MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

"...unlikely to witness a significant difference..."

...except for some performance gains, that is.

Apple was already suffering from performance gains using the G5 processor.

The performance gain of 3ghz never materialized 2 years later.

How do you know what they will be using in a year or two with Intel?

I bet it will be better than would the have stuck with IBM.

"Users won't notice a difference" ? Only if there is support for Classic and Altivec in Rosetta so that my current programs don't crash.

Yeah right, cuz you ALL previously talked up how much better P4's were than the 64 bit G5's.

Out of the IBM pot and into the Intel fire.

When Apple was compiling Mac OS X on x86 for the last 5 years, where were all these "experts" and "analysts" then?

Now that the cat is out of the bag (despite all the crow eating nay sayers), once again all the usual suspects are back with their precious "analysis". Maybe they should keep their sys in their anal where it belongs.

Rock on Steve!

Wow, a "Buy" rating on Apple.

Duh!

Fire... bad. Change... bad, too. Hate..., hate..., spew..., spew....

Must...judge...prematurely...

Must be negativo... or... else...

Can't... be... emotionally... detached...

(insert barfing noise here)

Best. Hate. Ever.

AAPL's off more than a 1.30 today in contrast w/ the indexes.

Draw your own conclusions.

They will have to do extra work. And then make extra money when more people are buying their stuff.

Let us just say goodbye to OS 9 and the Classic yuck, it had its time but we are 5 years later now, time to let it go. Thank god Tiger marked the end of Classic installs by default.

Let it go people!

People are scared of change which is why the stock is off. Seriously, most of the analyst reports of what Intel in a Mac means are full of it. Read the comments on this site and you can see all of the confusion (much of it would be aleviated if folks actually watched the keynot speech). Sure, there is a secretive nature about Apple, but it would have been with PPC, too. I'd love to see how far off the stock would be if Apple hadn't hedged its bets with x86 binaries of OS X long ago...

Frankly, I now see why Apple was clamping down on rumors. They really wanted to deliver this message themselves.

My big question is Rosetta - did Apple license Transitive's emulator? Is the demo machine Steve used during the keynot really a quad-CPU pentium box? If so, Rosetta isn't the panacea it is made out to be.

This all about the future, not the current.

Dearest "Intel Sucks,"

Re "Yeah right, cuz you ALL previously talked up how much better P4's were than the 64 bit G5's."

As a matter of fact, the current batch of Pentiums ARE slower than the current batch of G5s for most processor-intensive tasks (which, not coincidentally, are mostly vectorizable and parallelizable). The reason for this processor switch, however, is that the FUTURE ROADMAP for Intel's processor is better than that of IBM's.

Apple's management is not stupid. They have been maintaining x86 compatibility, and waiting to see whether PowerPC could maintain its performance advantage. It has held up until now (and if rumors are correct) into the next several months. Within a year though, x86 will be much faster on laptops (and other low-power designs) than PowerPC.

Re "Yeah right, cuz you ALL previously talked up how much better P4's were than the 64 bit G5's."


Jobs didn't slam the current offerings, he slammed the next 10 years of IBM offerings.. the road map..

"Let us just say goodbye to OS 9 and the Classic yuck, it had its time but we are 5 years later now, time to let it go. Thank god Tiger marked the end of Classic installs by default."

I second that! I mean, come on, Apple released Tiger without Classic installed by default. And no one bitched about Apple somehow disrepectin' Mac users for having them jump through hoops and install Classic manually. Hello! Tiger can't run Classic apps by default!

And now we have yet another incessent whine that someone losing Classic support entirely in an Intel Mac will result in complete computer paralysis and productivity will suffer a major blow. Get real. Classic is so yesterday and good riddance. It was fun while it lasted, but thank God OS X is where it's at.

"Jobs didn't slam the current offerings, he slammed the next 10 years of IBM offerings.. the road map.."

Not only did Jobs didn't slam the current offerings, he alluded to a couple of great PowerPC products yet to come.

