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" wrote in message
...
"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

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" wrote in
:

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" wrote in message
...
"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,

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" wrote in message
...
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" wrote in
:

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" wrote in message
...
"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")

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" wrote in
:

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" wrote in message
...
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" wrote in
:

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" wrote in message
...
"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")

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" wrote in message
...

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" wrote in
:

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" wrote in message
...
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" wrote in
:

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" wrote in message
...
"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")