Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
jamesnajera said:
So if you were to use SIMD then the project would not be processor independent. This is probably why all the PowerPC software will work if you do not have Altivec.

I strongly disagree with that, if you design your code correctly, you can use SIMD/Altivec selectively; and if you can't get one or another, you drop down to a more "portable" code. Here's an example:

(broken c & pseudo-code)

typedef struct {
(void*)runHeavyCalculation;
} np_t;

np_t np;

if compiling/running on intel
determine processor features

np.runHeavyCalculation = runHeavyCalculationSSE, or
np.runHeavyCalculation = runHeavyCalculationSSE2 or
np.runHeavyCalculation = runHeavyCalculationSSE3, or
np.runHeavyCalculation = runHeavyCalculationMMX depending on CPU features

else if compiling/running on ppc

np.runHeavyCalculation = runHeavyCalculationAltiVec;

else

np.runHeavyCalculation = runHeavyCalculationBase;

fi

and in the code you just call

(np.runHeavyCalculation)() and voila! this part of your code is entirely portable!

of course you'll have you code with:

if intel
void runHeavyCalculationMMX() {
...
}
void runHeavyCalculationSSE() {
...
}
void runHeavyCalculationSSE2() {
...
}
void runHeavyCalculationSSE3() {
...
}

else if ppc
void runHeavyCalculationAltiVec() {
...
}

else
void runHeavyCalculationBase() {
...
}
fi
 
Jauh,
I like the example you put up, BUT that is exactly what I am saying:

"So I think what Apptel is really telling the programmers is keep the project software independent and then add instruction sets that can utilize processor specific features if you have the time."

Apple wants to make sure that programmers are going to to include the call:

np.runHeavyCalculation = runHeavyCalculationBase;

And if they want to spend extra time on using the added features of the cpu they can then make code to call those specific features like you listed:

if compiling/running on intel
determine processor features

np.runHeavyCalculation = runHeavyCalculationSSE, or
np.runHeavyCalculation = runHeavyCalculationSSE2 or
np.runHeavyCalculation = runHeavyCalculationSSE3, or
np.runHeavyCalculation = runHeavyCalculationMMX depending on CPU features

else if compiling/running on ppc

np.runHeavyCalculation = runHeavyCalculationAltiVec;

I guess I did not make my statement clear enough, I hope this helps.

late
 
Sean7512 said:
Hello everyone, I am a very long time reader but first time poster.

I was reading in previous posts that because Windows apps may be able to run in a window under the new Mactels and that many developers would just kill support for Mac version apps. I would say that is what is going to happen, but I don't see it being a long term problem. I believe that this will only be a short term problem, because since now Windows users can use their apps on the new Macs, a lot of Windows users will migrate over to Mac for security reasons. Once there is a large enough user base, then developers would start making Mac only apps. And hopefully, the user base for the two OSes would switch, so that Microsoft is where Apple was a few years ago (low market share). I honestly think that this is possible ONLY if two things hold true.

1. Windows programs can run practically full speed in a window under Tiger/Leopard.

2. OSX can stay virus free, spyware free, malware free, and STABLE.

What does everyone else think?

Nice ideas, but sadly, the Mac's "Virus/spyware/malware free" environment is due to one overwealming fact:

No one is writing Virus/spyware/malware for Macs.

Just wait, down the road, when the Macintosh line with OSX becomes more popular in the mainstream computing industry and you'll begin to see a LOT more attacks against the operating system and it's applications.

No one bothers to pick on Macs because... what's there to pick on? 3% of the computers out there, if that? Where's the fun?

The Mac OS might be better at fending off certain types of viruses and malware and sofourth by design, but right now anyone who proudly claims "Macs are virus free!" are waiting for a big ol' dose of reality as they become more popular.
 
Some SSE3 vs. AltiVec info

According to MacCentral, concerning AltiVec and SSE3 optimization:

"For many AltiVec-heavy programs, Apple is recommending that developers use its Accelerate framework, which provides a layer of abstraction that lets developers take advantage of vector-accelerated tasks without writing code for one specific processor type. The Accelerate framework then addresses whatever processor it’s running on, be it a PowerPC or an Intel-built chip."

