[jam8]

I'm sorry if this has been answered already.

Will the new intel chips mean that software written for pre-intel apple machines will not work on the newer macintel machines?

[Randman]

It has been addressed before and software will work just fine. Classic may not be ported over but that's about it.

[Big Mac]

The software layer that will make PowerPC compatibility possible on Apple's Intel PCs is called Rosetta. If you believe the early reports it should be speedy at running a good portion of PowerPC binary applications. But while it is good technology, it is still emulation, so it will leave a lot to desire in certain areas.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by Randman

It has been addressed before and software will work just fine. Classic may not be ported over but that's about it.

No, this is a lie.

Unless your definition of "running just fine" is radically different from the rest of the world. The Rosetta environment only emulates G3 class processors.

On one hand, if a software is designed for the G4 or the G5 then it will certainly NOT "work just fine". Either it will work very very slow OR not at all.

On the other hand, Rosetta is running a processor emulation which slows things down considerably - exactly like Virtuall PC is slower than the real thing Rosetta is slower than a genuine hardware PowerPC.

Finally not all native PPC Mac software is compatible with the emulator - though these cases are infrequent, the fact remains that not all software is compatible with hardware emulation.

Bottom line is that Randman is thoroughly misleading when he claims software will "work just fine". Much will, some won't and some won't run at all.

People spreading FUD are one thing but people spreading the Kool-Aid are no better.

cheers

W-Y

[Randman]

Now who's spreading the FUD? You make it sound like nothing will work. There may be some apps here and there that don't work. But any major apps are going to work, either via Rosetta or being written specifically for the Mactels.

There may be some third-party apps that don't work but most will indeed work.

[Randman]

And if I am wrong, name 5 OS X applications that will not work in the Mactels?

[Big Mac]

Only those who have pirated the developer disc would be able to tell us, Randman. While I agree with you that W-Y's assessment is an exaggeration, his point is that Rosetta is not going to be nearly as seamless as the Apple party line would indicate. Based on the reports, we do know with certainty that Rosetta is pretty damn slow for many apps. No matter how it is marketed, emulation will always be emulation.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by Randman

Now who's spreading the FUD? You make it sound like nothing will work. There may be some apps here and there that don't work. But any major apps are going to work, either via Rosetta or being written specifically for the Mactels.

There may be some third-party apps that don't work but most will indeed work.

Yes they will work, but they will not "work just fine" IMO. PPC apps will work, but slower than on a real PPC. Such is the way of processor emulation. Simple as that.

Perhaps you want to review my original post in this thread and find ONE FACTUALLY WRONG claim. You won't because I know what I'm talking about.

It is as you say in conclusion of your post here: "..either via Rosetta or being written specifically for the Mactels." which is exactly not what you said in your first posts that I corrected. That's where you indicated that all current software will "work just fine" on the Mactels.

This would indicate that the correct answer to the thread starter's question is in fact: "Yes, the switch to Intel Macs *will* in all certainty demand software switch in some cases". This is the reality of the situation. A lot of things will run fine in Rosetta, but you can bank on needing to get the Intel version of most major professional apps for the Mac Intels. All G4 and G5-only apps for instance.

As before, if you see one point of my assessment on the Rosetta layer that is wrong, don't hesitate to point it out. It wasn't doom and gloom, but a simple no-nonesense analysis of the next generation Macs (w/Intel) and their compatability with Mac PPC software.

I urge you to read, comprehend and post Randman. This isn't the Lounge. Welcome to the tech forums

cheers

W-Y

[Randman]

Your smart-ass comments are a bit out of line, don't you think? This isn't the lounge, you know.

[Big Mac]

Are you talking to me, or you are talking to W-Y? I don't think either of us have crossed the line, Randman.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by Randman

Your smart-ass comments are a bit out of line, don't you think? This isn't the lounge, you know.

No, not if it is a question of reminding posters like yourself that one line answers to tricky tech questions, incorrect claims and generally bad advice doesn't belong in the tech forums. We have the Lounge for that. People come here looking for genuine help and those of us who have the knowledge to provide it and the inclination and time to do so find qustionable posts like your posts above in an otherwise interesting and worthwhile thread. This is constructive criticism on my part. Don't take it personally.

I take it by your comment that you accept my criticism of the contents of your post and will in the future think twice before posting only to up your post count or to see your nick in a thread. Whatever it is that has motivated you thus far.

cheers

W-Y

[Randman]

Originally Posted by jam8

Will the new intel chips mean that software written for pre-intel apple machines will not work on the newer macintel machines?

