Rosetta Supports Altivec?

[WM.]

I hope they extend support for Classic. There are a lot of legacy programs many businesses and individuals are still using and need. There are no upgrade paths for most of these programs. Apple's already done the hard work of supporting Classic, extending it to MacIntel is easy and it will gain them continued customer loyalty. This is a long term issue.

The Universal Binary Programming Guidelines still say that Classic will not be supported.

I personally don't think this will be much of a big deal. I'm glad I have a PowerPC PowerBook so that I'll still be able to pop open Netscape 2.02 for s--ts and giggles, but I really don't think people are relying on Classic for much of anything anymore. And I suspect that the PowerPC versions of each hardware line will continue to be sold after the Intel ones are introduced. Apple is still selling new PCI-X Power Macs, and they continued to sell a Power Mac that would boot OS 9 for at least a year after the introduction of the G5s.

 

[themacman]

sounds great for devlopers, and pro users in the future.

 

[generik]

And this is a bad thing because... ? People can still buy used machines to run Classic just fine, I say Apple cut lose the Classic crowd to move forward, that's a lot of coding wasted, move forward, not backwards. Let those who still cherish Classic find older machines, that's what those who still covet Amiga, BeOS, and other fringe OSes do and if you do your Googling those people aren't complaining.

Why can't classic run on rosetta?

Perhaps Apple is having VirtualClassic up their sleeves?

 

[steve_hill4]

It's impossible to know for sure, but the Intel switch may not mean the death of the Power* products. Keep in mind that, while the Power Mac was indeed born with the PowerPC transition, the PowerBook had existed for several years before then (since 1991, I believe), and in fact every one of Apple's laptops besides the Portable was named PowerBook (or PowerBook Duo) until the release of the iBook in 1999.

Pulling some numbers mostly out of the air, I'd say there's an 85% chance of "PowerBook" surviving the Intel transition, and a 75% chance for "Power Mac".

I would tend to agree with this. I like the speculation on name changes, but I still think it is unlikely. People seem to think that it is almost a trademark of PowerPC, but it is more apple than anything.

 

[steve_hill4]

Why can't classic run on rosetta?

Perhaps Apple is having VirtualClassic up their sleeves?

Well, it would help the transition to OSX and intel for those who need classic. It isn't that far-fetched you know, a niche product for those few that need it.

 

[RobHague]

All of them except the first 2 on my list have one thing in common. Do you know what that is? They are fast. VERY fast. I've test os x on them (yes i'm not supposed to...), and OS X without proper drivers and it runs faster on all the x86 systems than it does on any motorola ibm chip.

So did you just say that the PowerMac G5 QUAD, with its 4 CPU's is slow if thats true i will go hang myself now.

 

[nataku]

This is a good thing, but the fact that Intel x86 chips will be in Macs STINKS, and always will. I would love it if only the portables went to x86 while PowerMacs and iMacs could stay PPC. As long as all software is written in Univeral Binaries, this could be possible.

x86 stinks, it always has, and always will. I'll never fully accept x86 chips in a Mac. x86 needs to die, right along with Windows. I also find it quite funny that suddenly so many in the Mac community are suddenly embracing x86 or claiming they "never had a problem with x86". Bullcrap. I guess these people feel they have no choice. I may someday have to have a Mac with a crapp-ass x86 processor in it, with no open firmware and no Altivec, but I won't like it; I'll always hate it. Always.

we hope you enjoy your last mac ever that is built on PPC. i just wonder why you say that you will hate an X86 version of a Mac even if you never have tried it.

 

[backdraft]

 

[59031]

I really hope you stop using macs and switch to windows, really i do. One less moron..

Let me state a couple things for the record.

1. I recently purchased a quad g5
2. I own about 4 different models of dual processo g5, maxed out
3. I have an official developer (intel) transition kit.
4. I have a dual processor amd athlon dual core 64bit 2.4ghz
5. I have a single amd processor
6. I have single intel 3.73ghz
7. I have a dual core "test kit" (yes that's right) on loan from Intel

All of them except the first 2 on my list have one thing in common. Do you know what that is? They are fast. VERY fast. I've test os x on them (yes i'm not supposed to...), and OS X without proper drivers and it runs faster on all the x86 systems than it does on any motorola ibm chip.