So to those who suddenly think that the switch to Intel is an admission that PowerPC is a poor performer, wake up and listen! PowerPC is still an awesome performer today, and will continue to be very competitive for the next 9 months or so (can any other computer maker claim to have a 1.35 GHz FSB like the high-end PowerMac does?), the problem is that performance flat-lines in 2006.

PowerPC is still a great architecture, but with IBM developing new chips for Sony, Microsoft, AND Nintendo, Apple was unable to get IBM to pay attention and actually develop a chip that can compete with Intel's best in 2006. And when talking about a roadmap, IBM was like, "Whuh? Whatever do you need a roadmap for? I guarantee we can deliver 3.0 GHz by 2007!"

Sad, but true. PowerPC can still kick Intel butt today. The problem is Intel will be kicking sand in IBM's face in 2006, 2007, 2008, and on and on.

Ok. Yesterday I ate crow for my optimism that Apple wouldn't be foolish.

Now I express my anger. I own approximately $2600 worth of high-end audio signal processing software that is reliant on the AltiVec capabilities of the superior PowerPC processor. These are 3-D room simulating reverbs and extremely processor-efficient plugins for MOTU Digital Performer. Rosetta can't touch these.

I will not be repurchasing this software. I already did for OSX. Nor will I make any additional purchases of Apple computers for the foreseeable future. And I have divested my stock, as the next two years will return the famed "Beleaguered" label back to Apple. Here come the layoffs and ugly red ink.

I cannot recommend that anyone buy a Mac at this time, despite the all the happy "universal binaries" spin.

Too bad. Just when I could truly brag-up Apple, they shoot themselves in the foot and embrace 32-bit, backwards technology. "Roadmap" my ass. This is a been-there-already roadmap. I was relying on new trails being blazed (like Apple always had done up until now).

Wow, Informed, you know all that from reading the posts or is it just from cereal boxes? Come on, you really think that Apple will just abandon the people that got them where they are and that the processor is the key? It's the OS, stupid!

You really think that if Apple went with the next generation of PowerPC that you're software would be optimized to run on it? It's a given that with every processor upgrade you'll need to upgrade your software to benefit from the new processor advantages. If you're not going to upgrade your software, then you can stick with the workstation you have without losing anything. Besides Intel has dual-core chips and at leaste 14 more multicore projects in the works. The switch to Intel is about the future product lines not the present or the past. Not to mention all of the advantages and possibilities it opens up.

Informed is absolutely right.

In a niche they currently excelled in, watch Macs in music studios disappear.

"Ok. Yesterday I ate crow for my optimism that Apple wouldn't be foolish. Now I express my anger. " (Informed)

Gee, un-Informed I really feel sorry about the way you "lost" your investment in all that software. I guess you're saying now that in 2006 Mac's will be transitioning to Intel CPU's, your current Mac has somehow stopped working. It got a heart attack I guess from the news, right?

Please.

Rock on Steve!

misinformed:

You are, indeed, misinformed. Any "next generation of PowerPC" would include AltiVec by definition. Therefore, yes, my software would be optimized to run on it. There were no software issues going from G3 to G4 to G5 (the issues were going from OS9 to OSX). Therefore your claim that "It's a given that with every processor upgrade you'll need to upgrade your software to benefit from the new processor advantages" is pure ignorance.

As to your comment on rosy future of Intel processors: these future chips would require complete backward compatibility with x86 because that is what Xcode 2.1 is based on. Therefore, these future processors are not going to be some radically new chip that offering better performance than AltiVec.

Macadaddyoo:

Its not the OS in this case, stupid.

Wow, do you or MacMania know a damn thing about software?

Pull yourselves together people. Many of you are complaining about a problem that as of right now does not exist - no matter how many times you repeat it. Perhaps some of you buy brand new hardware every year in order to run four year old software? I don't, and i don't know many others that do.

I would recomend that we simply take inventory of where we are with our hardware/software and plan accordingly for the next year or two. If you need a new machine but would rather use Windows than purchase a Mac now, more power to ya. Switching platforms, new system, new software, Windows. Maybe I'm just not smart enough to figure out how this makes sense.

Anyway, my dual 2.5 appears to be running CS2 just as well today as it did last week, but maybe it's just me.

