or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Road to Mac OS X Snow Leopard: 64-bits, Santa Rosa, and the great PC swindle
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Road to Mac OS X Snow Leopard: 64-bits, Santa Rosa, and the great PC swindle - Page 2

post #41 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by zmonster View Post

OK, you geniues know everything, and you've written test code to explore the memory requirements of the two use cases just like I have.

Go ahead and run Photoshop on your new 64 bit machines with the same amount of memory that you're running it under 32-bit. See how far that gets you.

To be honest, I'd rather see a cogent rebuttal than a fake concession. Tell me what is wrong with my explanation and I'll either admit that indeed it takes 152.1x more memory to get reasonable performance on a 64-bit machine or expand upon my earlier points (depending on whether manage to convince me that I'm wrong).
post #42 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by badtruffle View Post

To be honest, I'd rather see a cogent rebuttal than a fake concession. Tell me what is wrong with my explanation and I'll either admit that indeed it takes 152.1x more memory to get reasonable performance on a 64-bit machine or expand upon my earlier points (depending on whether manage to convince me that I'm wrong).

I already told you what's wrong. longs, doubles, and pointers, and structs are double the size. The address space for an Objective-C object class is double the size, and the alignment of all these things are along 8-byte boundaries.

I didn't say the app would take up EXACTLY 2x the memory, I said ROUGHLY 2x. *ALL* 64-bit applications *WILL* take up at least moderately more memory, and in my experience, MOST 64-bit applications that a power user will use take up almost 2x the memory. There is no getting around it, and it's not Apple's fault.
post #43 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by badtruffle View Post

To be honest, I'd rather see a cogent rebuttal than a fake concession. Tell me what is wrong with my explanation and I'll either admit that indeed it takes 152.1x more memory to get reasonable performance on a 64-bit machine or expand upon my earlier points (depending on whether manage to convince me that I'm wrong).


http://developer.apple.com/documenta...1064-CH206-SW5

http://developer.apple.com/documenta...nkElementID_25
post #44 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by badtruffle View Post

To be honest, I'd rather see a cogent rebuttal than a fake concession. Tell me what is wrong with my explanation and I'll either admit that indeed it takes 152.1x more memory to get reasonable performance on a 64-bit machine or expand upon my earlier points (depending on whether manage to convince me that I'm wrong).

And by the way, yes, I do think you'll need 4x the memory in 64-bit than you will in 32-bit. Apple usually offers 1GB of memory in their current line of computers. This is woefully inadequate even for the 32-bit architecture. Apple should be offering their base systems with 2GB of memory. Anyone that sticks with the default 1GB quickly realizes they are swapping to disk like mad. Therefore, Apple is going to need to bump their default memory on new machines to 4GB when 10.6 comes out, in my opinion. If they are cheap and bump to 2GB people will be very unhappy with performance.

4GB == 1GB x 4, hence the 4x factor I used in my original post.
post #45 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by zmonster View Post

I already told you what's wrong. longs, doubles, and pointers, and structs are double the size. The address space for an Objective-C object class is double the size, and the alignment of all these things are along 8-byte boundaries.

I didn't say the app would take up EXACTLY 2x the memory, I said ROUGHLY 2x. *ALL* 64-bit applications *WILL* take up at least moderately more memory, and in my experience, MOST 64-bit applications that a power user will use take up almost 2x the memory. There is no getting around it, and it's not Apple's fault.

again, it really depends on the app. if you're something like microsoft word, where most of your memory is the huge chunk of code that does everything you could ever imagine, and the rest is text data in a pretty simple data structure, your memory requirements are unlikely to get much larger. If you're doing huge (sparse or not) integer matrix calculations, then I can see your point. However, in most consumer apps (i.e., not scientific ones), I'd say that most of the heap is filled with loaded user data files, UI graphics, and a few longs/pointers (doubles don't change in size). The alignment issue only becomes one when most of your memory is taken up by structs, which again I don't think is really the case.

Even in Objective C, if you allocate a bajillion NSStrings, do you really think the overhead of having larger pointers/coarser alignment in the structure offsets the rather large fixed cost of the actual string data you're putting in the strings, which is the same across architectures?

