Xcode 4

Keith J. Schultz keithjschultz at web.de
Fri Mar 11 23:07:24 PST 2011

Hi all,

	I think some have not quite, got my point.

	I , too have several Apples including a Apple IIe.

	The question is how much active development is still
	going on for those PPC machines?

	So slow down take a deep breath.


Am 12.03.2011 um 03:45 schrieb Michael_google gmail_Gersten:

> I am also in the "PPC is dead, long live the PPC!" crowd.
> Frankly, I don't need to upgrade past my G4. 1 point 21, err, 42
> jigahurts of power.
> No, seriously, people, stop, take a deep breath, and stop chasing the
> clock-core count.
> What do you have on a typical system choice?
> i386 -- which includes 386 or better
> x86_64 -- which is the latest chipset in 64 bit mode
> And PPC: generally compiles to smaller code than the 386 compatible
> code does. Better register usage / allocation than the 386 compatible
> code. (Remember, you only need more than 3 registers if you are doing
> common sub expression elimination, and no compiler other than
> expensive optimizing compilers do this. Or so claimed Intel back when
> the 286 was still around and the 386 was in development.)
> And don't forget what optimizers learned: The intel instruction set
> stinks for optimization. SuperOptimizer was the first expose of that
> that I remember.
> So what do you have?
> Assume _64: Suddenly you're doubling your memory footprint by default.
> Assume late model cpu with a better register set: Good, but as far as
> I know, not default. Does the system even support "I need at least a
> level N x86 family"? (I think the current family is level 6, but
> please don't quote me.)
> ===
> What is the power of a G4 system like? Really: It's pretty darn GOOD.
> Why do some programs run so slowly? Bad programming?
> Maybe it's because I grew up programming on 1.77 Megahertz machines.
> Yea, 1000 times slower. Not 1 GB, not even 1 MB, but fractions of that
> -- 48 KB. Many thousands of times less memory.
> (Don't even ask about the disk space :-).
> Think I'm going back too far? OK. Look at 68010 systems. That's at
> least in the same ballpark, right? Ok, how about a 68040 based,
> pizza-box sized machine with 8-32 MB depending on configuration?
> Compare that to a 8 to 32 GB machine running 1,000 times faster: Do
> your programs actually run 1,000 times faster?
> G4 systems, not to mention G5 (multiple CPU, don't know about multiple
> core) desktops have plenty of power. They are not old, worn, ready to
> discard.
> These systems probably qualify for the "4 out of 5 computers sold are
> still on the desktop today" (apologies to Toyota).
> Is it current? No.
> Do they still exist out there, and still get used? Yes.
> People still port various linux flavors to 386 boxes. No one is saying
> throw the old away.
> Did it make sense when OS upgrades were easy to do to say "MacPorts
> will only support the recent OS's"? Yes.
> When upgrading an OS means throwing away a perfectly functional
> hardware box? No.
> What can we expect from Apple in the future? Well, lets look at the past:
> 1. EOF is for your business! No, actually, it's now dead.
> 2. Web Objects is the future of web developement! Look at Direct to
> Web and Direct to Java Client! -- now, both dead.
> 3. The OS is flexible enough to work with different hardware. -- Oh,
> we're tossing support for older hardware.
> I grew up learning -- in school, in early work force, etc., -- that
> business's tended to look at 30 year planning. I can understand
> "Upgrade the software" faster than that. But "Throw out the whole
> thing and start over" every 5? When computers have effective lifespans
> of 10-15 years? (Seriously, only the disk drive fails faster, and
> that's normally a replaceable.)
> Will I toss my Apple stuff? Nope.
> Will I ever recommend apple to others? ... Well, ...
> The OS is nicer. Compared to Microsoft Windows, much nicer.
> The user interface/Finder? meeh, a lot of it seems to be "Look, we're
> different". Just because.
> For a business? Used to be yes, now, not so sure.
> Bottom line: Do you want to replace your hardware every 5 years, even
> though it works just fine, because the company wants to sell you a new
> box?
> ** PLEASE **, keep support as long as practical for both 10.5.8 PPC
> and the current intel-family.
> Right now, that means not using xcode 4. Maybe if lion requires xcode
> 4, then ... ?
> Frankly, I'm upset at Apple. They are consistently sending the
> message, "Do not depend on us or our products for long term
> solutions".
> Alright, /soapbox.
> _______________________________________________
> macports-users mailing list
> macports-users at lists.macosforge.org
> http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users

More information about the macports-users mailing list