This was cuz of different firmware in the video chipset or something right? Man, I hope this doesn't mean that when the desktops start coming out, we'll still have to buy "Mac Edition" versions of the video card. I was hoping with the move to Intel, we'd be able to buy from the wide range of video cards out there for the generic x86 systems.
Any concerns with video cards being installed in BIOS or EFI systems. Is there a different firmware necessary; or will Apple enable the BIOS compatibility mode in EFI?
Compilers obviously won't be identical. Adobe is going XCode and the underlying GCC compiler is certainly not the fastest in the world (neither for compile- nor for runtime). But now at least Apple are on a chip platform where other companies such as RedHat are also contributing to GCC optimization. So improvements are ongoing.
For PowerPC most GCC improvements were done by Apple (and Linux versions for PowerPC could profit from that).
"Intel's dev tools for OS X have finally hit beta. This is a very happy day.
I've said it from the beginning: Intel's development tools are the best part of Apple's decision to switch to Intel CPUs. I am genuinely psyched.
Said incredible Intel compilers for OS X are now downloadable as betas. You need to request participation in the beta and wait for an invitation response. If you get your invite, you'll get a link to register with Intel and download Intel's C++ and Fortran compilers, the Math Kernel Library and Integrated Performance Primitives.
x86 developers running Windows and Linux have been spoiled by Intel's tools for years. When I moved to the Mac, long before I knew Apple was going Intel, Intel's dev tools were chief among the very few assets it pained me to leave behind.
Professional Mac development is elevated to a whole new level."
Unfortunately Intel has closed the beta program for those compilers right now, which is a shame because I really wanted to get hold of their Fortran compiler to see if it could help my g77 woes (Intel Macs lack a working version of the g77 compiler, which most software in my research field is compiled with).
Sweet! I would think people who are interested in purchasing a new computer to run Windows may give the new Intel Macs a glance.
Consumers can have a system that runs OS X and Windows. I think it's a no-brainer.
YES YES YES [orgasms]. This is fucking huge. For Apple or Microsoft or a third party NOT to capitalise on this is fucking stupid. Excuse my French (heh, how apt given the copyright issue thingy) but this is fucking awesome for getting Mac systems, out of the box, supporting WinXP real well.
Apple dealers should be creaming their pants as this is a HUGE fucking selling point...!!
I understand what you're saying, but it seems to me that games are the perfect case for why this is a good thing. Right now, some people (OK, mostly kiddies, but they get a lot of computers) don't get Macs because they don't run the latest and greatest games. That would cease to be an issue. Furthermore, games don't really use the OS. You don't need Aqua for Doom. Doom looks essentially the same on Mac and Windows.
In the meantime, Apple has started creating a lot of well-respected software in addition to their well-liked OS: iLife and the pro versions of those apps in Final Cut Studio in particular. If people want to run those apps, they need to get a Mac. And if they have Windows apps (even games) that they don't want to lose, there's no longer a problem there.
I'm with this camp of thought. Consolidating games development to consoles and PC is only a good thing. Developing major games for Mac OS X is just not good business all round IMHO.
If all new Intel-Macs can easily dual-boot into Windows, and have appropriate drivers, then what incentive is there for Mac developers?
What you describe above is the logical conclusion one assumes from the current scenario. But there's another one that is not very visible, but it's there and it's about to be implemented.
But first let me ask you this: What percentage of users who have used Mac OS X end up preferring the Mac OS X to Windows? Herein lies the other scenario. The safer people feel about getting a Mac the more users will be purchase one, the greater the user base becomes, the more people asking for Mac specific apps will be, the more viable market for developers they will have.
What makes it safe to get a Mac? Enabling the PC users to run his/hers existing apps from Windows on the Mac. That is the key that will bring people over to the Mac. When this happens the Mac's market share will go up and along with it will come... developers, developers, developers, developers... apps, apps, apps for the Mac OS X .
While this is great news, these benchmarks are not entirely accurate as there are differences between components in the test machines.
That's what I said when I first read this article.
I'm still waiting to see video-card related benchmarks though.
