Some Universal Binary apps emerging
I picked up the Nikon D200 today intending to do some shooting. Mounting the optically superb Nikon 50mm/f1.4D on it, I noticed that the diaphragm was stuck fully stopped down. Switching to an AF-S lens, the same problem occurred. Pressing and releasing the stop-down lever opened the lens up, but within a few frames, the diaphragm stuck at minimum aperture again (f16 or f22), even if the frame was shot at f2 or f2.8. When the stop-down lever is pressed and released, “Err” briefly flashes inside the viewfinder, just before the diaphragm opens up.
Unless there is some user-end cure for this problem, the D200 will have to go in for service, delaying the D200 review for an unknown period of time. Work will resume on the Stitching with Shift Lenses article in the meantime.
While on the subject of D200 problems, I've also noticed some “backfocus” behavior (the camera focus behind the intended subject). While “pilot error” is a possibility (however unlikely), I’ve seen this sort of problem before with a D2X, which had its focusing module replaced. So maybe service on this brand-new D200 is not such a bad idea.
Given the semi-ambiguous coverage of the D2X/D200 focus sensors, controlled testing is required to say for certain if it’s a camera fault, though it should be noted that such issues have never occurred in my use of a Canon EOS 1Ds Mark II, which seems to have more pinpoint focus sensors.
Focus problems are one reason all results are double-checked while preparing reviews, so that information presented in a diglloyd review is based on examples that are consistent with other redundant ones. There is far more shooting going on to prepare a review than is actually presented.
A reader pointed out that there is at least one semi-photo-related Universal Binary MacOS application out there now (a “fat” app containing both PowerPC and Intel code). It is the utility program Renamer. I don’t expect that applications like this will yield much benefit from being native code, since most of their activities are limited by the speed of the MacOS file system, which is already native code and which is in turn limited by the speed of the hard disk.
Additional internal drives in PowerMac dual-core desktops
Barefeats.com has a note on revised internal drive kits to fit the new dual and quad-core PowerMacs. I’m hesitant to use such a kit, because the more heat inside your PowerMac, the louder the fans will be. If you enjoy a quiet computing experience (and the PowerMacs are very quiet compared to most PCs), think carefully before stuffing more heat-producing drives into your PowerMac.
More on Intel Macs and Rosetta
I see a MacBook in my future for field work. But until there are more than zero (0) non-Apple photo-related applications that are Intel-native code, users are unlikely to see any performance improvement, and perhaps even poorer performance than on a Powerbook G4. Have patience—wait for native Intel apps to emerge unless you need a notebook right now—in which case the Intel version is the way to go.
A reader writes:
Will the new software (that runs natively on Intel) still run on my PowerPC chipset?
It’s a good question.
The short answer is that this time around is no different than when Apple switched to PowerPC from the Motorola 68030/68040 chips. Vendors shipped “fat” binaries for a long time, and nobody worried about it—except perhaps for performance issues. Gradually, applications became PowerPC-only, but that process took 2-4 years.
When a “fat” application is started, MacOS simply picks the appropriate PowerPC or Intel code to run. This should be completely transparent to the user. In theory, if Apple ported MacOS to Sun Sparc processors; a “fat” app could contain three binaries: code for PowerPC chips, code for Intel chips and code for Sparc chips (potato chips?). I’m not predicting such a state of affairs; it is used for illustrative purposes only.
It is likely that most vendors will ship “fat” (dual-binary aka “Universal Binary”) applications, so that if you purchase new/updated software, you’ll be able to use it on either the PowerPC and Intel boxes. A many-millions-strong PowerPC customer base exists, and vendors aren’t about to abandon that base. It would be financial suicide to produce Intel-only software (except perhaps software that requires very specific high-end hardware yet to be revealed).
Let’s not forget that PowerMac towers using Intel chips are not yet available, and might not be available until the end of the year. Intel chips or not, Apple will have to work hard to beat the performance of the PowerMac Quad, which already compares favorably to high-end PCs at photo-related tasks. Perhaps we’ll see a 4-processor dual-core Powermac (8 cores)? We can only hope so.
In other words, no need to worry. If you own, or are planning to own an Intel-based Mac, your immediate concern should be whether you can get any Intel-native apps, not whether your PowerPC apps will run!