Perhaps, you should work on your comprehension skills as well. Your post seemed well thought-out but did it answer the OP's question?

Right now, we don't know how things will work out but I'm pretty assured in saying that one way or another, pre-Mactel software will work on Mactels. Apple would be committing suicide if the switch meant all pre-Intel software was not compatible.

[Randman]

Edit: I originally responded to your personal attacks but will just ignore you and your pettiness.

I will say this. If you think I'm post-whoring, look at my post count. Most are in the tech section.

[Weyland-Yutani]

We already know of some basic incompatibilities between Rosetta and the real thing (G4 and G5) - namely that Rosetta does not and can not emulate AltiVec. Apps depending on AltiVec to run efficiently or run at all will NOT work with Rosetta. That means not all current Mac software will work on the Mac Intels. It means some people have to buy Intel specific versions of their software and it means not all pre-Intel software will run on the Intel Macs.

I don't think Apple is committing a suicide because of this, while I have questioned the sanity of it regardless. It is a curiously unnecessary move (PPC to Intel) but Apple doesn't see it that way. So I hope they have a good reason to be making this switch.

No it is not suicide Randman, but certainly yet another 'switch headache' of Mac users across the world. I'm just hoping that this will be as painless as possible, but the fact remains the answer to the OP's question is a clear resounding YES. There will be some cases (especially among the big pro apps in multimedia) where people will be forced to buy an Intel specific version of it simply to run it.

No FUD here, just plain hard facts that you might as well get used to already because you will have to eventually.

cheers

W-Y

[Maflynn]

I think Randman has a point, I'd like to know of what applications that may not run with Rosetta.

We've all heard/read that any app that was designed solely for the G4/G5 will not run.
Photoshop? acrobat?

Overall we cannot quite say that it will run fine or not because "fine" is a subjective term and rosetta and mactels are not ready for primetime, that is everything is still in development. Lets wait till we see production quality software and hardware before we jump to conclusions.

If I were to guess at the performance hit running PPC software on an intel platform with Rosetta, I would say it would run slower but not excessivly or unuseably slow.

Mike

[chabig]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

Yes they will work, but they will not "work just fine" IMO. PPC apps will work, but slower than on a real PPC.

They may run slower than on a real PPC, but then they won't be running on PPC, will they? It's entirely possible that the apps will run faster on the Intel machines than they previously ran on the top of the line PPC chips.

[CaptainHaddock]

I suspect Rosetta will be pretty slow — PPC applications will use their G3 code (non-Altivec) patheways, so a Pentium M Mac running a PPC application might end up being twice the speed of a late G3 iBook. (just my guess, based on a 50% emulation slowdown)

Well-written Cocoa apps that use OS X APIs as much as possible will fare better, since the OS X binaries will all include native, optimized x86 code. Applications that use their own interface code, like Photoshop, Flash MX, and Office, will take a bigger hit.

Within the next 8 months, I expect an Intel iBook or Mac Mini to hit the market. At that point, we'll be able to see side-by-side benchmarks running PPC applications and know exactly what kind of performance you get under Rosetta. Until then, it's a mystery.

[ghporter]

I was under the impression that Rosetta handled up through G4-specific code, but did not emulate G5 code.

However, ANY emulation is going to slow software down, and some programs will be slower than others. Considering that, in spite of what Steve says, clock speed DOES make a difference, I think someone who's used to say a 1.42GHz G4's performance will actually see a gain in performance on something like a 2.4GHz P4-based Mac running Rosetta; there is a whole lot of work that those extra clock cycles can do, and nearly doubling the clock WILL have a major impact on performance, "better" pipline in a G4 not withstanding.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by ghporter

I was under the impression that Rosetta handled up through G4-specific code, but did not emulate G5 code.

Nope, according to the Universal Binary PDF Rosetta will not run G4 (or G5) optimized code.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Nope, according to the Universal Binary PDF Rosetta will not run G4 (or G5) optimized code.

Interesting. However, how many apps are actually optimized for either the G4 or G5? I'm not asking hypothetically; I do not know. Is there actually a significant base of software that won't run on G3s?

[goMac]

Some of the Pentiums have been running PowerPC code faster than the current G4's....

[goMac]

Originally Posted by ghporter

Interesting. However, how many apps are actually optimized for either the G4 or G5? I'm not asking hypothetically; I do not know. Is there actually a significant base of software that won't run on G3s?

