Transitive delivers Rosetta technology to Apple

A version of Rosetta that translates OS X apps written for Intel to run on OS X for PPC needs to be available on current PowerPC Macs. That way, people who buy PPC Macs during this 2 year transition to Intel Macs can rest assured that their machines will continue to run new software written exclusively for Intel Macs and won't decide to put off buying new Macs.

Great. Live with B- performance on all your existing software or pay up for the new versions.

The Intel Mac's better come with loads of RAM as standard then, non of this tight wad 256mb on the currentely shipping PPC's

Yes, because there will be such an incentive for developers to create Intel-only programs. I bet lots of vendors are going to want to write programs that won't work on the installed base, just so they can sell fewer copies. It makes so much sense!

Seriously, folks: although it will be possible to write programs which will only compile for Intel, most properly-written programs won't be that way. If you already use the provided APIs to read and write data (as you almost certainly should), you won't notice the endian difference, or will be able to fix it trivially. And as for the non-endian differences outlined in the Rosetta PDF, if you aren't already handling most of them correctly, you aren't a very good coder. (It is not a good practice, for example, to depend on the processor to correctly handle division by zero.)

The only programs I'm worried about are GraphicConverter, because it's the only program I know which both contains lots of legacy code that may notice endian-ness and which is NOT written by a group with enough resources to plug all the holes efficiently, and HexEdit, because they have tried so hard to keep full parity between OS 9 and OS X and have some peculiar code inside as a result. Everything else is either already an Apple product (Safari, Final Cut, Keynote...) or written by a large enough group to do quality assurance with relative ease over the next year (Photoshop, Word, BBEdit...).

I'd really like to hear from the Omni Group how much work they have to do to recompile for Intel; I'm betting almost none, because they are so heavily into Cocoa. (Well, okay, except for OmniWeb, because it contains a distinct build of khtml, which might require extra work.)

lol

"Great. Live with B- performance on all your existing software or pay up for the new versions."

Well, considering the 3.6GHz P4 test machine, 80% isn't bad. ;)

I'm implying from the statement that its 80%, as in 80% of native PPC performance, not 80%, as in 80% of a native Intel program. Of course, its all marketing fluff, so your performance will most likely vary and be less.

Oh, and I have a 3.2GHz PC with 1GB memory running XP, and this thing is by no means a speed demon. The time it takes to launch some programs, or just show Explorer, is pretty sad at times. And this is with an OS whose designers have had 10 years to tweak the code for the platform. I expect OS X performance to pale in comparison. Esp if they don't have dual-processor machines that OS X so much likes.

It's the 68K -> PPC migration, part deux!

"Oh, and I have a 3.2GHz PC with 1GB memory running XP, and this thing is by no means a speed demon. The time it takes to launch some programs, or just show Explorer, is pretty sad at times."

It's the OS. Yes, M$ has had ten years to tweak the code for the processor, but they've also had ten years to bloat the OS to the point of unusability, because advancements in CPU technology covered up the bloat, leaving the human-machine interaction about the same as it was ten years ago.

Apple has had five years -- ten if you include NeXT's efforts -- to get their OS to (continue to) work well on Intel, and have not had the disadvantage of having to remain backward-compatible with a traditional user base.

Apple has had five years -- ten if you include NeXT's efforts -- to get their OS to (continue to) work well on Intel, and have not had the disadvantage of having to remain backward-compatible with a traditional user base.

Actually, its not that they haven't had to remain backward compatible, they've basically just blown off some of their customers by choosing not to be backward compatible. You may claim this as a plus, but if you're one of those whose software or systems no longer worked properly, well, you might not be going "Apple, what a great company! They'll do it right, I'm sure!". And what does this 'lack of backward-compatibility' say to us PPC users. Are we going to be tolerated but generally ignored in two years time? Hell, if I want to be a second-class customer, I could just get a Dell with Windows on it and save $1000.

And just because they've spent the years getting it to compile doesn't mean it somehow will be optimized. And Mac OS X is getting just as bloated with useless features and forced requirements as windows (no way to turn off dock, no way to turn off dashboard, spotlight can only be turned off through the command line, etc). Not to mention that Apple's OS still suffers from lags and problems on their main platform, PPC. Those SBOD aren't going to disappear just because they went to intel. Their interface inconsistencies aren't going to fix themselves. Their bugs won't magically disappear (although all your data might, but that's another issue). Multi-tasking isn't going to get magically better (and probably will be worse until dual-core or dual-processor machines come out).

Anandtech has speculated on the Intel chips that Apple may use:

http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2439

They anticipate the M processor in portables (obviously), but highlight the probably processors that Intel will have beginning in 6/06. Both dual and single 64-bit chips with 2MB L2 cache, running at 2.8 - 3.6 GHz and at a 65nm process.

That's a big jump in speed (these aren't P4 chips, so GHz means more). Imagine a mini running a single-core 2.8GHz processor that would probably be equivalent to a 2.8GHz G5. Not so shabby, eh? Even at 70% emulation speed, it will represent a big jump in speed for the low end. And available in one year. Of course, it will probably run Intel's integrated graphics, but it's a mini, after all.

The high WILL see 64-bit dual-core processors, not P4s. And who knows where Intel will be in '07. I'm betting it will be far further than Apple would have gotten with IBM.

The world is not ending, and just may be getting (much) better.

For example, it is possible to build a COMPLETELY silent, fanless computer on the PC side through passive water cooling and a fanless power supply. You can't do it on a Mac newer than a Sawtooth machine because Apple went with 28v power supplies after that, and there are no fanless 28v power supplies available. For recording studios, a completely silent machine at a reasonable price is a huge plus. I plan to buy the first revision of their Intel pro machines and immediately make them silent. Can't wait.