So it appears Apple is suggesting an all purpose Vectorization framework that will target SSE or AltiVec as needed, rather than custom coding to each in particular.
 
Leoff said:
Nice ideas, but sadly, the Mac's "Virus/spyware/malware free" environment is due to one overwealming fact:

No one is writing Virus/spyware/malware for Macs.

Just wait, down the road, when the Macintosh line with OSX becomes more popular in the mainstream computing industry and you'll begin to see a LOT more attacks against the operating system and it's applications.

No one bothers to pick on Macs because... what's there to pick on? 3% of the computers out there, if that? Where's the fun?

The Mac OS might be better at fending off certain types of viruses and malware and sofourth by design, but right now anyone who proudly claims "Macs are virus free!" are waiting for a big ol' dose of reality as they become more popular.

Security by obscurity is a long debunked theory about OS X security. Macs account for 16% of all computers in use. They are in use longer than PC's, which is why they only sell 4% / 12% (desktop / laptop.) While OS X will certainly receive more attention from virus writers and need to step up, it's inherantly more secure by design. I won't bother repeating it, since it's been beaten to death.
 
Newbies welcome

I just want to point out that ther are a lot of Newbies posting and that is FANTASTIC.

I think we're seeing more interest in the platform as a result of the Intel change, and it can only be good. So, for those of you who are new to the forums: welcome.

It's going to be a fun ride. Can't wait for a dual-core Pentium M based PowerBook. 🙂
 
joeboy_45101 said:
Although, I am very optimistic about this transition. I guess the optimism comes from being a software engineer, but I have four major concerns about the switch to Intel chips.

1) Intel's processor can't be doubled up. So unless Intel is planning on making a huge design change we can say "Goodbye" to dual processor Macs.

Where did you get that. There's been dual CPU Intel systems ever since the Pentium Pro 😕
 
joeboy_45101 said:
3) 64-bit computing. Apple has worked very hard to put 64-bit processors and 64-bit compatible software into the hands of it's customers. Intel has no 64-bit Pentium type processors. What is going to happen to the 64-bit "wave of the future," computing experience for Mac People?

again, huh??? ever heard about IA-64 ?
 
bankshot said:
Remember, Red Box was there in Rhapsody, the very first direct predecessor to OS X.
You know, you aren't going to find many people who have spent as much time with Rhapsody and Rhapsody related items as I have (being one of the last long time users of that system).

There was never a Red Box. it was someone's pipe dream. It never existed.

Blue Box was developed directly from MAE (Macintosh Application Environment) for Unix systems.

Yellow Box was a renamed (and extended version) of the OpenStep APIs and application environment.
 
Sean7512 said:
Once there is a large enough user base, then developers would start making Mac only apps.

I agree, it won't be a problem 🙂 But it won't happen the way you say.

Developers of the major apps ALREADY make Mac apps, and have for years. They'll simply continue to. Universal Binaries, specifically--which will run on PPC and Intel alike.

On the other side of the equation is users. They will NOT put up with running Windows apps except when there's some specialized thing that doesn't exist on Mac. Then a fallback option is nice. Why won't users tolerate and buy Windows apps for Mac in large numbers?

* Installing, running, and using two OS's--either at once (confusing) or by rebooting (slow and inconvenient)--is complexity that people won't want to deal with.

* And expensive: they'll have to buy Windows, and probably buy something to help it install and run--like VPC. (Free options may exist, but with less polish.)

* Security isn't the only great thing about OS X--it's ease of use and great productivity. You'll lose all of that AND the security of you run Windows. Talk about a negative feature of an app! People won't stand for apps that require that.

So having fast Windows is a great option to be aware of, but it won't be a widespread issue threatening the "real" Mac apps we know and love 🙂
 
Leoff said:
Nice ideas, but sadly, the Mac's "Virus/spyware/malware free" environment is due to one overwealming fact:

No one is writing Virus/spyware/malware for Macs.

