Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 11th Aug 2005 17:36 UTC, submitted by kenny
Apple One of the big unknowns of the Apple Switch that not many people are talking about right now is Rosetta, the translation software that Intel-based Macs will use to run legacy PPC binaries. Prior to the release of the first Intel-based Mac it's difficult to assess just what kind of performance Rosetta will yield on the majority of legacy OS X software. Will most legacy PPC apps be usable? Mostly usable? Barely usable?
Thread beginning with comment 17027
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: pc fanboy
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 11th Aug 2005 19:25 UTC in reply to "pc fanboy"
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

I've talked to a few software developers who have used Apple's Intel developer boxes and they've attested to the fact that emulation speeds are indeed 80% of full native speed as Apple said all along. Why is Hannibal so inclined to doubt them?

Erm, maybe because these Apple developers have a product to sell?

I thought this article was well thought-out, and his explanations made a lot of sense, even to someone who isn't a programmer (me). We're talking about two totally different architectures, you can't expect emulation to be at 80% or more *always*. Of course, some apps will run at this speed, but *not* all. That is simply impossible, and I'm sure future benchmarks will support this.

Running a notepad will be at 80%, but will the same go for a bigger, more complex application? No way in hell.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: pc fanboy
by dru_satori on Thu 11th Aug 2005 19:35 in reply to "RE: pc fanboy"
dru_satori Member since:
2005-07-06

Running a notepad will be at 80%, but will the same go for a bigger, more complex application? No way in hell.

Well, this is a little deceptive. Let's take a couple of bigger, complex applications and think about it.

The Firefox developer's mention performance on par with the currently 2nd fastest Mac's, Meanwhile the idea of running say, DreamWeaver would terrify me, based upon previous experience with this type of technology. The question is not the size of the app (though that would have an effect during startup / initial translation), but what the app is doing. FireFox, which does not really use the CPU heavily, since it is more latency / bandwidth constrained than CPU constrained, probably does get 80% of native. At the same time, DreamWeaver, which is inexplicably CPU heavy even when nominally idle, would be lucky to eek out 30-40%. Virtual PC won't even be able to run since it uses kernel modules to implement functions that Rosetta doesn't address according to Apple.

It's all in what the app is doing, not the size or complexity of the app.

In other words, PhotoShop under Rosetta is not going to be fun, but hoepfully it won't be required either.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: pc fanboy
by on Thu 11th Aug 2005 21:15 in reply to "RE[2]: pc fanboy"
Member since:

In other words, PhotoShop under Rosetta is not going to be fun, but hoepfully it won't be required either.

It's really not that terrible - I've been lucky enough to play with a developer kit Mactel. Guesstimating, 80% seems high but somewhere between 50 and 80% seems reasonable. PPC Photoshop works great, MS Office works great - when you're just fiddling around, you notice no big difference. Considering that Apple is going to introduce Mactels at the low-end first - where there's the largest performance gap between the platforms - I think people replacing their Mac Minis and iBooks won't notice much of a difference at all.

For a dual G5 FCP box, of course, all bets are off... anybody with serious hardcore power demands is going to want a native app.

Reply Parent Score: 0