or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › iTunes universal binary, Rosetta improvements arrive in latest Intel seed
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

iTunes universal binary, Rosetta improvements arrive in latest Intel seed

post #1 of 67
Thread Starter 
Despite its absence from all prior distributions, a version of iTunes that can run natively on the first Intel Macs, as well as on current PowerPC Macs, has turned up in a recent developer release of Mac OS X 10.4.3 for Intel.

The iTunes universal binary is one of over fifteen significant changes listed alongside the recent Developer Transition Kit seeding of Mac OS X 10.4.3 Intel build 8F1111, according to sources and reports on the Internet.

The release reportedly packed a slew of additional universal printer drivers from Brother, Canon, EFI, EPSON, HP, Lexmark, Ricoh, and Xerox.

Other notable improvements include a native version of QuickTime 7.0.4, a new SSE/SSE2 based Libm that is IEEE-754 and C99 compliant, and more accurate developer crash logs for Rosetta-dependant applications.

OpenGL applications running under Rosetta also showed signs of performance and correctness improvements in build 8F1111, sources said.

Meanwhile, an automatic update to build 8F1111, released over Software Update to developers who had previously installed 8F1111, followed by adding Rosetta support for applications that rely on Velocity Engine. Previously, Rosetta did not support AltiVec, which includes Velocity Engine.

According to reports, the build -- labeled 8F1111A -- also packed much improved ATI graphics drivers and enabled GDB to be invoked from applications running under Rosetta.

Mac OS X for Intel is scheduled to makes its public debut during the second week of January, where source say Apple will take the wraps off of the first Intel Macs.
post #2 of 67
So AppleInsider is (so far) sticking to its prediction of an Intel-iMac and (possibly) Intel-Powerbooks? It looks like we're finally getting back into the territory of interesting rumors, with the reliable rumor sites contradicting each other considerably.

Given all that, it's still pretty early in the game--over a month to go, and we know how often ThinkSecret changed its prediction on a video iPod, so I don't give them quite so much credibility anymore (although the Mac Mini PVR rumor is interesting).
"In Xanadu did Kubla Kahn a stately pleasure-dome decree."
Reply
"In Xanadu did Kubla Kahn a stately pleasure-dome decree."
Reply
post #3 of 67
With the pace that these developments are coming, I get the impression that it won't be software that holds up the release of an Intel Mac. I really don't hear much about the hardware, however. OS X might run on an Intel-based machine, but does Apple have any ready to ship? Making a P4 work in a G5 enclosure is hardly an engineering miracle.

I keep hearing that portables and minis will be the first to move to Intel, but it seems like they'd need the most changes internally. Until I hear of somebody actually seeing an Intel PowerBook or iBook, I don't think this is very big news.
post #4 of 67
I don't know if Apple DOES have new hardware lurking in its labs, nearly ready.... but they certainly COULD. They do manage to keep some things under wraps quite successfully.
post #5 of 67
Releasing the consumer-level machines first made sense to me, as those can use Apple's built-in software and not need the Pro apps that might not be ready yet.

But now we hear that the PowerBook might be one of the first ones out. I doubt that a lot of Pro users would buy this PowerBook if Adobe and other big 3rd party music, 3-D and video apps aren't ready.
--Johnny
Reply
--Johnny
Reply
post #6 of 67
Quote:
Originally posted by AppleInsider
OpenGL applications running under Rosetta also showed signs of performance and correctness improvements in build 8F1111, sources said.

Signs of correctness improvements? I don't know what that means... but it implies Rosetta isn't quite as seamless as Jobs demonstrated???
post #7 of 67
Quote:
Originally posted by illtron
With the pace that these developments are coming, I get the impression that it won't be software that holds up the release of an Intel Mac. I really don't hear much about the hardware, however. OS X might run on an Intel-based machine, but does Apple have any ready to ship? Making a P4 work in a G5 enclosure is hardly an engineering miracle.

I keep hearing that portables and minis will be the first to move to Intel, but it seems like they'd need the most changes internally. Until I hear of somebody actually seeing an Intel PowerBook or iBook, I don't think this is very big news.

In regards to P4 - thats not going to be the future of the Intel line (when are people going to read the friendly articles?!), its going to be based on the P6 core, which makes up the basis of the Pentium M processor - aka, the Yonah and successors that'll be comeing through.

