This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Power Architecture redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
I feel that the editing that 68.15.20.63 has made are somewhat inappropriate and a tad agressive, especially the language and the attitude in the edit summaries. I invite him to discuss his editing here if he's got larger issues with the article. He obviously knows his stuff, and it would be great if he could contribute in a civilized manner but for now all I really want is to know the reasons and sources behind his edits since they contain information tha's not readily available. I want to edit his contributions, since I think they are part wrong, part off topic and part just bad writing, but I fear that I will get unfairly bashed for doing so. I've started a Power.org page that's more appropriate for infromation regarding how that organization is run and I hope that he'll contribute to it. If my wording comes across as biased due to me being a Mac user, I'm so very sorry.. That's certainly not my intention, and I applaud any correction in the right direction. It's really more the opposite since I feel that several PowerPC articles are influenced too much by Apple, like PowerPC G4 and PowerPC G3. Please: let's cooperate! -- Henriok 18:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
ok, i'll respond.
Paragraph 1. begins with "Power Architecture is a broad term to describe similar instruction sets for RISC m...." 90% inaccurate.
Paragraph 2. begins with "The "Power Architecture" term sho....." 99.9999% inaccurate.
paragraph 3. begins with "Power Architecture began its life at IBM i...." 45% inaccurate.
Paragraph 4. begins with "in 1992, Apple, Motorola and IBM formed the AIM alliance to develop a mass market version of the POWER pro...." 65% inaccurate.
paragraph 5. begins with "IBM expanded their POWER Architecture for the....." 10% inaccurate.
paragraph 6. begins with "In the early 1990s IBM sought to repl...." 75% inaccurate.
paragraph 7. begins with "The AIM Alliance kept developing PowerPC in 1995 through 1997 and released the second generation PowerPC process..... 30% inaccurate.
paragraph 8. begins with "The last effort of the AIM Alliance w..." 20% inaccurate.
paragraph 9. begins with "In 1998 came POWER3 which unified the PowerPC and POWER2 ar......." 40% inaccurate.
paragraph 10. begins with "2000 saw the last implementation of the Amaz....." 20% inaccurate.
paragraph 11. begins with "In 2001 IBM introduced the POWER4 which unified an....." 70% inaccurate.
paragraph 12. begins with "In 2002 Apple desperately need a ne...." 65% inaccurate.
paragraph 14. begins with "Culturecom lice...." 2% inaccurate.
paragraph 15. begins with "POWER5 from IBM, introduced in 2004, is an evo........" 65% inaccurate.
paragraph 16. begins with "AMCC buys IBM's 130nm fab, and lic......" 4% inaccurate.
paragraph 17. begins with "Power.org is founded in 2004 by IBM....." 2% inaccurate.
paragraph 18. begins with "In 2005 Apple announced that it's droppi......" why is this even here... 5% inaccurate.
Paragraph 19. begins with "2005 also saw the specifications of the Cell processor,[3] jointly developed by IBM, Sony and Toshiba over a four ye...." 7% inaccurate.
paragraph 20. begins with "P. A. Semi licenses PowerPC techno....." 20% inaccurate.
paragraph 23. begins with "Power.org released the Power ISA version 2.03.[4] in Septem...." 10% inaccurate.
This list you provide doesn't help anyone, and the little help you did provide by editing the article just left it broken and polluted. I'm not trying to be stubborn here, but you aren't really helping. Those inaccuracy figures you have is hilarious, especially since you don't back them up, either with arguments or references. This is just hilarious. Care to be anything other than a troll and malcontent? I'm really trying to make a really good article here, and I really don't want to make it alone, and I really wan't to use accurate and reliable information. However.. This is not intended to be an end all, be all article about all things Power Architecture. Every scrap of information is not wanted and I think it's perfectly OK to cut some corners and condence a lot of boring nit picking to readable paragraphs. It's not about getting the whole truth, cause it's pretty large and it would ammount to books and books of information. I'm not the man to write the compelte book on Power Architecture. I'm satisfied just to write a decent article on wikipedia, a hub for further reading.. Perhaps beeing the one place on the Internet where you get a compelte overview of what's Power Architecture. That includes working on sub pages and it includes making additions to this page. Like.. I'm really cant define the technical specifications. What's the differnece between Power and MIPS, ARM and x86? Stuff like that. Theres really now place on the Internet that provides that information. Wikipedia should though but I'm not qualified. Care to help? -- Henriok 15:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Who created the "POWER Architecture"? IBM..
What is PowerPC? it is a subset of POWER, or the 32-bit portions of the 64-bit POWER Architecture.
Does AIX run on PowerPC? No.
But what about AIX v3.??, it ran on the PowerPC 604? The 604 was the first to define the PowerPC ISA v1.{don't forget PowerPC means 32-bit}, which was incompatible with the 32-bit portion of POWER2, Now if your to consider the development cycle of POWER2 which started several years before the thought of PowerPC came to mind you might be able to understand why POWER2 was not 100% compatible with the PowerPC v1. ISA.
