Joined: Nov 28, 2005 Posts: 299 Location: Near Frankfurt/M. Germany
Posted: Fri Mar 03, 2006 11:41 pm Post subject:
Hi Patrick,
vacation time over? Hope it was a good time.
@PowerPC/Mactel: I knew this and aggree with your thoughts, especially what you say about support possibilities. Thx for the fast answer on my timeline question.
T.
(Keeps his PowerPC-Machine as long as it works)
Joined: May 25, 2003 Posts: 4752 Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posted: Sat Mar 04, 2006 10:27 am Post subject:
Another thing to bear in mind with the support issue is that a lot of folk who are filing or sorting through issues also have PowerPC machines. There will be Intel-specific bugs that come up, and with a lack of testers and support guys with Intel machines (e.g. all you awesome folk who respond to the "can you try this and see if it breaks for you" question or "can you help me find a workaround" questions) it can be a real bear.
gcc4 is definitely a Mactel support need as well and isn't required as a development tool; logistically there shouldn't be much difference at all between using gcc3 vs. 4 for the main builds. All of the improved optimizations in gcc4 (e.g. G5 tuning, autovectorization, etc.) really wind up not adding as much performance gain as their hype. They're great ideas, but for now can only handle really simple optimizations and aren't worth the effort.
Another thing to bear in mind with the support issue is that a lot of folk who are filing or sorting through issues also have PowerPC machines. There will be Intel-specific bugs that come up, and with a lack of testers and support guys with Intel machines (e.g. all you awesome folk who respond to the "can you try this and see if it breaks for you" question or "can you help me find a workaround" questions) it can be a real bear.
This is a really important point to bring up and stress. I for one won't be getting a new Mac for another 2 years or so (I kept my last PowerBook for 5 years, and this one hasn't started to feel slow yet...), and our experience has shown that differences between OS versions (let alone an entirely new architecture) lead to odd bugs in Neo. So the Intel version will be essentially unsupported by the community for quite a while, unless there are several regulars waiting for Neo/Intel before buying a new Intel Mac.... It'll have a long "shaking-out period" before it becomes as stable and as supported as Neo/PPC.
Smokey _________________ "[...] whether the duck drinks hot chocolate or coffee is irrelevant." -- ovvldc and sardisson in the NeoWiki
Posted: Sat Mar 04, 2006 3:34 pm Post subject: gcc-3.3 vs. gcc-4.0
OPENSTEP wrote:
gcc4 is definitely a Mactel support need as well and isn't required as a development tool; logistically there shouldn't be much difference at all between using gcc3 vs. 4 for the main builds.
However, there is a major difference between gcc-3.3 and gcc-4.0 and that is gcc-4.0 closed a lot of the 'holes' that were left open with gcc-3.3. I've found out by building NeoOffice 2.0 pre-alpha with both. What is a warning (such as failure to cast a pointer, which is done a great deal in Patrick's code) will result in a showstopping error.
OPENSTEP wrote:
All of the improved optimizations in gcc4 (e.g. G5 tuning, autovectorization, etc.) really wind up not adding as much performance gain as their hype. They're great ideas, but for now can only handle really simple optimizations and aren't worth the effort.
Actually, the improved optimizations are in XCode, not gcc. I use a G4 machine so the G5 stuff will not help me. However, for someone with a G5 it definately speeds up processing. I worked with Intel systems when the move was on to the Pentium (yes, it was that long ago) and optimizing code for the Pentium vs. the 386/486 series made a huge difference. However, this did not catch on until about 1/2 of the Intel processors in use were Pentium class and this took about two years. I expect the same movement as far as PPC vs. Intel. It will take a while for a majority of Apple PC owners to 'move' up to an Intel based system. I also expect an underground release of a hacked version of Mac OS X to be out there that will run on most non-Apple PC systems in the near future.
So, what are we to do? I say stay with the lowest common denominator system: Mac OS X 10.3, gcc-3.3, XCode 1.5 with upgrades for the released versions of NeoOffice (unless a Panther built version will not run under Tiger.) For the Intel side of the build, Mac OS X 10.4 and gcc-4 will be required. At this time, there are not a great deal of Intel based Apples in use, but the percentage of them is increasing. We need to have two efforts underway for movement to NeoOffice 2.0. One, building testing and working with the baseline system and OpenOffice 2.0.2 (2.0.1 has some strangeness to it.) The other effort needs to work on moving to gcc-4, Mac OS X 10.4 and upgrading the base code to OpenOffice 2.0.2 as preparation for an Intel build. I've said enough elsewhere about team building.
Posted: Mon May 01, 2006 11:42 am Post subject: Mactel NeoOffice
Hi Guys!
First off, I'm new to Mac - and I love it. I had to use them in kindergarten a little and played the first "Where in the World is Carmen San Diego" (she was in San Diego the whole time) and SimCity. Then I got my first PC in '93 and became a DOS guy - loved the power/lack of memory usage of the command line. It was great for Doom and Quake... After win95 and up, I quickly became a linux user. I've been a linux user for quite some time now, having started with Mandrake 8.0. When Apple put out OS X I was interested but broke...