All that has been said so far has been rumours of an Intel based iBooks and min-Macs, they'll the first; that at the value end, the end that'll be happy with the existing software line up - couple that with something like a more juiced up version of iWork along with iLife as well, its destined for greater improvements.

As for the release by January, I don't think it'll happen; we're in december, and it won't occur; I could see something before June, but I doubt before then.

As for the PowerMac and PowerBook - it won't be released until the end of next year - at the earliest - the simple fact, there won't be the applications that are required by professionals; even Adobe has said at the earliest, they'll get an Intel version of Creative suite by the end of next year, which I high doubt will occur - it might not be until the following year (2007).

For Apple, sure, their applications maybe working out of the box on day one, but the reality of the situation is that the world doesn't run on Apple software alone - as great as their software maybe.
post #8 of 67
The most important item in this release, now appearently confirmed after its revealing elsewhere last week, is the new Rosetta.

The old version only emulated a G3. The new version emulates a G4 with Altivec.

This is a major step.

If Apple does release machines in January, this will be one of the more important reasons.

From what I've heard, PS, and other apps that are optimised for G4 and later cpu's that can also work with a G3 perform dreadfully under Rosetta. This will enhance that considerably.

Also, a number of programs that were opimised for a G4 and Altivec wouldn't even run under the older Rosetta.

This would tick off many people. Apple just enabled many more programs this way.
post #9 of 67
Quote:
Originally posted by kaiwai
In regards to P4 - thats not going to be the future of the Intel line
<snip> .... rumours of an Intel based iBooks and min-Macs, they'll the first; that at the value end, the end that'll be happy with the existing software line up -
<snip> As for the release by January, I don't think it'll happen; we're in december, and it won't occur; I could see something before June, but I doubt before then.

Yes, the Pentium M (Yonah/laptop stuff) is the basis of future Intel chips and I think Apple will follow those chips as they move from low-power versions into the desktop over the coming 1-2 years.

I see no evidence for or against Apple not having the software ready for January. The hardware could certainly be done, the rest depends on OSX stability (and emulation). I wouldn't be surprised if Apple released an Intel based Mac-Mini-TV system that officially doesn't run 3rd-party applications AT ALL.
Quote:
Originally posted by kaiwai
As for the PowerMac and PowerBook - it won't be released until the end of next year - at the earliest - the simple fact, there won't be the applications that are required by professionals; even Adobe has said at the earliest, they'll get an Intel version of Creative suite by the end of next year, which I high doubt will occur - it might not be until the following year (2007).

It depends on the speed of emulation. The G5 systems are FAST, but Apple Laptops are not so fast. If the emulation works well a laptop could feasibly be switched to Intel and run apps in emulation better than a G4 today. And I think Apple will either make that their goal, or wait till more apps are ported.

Greg
ps. The creative applications may not emulate as well as they could, but graphic artists rarely use laptops. They also like big screens, and the colour matching isn't available on LCDs. If graphics professionals can still buy a G4 17inch Powerbook and G5 PowerMacs for all of 2006 I think that part of Apple's customer-base will be fine.
post #10 of 67
I agree with melgross. Rosettas ability to run altivec optimized code is the news here.

Someone PLEASE make a few test runs and tell about the speed of Altivec code execution. It would give a good indication of how they implemented it...
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #11 of 67
Quote:
Originally posted by Anders
Someone PLEASE make a few test runs and tell about the speed of Altivec code execution. It would give a good indication of how they implemented it...

You do realize you are encouraging people to breach contracts here?
post #12 of 67
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
The most important item in this release, now appearently confirmed after its revealing elsewhere last week, is the new Rosetta.

The old version only emulated a G3. The new version emulates a G4 with Altivec.

This is a major step.

If Apple does release machines in January, this will be one of the more important reasons.

From what I've heard, PS, and other apps that are optimised for G4 and later cpu's that can also work with a G3 perform dreadfully under Rosetta. This will enhance that considerably.

Also, a number of programs that were opimised for a G4 and Altivec wouldn't even run under the older Rosetta.

This would tick off many people. Apple just enabled many more programs this way.