I'm not saying it isn't, but the situations in which your memory usage actually doubles are the exception, not the rule, in my opinion/experience. If I were to write a 100-line c program that reads in a large file and constructs a huge directed graph (with no significant data at the nodes) on the heap, then I'm pretty sure my memory usage would approximately double (assuming I used pointers to represent edges), but I still think this isn't the average case, and certainly does not warrant a "2x memory needed, 4x to get better performance".
post #46 of 98
As others have said already this article is full of misinformation, but they missed a major point. What 64 bit buys is more addressing more space. By using virtual memory every application is given the ENTIRE addressing space, 32 bit operating systems are thus limited to something like 3 gigs of memory use PER application. So you still benefit from having 4 or 8 gigs of ram, it just can't all be allocated to a single application. This is different of course from being completely useless as the article states. I don't know why I am posting this, no one is going to read it anyway....
post #47 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by zmonster View Post

And by the way, yes, I do think you'll need 4x the memory in 64-bit than you will in 32-bit. Apple usually offers 1GB of memory in their current line of computers. This is woefully inadequate even for the 32-bit architecture. Apple should be offering their base systems with 2GB of memory. Anyone that sticks with the default 1GB quickly realizes they are swapping to disk like mad. Therefore, Apple is going to need to bump their default memory on new machines to 4GB when 10.6 comes out, in my opinion. If they are cheap and bump to 2GB people will be very unhappy with performance.

4GB == 1GB x 4, hence the 4x factor I used in my original post.

That makes no sense. Because they included half the memory that they needed on 32-bit machines, and chose to fix that times the contested 2x figure in 64-bit machines, 64-bit needs 4x the memory?

You portrayed it as an inherent 64-bit property. If they were providing underpowered machines earlier, then that's just a marketing issue, and has nothing to do with 64-bit "needing" 4x the memory.
post #48 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by badtruffle View Post

That makes no sense. Because they included half the memory that they needed on 32-bit machines, and chose to fix that times the contested 2x figure in 64-bit machines, 64-bit needs 4x the memory?

You portrayed it as an inherent 64-bit property. If they were providing underpowered machines earlier, then that's just a marketing issue, and has nothing to do with 64-bit "needing" 4x the memory.

I apologize for that bit of confusion. My bottom line -- Apple's currently shipping baseline 1GB 32-bit machines will need to be 4GB 64-bit machines when 10.6 comes out in order to satisfy users and make them happy.

You can try this simple experiment yourself with Java. Find yourself a 64-bit capable machine. Install the 32-bit JVM and the 64-bit JVM. Run an app like Star Office. You will see that the 64-bit app takes up almost 2x the memory that the 32-bit version does. I tried this myself on both Java, and OSX, with my own source code. I saw the same result. I'm not trying to poo-poo Apple or 64-bit. I'm just saying, watch out, people don't realize that 64-bit has a relatively unknown downside.
post #49 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by danami View Post

This story is bad. You are blaming Microsoft for not supporting PAE? Duh? They already have multiple 64bit operating systems that work just fine. The 4GB memory limit is a problem of all 32 bit OS's .. And like other people have pointed out PAE is a piece of crap.. I'm a linux server admin and work with a lot of hi-mem systems with openvz.. You always install the 64bit OS over PAE as PAE has way too much overhead.. Both 64bit and 32bit apps run fine on a 64bit OS..

Oh ya I'm writing this on my vista 64 OS with 8 gig ram .. running all my 64/32 apps and games fine .. and it supports every piece of hardware that I've ever thrown at it!

The problems described affect the majority of Windows PC users, and have existed for five years. It's great that you have an 8GB PC with x64 Windows, but your setup represents a tiny fraction of the installed base that is far less significant than the Mac platform, as will be pointed out in the following segment.

You might as well say that hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, and winter storms are "not a problem" because you live in Las Vegas.
post #50 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by shamgar03 View Post

As others have said already this article is full of misinformation, but they missed a major point. What 64 bit buys is more addressing more space. By using virtual memory every application is given the ENTIRE addressing space, 32 bit operating systems are thus limited to something like 3 gigs of memory use PER application. So you still benefit from having 4 or 8 gigs of ram, it just can't all be allocated to a single application. This is different of course from being completely useless as the article states. I don't know why I am posting this, no one is going to read it anyway....

