Will Intel-based Mac cause problems for BRL?
BlitzMax Forums/BlitzMax Programming/Will Intel-based Mac cause problems for BRL?
| ||
| I'm sure everyone has heard by now that Apple will be using Intel processors by the end of next year. They have a gameplan similar to the one employed when they switched from the 68k-line (sniff) to the PowerPC. I'm sure BRL has a plan of their own, but I wonder what it is? ;) Do you all think this will help or hurt Apple, who has a <1% market share currently? Russell |
| ||
| apparently the macs will run windows too, but regular non apple PC's won't run OSX. I can see Apple doing really well with intel CPU's. I'd certainly consider one if you could get some freedom with configuring your mac. I'd certainly recommend one to my wife, and most of my relatives that aren't computer literate. |
| ||
| Yeah, there's a screenshot somewhere showing one of these mac running WinXP - But that begs the question: Does this mean that OSX will simply be a new OS for the PC? And if so, would Apple have an incentive to just release the OS to anyone who's willing to pay for it? I would certainly pay $199 or so for it, as long as I could dual-boot WinWhatever on it. It seems most developers for the Mac are optimistic about this move, although I would have liked to see Apple "go out on a limb" and support the upcoming Cell processor instead... This would potentially attract more PS3 developers to the Mac... Russell |
| ||
| It'll probably help Apple, especially when it comes to games. One of the big beefs gaming companies have had is that it's a pain to go about doing hardware-specific things (like Altivec optimizations) for Macs; switching to Intel chips will make a fair number of these headaches go away. As for Apple's current market share, most estimates put it somewhere between 2-5%; Gartner recently put it out there as being at 3.7%.(1) I'd imagine that Apple's move to Intel shouldn't cause too much wailing and gnashing of teeth for the BRL team, though don't take my opinion as anything remotely authoritative on this matter. (Evak: I've got a homebrew Intel box and a PowerBook, and I only rarely use the Intel box anymore. I can't say I've ever been upset about the Mac's comparatively limited upgradability. The laptop is well over two years old now, but it's still humming happily and doing everything I ask of it...) (1) http://www.macobserver.com/article/2005/04/15.14.shtml |
| ||
| Does this mean that OSX will simply be a new OS for the PC? And if so, would Apple have an incentive to just release the OS to anyone who's willing to pay for it? Apple has a vested interest in not allowing MacOS to run on say Dell machines. Basically Macs work so well because Apple doesn't have to worry about supporting every possible combination of harware on the planet. |
| ||
| Plus they would make a computer using intel parts but the computer would come bundled with osX as the only operating system option. It's not as if it's a regular off-the-shelf PC, as it were, although not far from it. And I think they mentioned having some extra `chip` which would be onboard to ensure it's an official Mac computer on which to run osX and not just some other Pc system. |
| ||
| I'm sure that the BRL plan involves a change of about 20 lines and a recompile. The Windows port already deals with the endian issues, and the OS X version uses GCC, which will soon be on the Mactels anyhow, so no worries really. I'm guessing that the Mactel port is six hours to do, though I might be wildly wrong. That's just what I'm deducing from what Apple said. After all, the said that Mathematica only took 5. It's just a matter of Mark buying a new machine and getting everything running properly. In other news, Macs will currently to be exactly the same as they are right now, just with a different CPU under the hood. The only change you'll see is that Mactel types will have to download a different (or FAT) binary. Other than that, nothing will change. So don't even start up the "OMG OS X ON MY DELL!!111!!!eleven!!" crap. |
| ||
| One of the big beefs gaming companies have had is that it's a pain to go about doing hardware-specific things (like Altivec optimizations) for Macs; Really? I wasn't aware toggling a switch in CodeWarrior was such a big deal. So don't even start up the "OMG OS X ON MY DELL!!111!!!eleven!!" crap. Never mind that. How about the "OMG WinXP on my Mac!!!" thing instead? Surely one of the reasons Apple has any market share at all is because they (until quite recently) did not have to compete against PC's.Noone is going to buy an already obsolete Mac between now and then, and noone is going to buy a rediculously overpriced PC. Last nail in the coffin, if you ask me. About time too - all the other old school and innovative computer companies went bust ages ago. |
| ||
| The bad thing in this OSX Intel deal is that Apple is going to bundle with crap, overenergy sucking CPUs ... bad they didn't choose AMD who are kicking Intel out the game with their AMD64X2 without any problem ... :( (and we don't even have that many real multi threaded apps ...) Now apple switched from one overpriced CPU to the next one ... |
| ||
| Mac will use Intel processors, but not Pentium or x86 processors. So it has no relation with standar PC. It will have it's own assembler and machinne code, I suppose it will be compatible with the current mac chipset, wich has been developed by IBM. |
| ||
