The Official WWDC 2005 Thread

I have a thought that has been kinda nagging at me about this, maybe somewhere can help me out. Do you think that companies will be more inclined to create software for the mac now?? I mean in my warped mind I see it as being easier to take a program that runs on windows and just "port" it to a Mac running on the x86 arch rather then having to "port" it too a completely different arch. (ppc). Am I on the right track or have i completely missed the ball??

Thanks,
James
 
jpom said:
I have a thought that has been kinda nagging at me about this, maybe somewhere can help me out. Do you think that companies will be more inclined to create software for the mac now?? I mean in my warped mind I see it as being easier to take a program that runs on windows and just "port" it to a Mac running on the x86 arch rather then having to "port" it too a completely different arch. (ppc). Am I on the right track or have i completely missed the ball??

Thanks,
James

That seems like the right track to me. But I'm not a developer :p
 
jpom said:
I have a thought that has been kinda nagging at me about this, maybe somewhere can help me out. Do you think that companies will be more inclined to create software for the mac now?? I mean in my warped mind I see it as being easier to take a program that runs on windows and just "port" it to a Mac running on the x86 arch rather then having to "port" it too a completely different arch. (ppc). Am I on the right track or have i completely missed the ball??

Thanks,
James
Not necessarily.

Porting applications between two operating systems on the same architecture is easier than porting between two completely different architectures, but it's still not a trivial task in most cases, especially with larger apps that rely on specific system calls and API's provided by the OS that they are built to run on.

Take x86 Linux/BSD, for example. Same architecture, but you don't see ISV's like Adobe or Macromedia developing Linux versions of their existing Windows applications. It all comes down to whether the software vendor believes that the time and resource investment is worth it or not.
 
Grandmaster said:
Wow, I can't believe it!

I might have to hold off buying that new system until these new Intel based Macs come out!
You're going to be waiting for at least another year. :D
 
NetRyder said:
Not necessarily.

Porting applications between two operating systems on the same architecture is easier than porting between two completely different architectures, but it's still not a trivial task in most cases, especially with larger apps that rely on specific system calls and API's provided by the OS that they are built to run on.

Take x86 Linux/BSD, for example. Same architecture, but you don't see ISV's like Adobe or Macromedia developing Linux versions of their existing Windows applications. It all comes down to whether the software vendor believes that the time and resource investment is worth it or not.

Yeah that's what I kinda figured. I know it's not an easy thing to do, otherwise like you said there would be program ported to linux. I could see companies possibly putting the time and effort into porting program to OS X if apple would allow users to install it on "beige box" machines or whatnot, But since Apple is going to only allow OS X on their hardware I don't see it happening anytime soon.

Guess we'll see what happens, should be interesting no matter what.

Thanks,
James
 
I'll wait and gladly buy one of the first that comes out if I can get one!!!!!

I hope this means more game support for the mac and more interweaving of the apps.

I can't believe this happened. I'm so excited...Apple here I come!
 
There are two things here that I'm really interested in finding out more about:

1) As I mentioned earlier, the method used to prevent OS X from being installed on any x86 system. Purely because I want to see it running natively beside XP on my machine at some point, even if it's unofficial and unsupported. :D

2) Rosetta and the concept of Universal/Fat binaries. This is freaking cool stuff from a technical standpoint!
For others who were wondering how Rosetta (realtime binary conversion) would affect the performance of apps that rely on stuff like AltiVec, the answer is in the universal binary programming guidelines.

Rosetta does not run the following:

* Applications built for Mac OS 8 or 9
* Code written specifically for AltiVec
* Code that inserts preferences in the System Preferences pane
* Applications that require a G4 or G5 processor
* Applications that depend on one or more kernel extensions
* Kernel extensions
* Bundled Java applications or Java applications with JNI libraries that can't be translated
Essentially means that any apps that fall under one of those categories above will need to be modified and recompiled to run natively on x86.
 
Xie said:
I wouldn't be surprised if they are just replacing a PPC CPU with a crappy Intel. I believe they would keep the same mobo/bios/chipset and all that good stuff as Apple makes $ on hardware, not software really.

