|
|
Posted by Smarty on 04/21/07 02:31
Gene,
My initial premise was (and still is) that Apple Final Cut Studio video
software was probably not very well optimized on Intel processors compared
to many years of PowerPC chip optimization. Apple needed to port the Final
Cut Suite to Intel and offer "Universal Binaries" and did so quickly and
successfully, but FCP speed and rendering performance reveal some serious
time penalties when compared to mature PC products which do the same work. I
just will not accept the argument that Apple paid a stable of former Nexstep
software engineers for the 11 year period since Nextstep in 1995 was (in
desperation by Next) ported from the Motorola processors to the PC in a
futile attempt to garner market share.
Much to Apple's credit, they did a wonderfully smooth migration once again
when releasing the Intel Macs last year, transitioning from one processor
family to another using their so-called "Rosetta" technology, but the users
who are looking for fast performance at a good price should not look at
Final Cut Pro, at least not in the version I and others own.
This entire issue is mooted somewhat by the very recent introduction last
week of the new FCP Studio 2. Apple may have now taken the time to do it
right, and the new version may be blazing fast. If so, then my prior
objection has been entirely lifted. I still have a problem with all the
Quicktime 'baggage', lack of 3rd party supporting software, and closed
architecture, but then again, I keep buying Macs........
Smarty
"Gene E. Bloch" <hamburger@NOT_SPAM.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns991886D8AAE2EAstrolabe@127.0.0.1...
> Maybe Intel processors are just incredibly difficult to code for.
>
> Or they just planned incredibly far ahead...
>
> Note the use of "incredibly" in both hypotheses :-)
>
> "Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in
> news:5eydna5A3vY_x7zbnZ2dnUVZ_qWvnZ2d@adelphia.com:
>
>> I don't think I am missing the point. Your point just doesn't make
>> sense. Why would Apple pay them for the ***past 11 years*** to
>> optimize code on Intel processors???
>>
>> Smarty
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Jim" <no@spam.plz> wrote in message
>> news:no-6BD56B.13365114042007@west.100proofnews.com...
>>> "Smarty" wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jim,
>>>>
>>>> At risk of seeming a bit disagreeable, I would think that
>>>> porting an OS in
>>>> 1994/5 to Intel chips of that vintage has little or no relevance
>>>> to optimizing X86 code 12 years hence. What I am saying is that
>>>> the numerous profound changes to hyperthreading, multicore
>>>> platforms, and the instruction
>>>> sets of SSE, SSE2, MMX, and all the other changes to the Intel
>>>> family in the
>>>> ensuing 10 years time has rendered their optimizing skills as
>>>> being of little or no modern value.
>>>
>>> You've missed the point. The engineers at Apple now were the
>>> engineers at NeXTSTEP then. They've been optimizing code on the
>>> Intel line since the 90's when they released 3.1.
>>>
>>> The test will be in releases, no?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Edo ergo sum
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Gene E. Bloch (Gino) ... letters617blochg3251
> (replace the numbers by "at" and "dotcom")
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|