Will Leopard be Optimized for Intel Hardware?

Discussion in 'macOS' started by DerChef, Jun 30, 2006.

  1. DerChef macrumors 6502

    DerChef

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2005
    Location:
    Northern Ireland
    #1
    Will Leopard which I guess will be a universal binary run like a dog on PowerPC machines.

    This is over and above the fact that all OS Upgrades need more processing and memory.

    Naturally Apple will not say this is the case but will say "Oh but you will need the meatier Macintels to get the best out of it ,here is a clickable link to the Apple store:rolleyes:

    Maybe its just the way of the computing world these days :cool:
     
  2. JFreak macrumors 68040

    JFreak

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    Location:
    Tampere, Finland
    #2
    No.

    Vast majority of currently used Mac hardware runs on PPC, so Apple cannot afford making its old customers angry. PPC optimizations are not likely to stop before the last SOLD hardware is over 3 years old.
     
  3. bousozoku Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    Gone but not forgotten.
    #3
    Considering that Mac OS X seems to run better with many of the updates, I think that Leopard should run just fine on PowerPC and Intel hardware. I'd say that Intel-based hardware will see the greatest gain since Apple has less experience with it in mass distribution and they've learnt quite a lot about it in the past year.
     
  4. Mord macrumors G4

    Mord

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2003
    Location:
    UK
    #4
    it'll be the same s tiger is now, two different setups sharing allot of universal code, uni code has two separate binaries, so the fact that intel code is thier does not make ppc macs any slower.
     
  5. howesey macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2005
    #5
    OS X is already optimised fro both platforms. Why it uses more RAM on x86 is because a few apps run in Rosetta. Unitil every goes universal, then compare.

    PPC is still a good platform and has many advantages over x86, and vice-versa with x86. Reason to why it hasn't been easy for some to to universal is everything is backwards on x86 to PPC. Think of it as, your used to reading from left to right, however some languages read from right to left. Big endian to little endian if you want to get technical. This si one of the major problems with writing for both platforms. It's not as simple as just a recompile. Also, a lot of apps use 3rd party code that's linked, that also needs to be reworked for x86.
     
  6. Mitthrawnuruodo Moderator emeritus

    Mitthrawnuruodo

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2004
    Location:
    Bergen, Norway
    #6
    What...? I have only Intel processes running on my MacBook (except when I'm using Safari to utilize PPC-only plugins). :confused:
     
  7. MacMarvin macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2006
    #7
    I think Leopard will be more optimized for the Intel machines for a number of reasons. Apple want to sell more hardware, so they will want to make the Intel machines look better.

    The Intel compilers are generally better than anything for PPC too. We only just got auto-vectorization in about the version before last of xcode and it hardly does anything worthwhile.

    On the other hand, in order to make people want to buy Leopard, I think they will optimize the PPC version more too.

    In summary, I reckon OS X will get a good streamlining on both architectures but more for the Intel machines.
     
  8. Eidorian macrumors Penryn

    Eidorian

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    #8
    10.4 had "more" optimization for running on PowerPC. 10.5 will have "more" optimization for PowerPC/Intel. It's a selling point to upgrade.
     
  9. Catfish_Man macrumors 68030

    Catfish_Man

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2001
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #9
    Most important optimizations are architecture independent (Quartz 2D Extreme, for example). That said, Accelerate.framework and a few other places that use lots of assembly or vector code could definitely use some more Intel optimization. The PPC versions are pretty carefully tuned already.
     
  10. Sun Baked macrumors G5

    Sun Baked

    Joined:
    May 19, 2002
    #10
    Ask the people who looked at the way Apple did the PPC optimizations for years -- with the majority of the code not being optimised for speed using their developer own tools.

    Of course GCC finally came out with something that offered a sizeable PPC code boost right as Apple was walking away from PPC.

    Won't stop people from using code optimizations to squeeze some extra performance out of their own code -- especially with the Intel tools out there.

    ---

    Apple is probably fighting for stability on both platforms at the moment, and less on tweaking code for a specific platform.
     
  11. unfaded macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2002
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    #11
    Mac OS X has always been optimized for Intel.

    Keep in mind there has been an OS X for Intel for every OS version. This isn't new. This isn't something they just relased. Mac OS X Tiger for Intel is part of a Mac OS X for Intel series that has been going on for six years now.
     
  12. Eric5h5 macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2004
    #12
    No, why would it? Universal binaries don't by nature run slower on one architecture or another.

