Intel Switch - what it means for Adium

[Ethion]

I'm no dev genius here. But doesn't it also means that we have to relocate the xtras and stuff like that? Which gets saved within the app itself?

[michael]

I'm no dev genius here. But doesn't it also means that we have to relocate the xtras and stuff like that? Which gets saved within the app itself?

No, as above it just means a few changes when building it in xcode, Mac OS X isn't changing; so the way application support files are used (i.e xtras) wont change.

[ofri]

I'm no dev genius here. But doesn't it also means that we have to relocate the xtras and stuff like that? Which gets saved within the app itself?

No, as above it just means a few changes when building it in xcode, Mac OS X isn't changing; so the way application support files are used (i.e xtras) wont change.

But plugins will need to be recompiled.

[jstamos]

But plugins will need to be recompiled.

You sure? Aren't they fairly dependent on Cocoa calls and Adium-specific calls? I mean, I'm sure some will, but certainly not all.

[Chris Biagini]

You sure? Aren't they fairly dependent on Cocoa calls and Adium-specific calls? I mean, I'm sure some will, but certainly not all.

Check out Apple's Universal Binary Programming Guidelines. On page 68, it talks about how plugins and the main app must both be built for the same architecture. So both must be native or nonnative. (The whole document is a pretty interesting read, by the way.)

Aside from those that ship with Adium, though, are there that many compiled plugins?

[ofri]

But plugins will need to be recompiled.

You sure? Aren't they fairly dependent on Cocoa calls and Adium-specific calls? I mean, I'm sure some will, but certainly not all.

Yep. Plugins that are PPC only will not be able to load into a x86 app.
Both the app and the plugins/bundles/frameworks it loads, should be either PPC or x86.
You can't mix the two 'cause a PPC app (and all it's plugins) will be loaded within Rosetta and a x86 app will run natively. Therefor, you only plugins that has the same architecture as the running app will be loaded. But you could always just force a universal app to run inside Rosetta and then load all the old PPC plugins you have for that app

- Ofri

[about:blank]

The steps backward from 64 bit to 32 bit argument is a very good one. That is, unless they support AMD processors (which I REALLY hope they do). In being able to run Mac OS on x86 architecture Apple will lose some of their deep users. Apple will no longer have one of it's core values: beauty. No one will buy their displays or computers since they could run OS X on any Intel based computer. I dunno, I just don't feel like this is helping us in any way.

[OmniGeno]

The steps backward from 64 bit to 32 bit argument is a very good one. That is, unless they support AMD processors (which I REALLY hope they do). In being able to run Mac OS on x86 architecture Apple will lose some of their deep users. Apple will no longer have one of it's core values: beauty. No one will buy their displays or computers since they could run OS X on any Intel based computer. I dunno, I just don't feel like this is helping us in any way.

OSX will not run on just any old Intel computer.

[JediL1]

Um, from Phil Schiller's mouth:

You will not be able to run Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac

Interestingly though, he also said you may/will be able to install windows on a partition of your hard drive on the Intel Mac.

[jstamos]

Yep. Plugins that are PPC only will not be able to load into a x86 app.
Both the app and the plugins/bundles/frameworks it loads, should be either PPC or x86.
You can't mix the two 'cause a PPC app (and all it's plugins) will be loaded within Rosetta and a x86 app will run natively. Therefor, you only plugins that has the same architecture as the running app will be loaded. But you could always just force a universal app to run inside Rosetta and then load all the old PPC plugins you have for that app
- Ofri

Oh, right, but I meant there shouldn't much in the way of tweaking involved, since it is interacting so heavily with Adium calls, correct?

[Simba Cub]

No matter which way this goes, I'm proud to have a PPC chip in my little laptop



Rich::

[about:blank]

The steps backward from 64 bit to 32 bit argument is a very good one. That is, unless they support AMD processors (which I REALLY hope they do). In being able to run Mac OS on x86 architecture Apple will lose some of their deep users. Apple will no longer have one of it's core values: beauty. No one will buy their displays or computers since they could run OS X on any Intel based computer. I dunno, I just don't feel like this is helping us in any way.