Eggsactly, that's what I thought the minute I saw it written on a certain site. I'm a little bit suprised it takes a week to get here. However I hope that means they have their own sources.
I'm definately 'ticked off' now. All I need is to wait a few weeks after these things are released (OK I'm banking on the iBook - which is the debatable first release), See if they fall apart... Get a few reviews on comparative speeds running PS (and the like) on Intel vs my iBook 800 - and I'll go and get the keys to the safe safe (which I don't do often.). Here's also praying they don't go backwards to integrated graphics - or worse however.
post #13 of 67
I did some digging online and here is a list of ATI cards supported with the 8F1111A drivers (not my list, so I can't take credit for it)

------------------------------
0x4E441002 - 9700 Pro
0x41441002 - 9500 Pro
0x4E481002 - 9800 Pro
0x41481002 - 9800
0x41501002 - 9600
0x4E501002 - Mobility 9600 M10
0x41521002 - 9600
0x4E541002 - FireGL Mobility T2
0x4A481002 - X800
0x4A491002 - X800 Pro
0x4A4A1002 - X800 SE
0x4A4B1002 - X800
0x4A4C1002 - X800
0x4A4D1002 - FireGL X3
0x4A4E1002 - Mobility 9800
0x5B601002 - X300 PCIe
0x5B621002 - X600 PCIe
0x3E501002 - X600
0x4E561002 - FireGL Mobility T2e
0x5B641002 - FireGL V3100 PCIe
0x3E541002 - FireGL V3200
------------------------------

Note the FireGL drivers. Use of COTS video cards is a major perk with the move to intel. I'm assuming PPC & x86 drivers are not compatible, so the abundance of AGP cards is rather curious. Could this be the beginning of a Mac unified driver like catalyst? Or something else?
post #14 of 67
Quote:
Originally posted by illtron
With the pace that these developments are coming, I get the impression that it won't be software that holds up the release of an Intel Mac.

Funny, I have the exact opposite fealing.. If Apple really is planning to launch Mactels in january, I would expect OSX to be fully ported and at least halfway through RC-testing by now..
Quote:
Originally posted by Anders
I agree with melgross. Rosettas ability to run altivec optimized code is the news here.

Someone PLEASE make a few test runs and tell about the speed of Altivec code execution. It would give a good indication of how they implemented it...

I would expect something along the lines of SSE-->Altivec.
Pure Mhz --> Altivec emulation wont make any sense until a few years in the future, if im not mistaken?
"There's no bigot like a religious bigot and there's no religion more fanatical than that espoused by Macintosh zealots." ~Martin Veitch, IT Week [31-01-2003]
Reply
"There's no bigot like a religious bigot and there's no religion more fanatical than that espoused by Macintosh zealots." ~Martin Veitch, IT Week [31-01-2003]
Reply
post #15 of 67
Quote:
Originally posted by lundy
But now we hear that the PowerBook might be one of the first ones out. I doubt that a lot of Pro users would buy this PowerBook if Adobe and other big 3rd party music, 3-D and video apps aren't ready.

As someone who only buys PowerBooks and is primarily a business user, the switch over point for me will be when Microsoft releases a native Intel version MS Office for Mac OS X. I won't budge before that happens.
post #16 of 67
G4 and AltiVec emulation is important news as an enabler for software that relies on it being there but the question still is 'How fast?'. AltiVec to SSE/2/3 conversion isn't going to be without some penalty and quite possibly more than plain jane G3 code.

The other important news is native Intel Quicktime 7.0.4. If the PPC apps are calling out to quicktime for codec work then that's going to sort out a lot of speed in important areas.
post #17 of 67
Quote:
Originally posted by neondiet
As someone who only buys PowerBooks and is primarily a business user, the switch over point for me will be when Microsoft releases a native Intel version MS Office for Mac OS X. I won't budge before that happens.

Really? Why? It's hardly taxing on the CPU so that's exactly the kind of app that would work well in Rosetta.
post #18 of 67
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Really? Why? It's hardly taxing on the CPU so that's exactly the kind of app that would work well in Rosetta.

And since Intel based PowerBooks are probably much faster than the current G4 PowerBooks, Office running in Rosetta will likely be faster than on a G4.
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
post #19 of 67
Quote:
Originally posted by JLL
And since Intel based PowerBooks are probably much faster than the current G4 PowerBooks, Office running in Rosetta will likely be faster than on a G4.

That remains to be seen. There's a lot to speculate on there including...