How many processors does IBM work on at a time, is it one or forty? Who knows. But IBM has always said even as early as just before the launch of POWER2 that they where currently working on POWER3 and POWER4. And from this we know they work on at least POWERn+1 and POWERn+2. So when IBM said that the "AMERICA Project" would be the platform that would replace there "AS/400 platform" and "System/390" it is evident in there commitment to POWER.
Does OS/400 run on PowerPC? No.
But what about OS/400-AIX on the PowerPC 620? First we know that PowerPC is a 32-bit arch(but 620 is 64-bit}, so the 620 was PowerPC compatible. And the 64-bit aspect of 620 was classified just in the same way as the [POWER Architecture, POWER3, POWER4] because it was being refined through various projects {PowerPC 620, POWER3, Apache, RS64, RS64II, RS64III, RS64IV, POWER4}. So you have to realize that OS/400 started on CISC and has been migrating to RISC {RSC-PowerPC620-Apache-RS64-RS64II-RS64II-RS64III-RS64IV-POWER4}
Does AIX run on POWER? yes.
Does OS/400 run on POWER? yes.{starting with POWER4}
Can any code compiled for POWER run on PowerPC? No.
Can any code compiled for PowerPC run on POWER? yes.{with the exception of POWER1}
Can any code compiled for Power run on POWER? Yes.
Can any code compiled for POWER run on Power? No.
what is the difference between PowerPC and Power? PowerPC is a 32-bit architecture and Power is a 64-bit architecture.
What is the difference between Power and POWER? It similar to how PowerPC was defined, IBM said all code written to the PowerPC ISA v1. specification would be supported in future processors, so now IBM has release the Power ISA v2. Which means all code written to the Power ISA v2. specification will be supported in future POWERn processors.
How stable is the PowerPC ISA? very, there's been little change since being define almost 13 years ago.
How stable is the Power ISA? Even though the Power ISA is fairly new its been a work in progress at IBM for over 17 years thru research applied towards the "POWER Architecture"
How stable is the POWER ISA? POWER is volatile it may break compatibility from one generation to the next, yet IBM creates the tools to maintain code transportability. POWER has maintained the constant PowerPC ISA compatibility and now that IBM has defined the Power ISA as an open standard it's assumed that the Power ISA will be a constant within the POWER ISA.
When will System/390|zOS, run on POWER? Who know, but POWER5 incorporated field-gate-programable-logic. And zOS Systems use POWER5 processors alongside CISC. So we might see POWER6 taking on more responsibilities in zArchitecture.
Does IBM guaranty that code written to POWER will compile on PowerPC or Power? No.
Does IBM guaranty that code written to PowerPC will be compatible with future processors? Yes.
Since 'PowerPC' means "Power Performance Computing" and all POWER processor are PowerPC compatible and POWER means Performance Optimization With Enhanced RISC and PowerPC are RISC processors optimized for performance, and PowerPC was enhanced with AltaVec Then aren't all PowerPC's enhanced RISC optimized for performance computing, and the distinction between PowerPC and POWER is trivial, and even Frank Solitis said "When is PowerPC not PowerPC" and did not mention POWER, so are POWER processors just ways for IBM to trick people in to thinking that by buying a POWER processor that has a few hundred-million more transistors then PowerPC that those extra few hundred-million transistors are there just to drive up the cost, and drive up the heat dissipation, and Power does this mean 'Performance optimization with enhanced risk' and does IBM just charge more because 'POWER' is in all CAPS. Or am i to believe that ever company who has a PowerPC license can make any processor which would be compatible with POWER, so the distinction between a Power license and a PowerPC license amounts to nothing more then less typing that i have to do, right? and if there compatible then there the same, almost. But more same then different, right. I'm right, right. Because nothing matters more to me then being right, right. If you don't think so then your not confused enough, let me go on. So IBM-Motorola-apple created PowerPC, and it matters not that engineers form Motorola-apple went to IBM's research campus, and the chief Architect for Somerset was an IBM Fellow. And it so much easier to call PowerPC a creation by IBM-Motorola-apple, and will totally disregard the idea that IBM was only to help Motorola with three designs {601,603,604}, and that Motorola-IBM got together again to work on the PowerPC 700 series, and we forgot just why they got together again, or did we. So from this we got AltaVec{and for those apple-user who didn't know what POWER was in 1996, its called VMX on this side of the fence}, but that doesn't matter it gave us a supercomputer on the desktop, and forever and ever apple injected into every mention of POWER. oh, to hell with all this PowerPC/Power/POWER/RS64/RSC/CELL crap lets just call them all GeMcPOWER, ok ;)
umm, well if you keep using the wrong context your surly to burr the lines between fact and opinion.
Ok.. the debate continues. Mr 68.15.20.63 seems to have quite a dim view of this. Let's hear what IBM have to say since they ought to know. Quote from ibm.com/power:
"About Power Architecture: It’s PowerPC, POWER4, POWER5."
–– Aha! Both POWER and PowerPC is Power Architecture.. who would have known? Wait! I want so learn more. Let's follow the link! Learn more
"Power Architecture™ technology is an instruction-set architecture that spans applications from consumer electronics to supercomputers. Power Architecture encompasses PowerPC®, POWER4™ and POWER5™ processors."
