Rosetta Supports Altivec?

[SiliconAddict]

Yes, but not about the hating of windows I'd like to remind everyone it is perfectly normal to sit alone in the dark stroking a knife, whilst saying "must destroy.. windows"

Yah but have you dreamt of taking a Windows '95 CD breaking it in half and going around Redmond killing the developers of '9x? I have....I kid you not. When I had to support Windows 95 on about 200 computers I just about had a nervous breakdown. I mean as in going into the server room and screaming at the top of my lungs. I hated Windows 9x with an intensity that rivals Captain Ahab to the white whale.
I actually dreamt that. Woke up in a sweat after seeing blood on my hands. Spooky? Yah. But I'm willing to let things go because 2000 and XP are so much better then 9x it's not even funny. Seriously. I don't think anyone is expecting you to love em but at least try to understand that 2K and XP is a massive step in the right direction.

PS- I still get twitchy when I see 95 running on a computer. 98 not as much but knowing that its 9x still makes me want to break out the holy water and douse the computer in it. We won't talk of Windows ME though.....It doesn't exist. It never did. I mean it. windows ME is Windows 2000. There was no other 9x OS after Windows 98.... Really.

PPS- I still have a Windows 95 CD shard hanging on my rearview mirror.

 

[GregA]

Makes you wonder whether Apple have asked Intel to produce an x86 chip range without legacy x86 support.

When Apple made this announcement I did a fair bit of reading on the new chips Intel was making, their ideas going forward, etc.

My ASSUMPTION was that if Intel was making any "leaps" that Apple would step aboard on intel's leap. There were 3 main leaps to consider:

1) EM64T - Intel is moving to 64bit x86 chips.
Perhaps Apple would only switch across machines to Intel 64bit equivalents.
2) Low power, more efficient chips.
Intel has 2 separate x86 chip developments - Pentium 4, and Pentium M. They had just announced that Pentium 4 was being dumped with the Netburst architecture, and future designs would build on concepts of the Pentium M (they did say they'd keep the good bits of Netburst... which includes the 64 bit code) http://www.techny.com/articles.cfm?getarticle=788&go=0.799496141173
3) Removal of all legacy x86 support.
Current x86 motherboards still have the old BIOS and they apparently need to have the chips for Serial and parallel ports etc, even if your computer doesn't have those ports at all. The new EFI bios can OPTIONALLY include the old BIOS (and if so the associated legacy chipsets). EFI can be fully graphical, is open, and is generally said to be faster (I don't understand why it would be - though fast startup or sleep makes sense). http://www.intel.com/cd/ids/developer/asmo-na/eng/208649.htm?prn=Y

If Apple went 64 bit, it'd be using Pentium 4 chips... and switching the G5s first, G4s and laptops later - it doesn't make sense. Intel's low power chips do make sense, and fits with Steve Job's marketing about speed-per-watt as a reason for the switch.

The EFI stuff would seem to be Apple's choice, and they're in a unique position to use it. As far as I understand it, Yonah is one of the first chips that is fully ready for EFI (without legacy support). Microsoft has announced that Longhorn will support EFI... which implies XP will not be able to load on an EFI machine. The implications are that NO-ONE besides Apple can make a pure EFI machine... Apple will have unique hardware that others can't match for a year, it'll be easy to lock OSX to Apple hardware, and it'd mean you can't dual boot an Apple machine into Windows XP.

So your guess on Apple getting an x86 chip without legacy support may be quite possible

 

[GregA]

Out of interest, what Classic software would these pro users be running?

My girlfriend is a graphic artist. They have mainly G4 dual processors in their work and when they upgrade it's one machine at a time. Some machines are on OS9, some are OSX running graphics apps in classic/emulation. The cost of the latest versions are simply too high for them to consider... especially when they are also buying a new machine.

For them they will stick with PowerMacs anyway. It looks like for the next 2 years they'll be able to buy PowerMacs that run classic, and in that time they're bound to upgrade a large proportion of programs (and in doing that get fat binaries!). Sometimes an older program is not upgraded, but is kept for compatibility with incoming files, so they'd be stuck there.

So overall the absence of classic on x86 probably won't impact them. For 2 years though I'm sure they'll bias their purchases towards PPC macs or use what they've got - it will affect their buying patterns. If classic was emulated in Rosetta they would not even consider the chip, x86 would make no difference at all.

 

[generik]

Apple will have unique hardware that others can't match for a year, it'll be easy to lock OSX to Apple hardware, and it'd mean you can't dual boot an Apple machine into Windows XP.

I understand that for purposes of boasting your smuggness you might find this notion disgusting, but why is this in Apple's best interests in any way?

