Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > According to CNET: Apple switching to Intel x86

According to CNET: Apple switching to Intel x86 (Page 8)
Thread Tools
von Wrangell
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Under the shade of Swords
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2005, 05:03 AM
 
Can't be arsed logging into nytimes. Care to copy paste the article?

To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid
     
noliv
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: France
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2005, 05:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by von Wrangell
Can't be arsed logging into nytimes. Care to copy paste the article?
Here is a login and password for you
http://www.bugmenot.com/view.php?url...ww.nytimes.com
-noliv
     
:XI:
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2005, 05:13 AM
 
Originally Posted by von Wrangell
Can't be arsed logging into nytimes. Care to copy paste the article?
It probably took you as long to post that than it would to log in.

Anyway, since you asked:

Apple Plans to Switch From I.B.M. to Intel for Chips.
That's pretty much it.
     
Naz
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: over here *
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2005, 05:21 AM
 
Oh I should be sleeping been up all night but NEW YORK TIMES?

I can wait to see this... History folks, History!
Nazaire's Art - -- iMac 500 DV SE --- 17" PB
     
von Wrangell
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Under the shade of Swords
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2005, 05:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by :XI:
It probably took you as long to post that than it would to log in.

Anyway, since you asked:



That's pretty much it.
Meant register instead of loggin in

To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid
     
Naz
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: over here *
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2005, 05:31 AM
 
Nazaire's Art - -- iMac 500 DV SE --- 17" PB
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2005, 05:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by Naz
Mostly a recitation of previous stories.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Naz
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: over here *
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2005, 05:39 AM
 
recitation or not when the first source fails they all go down

so they better be right
Nazaire's Art - -- iMac 500 DV SE --- 17" PB
     
MallyMal
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2005, 05:41 AM
 
LOL All of the news folks are getting the story from C|net or the WSJ so there really isn't any new stuff here.
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2005, 05:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by Naz
recitation or not when the first source fails they all go down

so they better be right
Unfortunately, that isn't really true. Articles and people have been claiming confirmation from multiple corporate executives.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Naz
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: over here *
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2005, 05:44 AM
 
you would not want to be the only news source missing a major story, so just incase its wrong souce it to Cnet simple

they don't want to miss the boat but don't want the blame
Nazaire's Art - -- iMac 500 DV SE --- 17" PB
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2005, 06:13 AM
 
Hopefully you're right, Naz, but sources like the WSJ and NY Times don't publish blindly. We have to hope that they got major details of this story very wrong.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2005, 07:13 AM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac
Hopefully you're right, Naz, but sources like the WSJ and NY Times don't publish blindly. We have to hope that they got major details of this story very wrong.
It's not uncommon for news stories to cite other news stories. This gets more common as the story gets more widely published, and so it becomes a vicious cycle. WSJ and NYTimes are not immune to this, and they've been burned by it in the past.

Apple is not moving to x86. In order to do so they'd have to step back from 64-bit computing to 32-bit, and they will not do this. Intel's IA-64 architecture is not compatible with x86, and although an x86-compatible architecture exists, it's made by AMD, not Intel. So this isn't just a matter of cheap-over-good (though that certainly still applies); it's a matter of major architectural steps backward which Apple would have to be out of its mind to make. This is not to say that Steve definitely won't make them anyway -he's killed just as many businesses as he's saved, because the man is out of his mind- but even he isn't normally this stupid.
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
terrancew_hod
Forum Regular
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Ft Lauderdale, FL
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2005, 07:14 AM
 
Well if they switch to Intel chips, it'll probably be a version of the itanium 64-bit chips with possible Altivec slapped on. I doubt apple would backtrack on the 64 bit chips. The issue would still be with Windows emulation since itanium doesn't do 32-bit apps well. But it'll may be as simple as Intel taking over the P5 fab with development of a chip to meet laptop specs so they can push their wi-max technology to the mini to be a media center and laptops for greater connectivity, as well as providing tablet and pocket devices that mac users have been asking for. Intel's R&D budget surpasses IBM and IBM also has software and server obligations that probably put Apple's needs on the backburner. I also think the XBox 360 announcement with chips that go over 3GHz by the fall was probably the final straw (given their track record, I still don't see how this will happen in a machine for about $300).