Rosetta using both cores even for single threaded apps
Powerbooks being dual core
CPU speed being significantly faster than currently.
How much of the infrastructure the application uses that is native.

I've no handle on how much of Office v.X or 2003 is Microsoft's own cobbled together frameworks or how much is Apple's. I presume it's not cocoa and they've got their own weird carbon-esque UI crap in there last I used v.X and briefly watched someone else's Office2003 with it's horrible fading toolbar. Ugh.
post #20 of 67
Quote:
Originally posted by T'hain Esh Kelch
I would expect something along the lines of SSE-->Altivec.
Pure Mhz --> Altivec emulation wont make any sense until a few years in the future, if im not mistaken?

Thats the question. If they can convert Altivec code to SSE instructions it will be quite impressive. If not, it only help those who HAS to have Altivec only filters to work and donĀ“t care if their program suddenly floats in molasses (since the "back-up-if-on-G3 code surely will be much faster). Thats why I hope some will do some tests, so we will find out how it is implementet.
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #21 of 67
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
That remains to be seen. There's a lot to speculate on there including...

Rosetta using both cores even for single threaded apps
Powerbooks being dual core
CPU speed being significantly faster than currently.
How much of the infrastructure the application uses that is native.

Intel doesn't have something as slow as a 1.67GHz G4 as far as I can see, and Office runs fine on the Developer Transition Kit.
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
post #22 of 67
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
That remains to be seen. There's a lot to speculate on there including...

Rosetta using both cores even for single threaded apps
Powerbooks being dual core
CPU speed being significantly faster than currently.
How much of the infrastructure the application uses that is native.

I've no handle on how much of Office v.X or 2003 is Microsoft's own cobbled together frameworks or how much is Apple's. I presume it's not cocoa and they've got their own weird carbon-esque UI crap in there last I used v.X and briefly watched someone else's Office2003 with it's horrible fading toolbar. Ugh.

I'm going into the "It'll blow in Rosetta" category. I can't imagine its built on the Cocoa frameworks, and my guess it uses as much built-in OS X carbon frameworks as the OS 9 version did (i.e. not much - they like to write it all themselves). So more would have to be actually emulated vs. just rosetta'ing the code to use the Intel versions.

Oh, and before we start blowing too much smoke about how fast such and such machine will run PPC code, maybe we should actually wait and find out what type of hardware these powerbooks or macs will actually be running. A lot of people seem to be under the impression that the new chips will be so wickedly fast that emulation won't be a concern (gee, and I remember the same talk when they went to PPC).
post #23 of 67
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Really? Why? It's hardly taxing on the CPU so that's exactly the kind of app that would work well in Rosetta.

Well, the theory might be "Why buy a new powerbook if all your major apps are going to be emulated. Of course, I'm also one to keep in mind that emulation isn't just about a speed penalty, but a concern over stability/reliability (remember that it took years to get people to switch to OS X to OS 9, regardless of Clasic). Of course, he could also be of the mind of "Hey, I don't need to run out and buy a new mac just because Apple releases one!"

Oh, and on the topic of the Altivec emulation, don't get too excited until someone actually spills the beans about how it emulates it. I also remember SoftwareFPU for the original PPC macs, which converted FPU code to standard PPC code. It was slow (but it allowed some apps to work that otherwise refused to).
post #24 of 67
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
That remains to be seen. There's a lot to speculate on there including...

Rosetta using both cores even for single threaded apps

Even if Rosetta is multi threaded, a single threaded app will only use one thread on either core at any point in time, so you're not likely to see a speed up from that.
Quote:
Powerbooks being dual core

They had better be or I can't see the attraction in upgrading. Other vendors will be pumping out dual-core Intel laptops. Apple will have to do the same if they're going to compete at the high end.
Quote:
CPU speed being significantly faster than currently.

Well its looking encouraging. See this register article on a performance comparison between Yonah and other Intel and AMD cpu's. Intel are closing the gap, plus power consumption looks pretty good too.
Quote:
How much of the infrastructure the application uses that is native.

I've no handle on how much of Office v.X or 2003 is Microsoft's own cobbled together frameworks or how much is Apple's. I presume it's not cocoa and they've got their own weird carbon-esque UI crap in there last I used v.X and briefly watched someone else's Office2003 with it's horrible fading toolbar. Ugh.

