|
|
Posted by Smarty on 04/23/07 19:09
Thanks very much Gene, and sorry that I failed to pick up on the tongue in
cheek / satire. I tend to rant a bit, and the Mac/Final Cut topic admittedly
does get me even more verbose and perhaps somewhat argumentative.
I have learned a great deal from these newsgroups, and find that helping
others and learning from others is a really gratifying use of the Internet.
There are some amazingly knowledgeable and experienced people here, and
thankfully the trolls and spam are mostly infrequent events.
Again, thank you...
Smarty
"Gene E. Bloch" <hamburger@NOT_SPAM.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns991B776E31E8AAstrolabe@127.0.0.1...
>
> 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]
|