5-Fold Increase in Video Encoding with OpenCL-like Technology

[deconstruct60]

Who says they aren't? Surely you don't think that dev seeds are their only source of testing. I'm sure they have vast labs full of diverse hardware exactly for this purpose. If I were them, I would measure the defect rate and only push things to dev seeds when I'm likely to only learn something that I don't already know.

No I don't think they are developer testing is the only testing. I do think though that it is the sole form of software diversity testing that they do.
I think the internal testing tests how well apple software runs on apple software. That would nice if all customers wanted to do was run apple software 95% of the time. They don't.

I seriously do not think that Apple has a regression suite to run Microsoft Office through its paces on a significant portion of its code base.

There are multiple directions they bugs could come from. As far as running as a broad diverse set of hardware, yes, Apple probably has all but the very largest software shops beat on coverage. However, I don't think that Apple has the developer population beat on the diversity of idiomatic use of the APIs that the OS and hardware provides. Catching bugs in one of the dimensions doe not mean you are catching bugs in the other.

Lol, no...what I'm talking about is software engineering.

Software engineering would be testing something significantly before you ship it. Holding back PowerPC software from being tested doesn't accomplish that. Yes they may be testing one dimension of the software internally before going more widespread. However, at some point would have to add the others far enough before shipping to be useful.

On a side-note...people keep using the word 'beta'...is that the official designation of these "seeds", or are we all playing fast-and-loose with the language, here? If it's the latter, then it would probably be best to not make assertions based on the connotations of the word.

Defacto these are the beta. Beta is a state of software that can (pragmatically should) very through some release labels. Beta a significant property of beta is about who gets access to the software so that can get feedback on quality, not a specific release point.

Seeds are release labels/points.

These might be labeled as alpha if Apple commonly did more a more widespread release to a more general population before release. They don't. The only expansion in the testing population beyond apple is to the developers for the Mac OS X release for long while now.

They could also be labeled as Alpha if folks think there is some hidden secret sauce that Apple is going to introduce at WWDC. The new "and more thing" about the interface that is hidden right now. That is a bit wishy-washy from a OS API perspective. Does any thing API is going to spring some new API that isn't currently present at WWDC?

If you want to heap the Finder and other GUI do-dads into the technical OS present it isn't a Beta.

 

[deconstruct60]

If you and your G5 NEED Snow Leopard, then let's face it, your G5 sucks.

Right... because bug fixes and security that Apple with only target for 10.6 somehow aren't approriate to software running on a G5.

how can an incompatible upgrade make you bat an eye?

Incompatible? Snow Leopard means folks have to buy new software because their old software won't run anymore? Really?

Refusing to do a port doesn't make something incompatible. This is circular: solely target intel then only run on intel.

If you're so desperate for a faster machine,

LOL. Snow Leopard isn't likely to make 2 year old machines noticeably faster; even if they are Intel. They could be a benchmark improvement and some corner case improvements (boot or application start time). Extended workflow speeds ups, I'll believe it when I see it. Someone's 2 year old mac mini isn't going to turn into some performance powerhouse with Snow Leopard.

Oh, yeah. One more for the clueless...10.6 is 10.5, OPTIMIZED FOR INTEL MACHINES.
Spoiled brats.

Chuckle. Cause stuff like Grand Centeral and OpenCL are never going to show up in iPhone OS.

And probably a going to be real big chuckle for those with 32-bit intel Macs <cough>. Optimized for Intel is certainly going to fly with them.

 

[HyperZboy]

Approximately FIFTEEN PERCENT of active Macs are PPC, today, and dropping.

Check out this graph for 2009:
http://att.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=164381&d=1238160682

And this thread, where I read it:
https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/7355635/

:"Hmm, spend millions of dollars to further optimize the already good OS for -15%, and dropping, of Macs, or make a streamlined OS for the +85%, that is only possible because the shackles of backwards-compatibility are removed? Decisions, decisions..."

HAha! Your source for that, ummm, "credible" # of 15% PPC comes from Adium??? Are you kidding me???