It depends. Applications that use the accelerate framework for altivec will automatically use SSE3 on the Pentiums. Saying any application built for the G4 will run slow or not work on the Pentiums is a bit of a stretch.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by goMac

Saying any application built for the G4 will run slow or not work on the Pentiums is a bit of a stretch.

Not really. That will be the general rule. Altivec emulation with SSE3 is like any other emulation: slower than the real thing if it works at all.

cheers

W-Y

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

Not really. That will be the general rule. Altivec emulation with SSE3 is like any other emulation: slower than the real thing if it works at all.

cheers

W-Y

It's not Altivec emulation. Accelerate framework can run Altivec or SSE native.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by goMac

It's not Altivec emulation. Accelerate framework can run Altivec or SSE native.

Indeed. Outside of Apple apps what apps use that framework? Any properly written cocoa app would. That excludes Adobe apps, Macromedia apps etc etc.

FCP might run just fine then in PPC emulation on the Intels. I'm not saying the PPC emulation and intergration in the Mactels is bad, but the apps most people use and rely on will not work incredibly well in a PPC version on an Intel.

A software switch will be in order for those apps. You get the picture and I've made my point I think.

cheers

W-Y

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

Indeed. Outside of Apple apps what apps use that framework? Any properly written cocoa app would. That excludes Adobe apps, Macromedia apps etc etc.

FCP might run just fine then in PPC emulation on the Intels. I'm not saying the PPC emulation and intergration in the Mactels is bad, but the apps most people use and rely on will not work incredibly well in a PPC version on an Intel.

A software switch will be in order for those apps. You get the picture and I've made my point I think.

cheers

W-Y

In other words, a properly written application should work extremely well on Intel. One that is written poorly will not. Accelerate has been around since 10.2 at least. And it is C, not Cocoa, so any program on Mac OS X, Carbon or Cocoa can use it.

[nonhuman]

Are there any apps that can't be run on a G3 at all? The latest version(s) of FCP, yes? That's all I can think of. Most just use Altivec where possible and otherwise don't so they can run on G3s as well, right?

And if you happen to use a program that requires a G4 or G5 and therefore won't run on an Intel you'd just be best advised to hang on to your current hardware until an x86 version of that software is available. Any apps like that are going to be things like FCP so the people using them are likely to have high-end hardware that will be able to last them just fine until there's an x86 version anyway.

So really, there shouldn't be any problem at all.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by goMac

In other words, a properly written application should work extremely well on Intel. One that is written poorly will not. Accelerate has been around since 10.2 at least. And it is C, not Cocoa, so any program on Mac OS X, Carbon or Cocoa can use it.

Well, you are talking about the AltiVec accelerated commands. The rest will be run with a processor emulation. That does not equal "work extremely well" in any sense of the phrase. What it does mean is that it is possible to run apps that need AltiVec even under emulation. That is good.

Rosetta emulates the G3 though, so I do question the ability of apps to ask for AltiVec acceleration when indicated they are running on a G3. I don't have a Mactel to try this. The 68k emulation Apple made emulated the 68040LC, a processor without an FPU even though the PPC had a built in FPU. No 68k apps that needed an FPU ran in emulation because of this.

Emulation is imitation so a G3 imitation should in effect mean no AltiVec - or conflict because the G3 and G4 aren't the same processor + AltiVec. I put a serious question mark to the claim that PPC apps running under Rosetta G3 emulation can utilize AltiVec. They shouldn't.

But if they can, that is (besides from being a good thing) not correct to say Rosetta is a G3 emulator. Yet, that is what it is. When I see Rosetta running apps utilizing Altivec on an Intel I'll believe it. Until then it sounds like a fairy tale.

cheers

W-Y

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by nonhuman

Are there any apps that can't be run on a G3 at all? The latest version(s) of FCP, yes? That's all I can think of. Most just use Altivec where possible and otherwise don't so they can run on G3s as well, right?

And if you happen to use a program that requires a G4 or G5 and therefore won't run on an Intel you'd just be best advised to hang on to your current hardware until an x86 version of that software is available. Any apps like that are going to be things like FCP so the people using them are likely to have high-end hardware that will be able to last them just fine until there's an x86 version anyway.

So really, there shouldn't be any problem at all.

DVD authoring sofware, encoders, real-time sound software et al. and some filters in Photoshop and other apps. If you are a professional you'll feel pretty naked without at least a G4.

For all the usual software a G3 is plenty. My 600 MHz 2001 iBook runs pretty much everything even today!

