Submit Hint Search The Forums LinksStatsPollsHeadlinesRSS
14,000 hints and counting!

Click here to return to the 'Only 32 bit?' hint
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Only 32 bit?
Authored by: qubex on Jun 07, '05 12:39:39PM

What worries me is that Xcode 2.1 (the new version that supports Intel) appears to only support 32-bit IA-32. It doesn't support new 64-bit chips that use the AMD64/EM64T architecture. The Intel Developer machine Apple is now selling at $999 is a Pentium 4 box.

So, after the jump from 32-bit G4 to 64-bit G5, they're jumping back again?! That really doesn't make any sense!

[ Reply to This | # ]
Only 32 bit?
Authored by: yellow on Jun 07, '05 01:17:03PM

I suspect when they actually come out with a REAL MacIntels, some will have an Intel 64-bit chips. In the meantime, I suspect the laptop/mini/tablet markets will be the first to see 32-bit Intels with a "player to be named later" option.

[ Reply to This | # ]
Only 32 bit?
Authored by: qubex on Jun 08, '05 04:46:11AM

I'm sure Adobe will just love this.

Port Photoshop from Motorola 68K to PPC.
Port Photoshop from OS9 to OSX.
Add support for VelocityEngine.
Add support for 64-bit G5.
Take two steps back, removing dependencies on AltiVec/VelocityEngine and 64-bit.
Port Photoshop to 32-bit Intel x86, recode AltiVec functions as SSE2.
Port Photoshop to 64-bit Intel EM64T.

Then what? They may as well adapt it to run on the proverbial kitchen sink.

As a developer that finds himself often in the mires of PPC32/PPC64 assembler optimising things to use VelocityEngine etc. (mathematical models, huge sparse matrices, floating-point arithmetic to make your eyes bleed), I am mighty pissed. I'm used to having a big-endinan CPU and word-alignment. From now on, the stack will look upside-down and inside-out to me. I'll waste ages calculating fixed offsets. Intel CPUs have far fewer registers than PPC makes available and that means performance penalties aplenty.

Apart from anything else, the G5 still beats the socks off any processor Intel has to offer in terms of floating point arithmetic. I wouldn't be quite so pissed if they were switching to AMD64. Going to Intel x86 without 64-bit extensions is a huge step backwards.

If Apple is going to make x86-64 available later, after we have all slaved over a hot stove to get our stuff running under x86-32, I'll be furious. They could at least show us a modicum of respect and make us do all this work only once.

Quite honestly, I'm actually thinking of switching my supported platform to Linux/PPC64, since that way I could keep all my low-level algorithmic optimisations and I'd "only" have to port the high-level code that interacts with the system through all the relevant APIs. And the GUI. And the filesystem support. And the networking code. And come to think of it, everything else.

[ Reply to This | # ]
Only 32 bit?
Authored by: lemkebeth on Jun 11, '05 03:17:57AM

Thats the problem with using assembly and why languages like C, C++, and Objective-C were invented.

My advice is to keep things as processor independent as possible. Thats not to say that optimizations can't be added just that they should be self contained.

[ Reply to This | # ]
Only 32 bit?
Authored by: qubex on Jun 14, '05 12:36:28AM

For years they have been telling us that PowerPC is superior, and that it makes sense to spend ages optimising our applications to use AltiVec.

Now they turn around and toss the baby out with the bathwater.

[ Reply to This | # ]
Only 32 bit?
Authored by: boredzo on Jun 14, '05 05:41:22AM
  • Port Photoshop to 32-bit Intel x86, recode AltiVec functions as SSE2.

since Photoshop already runs on x86 (in Windows), I think it's safe to assume that this work has already been done.

[ Reply to This | # ]