Mac OS X Built For CISC, Not RISC

WCityMike writes "One of the programmers at Unsanity, maker of haxies, recently posted a rather shocking relevation on the company's weblog. He says that Mac OS X's Mach-O runtime ABI (Application Binary Interface) comes from a NeXTStep design for 68K processorts, and is not designed for the PowerPC architechture. Had they used the latter, things would have been approximately 10-12 percent faster. And supposedly, they can't fix it now without breaking all existing applications." The developer mentions there are workarounds in the newest GCC, but only for newly compiled programs.

Comments

the return of "fat" binaries?

[tps12]

This is good news for long-time Mac fans. Back in the day ("the day" was 1994 or so, IIRC) we Mac users took seeking out the correct 68k or PPC binaries as a sign of our superiority to PC users. While Windozers happily downloaded software that would run on circa 1987 hardware, we enlightened ones could narrow our searches to programs specifically compiled for our platforms. We could even get "fat" binaries, and optionally remove the unneeded binary code using a small freeware app.

With OS X, I had hoped we would again have a situation where just using the Mac required that extra step of compatibility checking, setting us apart from the drooling masses of Gates-worshippers. Sadly, with the Classic compatibility layer, it did not come to pass. Hopefully this revelation will set things aright.

Now we know why it was so slow, right?

[Nutrimentia]

But tell me, if they could slide a PPC ABI in with the new journaling system update, couldn't they just get the performance hit and gain to cancel out? It'd be like journalling system for free! How hard can it be? 10.2.5 maybe?

Re:Future

[trash eighty]

yeah can't wait for my new 68040 ubermac ;)