Universal applications

[Mik 0]

Universal applications

 

Giant step forward.

[Guest Vitamin X]

Yeah, now if only I could get a Universal version of Final Cut Pro on my PC, then I wouldn't need to buy a Mac at all...

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Uh, no. "Universal applications" is Apple's term to describe Mac software that works with the current outgoing PowerPC Macs (G4, G5) and the Intel-CPU Macs that are coming soon. Just because they are using an Intel CPU, does not mean that universal applications can be run on Windows. Mac applications are a completely different type of animal from Windows apps. No DLL libraries, no registry settings, etc. This is about Mac users and the issues of moving from one CPU to another, so that programmers with Intel Macs can make programs that are compatable with the older machines and vice versa.

 

So far, the only programming language that allows you to compile a program once and run the same program on Mac and PC is Java. And Java applications are exceptionally unreliable.

[Thoth 0]

At least Apple's generating a buzz with these new Machines.

 

The Universal build of WoW tears ass on the new iMacs.

[MrRant 0]

At least Apple's generating a buzz with these new Machines.

 

The Universal build of WoW tears ass on the new iMacs.

 

Sounds painful. Plus when you get up to like level 50 on WoW, it just is boring but at least it's better than City of Villians where if you go into a nest of enemies they buff up to your level and you can't really solo because of that.

[Guest Vitamin X]

Uh, no. "Universal applications" is Apple's term to describe Mac software that works with the current outgoing PowerPC Macs (G4, G5) and the Intel-CPU Macs that are coming soon. Just because they are using an Intel CPU, does not mean that universal applications can be run on Windows. Mac applications are a completely different type of animal from Windows apps. No DLL libraries, no registry settings, etc. This is about Mac users and the issues of moving from one CPU to another, so that programmers with Intel Macs can make programs that are compatable with the older machines and vice versa.

 

So far, the only programming language that allows you to compile a program once and run the same program on Mac and PC is Java. And Java applications are exceptionally unreliable.

 

Oh, I see. Should've read the article.

 

Big fucking whoop, then. How is this a giant step forward? Weren't the PowerPC chips better anyways?

[Thoth 0]

Uh, no. "Universal applications" is Apple's term to describe Mac software that works with the current outgoing PowerPC Macs (G4, G5) and the Intel-CPU Macs that are coming soon. Just because they are using an Intel CPU, does not mean that universal applications can be run on Windows. Mac applications are a completely different type of animal from Windows apps. No DLL libraries, no registry settings, etc. This is about Mac users and the issues of moving from one CPU to another, so that programmers with Intel Macs can make programs that are compatable with the older machines and vice versa.

 

So far, the only programming language that allows you to compile a program once and run the same program on Mac and PC is Java. And Java applications are exceptionally unreliable.

 

Oh, I see. Should've read the article.

 

Big fucking whoop, then. How is this a giant step forward? Weren't the PowerPC chips better anyways?

 

Sort of. Technically, they had better branching instruction performance, but to get the full power out of them required dedication and attention to the design docs, that kinda doesn't make sense. Most developers were used to the x86 assembly anyways, and could get better stuff out of that. Ryan Gordon said it best, the PPC was better in theory, but to get that kind of power was a huge pain in the ass, so why not half-ass it and get 85% of the power anyway? So that's what happened. I mean, you can get away with coding around the PPC like it was x86. Admittedly the G5 was a lot better, and it had kickass floating point performance, but then IBM... well... they never got above 3 GHZ. And the whole laptop thing... yeah.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Oh, I see. Should've read the article.

 

Big fucking whoop, then. How is this a giant step forward? Weren't the PowerPC chips better anyways?

They have been for a while simply because RISC > CISC, but The Steve made a decision to switch again, so all his followers must make the somewhat-painful transition process.

 

Keep in mind that Xbox 360, PlayStation3, and Nintendo Revolution are ALL using some kind of PowerPC processor in conjunction with IBM, and all three of those video game machines are going to sell more than the Macintosh line does. Apple was obviously concerned that they would become fourth bananna in the eyes of IBM, and lose their input and stroke to Nintendo and Co.

 

Plus, Jobs promised a G5 Powerbook that never came to fruitition because of heat issues, and at his announcement of the switch he kind of acknowledged his embarassment about that. So there's probably an iota of revenge about that too, as the laptop line has plateued for a while.

[Guest Vitamin X]

Yeah, the Macbook Pro doesn't look all that great, but then again, I'm sure there'll be big news on Apple's birthday this year.

 

I DID hear, however, that the Macbook Pros that were shipping out were upgraded at the factories with stronger processors, for example that the 1.67Ghz was now being shipped as 2Ghz and so on and so forth. I had the article at one of the various gadget/electronics sites I visit, but I forgot where it was now.