Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 28th Jan 2010 20:21 UTC
Hardware, Embedded Systems And yet another item on the iPad? Are we serious? Yes, we are, since this one is about something that even geeks who aren't interested in the iPad itself should find intriguing. Steve Jobs said yesterday that the iPad is powered by an Apple A4 processor, but contrary to what many seem to think - it wasn't designed in-house at all.
Thread beginning with comment 406701
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Comment by re_re
by steve_s on Fri 29th Jan 2010 19:57 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by re_re"
steve_s
Member since:
2006-01-16

By "universal" binaries, they actually only mean PPC and X86 binaries, not ARM. They aren't really "universal" at all.

They also mean only binaries from Apple, as I'm pretty sure that only Apple bothered with it. Possibly even less "universal" than at first glance.


Huh?

Apple has shipped Mac OS X computers using various PPC and Intel chips. They have not yet shipped one running on ARM. Why would their universal binaries contain ARM executables?

It's not just Apple that ships universal binaries. Virtually every Mac OS X application shipped in the past few years has been a universal binary - even before the Intel transition a binary would typically contain multiple executables each optimised for different types of PPC processor. As a developer XCode essentially handles all this for you, making it harder to not build universal binaries.

Should Apple decide to ship ARM-based Macs creating native apps would mostly just be a case of rebuilding them (so you'd end up with an ARM executable in addition to the existing ones). The toolchain already supports this. Of course should this happen Apple would most likely also include a Rosetta layer to let those ARM-based Macs run existing Intel/PPC Mac binaries as they did with the PPC to Intel transition.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by re_re
by lemur2 on Sat 30th Jan 2010 14:08 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by re_re"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"By "universal" binaries, they actually only mean PPC and X86 binaries, not ARM. They aren't really "universal" at all.

They also mean only binaries from Apple, as I'm pretty sure that only Apple bothered with it. Possibly even less "universal" than at first glance.


Huh?

Apple has shipped Mac OS X computers using various PPC and Intel chips. They have not yet shipped one running on ARM. Why would their universal binaries contain ARM executables?
"

That is exactly the point ... Apple's "universal" binaries support, as you say, only "Mac OS X computers using various PPC and Intel chips". Therefore, Apples so-called "universal" binaries won't actually support ARM.

The Apple iPad uses an ARM CPU.

So ... no OSX applications for the iPad. The iPad is just a big smartphone that isn't even a phone.

It's not just Apple that ships universal binaries. Virtually every Mac OS X application shipped in the past few years has been a universal binary - even before the Intel transition a binary would typically contain multiple executables each optimised for different types of PPC processor. As a developer XCode essentially handles all this for you, making it harder to not build universal binaries.

Should Apple decide to ship ARM-based Macs creating native apps would mostly just be a case of rebuilding them (so you'd end up with an ARM executable in addition to the existing ones). The toolchain already supports this. Of course should this happen Apple would most likely also include a Rosetta layer to let those ARM-based Macs run existing Intel/PPC Mac binaries as they did with the PPC to Intel transition.


Huh?

Who said anything about "ARM-based Macs"? This thread is about the iPad.

Edited 2010-01-30 14:08 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2