NewType-

My Athlon64 has a 1.6 GHz FSB. And Hypertransport like the G5. AMD made that I think.

I sure wish Apple was going with AMD.

"no software issues going from G3 to G4 to G5" - informed

So some sw in G3 was already optimized for G5? LOL

No sw issues just means that the same sw that was running in G3 could run on the G5, not that it was using ANY of the features the G5 is offering.

For your information one can build software that TRULY makes use of what the G5 allows BUT it will not run neither on the G4 nor on the G3.
What are you talking about? The optimized G5 binaries will NOT then run on anything else! Go and inform yourself on the Apple Developers site.

The fact that the same sw is running on the G3, G4, and G5 means that it is NOT using features that are proper to the G5. If it is, G3 and G4 Macs cannot run it, silly.

Informed, I have the perfect solution to your problem in early 2007, just before Apple replacing the high-end in its PowerMac G5 line with the Intel chips rendering your half-a-powermac-system's worth of Altivec software investment, buy yourself one of the last G5s manufactured. It will be a damn sight faster than you have now, and it will last you for three or four years, and it will start to long-in-the-tooth around the same time that PowerPC binary support is phased out of brand-new off-the-shelf software. There's a roadmap for your software investment to remain viable until 2011. If you were planning that investment to last beyond then, you were not being unrealistic. Did you really not think that Altivec would change at all in the two generations of the PowerPC archtecture, which is what we will have seen by that year? Sure it hasn't changed (much) in two generations, which means that it is two-generations closer to its inevitable 'major overhaul' date. And when that overhaul happens you will feel an overwhelming urge to upgrade all of your investment or else be seen as an audio has-been and just be outperformed by everyone around you. And then a year or two after that you won't even have any choice in the matter if you want a G8 or whatever. This is the way things have always been especially with Pro apps, even between chip generations without a major change of archtecture at all. Those who are not living in a fantasyland of imagined future software usefulness probably figure like me that the switch to Intel means a year of accelerated obselescence, at most, not a painful price to pay for non-prehistoric notebooks speeds essentially saving the entire Apple mobile line (and unnannounced low-power products) to come.

informed wrote:

"You are, indeed, misinformed. Any "next generation of PowerPC" would include AltiVec by definition. Therefore, yes, my software would be optimized to run on it. There were no software issues going from G3 to G4 to G5 (the issues were going from OS9 to OSX). Therefore your claim that "It's a given that with every processor upgrade you'll need to upgrade your software to benefit from the new processor advantages" is pure ignorance."

OK - informed has accused me on another thread of not knowing anything about this issue (you see he/she is INFORMED - unlike the rest of us).

He/she pointed out I know nothing about XCode (you see he/she develops software - me I just surf the web).

Well I may be an ignorant twerp (I can accept that), but I do KNOW that the G3 did not have Altivec, so how was your "Alitvec optimised software" running on those G3 puppies?

You mentioned you had no issues with the move from G3 to G4 to G5.

Of course the likely explanation is that prior to the G4 (and probably well into it's lifecycle) your software adopted features that took adavantage of the Altivec optimisations.

So tell me, as per other peoples suggestion why don't you get the latest G5's prior to EOL, and ride that out for at least 2-3 years? Your software, which I am gathering you upgrade at least every 3 years or so to remain competitive, and pick up new features and improvements, would then be able to be OPTIMISED for the Intel based mac platform.

Also to your point about Xcode being a tool for x86 development, and the requirement for backwards compatibility, again I don't know as much as you oh exolted well informed one, but didn't the 64-bit G5 run 32-bit applications with no issues?

Is it as all possible for you to accept that Intel will be able to develop a chip that whilst it is 64-bit, can also run 32-bit x86 (even if it is in emulation)??? Could Apple and Intel develop a Velocity Engine/Altivec equivilant between now and 06/07???

I mean you are the well informed, power-user and developer, inform us - are these things possible? Is ANYTHING possible in your opinion, or is at just f%@ked up now???

