satirical stories, a few high minded intellectual discussions and get rid of all that Slashdot crapflooding material that's currently there.

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
[ Parent ]

That sounds like an awful lot of work. (none / 0) (#75)
by elby on Tue Dec 16, 2003 at 11:27:36 PM EST

Surely there's a better way?

[ Parent ]
You could always peddle cheap controversy. (none / 0) (#76)
by it certainly is on Wed Dec 17, 2003 at 08:38:42 AM EST

The mainstay of tabloid editors worldwide. As you pen yet another rabble-rousing article with total disregard for the facts, you can put your hand on your heart and say "at least I'm not fellating midgets for a living".

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
[ Parent ]

too much, thou protesteth (none / 0) (#77)
by UncannyVortex on Wed Dec 17, 2003 at 12:11:26 PM EST

Dude, you seem to have a real fixation with the AQ.  As you rail and rant against the archive of a dead site, it becomes apparent that you really liked it all along, but won't admit this to yourself.  Love and hate often go hand in hand.

I doubt anyone else devotes a section of their personal site to an essay on the Adequacy.  Hell, you've even memorized the names of articles posted on AQ over two years ago.  How flattering is that?


[ Parent ]

You assume too much. (none / 0) (#78)
by it certainly is on Wed Dec 17, 2003 at 07:19:33 PM EST

You would to well to read more, and at least attempt to understand what you read.

Consider taking OU course I100, assuming your government hasn't banned it.

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
[ Parent ]

Other sites ... (none / 1) (#65)
by suquux on Fri Dec 12, 2003 at 09:10:27 AM EST

... and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org

Phhhd.

Some mora: "and RMS is an admitted communist."

CC.
All that we C or Scheme ...
[ Parent ]
What will happen: (none / 1) (#66)
by Rocky on Fri Dec 12, 2003 at 02:01:33 PM EST

1) Company will be very optimistic about having control of their own destiny.  Company will think that detaching from their parent will enable more business because other companies that compete with the parent will now do business with them.

2) Company will realize that real world is a little harder than they thought.  They will be loaded up with some of the debt of their parent, and parent will fight for their lucrative intellectual property rights.

3) Company stock price will crash, rendering valueless retention stock option awards to those employees that decided to jump ship to the new company.

4) Company will layoff two thirds of their employees.  Research will be utterly eliminated ("it's a waste of money") - forbidden, even, and development will slow to a crawl.

5) Company will be reduced to manufacturing low-margin commodity items like A/D converters and north bridges.  Corporate headquarters will be moved to city where CEO has his home.  Anything remotely technical and interesting will be done in India or China.

If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?
- Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955)

ON Semiconductor (none / 0) (#72)
by John Asscroft on Mon Dec 15, 2003 at 02:28:34 AM EST

This is not the first semiconductor division that Motorola has spun off. A few years back they spun off their discrete products division (the guys who made canned transistors and power MOSFETS and LED's and such) as ON Semiconductor. ON is still in business, still doing R&D albeit on a budget (for example, I was there to write a SPICE parameter extraction program for $8,000 rather than have them pay $50,000 for more licenses for the IC-CAP software that they used to do parameter extraction), and their main HQ is still in Phoenix AZ in the old Motorola Fab 1 across from the National Guard armory. It's half empty now because they laid off half the workers to get costs in line with expenses, but they have positive cash flow and are still coming out with a steady stream of new products and do have contracts to sell power components to most of the major cell phone manufacturers (one of the reasons for spinning off ON -- before, all they could sell components to was Motorola's own cell phone division).

Prediction: The new semiconductor division will continue diving for the low end embedded market. They do not have the money to take on Intel head-on in the high end processor market, and never will be. But they will come out with some innovative new low-power/high integration cores for the low power embedded market.

[ Parent ]

Sovereign Semiconductor | 78 comments (70 topical, 8 editorial, 1 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!