| hmm right ... But then they will have to reprogramm OSX ... Intels ARM processors are not thaaaaat good (even worse than their P4 however this is possible) and is ways behind the actual technology ... and OSX without 64Bit etc? Don't think it will run on an acceptable level, OSX .4 already has enough troubles with G4. Don't know why they created an OS that has a worse system "need to have" specification list than WinXP, especially after OSX.2 worked quite good on payable apple systems. Or do you think Intel will create a 3rd type of chip especially for apple? (haha ... as if they have a chip that can compete with their P-M so it will base on that design ;)) In both cases, the hardware specific things will be back again as it needs own boards and drivers etc (and apples overpriced versions of all kind of stuff you need) And that just because Apple is too lazy to make their market larger with acceptable hardware possibilities and not only 4-6 prebuilt "you can't change any part" boxes. This way they will lose the rest of their market to Linux which works on normal systems without "fearing" more than 20 fixed hardware configs with more or less the same core as apple ... but with the difference that it does not change the whole core parts and kick old apps out every 1-2 years ... |
| ||
| That's only a possibility. Apple always keep machine code compatibility between processors, the point is that Apple not always keep OS compatibility between versions, becouse they 'force' developers to move to newest systems. That happened when they change the motorola processors to the IBM ones, the new IBM procesors where made SPETIALY for apple, and designed to maintain binary compatibility with the old motorola processors. I suppose they will make the same with Intel. From my point of view, intel is the best CPU developer in the world, but they are under the crap of microsoft, in terms of windows-oriented processors. It will be funny to see how this Intel processors can be realy potent when they are not running on a windows platform. As an example, my Red Hay Linux is running in a Intel based PC, pentium II with 400 Mhz of process time, and it's performance is very similar to my P4 under Windows XP... I think everything's said... |
| ||
| Actually it's great for intel as building processors for the age old PC architecture is like beating a dead horse. Finally they will be able to reach their full potential and try out alternate chip designs. OS X have run on intel processors for a long time in the test labs, so they are ready to roll. Not too much OS X reprogramming. As for BlitzMax it's just another exe in the OS X executable package build automatically :) And also. Breaking compability between new hardware versions is the way to go as it's the compability that screws everything up. My P4 kan run x86 real mode like a 286 for christ sake :) They did this on the amiga too and it rocked! |
| ||
| Noone is going to buy an already obsolete Mac between now and then, and noone is going to buy a rediculously overpriced PC. Last nail in the coffin, if you ask me. About time too - all the other old school and innovative computer companies went bust ages ago. Actually, I will probably buy an Intel Mac when they come out. If the Mac runs OS X, and Windows, and Linux... and the Dell runs Windows and Linux, the extra $300 for a Mac PC is worth the cost. The only thing keeping me with Windows was that I still have some Windows software that I cannot afford to repurchase for Mac. Basicly, anyone purchasing the "High End" computer system will buy the Mac. |
| ||
| hmm right ... But then they will have to reprogramm OSX ... Apparently they have been developing an X86 version of OS-X all along in parallel to the PowerPC version, they just never pulically released it. The Intel Mac's will NOT be hardware compatible with the current PowerPC based ones, but alledgedly will come with a state-of-the-art emulation layer that will allow you to run old/current PowerPC mac applications on the intel version as well... although likely at a much slower pace than the original, due to the huge differences between powerPC and Intel... Now, it's still a good question wether this means that OS/X will run on a clone PC, or whether Windows XP will run on a Mac -- the CPU itself is only a small part of the picture. The old Macintosh, the Commodore Amiga and the Atari ST were all based around the Motorola 68000 CPU, but there were verfy large differences in the rest of the chipsets, and these machines could not natively run each other's code. (It is a lot easier and faster to emulate a platform based on the same CPU than it is to emulate an entirely different CPU architecture though, so if nothing else a program like PearPC could get a huge speedboost by being able to emulate the intel release of OS-X vs the original PowerPC version. |
| ||
| The funny thing might be that MS will have a PowerPC OS at about the same time as the new OSX will be Intel ready ... as MS mentioned their PC XBox 360 version a year after the launch of the normal one ... an we know that XBox 360 is powerpc ... :D |
| ||
| What makes you think the Intel processor for apple will have x86 architecure? It has no sense... |
| ||
| What makes you think the Intel processor for apple will have x86 architecure? It has no sense... http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=apple+x86&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official |
| ||
| Hi, We've got an Intel Mac on order, should be here in a few weeks. Given we've got MacOS modules and an x86 backend, I don't think it's gonna present too much of a problem although there will no doubt be much 'fiddling' to do. |
| ||
| there will no doubt be much 'fiddling' to do. Ooo-er missus, well, don't 'fiddle' too much, you might go blind :) |
| ||
