Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

TETENAL · Jun 8, 2005, 10:32 AM

http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/60418

Rosetta, the emulation software for PowerMac with Intel-architecture, is largely based on the Dynamite-P/X-Software by Transitive. This was announced by Transitive CEO Bob Wiederhold. The Dynamite-P/X emulation software had been shown at the Microprocessor Forum 2001 already, where a 1.4 GHz Athlon reached roughly the performance of a 1 GHz PowerPC computer. Back then 1 GHz PowerPCs didn't even exist yet.

Transitive uses an emulation technique with code-morphing and runtime optimizations similar to the Crusoe/Efficeon processors by Transmeta. Transitive can morph back and forth between several processors (MIPS, ARM, PowerPC, Itanium, x86 etc.) already, The first larger commercial use is the emulation of older SGI-MIPS-systems on Itanium systems since the beginning of this year.

According to a Transitive employee the Athlon processor is much better suited for the Dynamite emulation technique than the Pentium 4. […]

Transitive is by no means a Silicon-Valley-startup as repeatedly reported by American media. In fact it is a spin-off of the University of Manchaster that had been founded as Transitive Technologies Ltd. in the United Kingdom. The developers of the company are still located there. For marketing a subsidiary had been build up in California close to the customers with success.

[…]

iKevin · Jun 8, 2005, 10:38 AM

I particularly like the part where my current mac will run it's existing software 20-30% slower . . . that's why I bought a Mac!

TETENAL · Jun 8, 2005, 11:02 AM

Originally Posted by iKevin

I particularly like the part where my current mac will run it's existing software 20-30% slower . . .

Why would your current Mac run software slower? Rosetta is only used on Intel-based Macs.

Mediaman_12 · Jun 8, 2005, 12:08 PM

so if you get a Intel Mac, and don't upgrade all your apps (or the dev it taking longer than expected, Adobe anyone) to Intel versions, you get clobered by an giant performance hit, and the requirement of loads of extra RAM. Apple better ship these with more than the poxy 256MB standard you currentely get.

I will be waiting for all the Apps to be availabe as Intel versions before I even think about a Mintel

Hi I'm Ben · Jun 8, 2005, 01:05 PM

I find it's best to start complaining before the actual speed tests and Macs have come out.

Wouldn't you agree?

mitchell_pgh · Jun 8, 2005, 01:21 PM

Originally Posted by iKevin

I particularly like the part where my current mac will run it's existing software 20-30% slower . . . that's why I bought a Mac!

I'll take a 20-30% hit on a few programs if it means I can use mobile CPUs that are 50% faster and have a battery life of 7+ hours.

mitchell_pgh · Jun 8, 2005, 01:22 PM

Originally Posted by Hi I'm Ben

I find it's best to start complaining before the actual speed tests and Macs have come out.

Wouldn't you agree?

No, I demand we start complaining NOW!

Appleman · Jun 8, 2005, 05:18 PM

Originally Posted by Hi I'm Ben

I find it's best to start complaining before the actual speed tests and Macs have come out.

Wouldn't you agree?

romeosc · Jun 9, 2005, 05:19 PM

You miss the point Apple wants to expand to the millions of intel based users....very LITTLE profit on hardware HUGE profit on Software!

Chuckit · Jun 9, 2005, 05:44 PM

Originally Posted by romeosc

You miss the point Apple wants to expand to the millions of intel based users....very LITTLE profit on hardware HUGE profit on Software!

What are you talking about? Since it isn't possible to buy most of their software on Intel without first buying their HARDWARE, I think it's safe to say they're going by the same strategy that's made them one of the world's most popular computer companies.

PurpleGiant · Jun 9, 2005, 05:52 PM

Originally Posted by iKevin

I particularly like the part where my current mac will run it's existing software 20-30% slower . . . that's why I bought a Mac!

Chuckit · Jun 9, 2005, 05:58 PM

Shh, just let him believe that Apple will somehow put a voodoo curse on his Mac.

Anubis IV · Jun 9, 2005, 08:57 PM

Originally Posted by romeosc

You miss the point Apple wants to expand to the millions of intel based users....very LITTLE profit on hardware HUGE profit on Software!