––Aha! There we have it again! Power Architecture is PowerPC AND POWER. Still not convinced? What about all the other POWER processors, and Cell? What about it? Let's continue digging. Let's follow the link New to Power Architecture technology. <-- Even Power.org links to this page. [1]
"Power Architecture family members are stealthy chips, and they like to go by many different names. They can be hard to keep track of because they don't all use the Power or PowerPC trademark." and "..the Cell Broadband Engine™ (Cell BE) processor (which is to power the upcoming Sony PlayStation 3.."' and "The chips in the POWER line are numbered 1 through 5, with POWER6™ anticipated somewhat soonish.".
––So.. Processors are called "Power" and "PowerPC". And "Cell Broadband Engine" and even POWER1 through POWER6, anticipated soonish. Check.. I've included all those in the Power Architecture.
"While the POWER line of chips is found only in high-performance servers and workstations from IBM, PowerPC chips are found in everything from embedded devices to supercomputers." and "Contrary to popular belief, IBM mainframes (or "System z™ ") are not based around Power Architecture technology."
––Well.. I did know the latter, and that's why you won't see any mentioning of z9 or Series z anywhere on Power Architecture pages on Wikipedia. There you have it! Power Architecture is PowerPC, it is POWER and it is Cell. Just as I write it, but not as 68.15.20.63 would want you to believe. Hey.. don't take my word for it, take IBM's. Wikipedia is not a place to do original work. Go to the sources. I think they know best. What do you think, Mr 68.15.20.63? -- Henriok 22:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
first and foremost i'm not trying to prove anyone wrong, because that would be a wast of time{i've tried three years ago}, yet trying to enlighten you. So you will stop slandering "IBM" and the "POWER Architecture". I'll never understand how you equate 'based on' as 'equal too', continuously you try to muddy the waters of logic between POWER and PowerPC and also Power. Over and Over again the emphasis of the "AMERICA Project" is repeated, this is the platform that IBM will build there business upon, The "POWER Architecture". This is a perfect example of why the "IBM POWER" article needs to be in chronological order, so people can see for themselves how the "POWER architecture" has evolved/funded/enhanced. Through the partnerships with with IBM and these Companies{Motorala,Cisco,Xilix,Sony,Microsoft,Nentindo,etc..} for example IBM+MOTO=AltaVec/VMX,IBM+Ciso=7??NP/97?np,IBM+Sony=cell,IBM+Nentindo=VMX128,IBM+Xilix={programable logicTo POWER5/POWER6, etc. instead of having someone argue that PowerPC=POWER because they have no concern for the history, but would rather rewrite history every week to get more WikiPOINTS at the detriment of society. I suggest to all those apple users who knew nothing about POWER in 1993, only of PowerPC. Find material about POWER between the years 1988-1992{hardcover}, and also be mindful of the revision numbers if your reading redbook's because I've seen names change from one revision to another. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.27.52.158 ( talk • contribs) 16:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Why must the article go over the history of the 801, POWER, PowerPC, PowerPC AS and the various implementations of each ISA? Why not go over the history of CISC as well? Surely the 801 was developed as a result of the analysis of complex architectures. This article only needs to state that the origins of the Power ISA are in the POWER architecture. The history of the Power ISA starts in 2006, when IBM and Freescale collaborated on Power ISA 2.03. Anything else before then is irrelevant and deserves mention in a footnote. Any comments or objections before I begin removing content covered elsewhere? Rilak ( talk) 12:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
The 2.06 specification link is broken, 2.06B_V2 is the new version. http://www.power.org/resources/downloads/PowerISA_V2.06B_V2_PUBLIC.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.12.219.122 ( talk) 15:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
The "Specifications" section speaks of, for example, "Cores that comply with the Power ISA v.2.03" being compliant with the Power ISA v.2.04 as well. Presumably this means that:
Is that correct for all the versions of the spec listed in that section? Guy Harris ( talk) 23:55, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
For each version of the Power ISA, there's a set of "compliant cores"; for most versions, the lists begin with "Cores that comply with the Power ISA {previous version}.
This is confusing; people often edit that entry to refer to the current version.
Does that sentence imply that the version in question of the Power ISA doesn't add additional restrictions (e.g., requiring that some bits in an instruction must be zero when they were undefined in a previous version), doesn't add additional features using bits previously specified as undefined, and doesn't make some previously optional features requirements?
And what causes particular processors to be put into the list for a particular version? Does it have to use one of the new features introduced in that version, or does it just have to be released when that version was the current version? Guy Harris ( talk) 18:57, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
There will probably be a really new specification some time in the future (v.3.0?) where a new set of requirements are intoduced and there's a new culling. In that case we might see that a v.3.0 of the ISA keeps some cores compliant but leave others behind. But that doesn't seem to have happened in the last few versions (since v.2.03). -- Henriok ( talk) 10:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand why Cell belongs in the glossary section. Cell is it's own thing, and the PPC core is just there to manage the DSP units. If Cell belongs in the list, then so do a lot of other things that have been bolted onto a PPC core as well, but that would distract from what the purpose of the list is. I'm going to remove that row, but if someone else feels that it should be there, I won't contest it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.200.57.8 ( talk) 08:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
AmigaOS 4, AROS, and MorphOS have been removed by IP address with weasel worded excuses as being "Obscure hobby operating systems known to a few thousand people which means they are not notable and they are not encyclopedic."