    Funny, Tiger is faster than Panther which was faster than Jaguar.... OS X ain't Windows, ya know. :)

    --Eric
     
  13. geodome macrumors member

    geodome

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Location:
    London, UK
    #13
    When Apple decide to launch Intel-based Macs, the entire Apple computing pardigm has shifted. Macs are no longer Macs because they are Apple-made and they run on PowerPC processors. Macs are Macs because they run the Mac OS X.

    As fas as I know, the motherboard for Intel Duo Core chips are made according to Intel standard. This is true in the PC world. I am not sure if the latest Intel Macs use Apple or some other proprietary motherboards which adhere to Intel standards.

    This means the Mac vs PC is no longer the differentiation of hardware and software. It becomes the differentiation of software. Hence, Intel based Macs should be able to work with PC hardware, as long their manufacturers provide a Mac OS driver.

    I see this as an integration of the Mac and the PC because they now use the same hardware.
     
  14. bousozoku Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    Gone but not forgotten.
    #14
    Just because it isn't new doesn't mean that it's optimised. It's not been in mass distribution until this last year since there weren't production machines until that point.

    Apple are learning quite a bit more from everything that's happening on the Intel-based machines.
     
  15. Mord macrumors G4

    Mord

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2003
    Location:
    UK
    #15
    mac intel logic boards use standard chipsets but apple still designs the rest of them, chooses the firewire controller, picks which video interface, designs the colling system and all the other IO stuff like the reed switch which makes macbooks sleep when the lid closes.

    nothing has changed apart from the switch to intel chipsets and EFI instead of open firmware.
     
  16. geodome macrumors member

    geodome

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Location:
    London, UK
    #16
    Are you saying that Apple hardware remains as Apple hardware, and Apple hardware remains incompatible with PC hardware?

    Eg. Will the ATI X1600 for the Macbook Pro work inside a HP Intel Duo Core Laptop?
     
  17. Sun Baked macrumors G5

    Sun Baked

    Joined:
    May 19, 2002
    #17
    Basically, Apple hardware is still unique -- Apple is employing the same methods they have for years in putting the machines together.

    It is still a Mac, and unique from the other PCs -- not quite using the same common feature set everyone else uses.

    Now they are no longer spending money on chipsets and CPUs -- gives them a little more R&D money in the budget for other things, hopefully.
     
  18. Fleetwood Mac macrumors 65816

    Fleetwood Mac

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2006
    Location:
    Canada
  19. Mord macrumors G4

    Mord

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2003
    Location:
    UK
    #19
    the chip itself yes, that was the same story with powerbooks and macs before them, what makes graphics cards work with what system is the rom chip, and on notebooks thats a unique thing as your not going to be upgrading the thing, in the case of the desktops when the mac pro's come about it depends if EFI is compatible with normal graphics cards which is damn near impossible to find out seeing as macs and a few more exotic pc's use it.
     
  20. Virtualball macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2006
    #20
    Thats suprisingly much more then I imagined. We are edging the 6 month mark and 22% of Mac owners own a intel. Thats not just suprising, but thats amazing! Thats like Ford shifting all of its cars to corn oil fueled engines,and 6 months later, 22% of all Ford owners own a corn oil car.

    I hope someone else can see the magnitude of this!
     
  21. eXan macrumors 601

    eXan

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2005
    Location:
    Russia
    #21
    Not all Mac users visit macpolls
     
  22. Fleetwood Mac macrumors 65816

    Fleetwood Mac

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2006
    Location:
    Canada
    #22
    True, but there isn't a reason why an Intel person would be more likely to vote there than PPC person.

    Of course, you have to account for all the PPC people who own machines and don't come here at all. Intel created such a buzz that new Mac people are interested in the latest from apple.
     
  23. geodome macrumors member

    geodome

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Location:
    London, UK
    #23
    Consumerism in action..

    What is this EFI architecture which someone had mentioned?

    How is it different from the PC architecture?

    I am one of the newbies who don't visit MacPolls.
     
  24. Mord macrumors G4

    Mord

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2003
    Location:
    UK
    #24
    EFI: extendable firmware interface, the replacement for the bios, but it lacks acceptance and vista is not supporting it natively, so for pc's it's dead in the water, still, it's better than the bios at more or less equal to open firmware

    BIOS: basic input output system, an ancient and horrible thing which lingers still held together by countless hacks to support new tech. it sucks.

    open firmware: revolutionary in it's time and still is about equal some say better than EFI, it's an OS in it's won right and i couldn't hope to summarize it all in this post, it's very old but is competitive with EFI.
     

Share This Page