MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

I'm first. Ha hah haaaaaa

I'm an idiot, too. Ha hah haaaaaa

At least change comes!

iHate iDon't cause iStupid

"cognoscenti" - thank goodness for the built in dictionary! iStupid as well.

Has any author used the title, "One little, two little, three little endians" yet? If not, you have my permission. ©cpg, 2005

This sounds like a good opportunity for these software developers to really get their hands dirty, clean up their software, and not simply rely on gratuitous new features. If they have to create a need or demand for upgrades in order to maintain longevity in the business, moving closer to pristine code is well worth the effort to the consumer.

"cognoscenti" is a real word, doctrine.

No need for a dictionary. It is enough to know Latin.

Actually, if you know it well, it is enough to know English.

I don't think developers should be forced to use Xcode. It may be great, but I still think there should be choice.

"I don't think developers should be forced to use Xcode. It may be great, but I still think there should be choice."

The only problem is that the other major developing environment (Metrowerks' Codewarrior) has stopped development. IIRC, they're going to focus on embedded application development. That's the main reason companies like Microsoft and Macspeech are now in the process of switching to Xcode.

Devlopers aren't forced to use Xcode, but the gist here is that CodeWarrior-based projects have to be changed to something else.

This isn't Apple's fault, Codewarrior's been in a coma for a long time.

If you do use Xcode, your life if made vastly easier.

Buy heck 90% of my programming needs are met by perl anyway...

And it's also that other developers need to embrace transitional processes like Apple has in Xcode. The only way developers will have choice is if they have choice. Of course Apple wants people to use Xcode, but, as a free product, they don't make anything from it money-wise.

yo, there's going to be a mad scramble once the public realises that there're aren't going to be any 64-bit Macintels for a loooooong time.

Developers SHOULD use Xcode--that way, Apple will ensure they're covered the NEXT time there is a big transition (and we can all bet that, eventually, there will be more). Apple can embed transition support into new versions of Xcode, without having to announce transitions too far in advance, as they did this time around.

Then give us our Intoshes now!

I see dead people

Smooth transition or not, how about this quote: "We're not seeing G5 performance, we're seeing roughly G4 performance ..."

Interesting. One of Intel's best single core P4s at 3.2Ghz only gets you what an 'ancient' 1.5Ghz CPU can do? Megahertz Myth indeed. Even allowing for a considerable measure of code tightening by the programmers, and optimizations from Intel, this is a LOT of ground to make up.

Hardly inspiring news.

Smooth transition or not, how about this quote: "We're not seeing G5 performance, we're seeing roughly G4 performance ..."

isnt pretty much everything they are testing in emulation mode right now like Virtual PC? I'd love to say my dual 2.7 G5 ran like a P4 2.8 when I used VPC! It runs more like maybe a P4 1.8 at BEST, so this isnt that odd at this point in the game that performance is not optimal,or am i missing something?

"yo, there's going to be a mad scramble once the public realises that there're aren't going to be any 64-bit Macintels for a loooooong time."

Seeing how G5-based systems won't see a migration until late-2006/early-2007 at the earliest (my guess), there isn't going to be any 'scrambles' (unless someone wants to sell a bunch of 4 year old Macs for $50 ).

The aughts?
What the frell are the aughts?
I have a better idea.
We had the seventies, the eighties and the nineties right?
Well this decade should be the naughties.

Odessey67,

If you read the entire statement, you will see this:

"We're not seeing G5 performance," said Rogers of the hardware. "We're seeing roughly G4 performance. If you're a desktop designer using [Adobe] Photoshop every day, it's going to be slower."

They are referring to Photoshop, which is currently running through Rosetta. I don't think they are running a fat-binary of Photoshop, hence the low performance. In addition, photoshop might be doing certain things based on velocity engine, which is not present in Intel processors. So, they might have to re-do some of the optimization for Intel processors.

MDN Magic Word: "able" as in.. "You will be able to deliver the G5 performance with re-compiled code."

@ IT Guy Re: "MDN Magic Word: "able" as in.. "You will be able to deliver the G5 performance with re-compiled code.""

Make that better than G5 performance... guaranteed. Apple won't deliver Intel to the Power Mac line until it's superior to the Power PC platform (in the current G5 state we're in or whatever state they have in the interim before the Mactel.) That's sorta a given, but the term "better than G5" was needed in yo8ur statement to be fully accurate.

hehe, now im "One little, two little, three little endians"!!!

yay

©

If the new Mactels aren´t faster than the fastest G5s plus faster than the fastest Wintels (Photoshop is faster on our PCs than on our G5s)...Steve is going to have lots of reality spinning to do.

As a Native American from the Yuki tribe, I find your casual use of old derogatory children's rhymes to be incredibly crass and offense.

ITGuy:

They are not referring to Photoshop exclusively. They're using performance with Photoshop as an example - of the overall level of performance they see, and as a point of reference most people would be familiar with.

You'd better hope Intel recompiles the hell out that code. Like I said, when a 1.5Ghz G4 outperforms a 3.6Ghz P4, you're not talking about a small gap. Most code optimizations I've heard of don't work that kind of magic, but as Reality check says, making up that performance difference is gonna be crucial.

Mike Napolitano:

No, they aren't testing in in emulation mode. They're recompiling code for x86 so that it runs natively, so it's nothing like Virtual PC. This is software that's running directly off the CPU and, in this case, not very well. It's definitely a concern.

Unless you think G4 performance from a high end P4 is ok that is. Then everything's GRRRREAT!