Talk:AIM alliance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Apple Inc. (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Apple Inc., a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Apple, Macintosh, iOS and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
B checklist
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Contribute to the project:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject Computing / Software / Hardware (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Software (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Computer hardware task force (marked as High-importance).


IBM never lost interests in PowerPC, they have been working on POWER architecture since 1990 ( or earlier ). Inside IBM, PowerPC is the same as POWER architecture.

But they did give up on PowerPC-based PCs -- and that was the main point of their joining the alliance. Incidentally, Apple is supposed to announce today that they're moving from PowerPC to Intel chips. Which would be the last nail in AIM's coffin. ----Isaac R 16:51, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

AIM died a long time ago, IBM main focus was always on high end workstations and servers, still true today. Apple got a great deal, while it lasted. Motorola got burned, they wanted PowerPC-based PCs but didn't get the support they wanted from Apple or IBM (Apple didn't license their OS - big mistake, and IBM didn't put enough into OS/2 PPC). NT was still new at the time and didn't have the broad support that it does today (it can be argued that NT is the dominate platform for x86). As for Taligent, sorry, I consider that vaporware, it was never a contender IMO. —Pelladon 05:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Just wanted to add, I believe AIX was available for PReP/CHRP machines, LOL. —Pelladon 19:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Interesting to note that a stripped down version of NT 2000 is used in the Xbox 360, using a custom PowerPC processor (3 core). Pelladon 05:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

A usual joke states: At the start of the project, Motorola, the elegant corporation, made a careful planning that included a warning about taking drugs. Apple, of course, rejected the idea. IBM sugested to allow this only to random members.  ;-)

... I don't get it. --Crnk Mnky 21:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Moto G5 merge[edit]

  • Keep Seperate/No Merge The AIM alliance topic and the Moto project are related as the Moto project was a processor created for their uses... but this topics are unrelated. I think that if the topics are merged, then we need a new 'failures' subheading and then we need more then one failure from the AIM alliance... which we could get, but requres user input. MrMacMan 16:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Now that I think about it, this probably isn't the best article for a merge, if a merge were to take place at all. Are there any other articles that deal more directly with Moto's PPC development? -- Ned Scott 21:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I would have suggested PowerPC_G5 but it points to the IBM chip... So my suggestion is, if merged, place PowerPC/Types or in PowerPC generally. If we go for Types, then we need to put under Moto section and then link down later on the page to a 'failures' section as it wouldnt have its own article and adding a paragraph to the text would be messy since it is effectively a table -- but I feel that people looking for specific info about the Moto G5 should have a redirect to the new location -- again, if moved. MrMacMan 22:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • No Merge – The articles are not related the least. It's been a while and no one seems to care much about it. I'm removing the Merge-banner. -- Henriok 16:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Current status?[edit]

The article begins by talking about the AIM Alliance in the past tense, but nowhere does it say what happened to the AIM Alliance, nor when. If the AIM Alliance is still a thing, then perhaps it should be referred to in the present tense. (talk) 15:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

That may depend on what kind of "thing" we're talking about. If there was a legal entity that corresponded to the AIM alliance, the question would be whether that entity still existed. However, if there wasn't such a legal entity, I guess it would still exist only if the three companies were still collaborating on the stuff for which the AIM alliance was created, and, no, they're not (Apple's not using Power Architecture, Taligent's gone with only bits like the International Components for Unicode remaining, and Kaleida Labs is also gone), so, if there wasn't a such a legal entity, it'd say "it's not still a thing". Guy Harris (talk) 19:27, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Guy, it would also be nice to have a source that calls it the "AIM alliance". If there was a specific entity, then the it would be a proper noun and thus "AIM Alliance". But the one source seems to call it the "Power PC Alliance"? W Nowicki (talk) 23:57, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on AIM alliance. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:34, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

That's a bad URL. Fixed. Guy Harris (talk) 01:59, 24 June 2017 (UTC)