I think you have provided some misinformation here. Only 32 bit windows which is the defacto OS sold by oems is limited to 3 gb. OS X does not have to overcome this limitation with an upgrade to the os.

The main point of the article is stating that many consumers are being duped into believing that more ram is beneficial on a standard 32 bit system.
post #51 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by shamgar03 View Post

As others have said already this article is full of misinformation,

Honking your horn doesn't mean you have the right of way.

Quote:
but they missed a major point. What 64 bit buys is more addressing more space. By using virtual memory every application is given the ENTIRE addressing space, 32 bit operating systems are thus limited to something like 3 gigs of memory use PER application. So you still benefit from having 4 or 8 gigs of ram, it just can't all be allocated to a single application. This is different of course from being completely useless as the article states. I don't know why I am posting this, no one is going to read it anyway....


Boggle: where did the article state virtual memory was "completely useless"? Having an architecture that limits the vast majority of PCs from using more than 2-3GB of RAM has a major impact on virtual memory performance, because it has to resort to using the disk more.

All current and a large proportion of Apple's installed base of Macs now support 4GB of RAM, and its Pro and Xserve support 32GB of RAM. The fraction of PCs that can do this are very small, and artificially limited because Microsoft couldn't get PAE to work in the 32-bit Windows that the vast majority of PC users run. Only a minority of new PCs can even run x64 Windows.
post #52 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by zmonster View Post

My bottom line -- Apple's currently shipping baseline 1GB 32-bit machines will need to be 4GB 64-bit machines when 10.6 comes out in order to satisfy users and make them happy.

Baseline Macs are 64-bit. There are no new Macs being sold that are 32-bit. But you are correct about 1GB RAM for baseline models.
post #53 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by zmonster View Post

I apologize for that bit of confusion. My bottom line -- Apple's currently shipping baseline 1GB 32-bit machines will need to be 4GB 64-bit machines when 10.6 comes out in order to satisfy users and make them happy.

You can try this simple experiment yourself with Java. Find yourself a 64-bit capable machine. Install the 32-bit JVM and the 64-bit JVM. Run an app like Star Office. You will see that the 64-bit app takes up almost 2x the memory that the 32-bit version does. I tried this myself on both Java, and OSX, with my own source code. I saw the same result. I'm not trying to poo-poo Apple or 64-bit. I'm just saying, watch out, people don't realize that 64-bit has a relatively unknown downside.

In x64 Windows you can still use your 32-bit legacy (existing or new) applications. I would assume OS X 10.6 would do likewise.

Applications that have to have 64-bit memory, e. g. double precision code (like ALL the 32-bit FORTRAN code I've written for the past 30 years), already use two 32-bit real memory locations.

Moving a 32-bit application, that requires mostly double precision 32-bit addresses. once written as 64-bit single precision code, will run ~2X faster, as was the case between 16-bit Windoes and 32-bit Windows, or any OS for that matter. Since what once took two memory read/write operations, or the overhead in doing a 32-bit double precision calculation versus doing a 64-bit single precision calculation, is now done with approximately half the total number of machine instructions.

If you application doesn't need 64-bit code don't write 64-bit code.

It's really just as simple as that.

BTW, the article is a POS. \
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #54 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Booga View Post

This is a good point if worded a little inflammatorily... XP and Vista both have 64 bit editions, and the percentage of users buying the 64-bit editions has made huge jumps in the last few months. Some OEMs are even making the 64-bit editions of Windows the default on all new desktops. At this point I suspect the market share of 64-bit Windows is at least as big as the total MacOS market share.

And because Microsoft didn't make the bone-headed decision not to support 64-bits on their older APIs, users will actually be able to *USE* 64 bits on their software, unlike Mac Photoshop users for example.

All in all, Apple blew the 64 bit transition big-time. They had a much better story than Windows a year ago but now are way behind.

you have this backwards. Microsoft is pretty soundly criticized for not taking advantage of the transition to 64 bits as an opportunity to modernize their APIs, something Apple has clearly done with Cocoa and Objective-C 2.0. There is a reason Apple's market share has been growing larger quarter by quarter, growth which is only accelerating.
post #55 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by thor79 View Post

Yeah...PC users are getting screwed over if they stay uninformed. If they choose to become informed even the most basic research will deliver the correct answer, upgrade to a 64 bit OS. Since all recent essential hardware supports 64 bit just throwing on a 64 bit OS is all that is needed to solve the problem.