Umm...Apple makes a killing on the profit margins of their hardware. I know this is a bit unrelated, but I think I heard that they were making 20-30% profit on each iPod Shuffle, as in, only 70-80% of the price was used to recoup the costs, the rest was pure profit. I've also heard that they have a profit margin that is about 5-10% more than basically any other mainstream computer brand out there. Their hardware is VERY profitable, while their software is not quite as profitable. Apple doesn't try and suck you in with a low price point on hardware and a high price point on software (like what you see in the console video game industry). Rather, it does quite the opposite. Its software is dirt cheap compared to competing products. Just look at Mac OS 10.4 compared to XP Pro...Apple has it beat in price and features. Compare iWork to Powerpoint and Word: beat them in price, and on par or better with most features (though some may disagree). iLife: Cheap. They give us cheap software that lasts for a long time since it's so good, but they rake in huge profits on the hardware.

I actually just saw a breakdown of Apple's total profits earlier today (CNN.com/tech I think) and hardware accounted for 40% or so (might've been more around 42-43%) whereas software was only 7-8%. To say the least, they make a LOT more money on hardware than on software, and it's for a reason.

Anyway, I can only see two reasons why someone would switch to Mac from Windows because of this transition:
1) They are an idiot, don't understand any of the details, but think that Macs are automatically better just because they have an Intel chip inside, simply because it is an Intel chip. They are the type that still like to insist that the G5 is utter crap and is worthless, and they insist that because "Intel chips are ALWAYS better". More or less, they know nothing.
2) They are well-informed, and realize that Intel DOES have a better road map in the upcoming years for PC chips than does IBM, and that Apple is making a move from what is currently one of the strongest line of processors to what WILL be one of the strongest line of processors in a year or two.

Seeing as how there are very few well-informed people in the world these days, I'd expect more people to switch for reason #1...and those are the types of people that wouldn't notice Rosetta or have any software to use with it anyway.

To topic creator: thanks for the details. I was curious where this thing came from all of a sudden. I didn't realize it was based on that line of technology.

EDIT: Spelling and added one more factoid.

iKevin · Jun 10, 2005, 03:54 PM

Originally Posted by iKevin

I particularly like the part where my current mac will run it's existing software 20-30% slower . . . that's why I bought a Mac!

This should have read: I particularly like the part where my current mac software will run 20-30% slower (when running on an Intel mac).

However i've decided to just wait and see how the MacIntel's run before I dislike Rosetta. Like one poster said, if the system performace is 50% faster than what we have now, who cares if there's a small hit with Rosetta.

LudwigVan123 · Jun 11, 2005, 10:22 PM

Originally Posted by iKevin

This should have read: I particularly like the part where my current mac software will run 20-30% slower (when running on an Intel mac).

However i've decided to just wait and see how the MacIntel's run before I dislike Rosetta. Like one poster said, if the system performace is 50% faster than what we have now, who cares if there's a small hit with Rosetta.

Good approach. For all we know, that 20-30% cut will come out of the 50% increase in speed.

moki · Jun 14, 2005, 03:38 AM

Rosetta is good, but it isn't _that_ good. As an exercise, launch a program that does some CPU-intensive computation on a PPC box. Launch the same app emulated on an Intel box under Rosetta. Compare and contrast the CPU usage in top

Rosetta is a great transitional technology... but it is not the miracle some suggest.

Horsepoo!!! · Jun 14, 2005, 10:48 AM

Originally Posted by moki

Rosetta is good, but it isn't _that_ good. As an exercise, launch a program that does some CPU-intensive computation on a PPC box. Launch the same app emulated on an Intel box under Rosetta. Compare and contrast the CPU usage in top

Rosetta is a great transitional technology... but it is not the miracle some suggest.

I don't think anyone here suggested it was a miracle. I think we're suggesting it is not the debacle some suggest.

TETENAL · Jun 14, 2005, 01:18 PM

Originally Posted by moki

As an exercise, launch a program that does some CPU-intensive computation on a PPC box. Launch the same app emulated on an Intel box under Rosetta. Compare and contrast the CPU usage in top.

This is kind of hard for us to do. Why don't you tell us what the results are?