“A critical component of not only Mac OS X 10.5 ‘Leopard,’ but also the Cocoa/Carbon for Windows package* will be new code co-developed with Intel that helps break up tasks into multiple threads — therefore achieving considerably better efficiency on the next generation of multi-core Intel processors. The results we’ve seen on systems with up to 16 cores of Intel’s next-generation ‘Conroe’ desktop CPU architecture were amazing….with 10.4.6 as-is, the first core bears the vast majority of the workload particularly when only one or two resource-intensive apps are running,” Mac OS Rumors reports.
“Even when lots of different applications, many of them efficiently multi-threaded, are run on 10.4.5 or 10.4.6 only the first two CPUs are used efficiently while the third and fourth are getting plenty of work….but aren’t quite living up to their full potential. Each added core after four seems to drop off in efficiency….not because OS X doesn’t handle lots of processors properly, it does. In fact it’s an industry leader in terms of being ready for the next generation of multicore, multiprocessor technology. It has been since day one and Apple has consistently kept it at the leading edge since then,” MOSR reports. “The problem is, simply, getting all of those core to have the maximum possible positive effect on the performance of each application. When simulating the realistic workloads of almost every kind of user, more than four cores rapidly lost any effect because there just weren’t enough threads, efficiently enough balanced, to make good use of more CPU’s.
“Leopard changes this in every way that Apple and Intel have been able to devise. The techniques employed include tricks that both companies have been holding at ready for years, and some new things that have been developed in the past year or so to specifically address the way the ‘Core’ (Yonah, Merom and Napa-Merom) and Codename ‘Conroe’ architectures work,” MOSR reports. “Leopard is going to kick ass from stem to stern.”
Full article here.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “LinuxGuy” for the heads up.]
* MOSR writes, “Rather than adding Windows application compatibility to OS X or even official dual-boot support to the latest “Macintel” computers….Apple’s emphasis in the 10.5 era will be on resurrecting ‘Yellow Box for Windows,’ a set of Cocoa (and potentially also Carbon) API’s for Windows that would allow Universal Binary applications to run on Windows with a mere 150MB software package installation. And best of all, there is no extra work to be done on the developer’s part to get fully native, rock-solid stable performance from their Xcode-developed Universal applications on Windows!” Full article here.
[UPDATE: 2:49pm EDT: Pulled “Red Box” note after reader feedback and re-reading MOSR article section.]
Advertisements:
• Apple’s brand new iPod Hi-Fi speaker system. Home stereo. Reinvented. Available now for $349 with free shipping.
• Apple’s new Mac mini. Intel Core, up to 4 times faster. Starting at just $599. Free shipping.
• MacBook Pro. The first Mac notebook built upon Intel Core Duo with iLife ’06, Front Row and built-in iSight. Starting at $1999. Free shipping.
• iMac. Twice as amazing — Intel Core Duo, iLife ’06, Front Row media experience, Apple Remote, built-in iSight. Starting at $1299. Free shipping.
• iPod Radio Remote. Listen to FM radio on your iPod and control everything with a convenient wired remote. Just $49.
• iPod. 15,000 songs. 25,000 photos. 150 hours of video. The new iPod. 30GB and 60GB models start at just $299. Free shipping.
• Connect iPod to your television set with the iPod AV Cable. Just $19.
Related articles:
Apple Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard likely to feature Windows support, drivers for Intel Macs – March 28, 2006
Report: Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard to feature totally redesigned Spotlight-based Finder – October 21, 2005
Mac OS X Leopard to contain ‘Red Box’ for natively running Windows applications? – June 23, 2005
Apple to unleash Leopard on Microsoft’s Windows Longhorn; Mac OS X 10.5 due late 2006 – early 2007 – June 07, 2005
why i have a crappy dell next to my powerbook:
MS project
Enterprise Architect
MS Visio
Proprietary Software written for and by my company
etc.
Disregard. They have no recent history of anything but guesswork.
“The only Windows app that users would remotely even want to run would be Office”
AUTOCAD! AUTOCAD! AUTOCAD! AUTOCAD!
I wonder how well will leopard work with dual PPC G5’s?
What short memories some of you have.