Luke

informed and realistic: That is pretty much my plan. I have no immediate need to replace/upgrade my G5s. However, situations change. I will make do with what I have or pick up used machines until the dust settles. The abandonment of AltiVec has me miffed. On top of that, the programming guidelines coming out of the Expo indicate that Apple is warning developers off 64bit code. That means the first MacTels will have all the memory addressing limitations of 32bit. Say goodbye to 4GB memory per processor!

Much of the OSX software I referred to didn't exist in any form two years ago. Now it is already end of active development. Apple will continue to support the PowerPC base, but the focus is now on the less-than-stellar Intel family. And to preempt that barking little dog, LukeinOz, in signal processing applications, processor cycle for processor cycle, the G5 kicks the x86 family's ass. This is a huge step backward.

iPodder: So you're a developer now, huh?

Luke: You are way out of your league here. You are fact-devoid and belligerent to people who are laughing at your ignorance.

What is your problem? Do you always argue so passionately about things you don't understand?

Example: "Well I may be an ignorant twerp (I can accept that), but I do KNOW that the G3 did not have Altivec, so how was your "Alitvec optimised software" running on those G3 puppies?"

Oh I guess you showed me!

Fact: there was no software disruption going from G3 to G4 to G5. How is reversing the order from G5 to G4 to G3 proving me wrong? I am beyond amazement. Do you actually think you make sense?

Another: "Could Apple and Intel develop a Velocity Engine/Altivec equivilant between now and 06/07???"

Of course they "could." My displeasure isn't about what might be, but what is. If it isn't supported NOW in the developer tools, then it won't be in available in software that runs on your mythical "what-if" processor. The Kansas City Royals might win the World Series in 2007. But that doesn't mean that if I were Royals fan, living in Kansas City, I shouldn't be upset that the Royals suck in 2005.

So yes, you are indeed an ignorant twerp.

informed, you still continue to heap abuse.

At least I am self deprecating anough to acknowledge I don't know EVERYTHING.

It is becoming plainly obvious your arrogance prohibits any chance of you doing the same!!!

I DID not reverse the order, I simply pointed out that at SOME STAGE you weren't using this Altivec optmised software (if you were on a G3 system).

Once again I will openly admit I may not be making sense. After reading my post again however, I don't see any indication I was suggesting you go BACKWARDS from G5 to G3 to prove a point. As stated, I was simply refering to the fact that this apparent Altivec problem is nothing other than an upgrade issues.

May I ask if you can comprehend? (see this is light hearted banter in response to your putdowns - in case you really can't comprehend )

Boiling all this down.

1) I'm having some fun
2) I'm aware of my limitations of knowledge
3) I'm will always passionately challenge assumptions and predictions of doom and gloom - I'm half glass full
4) I don't need to call people names to get my point across, I'll playfully put their putdowns to me back on them, but again, I'm able to admit I'm NOT an all knowing sage.

For you - just reverse each point.

As evidence of my assumptions about your character being based in an air of arrogance, your stance of superiority, and your inability to acknowledge you might not know EVERYTHING (note I maintain they are asusmptions - I mean this is JUST a friggin online forum - no need to get so serious (or personal for that matter) I offer this:

1) your name (informed of what - the ability to be rude?)
2) your condescending responses to people; "iPodder: So you're a developer now, huh?" (maybe he/she is, and even if they aren't why does being a developer make you right? Provide an explanation drawing on your knowledge)
3) Your inability to just acknowledge that you could be wrong. Your response that "If it isn't supported NOW in the developer tools, then it won't be in available in software that runs on your mythical "what-if" processor" seems (at least to my little brain) unusual for a DEVELOPER to be saying. If that is the case then nothing would EVER be available in the future. As I said there is a year and a bit to go, before a MacTel is even shipped meaning devlopers wont be releasing their NEW versions until after then (again I defer to your knowledge, but generally you don't relase code for machines that don't exist), and being all glass is half full in my view there is a good chance that WITHIN that time Apple and Intel will have a solution, which could be incorporated into Xcode 2.x or 3.0.

Again, you are entitled to think it may not happen, but why get your knickers in a twist about something being a disaster BEFORE it is? Mate life is too short to get so worked up about these things, and worse still to feel you have to deride those that think you are getting worked up over a storm in a tea cup - wait till it's a decent gale force wind is my advice.