Sorry but it's time for powerpc to die. it's a great chip, especially for that home broadband router, or my wireless acess point. but for a computer? sorry. it's time.

Apple recognizes something you can not, that the powerpc is beginning to suck. I've never been impressed with my mac, beachball city. for the first time os x feels really fast, and this is on a hacked up x86...

I can't wait for the transition to happen so we get some good speeds and chips finally. If you were to use an intel box you wouldn't even know, except for the fact that you'd be like "wow this powerpc is really fast, .. blah blah" then i'd politely let you know it's an intel dev kit.

Don't be an idiot.

Why the #^@% would I EVER switch to an OS that is as crappy as the legacy chip it runs on? Not to mention that I absolutely LOATHE and DESPISE Windows. With a deep deep PASSION.

Hear! Hear! to backdraft.

 

[mkrishnan]

Why can't classic run on rosetta?

Perhaps Apple is having VirtualClassic up their sleeves?

For the latter question, it's certainly possibly in principle. Someone could also use an emulator like PearPC running in OS X on a Mactel to run Classic or OS 9.

For the former question, Altivec is a specific set of calls that are designed to speed certain activities by making use of hardware. Hardware that won't exist in Mactels in exactly the same form. So part (1) of the answer is that emulating Altivec wouldn't make anything necessarily faster on a Mactel. Part (2) of the answer is that most apps that use Altivec are new and written in modern IDEs, and are both easily ported to Mactel native and likely to be ported, even granted that they use Altivec. So Apple would have to invest effort to make Altivec work, to gain emulation of software features designed to enhance speed, in an environment in which they will not enhance speed, on the software that is most likely to be converted anyway.

But they still might do it.

 

[Stridder44]

...Not to mention that I absolutely LOATHE and DESPISE Windows. With a deep deep PASSION.

Well don't we all? Duh. But thats not what this is about. Intels are used on more than just Windows. Windows? Die? Hell yes. Burn! Crappy OS. But even as good as the G5 is (for now) it won't be 6 months from now. It will still be fast, yes, but IBM doesn't really seem to give a damn about them anymore (nor did they really even before the Intel transition). Now I will agree with you on past Intel chips, like the P4, and how it did suck (would take an AMD). But this is a new age, new chips.....repeat, NEW CHIPS. New.

As awesome as the PPC is or could be, it won't. Tough titty said the kitty when the milk went dry.

 

[59031]

Well don't we all? Duh. But thats not what this is about. Intels are used on more than just Windows. Windows? Die? Hell yes. Burn! Crappy OS. But even as good as the G5 is (for now) it won't be 6 months from now. It will still be fast, yes, but IBM doesn't really seem to give a damn about them anymore (nor did they really even before the Intel transition). Now I will agree with you on past Intel chips, like the P4, and how it did suck (would take an AMD). But this is a new age, new chips.....repeat, NEW CHIPS. New.

As awesome as the PPC is or could be, it won't. Tough titty said the kitty when the milk went dry.

Never say Never Strider. The PowerPC is a superior archictectrue to x86. The PowerPC does NOT suck, as inkhead says. And it's not that IBM doesn't give a damn about them. It's that IBM was not willing to put the time, money and research into them that APPLE REQURIED. Apple was simply too small a market for IBM. Instead, IBM is developing the PowerPC for the more lucrative (for them) game console market. Triple Core PowerPC's in game consoles. Obviously Sony and Microsuck don't think the PowerPC sucks...and that's because the PowerPC DOESN'T suck.

At least you understand that, and the reasons Apple really made the switch...inkhead doesn't....

 

[DeathChill]

Microsuck

This is where anything you say will now be ignored. You may not like something but grab a brain and refer to it properly.

 

[RobHague]

No i think he spelt it right there.

 

[jwdawso]

This is where anything you say will now be ignored. You may not like something but grab a brain and refer to it properly.

Lighten up! This is a Apple forum! Microsuck and Windoze are acceptable terms! We forgive you since you are a newbie, but go ahead and use them yourself!