But that's not the question. The question is: will the switch require app switch as well? The answer is yes. It will, especially for the people who need to buy their apps for multi-money.

And your suggestion is wise: to hold on to one's equipment if one is using a G4/G5 only app until an Intel version is released - but that simply re-enforces the answer to the original question poised in this thread.

Yes an app switch WILL be required by the transition to Intel. If for NO other reason than that native Intel apps will run faster than PPC apps in emulation and people are addicted to speed.

cheers

W-Y

[Weyland-Yutani]

To further underline the point:

http://macslash.org/article.pl?sid=0...mp;mode=thread

Rosetta does not run the following:

º Applications built for Mac OS 8 or 9
º Code written specifically for AltiVec
º Code that inserts preferences in the System Preferences pane
º Applications that require a G4 or G5 processor
º Applications that depend on one or more kernel extensions
º Kernel extensions
º Bundled Java applications or Java applications with JNI libraries that can't be translated

see here also - page 67 (from developer.apple.com)

cheers

W-Y

[Randman]

As I said in the second response, the Classic environment likely won't be ported.

But name a few applications that won't work on a Mactel?

[dru]

Originally Posted by Randman

As I said in the second response, the Classic environment likely won't be ported.

But name a few applications that won't work on a Mactel?

Logic Pro or Express, Final Cut Pro or Express, Motion 2, Shake, QT MPEG2 playback, FileMaker Server 7 Advanced, Adobe Creative Suite, Lightwave 3D, Maya and the list goes on and on.

Here's one: INTERNET EXPLORER which, in some cases, is still required. Tiger Java support is defective in some way that applets that worked in Panther, on Windows and in IE on Tiger flash like a strobe light instead of updating correctly.

Now you're going to say, "Bah! they'll all be ready on "Day One"," but you cannot possibly be certain. Thus anyone who cannot afford to upgrade any and all of these apps to Intel releases *cannot* continue to use their software via Rosetta.

[Randman]

Uhh, all of the Apple stuff will work. Apple apps for OSX have been ported for both platforms since day 1, according to The Steve,

Adobe says it will support Mactels as well.

Do, dru, do you have any concrete proof of any apps not working, or is this more supposition?

[Randman]

Originally Posted by dru

Now you're going to say, "Bah! they'll all be ready on "Day One"," but you cannot possibly be certain.

That part is true, but in the same way, you can't be sure that they will not be ready on Day 1 either.

Don't forget that it is a business. Apple would be killed if it forced users to upgrade every piece of software for the platform change. Apple is going to do everything it can, I'm sure, to make the transition as easy as possible, especially since the migration will be a gradual one.

There may be a few bugs here and there but to predict doom without hard evidence at this point and time is a but misguided, don't you think?

[chabig]

Originally Posted by dru

Here's one: INTERNET EXPLORER which, in some cases, is still required.

Internet Explorer should most certainly run just fine. It runs on my G3 iMac just fine, thus it will run in Rosetta just fine.

Chris

[Randman]

I would think it a bonus if IE didn't work for Mactels.

[Maflynn]

I cannot see why IE is required. Since Safari came out I've been using that and in those rare cases that a site isn't compatible with Safari, I have firefox.

Mike

[bowwowman]

Apple is going to do everything it can, I'm sure, to make the transition as easy as possible

Like giving developers almost 2 years to get their apps ported over

[ghporter]

I'd also caution everyone to be very deliberate in deciding when to get a Mactel machine. This is going to be a large transition, and of course there will be a stumble or two, so unless there's some enormous and overriding NEED to be an "early adopter," I'd sit back and watch the eager ones find the problems.

Basically I think there will be very few problems. There is no doubt that Adobe, for example, prizes the Mac market and will do everything possible to make important apps like Photoshop ready on Day1. Most other big Mac players will do likewise-it's a chance to "beat the others to the punch" in this area. Even Microsoft will be trying to get Office ready for Day1 (though their track record, with their prefered processor platform, is not encouraging).

Speculation at this point is pretty much just that-speculation. Expecting horrible problems just encourages the fear, uncertainty and doubt crowd to come up with new and more "interesting" rumors about problems. It's all hot air until the machines amd sofware are on the shelf.

[JLL]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

No, this is a lie.

Unless your definition of "running just fine" is radically different from the rest of the world. The Rosetta environment only emulates G3 class processors.

But it works as a very, very fast G3. Photoshop runs fine, and some filters are just as fast as on my DP2.5GHz Power Mac, and some are slower.