But in the end, I will say you are obviously upset. It's a shame that things like this upset people so much, in the end there are people starving, wars and mad terrorists running around, and something as insignificant as Altivec support is leaidng to so much aminosity.

informed wrote:

"So yes, you are indeed an ignorant twerp."

As I openly had admitted that (repeatedly) I guess you could say:

"Oh I guess you showed me!" (As I said it is just TOO easy!!!)

Chill mate - really, I'm just trying to look at this from the benefits, cause there's always things that suck in ANY choice.

Luke

informed: you are just spreading FUDs. LOL, away from 64-bit? does x86-64 has a meaning to you? does the Intel 64-bit MP chores evolving from PentiumD and PentiumM has a meaning for you?

With that "say goodbye to 4GB mem" and "off 64bit code" you show you are clueless.

"iPodder: So you're a developer now, huh?" - ahh so the nicknames are all that matters to you? Since Apple goes Intel that means forget 64-bit (would be the only Intel based computer to still be 32-bit in 2006)?
As a matter of fact, yes, I am a programmer and in the IT business since 1986.

Oh I missed this one - informed wrote:

"And to preempt that barking little dog, LukeinOz"



How pleasant?

Sticks and stones... yadda yadda yadda

I actually find this hilarious. I imagine each of my posts is just frustrating you even more, and I am, as I have said, in no way offended or upset at all by yours, to me it is just banter.

Don't worry informed I still love you, don't be so angry, it's just a different point of view. I also don't NEED to be right.

So in good faith I admit:

I WAS TOTALLY WRONG ABOUT EVERYTHING (even the main I chose for dinner last night!). I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT ANYTHING (except that I know nothing about anything). INFORMED IS TOTALLY CORRECT:

APPLE SUCKS
INTEL SUCKS HARDER

PEACE

Luke

just to give you a clue: Altivec is nothing but a name Motorala and IBM give to SIMD optimization. In Intel world it is called SSE-1/2/3 .
Same techniques.

Or do you think as well Firewire and IEEE 1394 are two different things?
Universal binaries and OS X platform independent tell you anything?

Altivec and SSEx are somethig YOU put yourself in the code, not something it is automatically done by XCode.

Does:

#ifdef __VEC__
<do something with Altivec in PowerPC Mac>

#ifdef __SSE__
<do something with SSE in the Mactel>

means ANYTHING to you? I guess not.

As a matter of fact, the very same code could have parts that work only on PowerPC and parts only on Intel. The Universal binaries will contain both and the correct code selected on the corresponding architecture:

#ifdef __ppc__
<only meaningful on PowerPC>

#ifdef __i386__
<only meaningful on Intel>

you do not even need to ship TWO versions of the same product. It is done all the time. Ever heard of the term "portable software" ? Hint: it has nothing to do with how well you handle the box it is delivered to you.

Guys, sorry to put blatantly at you. But informed does not know what is talking about. informed: you are scared for nothing really, out of ignorance, but so are the majority of Mac users apparently

(apart the usual ones like Seahawk, IT_guy, etc who must laugh their asses out at the highest concentrations of FUDs these days. Amazing as they come from "Mac camp" rather than "Windows camp". Amazing)

Forgot:

in the sw you say that it works beautifully in G5/4/3 there is a lot of:

#ifdef __ppc__

#ifdef __ppc64__

That is, same application, not same code running on a G5, G4, G3.

Do you start to get it now?

the Pentium 4 3.6 GHz in the developer kit is 64-bit

http://www.intel.com/products/processor/pentium4/index.htm

third on the right.

SJ saved Apple ass a second time. All's good. In 2006/7 you will still be able to buy an Apple computer and it will be meaningful instead of watching others progress and Apple closing business in a big party it Cupertino having sold the last dual G5 pumped up for the occasion to 2.84GHz.

Ahh but some Mac fans would be happy nonetheless as Apple was faithful to them and to IBM: NONSENSE.

Also, for what it's worth, gcc on Mac OS X defaults to -msse2 when building for Intel, so you don't need to check for __SSE__ unless you're using that as a way to avoid building the code in question for PowerPC.