As sweet as it would be for MS to do a full cocoa port I'm not holding my breath on that one either. However, MS do have bags more experience with building and tuning for the Intel compiler, so I'm quietly hopeful that there will be a noticeable performance boost just from making the switch.
post #25 of 67
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Rosetta using both cores even for single threaded apps

Just to be accurate about this I fired up MS Word and Excel and looked to see if they were multi-threaded or not. The result:

MS Word has 4 threads
MS Excel has 7 threads

See for yourself, run: ps axMw | more in a Terminal window. Scroll through each page using the space-bar and when you find /Applications/Microsoft Office 2004/Microsoft Word count it, plus the number of lines underneath that have the same PID number (second column) and a blank command column (they're the extra threads).

You'll find it easier to spot if you maximize your Terminal window first. Also, that command is case sensitive. The M has to be upper-case as a lower-case m will sort by memory usage instead of showing the threads.
post #26 of 67
The entire Mactel situation is interesting and, at this point in time, open for speculation - some intelligent, some just hopeful.

My money is that Apple will release the first Mactels in January and they may introduce as many as 4 lines: Mac mini, iBook, iMac and PB. Figure that Apple went full speed for close to a year before the announcement - and this after all versions of OS X running on Mactels for 5 years. They were more than aware of where they needed to go and what they needed to do. The key factor at the time of the announcement was to get some developer boxes out and get as much information from the developers as possible.

I believe that Apple is ready with all of their apps (except for AppleWorks, which I think is EOL) and this is the core need for selling to consumers. Some third party developers were announcing they were "Mactel Ready" within months of the Mactel announcement and I believe that others will make that announcement as soon as the Mactels are released.

Lots of software will be available, but two big companies are going to struggle for a while: Adobe and MS. Adobe has a real problem in that they need to convert both the pro and consumer levels of PS, which will probably be announced around August. MS will need to rework Office, but it is a profitable venture for them so I believe there are a lot of programmers working long hours to get it ready. Until Office for Mactel is delivered I believe that users will be happy with the current apps, plus will be taking a look at iWork, which should be filled out in January. It's not going to slow Mactel sales. (I use a PB in my business and have shifted most of the wp work to Pages and am looking forward to moving from Excel when iWork 06 comes out.)

VPC presents a different challenge. While Office will be reprogramming an existing app, VPC is going to need to cover a different approach to having Windows run on a Mactel. The problem MS faces is the fact that there will be other companies (or individuals) working on the same project. Some very long hours for the VPC team.

On the engineering & design side one only has to look at some recent hardware (including the iPod range) to get the feeling that it is not going to be another Dull box. They are ready to go and we're going to drool over each of the lines.
Ken
Reply
Ken
Reply
post #27 of 67
YES drool....

Thats what were hoping for,droolworthy macs... the word pentium makes me sick,they better keep the G thing and NO stickers!!!!

I dont see why everyone is so excited about the Intel thing,because i have played with some of the latest Pee Sea stuff and they arent fast! they studder stammer stick freeze and produce alot of heat! especially the portables!

The latest dells could double as home heating Units and leaf blowers.
To use my girlfreinds dell laptop i have to put headphones on because i cant hear anything otherwise because the fan is so loud,I`m not Kidding! and it runs constantly,and its a 2.8 meghertz p4 brand new........

you know this whole thing is scary for us mac purists "You Know? Those of us who are praying for the Swift death of the Mighty mouse."

"bad name/bad Idea"

Apple needs chips especially designed for them, quality chips, that way speed will be in the way its designed like it has been with the ppc... megahertz doesnt and shouldnt mean Dick!

I have lots of experience with either platform nothing is more fast and more smooth/productive than any Mac with mondo ram and PPC. THUS FAR.

Hell my ibook with 1.5 Gigs of ram is faster at almost everything than my freinds alienware.

I know! its the OS right? good code means good performance? I hope so for apples sake...

but Stevo did say for us not to worry were going to make the best damn computers in the world... while announcing the Intel switch.

Well i`m still worried and i wont be sane until i play with the first Intel mac

0.2 cents
post #28 of 67
Very intersting post, Ken. You make a lot of good points.

Quote:
Originally posted by kenaustus
The entire Mactel situation is interesting and, at this point in time, open for speculation - some intelligent, some just hopeful.