A year ago or so, MOSR had some rumors about a quad processor Mac, and a multi-button mouse:
http://www.macosrumors.com/20050317.php
Sure, some of the details are wrong (scroll wheel atop the mouse?) but the guts are there. I actually remember being excited when I read their rumors concerning quad Macs a year ago, and some 6 months later, there they were.
I think Tommy Boy is more or less correct when he says MOSR are good for predicting 9-18 months from now.
Can someone discuss the programming environment issue– am I understanding correctly that this would migrate developers over to XCode for Windows and Mac? Apple would kind of be swallowing Windows by making it easier for developers to program THEIR way, as ooposed to M$’s?
gypsy ~
My sentiments exactly!
This is a good thing. If a programmer creates something in Xcode they can run it on both Mac and Windows instead of having to make two separate versions of their software. For instance, Adobe would have to write CS3 just in Xcode and include a yellow box installer on their disc for WIndows install. This would encourage Windows developers to develop for Mac because Xcode is better to code in and would me that their apps would be cross-platform compatible from the get go. Very exciting.
R:
Exactly! Over time, developers will see that they can program for both environments and capture both markets by doing the programming only once. People will see that the programs they can buy/download run on both platforms and will eventually have less incentive to stay with Windows. The apps that they’re running NOW (not the apps they’re running today) will be cross-platform capable. So, they might as well check out OS X. And then they’ll realize that the operating system is far more capable. That’s how I see it.
I run WebTrends, Visio and Project in VPC with XP just fine.
MW: basic
I agree with Alice.
People forget that Windows compatibility was one of the key things that doomed OS/2 from IBM.
Effectively what happened was software publishers stopped making OS/2 apps since their Windows’ applications could run natively.
OS X and the Mac experience is about more than the API’s and core compatibility. It is a design philosophy.
I just can’t see Apple making Window’s apps run on OS X. Why would any software publisher be incentived to publish Mac only software that conforms to the Macintosh experience.
And you can guarantee Microsoft, Intuit and Adobe would be the first to dump the Mac versions.
This just doesn’t make sense. (And come on folks, MacOSRumors hasn’t had a scoop on anything in longer than I can remember…)
I just can’t see Apple making Window’s apps run on OS X.
The article is talking about Apple making OS X apps run on Windows, not the other way around. That’s really smart. It would mean that a developer could write an application using XCode and it would be native to a Mac, and could run on Windows if the Windows user installs a 150 MB “yellow box” similar to the Java virtual machine. That’s a really smart move. It would be Apple doing to Windows what Windows did to OS/2.
re: bwhaler
windows compatibility hurt OS/2 because few companies moved to the OS/2 API, therefore most apps targeted Windows and ran better (or best case the same) on windows, thus their was no significant advantage to running them under OS/2.
This is the mac API brought to windows, thus programs should run better on macs than on Windows (or worst case the same). This is a critical difference, OS/2 support meant choosing the less universal choice, this is what doomed it. Here support form Mac becomes the more universal choice.
It is Wine that more fits your analogy, but times are different now. I am not convinced that Apple running win32 apps would push hurt them as Windows is generally disliked even by it’s users. So making it easy to switch would help sales more than it would hurt development.
Sounds great. If a developer can move to Xcode then their applications will work on both windows and macs out of the box. Ship one application that works for both operating systems. Hopefully lots of PC application makers realize that they can go to xcode and instantly increase their audiance by millions and millions of world wide users.
Turd Ferguson
If nothig esle, there will be a third party that will give us multi core Intel accelerators!!
WOW
Ugh, half of you just dont get it. This isnt about running windows apps on a mac, which as stated above, would completely destroy programs developed explicitly for macs. Adobe, Microsoft, and any of the big programmers would only write windows versions since OSX would run them.
Personally, if this is true it is genius on Apples part. Ive used Visual Studio and Xcode, and personally Xcode blows Visual Studio away!!!! By making apps created with Xcode have the ability to run on PPC and Intel Macs, along with all windows computers, Developers would slowly start to switch to coding with Xcode and all the Apps we are missing now would finally be OSX native.
Instead of pushing developers away by including Windows compatible apps in OSX (although, I do think they will still support Virtual OS’s so you CAN run windows Apps, albeit in windows), now they will be bringing in developers away from Visual Studio, and we will have many more native apps for the Mac.