Any switch announcement would me met by gasps then 'ooos' as Steve give the developers some elegant solution that will send the crowd into to cheers and a 'wave' forms across the auditorium . Whatever they present will enable the developers to support both platforms for at least 4-5 years. The losers in all of this will most likely be the G4 computers, but Apple was trying to get rid of those with the transition to P5. Just think of the new chip as a G6 and that should put everything in perspective.

And I find it funny how some people say they won't buy an Intel/Apple solution... we've all heard that argument before and they still jump on the bandwagon with Apple wows us with another design. Later today should be very interesting to say the least.

Terrance
15.2" 1.25GHz Powerbook G4
(First official mac)

My Ghetto Hot Mess
     
BasketofPuppies
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2005, 07:16 AM
 
Originally Posted by osxisfun
I was not aware armchair speculation and CEO'ing was considered advance knowledge.

If John Dvorak genuinely did know this two years ago, he wouldn't have been the only one. He is not the Bob Novak of tech journalism.
inscrutable impenetrable impregnable inconceivable
     
Randman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: MacNN database error. Please refresh your browser.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2005, 07:31 AM
 
The reality suspension field better be cranked up to 11.

This is a computer-generated message and needs no signature.
     
xi_hyperon
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Behind the dryer, looking for a matching sock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2005, 07:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by Randman
The reality suspension field better be cranked up to 11.
Oh, the reality distortion field generators backstage will be running at 115%.
     
von Wrangell
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Under the shade of Swords
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2005, 07:47 AM
 
btw, when does the whole thing start?

To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid
     
Apple Pro Underwear
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: NYC*Crooklyn
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2005, 07:47 AM
 
to be honest, the New York Times reported it this weekend...

and in their business news, everything is checked thoroughly. they dont print unless it is confirmed...




APU waits patiently...
     
version
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Bless you
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2005, 07:49 AM
 
This is ****ed up. Ok, let's say they move the Powerbooks (which I use) to x86. I'm meant to wait another year (yes, I want to upgrade mine soon) for them to be released, then I probably have to use my software on another compatibility layer on top of the native x86 OS X, plus perhaps wait until the software is released natively.

Screw that ****. OS X isn't exactly a speed champ at the best of times, and now this?

Nightmare.
A Jew with a view.
     
Goldfinger
Professional Poster
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Belgium
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2005, 07:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by xi_hyperon
Oh, the reality distortion field generators backstage will be running at 115%.
[scotty]Don't you worry, Captain. She'll hold.[/scotty]

iMac 20" C2D 2.16 | Acer Aspire One | Flickr
     
xi_hyperon
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Behind the dryer, looking for a matching sock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2005, 07:50 AM
 
I'd love to see this live, if indeed Steve will announce such a move. 'Tis a shame not to see the fancy footwork that will take place on stage.
     
:XI:
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2005, 07:52 AM
 
Originally Posted by Goldfinger
[scotty]Don't you worry, Captain. She'll hold.[/scotty]
<bones>Damnit Jim! I'm a broke ass Med student not a Corporate CEO!</bones>
     
Goldfinger
Professional Poster
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Belgium
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2005, 07:52 AM
 
They'll want to avoid the Steve Jobs Assassination live on TV.

iMac 20" C2D 2.16 | Acer Aspire One | Flickr
     
:XI:
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2005, 07:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by xi_hyperon
I'd love to see this live, if indeed Steve will announce such a move. 'Tis a shame not to see the fancy footwork that will take place on stage.
The fancy footwork will involve U-Turns and backtracking.
     
:XI:
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2005, 07:54 AM
 
Originally Posted by Goldfinger
They'll want to avoid the Steve Jobs Assassination live on TV.
Remember the 'smackdown' he gave the audience when he announced the partnership with Microsoft?
     
version
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Bless you
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2005, 08:00 AM
 
Originally Posted by :XI:
Remember the 'smackdown' he gave the audience when he announced the partnership with Microsoft?

I'm picturing MacNN members going back and deleting old posts in which they berated Intel.

Funny ****.
A Jew with a view.
     