Don't feel bad. I used to believe that too 🙂

But the superior security design of OS X has been the subject of numerous detailed articles in the past year. The myth has died.

People aren't writing Mac viruses because it's MUCH MUCH harder than writing Windows viruses--and there's not as much they could do if they did exist. The fact that Macs are less of a large target is great, but not the whole story.
 
IMO all that matters is that OSX is platform independent. This means Apple will be able to provide us with the best hardware possible, no matter if it's Intel or PPC. They can switch anytime now, no matter in which direction. They may decide to switch back to PPC in 2009 if that is a better option then or even to AMD. IT DOESN'T MATTER. OSX will always work.

If this news guarantees us users that we will always be able to have the fastest system on the planet then good for us. 😀 Why should we care what's inside?

I am a little scared though that OSX will get hacked to run on non-Apple hardware, if this happens many people will take this option instead of buying Apple. (though some drivers may need to be written for some devices to work. the internet is filled with very clever people who are certainly able and willing to do this.)

On the other hand, if the majority chooses not to run OSX now and stay with windows, why would they bother installing OSX in 2007?

Seeing LINUX still has a limited amount of users, even though it's free and runs perfectly, I guess a hacked OSX might be even less appealing to the common user (who doesn't have a clue)... Meaning a hacked OSX will be nothing but a geek-toy like linux on the xbox.

Any other ideas/views on this?
 
Classic is important

Mitthrawnuruodo said:
Classic support is really not that big an issue. People can always keep an old world Mac (like my G3 upgraded Power Mac 7500) if they really have to run any Classic apps.

This is definitely a Power user perspective, but I cannot see for a minute why tossing out compatibility with 10s of thousands of programs benefits even a single user. We are just talking emulation after all, not putting any deeper hooks into MacOS X than it currently enjoys to get backwards compatibility.

Classic on PPC Macs has never been well supported and Apple could do better if they gave a rat's arse. Witness what happened just last week: My elderly parents have been Mac users since the early 90s and have been running one Mac with Jaguar, the other with Mac 9.x. Last year, I set up the Jaguar machine with Classic to run Excel and Word 2001 (they are on a fixed budget---and since 2001 runs great, felt no reason to spend hundreds to get Office 2004) and some other even 68K programs (a few games) they have loved. But last week I convinced my Mom to jump to an iMac G5 17" from her iMac G3. I live over 700 miles away but their frustration with trying to get Classic up and running on this new Mac was so palpable I could feel it from here. Pretty piss poor usability not to build backwards compatibility in, and then to force the user to jump through a lot of hoops to get it to run. It should be pre-installed --- for a dead OS, Apple has nothing to lose by this, and a full 9.x system install is tiny by today's hard drive standards. And have the pre-installed System Folder pre-selected in the Classic pref (which is hidden on Tiger if it can't find an installed OS! That confused them even more). They were so disgusted they decided to wait a month until I visit them over July 4th to get things set up. It makes me sick but they have a new iMac G5 sitting unused on a shelf---all because Apple in its arrogance decide to marginalize those of us who value keeping our software investments and don't have limitless resources to buy new versions of programs, some of which aren't even available today (like the formidable StatView program---runs only under Classic----but it is the best and most usable Stat program ever made. I won't buy any machine that won't run it.)

For a counterpoint, I can run (and do) old DOS programs under XP from the early 80s. Microsoft has an emulation mode for really old stuff and it is quite a bit more compatible in my experience than Classic. Heck, I can run 68K binaries under Basilisk II on XP and expect it to run better than under Classic on a real Mac. Too bad Basilisk can't run PowerPC binaries and probably never will. Without the ability to run Classic PPC binaries, I'll never buy an Intel-based Mac. And I have no desire to create a collector's museum of hardware to run all of my old software.

Backwards compatibility is good for users. It is not surprising to me that computer companies like Apple place no value on it themselves since they don't directly benefit from it. But the Rest of Us do...
 