GENIUS!!!
mosr may not have a good track record, so what. the truth is we read this stuff because we know that apple is completely capable of doing something like this. it would be great to say to someone will my mac can do this or that, or to hear apple release the next mac workstation w x amount of cores. or to hear that mac os x utilizes the new intel chip at 100% optimalization. yada yada yada.
i think it would be great for developers to start writing for os x native 1st then have windows extension for a universal install.
“The only Windows app that users would remotely even want to run would be Office.”
AutoCAD! AutoCAD! AutoCAD! AutoCAD! AutoCAD!
macosrumors.com is notorious for being, shall we say… WRONG
Oh please, you’re reporting what MacOSR is saying? They have less credibility than CARS (Crazy Apple Rumors Site). They haven’t gotten anything right (let’s say in the same hemisphere) with what has come out of Apple in years.
Sorry, but I think they’re waiiting for people to figure out they’re a satire site like CARS for the longest time now. It’s disappointing that people aren’t.
If MOSR is making this up, Apple should take the Yellow Box for Windows idea and make it happen. It is brilliant! As others have mentioned above, letting Windows applications run on OS X would take away the incentive to develop native applications. Letting Intel Macs boot up Windows would worsen the experience of using a Mac. Letting OS X applications run on Windows would bring more developers to the Mac and promote Apple’s software and platform to PC users. Apple would also make a lot of money selling their own software to a larger market.
My guess is that such a move by Apple will happen sooner rather than later. It is a direct threat on Microsoft’s OS monopoly and if executed successfully it would increase Apple’s market share in computers. Apple would not want to give Microsoft time to retaliate with something like Windows or a free hardware accelerated Virtual PC for Intel Macs.
This makes a lot of sense. Joop is right, this is about being able to use Xcode to write triple-universal apps…or maybe even quad-universal apps (PPC, Macintel, Windows and Linux). As a Mac user, you wouldn’t notice anything different (other than a larger selection of software).
However as a Windows/Linux user you would. Companies like Adobe and others could use Xcode and then require their apps to run in Yellow Box on non-Mac platforms. This would be huge for them because it’s a matter of writing once for the multiple platforms. Not only does this result in a larger potential customer base but it’s also much, much easier.
Just a word on processors:
I am certain that the new ProMacs will utilize the Conroe multi-cores. Loyd Case from ExtremeTech.com ran(saw?) some tests at the Intel developers forum using a 2.66GHz Conroe and found that video encoding time was 300% faster – and this was up against an overclocked AMD chip of similar specs. He talked about something called SSEs (I’m not sure what they are, but you video encoders should) being full 128 bit now so they don’t have to be broken up or something to that effect.
Download the video here in h.264 for the low-down
The segment is short and near the begining, but VERY interesting.
This seems more about taking the RISC concept further and across all the cores. BREAK BIG stuff into little chunks and use the fastest and most popular routines. Of course the chips are R/CISC now, but this seems to mostly be confirming what most people have already known: Mac OS X was, is, and should be the best possible utilizer of multiple cpu/core hardware.
As to yellow box. It made sense. So did having the universal reference platform for hardware. It just disappeared under the work needed for OX Mac (PPC AND X86) and the typical paranoia sprung up.
Java: Code once, use on any machine != end of the world
Aurora/Netscape Filesystem Browsing, any machine != end of the world
OS/2 Warp this and that meant people who had compatible hardware went with the volume OS. This wasn’t about Applications, but the operating system. The simple fact that Apple exists is proof enough that any windows compatibility isn’t going to = end of the world.
Can we get this through our heads once and for all people? Whether or not Apple makes trendy boxes or not, the Operating System is so superior to the alternative that the majority of people who use it will want it. Users = demand. Demand = NATIVE APPLICATIONS. Native Applications != end of the world.
Too bad the studios want the extra 3 cents profit for online sales of movies that ITMS would have had. Guess that whole vertical cartel doesn’t mean much in America now.
This Leopard compiler thing may have been the real source for John C. Dovorak’s ‘Apple moving to Windows’ rumour.
Instead of “speaking to a professor” maybe he heard of “Apple programmers compiling X-Code for Windows” and got confused into assuming (as many of us did too) that this meant the whole MacOS (& iLife) would also be transferred to Windows.
Personally, I already use REALbasic Pro, so compiling for Classic, MacOS X, Windows and Linux is a matter of ‘been there, done that’.