We tried this (and M$ sold it hard) and never went to production with it (except for a couple of niche use cases). It was obviously not going to meet expectations before we were half way through the PoC.
I don't think that would change if the underlying architecture changes; IBM has been committed to backward compatibility for a long time. Some hypothetical future mainframe class IBM ARM would undoubtedly be able virtualize a 360/370/390 without breaking a sweat. And ARM will undoubtedly enable IBM to add custom emulation hardware to their spin on ARM if they need it.
Are you guys sure you're not confusing product lines? PPC is a PowerISA architecture, but hasn't been pushing desktop/server level performance for, what, almost 20 years? It's an embedded chip now, and AFAIK IBM doesn't even make them any more. Power (currently "10th gen"(-ish)) is the performant aarchitecture, used in the computers formally known as i-Series, formerly known as RS/6000. It's pretty fast, not not price competitive. They aren't really the same thing.
"PowerPC" was a modification of the original IBM POWER ISA, which was made in cooperation by IBM, Motorola and Apple.
Motorola made CPUs with this ISA. Apple used CPUs with this ISA, some made by IBM and some made by Motorola.
While Motorola and Apple used the name "PowerPC", IBM continued to use the original name "POWER" for its server and workstation CPUs. Later IBM sold its division that made CPUs for embedded applications and for PCs, retaining only the server/workstation CPUs.
However, nowadays, even if the official IBM name is "POWER", calling it "PowerPC" is not a serious mistake, because all the "PowerPC" ISA changes have been incorporated many years ago into the POWER ISA.
So the current POWER ISA is an evolution of the PowerPC ISA, which was an evolution of the original 1990 POWER ISA.
It is better to call it POWER, as saying "PowerPC" may imply a reference to an older version of the ISA, instead of referring to the current version, but the 2 names are the same thing. PowerPC was an attempt of rebranding, but then they returned to the original name.
Thanks for the lecture. My point is that people often confuse PPC in the embedded space (still in production) with Power in the enterprise space (where noone I know refers to it as 'PPC' other than historical artifacts like 'ppc64le' (we run mostly AIX), and haven't since the G5 days). Same/similar ISA, very very different performance expectations. YMMV.
We had a cluster of liquid cooled CDC Cyber mainframes. One of them developed a bad leak and managed to drain itself into the raised floor. This was a Very Bad Day for many folks in the computer center.
And in normal use, how often do you handle or cycle an rj45 vs a usb?
Even when it's your job the usb are still handled and cycled way more often. You might handle 100 ethernet jacks today, but it won't be the same one 100 times. You plug it in and don't touch that one again for 5 years.
You mean the ethernet cable in my laptop? Couple of times a day. The box under my desk? Often? How about the hundreds of devices I work with that have RJ45 connectors for serial access? All the time? Are you seriously telling me you hold up a (decently made) ethernet cable next to a USB-C connector and think "yeah...the one a fraction of the size of the other is obviously mechanically stronger". Is this some Apple shill campaign to try and get people to think "no, no...the smaller, thinner, narrower and shallower the connector is the better it will be someplace where people bump it all the time"?
No, but looking at the two side by side, I do think that the one with a fragile clip that shears off every time somebody trips on it is going to be more of a problem than the friction fit one that will just come off.
As opposed to the one that has no clip to hold it in, and shears off the whole connector when you trip over it. And I can use the ethernet cable without the tab.
Some people will embrace any absurdity to pretend to be right.
Yes...clearly running to something that is "regurgitating a bunch of of reddit comments and academic books/papers" is much, much better than finding a couple of actual humans that read books, and then talking to them. Peak AI right there.
I get your angle, but have you ever read the discourse between humans regarding fiction?
I mean humans have made death threats towards other humans about whether or not Han shot first.
fiction-fan-discourse is a very low bar on the rankings of human social interaction. I'm not saying that makes it replacable and trivial, but let's not pretend that every fiction discussion with another honest to god human being is a Rembrandt.
You can say this about virtually any human interaction; I'm often amazed at the sort of nonsense some people think is vitally relevant. I would far prefer talking to other humans about fiction and risk the occasion nutcase (that I can walk away from and ignore) than retreat into "tell me plausible rehashes of rehashes of other peoples thoughts and don't upset me with all that icky human interaction stuff".
Funny. I have a brother. We have at times lived together, went to the same school, and after not living together, lived on the same street. A couple of times, one or more credit bureaus decided we were the same person and silently merged our credit files. Not a nightmare per se since we're both fiscally (mostly) responsible, but we generally find out how incompetent the bureaus are when we're trying to make some very large transaction (I was trying to buy a car, he was trying to buy a building for work) and suddenly get "why do you own 2 houses, a bunch of cars, and you're apparently a bigamist". And then we had to scramble to untangle the whole mess. Lawyers were involved. The bureaus do not care in the slightest.
reply