Apple switching to Intel chips

[ebbomega]

Originally Posted by tvmann

In any case, the applications program writers are almost all using high level languages like C++ and making calls to the Mac OS to do the low-level work and not using assembler (which is different for each chip) so they shouldn't need to convert anything, or relatively minor work.

Regardless of what kind of high-level language someone is using, the APIs are still compiled for a native processor. Only language that really is cross-platform is Java because it has its own set of functions that are global for every OS it runs on (Swing libraries).

I can make a program in C++ in Windows, and if I were to try to compile it without any emulation on osx, and the compiler will complain simply because it doesn't know the Windows API.

Those APIs are compiled in assembler. And while they may be able to emulate older PPC models, how exactly useful is it for me to run a G3 processor on a P4 when I can just as easily buy myself a used G3 and spend about a grand less than the P4?

Like I say, the G5 (PPC970) has too many registers to work at all efficiently under emulation for an x86 processor. What's normally just there - and if the code was written well, it will make good use of those registers - needs to go all the way over to memory to get it now (which is effectively MUCH slower than having it ready right away within the processor), so your program will run stupidly slow. No point really I see in running photoshop for osx on an x86.... just get photoshop for xp and you'll probably do a lot better.

[stephen_c]

Originally Posted by Leviathan

just because it runs on an intel chip doesn't mean it will run on a standard motherboard. All it takes is different firmware and other minor differences. As I said before Apple makes its bread and butter off of hardware, so they will make it difficult for the average user to build a mac. Those graphics chipsets have special mac firmware, they aren't off the shelf PC cards.

lol, i never claimed os X can run on generic pc hardware.
all i was sayin is if apple decided to use intel chips,
it's not as impossible as one would think.

[rawb]

you would be emulating only programs not moved over
seeing how the xcode tools will be released very soon
thats a year+ to convert your programs to the new architecture
mathematica took 2 hours
adobe and microsoft will have universal binaries for thier stuff soon

i dont see much that wont be moved except piddly little unsupported shareware things long forgotten about
i doubt many will be cpu/proc intensive

[stephen_c]

Originally Posted by ebbomega

Regardless of what kind of high-level language someone is using, the APIs are still compiled for a native processor. Only language that really is cross-platform is Java because it has its own set of functions that are global for every OS it runs on (Swing libraries).

I can make a program in C++ in Windows, and if I were to try to compile it without any emulation on osx, and the compiler will complain simply because it doesn't know the Windows API.

Those APIs are compiled in assembler. And while they may be able to emulate older PPC models, how exactly useful is it for me to run a G3 processor on a P4 when I can just as easily buy myself a used G3 and spend about a grand less than the P4?

Like I say, the G5 (PPC970) has too many registers to work at all efficiently under emulation for an x86 processor. What's normally just there - and if the code was written well, it will make good use of those registers - needs to go all the way over to memory to get it now (which is effectively MUCH slower than having it ready right away within the processor), so your program will run stupidly slow. No point really I see in running photoshop for osx on an x86.... just get photoshop for xp and you'll probably do a lot better.

wow, u really need to double check on some of the stuff ur saying.

[Leviathan]

^ as far as I know, Intel doesn't have anything equivalent to AltiVec, so it seems pretty accurate to me. There are definately registers missing.

I would expect them to use something similiar to x86 just so they can take advantage the low pricing due to volume. There probably wouldn't be much money in it for Intel if they did a whole new processor design strictly for Apple.

[ebbomega]

Originally Posted by stephen_c

wow, u really need to double check on some of the stuff ur saying.

Feel free to correct me where I'm wrong.

I know processor design. I know that getting information from a register takes far fewer clock cycles than getting information from RAM.

[stringbeans]

i think the main misconception here is that apple is going to be using the pentium architecture which is probably false. i think intels going to customize their x86 arch so its geared towards apple

i dont know about you guys, but im excited about whats happening. seems like steve jobs is on a roll with innovation and im excited to see what's next to come

[MissBehavior]

Originally Posted by k-pryde

did she check the voltage differences? cuz i think france uses 220V and here it's 110V... i've fried many electronics like this... hehe

Apple adaptors will do the conversion on their own...All you need when going abroad is the plug adaptor for the different countries.

[ebbomega]

Originally Posted by Leviathan

^ as far as I know, Intel doesn't have anything equivalent to AltiVec, so it seems pretty accurate to me. There are definately registers missing.

I would expect them to use something similiar to x86 just so they can take advantage the low pricing due to volume. There probably wouldn't be much money in it for Intel if they did a whole new processor design strictly for Apple.

Cell?
Itanic?

Intel does make non-x86 processors.

[stephen_c]

Originally Posted by ebbomega

Feel free to correct me where I'm wrong.

I know processor design. I know that getting information from a register takes far fewer clock cycles than getting information from RAM.

i was talkin about this:

Originally Posted by ebbomega

~cut~
Only language that really is cross-platform is Java because it has its own set of functions that are global for every OS it runs on (Swing libraries).
~cut~

java is pretty much cross-platform alright,
but not the way u described it.

[rawb]

Originally Posted by ebbomega

Cell?
Itanic?

Intel does make non-x86 processors.

but not in the low volumes apple orders

[ebbomega]

I think the point was that IBM wasn't able to make them high enough volume for Apple's demand. That's the entire point of the move from IBM to Intel.

[rawb]

Originally Posted by Leviathan

I would expect them to use something similiar to x86 just so they can take advantage the low pricing due to volume. There probably wouldn't be much money in it for Intel if they did a whole new processor design strictly for Apple.

...is what im saying, which is not contrary to your point

[ebbomega]

Originally Posted by stephen_c

i was talkin about this:



java is pretty much cross-platform alright,
but not the way u described it.

Explain. I can use the swing libraries in any OS.

[stringbeans]

Originally Posted by ebbomega

Explain. I can use the swing libraries in any OS.

i think what stephen means is that its not the swing libraries that make java cross-platform, its the fact that java uses an interpreter

[stephen_c]

^^
i can't explain rite now.
i am @work programmin.
u prob have the rite idea,
but described it wrong.

^
stringbeans has the idea.


edit:

in a nutshell,
ur java code is compiled into intermediate byte code.
the byte code is in turn executed by a java virtual machine (JVM)
there's no "global" JVM
each JVM is specific to a platform.

the cross platform part of java is the byte code
which can be execute on any platform that has a JVM ***
and most platforms do.

swing is just an UI library.

*** (well, there's more to that, but w/e, u get the idea)

[Leviathan]

I concur :)

Originally Posted by rawb

...is what im saying, which is not contrary to your point