Mac OS X Intel Developer Box Feedback

[sw1tcher]

Speed of Apple Intel Developer Machines Impressing Developers

Just read over at AppleInsider that the speed of Apple's Intel Developer systems are impressing the developers, even when PowerPC programs are running under Rosetta.

With this latest bit of news, I think I just might wait until they release a Intel-based PowerBook before buying one. Who else here is planning to do the same? Anyone think this would be a bad idea? And, when do you guys/gals think we'll see the first Intel-based Macs, specifically the PB's.

 

[MUCKYFINGERS]

Still gonna get a PPC powerbook soon. I want to enjoy the damn thing, and I figure it will last me a long while. Even when they no longer make PPC-based software, I will still be able to enjoy watching movies, surfing the net, e-mail, music, etc on it.

And by then I'll probably want another notebook anyhow.

 

[noel4r]

Yeah, I'm particularly excited how much faster the browsers will be under OS X-Intel.

 

[mkrishnan]

This is an encouraging article! Not that I ever really believed the machines would be slow. *But*... I am kind of concerned that they repeatedly use load and boot times as an index of speed of performance. They should know better! Tsk tsk tsk.

But I am very impressed that Apple's 70% native speed claims seem to hold true for Rosetta. I am still really, really curious about what the Transitive people know that everyone else in the emulation world does not!

All in all... given that the Pentium M is faster at a given clock speed by a significant margin than the P4, and that a P4/3.6 seems to be quite fast, this really bodes well for what the portables will look like in the Mactel world. Given that there are already PB's running at twice the clock speed of my iBook G4, I think if I keep this thing until a 12" or thin/light class notebook comes out of Apple, that I will be very pleasantly surprised with its performance!

 

[Darwin]

I'm looking forward to those great products that will become possible with the use of the Intel roadmap

 

[ham_man]

Glad to see that Steve's decision to go with 'faster' processors is coming to pass. This is very good news for the x86 switch...

 

[Dont Hurt Me]

Its a 3.6 P4 what do people expect? PPC See Yah wouldnt want to be yah The years of the best software on the slowest hardware are almost over.

 

[Koodauw]

Yup, Ill be inline for a Mactel PB the moment they are announced. Really looking forward to these things. Good to see that the speeds are impressive, although the PMs pics with the intel chips in them just look wrong.

 

[savar]

Just read over at AppleInsider that the speed of Apple's Intel Developer systems are impressing the developers, even when PowerPC programs are running under Rosetta.

With this latest bit of news, I think I just might wait until they release a Intel-based PowerBook before buying one. Who else here is planning to do the same? Anyone think this would be a bad idea? And, when do you guys/gals think we'll see the first Intel-based Macs, specifically the PB's.

That's my plan, now I just have to finance it. Luckily there's still a good bit of time before they come out. I think the intel mac will be a good reason to wait, because Windows will run at full speed, and better yet WINE will run at full speed. (WINE is still promising an x86 emulator for PPC, so a PPC mac isn't dead-ended in this respect, but if it does come it will take longer and will still be slower.)

 

[MUCKYFINGERS]

That's my plan, now I just have to finance it. Luckily there's still a good bit of time before they come out. I think the intel mac will be a good reason to wait, because Windows will run at full speed, and better yet WINE will run at full speed. (WINE is still promising an x86 emulator for PPC, so a PPC mac isn't dead-ended in this respect, but if it does come it will take longer and will still be slower.)

I thought there was no need for an x86 for PPC emulator, since programs will be compiled with the option of making both PPC code and x86 code, right?

 

[tuartboy]

I thought there was no need for an x86 for PPC emulator, since programs will be compiled with the option of making both PPC code and x86 code, right?

that was my understanding, yes. both images will be included and it will automatically install the correct one for your architecture

 

[mkrishnan]

I thought there was no need for an x86 for PPC emulator, since programs will be compiled with the option of making both PPC code and x86 code, right?

I think Savar is talking about running Windows apps on existing PPC Macs. WINE is not an emulator (that's one interpretation of what the name stands for) -- it is specifically designed to run Windows binaries without using the APIs in the Windows OS. So it has to do only and specifically with running Windows apps -- WINE has nothing to do with running Mactel apps on a Mac/PPC.

Right now, the Mac version (Darwine) can only run Windows apps that are compiled as PPC binaries (which basically do not exist). WINE on PPC macs holds the promise of opening up the running of Windows apps on top of MacOS X or another Unix/Linux on a PPC without having to actually use Windows.

So anyway, WINE is much more interesting on Mactels because it will be really fast. But either way, the ability to run Windows apps on a Mac without leaving MacOS and without having to buy VPC or deal with the attendant virus / spyware / adware problems will be a very nice thing.

 

[MUCKYFINGERS]

I think Savar is talking about running Windows apps on existing PPC Macs. WINE is not an emulator (that's one interpretation of what the name stands for) -- it is specifically designed to run Windows binaries without using the APIs in the Windows OS. So it has to do only and specifically with running Windows apps -- WINE has nothing to do with running Mactel apps on a Mac/PPC.

Right now, the Mac version (Darwine) can only run Windows apps that are compiled as PPC binaries (which basically do not exist). WINE on PPC macs holds the promise of opening up the running of Windows apps on top of MacOS X or another Unix/Linux on a PPC without having to actually use Windows.

So anyway, WINE is much more interesting on Mactels because it will be really fast. But either way, the ability to run Windows apps on a Mac without leaving MacOS and without having to buy VPC or deal with the attendant virus / spyware / adware problems will be a very nice thing.