This has never been an issue before and each of these operating systems have established notability with Wikipedia.
Obscure and hobby are opinions and are unacceptable reasons. As for the "few thousand people" excuse, there needs to be an EXACT number and it needs to be proven.
AROS barely runs on the Power Archecture, but the other two must stay on this article.
In Correct ( talk) 03:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
In response to the edit comment by IP 71.200.57.8, "There's no need to list every single OS offshoot under the Amiga umbrella, we wouldn't do it for every linux variant)" It appears that "you" would do exactly that. See List of Linux distributions. Jacona ( talk) 12:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't edit much on Wikipedia and thus don't know the ropes as well as some of you guys on here. I think it would be useful to get another editor in here to weigh in on this, somebody who's removed from the subject. At least one person commenting in this talk page, and participating on article edits, has obvious bias as indicated on his user page. I'm not interested in participating in an "edit war" or hurting anybody's feelings. I'd just like to help make the article better, it needs some work. 71.200.57.8 ( talk) 10:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Historically there no denying that Amiga has an important part in home computing history and Amiga is not dead, and it has a small but sprawling little community that 71.200.57.8 seems to be aware of. Just like a democracy where in-proportionate efforts are made to accommodate minorities, my view on what an encyclopedia is is to give a wide and representative view of a subject, and not think too much about the proportions of importance within the subjects that comprise a realm of knowledge or article. One could argue that IBM i and AIX is so niche that if you ask most IT professionals they have never heard of them, or Power Arch itself for that matter. Should we delete them from this article too because of that reason? No, ignorance is a reason to keep information in a an article, not delete it. I agree that AmigaOS does not carry as much weight in the context of Power arch as lets say Linux, but the Amiga family must be allowed to be represented. In some respects, Amiga OS and MorphOS is more Power Arch than most of the OS's that listed, since they are pure Power Arch operating systems. Power is the only platform they live on. Most of the still listed operating systems are not pure Power and most of I have never even heard of, and I try too keep up with this article. But ignorance is why we should keep things, so I check to see if they indeed are supported on Power, currently or historically, and if they are, that's a keep. -- Henriok ( talk) 16:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Which brings me to another point.. time. Should we remove BeOS? At which point should we remove OSX from this article? There certainly no active development on Power of either at this point, and in 10 or 20 years time, there might not be people left to remember that those operating systems was once all the rage on Power, or even remember Power Arch itself for that matter. Should we somewhere in the future delete facts from articles and articles themselves that at the time doesn't seem to be notable? What do we know about AROS's, AmigaOS's and MorphOS's future? They might be the future BeOS or OpenStep that is or is not picked up like a phoenix to be granted a second and spectacular life, and wouldn't it bee a great idea to have them included so that there is a historical context in which people can hang their new interest? Is it really a good idea to have articles or portions of them removed just because they did seem to be notable at an earlier point but isn't now? Much of my work on Wikipedia is to gather what historical information that's left to be found and collect them here so they can live on forever, for future archeologists and enthusiasts to be found. Is the PowerPC 620 notable today? No. Was it in the middle of the 1990's? Yes, most certainly. Are AmigaOS and MorphOS particularly notable for Power today? They are actively developed operating systems on a hardware plattform that's actively developed, marketed, used and sold, so yes. -- Henriok ( talk) 16:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
An article does not live in the current, it lives in the entire span of the subject's life, and after the subject's dead, then it'll live in in a historical context. Who knows what interesting and important facts or people in history that's been forgotten just because someone didn't have the time or resources to record them? What a loss! We have the time and the resources, so let's not cut things just because in might seem insignificant at the moment. And if it still seem insignificant, make it significant, don't erase it so that ignorance can prevail. -- Henriok ( talk) 16:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
So far I have not found any articles listing Power Architecture hardware and operating systems. If they exist, they must be linked to this Power Architecture article. In Correct ( talk) 00:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I have written the IBM POWER microprocessors and PowerPC-based game consoles articles which are list like. They are linked to this article via the category mechanism embedded in the Power Architecture template. -- Henriok ( talk) 13:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I never heard about OS/2 running on POWER CPUs....OS/2 uses the 4 privilege levels of the protected mode of IA-32 - and this is not available on POWER. -- 93.220.218.110 ( talk) 17:06, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Power Architecture. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:42, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Currently the articles summary has a line saying More details and documentation on the Power Architecture can be found on the IBM Portal for OpenPOWER. with the latter part linking to the official website. To me this sounds like a teaser with an action for advertisement and that's nothing I'd expect to have in an article. Such information should go into the Eternal Links section of maybe into the site box if it really can be considered an official website of the architecture (I am not sure about how much Power and OpenPOWER relate). Otherwise the summary feels like an (informative) ad, especially because the expected encyclopedic details are supposed to be reached by scrolling down rather than going to the company website.-- Athaba ( talk) 10:56, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
There's a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing#Power Architecture on Wikipedia about this article. 99Electrons ( talk) 00:10, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Power Architecture redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
I feel that the editing that 68.15.20.63 has made are somewhat inappropriate and a tad agressive, especially the language and the attitude in the edit summaries. I invite him to discuss his editing here if he's got larger issues with the article. He obviously knows his stuff, and it would be great if he could contribute in a civilized manner but for now all I really want is to know the reasons and sources behind his edits since they contain information tha's not readily available. I want to edit his contributions, since I think they are part wrong, part off topic and part just bad writing, but I fear that I will get unfairly bashed for doing so. I've started a Power.org page that's more appropriate for infromation regarding how that organization is run and I hope that he'll contribute to it. If my wording comes across as biased due to me being a Mac user, I'm so very sorry.. That's certainly not my intention, and I applaud any correction in the right direction. It's really more the opposite since I feel that several PowerPC articles are influenced too much by Apple, like PowerPC G4 and PowerPC G3. Please: let's cooperate! -- Henriok 18:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
ok, i'll respond.
