By claiming that PPC is dead just because Apple is not building those Macs anymore.
Sorry. I meant that PPC for Apple is dead.
I'm not denying dude. I know why Apple has switched to Intel
(yes, cool indeed)
I'm not "narrow minded" because I'm still buying PPC based apps. I'm still testing them for several companies. Etc.
Okay, we are almost mid 2009 and can you tell me (besides this very early browser from google) how much apps, in percentage, are Intel only? And don't tell me SL because it's not even stores
. Including games my guess is max. 20%. What's your guess? 80% Intel Mac?
Get real and accept whe are still living in a Mac Universal time period. Untill further notice at least...
You better get real. This transition is exactly like the transition from Motorola to PPC. PPC support for Apple will go away and developer support will dwindle. I may be living in a Universal period now, but I won't be in the future.
For instance, one can not prove that a PPC Mac is dead with numbers, which are just showing how much PPC Macs are connected to the Internet for browsing.
Numbers is all Apple has for determining anything. The same method of determinging PPC Mac marketshare is used for determining overal Mac marketshare in the OS marketplace.
And I can very much prove that PPC for Apple is dead with numbers. It's called statistics. Of course I'm not going to be able to poll the population. However, I just need a sample size that's indicative of the population. Sites like Google and Net Applications are great for gathering statistics for these purposes.
Common, get a grip. We all have an opinion but yours is not the one and only true one you know
... Neither is mine, but at least I'm taking the time to nuance some opinions instead of thinking in "black & white".
Funny. You should take your own advice. So, because my opinion doesn't match up with yours, I'm now thinking in "black and white?" Funny how that works.
It's funny but in a sarcastic way. The first Intel Mac is also old, but hey it's an Intel Mac.
Yup. As funny as it may seem, that does hold more water. Although, the early Core Duo Macs aren't 64-bit.
I have also news for you. the moment you step out an Apple store with your new Mac, he will be also dated! That's reality
What makes you think this is news to me? It's funny how you label me as someone who knows very little about computer. But I guess you feel that to people reading this that it gives you more credibility.
At least I'm looking in to history.
Really? So I'm sure you know all about Apple's transition from Motorola processors to PPC processors in the early 90s. You know, how Apple made their OS available for both the Motorola 68K and PPC processors, encouraged developers to release fat binaries and provided emulation of Motorola 68K programs on PPC architecture. Wow. Doesn't that sound really familiar? And of course, the last OS to support the 68K processors was Mac OS 8.1, released roughly 4 years after the transition has began.
History is repeating itself. PPC will go the same road the Motorola 68K processors did for Apple.
I can even go into the similarities between the 68K back in the 90s and the PPC now. The 68K is used in my Ti-89 calculator, it was used in the Sega Genisis. It was used in Palm-Pilots. It's in the Space Shuttle. It was used in embedded system. But that still doesn't diminish the fact that for Apple, it died, and for Apple, PPC will go the same route.
The difference between the 68K and the PPC today, is that the PPC is still a very fast processor. The Cell processor, as I'm sure you know, is a derivative of the PPC processor, and I think that the PPC architure will live on in the very powerful Cell processor and it's derivatives.
You are looking in to the future (how are you doing this? like Nostradamus or so?). We will talk about this in a couple of years.
By looking back at the past. You should try it.
Back then, with the G5 (the first 64 bit desktop), Apple was pushing developers in to writing 64 bit apps. Yes, they also said that their existing 32 bit apps would benefit from the memory and all the rest. Look what happened... We are all still running 32 bit apps (at least the major part of the programs, 99% or so...).
And? Developers aren't going to push their programs to 64-bit just because they can. They're going to do it if it will actually benefit their programs. It doesn't mean that Apple, or any OS maker shouldn't at least offer a 64-bit version of their OS. We've reached the limits that 32-bit can go. Sure, programs may not be 64-bit, but if you want the OS to address all 4 gigs (and more) of your memory, you'll want a 64-bit OS.
I figured.
But it's proof that PPC is still alive and not a dead processor and not worth writing software for.
I never said it was, but I'm sorry if I left you to imply that I said it was.
About the Cell in the PS3. What do you think which architecture it's using? Yeah right, 64-bit PowerPC chip
.
I know. I've known that since IBM announced the Cell processor.
The Xenon is based on IBM's PowerPC instruction set architecture!
I know. I was the one who corrected you about the Xenon being in the Xbox360. See:
Do you know the IBM Cell? It's inside your xBox...
The Cell is not in the Xbox 360. A derivative of the Cell is.
Neither around you or exclusive Intel Mac owners! Look who's posting...
Yes. I know. It didn't seem as though you knew though.
It is the same OS you know! When I buy Leopard I can install it on PPC and Intel. Even the kernel is Universal! The system is identical!
Do you even know what "Universal" is? You know, beyond the fact that it works on both PPC and x86 processors. Apple's Universal Binary is just another term for a fat binary. In the case of Apple, it includes machine code for both PPC's instruction set and the x86 instruction set. Both sets aren't the same and it results in more hard drive space used since it essentially has two "copies" for two different instruction sets. However, the code that's being executed on my Intel processor is
NOT the same as what's being executed on the PPC processors.
The only difference is the "hardware".
AND WHAT'S BEING EXECUTED!
If something in an OS relies on an instruction present in the x86 instruction set but the PPC instruction set lacks a similar instruction, then that feature of the OS will be unsuable, unless the programmers find a way to compensate.
But is this a reason for not building a Chromium browser for PPC hardware? It's just a browser you know.
Well. Lets see. If Google was to port it to PPC, they would essentially have to re-write much of the code. Nevermind the fact that Google is STILL activily porting the browser to Mac OS X and that they are still porting it to Linux as well as activily supporting and developing Chrome on Windows. Not only that, Google has to take in consideration the fact that the next OS won't support PPC and as soon as SL comes out, Leopard will be considered out of date and support for it from Apple will be dropped.
Who even knows if Chrome will be ready before SL is out? If it's not, they may just support Chrome on SL exclusively.
Of course, Chrome is open source, and if it's as easy as you think it is (because it's
just a browser), you're free to port it to PPC.
Or is this a reason, for you and others, to bash on forum members when they are asking a question about this browser and PPC compatibility?
Who's bashing you for asking? I thought it was a perfectly valid question.
I only addressed HyperZboy's post! He essentially predicted that Google Chrome will flop due to the lack of PPC support. He gave his
OPINION so I gave mine. I have no problem if you disagree with me.
In fact, nobody bashed YOU, at least not until you started calling me "narrow-minded." So don't sit here and start acting appauled or insulted, not after the fact that you decided to SINGLE ME out and call me narrow-minded because I don't agree with you.
So that's Mac humor
. Did you ever see the "Mac ads"? With the Mac & PC guy?
Oh boy...
Yes. Once. Since then, I've just turned the channel.