PC Fan Boys such as me already know of the issue...this is nothing new. This only affects non-techies who know crap about their computer. These are the same people who take their computer troubles to the Geek Squad and get screwed over there...losing documents unnecessarily and buying unnecessary hardware when their current hardware is fine. These are the same people who, when they get fed up with their PC, switch to Mac after some salesman tells them Macs run flawlessly, which is another lie.

Question: If you hate Mac so much, why the hell are you replying to a Mac forum?

PS. Owning an iPod doesn't make you an Apple user btw.
post #56 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prince View Post

Honking your horn doesn't mean you have the right of way.




Boggle: where did the article state virtual memory was "completely useless"? Having an architecture that limits the vast majority of PCs from using more than 2-3GB of RAM has a major impact on virtual memory performance, because it has to resort to using the disk more.

All current and a large proportion of Apple's installed base of Macs now support 4GB of RAM, and its Pro and Xserve support 32GB of RAM. The fraction of PCs that can do this are very small, and artificially limited because Microsoft couldn't get PAE to work in the 32-bit Windows that the vast majority of PC users run. Only a minority of new PCs can even run x64 Windows.

I'm running 64-bit Vista on one partition and 32-bit Vista on another partition. Both were the same in terms of instillation. In other words, easy and painless.

I now just use the 64-bit Vista because I get all 4 GB of RAM on my laptop.

Now, most Windows and OS X users don't need a 64-bit OS.

BTW, there are way more 64-bit Windows applications now than there ever will be for 64-bit OS X.

The Santa Rosa chipset opened up the same 4 GB address space for all 64-bit OS'es.

OS X has no advantage over Windows in that regard, as both use the same Intel chipsets. D'oh!

Your last statement is incorrect, unless you are referring to the market of sub $500 boxen, which OS X doesn't compete with because there is no 30% margin at this price point for Apple.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #57 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by alandail View Post

you have this backwards. Microsoft is pretty soundly criticized for not taking advantage of the transition to 64 bits as an opportunity to modernize their APIs, something Apple has clearly done with Cocoa and Objective-C 2.0. There is a reason Apple's market share has been growing larger quarter by quarter, growth which is only accelerating.

And has nothing to do with the OS'es bitness.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #58 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

BTW, there are way more 64-bit Windows applications now than there ever will be for 64-bit OS X.

Where do you get your numbers from? Considering that 64-bit OS X is backwards compatible with 32-bit apps and will run pretty much any Unix app it's hard to see how Windows can have that many apps running on 64-bits.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #59 of 98
The main advantage of 64-bit computing on x86-64 platforms, increased
memory capability, is dependent upon several factors, including hardware
implementation (including CPU's virtual address size, page table entry size,
and chipset's addressibility) and operating system's design. This article,
while informative, is somewhat misleading in many places.


Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


System RAM vs MMIO: the "where is my 4GB?" problem

... (abridged) ...

Note that this doesn't mean that MMIO "eats up" your RAM, it's just that the hardware maps that device-related memory over the top of physical memory, leaving fewer addresses available to the operating system to use for its system RAM. This problem is tied to 32-bit chipsets, which are independent from the CPU. There are 64-bit PCs with 32-bit chipsets. For example, Apple's 64-bit Core 2 Duo laptops prior to the second half of 2007 all used 32-bit addressing.

This is misleading in a way that conventionally chipsets are not described in any
lingo of bitwidth, such as "32-bit chipset". In terms of addressible memory,
simply the amount is used. For example, Intel P35 chipset is capable of
handling 8 GB, while P45 is capable of 16 GB, contingent upon the availability
of suitable memory module. There is no such thing as "33-bit chipset" (equal
to 8GB) or "34-bit chipset" (equal to 16 GB).

Intel's Santa Rosa (965 express) platforms, as used in many recent Macs,
are capable of handling 8 GB of RAM ** on paper **, but in reality most
if not all laptops can only handle 4 GB. By using the integrated GMA X3100,
some memory has to be allocated for graphics use, regardless what version
of OS (32 vs. 64 bit) is being used. Even a discrete graphic solution is used
along with 64-bit OS, PCI configuration still eats up some memory from
the 4GB space, although the amount may be miniscule.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


That means that while they can execute 64-bit code and handle 64-bit virtual memory, they still can't address more than 4GB of physical RAM, minus roughly 0.75 GB of MMIO,

... (abridged) ...