I am very dissapointed in Apple though. I think many would agree the AMD64 would be a much better fit with Apple. I hope they "see the light" in the future and they get onboard with AMD (maybe even drop Intel).
While AMD seem to be leading the pack with the amd64 processors all of their processors run quite hot, Intel has made some very good progress in making quick chips which run cool as well. As Jobs says in the Keynote they are looking for Performance per Watt rather than just straight blow your socks off performance
 
NetRyder said:
There are two things here that I'm really interested in finding out more about:

1) As I mentioned earlier, the method used to prevent OS X from being installed on any x86 system. Purely because I want to see it running natively beside XP on my machine at some point, even if it's unofficial and unsupported. :D

2) Rosetta and the concept of Universal/Fat binaries. This is freaking cool stuff from a technical standpoint!
For others who were wondering how Rosetta (realtime binary conversion) would affect the performance of apps that rely on stuff like AltiVec, the answer is in the universal binary programming guidelines.

Essentially means that any apps that fall under one of those categories above will need to be modified and recompiled to run natively on x86.
From the keynote it sounds like the Universal Binaries are simply the app compiled in both formats which is easy to do, then when the .app is run a loader interrogates the system to find out the type of arch then triggers the right binary from there. If you want to get an idea of how Rosetta works then take a look at the FreeBSD Linux ABI system. Its similar, granted not dealing with an arch difference but the basic theory is the same I think.
 
NetRyder said:
You're going to be waiting for at least another year. :D

I know...why can't they bring it out sooner? :lick:
 
Netryder, I think you can bet on OS X being cracked to run on standard PC kit eventually, but it'll have to wait for someone to buy an Intel mac so we're looking at 1.5-2 years minimum.
 
Yeah, unless the build from the dev kits leaks. Those should be out later this month. :)
 
I think opening up OSX to every "beige box" will decrease it's stability. I think thats what of MS's biggest issues with Windows OS's. They are expected to run on such a wide array of systems.
 
Geffy said:
While AMD seem to be leading the pack with the amd64 processors all of their processors run quite hot, Intel has made some very good progress in making quick chips which run cool as well. As Jobs says in the Keynote they are looking for Performance per Watt rather than just straight blow your socks off performance
I was under the impression that AMD64's ran both faster and cooler then Intel x64 did.
 
Geffy said:
From the keynote it sounds like the Universal Binaries are simply the app compiled in both formats which is easy to do, then when the .app is run a loader interrogates the system to find out the type of arch then triggers the right binary from there. If you want to get an idea of how Rosetta works then take a look at the FreeBSD Linux ABI system. Its similar, granted not dealing with an arch difference but the basic theory is the same I think.
If I remember correctly, NeXT had a similar system of universal/fat binaries. Seems reasonable to assume the idea arose from there, just like many UI aspects of OS X first appeared in NeXTSTEP. After all, it was Steve's baby. :)

As for Rosetta, I'm pretty sure it's very heavily based on QuickTransit. You read the post about that on my blog, didn't you? Apparently, there were collaboration and licensing agreements between Apple and Transitive. I might see if they have some technical whitepapers on Transitive's site. On-the-fly binary conversion from one architecture to another without a significant performance penalty is really intriguing.

Geffy said:
While AMD seem to be leading the pack with the amd64 processors all of their processors run quite hot, Intel has made some very good progress in making quick chips which run cool as well. As Jobs says in the Keynote they are looking for Performance per Watt rather than just straight blow your socks off performance
Also can't forget the Pentium-M line of CPU's. Those little things are gems. Solid performance and low power usage make them pretty much ideal for use in the next generation iBooks, Powerbooks and small form factor desktops like the Mac Mini. The dual-core 'Yonah' chips are really going to be something. 2MB of L2 cache, two CPU cores, and still 8 hours of battery life. None of AMD's or IBM's offerings could hold a candle to one of these things. AMD is firing on all cylinders in the desktop CPU space, but Intel is clearly kicking butt with their mobile processors.