Yeah, that's credible alright. {sarcasm intended}

I'm not saying the # is 50% or anything, but I bet its a LOT higher than 15% !

I didn't even use Adium until this PAST YEAR! HAha!

I'm sure many Mac users have NEVER used it or even heard of it! HAha!

 

[FX120]

OK, well heres hoping that my now aging RADEONX1600 will be able to make use of this funkiness in Snowleopard...

Dont feel like upgrading as im still happy with my mbp. (CD 2.16GHz)

*Sigh*

Your MBP won't even run Snow Leopard.

 

[pohl]

No I don't think they are developer testing is the only testing. I do think though that it is the sole form of software diversity testing that they do. I think the internal testing tests how well apple software runs on apple software.

I think you overestimate what could be gained by testing the PPC build of Microsoft Office at this stage. That it happens is important, I agree. But I wouldn't say the sky is falling yet. Let the devs at Microsoft deal with the issues that are introduced by the new 64-bit intel kernel first. I bet that will give them enough to worry about, since that change is probably far more intrusive to their application. The bulk of the dual-architecture issues end up being compiler bugs, which is a well-worn path at this stage. A lot of those kinks have already been ironed-out.

It wasn't that many seeds ago that Apple opened up testing of the fully 64-bit intel kernel. Why didn't they do it sooner? There must have been a point at which it became ready to include in a seed. Prior to that point, developer seeds were focused primarily on testing other changes.

The latest seed includes a Screen Recording feature that was absent from all prior seeds. Why didn't they include it sooner? Did its absence from prior seeds constitute proof that this feature would not make it into this one? Of course not. Again, they refrained from inflicting developers with this feature until it reached some measure of sufficient quality. Was Apple remiss in not having it tested sooner? No, they chose which seed in which to first include it by some criteria.

Software engineering would be testing something significantly before you ship it.

To that, I would add "in a controlled manner". If it's not in a controlled manner, based upon measurables, it is not engineering. If they just toss everything at the users of the developer seeds at the same time, it is anything but controlled.

Holding back PowerPC software from being tested...

...might be an example of that sort of control.

 

[FoxHoundADAM]

Sorry to interrupt, but is this still the same thread?

Don't bother, they have selective reading.

 

[AidenShaw]

Your MBP won't even run Snow Leopard.

For the sake of OSX, we can only hope that is true.

I think that Apple is waiting until 10.6 is shipping to say "Here's Snow Leopard - and it's x64 only."

Because every month they delay in making that statement, all those old PPC and x86 machines are one month older and many more of them have been retired....

 

[Mac Kiwi]

Will this ensure Apple {Open CL} has to provide a range of more powerful graphics cards earlier,then say they would normally do,cycle wise to run SN pro apps...because of the GPU load changes?

 

[DoFoT9]

Your MBP won't even run Snow Leopard.

SL wont support 32-bit CPU's??? i wasnt aware that this had been fully announced.

 

[gnasher729]

To see people bitching about this crap, it is just retarded.

So far I have seen quite reasonable arguments for Snow Leopard on PowerPC machines. Especially since Snow Leopards main target is bugfixing, more stability, and more efficiency, something a PowerPC Macintosh would greatly benefit from.

Thinks like "bitching", "whining", "retarded" mostly come from people who don't have a clue about software development.

SL wont support 32-bit CPU's??? i wasnt aware that this had been fully announced.

Fact: Snow Leopard supports 32 bit applications.
Fact: When you run a 32 bit application, it doesn't make any difference at all whether you are using a 32 bit or 64 bit CPU.

Draw your own conclusions. Keep in mind that most of the posters here are opinionated kids who don't have a clue how things really work.

 

[DoFoT9]

Fact: Snow Leopard supports 32 bit applications.
Fact: When you run a 32 bit application, it doesn't make any difference at all whether you are using a 32 bit or 64 bit CPU.