I just bought the new MacBook Pro and I love every little thing about it. I went to college for programming and we covered a lot of *nix based development, so I'd be more than happy to lend whatever hand I can to get the mactel NeoOffice working, because selfishly I can't wait to use it!
That being said, I've read the previous posts about what needs to be done prior to that being started/released, so let me know where my talents would be most appreciated. I respect the order in which you guys are planning the release cycles - it's logical and shows maturity and responsibility, so here's hoping we can all enjoy a Universal binary of NeoOffice 2.0 before too too long!
Like most open source projects, the work most needed is debugging and fixing bugs in out bug tracking system. Assuming you can get through the compile (if it breaks, focus on fixing the breaks as we, unfortunately, don't have time to hold the hands of people trying to build), debugging existing bugs will give you an entry point into the code. It is tedious work, but if your coding skills fit the code, you will make a noticeable impact.
While this may not be the right place for it I am very willing to donate / pay the $100 for subscription access to the EAP or whatever it is called if the 2.0 Alpha can run on an Intel Mac via Rosetta. I've alwayed used NeoOffice on my Macs since I first discovered it. I may even make a donation reguardless, but it would be very nice to run Neo Office on my Intel Mac, even though I know it is for PPC.
I realize that the older version doesn't run because of the gcc/java problems, but I thought NeoOffice 2.0 used gcc 4. Has anyone tried 2.0 Alpha on the Intel Mac?
Joined: Apr 25, 2006 Posts: 2315 Location: Montpellier, France
Posted: Tue May 02, 2006 9:26 am Post subject:
Quote:
I realize that the older version doesn't run because of the gcc/java problems, but I thought NeoOffice 2.0 used gcc 4. Has anyone tried 2.0 Alpha on the Intel Mac?
GCC 4 is no longer a problem, however, Java issues are still present if I am not mistaken.
static, it has already been decided that no Universal version of NeoOffice would be released. There should be separate PPC and Intel versions, because a Universal Binary would weigh 200+ MB, and therefore would put a heavy load on the servers as well as make the download longer for those who access the web through slower DSL connections ...
static, it has already been decided that no Universal version of NeoOffice would be released. There should be separate PPC and Intel versions, because a Universal Binary would weigh 200+ MB, and therefore would put a heavy load on the servers as well as make the download longer for those who access the web through slower DSL connections ...
This is correct. I have made the Neo build only build a release for the platform that you build on. So while building Neo on a PowerPC machine creates download files with PowerPC in the name, building on an Intel machine will create download files with Intel in the name. Also, the Neo installer always checks if you are trying to install a PowerPC build on Intel or vice versa and will not allow you to install if they don't match.
BTW, NeoOffice 2.0 Alpha builds, installs, and runs on Intel right now. It generally seems to work, but I have had a few random crashes here and there so I have pushed off working on it more until the most critical PowerPC bugs are debugged and fixed.
Joined: May 02, 2006 Posts: 10 Location: Montreal/Ottawa, Canada
Posted: Tue May 02, 2006 5:48 pm Post subject:
Well, it all makes sense. I like the idea of universal binaries for simplicity, but it isnt a big deal. Most people should have a clue about which type of mac they're running (ppc vs intel) and they should appreciate a smaller download just as much as your servers would!
To clarify: I'm simply new - not opposed to any of this in any way. I am anxious to help out anywhere I can, but unfortunately I can't squash bugs in the ppc version without a ppc mac to use...
That being said, I have some more questions that are better of in a different section - I'll leave this thread for "NeoOffice on Intel Macs" discussion.
static, it has already been decided that no Universal version of NeoOffice would be released. There should be separate PPC and Intel versions, because a Universal Binary would weigh 200+ MB, and therefore would put a heavy load on the servers as well as make the download longer for those who access the web through slower DSL connections ...
This is correct. I have made the Neo build only build a release for the platform that you build on. So while building Neo on a PowerPC machine creates download files with PowerPC in the name, building on an Intel machine will create download files with Intel in the name. Also, the Neo installer always checks if you are trying to install a PowerPC build on Intel or vice versa and will not allow you to install if they don't match.
BTW, NeoOffice 2.0 Alpha builds, installs, and runs on Intel right now. It generally seems to work, but I have had a few random crashes here and there so I have pushed off working on it more until the most critical PowerPC bugs are debugged and fixed.
Patrick
Patrick, I completely agree that a UB version would be waste of bandwidth. Why force everyone to download pieces of software their hardware won't use? That was a mix up on my part when I typed that. When do you expect to have the Intel build out on the EAP? Right now there is no native intel office suite and while for word processing performance it doesn't really matter the intel mac's are substantially slower if rosetta is running because of all of it's RAM and CPU thrashing.
All times are GMT - 7 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2, 3Next
Page 2 of 3
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