Xie said:
I think opening up OSX to every "beige box" will decrease it's stability. I think thats what of MS's biggest issues with Windows OS's. They are expected to run on such a wide array of systems.
Examination of error reports have shown that the largest percentage of instability issues and STOP errors caused in Windows XP are due to shoddy drivers. You have a point there. But as long as you use decent hardware that ships with solid drivers, you really shouldn't be having problems with stability on a XP system. The Windows 9x line admittedly had stability issues but it was nailed down pretty well in Win2k, and even more so with XP.
 
jpom said:
I have a thought that has been kinda nagging at me about this, maybe somewhere can help me out. Do you think that companies will be more inclined to create software for the mac now?? I mean in my warped mind I see it as being easier to take a program that runs on windows and just "port" it to a Mac running on the x86 arch rather then having to "port" it too a completely different arch. (ppc). Am I on the right track or have i completely missed the ball??

Thanks,
James


Not at all. The system API call's are still different. So you have missed the ball.

NetRyder said:
You're going to be waiting for at least another year. :D

Just like many others out there that feel they would get a bad deal if they buy a PowerPC G5 iMac at the moment.

jpom said:
Yeah that's what I kinda figured. I know it's not an easy thing to do, otherwise like you said there would be program ported to linux. I could see companies possibly putting the time and effort into porting program to OS X if apple would allow users to install it on "beige box" machines or whatnot, But since Apple is going to only allow OS X on their hardware I don't see it happening anytime soon.

Guess we'll see what happens, should be interesting no matter what.

Thanks,
James

Apple is going to allow Windows to be hacked to run on their box, but they won't support it. It is not locked down to only accept Mac OS X.

The other way around, they are not going to put any special protection in (Who cares, it's unsupported!) to stop people from trying to install it on standard beige box PC's.

NetRyder said:
There are two things here that I'm really interested in finding out more about:

1) As I mentioned earlier, the method used to prevent OS X from being installed on any x86 system. Purely because I want to see it running natively beside XP on my machine at some point, even if it's unofficial and unsupported. :D

2) Rosetta and the concept of Universal/Fat binaries. This is freaking cool stuff from a technical standpoint!
For others who were wondering how Rosetta (realtime binary conversion) would affect the performance of apps that rely on stuff like AltiVec, the answer is in the universal binary programming guidelines.

Essentially means that any apps that fall under one of those categories above will need to be modified and recompiled to run natively on x86.

1. I doubt there will be anything stopping it, all that will need to be done is someway for it to recognize the hardware, and or a custom kernel. Someone will do it.

2. Rosetta is pretty neat, however any translation thing is bound to have a performance hit. I am expecting this to work the same way that FreeBSD has the Linux ABI on top of it's kernel. It can run Linux binaries on FreeBSD without much trouble at all, as everything for Linux gets auto translated into FreeBSD's system calls, and back.

Geffy said:
From the keynote it sounds like the Universal Binaries are simply the app compiled in both formats which is easy to do, then when the .app is run a loader interrogates the system to find out the type of arch then triggers the right binary from there. If you want to get an idea of how Rosetta works then take a look at the FreeBSD Linux ABI system. Its similar, granted not dealing with an arch difference but the basic theory is the same I think.

I am wondering how much space will go into this. If it causes bigger binaries, or if they are doing it the smart way, and compiling as much as possible for both the same, and only the parts that are different are put in the .app double.

Grandmaster said:
I know...why can't they bring it out sooner? :lick:

"It's a two year transition"

LordOfLA said:
Netryder, I think you can bet on OS X being cracked to run on standard PC kit eventually, but it'll have to wait for someone to buy an Intel mac so we're looking at 1.5-2 years minimum.

Not really, I am getting the dev kit at school, and i am gonna try to install it on a beige box standard intel pentium as soon as possible :p At least to try.

NetRyder said:
Yeah, unless the build from the dev kits leaks. Those should be out later this month. :)

They probably will. Someone will accidently misplace the install DVD, and or one will get swiped from the press where the DVD's are made.

Xie said:
I think opening up OSX to every "beige box" will decrease it's stability. I think thats what of MS's biggest issues with Windows OS's. They are expected to run on such a wide array of systems.

This is indeed the reason that i think Apple wants to keep it to their own hardware/boxen.

NetRyder said:
If I remember correctly, NeXT had a similar system of universal/fat binaries. Seems reasonable to assume the idea arose from there, just like many UI aspects of OS X first appeared in NeXTSTEP. After all, it was Steve's baby. :)

That is where the fat binaries are coming from indeed. Also, they were used in the beginning of some Unix systems to run on x86, sun used them for a while as well.

