The 64bit question
So here's an intesting issue. Not only are Apple developers being told to steer clear of SSE3 (according to sources at WWDC), but according to Apple's own universal binary guide:
The term x86 is a generic term used throughout this book to refer to the class of microprocessors manufactured by Intel. This book uses the term x86 as a synonym for IA-32 (Intel Architecture 32-bit).
So you could always say 64 bit Intel chips may be coming out, but it appears Apple doesn't want developers shooting for that. At least not now. Doesn't that kinda kill their Server offerings? I assume they'll use Itanium or Opteron in their servers. However, wasn't the PowerPC 970 half the reason why Apple was getting clusters into the supercomputing top 500?
I think this switch leaves me with more questions than answers. Let me post and answer a couple. I'd like other's thoughs:
1) What does Steve know about Intel that the rest of the world doesn't? Because AMD pretty much rocks their ass today.
-- I do not think this is 100% Jobs(TM) ego. I have to believe that, dispite a significant amount of groundwork, there is some screaming obvious reason why this will occur. Protables are a large part of that, for sure. But my guess is that Intel has some chips in the pipeline and technology to shrink die size that isn't common knowledge yet. (Read: where do they get a competing SOI process, etc?)
2) Related to number 1: Is this switch based primarily on the Pentium M and Pentium D lines?
-- My guess is yes, and that these two chips are Intel's future for x86. But I come back to why not AMD? Fear of supply problems? Why not mix it up? Logically this makes sense but Apple's documentation is NOT pointing at this route right now.
3) No more 64 bit desktop support?
-- A major marketing point on the G5's that doesn't really translate into much real world performance for users. For high end computing, yes. But I think this goes the way of AltiVec.
4) What improvements can we expect to Apple's hardware in the interim? Are we going to see dual core 970's in the PowerMac? What about the PowerBook and iBook?
-- After some careful consideration, I don't think PowerPC Macs will become "obsolete." Developers *have* to support them for probably 3+ years *after* the full transition is done because of the installed base. 2010 IMHO. But don't expect a PowerPC from 1998 to work on a 2010 OS X... so, once again, I think we see that the processor switch doesn't materially effect long term product usefulness any more than Apple's own actions do today. Apple already makes it difficult or annoying to use older Macs. I'm fine with this, but the condition already exists.
5) SSE3 vs. Altivec? Neither?
-- My guess is that optimizing programs for chip features such as SSE3 won't be done, dispite this being a critical feature, IMHO, for high performance Video, Audio, and scientific computation. Apple is favoring consumers and their buying needs now.
6) Does Apple eat Windows or is it going to be the other way around?
-- Dispite my fear that people won't bother to make Mac versions, I have to believe that most people who try a Mac will buy / want one. OS X is a major factor of that, along with the Hardware design. So, will the viruses, spyware, malware, that plague Windows be enough to get droves of people buying Macs? I don't think this switch hurts that. I think it helps. But it does make me wonder about Mac game development until OS X's marketshare is up in the teens or twenties.
I'd love to hear some of your thoughts on this. What do you think?
