Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

killuminati

macrumors 68020
Original poster
Dec 6, 2004
2,404
0
I found this answer to a question on cnet.

Link

I think that it is somewhat of an inaccurate answer. He doesn't mention anything about universal binaries and how different versions of programs will be made.

He basically just says that if you buy now, it will be obsolete in 2-3 years.
 
I read this article this morning and have been thinking too much of it today. He did fail to talk about important things and it reflects in the usefulness poll on-side of the article.
 
wow that guy has no clue what he is talking about. He should at least do some research about what he is wrighting on. Cnet isnt the most accurate place to get info. on macs.
 
here's my answer to cnet:
 

Attachments

  • close.png
    close.png
    2.3 KB · Views: 381
IJ Reilly said:
Oh man, people get paid to write this kind of baloney? He doesn't even seem to understand Rosetta!
And people were wondering why I didn't trust them as the source of the switch leak. :eek:

Especially when you get crap like that from the editorial staff. :rolleyes:
 
My initial answer pointed to the Rosetta emulation software as the crux of the matter, and that was incorrect. The purpose of Rosetta is to translate some pre-OS X software to the new Intel-based Macs.

Wait, this isn't right either, is it? Rosetta emulates pre-Intel software for Intel-based macs, not OS 9 software!
 
Sooo 2-3 year old computers today aren't obsoleted by today's computers?

And it does look like he fixed it.
 
Well he fixed it up, but there are still a few errors. I still don't think he completely understands Rosetta.

Oh well, I'm just happy that he actually admitted to his stupidity and actually changed it.
 
Changed it again. I think he's getting pissed at us... :D The paragraph about Rosetta now reads:

My initial answer pointed to the Rosetta emulation software as the crux of the matter, and that was incorrect. Rosetta, according to Apple is "designed to translate currently shipping applications that run on a PowerPC with a G3 processor and that are built for Mac OS X." That it should do with no problems. My follow-up question had to do with backward compatibility, if, for example, you wanted to run a newer Intel-based program on a PowerPC-based Mac purchased today. This is not an issue because of the aforementioned ease of making a universal binary that will run on both platforms.
 
stridey said:
Changed it again. I think he's getting pissed at us... :D The paragraph about Rosetta now reads:

Why did he specifically write "on a G3 processor..."? Isn't it just any programs that run on any PowerPC Processor?
 
killuminati said:
Why did he specifically write "on a G3 processor..."? Isn't it just any programs that run on any PowerPC Processor?
Any program that "requires" a G4/G5 (Altivec) won't run.

There are some of those around, actually quite a few of them.

The translation engine won't convert Altivec code, just the basic PPC instructions.
 
The basic, basic idea is right, that Rosetta and universal binaries make buying an Intel mac in the first days, and a PPC mac now, respectively, relatively low risk. With a lot of subtlety lost, natch. :rolleyes:

I think the big question is what will happen with developers who are non-adherent to Apple's vision -- the ones who are not now using XCode, have not begun to use XCode, are barely supportive of OSX. I guess it will be a race to see whether some kind of Red Box / WINE solution obviates the need for their participation in the revolution before they take up their swords. ;)
 
Why are these knuckleheads allowed to write articles that obviously are beyond their level of comprehension?
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.