[stevesnj]

Linky

[loki74]

yes... the speed is something to kind of look forward to. But I don't think I'll upgrade to the "mactel"/"macintel" until pretty much all the apps I need can run w/o Rosetta

[rozwado1]

good to know.

[lavar78]

Originally Posted by loki74

yes... the speed is something to kind of look forward to. But I don't think I'll upgrade to the "mactel"/"macintel" until pretty much all the apps I need can run w/o Rosetta

Why? Things can certainly change, but the early word is that Rosetta is as transparent as Apple claims.

[ManOfSteal]

You non-bots reboot? Odd behavior.

[Superchicken]

Rosetta is good for small apps. Adium would probably run fine under Rosetta. I wouldn't waste my time with Photoshop under it though.

[bmmp]

If Rosetta is supposed to be '100% completely seemless" one wonders why even bother with the distinction of giving it a name. Why not just say OSX will run PowerPC programs, instead of running them through Rosetta.

[The Godfather]

Originally Posted by Superchicken

Rosetta is good for small apps. Adium would probably run fine under Rosetta. I wouldn't waste my time with Photoshop under it though.

Too bad you won't buy Adobe ever again!

[stevesnj]

I hope FCP runs smooth....

[Railroader]

I reboot about once every month or so. And I usually take a piss or pick my nose or something at the same so it's a non-issue for me.

[JellyBeen]

Originally Posted by bmmp

If Rosetta is supposed to be '100% completely seemless" one wonders why even bother with the distinction of giving it a name. Why not just say OSX will run PowerPC programs, instead of running them through Rosetta.

Good point.

[stevesnj]

Originally Posted by bmmp

If Rosetta is supposed to be '100% completely seemless" one wonders why even bother with the distinction of giving it a name. Why not just say OSX will run PowerPC programs, instead of running them through Rosetta.

Good point...i wonder if the maker of Rosetta demanded that their product name be made aware for marketing itself....otherwise I would not care how it worked.

[CreepingDeth]

That's nice. But will it cut down on my log in time, which is over 8 minutes for no reason?

[ender2002]

the only people who need to know what rosetta is are the developers. that why it was announced at a *developer* conference. i doubt that apple store employees will tout Rosetta as a feature when mactels come out. basic consumers dont need to know what it is, but its good for us / developers (or both) to know...

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Superchicken

Rosetta is good for small apps. Adium would probably run fine under Rosetta. I wouldn't waste my time with Photoshop under it though.

Um, and you know this how? Certainly the Altivec-enhanced aspects of Photoshop will suffer immensely, but other than that both Adium and Photoshop are executing the same amount of code at any given time. I'm sure the slow-down will be cumulative based on the number of threads an app has running, but that doesn't immediately translate to 'big' apps being unusably slow.

[ManOfSteal]

Originally Posted by ender2002

the only people who need to know what rosetta is are the developers. that why it was announced at a *developer* conference. i doubt that apple store employees will tout Rosetta as a feature when mactels come out. basic consumers dont need to know what it is, but its good for us / developers (or both) to know...

Bingo.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by bmmp

If Rosetta is supposed to be '100% completely seemless" one wonders why even bother with the distinction of giving it a name. Why not just say OSX will run PowerPC programs, instead of running them through Rosetta.

Because people, particularly Mac users, have already experienced what it's like to go through major transitions like this and it sucked for most of them. Apple want to assure the users that they're doing everything they can to make this happen painlessly.

[Millennium]

AppleInsider is not the most reputable source out there when it comes to advance information, and for every claim like this there have been claims of the opposite. Frankly, we won't know the truth until the first few Mactels are released.

Truth be told, by then I don't think it will make a difference. Apple is abandoning what is good for the sake of what is cheap, the savings will not be passed onto the consumer, and nothing is going to stop that from occurring. By then, I'll be ensconced in Linux-land, where I can get either get a truly innovative hardware or at least my money's worth, as I choose.

[MindFad]

Apple is abandoning the Mac OS? I only ask for the sake of five more pages for this thread.

[budster101]

No, he said, HE will be ensconced in Linux-land.

He was referring to abandoning the chips for cheaper and that savings would not be passed on to us, the consumer. (In his opinion).

If I am incorrect in my reading comprehension, I am sure that Millenium will correct me.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Millennium

AppleInsider is not the most reputable source out there when it comes to advance information, and for every claim like this there have been claims of the opposite. Frankly, we won't know the truth until the first few Mactels are released.

Truth be told, by then I don't think it will make a difference. Apple is abandoning what is good for the sake of what is cheap, the savings will not be passed onto the consumer, and nothing is going to stop that from occurring. By then, I'll be ensconced in Linux-land, where I can get either get a truly innovative hardware or at least my money's worth, as I choose.

No, they're abandoning what's theoretically good for what's practically good. Despite it's better design philosophy and elegance, the PPC is just not keeping up with the x86 in the ways that it needs to in order to be marketable. If both Motorola and IBM were unable to make PPC chips that live up to expectations, then how is it the better architecture?

