or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by THT

Cocoa applications will be a simple recompile plus architecture specific optimizations. For most Cocoa apps, it's just a recompile. Carbon applications will need quite a bit of work. The vast majority of [important] applications are Carbon applications and will require many man-months of work. The problem with the Mac OS application ecosystem is that no major developers (Adobe, MS) will ground-up rewrite their Carbon (read as old Mac OS 9 application) applications with a...
I'll chime in and say I wish there was a NEXTSTEP style shelf. Right now, the Finder is very much a neglected application. They've put a lot more work into iTunes, iPhoto, et al, applications than the Finder.
So many possibilities being talked about here : 1. Apple switches Macintosh to Intel inside (presumably Yonah variants) starting with low end machines in Summer 2006 and ending with high end machines in Summer 2007. 2. Intel will produce a PPC variant for Apple. Eg, modifying the micro-ops decoder in Yonah to decode PPC ISA instead of x86 ISA. 3. Apple is negotiating with Intel for Xscale CPUs for an iPod thing or Tablet thing. 4. Apple is negotiating with...
Back when RISC CPUs didn't exist. Prior to the Power Macintosh debut in 1994 that used PowerPC RISC CPUs, Apple used varients of the Motorola 68000, 68020, 68030 and 68040 CISC CPUs in Macs and Powerbooks.
Wow. And not so long ago people were complaining about how unstormy it was prior to WWDC. The only way I see Apple moving to Intel is if CEOs of Intel, Dell, HP, Gateway and Acer are standing up there with Steve at the WWDC keynote and promising that they will be shipping Mac OS X for Intel by the time Xbox 360 comes out this fall, or at least a converged home device to compete with Xbox and PS3.
There aint no such thing as a free lunch. Cell is a 200+ million transistor, 200+ sq mm microprocessor running at 3.2 GHz. The idea that it can perform to the theoretical numbers yet run cool enough to be used in a laptop sounds very much like a free lunch. I think that laptop CPU power budgets will grow to the 40 Watt range in the next couple of years. CPU power budgets have grown, commensurate with increased performance, very consistently since laptops were first...
TANSTAAFL. It hasn't been ascertained that Cell is in fact more appropriate for laptop uses (let alone desktop uses). If Cell (1 PPE + 8 SPE) at 3.2 GHz is 80 Watts, and the Realworldtech SPE schmoo plot is correct, then 1 PPE + 512 kByte L2 burns 30 to 40 Watts. It's possible though for IBM to produce a low power PowerPC chip for laptop uses though. If Intel can produce a 2.13 GHz Pentium M 770 at 27 Watts TDP, IBM should be able to produce a 2 GHz 970fx within 5 Watts of...
I've been a Powerbook G5 advocate for so long, ever since the 1st gen Power Mac G5s came out, that I'm beginning to wonder if its becoming a complex for me. Apple and IBM were planning to have a Powerbook G5 and 970fx chips to go into them at least in early 2004. I bet Apple wanted to release a Powerbook G5 in Summer of 2004, but alas things didn't go right at the 90nm fab. IBM had an application note, Thermal Considerations: PPC970FX, in early 2004 which stated...
They should legalize it so Ricky Williams can play football again!
The two FPU units in the 970 execute single and double precision with the same latencies and are fully pipelined for both. It's 11 GFLOPS DP for a 2.7 GHz 970fx. The 22 GFLOPS Henriok quoted was an AltiVec number, and we all know AltiVec only does single precision.
New Posts  All Forums: