cocoaforge

evands wrote:

jstamos wrote:Also, hold down command, control and d and put your mouse over a word in a Cocoa application. Nifty little trick

That's insanely cool

Ditto. I love it; I use it every day now

You can set the 'look up in dictionary' menu item to display that popup instead of launching the app if you want too (in the dictionary app's preferences).

Adam Iser wrote:You can set the 'look up in dictionary' menu item to display that popup instead of launching the app if you want too (in the dictionary app's preferences).

Well that's how I use it

FYI, next day after Head Honcho Steve delivered the shocker, Apple Developer Connection had made available XCode 2.1, which is now capable of producing "Universal Binaries", that live in both worlds.

For the truly geeky out there, 2.1 now uses a customized GCC 4.0 as the default compiler.

One thing that is still up in the air is 64-bit support. The now despised G5 is a highly multithreaded 64 bit powerhouse, especially if you consider its AltiVec numerical processor. The roadmap that Steve painted on his "Intel Inside Mac running Tiger" only talked about P4, which is a single-threaded 32-bit processor family which I had hoped had been consigned to the dustbin of history. Dunno, but it sounds like a jump to the past to me.

Well, that's what was in the demo G5 because that's what's out right now. I'm pretty sure that the Intel Macs that will be sold in a year will be using 64-bit processors.

You need to remember that the consumer Macs are going to be Intel-based before the pro Macs. The consumer Macs are already 32-bit, so what does it matter? I'm sure that by the time the Powermac gets updated to Intel-based, it'll be running on a 64-bit processor.

And lets not forget, 64-bit computing very rarely makes a difference at this point in the computing world You have to be doing some very heavy tasks for it to matter.

jcourcoul wrote:FYI, next day after Head Honcho Steve delivered the shocker, Apple Developer Connection had made available XCode 2.1, which is now capable of producing "Universal Binaries", that live in both worlds.

For the truly geeky out there, 2.1 now uses a customized GCC 4.0 as the default compiler.

Actually, Xcode 2.1 was available for developers at the conference on CDs. It was also released on the Internet immediately after the keynote.

One thing that is still up in the air is 64-bit support. The now despised G5 is a highly multithreaded 64 bit powerhouse, especially if you consider its AltiVec numerical processor. The roadmap that Steve painted on his "Intel Inside Mac running Tiger" only talked about P4, which is a single-threaded 32-bit processor family which I had hoped had been consigned to the dustbin of history. Dunno, but it sounds like a jump to the past to me.

Remember, a lot can happen in a year. I believe, by the time Intel processors are used, they'll be 64bit chips in our Macs. In addition, all the 64bit support in Mac OS X is processor independent, meaning that Mac OS X with 64bit Intel processors will immediately be able to use more than 4 gig of memory, etc. It's not that bad.

Kiel :-)

Arenzera wrote:

jcourcoul wrote:FYI, next day after Head Honcho Steve delivered the shocker, Apple Developer Connection had made available XCode 2.1, which is now capable of producing "Universal Binaries", that live in both worlds.

... It was also released on the Internet immediately after the keynote.

Err yeah...you guys are agreeing :S

jcourcoul wrote: One thing that is still up in the air is 64-bit support. The now despised G5 is a highly multithreaded 64 bit powerhouse, especially if you consider its AltiVec numerical processor. The roadmap that Steve painted on his "Intel Inside Mac running Tiger" only talked about P4, which is a single-threaded 32-bit processor family which I had hoped had been consigned to the dustbin of history. Dunno, but it sounds like a jump to the past to me.

Or, to put it another way (btw, I like the G5's design just fine, I'm just showing the other side here):

"One thing that is for sure is 64-bit support, since Intel already ships 64 bit chips based on the Pentium-4 architecture, let alone whatever they'll have in '06/'07. The P4 is a multithreaded* high frequency powerhouse, especially if you consider its SSE/SSE2/SSE3 numerical processor. Doesn't sound like a jump to the past to me."

*btw, how is the G5 multithreaded? It's a single core non-smt chip. Maybe you were talking about the dual processor Macs?

Being more serious, I highly doubt that the Pentium-4 will be used for long, if ever, in a shipping Mac. Intel got in a fight with physics with the Prescott core, and naturally they lost. It's still competitive, but nowhere near the picture they painted for it three years ago. The Pentium-M and its more desktop-oriented successors look like better bets to me, although unlike the P4 they will need some 64 bit redesign work to be used in the PowerMac line.

jstamos wrote:And lets not forget, 64-bit computing very rarely makes a difference at this point in the computing world You have to be doing some very heavy tasks for it to matter.

exactly...isn't one main advantage of 64 bit that an application can then use more than 4GB of ram? I don't use any crazy apps like that, so i doubt i'll see a noticeable difference.

Since Adium is developed in Cocoa, I don't think the transition should be that bad. As for Apple's decision to switch to Intel....

Since I bought a mac entirely for it's OS and application line, I'm perfectly ok with it. Before you comment, realize I have a Powerbook G4, so I don't have any of this G5 64 goodness, and if they'd have kept going with IBM, I wouldn't have gotten it for a long time. I'm in the market for laptops only, and there are a lot of buyers like me in that regard.

But honestly, I don't see what people are going nuts over- Having used a G5 and the highest end P4, I sure as hell can't tell a difference in speed. Plus, I just can't relate to anyone who bought a mac to be all special-like, I personally bought it because it's a good product (call me crazy). If IBM can't deliver and the roadmap wasn't looking good, Apple better be prepared to jump ship, and impressively, they were. Like Andy Grove (former CEO of Intel) entitled his book, only the paranoid survive.

Last, check out these pics real quick.


PowerPC Mac

vs.


Intel Developer's Unit Mac

Even if that Pentium 4 is slower... If you liquid cooled the sucker, threw two of them in there, and then pushed them to their max... Well, think about it. How low would you have to clock a G5 to run it without it's liquid cooling? And I mean, run it without crashing every few hours from heat?

Adium SVN already builds Universally. Or so I hear (I don't have Xcode 2.1).

Correct me, developers, if I'm wrong.

cdbeckman wrote:Even if that Pentium 4 is slower... If you liquid cooled the sucker, threw two of them in there, and then pushed them to their max... Well, think about it. How low would you have to clock a G5 to run it without it's liquid cooling? And I mean, run it without crashing every few hours from heat?

To be fair, there is a lot of stuff missing from that computer, such as a dedicated video card. It would definitely not get as hot in the computer.

That said, yeah, the G5 could double as a Lean Mean Grilling Machine by comparison.

Couldn't resist.
http://web.archive.org/web/199804291404 ... bunny.html

wunderwood wrote:Couldn't resist.
http://web.archive.org/web/199804291404 ... bunny.html

That site wrote: PowerBook G3
Starting at $5,699.00

I still find it amazing that the computer industry is one of the few in existence that manages to go against inflation.

Arenzera wrote:
AMD don't offer fast enough processors and they're too hot. Additionally, AMD are small - they couldn't keep up with the demand of Apple.

AMD's offerings consistantly perform better and cooler than Intel's comparable offerings. AMD however does not have the capacity atm to keep up with Apple's demand, and they have not placed into full production their low power cool running chips for laptops yet.

Also Intel has the ability to run 64bit on the newer P4's but they dont enable it by default, the Xeons have it enabled by default, and are also multi processor ready, and based largely on the P4. They do however require registered memory as they are designed for low end servers or high end workstations.

The Itanium uses a totally diffrent arcitecture and is not compatible with pretty much anything, everything has to be recompiled to run on it, this is why it is so slow on the uptake.

Apple's best selling Macs were laptops - AMD don't compete with Intel in terms of performance when it comes to laptops.

Kiel :-)

wunderwood wrote:Couldn't resist.
http://web.archive.org/web/199804291404 ... bunny.html

http://pulsar.esm.psu.edu/Faculty/Gray/ ... oasted.mov

There's a lot more on that site: the tank, steamroller, think different, 1984... just about every Mac commercial ever.