Joel Reymont wrote:
> What do you guys think of Franz's new promotion?
>
> http://www.franz.com/products/packages/Mac_Promo.pdf
>
> Any movement is good movement?
>
Is it movement?
PowerPC only with Macs moving to Intel, not the usual Franz support,
one-year of upgrades only.
I got excited when I saw the free runtimes, lost interest on the PowerPC
and one-year limitations.
Who would pay a $1000 for something already obsolete?
kenny
From: Pascal Costanza
Subject: Re: The new Franz promo: What do you think?
Date:
Message-ID: <46nn6rFc56ecU1@individual.net>
Ken wrote:
>
>
> Joel Reymont wrote:
>
>> What do you guys think of Franz's new promotion?
>>
>> http://www.franz.com/products/packages/Mac_Promo.pdf
>>
>> Any movement is good movement?
>>
>
> Is it movement?
>
> PowerPC only with Macs moving to Intel, not the usual Franz support,
> one-year of upgrades only.
>
> I got excited when I saw the free runtimes, lost interest on the PowerPC
> and one-year limitations.
>
> Who would pay a $1000 for something already obsolete?
PowerPC-based Macs are not obsolete. They will be supported by Apple for
a few years, and there will be a considerable number of users still
using them.
Pascal
--
My website: http://p-cos.net
Closer to MOP & ContextL:
http://common-lisp.net/project/closer/
From: Ken
Subject: Re: The new Franz promo: What do you think?
Date:
Message-ID: <eNFNf.28$AN5.10@fe11.lga>
Pascal Costanza wrote:
> Ken wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Joel Reymont wrote:
>>
>>> What do you guys think of Franz's new promotion?
>>>
>>> http://www.franz.com/products/packages/Mac_Promo.pdf
>>>
>>> Any movement is good movement?
>>>
>>
>> Is it movement?
>>
>> PowerPC only with Macs moving to Intel, not the usual Franz support,
>> one-year of upgrades only.
>>
>> I got excited when I saw the free runtimes, lost interest on the
>> PowerPC and one-year limitations.
>>
>> Who would pay a $1000 for something already obsolete?
>
>
> PowerPC-based Macs are not obsolete. They will be supported by Apple for
> a few years, and there will be a considerable number of users still
> using them.
I stand uncorrected; don't you know how to read hyperbole. :)
Does "deprecated" and "useless in a few years" really make you feel
better about laying out a $1000?
kenny
On 2006-03-02 17:18:03 +0000, Ken <·················@optobline.net> said:
>> PowerPC-based Macs are not obsolete. They will be supported by Apple
>> for a few years, and there will be a considerable number of users still
>> using them.
>
> I stand uncorrected; don't you know how to read hyperbole. :)
>
> Does "deprecated" and "useless in a few years" really make you feel
> better about laying out a $1000?
But then does "deprecated" and "useless in a few years no matter what
processor it runs on, anyway" change your point? :-)
--
JFB
Pascal Costanza <··@p-cos.net> writes:
> PowerPC-based Macs are not obsolete. They will be supported by Apple
> for a few years, and there will be a considerable number of users
> still using them.
The offer is nice, but what does the "32-bit" part of this version
mean? But I guess it just means that the lisp is 32 bit, and that it
also runs on 64-bit PPC processors (in 32-bit mode).
Any chance the delivered applications will run under Rosetta?
--
(espen)
After a long battle with technology, Espen Vestre <·····@vestre.net>, an earthling, wrote:
> Pascal Costanza <··@p-cos.net> writes:
>
>> PowerPC-based Macs are not obsolete. They will be supported by Apple
>> for a few years, and there will be a considerable number of users
>> still using them.
>
> The offer is nice, but what does the "32-bit" part of this version
> mean? But I guess it just means that the lisp is 32 bit, and that it
> also runs on 64-bit PPC processors (in 32-bit mode).
>
> Any chance the delivered applications will run under Rosetta?
I don't think Apple has gotten around to doing anything particularly
64-bit-oriented as far as memory addressing is concerned on the PPC.
(IBM certainly has; we've had someone getting into pretty gory detail
about memory addressing on AIX, and that's *way* more baroque than
you'd expect a Unix to be... In 32 bit mode, they have done some
really weird hacks...)
--
select 'cbbrowne' || ·@' || 'gmail.com';
http://linuxfinances.info/info/x.html
Humpty Dumpty sat on the wall,
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall!
All the king's horses,
And all the king's men,
Had scrambled eggs for breakfast again!
Christopher Browne <········@acm.org> writes:
> I don't think Apple has gotten around to doing anything particularly
> 64-bit-oriented as far as memory addressing is concerned on the PPC.
Well, OS X certainly still isn't quite 64 bit, but Franz definitely
has a 64 bit version of its lisp for Mac OS X.