Draw your own conclusions. Keep in mind that most of the posters here are opinionated kids who don't have a clue how things really work.

the fact that snow leopard supports 32-bit applications doesnt really answer my question, nor the other fact that you said - sorry.

i am asking if SL will run on an intel 32-bit CPU (i.e CoreDuo). Just because an application is 32-bit doesnt mean that the whole system is. unless i am missing something.

yea and i know most posters here are young kiddies, but we were one too (i basiaclly still am) - we have to give them a chance, sometimes they are right!!! haha

 

[HyperZboy]

So far I have seen quite reasonable arguments for Snow Leopard on PowerPC machines. Especially since Snow Leopards main target is bugfixing, more stability, and more efficiency, something a PowerPC Macintosh would greatly benefit from.

Thinks like "bitching", "whining", "retarded" mostly come from people who don't have a clue about software development.



Fact: Snow Leopard supports 32 bit applications.
Fact: When you run a 32 bit application, it doesn't make any difference at all whether you are using a 32 bit or 64 bit CPU.

Draw your own conclusions. Keep in mind that most of the posters here are opinionated kids who don't have a clue how things really work.

I couldn't agree with your sentiments more.

I know I'll be publicly humiliated with endless insults and rants for saying this, but Apple has always portrayed Snow Leopard in the way you describe it to date.

So this is why the PPC users are mad in a nutshell.

If Snow Leopard is just speed enhancements and stability fixes, then shouldn't it REALLY BE 10.5.9 for PowerPC Macs instead of 10.6 for INTEL ONLY?

It's as if Apple BAITED & SWITCHED its customer base in my opinion.

ok, let the insults begin...

 

[AidenShaw]

If Snow Leopard is just speed enhancements and stability fixes, then shouldn't it REALLY BE 10.5.9 for PowerPC Macs instead of 10.6 for INTEL ONLY?

or 10.6 for INTEL x64 ONLY ,,,


I think that it's interesting that nobody running these builds is piping up to say that it runs on PPC or x86. Since Apple would want that code tested, I would expect someone somewhere to post a screen shot like

from a recent build (this image is almost a year old)....

 

[MikhailT]

So far I have seen quite reasonable arguments for Snow Leopard on PowerPC machines. Especially since Snow Leopards main target is bugfixing, more stability, and more efficiency, something a PowerPC Macintosh would greatly benefit from.

Thinks like "bitching", "whining", "retarded" mostly come from people who don't have a clue about software development.

I agree with your statement that the bitching, whining and retarded statements mostly came from people who doesn't have a clue from software development. But I disagree with your statement about the main target of Snow Leopard.

Snow leopard's main target is to rework the kernel to prepare it for the next decade by including support for OpenCL, Grand Central and among many other things. Those code changes is what will bring the speed enhancements and efficiency, not the other way around.

It would be a huge waste of resource if Apple has to maintain two different OS optimization tracks just to make people that bought machines 3-4 years ago that has no future in it happy. I'm pretty sure coding against Intel isn't the same as coding against PowerPC and they both have different instruction sets that Apple could use to drive those efficiency as well as speed enhancements.

It still doesn't change the fact that the PPC people here has unreasonable expectations that SL will be specifically optimized for their machines with OpenCL/Grand Central and so on.

Fact: Nobody outside of Apple knows for sure if Snow Leopard will drop support for PPC.

Also, i am done arguing about this.

 

[MacFly123]

AWESOME!!!

I am excited for Snow Leopard!

Any word of this being all baked in to Final Cut Studio 3??? I'm sure it will be and will probably be one of the big features, but I haven't heard anything.

 

[HyperZboy]

I agree with your statement that the bitching, whining and retarded statements mostly came from people who doesn't have a clue from software development. But I disagree with your statement about the main target of Snow Leopard.

It would be a huge waste of resource if Apple has to maintain two different OS optimization tracks just to make people that bought machines 3-4 years ago that has no future in it happy. I'm pretty sure coding against Intel isn't the same as coding against PowerPC and they both have different instruction sets that Apple could use to drive those efficiency as well as speed enhancements.

Don't kid yourself. Apple already has an internal PPC build of Snow Leopard I'm sure, the same way they had secret builds of Panther and Tiger for INTEL.

The resources are already there, the question is... Will it be released and/or tested or not? And if they're not testing it in the wild, most certainly, it's not gonna be released.