Paragraph 1. begins with "Power Architecture is a broad term to describe similar instruction sets for RISC m...." 90% inaccurate.
Paragraph 2. begins with "The "Power Architecture" term sho....." 99.9999% inaccurate.
paragraph 3. begins with "Power Architecture began its life at IBM i...." 45% inaccurate.
Paragraph 4. begins with "in 1992, Apple, Motorola and IBM formed the AIM alliance to develop a mass market version of the POWER pro...." 65% inaccurate.
paragraph 5. begins with "IBM expanded their POWER Architecture for the....." 10% inaccurate.
paragraph 6. begins with "In the early 1990s IBM sought to repl...." 75% inaccurate.
paragraph 7. begins with "The AIM Alliance kept developing PowerPC in 1995 through 1997 and released the second generation PowerPC process..... 30% inaccurate.
paragraph 8. begins with "The last effort of the AIM Alliance w..." 20% inaccurate.
paragraph 9. begins with "In 1998 came POWER3 which unified the PowerPC and POWER2 ar......." 40% inaccurate.
paragraph 10. begins with "2000 saw the last implementation of the Amaz....." 20% inaccurate.
paragraph 11. begins with "In 2001 IBM introduced the POWER4 which unified an....." 70% inaccurate.
paragraph 12. begins with "In 2002 Apple desperately need a ne...." 65% inaccurate.
paragraph 14. begins with "Culturecom lice...." 2% inaccurate.
paragraph 15. begins with "POWER5 from IBM, introduced in 2004, is an evo........" 65% inaccurate.
paragraph 16. begins with "AMCC buys IBM's 130nm fab, and lic......" 4% inaccurate.
paragraph 17. begins with "Power.org is founded in 2004 by IBM....." 2% inaccurate.
paragraph 18. begins with "In 2005 Apple announced that it's droppi......" why is this even here... 5% inaccurate.
Paragraph 19. begins with "2005 also saw the specifications of the Cell processor,[3] jointly developed by IBM, Sony and Toshiba over a four ye...." 7% inaccurate.
paragraph 20. begins with "P. A. Semi licenses PowerPC techno....." 20% inaccurate.
paragraph 23. begins with "Power.org released the Power ISA version 2.03.[4] in Septem...." 10% inaccurate.
This list you provide doesn't help anyone, and the little help you did provide by editing the article just left it broken and polluted. I'm not trying to be stubborn here, but you aren't really helping. Those inaccuracy figures you have is hilarious, especially since you don't back them up, either with arguments or references. This is just hilarious. Care to be anything other than a troll and malcontent? I'm really trying to make a really good article here, and I really don't want to make it alone, and I really wan't to use accurate and reliable information. However.. This is not intended to be an end all, be all article about all things Power Architecture. Every scrap of information is not wanted and I think it's perfectly OK to cut some corners and condence a lot of boring nit picking to readable paragraphs. It's not about getting the whole truth, cause it's pretty large and it would ammount to books and books of information. I'm not the man to write the compelte book on Power Architecture. I'm satisfied just to write a decent article on wikipedia, a hub for further reading.. Perhaps beeing the one place on the Internet where you get a compelte overview of what's Power Architecture. That includes working on sub pages and it includes making additions to this page. Like.. I'm really cant define the technical specifications. What's the differnece between Power and MIPS, ARM and x86? Stuff like that. Theres really now place on the Internet that provides that information. Wikipedia should though but I'm not qualified. Care to help? -- Henriok 15:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Who created the "POWER Architecture"? IBM..
What is PowerPC? it is a subset of POWER, or the 32-bit portions of the 64-bit POWER Architecture.
Does AIX run on PowerPC? No.
But what about AIX v3.??, it ran on the PowerPC 604? The 604 was the first to define the PowerPC ISA v1.{don't forget PowerPC means 32-bit}, which was incompatible with the 32-bit portion of POWER2, Now if your to consider the development cycle of POWER2 which started several years before the thought of PowerPC came to mind you might be able to understand why POWER2 was not 100% compatible with the PowerPC v1. ISA.