Ah, alright, gotcha =)

By the way, how are you guys holding up in Florida? Everything OK? (with the hurricanes and all)

 

[atari1356]

The article makes the transition to Intel sound promising... I have a 1.5GHz PowerBook that suits me well now, so I won't be buying a new computer anytime soon. Maybe I'll get a Rev. B 3GHz Mactel PowerBook in a couple of years.

 

[mkrishnan]

Ah, alright, gotcha =)

By the way, how are you guys holding up in Florida? Everything OK? (with the hurricanes and all)

Thanks for asking! We are fine down here -- I am at the Northern end of the peninsula part of Florida (Gainesville). I think the place that really got hit was the Panhandle, and the regions above that. So my thoughts go out to the people over there!

 

[dbhays]

Mac OS X intel blazing fast

Just found this article over at appleinsider. Sounds promising. Hope this wasn't posted elsewhere.

A quick qoute

It's fast," said one developer source of Mac OS X running on Intel's Pentium processors. "Faster than [Mac OS X] on my Dual 2GHz Power Mac G5." In addition to booting Windows XP at blazing speeds, the included version of Mac OS X for Intel takes "as little as 10 seconds" to boot to the Desktop from when the Apple logo first displays on screen.

[Note from moderator: Threads have been merged.]

 

[Lacero]

It would seem to corroborate Hannibal's assertion that code optimized for PowerPPC was due to reduce memory footprint than to improve performance. So if this were the case, Mac OSX Intel binaries could see better performance and low memory footprint.

 

[runninmac]

Sounds good to me! I just want it to be january so a Intel mac can get introduced! (hopefully)

 

[andiwm2003]

looking at what people post in several threads about intel performance in photoshop or even games i have a hard time believing these claims.

dual powermacs are about as fast as pentiums in most applications, sometimes they are faster, sometimes slower. but how can a single pentium suddenly be in all tasks that much faster than a dual g5? especially when the software is not native or not really optimized for intel?

and all the data presented is " boots faster" or "snaps to screen" for browsers.

come on, without actual data this is useless! lets see when the intel systems are there how many apps will really run smoothly under rosetta. lets see how many apps will run natively under intel reliably and fast.
i think this article gives some subjective impression of some guy, nothing more. whatever he says seems not really consistent with experience (thinking at all the work wintels i know).

unless intel chips work under os x twice as efficient as under windows i see no basis for such a quantum leap.

i still plan to buy a PPC based powermac or imac this year. at least it will run the software i own reliably and fast for the next three years.

 

[Jedi128]

Quote:
Originally Posted by MUCKYFINGERS
I thought there was no need for an x86 for PPC emulator, since programs will be compiled with the option of making both PPC code and x86 code, right?

Quote: that was my understanding, yes. both images will be included and it will automatically install the correct one for your architecture


Umm, ya guys... Did everyone catch that WWDC videocast? Jobs said that all the new software will be coded as Intel/PPC. And then there will be the older PPC only that will run on rosetta. So, there is no intel only software. It is either PPC only or Intel/PPC. Now rosetta allows you to run PPC only on an intel. So if you think about it, if you buy the last PPC, it will beable to run new software and old without rosetta. So its more of just what processor you want, since the all software will run on both, just a little slower on intel.

 

[Jedi128]

I've been planning on buying a Powerbook mid 06 for sometime now, always thinking I'd have one of the first G5 Powerbooks. I guess now it will most likely be a intel chip running my Powerbook. If given a choice (between intel or PPC) however, it would be hard to decide..... I might just go with PPC, becuase as I stated earlier, all the new and old software will run at native speed. PPC might just be the better buy untill the software market catches up of course. I'm just saying that If you're buying a computer next year, get a PPC, however if you're buying a computer in 07 or 08 its probably safe to get a intel.

 

[dejo]

So, there is no intel only software. It is either PPC only or Intel/PPC.

Actually, I've heard that the new Xcode has two checkboxes, one for PPC and one for Intel, and each can be checked independently. So, technically, it's possible for a developer to make a Intel-only version, although I'm not sure why they would, unless they are doing something very specific in regards to the Intel architecture.

 

[mkrishnan]

Actually, I've heard that the new Xcode has two checkboxes, one for PPC and one for Intel, and each can be checked independently. So, technically, it's possible for a developer to make a Intel-only version, although I'm not sure why they would, unless they are doing something very specific in regards to the Intel architecture.

I have not *seen* a developer box first hand, but this was clearly what was displayed on the one onstage at the keynote....

 

[solvs]

So, technically, it's possible for a developer to make a Intel-only version, although I'm not sure why they would, unless they are doing something very specific in regards to the Intel architecture.

I suppose games, but most software developers would be stupid to go Intel only too soon. Even after the switch is complete, there would still be a large majority of users still running PPC.

I still plan on getting a G5 PowerMac, can't stand the P4 I have at work anyway, but I am looking forward to the 'Books that will be based on Pentium Mobiles.

 

[superbovine]

dual powermacs are about as fast as pentiums in most applications, sometimes they are faster, sometimes slower. but how can a single pentium suddenly be in all tasks that much faster than a dual g5? especially when the software is not native or not really optimized for intel?

I would guess and say CISC vs RISC. certain types of application benefit from either instruction set i.e. larger more complex instruction vs a lot more of simple instructions. For example, MP3-Encoding benmarks a dual opeteron vest the fasted dual G5. however, Dual g5 wins at MPEG-2 encoding benmarks. these are from 12/03 MacWorld which is a bit old, but it does show the correlation. i think this is interesting because the film industry uses Mac's heavily, but now they might loose their video encoding edge

The switch to intel i think it going to be a bit interesting in benmarks because a lot of coding especially in the graphics world is tweaked per compiler to output optizmized assembly statements. it going to interesting to see how ports hold up.