As for Rosetta, I'm pretty sure it's very heavily based on QuickTransit. You read the post about that on my blog, didn't you? Apparently, there were collaboration and licensing agreements between Apple and Transitive. I might see if they have some technical whitepapers on Transitive's site. On-the-fly binary conversion from one architecture to another without a significant performance penalty is really intriguing.

Not really that intriguing. It is just the difference as to how the CPU stores it's integers, the translation will take some performance, but not something you will notice.

Also can't forget the Pentium-M line of CPU's. Those little things are gems. Solid performance and low power usage make them pretty much ideal for use in the next generation iBooks, Powerbooks and small form factor desktops like the Mac Mini. The dual-core 'Yonah' chips are really going to be something. 2MB of L2 cache, two CPU cores, and still 8 hours of battery life. None of AMD's or IBM's offerings could hold a candle to one of these things. AMD is firing on all cylinders in the desktop CPU space, but Intel is clearly kicking butt with their mobile processors.

Indeed. I would love for my iBook to last just 2 - 4 more hours. Currently it lasts approx 6 hours, 10 hours would be awesome!

Examination of error reports have shown that the largest percentage of instability issues and STOP errors caused in Windows XP are due to shoddy drivers. You have a point there. But as long as you use decent hardware that ships with solid drivers, you really shouldn't be having problems with stability on a XP system. The Windows 9x line admittedly had stability issues but it was nailed down pretty well in Win2k, and even more so with XP.

It is that fact that Apple does not want to run on other boxen, as they can probably already see the problem with the drivers. Unless Apple defines the interface to the devices, and the manufactures follow them so that it will work with Apple's Mac OS X, we are always going to have bad drivers.

<Machine with hardware> <OS> <Driver>

The driver talks to the hardware with whatever it wants, and hooks into the OS with specified hooks.

What really should happen is that the OS says "To be used for this, you need to have these hooks defined in your hardware, where we can send generic commands to make it do stuff, and it does it, we don't care how you do it underneath"

<machine with hardware> <os>

Then a driver suddenly is not a necessity but rather just an extra add-on to unlock special features or access lower firmware status. For instance:

You have a NIC that dies.

Take old NIC out
put new NIC in
boot up, and you are set

or with Windows currently:

Take old NIC out
put new NIC in
Pray you have drivers, if not roll over to another PC to go download them
stick CD in, install drivers.
reboot and you are set.
 
X-Istence said:
Not really, I am getting the dev kit at school, and i am gonna try to install it on a beige box standard intel pentium as soon as possible :p At least to try.
Do it! And let us know how it goes. :D
 
I, for one, will definately not install Windows Longhorn on the PowerMac that I'm going to buy when it has the Intel chip. However, I definately will have my copy of Leopard running on that PowerMac just fine. I can't wait to see how this turns out. The one thing that I want to know is that the current G5 is 64 bits, yet the Apple Transition Kit is running a Pentium 4 3.6 in the G5 case. I wonder if the new machines will still be 64 bit, although watching the keynote showed that the machine that they were running ran pretty quickly in my opinion.
 
Well, my fiance's birthday was today so I haven't watched the keynote yet. I'll have to do that tomorrow at work, if possible, and then I'll contribute more to this thread. :)
 
NetRyder said:
Hmm...either it's a h.264 clip, or my connection is screwed. Can't seem to play it. I'm downloading QT7 right now. If that doesn't work, I'll just check it out later in the evening when I'm back on campus.

It is h.264 off course.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Latest profile posts

Also Hi EP and people. I found this place again while looking through a oooollllllldddd backup. I have filled over 10TB and was looking at my collection of antiques. Any bids on the 500Mhz Win 95 fix?
Any of the SP crew still out there?
Xie wrote on Electronic Punk's profile.
Impressed you have kept this alive this long EP! So many sites have come and gone. :(

Just did some crude math and I apparently joined almost 18yrs ago, how is that possible???
hello peeps... is been some time since i last came here.
Electronic Punk wrote on Sazar's profile.
Rest in peace my friend, been trying to find you and finally did in the worst way imaginable.

Forum statistics

Threads
62,015
Messages
673,494
Members
5,621
Latest member
naeemsafi
Back