How many processors does IBM work on at a time, is it one or forty? Who knows. But IBM has always said even as early as just before the launch of POWER2 that they where currently working on POWER3 and POWER4. And from this we know they work on at least POWERn+1 and POWERn+2. So when IBM said that the "AMERICA Project" would be the platform that would replace there "AS/400 platform" and "System/390" it is evident in there commitment to POWER.
Does OS/400 run on PowerPC? No.
But what about OS/400-AIX on the PowerPC 620? First we know that PowerPC is a 32-bit arch(but 620 is 64-bit}, so the 620 was PowerPC compatible. And the 64-bit aspect of 620 was classified just in the same way as the [POWER Architecture, POWER3, POWER4] because it was being refined through various projects {PowerPC 620, POWER3, Apache, RS64, RS64II, RS64III, RS64IV, POWER4}. So you have to realize that OS/400 started on CISC and has been migrating to RISC {RSC-PowerPC620-Apache-RS64-RS64II-RS64II-RS64III-RS64IV-POWER4}
Does AIX run on POWER? yes.
Does OS/400 run on POWER? yes.{starting with POWER4}
Can any code compiled for POWER run on PowerPC? No.
Can any code compiled for PowerPC run on POWER? yes.{with the exception of POWER1}
Can any code compiled for Power run on POWER? Yes.
Can any code compiled for POWER run on Power? No.
what is the difference between PowerPC and Power? PowerPC is a 32-bit architecture and Power is a 64-bit architecture.
What is the difference between Power and POWER? It similar to how PowerPC was defined, IBM said all code written to the PowerPC ISA v1. specification would be supported in future processors, so now IBM has release the Power ISA v2. Which means all code written to the Power ISA v2. specification will be supported in future POWERn processors.
How stable is the PowerPC ISA? very, there's been little change since being define almost 13 years ago.
How stable is the Power ISA? Even though the Power ISA is fairly new its been a work in progress at IBM for over 17 years thru research applied towards the "POWER Architecture"
How stable is the POWER ISA? POWER is volatile it may break compatibility from one generation to the next, yet IBM creates the tools to maintain code transportability. POWER has maintained the constant PowerPC ISA compatibility and now that IBM has defined the Power ISA as an open standard it's assumed that the Power ISA will be a constant within the POWER ISA.
When will System/390|zOS, run on POWER? Who know, but POWER5 incorporated field-gate-programable-logic. And zOS Systems use POWER5 processors alongside CISC. So we might see POWER6 taking on more responsibilities in zArchitecture.
Does IBM guaranty that code written to POWER will compile on PowerPC or Power? No.
Does IBM guaranty that code written to PowerPC will be compatible with future processors? Yes.
Since 'PowerPC' means "Power Performance Computing" and all POWER processor are PowerPC compatible and POWER means Performance Optimization With Enhanced RISC and PowerPC are RISC processors optimized for performance, and PowerPC was enhanced with AltaVec Then aren't all PowerPC's enhanced RISC optimized for performance computing, and the distinction between PowerPC and POWER is trivial, and even Frank Solitis said "When is PowerPC not PowerPC" and did not mention POWER, so are POWER processors just ways for IBM to trick people in to thinking that by buying a POWER processor that has a few hundred-million more transistors then PowerPC that those extra few hundred-million transistors are there just to drive up the cost, and drive up the heat dissipation, and Power does this mean 'Performance optimization with enhanced risk' and does IBM just charge more because 'POWER' is in all CAPS. Or am i to believe that ever company who has a PowerPC license can make any processor which would be compatible with POWER, so the distinction between a Power license and a PowerPC license amounts to nothing more then less typing that i have to do, right? and if there compatible then there the same, almost. But more same then different, right. I'm right, right. Because nothing matters more to me then being right, right. If you don't think so then your not confused enough, let me go on. So IBM-Motorola-apple created PowerPC, and it matters not that engineers form Motorola-apple went to IBM's research campus, and the chief Architect for Somerset was an IBM Fellow. And it so much easier to call PowerPC a creation by IBM-Motorola-apple, and will totally disregard the idea that IBM was only to help Motorola with three designs {601,603,604}, and that Motorola-IBM got together again to work on the PowerPC 700 series, and we forgot just why they got together again, or did we. So from this we got AltaVec{and for those apple-user who didn't know what POWER was in 1996, its called VMX on this side of the fence}, but that doesn't matter it gave us a supercomputer on the desktop, and forever and ever apple injected into every mention of POWER. oh, to hell with all this PowerPC/Power/POWER/RS64/RSC/CELL crap lets just call them all GeMcPOWER, ok ;)
umm, well if you keep using the wrong context your surly to burr the lines between fact and opinion.
Ok.. the debate continues. Mr 68.15.20.63 seems to have quite a dim view of this. Let's hear what IBM have to say since they ought to know. Quote from ibm.com/power:
"About Power Architecture: It’s PowerPC, POWER4, POWER5."
–– Aha! Both POWER and PowerPC is Power Architecture.. who would have known? Wait! I want so learn more. Let's follow the link! Learn more
"Power Architecture™ technology is an instruction-set architecture that spans applications from consumer electronics to supercomputers. Power Architecture encompasses PowerPC®, POWER4™ and POWER5™ processors."