BlackDan said:
IMO all that matters is that OSX is platform independent. This means Apple will be able to provide us with the best hardware possible, no matter if it's Intel or PPC. They can switch anytime now, no matter in which direction. They may decide to switch back to PPC in 2009 if that is a better option then or even to AMD. IT DOESN'T MATTER. OSX will always work.

If this news guarantees us users that we will always be able to have the fastest system on the planet then good for us. 😀 Why should we care what's inside?

I am a little scared though that OSX will get hacked to run on non-Apple hardware, if this happens many people will take this option instead of buying Apple. (though some drivers may need to be written for some devices to work. the internet is filled with very clever people who are certainly able and willing to do this.)

On the other hand, if the majority chooses not to run OSX now and stay with windows, why would they bother installing OSX in 2007?

Seeing LINUX still has a limited amount of users, even though it's free and runs perfectly, I guess a hacked OSX might be even less appealing to the common user (who doesn't have a clue)... Meaning a hacked OSX will be nothing but a geek-toy like linux on the xbox.

Any other ideas/views on this?

Mac OS X aqua interface has a much bigger appeal then KDE or Gnome. I think this is why you might see people trying to hack Mac OS X on none-apple hardware soon. Will it be widespread ? I don't think so but it will certainly be available on torrents.
 
Symtex said:
Mac OS X aqua interface has a much bigger appeal then KDE or Gnome. I think this is why you might see people trying to hack Mac OS X on none-apple hardware soon. Will it be widespread ? I don't think so but it will certainly be available on torrents.

So? this will be a few thousand (maybe 100 000) users worldwide. What impact will this have on Apple? Zero to none I guess.

EDIT: furthermore: a hacked OSX might need a hardware mod for it to work not many people are willing to do that
 
BlackDan said:
So? this will be a few thousand (maybe 100 000) users worldwide. What impact will this have on Apple? Zero to none I guess.

Who knows ? If I compare my MacOS X experience with my RedHat, Gentoo or Mandrake experience( I run linux only for a year) , MacOS X is definetly superior and more polish product. This might appeal to the loyal linux fanbase.

As far as Windows user, they will continue to use windows.
 
Symtex said:
Who knows ? If I compare my MacOS X experience with my RedHat, Gentoo or Mandrake experience( I run linux only for a year) , MacOS X is definetly superior and more polish product. This might appeal to the loyal linux fanbase.

As far as Windows user, they will continue to use windows.


see the edit of my previous post.
 
Don't expect to be able to use standard PC hardware.

the_snitch said:
So if the intel based macs can run windows, i assume we can use PC hardware and GFX cards etc in these intel-macs and install the windows drivers to use them in Windows.

Does this mean we will get to use Standard PC hardware in our Macs? 😱


I would think not as Apple will make many requirements that standard PC cards do not support. This is just Steve Jobs showing that he controls Apple & that the Mac User is on his list of endangered species.

Do you think that they will let Windows run natively on a Mac. I doubt if that will happen either. This Intel thing is all abut Steve Job's control or should we say miscontrol of the Mac. I think it is high time to replace Steve Job's with a less controlling individual.

Show your support for the PPC Mac by boycotting all Apple products for a week or more. I know I have started one by cancelling plans to purchase a G5 POwerMAc with 30" display & will put my 2 month old copy of OS 10.4 "Tiger" on the back shelves, never to be used on a daily basis. It will require updating my programs & that is another thing that I will be doing, using existing programs on existing hardware until neither will work. I will not transition again. I lost a lot of good old programs when I did that & I will not make that kind of investment again. By not replacing my software I will not be making the reqirement for new hardware. I'm sure that the internet will be the first thing to cause trouble, as that software requirements will change.

A very unhappy 21+ year Mac User,
Bill the TaxMan
 
heisetax said:
I would think not as Apple will make many requirements that standard PC cards do not support. This is just Steve Jobs showing that he controls Apple & that the Mac User is on his list of endangered species.

Do you think that they will let Windows run natively on a Mac. I doubt if that will happen either. This Intel thing is all abut Steve Job's control or should we say miscontrol of the Mac. I think it is high time to replace Steve Job's with a less controlling individual.