 

[generik]

This is a good thing, but the fact that Intel x86 chips will be in Macs STINKS, and always will. I would love it if only the portables went to x86 while PowerMacs and iMacs could stay PPC. As long as all software is written in Univeral Binaries, this could be possible.

x86 stinks, it always has, and always will. I'll never fully accept x86 chips in a Mac. x86 needs to die, right along with Windows. I also find it quite funny that suddenly so many in the Mac community are suddenly embracing x86 or claiming they "never had a problem with x86". Bullcrap. I guess these people feel they have no choice. I may someday have to have a Mac with a crapp-ass x86 processor in it, with no open firmware and no Altivec, but I won't like it; I'll always hate it. Always.

Actually I do second that opinion to some degree too.

Intel makes good mobile chips (although AMD's Turion is no push over too!) but the desktop chips does leave some to be desired.

Still, stuff like "OpenFirmware" and "Altivec" means nothing to me, just fancy sounding names for technology that everyone else takes for granted. Especially "OpenFirmware". What's so open about it? Is it OpenSourced? Nope. Open standards? Nope. In fact I found it quite dumb, a BIOs with a command prompt, what's wrong with menu options?

 

[WM.]

Actually I do second that opinion to some degree too.

Intel makes good mobile chips (although AMD's Turion is no push over too!) but the desktop chips does leave some to be desired.

Still, stuff like "OpenFirmware" and "Altivec" means nothing to me, just fancy sounding names for technology that everyone else takes for granted. Especially "OpenFirmware". What's so open about it? Is it OpenSourced? Nope. Open standards? Nope.

Open Firmware is actually an open standard.

In fact I found it quite dumb, a BIOs with a command prompt, what's wrong with menu options?

To each his own, I suppose. I actually think it's kind of cool (and much better than the classic PC BIOS). It would certainly be possible to create a BIOS-like (or better*) menu interface in Open Firmware, but what do you want to do, exactly? If the answer is something like "tweak memory timings", Apple hardware wouldn't let you do that even if there was a user interface for it.

* Probably quite a bit better. If you were willing to invest the time, you could write a GUI in Open Firmware (that would work on existing hardware with existing firmware). NewWorld Apple hardware has the graphical hold-the-option-key-at-boot boot-picker thingy; I don't know if it's implemented in Open Firmware (i.e. written in Forth) or some other way, but it does a nice job of emulating the classic Mac OS.

 

[Photorun]

Wow, you're such a young'un or you have a really bad memory.

Yeah, a 38 year old "young'un" who's been on computers since 78, had an Amiga, Commodore, started on Macs with the Apple][, worked for a major software company, have had over 30 computers, four of which can still boot up in conceivably everything but System 6 (though I could try installing it on my Classic SE), clearly by your snark know probably a crapload more than you, certainly I look better than your goofy avatar so what the H is your point?

I slogged through the 680x0 transition to PPC and didn't whine about things then. If Macrumors forums would have been around we'd get you and the same people grousing about "I hate PPC, it's the death of Mac, whoa as me, we should stay on 68040 forEVAR!" Get over yourselves! Should we never get past the fat binaries, are you suggesting we should still support 68K machines coding from System 7? Hell, how about supporting Basic again while you're at it. Are you going boohoo you can't use your 5.25 floppy still?

I have a great memory, time marches on though and unlike you and others coding to move forward can't be bogged by the past, that's why XP is so bloated (well, that and it's Microsoft) and when you crack open OS X, I'm talking go beyond the libraries, there's still ugly Classic code in there bloating it, slowing it down. Cleaner code is cleaner systems. Classic was great for it's time, that time is gone. I assume you still want cars that run on leaded gasoline too?

 

[Photorun]

we hope you enjoy your last mac ever that is built on PPC. i just wonder why you say that you will hate an X86 version of a Mac even if you never have tried it.

Because this is a thread of tinfoil hat whiners clinging to their rainbow colored Apple logos while sleeping under posters from 10 years ago of the slug with the Intel processor above their beds... in the basement... their PARENTS basement. Some of us know how to move on will enjoy whatever benefits Intel will brings, these others, well, at least their moms still do their laundry for them.

 

[generik]

My bet is that some people just refuse to believe that all those years of "Thinking different" is really nothing but "Idiotic belief in Steve's marketing whoosh"

 

[iEdd]

Classic is dead people. FFS.

