3 ms·
> I was impressed that the speed there was, in fact, near native enough that the transition was essentially completely seamless. Not to diminish Apple's accomp
by Analemma_ 10y ago
> I was impressed that the speed there was, in fact, near native enough that the transition was essentially completely seamless.
Not to diminish Apple's accomplishment, which was indeed impressive, but a lot of this was because by that point, PowerPC was so, so far behind Intel's chips that, even after the emulation performance penalty, the Core 2 chips were fast enough to make it no big deal.
There's not a similar Intel/ARM gap this time around so Microsoft will have to rely on their chops alone.
- huxley 10y agoI think you misremember. Apple started with the Core Solo and Core Duo chips (Yonah), which were fairly fast but weren't remarkably faster than the PowerPC G5. A single core G5 iMac held up quite well versus the two-core Core Duo and thrashed the Core Solo. Aside from memory reads the G5 did quite well. The strength of the Core Duo and Solo were in performance per watt and that's what Jobs was looking for. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yonah_(microprocessor) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yonah_(microprocessor)
- thanksgiving 10y agoIt is easy to have rise tinted glasses. I remember my MacBook with 80? GB hard disk and cursing power PC everytime I had to install a universal DMG that included both Rosetta? and Intel apps.