My money is that Apple will release the first Mactels in January and they may introduce as many as 4 lines: Mac mini, iBook, iMac and PB. ...

Yep, they'll definitely do the iBook and mini, and probably the PowerBook. But the iMac is pretty strong and was recently updated. My guess is that the iMac won't be updated yet.

And PowerBooks are in desperate need of a speed boost, regardless of whether Adobe's apps are ready. OTOH, Apple often updates their own pro apps (FCP, DVDSP, Motion) at a pro-video conference in April, so maybe new PowerBooks will come out then.


Quote:
Originally posted by kenaustus
I believe that Apple is ready with all of their apps (except for AppleWorks, which I think is EOL) and this is the core need for selling to consumers. ...

It's interesting to speculate as to whether the decision to kill off AppleWorks in favor of iWork was made when they decided to go to Intel. If AppleWorks won't be on the Intel machines at all, then iWork will need both a spreadsheet and (at least minimally) a database in January. iWorks 06 should be a tremendous upgrade.

Quote:
Originally posted by kenaustus
Lots of software will be available, but two big companies are going to struggle for a while: Adobe and MS. Adobe has a real problem in that they need to convert both the pro and consumer levels of PS, which will probably be announced around August. ...

Interestingly, Photoshop Elements 4 for Mac wasn't released at the same time as the Windows version this past August. It's supposed to be out "later". Maybe it's already Intel enabled? It would make sense to test out their Intel port on Elements first, and use feedback to improve their Pro software before it's released.

Quote:
Originally posted by kenaustus
MS will need to rework Office, but it is a profitable venture for them so I believe there are a lot of programmers working long hours to get it ready. Until Office for Mactel is delivered I believe that users will be happy with the current apps, plus will be taking a look at iWork, which should be filled out in January. ...

Office is on sale now--a big hint that MS is worried about iWork 06.


Quote:
Originally posted by kenaustus
VPC presents a different challenge. While Office will be reprogramming an existing app, VPC is going to need to cover a different approach to having Windows run on a Mactel. ...

If Apple creates a free software solution to using Intel's virtualization technology (e.g., Fast User Switching-type thing to a Windows desktop running in a separate VM), then VPC may become a too-expensive solution for many people (but some will still want VPC's integration).
post #29 of 67
Quote:
Originally posted by Chucker
You do realize you are encouraging people to breach contracts here?

Maybe he's just encouraging people who've already stolen a copy to do the benchmarking...
post #30 of 67
Quote:
Originally posted by Louzer
Of course, I'm also one to keep in mind that emulation isn't just about a speed penalty, but a concern over stability/reliability

Emulation isn't always slower. There was a MIPS machine that ran an advanced emulator of itself and applications running in the emulator ran faster than on the raw hardware due to excellent runtime optimizations in the emulator.

Apple's talking 70% - if the new machines are > 30% faster it will be a wash.
post #31 of 67
Quote:
Originally posted by Louzer
Well, the theory might be "Why buy a new powerbook if all your major apps are going to be emulated. Of course, I'm also one to keep in mind that emulation isn't just about a speed penalty, but a concern over stability/reliability (remember that it took years to get people to switch to OS X to OS 9, regardless of Clasic). Of course, he could also be of the mind of "Hey, I don't need to run out and buy a new mac just because Apple releases one!"

Oh, and on the topic of the Altivec emulation, don't get too excited until someone actually spills the beans about how it emulates it. I also remember SoftwareFPU for the original PPC macs, which converted FPU code to standard PPC code. It was slow (but it allowed some apps to work that otherwise refused to).

The advantage is that the OS is native, and seems to have performance advantages. Also, many of Apple's programs will be ready, or close to it. Possibly including FCStudio, etc.

Many 3rd party programs are ready now.

Even a single core 2.16GHz Yonah has a significant performance boost over the 1.67GHz 7447a. If Freescale had been able to supply the 7448 at 1.8 GHz, in October, when it was expected, that might have made it a closer race. But, of course, they didn't. Whether we will ever see it is a question whose answer is becoming more negative every day.

SoftwareFPU is something that I used back when. It's not a comparable situation. That was for a chip that had NO FPU. It just allowed you to run the software = very slowly.