Show your support for the PPC Mac by boycotting all Apple products for a week or more. I know I have started one by cancelling plans to purchase a G5 POwerMAc with 30" display & will put my 2 month old copy of OS 10.4 "Tiger" on the back shelves, never to be used on a daily basis. It will require updating my programs & that is another thing that I will be doing, using existing programs on existing hardware until neither will work. I will not transition again. I lost a lot of good old programs when I did that & I will not make that kind of investment again. By not replacing my software I will not be making the reqirement for new hardware. I'm sure that the internet will be the first thing to cause trouble, as that software requirements will change.

A very unhappy 21+ year Mac User,
Bill the TaxMan

Why do you have such a close mind about a piece of hardware ? it doesn't change the fact that it's still MAC OS X install on the machine. Apple was never about harware, it's about SOFTWARE. The end user experience. That is why I like about my PM G5. I knew I could get a faster AMD64 when I bought my G5 but I wanted the Apple experience. If people were all thinking like you, we would still be running DOS : "Who needs a mouse and a GUI..."
 
Jon the Heretic said:
... I cannot see for a minute why tossing out compatibility with 10s of thousands of programs benefits even a single user.
Charging money for Macs instead of giving them away doesn't benefit users either--except that some things cost money and need to be paid for. Supporting 6-year old operating systems costs money too. Apple has to balance that against what users are demanding.

I am sure most users stopped demanding Classic long ago. It has been 6 years. If you need some Classic apps, you can keep your "old" Mac and run them. It's not like they are taken away from you. Especially since Macs able to run Classic will be sold right into 2006 or 2007!


Jon the Heretic said:
Backwards compatibility is good for users. It is not surprising to me that computer companies like Apple place no value on it themselves since they don't directly benefit from it. But the Rest of Us do...
It is good for users. And bad too: it holds future products back and prevents them from improving. So Apple must find a balance between the two.

A 2006 Mac that won't run 1999 software unless you upgrade it is hardly asking a lot. Unless you don't want Macs to advance--in which case, you can keep the one you have.

Apple puts HUGE amounts of resources into backwards compatibility. That is what Rosetta is, obviously. There has to be a limit, and I think the millenium is a good cutoff 😉
 
what all this reall means...

When all is said and done, a quality PC will have the same benchmarks as the mac. Same disks, memory, videocard, etc.

So the real show will be Longhorn straight up against Lepoard. No long-winded diatribes about instruction sets and pipelines and on-chip whatever.

this is going to boil down to OS vs OS, mano-a-mano. Whichever can utilize the hardware the best is gonna win, and get the converts.
 
nagromme said:
Don't feel bad. I used to believe that too 🙂

But the superior security design of OS X has been the subject of numerous detailed articles in the past year. The myth has died.

People aren't writing Mac viruses because it's MUCH MUCH harder than writing Windows viruses--and there's not as much they could do if they did exist. The fact that Macs are less of a large target is great, but not the whole story.

Precisely. The small user base really has little to do with it - the fact is, it's much more difficult to wirte viruses for OS X because it's based on UNIX/FreeBSD, and as you said, it's harder to "do things" due to the architecture (i.e. root access, etc.). UNIX = secure, and this is the main reason OS X is so secure, not the fact that one one wants to take the time to write malicious code for it.

That being said, I'm perfectly fine with taking advantage of the "small install base" situation/myth regardless. No viruses due to a small user base? That's the only reason there are no viruses for Mac some might say? Fine, sure, whatever, I don't care, the fact is, that there are no viruses! 😎
 
Re stealing OS X for non-Apple boxes:

Just because Apple CAN put huge legal resources into tracking down those who pirate it and making examples of them... doesn't mean they WILL 😉


heisetax said:
Show your support for the PPC Mac by boycotting all Apple products for a week or more.
Consider it done! No new PowerMacs for one week. I'm goin' COLD TURKEY! 😀 Just get me through until next Wednesday. I can do it. I can!