––Aha! There we have it again! Power Architecture is PowerPC AND POWER. Still not convinced? What about all the other POWER processors, and Cell? What about it? Let's continue digging. Let's follow the link New to Power Architecture technology. <-- Even Power.org links to this page. [1]
"Power Architecture family members are stealthy chips, and they like to go by many different names. They can be hard to keep track of because they don't all use the Power or PowerPC trademark." and "..the Cell Broadband Engine™ (Cell BE) processor (which is to power the upcoming Sony PlayStation 3.."' and "The chips in the POWER line are numbered 1 through 5, with POWER6™ anticipated somewhat soonish.".
––So.. Processors are called "Power" and "PowerPC". And "Cell Broadband Engine" and even POWER1 through POWER6, anticipated soonish. Check.. I've included all those in the Power Architecture.
"While the POWER line of chips is found only in high-performance servers and workstations from IBM, PowerPC chips are found in everything from embedded devices to supercomputers." and "Contrary to popular belief, IBM mainframes (or "System z™ ") are not based around Power Architecture technology."
––Well.. I did know the latter, and that's why you won't see any mentioning of z9 or Series z anywhere on Power Architecture pages on Wikipedia. There you have it! Power Architecture is PowerPC, it is POWER and it is Cell. Just as I write it, but not as 68.15.20.63 would want you to believe. Hey.. don't take my word for it, take IBM's. Wikipedia is not a place to do original work. Go to the sources. I think they know best. What do you think, Mr 68.15.20.63? -- Henriok 22:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
first and foremost i'm not trying to prove anyone wrong, because that would be a wast of time{i've tried three years ago}, yet trying to enlighten you. So you will stop slandering "IBM" and the "POWER Architecture". I'll never understand how you equate 'based on' as 'equal too', continuously you try to muddy the waters of logic between POWER and PowerPC and also Power. Over and Over again the emphasis of the "AMERICA Project" is repeated, this is the platform that IBM will build there business upon, The "POWER Architecture". This is a perfect example of why the "IBM POWER" article needs to be in chronological order, so people can see for themselves how the "POWER architecture" has evolved/funded/enhanced. Through the partnerships with with IBM and these Companies{Motorala,Cisco,Xilix,Sony,Microsoft,Nentindo,etc..} for example IBM+MOTO=AltaVec/VMX,IBM+Ciso=7??NP/97?np,IBM+Sony=cell,IBM+Nentindo=VMX128,IBM+Xilix={programable logicTo POWER5/POWER6, etc. instead of having someone argue that PowerPC=POWER because they have no concern for the history, but would rather rewrite history every week to get more WikiPOINTS at the detriment of society. I suggest to all those apple users who knew nothing about POWER in 1993, only of PowerPC. Find material about POWER between the years 1988-1992{hardcover}, and also be mindful of the revision numbers if your reading redbook's because I've seen names change from one revision to another. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.27.52.158 ( talk • contribs) 16:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Why must the article go over the history of the 801, POWER, PowerPC, PowerPC AS and the various implementations of each ISA? Why not go over the history of CISC as well? Surely the 801 was developed as a result of the analysis of complex architectures. This article only needs to state that the origins of the Power ISA are in the POWER architecture. The history of the Power ISA starts in 2006, when IBM and Freescale collaborated on Power ISA 2.03. Anything else before then is irrelevant and deserves mention in a footnote. Any comments or objections before I begin removing content covered elsewhere? Rilak ( talk) 12:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
The 2.06 specification link is broken, 2.06B_V2 is the new version. http://www.power.org/resources/downloads/PowerISA_V2.06B_V2_PUBLIC.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.12.219.122 ( talk) 15:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
The "Specifications" section speaks of, for example, "Cores that comply with the Power ISA v.2.03" being compliant with the Power ISA v.2.04 as well. Presumably this means that:
Is that correct for all the versions of the spec listed in that section? Guy Harris ( talk) 23:55, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
For each version of the Power ISA, there's a set of "compliant cores"; for most versions, the lists begin with "Cores that comply with the Power ISA {previous version}.
This is confusing; people often edit that entry to refer to the current version.
Does that sentence imply that the version in question of the Power ISA doesn't add additional restrictions (e.g., requiring that some bits in an instruction must be zero when they were undefined in a previous version), doesn't add additional features using bits previously specified as undefined, and doesn't make some previously optional features requirements?
And what causes particular processors to be put into the list for a particular version? Does it have to use one of the new features introduced in that version, or does it just have to be released when that version was the current version? Guy Harris ( talk) 18:57, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
There will probably be a really new specification some time in the future (v.3.0?) where a new set of requirements are intoduced and there's a new culling. In that case we might see that a v.3.0 of the ISA keeps some cores compliant but leave others behind. But that doesn't seem to have happened in the last few versions (since v.2.03). -- Henriok ( talk) 10:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand why Cell belongs in the glossary section. Cell is it's own thing, and the PPC core is just there to manage the DSP units. If Cell belongs in the list, then so do a lot of other things that have been bolted onto a PPC core as well, but that would distract from what the purpose of the list is. I'm going to remove that row, but if someone else feels that it should be there, I won't contest it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.200.57.8 ( talk) 08:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
AmigaOS 4, AROS, and MorphOS have been removed by IP address with weasel worded excuses as being "Obscure hobby operating systems known to a few thousand people which means they are not notable and they are not encyclopedic."