This is different. In this case both SSE 2 and 3 are very compatible according to Apple. They even offer advantages over Altivec. The old MMX code, which is what most Apple users seem to remember is just a bad memory.

See what Apple has to say about it:

http://developer.apple.com/transition/index.html?ht

Go down the page to Special Cases. There are several articles dealing with it. At the bottom is an article more specific to Rosetta. It's been updated in November, but I haven't read it yet, so I don't know if the latest changes are reflected there. Sometimes Apple updates these articles only after a week or two has gone by.

But this page will give a quick overview of SSe vs Altivec, and its advantages.

Note that the biggest complaint about Altivec; the lack of double precision FP is present in SSE, and are IEEE-754 compliant, which in Altivec were not.

http://developer.apple.com/documenta...ion/index.html
post #32 of 67
Quote:
Originally posted by bikertwin
It's interesting to speculate as to whether the decision to kill off AppleWorks in favor of iWork was made when they decided to go to Intel. If AppleWorks won't be on the Intel machines at all, then iWork will need both a spreadsheet and (at least minimally) a database in January. iWorks 06 should be a tremendous upgrade.

iWork is *the* poster child for Cocoa loveliness IMHO so I imagine it'd port across in no time at all. I reckon they'll add in a whole bunch of Core Image stuff this time round and if they've not bought Intaglio's drawing app to add to it then I'd be surprised as it's such a good fit.
post #33 of 67
Quote:
Originally posted by bikertwin

Yep, they'll definitely do the iBook and mini, and probably the PowerBook. But the iMac is pretty strong and was recently updated. My guess is that the iMac won't be updated yet.

And PowerBooks are in desperate need of a speed boost, regardless of whether Adobe's apps are ready. OTOH, Apple often updates their own pro apps (FCP, DVDSP, Motion) at a pro-video conference in April, so maybe new PowerBooks will come out then.

It seems to me that Apple should move the PB's over the same time as the iBook. Otherwise we are in the disconcerting situation of having iBook running faster than the pro line. If it's just a month or so, that might be fine, but more more than that would kill sales. If Apple goes with a dual Yinah for the PB's to start, it could work. But if they want to wait for the Merom, there could be a problem.

The iMac can wait. These portable Yonahs can't compete with that.



Quote:
It's interesting to speculate as to whether the decision to kill off AppleWorks in favor of iWork was made when they decided to go to Intel. If AppleWorks won't be on the Intel machines at all, then iWork will need both a spreadsheet and (at least minimally) a database in January. iWorks 06 should be a tremendous upgrade.

The problem with iWorks, which my daughter now uses, is that it is not selling at all well. Apple has resorted to giving it away more than once already with a purchase. It needs to be significantly upgraded in the next version. I think that Apple needs to put a basic version of Filemaker in the package. Otherwise, it's lacking. AppleWorks was a very good program for many years. So far iWork is no where near to taking its place.

Quote:
Interestingly, Photoshop Elements 4 for Mac wasn't released at the same time as the Windows version this past August. It's supposed to be out "later". Maybe it's already Intel enabled? It would make sense to test out their Intel port on Elements first, and use feedback to improve their Pro software before it's released.

The reason for the "delay" for Elements 4 is because, at first, Adobe said that there wouldn't be a Mac version at all. There were NO plans for it. Now, we'll see.

Quote:
Office is on sale now--a big hint that MS is worried about iWork 06.

Only if Apple can make it comparable in some way. Pages and Keynote aren't nearly enough.

Quote:
If Apple creates a free software solution to using Intel's virtualization technology (e.g., Fast User Switching-type thing to a Windows desktop running in a separate VM), then VPC may become a too-expensive solution for many people (but some will still want VPC's integration).

Very true.
post #34 of 67
Personally I expect big things from iWork 06. I use Pages now and, except for a few limitations, prefer it over Word. No doubt there will be a spreadsheet and I believe that the only thing that kept it back for 05 was being able to export it to Excel, like Pages can be exported to a .doc format.

I'm also looking for a FileMaker compatible database, if not FileMaker Express. I believe that has been held back for iWork 06 for internal reasons.