Once again, I 100% aggree with the people that say classic shouldn't be supported on new machines. If you are using an OS that has been outdated for 5 years, what gain will you get from running it on a brand-new computer? You may want to run OSX apps at the same time, but get a KVM for that.
What's the point of putting a 1.2L 2 cylinder engine into a 4 tonne truck?

On Topic: This sounds great, though I only just worked out what altivec is. The more compatibility, the better Now.. I hope we can get Darwine and Wine up to scratch.

 

[MacCoaster]

Yes I DO care. It's a crappy architecture, no Open Firmware, and no Altivec. I don't care about x86 substitutes for the above either. I would like to think that Apple going "intel" would kick IBM in the ass and make them get their ^&%$ together and make the G5 and beyond PPC chip that is possible to run in a laptop.

I also doubt you would have made the "I don't care what's underneath" comment two years ago.

x86 doesn't require the classic IBM PC BIOS. You can slap anything as long as it supports the x86 processors. Apple is probably going to use the new EFI (Extendable Firmware Interface) from Intel, which is similar and IMHO superior to OpenFirmware.

No Altivec? Uh, duh, that's a IBM/Motorola thing. Intel has SSE3, very similar. It does a fine job.

IBM doesn't care that Apple moved to Intel. They're probably glad because Apple probably wouldn't shut up begging for better stuff out of IBM.

I can't guarantee, but I'm pretty sure that the Macintosh experience will stay the same even with booting. I doubt Apple would let you have a BIOS screen before the grey Apple. But we'll have to wait and see.

 

[SiliconAddict]

My bet is that some people just refuse to believe that all those years of "Thinking different" is really nothing but "Idiotic belief in Steve's marketing whoosh"

*sighs* Jobs was "right" from time to time while still pushing his RDF FUD. The PPC is a perfectly fine ISA. However time and again as Apple pulls ahead of the pack they never stay there. Staying on the top of the pile requires serious R&D money. Money I'm sure IBM and Moto were expecting Apple to throw at them which I'm sure at the end of the day they didn't. Enter Intel. Apple doesn't have to do dick with Intel other then sit back and watch Intel and AMD beat each other over the head with R&D resources. Apple wins by not needing to life a finger to get the latest and greatest hardware.
Also like it or not Intel desktop chips have sucked massive, complete, and total butt up til now. Not until fall of 2006 are we going to see a massive shift in how they manage their desktop chips. The Mhz hype, marketing juggernaut is dead at Intel. This is what differentiates Intel of 2000 with Intel of 2005. That and the Pentium M. So while yes. A certain % of what Jobs has thrown at Mac users over the years has been FUD its not all BS.

 

[SiliconAddict]

And this is a bad thing because... ? People can still buy used machines to run Classic just fine, I say Apple cut lose the Classic crowd to move forward, that's a lot of coding wasted, move forward, not backwards. Let those who still cherish Classic find older machines, that's what those who still covet Amiga, BeOS, and other fringe OSes do and if you do your Googling those people aren't complaining.

A-freaking-men. Classic needs to die a horrible screaming death. If software development houses haven't updated their wares by now they aren't going to be updating them and if that is the case people should be seriously looking to migrate their data to another app. Anyone who sticks to legacy apps based on a legacy OS is just asking for trouble.
I can attest to this since we have one user still on a windows 3.11 system that runs some proprietary apps that use a reel to reel tape reader. Also we have one legacy app that was built around Windows 95. The company went out of business in '97. And when we upgraded to Windows 2000 with NTFS file system all of a sudden the app started getting glitchy with security rights in NTFS. No fix or work around because the vendor was no longer there. I warned the powers that been about this but nooo. So all of a sudden a panic happens because they can't use this app anymore.
Honestly I don't feel sorry for people who are fretting over this transition. 5 years of support is a perfectly acceptable timeframe. At this point either upgrade, migrate, or buy a crap load of spare parts and stay in the past forever.

 

[SiliconAddict]

Not to mention that I absolutely LOATHE and DESPISE Windows. With a deep deep PASSION.

Dude you have "deep deep" issues.