This has never been an issue before and each of these operating systems have established notability with Wikipedia.
Obscure and hobby are opinions and are unacceptable reasons. As for the "few thousand people" excuse, there needs to be an EXACT number and it needs to be proven.
AROS barely runs on the Power Archecture, but the other two must stay on this article.
In Correct ( talk) 03:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
In response to the edit comment by IP 71.200.57.8, "There's no need to list every single OS offshoot under the Amiga umbrella, we wouldn't do it for every linux variant)" It appears that "you" would do exactly that. See List of Linux distributions. Jacona ( talk) 12:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't edit much on Wikipedia and thus don't know the ropes as well as some of you guys on here. I think it would be useful to get another editor in here to weigh in on this, somebody who's removed from the subject. At least one person commenting in this talk page, and participating on article edits, has obvious bias as indicated on his user page. I'm not interested in participating in an "edit war" or hurting anybody's feelings. I'd just like to help make the article better, it needs some work. 71.200.57.8 ( talk) 10:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Historically there no denying that Amiga has an important part in home computing history and Amiga is not dead, and it has a small but sprawling little community that 71.200.57.8 seems to be aware of. Just like a democracy where in-proportionate efforts are made to accommodate minorities, my view on what an encyclopedia is is to give a wide and representative view of a subject, and not think too much about the proportions of importance within the subjects that comprise a realm of knowledge or article. One could argue that IBM i and AIX is so niche that if you ask most IT professionals they have never heard of them, or Power Arch itself for that matter. Should we delete them from this article too because of that reason? No, ignorance is a reason to keep information in a an article, not delete it. I agree that AmigaOS does not carry as much weight in the context of Power arch as lets say Linux, but the Amiga family must be allowed to be represented. In some respects, Amiga OS and MorphOS is more Power Arch than most of the OS's that listed, since they are pure Power Arch operating systems. Power is the only platform they live on. Most of the still listed operating systems are not pure Power and most of I have never even heard of, and I try too keep up with this article. But ignorance is why we should keep things, so I check to see if they indeed are supported on Power, currently or historically, and if they are, that's a keep. -- Henriok ( talk) 16:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Which brings me to another point.. time. Should we remove BeOS? At which point should we remove OSX from this article? There certainly no active development on Power of either at this point, and in 10 or 20 years time, there might not be people left to remember that those operating systems was once all the rage on Power, or even remember Power Arch itself for that matter. Should we somewhere in the future delete facts from articles and articles themselves that at the time doesn't seem to be notable? What do we know about AROS's, AmigaOS's and MorphOS's future? They might be the future BeOS or OpenStep that is or is not picked up like a phoenix to be granted a second and spectacular life, and wouldn't it bee a great idea to have them included so that there is a historical context in which people can hang their new interest? Is it really a good idea to have articles or portions of them removed just because they did seem to be notable at an earlier point but isn't now? Much of my work on Wikipedia is to gather what historical information that's left to be found and collect them here so they can live on forever, for future archeologists and enthusiasts to be found. Is the PowerPC 620 notable today? No. Was it in the middle of the 1990's? Yes, most certainly. Are AmigaOS and MorphOS particularly notable for Power today? They are actively developed operating systems on a hardware plattform that's actively developed, marketed, used and sold, so yes. -- Henriok ( talk) 16:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
An article does not live in the current, it lives in the entire span of the subject's life, and after the subject's dead, then it'll live in in a historical context. Who knows what interesting and important facts or people in history that's been forgotten just because someone didn't have the time or resources to record them? What a loss! We have the time and the resources, so let's not cut things just because in might seem insignificant at the moment. And if it still seem insignificant, make it significant, don't erase it so that ignorance can prevail. -- Henriok ( talk) 16:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
So far I have not found any articles listing Power Architecture hardware and operating systems. If they exist, they must be linked to this Power Architecture article. In Correct ( talk) 00:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I have written the IBM POWER microprocessors and PowerPC-based game consoles articles which are list like. They are linked to this article via the category mechanism embedded in the Power Architecture template. -- Henriok ( talk) 13:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I never heard about OS/2 running on POWER CPUs....OS/2 uses the 4 privilege levels of the protected mode of IA-32 - and this is not available on POWER. -- 93.220.218.110 ( talk) 17:06, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Power Architecture. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:42, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Currently the articles summary has a line saying More details and documentation on the Power Architecture can be found on the IBM Portal for OpenPOWER. with the latter part linking to the official website. To me this sounds like a teaser with an action for advertisement and that's nothing I'd expect to have in an article. Such information should go into the Eternal Links section of maybe into the site box if it really can be considered an official website of the architecture (I am not sure about how much Power and OpenPOWER relate). Otherwise the summary feels like an (informative) ad, especially because the expected encyclopedic details are supposed to be reached by scrolling down rather than going to the company website.-- Athaba ( talk) 10:56, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
There's a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing#Power Architecture on Wikipedia about this article. 99Electrons ( talk) 00:10, 22 February 2019 (UTC)