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

On the other hand, Rosetta is running a processor emulation which slows things down considerably - exactly like Virtuall PC is slower than the real thing Rosetta is slower than a genuine hardware PowerPC.

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

Yes they will work, but they will not "work just fine" IMO. PPC apps will work, but slower than on a real PPC. Such is the way of processor emulation. Simple as that.

Have you tried an Intel Mac? I didn't think so!

If people switch from even the current G5s to whatever speed Intel has reached when the Intel Macs are released, I would guess that PPC apps in many cases will be faster than what they experience today.

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

This would indicate that the correct answer to the thread starter's question is in fact: "Yes, the switch to Intel Macs *will* in all certainty demand software switch in some cases".

Yes, in some cases.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

We already know of some basic incompatibilities between Rosetta and the real thing (G4 and G5) - namely that Rosetta does not and can not emulate AltiVec. Apps depending on AltiVec to run efficiently or run at all will NOT work with Rosetta.

I own a G3 Mac and I haven't seen any software yet that doesn't run on it. So I don't think there will be much software that can not be emulated by Rosetta.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaddock

Well-written Cocoa apps that use OS X APIs as much as possible will fare better, since the OS X binaries will all include native, optimized x86 code.

There is a mixed-mode in OS X like there was in the 68k/PowerPC transition, so an emulated application will be emulated completely including code that runs in system libraries.

[JLL]

Originally Posted by dru

Adobe Creative Suite

Works absolutely fine.

Originally Posted by dru

Here's one: INTERNET EXPLORER which, in some cases, is still required.

Works, well fine is a bit of a stretch , as it do on PPC Macs.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by JLL

Yes, in some cases.

which is what I said all along. Thanks for playing.



W-Y

[Cadaver]

Originally Posted by ghporter

Even Microsoft will be trying to get Office ready for Day1 (though their track record, with their prefered processor platform, is not encouraging).

Forcing Microsoft to re-code Office for the Mac can only be a good thing. As it is now, it still feels like a half-assed Carbonified Office 2001 for OS 9 with a few OS X GUI enhancements. Hopefully, the rewritten Office will be a vast improvement (and not a total failure).

[dru]

Originally Posted by Randman

Uhh, all of the Apple stuff will work. Apple apps for OSX have been ported for both platforms since day 1, according to The Steve,

Adobe says it will support Mactels as well.

Do, dru, do you have any concrete proof of any apps not working, or is this more supposition?

SAYS. SAYS. SAYS. Until it ships, it's ********. Remember the Carbonized demo of Photoshop? How long did it take for PS 7 to actually ship? Office? Quark?

Look, I went to the "System Requirements" for each of those items listed and everyone one of them requires at least a G4 which CANNOT, therefore, be run via Rosetta. This isn't TheSteve talking out his ass with his RDF on "full power." This is reality based on 1. shipping app minimal requirements -and- 2. Rosetta cannot run "G4/G5 required" apps.

Nothing supposition about it. You will have to update if you want own those apps and want those apps running in Mac x86. "Future claims" like you are making and TheSteve was making and other dog-and-pony types were making about when they'll be ready is "supposition" and meaningless.

I was very clear that I was saying that if you use all those apps you'll need to UPGRADE to the Intel / Universal binary releases if you get one of the Intel-based Macs. You will lose all of those apps because Rosetta won't cut it. Great for Mac developers because folks will be in a situation of "forced" upgrades. That can be leveraged more if you are basically a recompile away from a Universal app and as you wander down into CodeWarrier territory, where you're rewriting in XCode, you have to hope users will pay big bucks to upgrade to recoup costs.

[dru]

Originally Posted by JLL

"Adobe Creative Suite" - Works absolutely fine.

"IE" - Works, well fine is a bit of a stretch , as it do on PPC Macs.

IE won't be updated. Good to know that Rosetta can handle it and that isn't very surprising. Of course we're talking Tiger. Who knows if the Leopard will break IE...

I'm *surprised* "Adobe Creative Suite" works "absolutely fine" on Rosetta since Adobe's posted system requirements include a G4 as minimum.

[CaptainHaddock]

Adobe's Creative Suite applications run just fine on my G3 iBook. They have to; design shops and ad agencies are very conservative, and they've still got plenty of old G3 Powermacs and iMacs doing production work.

[sushiism]

Someone remind me again what the benefit of all this is going to be? Seems completely pointless at the minute.

[Randman]

Originally Posted by sushiism

Someone remind me again what the benefit of all this is going to be? Seems completely pointless at the minute.

The point of asking? You are correct.