| Ziggy, what do you mean by "That happened when they change the motorola processors to the IBM ones, the new IBM procesors where made SPETIALY for apple, and designed to maintain binary compatibility with the old motorola processors." The PowerPC found in the Apples do not share the same instruction set as the Motorola 68k line. From what I understand, the PPC macs employed an emulation scheme to run 68K software. Also, although the initial press release from Apple didn't mention P4 as the actual processor, the fact that demos have already been shown running WinXP is a pretty good indicator that this is the case. Here's an interesting theory: http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20050609.html One with screen shots: http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0506intelmac.html And this sure didn't take long: "Report: Apple Mac OS X 10.4.1 for Intel hits piracy sites" http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/6012/ Russell |
| ||
| Thats great ... P4 which is already crap for a OS that is programmed that ressource sucking as OSX ... I thought they wanted to create an alternative to WinXP not another reason to switch to it? (OSX needs more ram and cpu than WinXP with no real hardware support etc but lots of "useless" gimmicks) Perhaps they should check out actual Linux distris like XandrOS etc before switching to see how they could optimize their overkill OS |
| ||
| I see it as a boon! It means and 'ASM' level optimizations that are done could be reused on both platforms. Very cool. Cheers, Stu |
| ||
| @Russell: Thanks a lot for this info... it's confussing... hehehe I think Pentium are very good processors, It can be very interesting... :D Let's see what happens |
| ||
| What I think is great about this move is that once developers have ported their apps and they are now platform independent Apple could start selling Macs based on another processor and any developers who made the Intel switch really should be able to simply re-compile to the new architecture. This will give Apple tremendous security and flexibility. They could continue to offer PowerPC Macs. Just because a developer re-compiles to support Intel won't mean their apps won't support PowerPC. That is the whole point of the dual binary stuff. In fact I don't see why they couldn't sell different machines with different architectures if the hardware was better suited to certain kinds of markets. Maybe PowerPC would be best on the high end server and Intel in the low power stuff or something. In fact I would like to see them have dual sourcing this stuff. I don't want to write off the PowerPC. I think the impending transition is more of a reason to buy a PowerPC Mac now if you need one. The PowerPC Macs are going to be the most compatible Macs with the best performance for a while. If you jump on the new Intel Macs you will have compatibility/performance issues as you wait for ported apps or have to run your apps under the PowerPC emulation. |
| ||
| I see it as a boon! It means and 'ASM' level optimizations that are done could be reused on both platforms. Very cool. Yes. Except nobody does that anymore, because it's a waste of time with processors as fast as they are today, and compilers being as good as they are. I think Pentium are very good processors, It can be very interesting... Compared to what? I think the impending transition is more of a reason to buy a PowerPC Mac now if you need one. I see it as a reason to finally buy a cheap PC. I can't think of a single application that you can get, which is exclusive to MacOSX, and WindowsXP isn't much worse than OSX (from a users perspective) - even if you do have to reinstall it more often. |
| ||
| Yes. Except nobody does that anymore, because it's a waste of time with processors as fast as they are today, and compilers being as good as they are. I guess you are one of those nobody's. This is an unfortunate and lazy attitude to take - you should always look at the opportunities to make core and important routines faster - especially in game programming. As fast as our processors are, some of our bloated software should run a LOT faster, if some extra care was taken. What gives you this idea that nobody does this anymore? Take a look at Intel's math libraries - these are hand written assembly routines, to better utilize the vectorization and super-scalar capabilities of their processors. I'm sure Apple have similar libraries to use the Altivec core. Indeed, compilers are very good today, however they are far from perfect. I'm very interested in the coming revisions of gcc, which will implement vectorization. None of the main stream commercial compilers use the extended registers of the x86 platform to any great advantage - they stick them in for filling or clearing memory from time to time, but that's about it. Intel is better than Microsoft and does some simple vectorization, but there are still many missed opportunities. One must either use compiler intrinsics or drop down to assembly to fully take advantage of this architecture. This doesn't apply to every day programming, or even a large amount of game programming, however multimedia utilises it significantly. My point stands, ASM level optimizations (such as Intel's math library) can be reused across platforms. What will be cool is the dual-boot possibility of an Intel-based Mac. I can have one Mac laptop, that can dual boot OSX or a Windows based OS. VMWare will no doubt release a version of it's software for OSX now, so you can run x86 based OS's "natively" in OSX. Natively=x86 instructions will no longer need to be emulated, like VirtualPC. Very cool stuff. Cheers, Stu |
| ||
| FlameDuck: Im many ways, spetaly compared to any other processor. Examples: Hyper-Threading Technology. It enables you to run multiple demanding applications at the same time. The execute Disable Bit system can improve protection against malicious "buffer overflow" attacks when properly enabled with a supporting operating system. And the new Extended Memory 64 Technology, that provides flexibility for future applications that support both 32-bit and 64-bit computing. And most of them, the dual-Core. Two physical cores in one processor support better system responsiveness and multi-tasking capability than a comparable single core processor. |
   |