Apple will WANT users to be able to install *anything* they want on these new PBs, more hardware sales!

 

[GregA]

I understand that for purposes of boasting your smuggness you might find this notion disgusting, but why is this in Apple's best interests in any way?

Apple will WANT users to be able to install *anything* they want on these new PBs, more hardware sales!

Ahh.. smugness? Why the nasty vibe?

I need the option to run Windows XP alongside Mac programs. If I can't do it it'll be a major spanner in the works and prevent my purchase of an Intel powerbook. In that sense I hope I'm wrong, or maybe there'll be an option via Virtual-PC to start with, or something similar.

The other 2 things (unique hardware, piracy protection) seem to be in Apple's interest - though I hope to see Apple sell OSX on specified clones at some time.

 

[generik]

Ahh.. smugness? Why the nasty vibe?

I need the option to run Windows XP alongside Mac programs. If I can't do it it'll be a major spanner in the works and prevent my purchase of an Intel powerbook. In that sense I hope I'm wrong, or maybe there'll be an option via Virtual-PC to start with, or something similar.

The other 2 things (unique hardware, piracy protection) seem to be in Apple's interest - though I hope to see Apple sell OSX on specified clones at some time.

It's not a nasty vibe, but there are actually Apple users who desire that Apple will always remain the small company that it was so they can be more "special"

Regardless I sure hope they don't incorporate cheesy hardware in that serve no function other than to make Macs "unique", using a MacIntel PB as a PC is always a good option too.

Regardless with virtualisation I hope VPC will fly on it.

 

[odedia]

PearPC

Alvitec has long been supported by the PearPC Power PC Emulator (www.pearpc.net), So i'm a bit surprised that just recently Apple managed to do the same thing. It is indeed a huge speed boost.

odedia

 

[Tilmitt]

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.

I'm right there with you mate! I'll never ever use an x86 Mac. The lack of idealism that Mac users are showning here is just digusting. PowerPC is a bastion of elegance in a sea of ugly half assed it-will-do-hardware that PC's use. The rest of you guys are cheap whores who do what Steve says. You are exactly the people who desert to the enemy the second a battle goes bad. You convince yourselves that you really were like this all along, but it's just pathetic. None of you talked any way at all like this about Intel before the switch. In short, anything you say is utter crap, cause you just change it when things are no longer easy for you. Sell outs.

 

[TBi]

Yah but have you dreamt of taking a Windows '95 CD breaking it in half and going around Redmond killing the developers of '9x? I have....I kid you not. When I had to support Windows 95 on about 200 computers I just about had a nervous breakdown. I mean as in going into the server room and screaming at the top of my lungs. I hated Windows 9x with an intensity that rivals Captain Ahab to the white whale.
I actually dreamt that. Woke up in a sweat after seeing blood on my hands. Spooky? Yah. But I'm willing to let things go because 2000 and XP are so much better then 9x it's not even funny. Seriously. I don't think anyone is expecting you to love em but at least try to understand that 2K and XP is a massive step in the right direction.

PS- I still get twitchy when I see 95 running on a computer. 98 not as much but knowing that its 9x still makes me want to break out the holy water and douse the computer in it. We won't talk of Windows ME though.....It doesn't exist. It never did. I mean it. windows ME is Windows 2000. There was no other 9x OS after Windows 98.... Really.

PPS- I still have a Windows 95 CD shard hanging on my rearview mirror.

Strangely enough i've never really had the problems that people talk about in windows 95. It was always stable enough for me. My worst experience with an OS was using MAC OS 8.x on a laptop. Crash after crash after crash and no way to find out what the heck was going wrong.

Also when i took over semi admin of the computers at school they worked better. Maybe i just had that magical touch

 

[generik]

I'm right there with you mate! I'll never ever use an x86 Mac. The lack of idealism that Mac users are showning here is just digusting. PowerPC is a bastion of elegance in a sea of ugly half assed it-will-do-hardware that PC's use. The rest of you guys are cheap whores who do what Steve says. You are exactly the people who desert to the enemy the second a battle goes bad. You convince yourselves that you really were like this all along, but it's just pathetic. None of you talked any way at all like this about Intel before the switch. In short, anything you say is utter crap, cause you just change it when things are no longer easy for you. Sell outs.

2000 just called, please take a look at your Apple product and see what it says before the text "Designed in California". Does it say "Made in China"?

Guess what? The rest of the "half assed it-will-do-hardware" used by the "cheap whores" are no worse nor better than your overpriced AAPL gear. PPC is dead, x86 is the future, get on with the program and get a move on. Maybe that's why Nanos get defaced the moment you look at it the wrong way, maybe that's why the new PB displays have lines, maybe that's why the new iMacs are still howling wind tunnels. Maybe.