Besides, it's not that big of a deal from a realistic standpoint if it runs PS better under Windows on Macintels.
Comparisons should be done with universal binaries on OS X vs other intel hardware running windows.
Better yet, have one mac running windows and another of the same model running mac os x, test using universal binaries, and compare. That, I think, is a much more relevant test.
Better yet, have one mac running windows and another of the same model running mac os x, test using universal binaries, and compare. That, I think, is a much more relevant test.
That would eliminate all variables indeed, and give us a true "Application" speed comparison between the two Operating Systems. I would be interested in seeing these test results with any app that has been ported to a Mac with Intel and is currently running in Windows as well. Say... Modo, iTunes...
.......But first let me ask you this: What percentage of users who have used Mac OS X end up preferring the Mac OS X to Windows? Herein lies the other scenario. The safer people feel about getting a Mac the more users will be purchase one, the greater the user base becomes, the more people asking for Mac specific apps will be, the more viable market for developers they will have.
What makes it safe to get a Mac? Enabling the PC users to run his/hers existing apps from Windows on the Mac. That is the key that will bring people over to the Mac. When this happens the Mac's market share will go up and along with it will come... developers, developers, developers, developers... apps, apps, apps for the Mac OS X .
I still believe and reiterate, this is *exactly* the reason that dual-booting winXP on the Mac should be implemented easily, painlessly, and well-supported. I still believe it will be better for the Mac community and developers in the long run. You know, it may even work for games development despite what I said earlier -- if you spend more of your time on the Mac OS X side, wouldn't you prefer to have a quick session of F.E.A.R.2 or HalfLife3 without having to reboot and stop in the middle of what you were doing and have to save your work and all that....??
...I'm still waiting to see video-card related benchmarks though....
AFAIK that's a crucial area they're still trying to sort out, video drivers with full directx9.0c support given that the x1600s may have (IIRC) a different firmware on them.
This may be the critical stumbling block that kills the whole dual booting hoopla, at least in terms of gaming on the winXP side.
Comments
Originally posted by Faasnat
This was cuz of different firmware in the video chipset or something right? Man, I hope this doesn't mean that when the desktops start coming out, we'll still have to buy "Mac Edition" versions of the video card. I was hoping with the move to Intel, we'd be able to buy from the wide range of video cards out there for the generic x86 systems.
Any concerns with video cards being installed in BIOS or EFI systems. Is there a different firmware necessary; or will Apple enable the BIOS compatibility mode in EFI?
Originally posted by jobberwacky
Compilers obviously won't be identical. Adobe is going XCode and the underlying GCC compiler is certainly not the fastest in the world (neither for compile- nor for runtime). But now at least Apple are on a chip platform where other companies such as RedHat are also contributing to GCC optimization. So improvements are ongoing.
For PowerPC most GCC improvements were done by Apple (and Linux versions for PowerPC could profit from that).
"Intel's dev tools for OS X have finally hit beta. This is a very happy day.
I've said it from the beginning: Intel's development tools are the best part of Apple's decision to switch to Intel CPUs. I am genuinely psyched.
Said incredible Intel compilers for OS X are now downloadable as betas. You need to request participation in the beta and wait for an invitation response. If you get your invite, you'll get a link to register with Intel and download Intel's C++ and Fortran compilers, the Math Kernel Library and Integrated Performance Primitives.
x86 developers running Windows and Linux have been spoiled by Intel's tools for years. When I moved to the Mac, long before I knew Apple was going Intel, Intel's dev tools were chief among the very few assets it pained me to leave behind.
Professional Mac development is elevated to a whole new level."
http://weblog.infoworld.com/enterpri...tel_compi.html
Vinea
Sweet! I would think people who are interested in purchasing a new computer to run Windows may give the new Intel Macs a glance.
Consumers can have a system that runs OS X and Windows. I think it's a no-brainer.
YES YES YES [orgasms]. This is fucking huge. For Apple or Microsoft or a third party NOT to capitalise on this is fucking stupid. Excuse my French (heh, how apt given the copyright issue thingy) but this is fucking awesome for getting Mac systems, out of the box, supporting WinXP real well.