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by nonhuman

Um, and you know this how? Certainly the Altivec-enhanced aspects of Photoshop will suffer immensely, but other than that both Adium and Photoshop are executing the same amount of code at any given time. I'm sure the slow-down will be cumulative based on the number of threads an app has running, but that doesn't immediately translate to 'big' apps being unusably slow.

I've heard different as well. Getting altivec code translate to SSE2 or whatever hasnt been accomplished yet, although...for some reason, i expect Apple to overcome that by the time Macintels ship. But yeah...thats why it took ages for PS to load up.

And as far as Rosetta, i think Steve just wanted to say 'Rosetta' over and over hehe.

[OogaBooga]

I wonder if Rosetta is the name of someone he knows, kinda like Lisa...

[osxisfun]

Apple is abandoning what is good for the sake of what is cheap,

No, apple is abandoning tech from a tech maker that failed them.

How cheap is a dual core IBM laptop chip going to be? (trick question, they won't have one.)

How cheap is a dual core IBM desktop chip (Hint: not as inexpensive as intel.)

The intel roadmap is going to eat alive IBMs for lunch in cpu power, power drain, fab size and multi cores.

[macmad]

I'm sure after the first MacTel ships, Intel will not be able to (or want to) increase clock speeds anymore, and history will repeat.

[Hawkeye_a]

PPC is awesome. it's elegant. but they also promiced it would scale really well, which is a defacto requirement for competing in the computing world imo. Upto the G4, power consumption was a great advantage of PPC over Intel chips. The PowerPC consortium dissolved...motorola was incapable, IBM said said they could cope...they couldnt. Apple is the one that suffers at the end of these companies incapability to deliver. The way it is, Apple cannot affort to flounder even for a second in the computer business because of 3-4% marketshare.

Intel (core business is chips), comes along, and develops an equally capable chip, with low power consumption, that has a proven record of being able to scale very well.....and offers Apple much cheaper pricing, therefore enabling Apple to become even more competitive in the industry.

So Apple did go with the...equally powerful, more power efficient and cheaper solution. Whats the downside from the business or technological standpoint ? i cant think of any. In fact im proud that Apple(and Steve) swallowed their pride and made the healthier decision for Apple and it's consumer base.

[King Bob On The Cob]

Originally Posted by macmad

I'm sure after the first MacTel ships, Intel will not be able to (or want to) increase clock speeds anymore, and history will repeat.

I think Apple's fully ready to release a AMD version of the PowerMac if Intel chokes even for a second...

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by King Bob On The Cob

I think Apple's fully ready to release a AMD version of the PowerMac if Intel chokes even for a second...

Exactly. 'Processor independance' is, in my opinion, the best design decision ive seen in the industry after a long time.

[goMac]

If you're a person who is dependent on apps like Final Cut Pro or anything heavy duty (Photoshop is probably ok) I'd stick with PowerPC for now, and stay on the G5 until those apps go native. The people I've talked to said Rosetta was never designed to be that fast (although it is working faster than expected). Think for two year old hardware.

In the end I think Rosetta speed really depends on what you're doing.

[Hawkeye_a]

Do you guys reckon Apple will have their flagship apps compiled into universal binaries (which, i think means, capable of exploiting both PPC and x86 instruction sets, equally well). Apples like the ones in the iLife and iWork suite, FCP, DVDSP, etc ?

I hope they will....it'll be a good example for developers, and make for a faster transition imo.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

Do you guys reckon Apple will have their flagship apps compiled into universal binaries (which, i think means, capable of exploiting both PPC and x86 instruction sets, equally well). Apples like the ones in the iLife and iWork suite, FCP, DVDSP, etc ?

I hope they will....it'll be a good example for developers, and make for a faster transition imo.

I think consumer apps will be over on launch. The more complicated ones like FCP or DVDSP will not be. Application availability will be much like it was for OS X when it first came out (although, unlike that transition, we'll still be able to run the PPC apps). In the OS X transition iTunes, iMovie (?), and AppleWorks were ready from day one. FCP took a bit longer.

Although I heard code was kept pretty platform not specific. I have no idea whether app developers had the same restrictions.

[loki74]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

Do you guys reckon Apple will have their flagship apps compiled into universal binaries (which, i think means, capable of exploiting both PPC and x86 instruction sets, equally well). Apples like the ones in the iLife and iWork suite, FCP, DVDSP, etc ?

I hope they will....it'll be a good example for developers, and make for a faster transition imo.

oh yeah. I'd be damned surprised (and extremely disappointed) if they didn't. Especially after they make it out to be so easy w/ Xcode 2.1 or whatever version that is...

I'm most concerned w/ Final Cut Studio, Photoshop, Dreamweaver, and Flash... well, and Animation:Master and Maya, but I'll probably be abandoning A:M soon unless they can make their port work. (And who knows, maybe it will run better on the x86?)