Yes. I'm quoting myself. First, I was wrong, the chips Apple plans to use will be 64 bit by the time they use them. No AMD processors whatsoever. Apple is integrating protection against it, and even if it's cracked, driver support will be crap.

.: cries :.

My first mac will be my last, and it's been so much fun.

PLEASE! PLEASE APPLE! GO BACK TO BURNING INTEL BUNNIES! LOOK AT THE QUOTES ON YOUR OWN WEBSITE SAYING PPC IS FASTER THAN INTEL! .: cries :.

[MBHockey]

PPC are faster than intel...now.

But IBM doesn't really care about Apple since 2% of their revenue comes from the chips they make for Apple to put it its PCs. IBM has evolved into largely making chips for console game systems, that's their big cash cow, not Apple.

[djmori]

PPC are faster than intel...now.

But IBM doesn't really care about Apple since 2% of their revenue comes from the chips they make for Apple to put it its PCs. IBM has evolved into largely making chips for console game systems, that's their big cash cow, not Apple.

Right. This is all about the future. Besides I agree with Steve Jobs; the heart of mac right know is OSX

[falconbrad]

Yeah, I really don't think the Intel move is so bad. Sure, I'd rather see them support AMD, but I have a feeling that the top-end Macs will be running 64-bit Itaniums or something of the like. And I actually like the Pentium-M and wouldn't mind running one in my PB. However, I really don't want to be buying a Mac with the current crop of P-4s inside. Bad bad bad...

[Catfish_Man]

PPC are faster than intel...now.

'fraid not. The G5 generally lags about 10-20% on SPECcpu. Apple's benchmarks are blatantly, hilariously, misleading. They had some real ones up when the G5 first shipped, but quickly replaced them with silly ones. PPCs are competitive now, but only faster in a few isolated cases.

[Arenzera]

The steps backward from 64 bit to 32 bit argument is a very good one. That is, unless they support AMD processors (which I REALLY hope they do). In being able to run Mac OS on x86 architecture Apple will lose some of their deep users. Apple will no longer have one of it's core values: beauty. No one will buy their displays or computers since they could run OS X on any Intel based computer. I dunno, I just don't feel like this is helping us in any way.

When Apple gets around to releasing machines with Intel processors in them, they'll probably be 64 bit processors. And they'll be wicked fast.

Kiel :-)

[Arenzera]

The steps backward from 64 bit to 32 bit argument is a very good one. That is, unless they support AMD processors (which I REALLY hope they do). In being able to run Mac OS on x86 architecture Apple will lose some of their deep users. Apple will no longer have one of it's core values: beauty. No one will buy their displays or computers since they could run OS X on any Intel based computer. I dunno, I just don't feel like this is helping us in any way.

<snip>

.: cries :.

<snip>

Cry me a river! There will be no step backwards - Mac OS X is designed to be processor independent, meaning that all the 64bit stuff Apple have worked on applies to (with a bit of tweaking) to 64bit Intel processors.

They are releasing Intel processors IN A YEARS TIME.

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. I welcome this move by Apple.

I'm at WWDC this year and when I download the latest SVN I'll compile it on the Intel mac and I'll let you all know how it goes. The 0.8 source won't compile for me.

Kiel :-)

[ofri]

Yep. Plugins that are PPC only will not be able to load into a x86 app.
Both the app and the plugins/bundles/frameworks it loads, should be either PPC or x86.
You can't mix the two 'cause a PPC app (and all it's plugins) will be loaded within Rosetta and a x86 app will run natively. Therefor, you only plugins that has the same architecture as the running app will be loaded. But you could always just force a universal app to run inside Rosetta and then load all the old PPC plugins you have for that app
- Ofri

Oh, right, but I meant there shouldn't much in the way of tweaking involved, since it is interacting so heavily with Adium calls, correct?

Yes. I actually think that all the plugins should be able to complie without any weaking at all (at least adium plugins. as for other apps there might be some problems)

[evands]

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