 

[chris200x9]

excuse this post but "What in the holy hell is x64?!"








maybe....x86-64?

 

[AidenShaw]

excuse this post but "What in the holy hell is x64?!"

Perhaps if you'd typed "x64" into your favorite search engine, somewhere in the 50M+ hits you might have figured it out.

maybe....x86-64?

If you're a Linux devo, "x86-64" is the keyword that Linux sources use for x64.

Pretty much the rest of the universe, except for a small electronic gadget company in Cupertino, uses "x64" as the term for the 64-bit extended ISA in Intel/AMD processors.

 

[SydneyDev]

or 10.6 for INTEL x64 ONLY ,,,

I would be surprised if it's x64 only. Even though most Intel Macs are x64, they still have to make a 32-bit kernel for driver reasons, and whether they intend it or not, that kernel will probably "just work" on a Core Duo Mac.

 

[AidenShaw]

I would be surprised if it's x64 only. Even though most Intel Macs are x64, they still have to make a 32-bit kernel for driver reasons, and whether they intend it or not, that kernel will probably "just work" on a Core Duo Mac.

I don't know what you mean by "have to make a 32-bit kernel for driver reasons". Can you explain?

I thought that a big part of 10.6 was to move to a 64-bit kernel from the 32-bit kernel.

 

[DoFoT9]

I don't know what you mean by "have to make a 32-bit kernel for driver reasons". Can you explain?

I thought that a big part of 10.6 was to move to a 64-bit kernel from the 32-bit kernel.

thats true, it would also have to maintain backwards compatibility with 32-bit only computers.. at least i hope

 

[AidenShaw]

thats true, it would also have to maintain backwards compatibility with 32-bit only computers.. at least i hope

There aren't that many 32-bit x86 Intel Apples, and those that do exist are just as old as some of the PPC machines.

I will be surprised if there's an x86 version of 10.6.

 

[DoFoT9]

There aren't that many 32-bit x86 Intel Apples, and those that do exist are just as old as some of the PPC machines.

I will be surprised if there's an x86 version of 10.6.

there are 3 different configurations of x86 intel macs, the 1.86GHz, 2.0GHz and 2.6GHz (both in 15 and 17inch).

i constantly see many CD machines on MR, and on other places as well. while they are vastly outnumbered by the C2D machines i feel that the %age is high enough to make apple produce something!

the machines may be just as old as the PPC machines, but even my computer is very comparable on some benchmarks to a few G5 benchmarks, it will definitely beat any G4 laptop and desktop.

do you think there will be a 64bit PPC version of SL for the old G5's?

 

[SydneyDev]

I don't know what you mean by "have to make a 32-bit kernel for driver reasons". Can you explain?

SL comes with 2 kernels - a 64 and a 32 bit one. It chooses which to use at boot. On most Macs (even x64 capable) it chooses 32 bit by default. This is presumably to avoid breaking hardware devices that still have 32-bit drivers.

They are clearly being very cautious about this whole 64-bit business. MS just went gung ho but Apple added 64-bit Unix, then 64-bit Cocoa, then 64-bit kernel (but not as default), all in gradual steps.

 

[AidenShaw]

SL comes with 2 kernels - a 64 and a 32 bit one. It chooses which to use at boot. On most Macs (even x64 capable) it chooses 32 bit by default. This is presumably to avoid breaking hardware devices that still have 32-bit drivers.

That doesn't sound very clean - that will force Apple and OEMs to maintain both 32-bit and 64-bit drivers, even for x64.

Do the 10.6 betas have 32-bit applications? One recent screen shot showed that the "(Universal)" tag is no longer shown with the application listings.

So, having a 32-bit kernel won't help the old Yonah Core Duo systems if applications are x64-only. I also wonder if the x86 kernel is to help with the betas only, and perhaps it may disappear at release - forcing x64-only drivers.

MS just went gung ho but Apple added 64-bit Unix, then 64-bit Cocoa, then 64-bit kernel (but not as default), all in gradual steps.

"Gung ho" sounds more innovative to me !