I think that goMac's prediction will prove true...

my $ 0.02

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

Do you guys reckon Apple will have their flagship apps compiled into universal binaries (which, i think means, capable of exploiting both PPC and x86 instruction sets, equally well). Apples like the ones in the iLife and iWork suite, FCP, DVDSP, etc ?

I hope they will....it'll be a good example for developers, and make for a faster transition imo.

I would imagine Marklar was not just the OS; I'll bet Apple has been keeping all of their flagship apps cross-platform as well.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by goMac

If you're a person who is dependent on apps like Final Cut Pro or anything heavy duty (Photoshop is probably ok) I'd stick with PowerPC for now, and stay on the G5 until those apps go native. The people I've talked to said Rosetta was never designed to be that fast (although it is working faster than expected). Think for two year old hardware.

In the end I think Rosetta speed really depends on what you're doing.

Final Cut pro should be intel native, all of Apples software should already be Intel native.

[Hawkeye_a]

Ill bet that , if they did their book keeping (documenting the code well) by distinguishing alti-vec code from the other code, they could pull it off. Seeing as how that ahs been part of the OSX design from the get go, im sure the applications group was aware of it, so here's hoping.

Also, out of curiousity....'universal binary'...when i immagine it...i picture a container with two binaries. the first with PPC & Alti-Vec optomixation, the second with Intel&SSE2 optomizations. So if consumers bought the PS or FCP app that came with the universal binary, it would be able to exploit both PPC macs and Macintels. right ?

[Agent69]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Truth be told, by then I don't think it will make a difference. Apple is abandoning what is good for the sake of what is cheap, the savings will not be passed onto the consumer, and nothing is going to stop that from occurring. By then, I'll be ensconced in Linux-land, where I can get either get a truly innovative hardware or at least my money's worth, as I choose.

Dude, you are a little too wrapped up about the processor. The fact is, you don't buy a Mac because it has PowerPC chips inside it, you buy it because it will run Mac OS X.

[lavar78]

Originally Posted by OogaBooga

I wonder if Rosetta is the name of someone he knows, kinda like Lisa...

As opposed to it being named after the Rosetta Stone? I doubt it.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by Superchicken

Rosetta is good for small apps. Adium would probably run fine under Rosetta. I wouldn't waste my time with Photoshop under it though.

Adium probably wont need it. They are pretty quick with updates.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by macmad

I'm sure after the first MacTel ships, Intel will not be able to (or want to) increase clock speeds anymore, and history will repeat.

Absolutely wrong. Intel still wants to drive AMD so far underground that they'll be able to see the stars during the daytime. Intell WILL continue to increase processing power and decrease power consumption, particularly in the laptop processor lines, if for nothing else than to try to destroy AMD. At the same time, AMD has its own plans, and those probably include fighting Intel tooth and nail for dominance. Do NOT write off improvements in Intel processors simply because Intel won't be competing with IBM for bragging rights.

[CreepingDeth]

I must say I've lost a bit of respect for Millennium's IQ. He gone turn stoopid on us wif dis stuf.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by Millennium

By then, I'll be ensconced in Linux-land, where I can get either get a truly innovative hardware or at least my money's worth, as I choose.

I hope your job doesn't require you to use real software.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by CreepingDeth

I must say I've lost a bit of respect for Millennium's IQ. He gone turn stoopid on us wif dis stuf.

Not stupid. Passionate. I can't fault him for that. But I do believe that his fears are unfounded; the folks at Apple will not stoop to the shortcuts and simple bad practices that have been rampant in the Windows/Intel world for years. For example, the plan is to produce Apple-specific motherboards that are different enough to prevent a user from simply building a PC out of bargain parts and loading OS X. Why? Because the vast majority of PC motherboards are poorly designed and poorly integrated. It's hard to find one that is simply solid, without a lot of stupid bells and whistles that only a small crowd (overclockers and gamers, mostly) want. Apple won't go for that, and their products will remain of a higher quality than the rest of the personal computer world.

I also won't be surprised if Intel produces an Apple-specific CPU, tailored to perform more efficiently than standard Pentium chips, and without the 8086 baggage Windows needs. In fact, I hope that will happen-who needs compatibility with DOS 3 binaries anyway?

[budster101]

Exactly. This is the way to go.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Athens

Final Cut pro should be intel native, all of Apples software should already be Intel native.

OS X for Intel was a secret project even within Apple. The Final Cut dev team would not have known it existed. It all depends whether someone higher up was giving them feedback on making it more platform independent. There is probably a lot of AltiVec code in there.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by ghporter

I also won't be surprised if Intel produces an Apple-specific CPU, tailored to perform more efficiently than standard Pentium chips, and without the 8086 baggage Windows needs. In fact, I hope that will happen-who needs compatibility with DOS 3 binaries anyway?

I doubt that. Developers are already building their apps on the Pentium 4. Apple wouldn't change any of the architecture out from under the developers at this point. Most of the baggage that can be changed out already has anyway. The last baggage is really left on the motherboard, which I think Apple will be avoiding (floppy connector, serial, etc).