x86 Mac port?

Strictly for discussing ZSNES development and for submitting code. You can also join us on IRC at irc.libera.chat in #zsnes.
Please, no requests here.

Moderator: ZSNES Mods

funkyass
"God"
Posts: 1128
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 11:24 pm

Post by funkyass »

DAEGU wrote:I just have a G5 iMac - version 2.

I hate snes9x, it's just not the same, haha.

And yeah- I uncompressed the archive, and i just get a folder filled with files and other folders, what do i do with them? :|
drag them to the trash, thats pretty much all you can do with it. you need either the new iMac or MacBook Pro to even start.
Does [Kevin] Smith masturbate with steel wool too?

- Yes, but don’t change the subject.
DAEGU
New Member
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 9:53 pm
Location: Calgary

Post by DAEGU »

I wouldn't have to 'drag it to the trash', i could always get my processor switched.
___
Aaron
Lurker
Posts: 157
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2005 7:26 am

Post by Aaron »

I thought it'd be interesting to note that the new Mac Mini features the new Intel processor.

linkage. The same price as a mid-ranged Mac Mini ($600), but now 4x freakin' faster :O!!!
kode54
Zealot
Posts: 1140
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2004 3:31 am
Contact:

Post by kode54 »

Aaron wrote:I thought it'd be interesting to note that the new Mac Mini features the new Intel processor.

linkage. The same price as a mid-ranged Mac Mini ($600), but now 4x freakin' faster :O!!!
Yeah, right.
tehnick
Hazed
Posts: 52
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2004 1:41 am

Post by tehnick »

Don't underestimate the upgrade. Going from a G4 to Core Solo/Duo is a huge difference. Mainly because of IBM's inability to get a G5 in a laptop or mini.

BTW, I have a new intel iMac. If you want to pagefault, I wouldn't mind giving you ssh access to develop ZSNES on OS X Intel.
Deathlike2
ZSNES Developer
ZSNES Developer
Posts: 6747
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2004 6:47 am

Post by Deathlike2 »

DAEGU wrote:I wouldn't have to 'drag it to the trash', i could always get my processor switched.
It's not as simple as you think. Maybe I'm missing something.. but you can't just "swap in a processor" of a completely different architecture and expect it to work. Linux has multiple builds for different architectures and you can't just expect that build to work under another architecture. It just doesn't work like that.

Why do you think Macs and PCs generally have few problems even when most of the components are completely different years later? It's because they use the same architecture. I forget what architecture the Macs uses, but moving them to x86 requires more than just a processor swap.. it requires an updated Mac OS X build at the very least.
Last edited by Deathlike2 on Sun Mar 05, 2006 4:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
Continuing [url=http://slickproductions.org/forum/index.php?board=13.0]FF4[/url] Research...
Deathlike2
ZSNES Developer
ZSNES Developer
Posts: 6747
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2004 6:47 am

Post by Deathlike2 »

kode54 wrote:
Aaron wrote:I thought it'd be interesting to note that the new Mac Mini features the new Intel processor.

linkage. The same price as a mid-ranged Mac Mini ($600), but now 4x freakin' faster :O!!!
Yeah, right.
4x is completely exaggerated. Remember, this is the same company that said the P4 sucked ass years before.
Continuing [url=http://slickproductions.org/forum/index.php?board=13.0]FF4[/url] Research...
funkyass
"God"
Posts: 1128
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 11:24 pm

Post by funkyass »

Deathlike2 wrote: 4x is completely exaggerated. Remember, this is the same company that said the P4 sucked ass years before.
And that wasn't far from the truth.
Does [Kevin] Smith masturbate with steel wool too?

- Yes, but don’t change the subject.
Deathlike2
ZSNES Developer
ZSNES Developer
Posts: 6747
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2004 6:47 am

Post by Deathlike2 »

funkyass wrote:
Deathlike2 wrote: 4x is completely exaggerated. Remember, this is the same company that said the P4 sucked ass years before.
And that wasn't far from the truth.
I forget if that means you agree with me or not... :?

What bothered me a bit about Macs was specifically that the Mac equivalent hardware (particularly video cards) were always late to the party. The worst part was that the video cards were generally of the mid-end variety...
Continuing [url=http://slickproductions.org/forum/index.php?board=13.0]FF4[/url] Research...
adventure_of_link
Locksmith of Hyrule
Posts: 3634
Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2004 7:49 am
Location: 255.255.255.255
Contact:

Post by adventure_of_link »

DeathLike: Macs are/were based off the PPC CPU's.
<Nach> so why don't the two of you get your own room and leave us alone with this stupidity of yours?
NSRT here.
Clements
Randomness
Posts: 1172
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2004 4:01 pm
Location: UK
Contact:

Post by Clements »

Heh, the Rosetta emulation software creates a 50% or more performance drop when running PPC software on an x86 Mac.
SteveSnake
Rookie
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 8:41 pm

Post by SteveSnake »

Deathlike2 wrote:4x is completely exaggerated. Remember, this is the same company that said the P4 sucked ass years before.
Normally I would agree, Apple are very good at bending the truth ;) But this time, I could well believe it.

The Pentium M is a very surprising chip. A 1.8ghz PM easily outperforms a 3ghz P4 with everything I have thrown at it. I could well believe its more than 2x faster than an equivalent G4.

The Core Duo is basically 2 Pentium Ms - so provided your app is properly multithreaded, it should go 4x as fast easily.

Not really surprising Apple wanted it ;)
Clements wrote:Heh, the Rosetta emulation software creates a 50% or more performance drop when running PPC software on an x86 Mac.
Hmm, from what I have read, its using Dynamic Recompilation. That should give you 80% or more efficiency - and given that the CPU is also faster, it should be pretty good speedwise. I'll have to have a play with it sometime ;)
doom127
New Member
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 2:14 pm

Post by doom127 »

It wouldn't be the least bit efficient, but one might accomplish such a portly task on a standard PPC G5 by using Virtual PC and then one of the kludge hacks that are floating around to run the Intel OSX...

PPC G5 running OSX
\/
Virtual PC with XP
\/
OSX Boot Camp Hack

:twisted:

OSX on.. OSX.. muhahaa!
blargg
Regular
Posts: 327
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 1:54 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by blargg »

Clements wrote:Heh, the Rosetta emulation software creates a 50% or more performance drop when running PPC software on an x86 Mac.
SteveSnake wrote:Hmm, from what I have read, its using Dynamic Recompilation. That should give you 80% or more efficiency - and given that the CPU is also faster, it should be pretty good speedwise.
The PowerPC architecture has 32 32-bit general-purpose integer registers, and 32 64-bit floating-point registers (add 32 128-bit integer registers for Altivec on the G4 and G5). This is many times that of the x86. Any kind of execution on the x86 will require some kind of "virtual register" system and frequent swapping. Compilers often use more registers to allow better parallelism and to prevent stalling, making the emulator's job harder still.
doktor_kris
Lurker
Posts: 102
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:47 pm
Contact:

Post by doktor_kris »

I went out to my local Mac-dealer the other day and tried out the new
x86-mini, and I must say that it ran everything I fed it of PPC programs
(mostly downloaded shareware games) from fairly well to very well.

The x86-macs seems sweet, but I´d wait for at least a year before
buying it, giving it some time to mature. :)
Post Reply