Seahawk: "In 2006/7 you will still be able to buy an Apple computer and it will be meaningful instead of watching others progress and Apple closing business in a big party it Cupertino having sold the last dual G5 pumped up for the occasion to 2.84GHz."

Brilliant!

IOW, an inferior technology (Intel) that has progressed to outperform a superior technology (PPC) ... is now the superior technology. Doesn't mean Apple was wrong before, doesn't mean Apple is wrong now.

Me: nope, it does not really mean that. Today G5 can compete with the best offered by Intel and AMD. But in two years? IBM is no more in PC business (sold everything to Lenovo), it makes chips tailored for gaming (XBox, Sony, etc), will not improve G5.

This is a technology where if you pause (as IBM did with the G5) you are toasted. The others catch up and pass you easily. Two years and the G5 is where? 2.7GHz and hot as hell. Forget the 3.0GHz, forget a mobile G5.

Apple was right before, would be wrong - with IBM not delivering - to stay on the same path. Be glad that SJ saw a possible wall and did not bring Apple to slam against it in two year.

We should all be glad Apple is doing now what it is described a bold, wise move (praises from everyone) rather than a change in two years when current G5 would be easily beaten up by every MP 64-bit Intel based computers. Then the same change would have been labeled as the last jerk of a rotten Apple, Apple would lose credibility in every sector. The only thing me, you, others could do is a toast at the Cupertino campus with sad feelings of what could have been possible if SJ was not a jerk to stay with failing IBM and blind to the Intel opportunity two years early in 2005.

iPodder:

x86-64 has meaning to me. Too bad xCode 2.1 doesn't support it. So I am better informed than you. You assume a great deal.

PowerPC code doesn't require using AltiVec or being "AltiVec aware" to be "fully optimized." You are the one who introduced the term "fully optimized," not me.

All I said is that there was no disruption in the move from G3 to G4 to G5, and I am right. The compiler one chooses does the "optimizing." That said, in the realtime signal processing applications (e.g.: reverbs) quality Mac developers CHOOSE to make the code "AltiVec aware" because it screams on thoses G4 and G5 systems. The plugins perform with a vastly higher processor efficiency than running on G3s (which the software which some plugins I own are also able to do). This is very important to to some of us and one of the reasons Macs are used in these A/V markets more than Wintels. Advantage now gone. Furthermore, any AltiVec aware plugins that ran on the G4 under OSX continue to run, even better, on the G5. So no "optimizing" for G5 was necessary.

Hell, Photoshop is AltiVec aware, but it is able to acceptably without it.

Technically speaking, NO commercially available software is taking complete advantage of the G5. Not even OSX. Nothing out there you can buy is "fully optimized" for G5. And now it never will be.

You attacked me without even looking to see what thread I was responding to and without understanding the point I was making. That point is that I have already bought some of this software twice (OS9 & OSX), its superior to anything running on Intel, and I'm not buying it again.

I'm not going to bother comparing resumes. Settle down.

informed wrote:

"So I am better informed than you. You assume a great deal."

"All I said is that there was no disruption in the move from G3 to G4 to G5, and I am right."

"I'm not going to bother comparing resumes. Settle down."

I rest my case.

Actually mate you were the one assuming and comparing resumes in the first place:

"iPodder: So you're a developer now, huh?"

I'm and ignorant twerp and you "informed" are a class 1 arrogant jerk.

Luke

PS - why don't you use your real name (because then you'd lose your air of superiority "So I am better informed than you"

fk;ing hillarious!

informed wrote:

"Wow, do you or MacMania know a damn thing about software?"

But hey everyone else should settle down, and hey "informed" doesn't want to "compare resumes"

I'm an ignorant twerp, that HATES arrogance.

Luke

PS - I note "informed" that you haven't responded to this post:

gzero wrote:

"Informed:

As a 10 year long Logic user, and someone whos knows more than a little bit about what's going on in Apple's audio division, I can say without a doubt that you have no idea what you are talking about. In two years, you will be eating your words. Believe that. I've seen the future, and it is gooood...."

It was in reply to your bitchin and moanin in this other thread http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/5972/