Guess what? Because someone in Apple made the call somewhere along the line.. "It will do"

You can always stay on PPC and hope there will, eventually, be a 3Ghz G5 someday. I for one welcome the switch to Intel.

 

[nospleen]

I'm right there with you mate! I'll never ever use an x86 Mac. The lack of idealism that Mac users are showning here is just digusting. PowerPC is a bastion of elegance in a sea of ugly half assed it-will-do-hardware that PC's use. The rest of you guys are cheap whores who do what Steve says. You are exactly the people who desert to the enemy the second a battle goes bad. You convince yourselves that you really were like this all along, but it's just pathetic. None of you talked any way at all like this about Intel before the switch. In short, anything you say is utter crap, cause you just change it when things are no longer easy for you. Sell outs.

Muwahahahaaha, that is the funniest thing I read all day.

 

[59031]

maybe that's why the new iMacs are still howling wind tunnels.

Completely and utterly FALSE and UNTRUE. My mac is WHISPER QUIET and the fan has NEVER gone crazy. In fact, what little noise I DO hear I'm not sure if it's my optical drive (when a CD or DVD is in it), the hard drive or the fan..it's all that quiet.

I have one of these machines. Do you?

P.S. x86 the future? How utterly sad. IBM? Even more sad for being dolts and not taking the bull by the balls and putting in the time, money and research to advance and innovate the PowerPC in a faster timeframe. Still, the XBOX 360 has triple core PowerPC chips running at 3.2 GHZ in each core...

 

[nospleen]

I have to say that my new imac is VERY quiet...

 

[59031]

Read this. Interesting:

https://forum.hackinthebox.org/viewtopic.php?p=77911

 

[RobHague]

PPC is dead, x86 is the future, get on with the program and get a move on. Maybe that's why Nanos get defaced the moment you look at it the wrong way, maybe that's why the new PB displays have lines, maybe that's why the new iMacs are still howling wind tunnels. Maybe.

PPC is DEAD! LONG LIVE PPC!

My PowerMac is quiet silent and the new iMac's ive heard are even quieter. PPC is far from dead, Apple just wont be using it in upcoming products. x86 is a bunch of legacy crap they can't drop or people would cry blue murder because none of their programs woould be compatible anymore. It works... thats the most you can say about it.

Apple can get away with an arichecture shift, if Intel released a processor with a radically designed architecture for PC (like theItaniums IA64), no one will buy it because they need the software out there, and OS. So they limp along with x86 and make the best of it (adding bits to make it more interesting).

I, for one, am sad Apple needed to take this step backwards. I hope it works out, but really ive been hoping it all goes pear shaped and Apple try to get back into bed with IBM. Doubtful i know but i can hope.

Triple or even Quad Core PPC's mmmmmmmmm i don't care if it cant hit 3Ghz, id buy a Quad-Core PPC system in 2008 running at 2.7Ghz or something... Can you imagine Dual-Quad Cores

 

[59031]

I, for one, am sad Apple needed to take this step backwards. I hope it works out, but really ive been hoping it all goes pear shaped and Apple try to get back into bed with IBM. Doubtful i know but i can hope.

As long as OS X and all OS X applications are written in Universal Binaries, Macs will be able to run on either platform, and Apple will have an out if x86 doesn't work out. Steve is smart, he's left the door open. x86? PPC? Intel? IBM? Apple will never be stuck with one or the other.

 

[GregA]

As long as OS X and all OS X applications are written in Universal Binaries, Macs will be able to run on either platform, and Apple will have an out if x86 doesn't work out. Steve is smart, he's left the door open. x86? PPC? Intel? IBM? Apple will never be stuck with one or the other.

I wonder if the Itanium plays into Apple's plans at all. The universal binary idea forces developers to write code abstracted from the hardware, it should make these kind of processor choices far easier for Apple.

And ignoring Intel's Itanium... does Intel's Xscale sit anywhere in Apple's future?

Lastly, Apple has an obvious product 'gap' now - iTunes and iPod both do video, but AirTunes doesn't.... when will this product appear (and will it be higher res than the iPod?)?

 

[generik]

Triple or even Quad Core PPC's mmmmmmmmm i don't care if it cant hit 3Ghz, id buy a Quad-Core PPC system in 2008 running at 2.7Ghz or something... Can you imagine Dual-Quad Cores

Well if Apple were to wait till 2008 to do just that there won't be any "Apple Computers" anymore. Might as well just rename it "iPods Inc".

