Happy 57th Republic Day!
First of all, I must say that I'm quite impressed with the people at the Bookstore. Unlike the morons at the Apple Store (who just want you to buy their stuff without being fully able to see how the said stuff works), when I told the folks at the Bookstore that I was switching to an Intel Mac and wanted to test out some applications on their iMac, they were most supportive. So, basically, I tested Dreamweaver 8, which ran just fine, the Universal Binary of QuarkXpress 7 Beta, which I really didn't care about but just did it for kicks and, finally and most importantly, Warcraft III. The most surprising thing was indeed how smoothly Warcraft III ran under emulation, considering that it takes the living daylights out of this iBook G4 I'm currently working on. I ran the game at the screen's maximum resolution of 1680x1050, and not only did it load a lot faster than it does on this computer, it was extremely smooth and playable. Of course, I would love for it to run natively on that machine, and so, I hope that Windows Vista will eventually be able to run on these machines thanks to some enterprising hacker's ingenuity (because I very much doubt Blizzard will invest in converting a 3-5 year old game (is Warcraft III really that old?!) to Universal Binary). And since I don't think I've mentioned this earlier, I am quite impressed by Windows Vista's graphics. I had a chance to try out the second Beta, although not on a computer with the Aero Glass support, and I found some things to have been changed for the better and some things for the worse, at least in short term. When you switched from Windows 95 to 98 to XP (or, if you were a sucker like me, then also Windows Me in the middle), you could use almost all your old keyboard and mouse shortcuts from the previous version. This will change in Vista. For example, when you right-click on an empty region of the Desktop, the last item in the menu is not "Properties", it's "Personalize Desktop" or something of that sort. This means that to access the Display properties, you have to go to Control Panel and then double-click on Display. Generally, Windows Vista has uncoupled a lot of features, and so you will see gazillions of Control Panels instead of just the few tens that you saw in XP. But, I think I'll do most of my Vista bitching once it actually ships. I'm not a Windows-hater as such, just a very critical reviewer.
Meanwhile, I changed my mind about buying the MacBook Pro. I decided that, for a >$2000 machine being purchased in 2006, an optical drive that burns at only 4x and won't even lay its proverbial hands on Dual-layer discs is a bit too much of compromise. Of course, I have other qualms too. One is the lack of a modem (which Apple seems to think is too stone age for its computers, not to mention cost-cutting) and the other is the general lack of information about what kind of battery life this thing will have, which is extremely sketchy. Plus, I think that a 1440x900 screen for a 15.4" display is positively primitive. Apple ought to get denser displays. So, anyway, I decided that it was going to be the 20" 2.0GHz Core Duo iMac for me, with the graphics bumped to 256MB. According to FedEx, it shipped on the 25th, but it's almost the 28th now and it is still doing something in Shanghai. They say it'll be here by Tuesday. Ai! Anìron...
A Short Note on Rosetta
As I mentioned some time ago, Rosetta, the PowerPC to Intel translation technology, has been coming under both heavy praise and heavy fire from reviewers. They praise it for the way it works - completely transparent, the user probably won't even know that he's using something under Rosetta unless he went and did a Get Info on the application. This is probably the best example of a "transition done right", GUI wise. Meanwhile, the same reviewers also attack Rosetta for working only at 50% of the native speed, while Apple had promised 80%. Although the reviewers' claims are nowhere near baseless, since Rosetta ran for me both Google Earth and Warcraft III without a hitch, both being extremely processor intensive applications, I am sufficiently impressed by it. I must also here mention why Rosetta is called a "Translator" and not an "Emulator" by Apple. Here's the way some standard emulators work: They get a block of instructions, they translate it to the other language ('language' here used for 'processor architecture'), send it to the processor, translate the processed data back to the original language, and thus a block of instructions executes. What Rosetta does is that it takes a block of Intel code, converts it to PowerPC code, executes it and caches it for later use. The key differences is that a) it seems to convert parts of binary instead of the instructions and b) it caches the translated code for later use. The latter part is confirmed by Transitive, the company that originally made this software, and they say that an app. that normally takes 128MB of RAM to run will take an additional 64MB for Rosetta. The assumption here is that once a specific block of code has been translated and cached, running it again and again will run it at native speed and it won't suffer a significant speed hit. If this is true, then a program that does something repeatedly will benefit from Rosetta a lot. This might also explain why Rosetta benchmarks have no standard trend (apart from generally being slower than the native compiles). It also means that increasing the amount of RAM on Intel Macs might help better the performance, in which case, it makes more sense to test the Intel Macs after upping their RAM a bit. Of course, I know about emulation and translation as much as Bill Gates knows about speaking in public. So this information is not to be taken as absolute truth. I shall post more on this once I get my hands on the iMac.