I'll rather wait for LispWorks 5.0 which they said (last spring in
Amsterdam at the european lisp meeting) would get a amd64 linux
version, which is /very/ interesting for us, since we run most of our
lisp server stuff on Opteron-based hardware. They talked about a OS X
PPC 64-bit version too, but I guess they have dropped that by now. But
when 64 bit intel macs arrive some time in the autumn, I hope that
Apple will be ready with a more complete 64-bit implemenation than
they ever had on PPC, and that a 64 bit/intel/OS X LispWorks won't be
far away :-)
--
(espen)
From: Duane Rettig
Subject: Re: The new Franz promo: What do you think?
Date:
Message-ID: <o04q2gvobn.fsf@franz.com>
Espen Vestre <·····@vestre.net> writes:
> Christopher Browne <········@acm.org> writes:
>
>> I don't think Apple has gotten around to doing anything particularly
>> 64-bit-oriented as far as memory addressing is concerned on the PPC.
>
> Well, OS X certainly still isn't quite 64 bit,
What is it that isn't fully 64-bit on MacOSX? Saying that it won't run
on 32-bit PowerPCs isn't fair, since I don't know of any operating system
that does that :-)
> but Franz definitely
> has a 64 bit version of its lisp for Mac OS X.
This is absolutely true.
--
Duane Rettig ·····@franz.com Franz Inc. http://www.franz.com/
555 12th St., Suite 1450 http://www.555citycenter.com/
Oakland, Ca. 94607 Phone: (510) 452-2000; Fax: (510) 452-0182
Duane Rettig <·····@franz.com> writes:
> What is it that isn't fully 64-bit on MacOSX?
I'm no expert on this, I don't even have a G5 to play with :-)
But AFAIK: Tiger is a step forward compared to the very basic 64 bit
support in Panther, now it at least has a 64 bit address space for all
"faceless" processes, but GUI processes still need to be 32 bit (since
most of the libraries aren't 64 bit yet) (This can of course be fixed
by running GUI and 64-bit demanding stuff in separate processes
talking to each other)
--
(espen)
From: Duane Rettig
Subject: Re: The new Franz promo: What do you think?
Date:
Message-ID: <o0zmk8u4wu.fsf@franz.com>
Espen Vestre <·····@vestre.net> writes:
> Duane Rettig <·····@franz.com> writes:
>
>> What is it that isn't fully 64-bit on MacOSX?
>
> I'm no expert on this, I don't even have a G5 to play with :-)
>
> But AFAIK: Tiger is a step forward compared to the very basic 64 bit
> support in Panther, now it at least has a 64 bit address space for all
> "faceless" processes, but GUI processes still need to be 32 bit (since
> most of the libraries aren't 64 bit yet) (This can of course be fixed
> by running GUI and 64-bit demanding stuff in separate processes
> talking to each other)
OK, I guess it's a glass-half-full/glass-half-empty situation. You
may recall me complaining bitterly on this n/g a couple of years ago
about having gotten a G5 with Panther, touted as Apple's new 64-bit
MacOSX system, but when I actually tried compiling some 64-bit
applications, it was clear that it was _not_ a 64-bit system at all;
it was only using a few parts of the G5's 64-bit hardware nature, but
because the calling conventions were still 32-bit, the gratuitous
movement into 64-bit hardware usage was ironically slowing down
applications rather than speeding them up. When we finally got in
on the ground floor with Tiger as it was moving toward release, it
was equally clear that the 64-bit approach was real this time.
So that leaves 32-bit programs and libraries. There are many programs
that will probably never run in 64-bit mode, and indeed should not;
I wouldn't imagine that ls() should be switched to 64-bit mode unless
it became a burden to maintain in 32-bit mode. And there's the 32-bit
Allegro CL for the Mac, which will never be a 64-bit application because
it is explicitly 32-bits, and because we have a 64-bit version.
It is true that a library must be enabled for 64-bits in order to be
used (on the Mac, this is in the form of "fat" libraries, containing
both widths). That has caused very little trouble for our 64-bit
version of Allegro CL. Almost all functionality that we provide works
there, including our Composer product, which is a GUI based on X11 and
clx. One thing we are missing (at least the last time we checked) is
the Motif library, so CLIM (which uses it in our implementation) is not
yet available.
Perhaps I'm also a bit jaded by the fact that we "have" a MacOSX port,
but being a Mac user myself, I don't actually consider it to be a "full"
MacOSX port yet; since it isn't attached to the Mac toolkits. Perhaps
if it had been, then I would be taking the same "half-empty" viewpoint
you seem to be taking. But because our Lisp on the Mac is just that, a
Lisp on the Mac, and since there is such a high percentage of that
Lisp which works in 64-bit mode, I take the half-full viewpoint (actually,
more like a 95% full viewpoint).