Krypton
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Cambridge UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2005, 08:02 AM
 
Dvorak said on the TWIT No 7 broadcast he'd definitely buy a Mac if it had Intel inside.
     
version
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Bless you
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2005, 08:05 AM
 
To be honest, I think Steve Jobs will pull it off, and most users will gladly go along with the ride.
A Jew with a view.
     
ajbaker
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Farnborough, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2005, 08:13 AM
 
The Register, UK, has weighed in now as well. Little more than a re-hash of the same, but interesting that so many publications are commenting on this now.
     
macmad
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2005, 08:22 AM
 
Whatever Steve says, who will believe him? Last year he promised 3gig G5's....
     
Il Duce
Forum Regular
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Brisbane
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2005, 08:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by macmad
Whatever Steve says, who will believe him? Last year he promised 3gig G5's....
That was 2 years ago. The middle and high end are now the low and (low) middle end. I can imagine Steve is pretty pi$$ed at IBM right now. But I don't know if that would be enough for him to consider a switch to intel.

Not too much longer now.
The Duke
     
asdasd
Forum Regular
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Santa Clara
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2005, 08:38 AM
 
The FUD in this thread is unbelievable. I believe that most developers will welcome this as it gives Apple a chance to increase it's base ( I hope they reintroduce Cocoa for Windows at the same time).

the time it will take a developer to "port" ( which isn't quite the accurate term for using the exact same api set) is the time it will take to recompile against the intel frameworks.

Nobody is optimimising their code for PPC - if anybody here wants to publish some code written in carbon or Cocoa which is "optimised" for the PPC, feel free. Developers writing at that level are chip agnostic. ( Anyone writing "optimised" code in assembly which is totally unportable should be fired, too).

And Carbon is a full client of the operating system - and is as fully native as Cocoa. The opposite claim is the falshood that just wont die. Amazingly enough some dude posted a diagram of OS X's layout showing that Carbon was on the same layer as Cocoa, and someone else replied that Carbon is not fully hardware independent. Stop talking FUD.

1) The cost to developers is a recompile.
2) Nobody is tweaking any code at C level for processors.
3) Altivec will probably be included on the chipset
4) OS X applications are already designed to be Fat. The executable is now in <appname>/Contents/MacOS for the PPC platform. Clearly this is by design. When an app is compiled to include Intel binaries it wil compile 2 different executables. The other one will go into <appname>/Contents/Intel, or something similar.
5) The developers will get their programs ported and tested during the WWDC
6) Nobody has lost a harwdware investment. Future versions of all software produced by all Mac development teams will run - for at least 7-10 years -as FAT. Maybe forever.
7) Since the cost of "porting" to intel is minimal the versions that are Fat will be point point releases. Safari may release 2.0.1 as a FAT application just to show it can be done. iTunes too. Safari is Cocoa, iTunes is carbon. So too with adobe.
7) It may not be that Apple is abandoning PPC, it has the technology to have dual ( or multiple) FAT binaries. This will be invisible to you the user. Maybe different Macs will have up to 4 different processors. What ya care?

good times, all round.
     
Phil333
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jun 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2005, 08:41 AM
 
The switch is going to happen. The New York Times does not run a story like that without sources. It was leaked Friday and investigated over the weeekend.

Now, what none of us know is to what extent this shift will affect us. And that is why we need to wait to hear Jobs speak.
     
xi_hyperon
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Behind the dryer, looking for a matching sock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2005, 08:46 AM
 
If this was posted already, my apologies. This article from Wired opines that Hollywood is playing a part in Apple's decision.
     
starman
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Union County, NJ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2005, 08:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by asdasd
Nobody is optimimising their code for PPC - if anybody here wants to publish some code written in carbon or Cocoa which is "optimised" for the PPC, feel free. Developers writing at that level are chip agnostic. ( Anyone writing "optimised" code in assembly which is totally unportable should be fired, too).
Anyone who spells it "optimised" probably doesn't write optimized code anyway

I wrote PPC optimized code for a project last year. Sped the app up tremendously. Is that wrong or are you just ignorant of how optimization works?

Mike

Home - Twitter - Sig Wall-Retired - Flickr
     
version
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Bless you
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2005, 08:50 AM
 
Originally Posted by starman
Anyone who spells it "optimised" probably doesn't write optimized code anyway

Mike

I take it you're actually joking here.
A Jew with a view.
     
Apple Pro Underwear
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: NYC*Crooklyn
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2005, 08:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by Phil333
The switch is going to happen. The New York Times does not run a story like that without sources. It was leaked Friday and investigated over the weeekend.

