Apple switching to Intel

#1 It's a sure sign that the apocalypse is coming, and that I'm going to need to buy a new computer around this time next year.

I wonder how difficult the transition will be for Torque?

#2 Clue a brother in guys,

shouldn't that be pretty transparent to apps that don't use assembly ?

does torque ?

#3 Interesting, apple switches to intel (x86? does this mean I'll be able to install osx on any pc?) and microsoft goes PPC for their next console... the world sure seem weird at the moment. =)

#4 Apple has released the tools to produce the "fat binaries" that run on both PPC and Intel-based Macs. Currently the Torque Engine needs GCC version 3.3 to build, but version 4 is necessary to build a fat binary (according to what I've read). Is anyone in-the-know about when Torque will be able to compile to a fat binary?

I am getting started on my first Torque-based project, and I'd like the Mac version to run on both intel and PPC from the get-go.

#5 I've been working on the Mac solely ... and this does have me a bit nervous. Clearly my app can't survive long on PPC and right now Torque and Intel Mac is unproven ground (not that much is proven ground).

Apple seems to have been working on this for some time, so I'm hoping everything will go smooth. I think it's an interesting direction, but I can kinda feel the ground moving underneath me.

#6 It only got announced today, and you won't see an Intel based Mac for like a year. I don't think you should really be panicking just yet.

Theres plenty of time to sort this out, and I'm sure it won't be too difficult either (the Mathematica example is encouraging).

#7 I want to run OSX on my PC now please. :)

#8 The only real difference I can see between intel and PPC on the Mac is "EndianNess".

Intel is "big endian", PPC is "little endian". I may have that backwards. :\

As Torque already runs on both, I really don't see this as a problem... they'll just tweak a couple macros and be in business. No Problemo. The existing intel assembly code will probably be just fine.

I just don't see this as a problem for Torque (but I'm no Mac guy).


@Mike: Apple makes a large portion of its money (most?) on hardware sales. I SERIOUSLY doubt they'll want people to be able to run their OS on "commodity hardware".

#9 I think its pretty unlikely that you will be able to run win32 software on intel macs, although it would be cool and open up a huge software library of much needed development tools for the max platform. This rumour has been pretty solid for the last 5 years so I can't say I'm all that surprised really.

#10 Mark, yes you have it backwards, and no, it will not be that easy. But it will be possible when Torque finally compiles on GCC4.0

#11

Quote:It only got announced today, and you won't see an Intel based Mac for like a year.

Got a thousand bucks? If so you can have one VERY soon.

Quote:I've been working on the Mac solely ... and this does have me a bit nervous. Clearly my app can't survive long on PPC and right now Torque and Intel Mac is unproven ground (not that much is proven ground).

Got five years of proven, is that not enough.

#12 It's much different than just "endian-ness" ... but I'm with Gonzo - I'll breath easier when T compiles on GCC 4.0 ...

Quote:
Got five years of proven, is that not enough.

Yeah, I know Apple has been playing it - which is great, don't get me wrong ... but I consider it to be proven when it's out in the wild for a bit. There's a lot of open questions to this, and there's tons of difference between working on it in a closed environment and releasing it to the public. One is theory - the other is practice.

But I recognize it might just be catlike nerves. And if I was really worried, I should just pony up for the intel dev kit.

#13 Yeah I just heard that on the radio a second ago thats pretty crazy.

#14

Quote:Yeah, I know Apple has been playing it - which is great, don't get me wrong ... but I consider it to be proven when it's out in the wild for a bit. There's a lot of open questions to this, and there's tons of difference between working on it in a closed environment and releasing it to the public. One is theory - the other is practice.

Man, it's always refreshing to meet someone who is wise to reality and not easily swayed by feel good hype. Well said.

#15 Eh, if Apple can do what NeXT did, then for most devs it's not going to be so bad. I only JUST bought Torque tonight but unless there is a ton of hand tuned altivec code it should be okay. I guess I could peek/grep at the code but its still downloading. :)

As long as GG is willing to support the Mac platform I don't see a problem from an app dev standpoint. If GG drops mac support then its an issue...I sure hope not and I think it unlikely but you never know.

Plus its 1-2 years away. 6-6-06 is just the intended initial launch date. Plenty of time to worry later...if worry is warranted for a cross-platform engine. I also find it highly unlikely that the Linux version wouldn't run on Macintel with the x86 FreeBSD Linux compatibility stuff ported over to OSX.

Now that would kinda suck actually as it might be a good business decision to stop mac support if the linux version worked well enough. Hmmm...okay...maybe worry is a good response. :)

Nah, who knows, the horse may learn to sing.

Nigel

#16 I've done a few Torque ports now, and I don't think it's going to be hard at all for Torque to run on the new Mac boxes. I wouldn't sweat it at all, guys.

#17 Not even Jobs would launch a product on 6/6/6 ... would he :)

#18

Quote:
[1:41 PM] Mr. Gray is joking about getting "the most crazy calls from Apple," where Steve asked him on Wednesday night to come out to Apple and port Mathematica, one of the most complex apps on the planet to Intel by Monday. - posted by Dave

[1:42 PM] According to Mr. Gray, it took two hours to do this port. "We're talking about 20 lines of code out of millions from a dead cold start where he didn't even know why he was going." - posted by Dave

I'm really not to worried about porting most apps over.

#19 Go to apple.com and watch the WWDC keynote video. Some highlights:

- OS X and major apple apps have been compiling on Intel for past 5 years!!! (shadow project).

- Keynote presentation done on OS X running Pentium 4 Intel cpus!

- Dynamic runtime for PowerPC apps to transparently run on Intel also in production (demo showed PowerPC binaries of MS Office, Quicken apps launching on Intel platform)!

- XCode 2.1 can cross compile to both Intel and PowerPC binary!

- Mathematica ported to OS X Intel platform in 2 hours!

This rocks.

#20 - OS X and major apple apps have been compiling on Intel for past 5 years!!! (shadow project).

Closed environment, and we have no idea what those 5 years were like. Maybe it took them 5 years just to get it working well enough to show it.



- Keynote presentation done on OS X running Pentium 4 Intel cpus!

You don't bring a broken system to a presentation, and that is just one machine. We still have no idea how well that machine REALLY runs or even if all of Apple's own apps will run on it. Claiming OSX runs on it, and claiming ALL Apple programs run on it are vastly different.



- Mathematica ported to OS X Intel platform in 2 hours!

Would you have brought out the guy who said "Took my entire team 6 weeks to get our flagship program ready and we still have problems." Keep in mind, Apple has a huge history of deceptive practices and advertising. Once again we have nothing but hype. 20 lines in two hours. Sounds like it was written in C or C++ and needed to be adjusted for Endianess possibly. You cannot possibly believe everyone is going to find it that easy. Even Apple states your level of difficulty in porting will be determined by what you originally developed in. Guess what, Torque is Carbon and Carbon is said to be harder to convert than Cocoa which is harder than C++, etc...


And there is still the questions of what will happen to other languages that ran under OSX. Will JAVA on OSX be just fine, or will it need some work? What about Python? There are really a lot more things to consider here than Apple wishes you to worry about, which is exactly why they had these demostrations prepped and ready to go. I suspect that if Apple didn't have these $1000.00 machines to sell upfront that they would have been tarred and feathered by their developers. Worse still is the fact that these machines could be purchased from Dell for about 500 bucks and OSX costs $124.00. Apple just cannot resist an opportunity to make a profit from the people they should be mailing these machines to as peace offerings.