It also depends on your needs as to what you might select; if you want
a GUI app on the Mac, then by all means select a 32-bit program at this
time. But if you have a need for huge datasets larger than a couple of
Gigabytes, then you need a 64-bit app.
--
Duane Rettig ·····@franz.com Franz Inc. http://www.franz.com/
555 12th St., Suite 1450 http://www.555citycenter.com/
Oakland, Ca. 94607 Phone: (510) 452-2000; Fax: (510) 452-0182
From: Giorgos Keramidas
Subject: Re: The new Franz promo: What do you think?
Date:
Message-ID: <867j7cu2kv.fsf@flame.pc>
On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 09:34:25 -0800, Duane Rettig <·····@franz.com> wrote:
> It also depends on your needs as to what you might select; if you want a
> GUI app on the Mac, then by all means select a 32-bit program at this
> time. But if you have a need for huge datasets larger than a couple of
> Gigabytes, then you need a 64-bit app.
Huge datasets are not really that uncommon in today's world. It doesn't
take an administrator of a huge IT department, for instance, to quickly
bump into the limit of 32-bit file sizes some 32-bit platforms/filesystems
have. Let's say, when an image of a DVD is tossed around, using simple
file operations...
- Giorgos
Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 09:34:25 -0800, Duane Rettig <·····@franz.com> wrote:
>> It also depends on your needs as to what you might select; if you want a
>> GUI app on the Mac, then by all means select a 32-bit program at this
>> time. But if you have a need for huge datasets larger than a couple of
>> Gigabytes, then you need a 64-bit app.
>
> Huge datasets are not really that uncommon in today's world. It doesn't
> take an administrator of a huge IT department, for instance, to quickly
> bump into the limit of 32-bit file sizes some 32-bit platforms/filesystems
> have. Let's say, when an image of a DVD is tossed around, using simple
> file operations...
You don't need to run your processor in 64-bit mode to use
a filesystem that supports files much larger than 2^32 bytes.
--
Gareth McCaughan
.sig under construc
Ken wrote:
> Who would pay a $1000 for something already obsolete?
There are many PowerPC Macs already out there and with Rosetta it doesn't
matter if you have an Intel based or PowerPC based Mac, PowerPC programs
runs on both and why should Mac drop Rosetta? So I think it will run more
than a few years, even on new hardware. And the user doesn't care, if it is
translated in the background to x86 opcode or if it is compiled native, if
it works.
More information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Intel_transition
But I'm not sure about how it works with such dynamic systems like Lisp,
where it is possible to compile at runtime, because if I've understand
correctly, Rosetta converts the programs only at load time?
--
Frank Buss, ··@frank-buss.de
http://www.frank-buss.de, http://www.it4-systems.de
Frank Buss wrote:
> Ken wrote:
>
>
>>Who would pay a $1000 for something already obsolete?
>
>
> There are many PowerPC Macs already out there and with Rosetta it doesn't
> matter if you have an Intel based or PowerPC based Mac, PowerPC programs
> runs on both and why should Mac drop Rosetta?
I do not know, why did they drop installing OS9 to support those
applications? Users have to install it deliberately to get it at this
point (well, last I heard, I should say).
> So I think it will run more
> than a few years, even on new hardware.
And that is long enough, because you only get a year of updates and you
will need more than that for AllegroCache which is just now taking its
first baby steps. (And when ACache screws up I cannot contact tech
support, I have to go to a Franz mailing list. So I would be buying a
full license in a year anyway at god knows what cost, having already
committed myself to ACL by building around ACache.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know Apple will support PowerPC for a while, but
when you look at the whole mix it is a very strange offer. IMO. And this
is coming from a known paid shill. :)
kt
Joel Reymont wrote:
> What do you guys think of Franz's new promotion?
>
> http://www.franz.com/products/packages/Mac_Promo.pdf
>
> Any movement is good movement?
Looks interesting. A free alternative: OpenMCL:
http://openmcl.clozure.com/
which works great on my Mac mini:
http://www.frank-buss.de/tmp/lispbuilder-sdl-mac.png
But I have still problems with receiving events in a SDL demo application.
Any ideas why? See
http://www.lispniks.com/pipermail/application-builder/2006-February/000057.html
for details.
--
Frank Buss, ··@frank-buss.de
http://www.frank-buss.de, http://www.it4-systems.de
From: Edi Weitz
Subject: Re: The new Franz promo: What do you think?
Date:
Message-ID: <uek1lobts.fsf@agharta.de>
On 1 Mar 2006 16:04:30 -0800, "Joel Reymont" <······@gmail.com> wrote:
> What do you guys think of Franz's new promotion?
Maybe they want to make some money off of their PowerPC port before
every Mac developer has switched to Intel.
--
European Common Lisp Meeting 2006: <http://weitz.de/eclm2006/>
Real email: (replace (subseq ·········@agharta.de" 5) "edi")