Now, what none of us know is to what extent this shift will affect us. And that is why we need to wait to hear Jobs speak.
yes, i trust in steve that he will have an interesting compromise/solution to the questions raised in this thread.


quote me on that baby!
     
Phil333
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jun 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2005, 08:57 AM
 
When does his talk start?
     
Goldfinger
Professional Poster
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Belgium
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2005, 08:57 AM
 
If all of this is indeed true than I only hope for one thing: that Apple has negotiated with all the big companies like Adobe and MS to recompile their software. Without them Apple is dead. I don't believe in that Translation/emulation stuff.

Also I'm afraid that thousands of peripherals that require drivers will be "forgotten" by their developers and people will end up with non working stuff.

iMac 20" C2D 2.16 | Acer Aspire One | Flickr
     
xi_hyperon
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Behind the dryer, looking for a matching sock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2005, 09:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by Goldfinger
Also I'm afraid that thousands of peripherals that require drivers will be "forgotten" by their developers and people will end up with non working stuff.
Good point - I'm not sure how drivers will work when fit into this equation.
     
- - e r i k - -
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2005, 09:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by Phil333
When does his talk start?
The WWDC 2005 Keynote kicks off at 10am PDT

converted times for some popular cities

Los Angeles * Mon 10:00 AM
New York * Mon 1:00 PM
London * Mon 6:00 PM
Oslo * Mon 7:00 PM
Tokyo Tue 2:00 AM
Sydney Tue 3:00 AM

[ fb ] [ flickr ] [♬] [scl] [ last ] [ plaxo ]
     
Randman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: MacNN database error. Please refresh your browser.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2005, 09:06 AM
 
Now the question is: Is it worth staying up late?

This is a computer-generated message and needs no signature.
     
:XI:
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2005, 09:11 AM
 
Anyone writing "optimised" code in assembly which is totally unportable should be fired, too.
Yeah, because doing that wouldn't give us any speed increases we've all be craving.

3) Altivec will probably be included on the chipset
How do you know?

4) OS X applications are already designed to be Fat. The executable is now in <appname>/Contents/MacOS for the PPC platform. Clearly this is by design. When an app is compiled to include Intel binaries it wil compile 2 different executables. The other one will go into <appname>/Contents/Intel, or something similar.
Yeah, unless the code has been optimised for a particular architecture. In which case you'll have some work to do beyond clicking a button.

5) The developers will get their programs ported and tested during the WWDC
How do you know?

7) Since the cost of "porting" to intel is minimal the versions that are Fat will be point point releases. Safari may release 2.0.1 as a FAT application just to show it can be done. iTunes too. Safari is Cocoa, iTunes is carbon. So too with adobe.
How do you know?

7) It may not be that Apple is abandoning PPC, it has the technology to have dual ( or multiple) FAT binaries. This will be invisible to you the user. Maybe different Macs will have up to 4 different processors. What ya care?
Yeah, running four different architectures and keeping them all compatible is going to just cut costs!

good times, all round.
For people that like to make stuff up.

Originally Posted by asdasd
The FUD in this thread is unbelievable.
Yes, it is. Isn't it?
     
starman
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Union County, NJ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2005, 09:13 AM
 
Drivers. Hmm..

One one side, it's a moot point for built-in hardware like the gigabit enternet ports and such since Apple will take care of those.

The other things like RAID cards, video cards, etc. could be tricky. The way the drivers are written in terms of API, installed file locations, etc. should be exactly the same. When you get into the guts of the drivers, you MAY be able to get away with recompiling the code for certain devices. Devices that depend on endianess may have issues.

It all depends on how closely they tie the chip with the compiled code. My experience with drivers is only on the Windows side, but I can tell you that we don't do any low-level assembler at all for the devices we support - it's all done with simple API calls. If it came down to rebuilding our drivers for a Windows on a radically different chip, we could recompile, and so long as everything ELSE stays the same (API, Windows' behavior, etc.), it should work fine.

Of course you have issues to deal with like possible compiler problems on your first attempt, problems with a brand new piece of hardware maybe not behaving as expected. You also have to allocate internal resources for this (developer(s), QA, marketing, etc.).

Mike

Home - Twitter - Sig Wall-Retired - Flickr
     
sideus
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2005, 09:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by BasketofPuppies
I was not aware armchair speculation and CEO'ing was considered advance knowledge.

