WWDC: Developers unfazed by Intel switch
Posted 08 June 2005 - 08:20 AM
Posted 08 June 2005 - 08:27 AM
Also, I'm sure the developer of CodeWarrior is not thrilled with this transition to Intel because it effectively kills its products outright. And the developers who make extensive use of Altivec essentially have to rewrite all their code -- either that, or they must use an additional "interpreting" layer (called Accelerate) which will slow down the performance. (And the whole point of using Altivec is to speed up performance in the first place -- otherwise they might as well have stuck with integer math.)
In addition, the developers are now thinking strictly in technical terms regarding this transition. Just wait until their companies form policies regarding licensing and the process of moving from the PPC version to the Intel version of the product. When customers scream bloody murder about this process and hit the help desks and phone banks hard with complaints, we will see how happy they are with this transition. More is involved in the migration to Intel than merely the technical.
Then of course there is Rosetta. Nothing like slowing down performance on a platform that has already (years ago) hit a performance ceiling -- for indeed this is why Apple is moving to Intel to begin with. Customers are not going to be thrilled to be using Rosetta for any length of time -- except as the stop gap measure it is intended to be. If a company relies on Rosetta for too long, it can cause shifts in the Mac software community -- such as from AccountEdge to Quickbooks (or vice-versa) or from MS-Office to OpenOffice or from Filemaker under OS X to Filemaker under Windows, etc.
Edit: Very interesting article all the same. It's good to hear from developers at different stages along the way, and a strong negative reaction from developers at this time would have been a most undesirable thing (obviously) -- in respect to developer relations, Apple's stock, consumer confidence, etc.
Posted 08 June 2005 - 08:48 AM
Im actually talking to Apple right now about putting up a page with race times.
That would be awesome to see. Have every company who wants to participate time their conversion efforts and then have those times posted on a page hosted on apple.com. It would be a good motivational tool, if the times were low enough.
Although we think the PowerPC is a more elegantly designed CPU, were certainly not married to it, Sasser added. If it brings down the cost of Macs, increases their speed, or both, then thats great. Certainly, the average user is not going to care, as long as their applications run.
That certainly echoes my thoughts on the matter. PPC is the better architecture by far, but with the lack of resources being put into desktop-class chips, Apple was hitting a brick wall as far as getting faster processors.
Delicious Monsters Shipley welcomes the arrival of Intel chips. Im a huge fan of the PowerPC architecture But nobodys putting the kind of resources they need to get it fast. Intel invests billions of dollars a year, he said. We need to be with the company thats going to be investing several billion dollars a year and making the fastest chips available. What were going to get is really freaking fast Macintoshes.
Same as above. Intel has a vested interest in boosting chip performance/quality/etc. I used to think that IBM had the same interest in keeping the 970 and its successors cutting-edge, but apparently they're more worried about the server PPC's and console chips. I'm sad that we have to switch, but as far as getting faster systems, this was the right choice to make. If I can get a quad-processor bleeding-edge-speed Pentium Power Mac for the same price as I paid for my first-gen dual-2GHz G5, then I'll be a VERY happy camper.
On the other hand, there are several programs that will need to be ported for me to be totally satisfied. Granted, there were a few that never even made it to OS X, so I'm still a little miffed there. But mostly my gripes are going to be with games. I'm tempted to contact Blizzard, Macsoft, etc, and see about starting petitions for the various games they publish to see if they're willing to put out MacTel ports. I'd be willing to pay an extra, say, $20 for some of them if they'll run native on MacTel once I make the switch. Anyone else with me on that?
Posted 08 June 2005 - 08:54 AM
Also, I'm sure the developer of CodeWarrior is not thrilled with this transition to Intel because it effectively kills its products outright.
Wouldn't Metrowerks want to recompile their product to do the same on the iNtel proc.? I know they'd be going up against Apple's Xcode, but CodeWarrior has an established user base that will still want to keep using a product they're familiar with just on the iNtel chip. One would hope that their code was developed using a higher level development system. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif
And here's and interesting bit of news, they may not be that worried after all.
Posted 08 June 2005 - 09:03 AM
I'd be willing to pay an extra, say, $20 for some of them
Posted 08 June 2005 - 09:04 AM
I think it's unlikely that Freescale will add Pentium support to CodeWarrior, but not for the reason you suggest. (Let's hope I'm wrong however.)
Posted 08 June 2005 - 09:24 AM
They support a boatload of operating systems, so I don't think they'll feel too bad about losing Mac OS X, though they do point out they're a "partner' with Apple. So maybe they will rework CodeWarrior?
Posted 08 June 2005 - 09:42 AM
As someone said awhile ago, Apple has been in an incredibly long death rattle. (My first Mac was a 512k "fat" Mac. I remember when Apple had 15% market share.) I think this cpu switch, necessary, but problematic, will hasten the dying process.
What occured to me is that when the end comes, companies rarely just fade away; they're sold to some other company, at a loss. Selling a company that makes computers that use the same cpu that everyone else is using will be easier.
Posted 08 June 2005 - 09:45 AM
If I get a MacIntel in 2007 or 2008 will developers still be supporting the same programes compiled for PowerPC? Apple can speak about their OS but they can't speak for other developers nor is Apple saying bluntly that Final Cut Pro, Motion etc. will be kept concurrent.
Simply put, my computers can often stay with current software for 5 or 6 years. If no one (Apple and specific developers) can promise an effort at leats that a new Mac purchase today will run current software in 3 or 4 years than Apple should lower the purchase price to match the lifespan.
There's a $3000 gamble I don't want to take. A keynote to developers is NOT a commitment to the consumer.
In fact I see a strong motive for Apple to wish that at 2007 I junk ALL my older computers and be coerced to replace the whole crop. Same goes for developers who I can't imagine will want to support two processors especially one with altivec.
Posted 08 June 2005 - 09:53 AM
Posted 08 June 2005 - 10:09 AM
The current Mac market share is about 1'5% worldwide. Mac developers could sell to such 98'5% soon.
For that it is only required that Apple takes these steps now that we have a new MacTel platform (as compared to the WinTel one):
1 - Mac OS X runs on any PC-Windows box.
2 - Mac OS X becomes open source and free (as Linux).
That means hundreds of millions of current Windows users will switch to Mac OS X. Windows and Linux will be history,
And Apple could prosper as Microsoft does (selling software), as well as selling top Macs a top price, music, movies, iPods, and new innovations...
Posted 08 June 2005 - 10:26 AM