First of all, I must say that I'm quite impressed with the people at the Bookstore. Unlike the morons at the Apple Store (who just want you to buy their stuff without being fully able to see how the said stuff works), when I told the folks at the Bookstore that I was switching to an Intel Mac and wanted to test out some applications on their iMac, they were most supportive. So, basically, I tested Dreamweaver 8, which ran just fine, the Universal Binary of QuarkXpress 7 Beta, which I really didn't care about but just did it for kicks and, finally and most importantly, Warcraft III. The most surprising thing was indeed how smoothly Warcraft III ran under emulation, considering that it takes the living daylights out of this iBook G4 I'm currently working on. I ran the game at the screen's maximum resolution of 1680x1050, and not only did it load a lot faster than it does on this computer, it was extremely smooth and playable. Of course, I would love for it to run natively on that machine, and so, I hope that Windows Vista will eventually be able to run on these machines thanks to some enterprising hacker's ingenuity (because I very much doubt Blizzard will invest in converting a 3-5 year old game (is Warcraft III really that old?!) to Universal Binary). And since I don't think I've mentioned this earlier, I am quite impressed by Windows Vista's graphics. I had a chance to try out the second Beta, although not on a computer with the Aero Glass support, and I found some things to have been changed for the better and some things for the worse, at least in short term. When you switched from Windows 95 to 98 to XP (or, if you were a sucker like me, then also Windows Me in the middle), you could use almost all your old keyboard and mouse shortcuts from the previous version. This will change in Vista. For example, when you right-click on an empty region of the Desktop, the last item in the menu is not "Properties", it's "Personalize Desktop" or something of that sort. This means that to access the Display properties, you have to go to Control Panel and then double-click on Display. Generally, Windows Vista has uncoupled a lot of features, and so you will see gazillions of Control Panels instead of just the few tens that you saw in XP. But, I think I'll do most of my Vista bitching once it actually ships. I'm not a Windows-hater as such, just a very critical reviewer.
Meanwhile, I changed my mind about buying the MacBook Pro. I decided that, for a >$2000 machine being purchased in 2006, an optical drive that burns at only 4x and won't even lay its proverbial hands on Dual-layer discs is a bit too much of compromise. Of course, I have other qualms too. One is the lack of a modem (which Apple seems to think is too stone age for its computers, not to mention cost-cutting) and the other is the general lack of information about what kind of battery life this thing will have, which is extremely sketchy. Plus, I think that a 1440x900 screen for a 15.4" display is positively primitive. Apple ought to get denser displays. So, anyway, I decided that it was going to be the 20" 2.0GHz Core Duo iMac for me, with the graphics bumped to 256MB. According to FedEx, it shipped on the 25th, but it's almost the 28th now and it is still doing something in Shanghai. They say it'll be here by Tuesday. Ai! Anìron...
A Short Note on Rosetta
As I mentioned some time ago, Rosetta, the PowerPC to Intel translation technology, has been coming under both heavy praise and heavy fire from reviewers. They praise it for the way it works - completely transparent, the user probably won't even know that he's using something under Rosetta unless he went and did a Get Info on the application. This is probably the best example of a "transition done right", GUI wise. Meanwhile, the same reviewers also attack Rosetta for working only at 50% of the native speed, while Apple had promised 80%. Although the reviewers' claims are nowhere near baseless, since Rosetta ran for me both Google Earth and Warcraft III without a hitch, both being extremely processor intensive applications, I am sufficiently impressed by it. I must also here mention why Rosetta is called a "Translator" and not an "Emulator" by Apple. Here's the way some standard emulators work: They get a block of instructions, they translate it to the other language ('language' here used for 'processor architecture'), send it to the processor, translate the processed data back to the original language, and thus a block of instructions executes. What Rosetta does is that it takes a block of Intel code, converts it to PowerPC code, executes it and caches it for later use. The key differences is that a) it seems to convert parts of binary instead of the instructions and b) it caches the translated code for later use. The latter part is confirmed by Transitive, the company that originally made this software, and they say that an app. that normally takes 128MB of RAM to run will take an additional 64MB for Rosetta. The assumption here is that once a specific block of code has been translated and cached, running it again and again will run it at native speed and it won't suffer a significant speed hit. If this is true, then a program that does something repeatedly will benefit from Rosetta a lot. This might also explain why Rosetta benchmarks have no standard trend (apart from generally being slower than the native compiles). It also means that increasing the amount of RAM on Intel Macs might help better the performance, in which case, it makes more sense to test the Intel Macs after upping their RAM a bit. Of course, I know about emulation and translation as much as Bill Gates knows about speaking in public. So this information is not to be taken as absolute truth. I shall post more on this once I get my hands on the iMac.
Labels: English
0 comments




