|
|
Posted by Gene E. Bloch on 04/23/07 18:44
Well, my previous post was meant to be a joke :-)
Or maybe satire, I'm not sure.
Search below for the word "incredibly", you should see what I
mean...
BTW, I have very often found your posts to be quite informative.
"Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in
news:mt6dnVP7AYkD6rTbnZ2dnUVZ_o6gnZ2d@adelphia.com:
> 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")
>
>
--
Gene E. Bloch (Gino) ... letters617blochg3251
(replace the numbers by "at" and "dotcom")
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|