I'm really surprised people keep drawing parallels between the PPC used in the Xbox 360 and the G5s Apple uses in their workstations. They are different. The Xbox versions do not support out of order processing, or even any form of multitasking at all. No branch prediction, no nothing, it is all just instructions whooshing in and results going out.

Any dick can make a processor that does just that, at more than 3.2Ghz too! Heck, it is just netburst with no pipelining!

 

[mdavey]

... does Intel's Xscale sit anywhere in Apple's future?

I'd say not in the short-term. As I understand it, Universal Binaries aren't truely universal - dual binaries might be a better name - they contain both PPC and x86 code (but not Xscale, Sparc or other architectures).

I think that if Apple had ambitions to build Macs with Xscale or Sparc inside, they would have made Xcode create truely fat binaries with multiple platform support, or designed a VM abstraction layer at the Mac OS X level, or embraced Java more than they have and leveraged its JVM for Mac OS X abstraction.

 

[generik]

or embraced Java more than they have and leveraged its JVM for Mac OS X abstraction.

Then Macs will be known as iTortoise.

I don't mind the occasional Java application but everything running in a JVM? That would be hell, especially when memory usage comes into the picture.

 

[Sun Baked]

And ignoring Intel's Itanium... does Intel's Xscale sit anywhere in Apple's future?

Maybe the iPod or the Airport ...

 

[displaced]

Maybe the iPod or the Airport ...

[EDIT2: BAAAH!! I'm a total fool. Just re-read the post you were replying to -- Firmly had hold of the wrong end of the stick, sorry! Note to self: Don't post after midnight!]

I think you're thinking of the Intel Xscale. The Itanium's a 'big-iron' 64-bit EPIC (non-x86) CPU intended for datacentres. Certainly not iPod or Airport material!

[EDIT: Or I'm being an idiot and not seeing your subtle humour! ]

Itanium's also a bit of a cul-de-sac. Its main supporter, HP, has all but abandoned it. AMD's Opteron is currently meeting the demand that the Itanium was targeted at.

Incidentally, the iPod uses two CPU's based on designs by a British company, Advanced RISC Machines (ARM). The Intel XScale is itself a design licensed from ARM Plc. So the iPod is already using the brethren of the XScale.

(Caution: Pointless Flag-Waving follows!: the iPod's got quite a British streak. Brit industrial designer (Jonathan Ive), Brit ARM CPU's, and analogue audio circuitry by Scotland's Wolfson Audio! Woohoo!)

 

[displaced]

I'd say not in the short-term. As I understand it, Universal Binaries aren't truely universal - dual binaries might be a better name - they contain both PPC and x86 code (but not Xscale, Sparc or other architectures).

I think that if Apple had ambitions to build Macs with Xscale or Sparc inside, they would have made Xcode create truely fat binaries with multiple platform support, or designed a VM abstraction layer at the Mac OS X level, or embraced Java more than they have and leveraged its JVM for Mac OS X abstraction.

I don't claim to be an expert, but as I understand things, since OS X's executable format provides for 'fat binaries', there's nothing technically in the way of adding further arch's to the packages. I'd imagine that once the kernel had been ported to the new architecture, the higher-level frameworks could then be compiled for the new arch also. I wonder how much of OS X itself is written in a portable language such as Objective C? It's intriguing to think of the possibilities a 'Compact' subset of OS X targeted at CPU's such as the XScale could bring...

Most of the NEXTSTEP-based code (Cocoa) should be pretty portable -- NeXT already moved the code from MC68k to PPC to x86... then reborn as OS X it led a dual life as an x86 and PPC OS (remember, OS X x86 has existed within Apple all the way through its development).

My day-job is writing software using the .NET Compact Framework for XScale/Windows Mobile devices. A subset of Cocoa, compiled for XScale, with a 'Compact' profile for Obj-C programming within Xcode would be cool to play with

 

[RobHague]

Well if Apple were to wait till 2008 to do just that there won't be any "Apple Computers" anymore. Might as well just rename it "iPods Inc".

I'm really surprised people keep drawing parallels between the PPC used in the Xbox 360 and the G5s Apple uses in their workstations. They are different. The Xbox versions do not support out of order processing, or even any form of multitasking at all. No branch prediction, no nothing, it is all just instructions whooshing in and results going out.

Any dick can make a processor that does just that, at more than 3.2Ghz too! Heck, it is just netburst with no pipelining!

I was not talking about the XBOX. I was thinking of the other companies designing their own PPC processors like StartUp but the company that posted possible 'Quad' Core PPC processors. Can't remember their name, but if you search you should find it.

 

[59031]

Any dick can make a processor that does just that.....

Do you always project your own self-image on others?