Apple dealers should be creaming their pants as this is a HUGE fucking selling point...!!
Apologies again for the language.
I understand what you're saying, but it seems to me that games are the perfect case for why this is a good thing. Right now, some people (OK, mostly kiddies, but they get a lot of computers) don't get Macs because they don't run the latest and greatest games. That would cease to be an issue. Furthermore, games don't really use the OS. You don't need Aqua for Doom. Doom looks essentially the same on Mac and Windows.
In the meantime, Apple has started creating a lot of well-respected software in addition to their well-liked OS: iLife and the pro versions of those apps in Final Cut Studio in particular. If people want to run those apps, they need to get a Mac. And if they have Windows apps (even games) that they don't want to lose, there's no longer a problem there.
I'm with this camp of thought. Consolidating games development to consoles and PC is only a good thing. Developing major games for Mac OS X is just not good business all round IMHO.
Originally posted by fuzz_ball
If all new Intel-Macs can easily dual-boot into Windows, and have appropriate drivers, then what incentive is there for Mac developers?
What you describe above is the logical conclusion one assumes from the current scenario. But there's another one that is not very visible, but it's there and it's about to be implemented.
But first let me ask you this: What percentage of users who have used Mac OS X end up preferring the Mac OS X to Windows? Herein lies the other scenario. The safer people feel about getting a Mac the more users will be purchase one, the greater the user base becomes, the more people asking for Mac specific apps will be, the more viable market for developers they will have.
What makes it safe to get a Mac? Enabling the PC users to run his/hers existing apps from Windows on the Mac. That is the key that will bring people over to the Mac. When this happens the Mac's market share will go up and along with it will come... developers, developers, developers, developers... apps, apps, apps for the Mac OS X .
Originally posted by Xool
While this is great news, these benchmarks are not entirely accurate as there are differences between components in the test machines.
That's what I said when I first read this article.
I'm still waiting to see video-card related benchmarks though.
Besides, it's not that big of a deal from a realistic standpoint if it runs PS better under Windows on Macintels.
Comparisons should be done with universal binaries on OS X vs other intel hardware running windows.
Better yet, have one mac running windows and another of the same model running mac os x, test using universal binaries, and compare. That, I think, is a much more relevant test.
Originally posted by slughead
Better yet, have one mac running windows and another of the same model running mac os x, test using universal binaries, and compare. That, I think, is a much more relevant test.
That would eliminate all variables indeed, and give us a true "Application" speed comparison between the two Operating Systems. I would be interested in seeing these test results with any app that has been ported to a Mac with Intel and is currently running in Windows as well. Say... Modo, iTunes...
.......But first let me ask you this: What percentage of users who have used Mac OS X end up preferring the Mac OS X to Windows? Herein lies the other scenario. The safer people feel about getting a Mac the more users will be purchase one, the greater the user base becomes, the more people asking for Mac specific apps will be, the more viable market for developers they will have.
What makes it safe to get a Mac? Enabling the PC users to run his/hers existing apps from Windows on the Mac. That is the key that will bring people over to the Mac. When this happens the Mac's market share will go up and along with it will come... developers, developers, developers, developers... apps, apps, apps for the Mac OS X .
I still believe and reiterate, this is *exactly* the reason that dual-booting winXP on the Mac should be implemented easily, painlessly, and well-supported. I still believe it will be better for the Mac community and developers in the long run. You know, it may even work for games development despite what I said earlier -- if you spend more of your time on the Mac OS X side, wouldn't you prefer to have a quick session of F.E.A.R.2 or HalfLife3 without having to reboot and stop in the middle of what you were doing and have to save your work and all that....??
...I'm still waiting to see video-card related benchmarks though....
AFAIK that's a crucial area they're still trying to sort out, video drivers with full directx9.0c support given that the x1600s may have (IIRC) a different firmware on them.
This may be the critical stumbling block that kills the whole dual booting hoopla, at least in terms of gaming on the winXP side.