But don't you think it might make more sense to punish IBM, the company that ACTUALLY killed the desktop PowerPC, rather than punishing Apple, the victim? (Not to mention, the supplier of your favorite OS, which will only get better, no matter what's in the case.)

Unless of course you think Apple is lying, and IBM has been secretly succeeding with the PowerPC. Maybe Apple has a stash of G6s and Powerbook G5s, and it making things up about IBM just because they love the idea of making work for developers 😉


wildmac said:
this is going to boil down to OS vs OS, mano-a-mano. Whichever can utilize the hardware the best is gonna win, and get the converts.

Well... if you mean which OS will have the majority of the market, MS will win. They won long ago, most people don't even evaluate their options, and only over MANY years can that change.

And if you mean which OS will be recognized as best by people who DO evaluate fairly, raw speed is useless compared to productivity.

Macs will be faster at some things, and PCs at others, but a benchmark number is of little consolation if you can't DO as much with your computer. Unless you are running a render farm...

So the Mac will win converts more than ever, and which OS can encrypt a 200 MB file in 2.5 seconds instead of 2.7 won't be the issue.
 
Vote NO on Apple's decision to go with Intel processors.

Jon the Heretic said:
This is definitely a Power user perspective, but I cannot see for a minute why tossing out compatibility with 10s of thousands of programs benefits even a single user. We are just talking emulation after all, not putting any deeper hooks into MacOS X than it currently enjoys to get backwards compatibility.

Classic on PPC Macs has never been well supported and Apple could do better if they gave a rat's arse. Witness what happened just last week: My elderly parents have been Mac users since the early 90s and have been running one Mac with Jaguar, the other with Mac 9.x. Last year, I set up the Jaguar machine with Classic to run Excel and Word 2001 (they are on a fixed budget---and since 2001 runs great, felt no reason to spend hundreds to get Office 2004) and some other even 68K programs (a few games) they have loved. But last week I convinced my Mom to jump to an iMac G5 17" from her iMac G3. I live over 700 miles away but their frustration with trying to get Classic up and running on this new Mac was so palpable I could feel it from here. Pretty piss poor usability not to build backwards compatibility in, and then to force the user to jump through a lot of hoops to get it to run. It should be pre-installed --- for a dead OS, Apple has nothing to lose by this, and a full 9.x system install is tiny by today's hard drive standards. And have the pre-installed System Folder pre-selected in the Classic pref (which is hidden on Tiger if it can't find an installed OS! That confused them even more). They were so disgusted they decided to wait a month until I visit them over July 4th to get things set up. It makes me sick but they have a new iMac G5 sitting unused on a shelf---all because Apple in its arrogance decide to marginalize those of us who value keeping our software investments and don't have limitless resources to buy new versions of programs, some of which aren't even available today (like the formidable StatView program---runs only under Classic----but it is the best and most usable Stat program ever made. I won't buy any machine that won't run it.)

For a counterpoint, I can run (and do) old DOS programs under XP from the early 80s. Microsoft has an emulation mode for really old stuff and it is quite a bit more compatible in my experience than Classic. Heck, I can run 68K binaries under Basilisk II on XP and expect it to run better than under Classic on a real Mac. Too bad Basilisk can't run PowerPC binaries and probably never will. Without the ability to run Classic PPC binaries, I'll never buy an Intel-based Mac. And I have no desire to create a collector's museum of hardware to run all of my old software.

Backwards compatibility is good for users. It is not surprising to me that computer companies like Apple place no value on it themselves since they don't directly benefit from it. But the Rest of Us do...


Everybody should stop purchasing Apple products for as long as they can. Cancel orders for undelivered products. Tell third party developers that you will not purchase products that are made to run on Intel. Only software that will run on your existing PPC hardware. Vote NO in the only way you can, with your pocketbook. Make sure that you tell all of your software vendors that you will not purchase any Mac that runs on Intel processors. I'm making a list of the software developers of my software & will notify each of them of my plans. I will also mention that I am doing my best to have others do the same.

Bill the Unhappy TaxMan
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.