If John Dvorak genuinely did know this two years ago, he wouldn't have been the only one. He is not the Bob Novak of tech journalism.
Dvorak called OS X a BS..D (he emphasized the BS part) OS on today's TWiT cast. What a loser.
     
Rev-O
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Parker, Colorado
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2005, 09:17 AM
 
Originally Posted by version
To be honest, I think Steve Jobs will pull it off, and most users will gladly go along with the ride.
... but to honest, if Apple produced a nice white ploycarbonate abacus named the iAbacus and a 'pro' abacus made of brushed aluminum called the PowerAbacus, most users will gladly go along with the ride, all the while extolling the abacus' ease of use, elegant design, stability, immunity from viruses, and (in the AbacusBook) exceptional battery life.
Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!
     
starman
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Union County, NJ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2005, 09:18 AM
 
The laptop issue is the only thing that makes it plausable. I have yet to even read rumors of a working G5 that'll work in a mobile device.

Mike

Home - Twitter - Sig Wall-Retired - Flickr
     
von Wrangell
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Under the shade of Swords
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2005, 09:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by - - e r i k - -
The WWDC 2005 Keynote kicks off at 10am PDT

converted times for some popular cities

Los Angeles * Mon 10:00 AM
New York * Mon 1:00 PM
London * Mon 6:00 PM
Oslo * Mon 7:00 PM
Tokyo Tue 2:00 AM
Sydney Tue 3:00 AM
Takk

To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2005, 09:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by asdasd
Nobody is optimimising their code for PPC - if anybody here wants to publish some code written in carbon or Cocoa which is "optimised" for the PPC, feel free. Developers writing at that level are chip agnostic. ( Anyone writing "optimised" code in assembly which is totally unportable should be fired, too).
I think the folks at Adobe would beg to differ with you on that. As would the folks at Apple, who have to optimize the bejeezus out of their Pro apps if not their iApps. Most emulator and game authors would also like to have a word with you.
And Carbon is a full client of the operating system - and is as fully native as Cocoa. The opposite claim is the falshood that just wont die.
Here, at least, we agree on something.
1) The cost to developers is a recompile.
For some developers, yes. Not for all, and especially not for most of the big shops.
2) Nobody is tweaking any code at C level for processors.
It's almost impossible to do such a thing. It's not completely impossible, of course, but what little can be done will net you very little benefit, and most of that is done automatically by modern compilers anyway. So here, at least, you're mostly correct.

However, not all processor differences are on the level of 'optimization'. Even simple endianness issues can propagate well into the higher-level languages.
3) Altivec will probably be included on the chipset
Not possible; the core architectures of x86 and PPC are too different. Intel's own MMX and SSE instruction sets might be included, but they are a mess.
4) OS X applications are already designed to be Fat. The executable is now in <appname>/Contents/MacOS for the PPC platform. Clearly this is by design. When an app is compiled to include Intel binaries it wil compile 2 different executables. The other one will go into <appname>/Contents/Intel, or something similar.
Fun Fact: The Fat Binary concept was originally created by NeXT, for going bewteen 680x0 and Intel. Apple licensed the technology from them during the switch from 680x0 and PPC.
5) The developers will get their programs ported and tested during the WWDC
QA will take much longer than that for all but the simplest programs. Almost any pro app will need at least a month, and probably more.
6) Nobody has lost a harwdware investment. Future versions of all software produced by all Mac development teams will run - for at least 7-10 years -as FAT. Maybe forever.
Unlikely. Few companies released Fat binaries during the x86/PPC switchover, preferring instead to distribute two different builds. PPC will be dropped like a hot potato within one version, and relegated to second-class status long before that (likely only the Intel version will be shipped by default, and you'll have to order PPC CDs specially).
7) Since the cost of "porting" to intel is minimal the versions that are Fat will be point point releases. Safari may release 2.0.1 as a FAT application just to show it can be done. iTunes too. Safari is Cocoa, iTunes is carbon. So too with adobe.
Actually, Adobe apps use their own framework which sits on top of Carbon and Win32; they released source to that framework recently.
7) It may not be that Apple is abandoning PPC, it has the technology to have dual ( or multiple) FAT binaries. This will be invisible to you the user. Maybe different Macs will have up to 4 different processors. What ya care?
This makes no technical sense whatsoever.
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:52 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,