Throw in a stack of templates and wizards and iWork 06 will be a powerful incentive for MS to get Office for Mactels out the door.
Ken
Reply
Ken
Reply
post #35 of 67
Quote:
Originally posted by kenaustus
Personally I expect big things from iWork 06. I use Pages now and, except for a few limitations, prefer it over Word. No doubt there will be a spreadsheet and I believe that the only thing that kept it back for 05 was being able to export it to Excel, like Pages can be exported to a .doc format.

I'm also looking for a FileMaker compatible database, if not FileMaker Express. I believe that has been held back for iWork 06 for internal reasons.

Throw in a stack of templates and wizards and iWork 06 will be a powerful incentive for MS to get Office for Mactels out the door.

My thought is that Apple might be able to rework a Filemaker derivative to be both a spreadsheet as well as a database.

In many ways each type of program can be used for work done by the other. There are enough similarities. As Apple owns the database (a very popular one), it might make sense for it to work in dual modes. they don't have a spreadsheet, except for the primitive, and old, one in Appleworks.
post #36 of 67
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
My thought is that Apple might be able to rework a Filemaker derivative to be both a spreadsheet as well as a database.

In many ways each type of program can be used for work done by the other.

Usually incorrectly. \

Spreadsheets deal with calculations between relatively free-form data. (Think of a timesheet--it has your hours for each day and calculates the total hours for the week)

Databases deal with very structured data in often large quantities. (Think of an employee database--it has the timesheet info for each employee for many years, as well as contact information, etc.)

Microsoft separates both the applications (Excel, Access) and their data file formats (.XLS, MDB) for good reasons. Apple would probably do the same.

What is likely, however, is that iWorks' database app and spreadsheet app will share many user interface elements, including layout & formatting tools--much as Keynote and Pages do.
post #37 of 67
Quote:
Originally posted by bikertwin
Usually incorrectly. \

Spreadsheets deal with calculations between relatively free-form data. (Think of a timesheet--it has your hours for each day and calculates the total hours for the week)

Databases deal with very structured data in often large quantities. (Think of an employee database--it has the timesheet info for each employee for many years, as well as contact information, etc.)

Microsoft separates both the applications (Excel, Access) and their data file formats (.XLS, MDB) for good reasons. Apple would probably do the same.

What is likely, however, is that iWorks' database app and spreadsheet app will share many user interface elements, including layout & formatting tools--much as Keynote and Pages do.

I hate to have to inform you of this but these apps have been used that way for decades. Before you were born. Many times spreadsheets are used for simple databases, and databases are used for simple spreadsheets.

I didn't say that Filemaker, as it is, should be used as a spreadsheet, but it could easily be, with some additions.

The differences in concept aren't as great as you seem to think they are. The difference is mostly in the focus of the programs.

A contextual change could easily be made to have the one program act as both.

Apple is trying to keep the price of iWorks down as much as possible. Writing,

and supporting two additional programs might be more than they want to do.

You seem to have more energy invested in trying to find a way to say that I'm wrong about something than you do in thinking it out for yourself.

Sad.
post #38 of 67
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
I hate to have to inform you of this but these apps have been used that way for decades.

As I said, "incorrectly." I'm not disputing they're used that way--only disputing whether they should be used that way.

Quote:
I didn't say that Filemaker, as it is, should be used as a spreadsheet, but it could easily be, with some additions.

<scratches head>

So you're saying it shouldn't be (as in "users shouldn't use it that way") but it should be (as in "Apple should implement it that way")? You lost me on that one.


Quote:
A contextual change could easily be made to have the one program act as both.

What format would you store the data in?

Quote:
You seem to have more energy invested in trying to find a way to say that I'm wrong about something than you do in thinking it out for yourself.

Sad.

Sorry, but I have no interest in proving any one person correct or incorrect. I'd question that particular post no matter who posted it.

In terms of thinking it out for oneself, I think our posts speak for themselves. Isn't that how it's supposed to be?

Back on the immediate subject ...

AppleWorks had modules but iWorks is a collection of separate apps that share many UI tools. It just seems likely that Apple would continue that with separate spreadsheet and database apps. I could be wrong. No big deal.
post #39 of 67
Quote:
Originally posted by GregAlexander

ps. The creative applications may not emulate as well as they could, but graphic artists rarely use laptops.

Wrong.
post #40 of 67
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
...and databases are used for simple spreadsheets.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac OS X
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › iTunes universal binary, Rosetta improvements arrive in latest Intel seed