When x86-64 processors run at legacy mode (100% compatible/mimicking x86),
they are incapable of running long mode (or in Intel's term, IA-32e mode) specific
instructions. So the description above is a moot point. Also, current implementations
from either AMD or Intel do not allow 64-bit virtual memory; that will be the future
expansion and currently it stays at 48-bit.
post #60 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Where do you get your numbers from? Considering that 64-bit OS X is backwards compatible with 32-bit apps and will run pretty much any Unix app it's hard to see how Windows can have that many apps running on 64-bits.

Business, science, and engineering. No contest, OS X has like ~zero wrt Windows.

All the high priced Windows applications offer x86 and x64 versions.

I've been able to find an x64 application for just about anything I've used or have looked at so far.

The Mac GUI is still 32-bit, only under the hood are applications 64-bit native.

SolidWorks. AutoCAD. Pro Engineer. Abacus.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #61 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Business, science, and engineering. No contest, OS X has like ~zero wrt Windows.

All the high priced Windows applications offer x86 and x64 versions.

I've been able to find an x64 application for just about anything I've used or have looked at so far.

The Mac GUI is still 32-bit, only under the hood are applications 64-bit native.

SolidWorks. AutoCAD. Pro Engineer. Abacus.

That isn't what you said. YOu said there are more 64-bit Windows applcations now than their ever will be for 64-bit OS X. High-priced apps account for a small part of all apps and your knowledge seems to stem from a limited, anecdotal accounting of 64-bit apps. SInce all 32-bit apps work on 64-bit Leopard but the same can't be said for Windows shouldn't we also count all of them since the original issue stemmed from 64-bit Windows having a very limited app numbers compared to 32-bit Windows?
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #62 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

That isn't what you said. YOu said there are more 64-bit Windows applcations now than their ever will be for 64-bit OS X. High-priced apps account for a small part of all apps and your knowledge seems to stem from a limited, anecdotal accounting of 64-bit apps. SInce all 32-bit apps work on 64-bit Leopard but the same can't be said for Windows shouldn't we also count all of them since the original issue stemmed from 64-bit Windows having a very limited app numbers compared to 32-bit Windows?

Yes, you're correct DOS and 16-bit applications won't run under Vista x64.

And no, you are incorrect wrt 32-bit applications running under Vista x64.

So let's count all 32-bit and 64-bit applications on both platforms, shall we?
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #63 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Yes, you're correct DOS and 16-bit applications won't run under Vista x64.



Quote:
And no, you are incorrect wrt 32-bit applications running under Vista x64.

So let's count all 32-bit and 64-bit applications on both platforms, shall we?

I don't mind being incorrect, but I do like to have some verifiable facts that will help educate me. Call me a cynic, but I actually require proof before changing my mind.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #64 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by zmonster View Post

HUH?? You are completely clueless. The Object-C object size in a 64-bit compilation is exactly 2x the size of the 32-bit data structure. The integer is 2x the size. Most every other data structure is nearly 2x the size. 64-bit apps take up ROUGHLY 2x the size that 32-bit apps do. PERIOD. You are wrong, my friend.

If you don't believe me, find a 64 bit machine, install both the 32-bit version of Java, and a 64-bit JVM. Run the same app on both. This is NOT limited to Apple, EVERY 64-bit architecture takes up nearly twice the memory that a 32-bit architecture takes up. Take a computer science class.

x86-64 instructions range in size from 1-15 bytes. When AMD designed the
architecture, several considerations were made to minimize the overhead associated
with the increase in register/address space. By default, pointers are 64-bit
in width, but as pointed out by other people while pointers are prevalent, they
are by no means the only determinants of program size. Most if not all
x86-64 long mode instructions actually use 32-bit operands, unless overridden by
REX prefix, which effectively limit the overall instruction size to equal to legacy
or compatibility mode instructions. AMD figured 32-bit fixed point integer arithmetics
would suffice for most applications. Also, 64-bit applications by default use
RIP relative addressing. A side effect/benefit of this is that the instruction size
is limited, since the relative pointer is often 32-bit.

The architecture designs like above allow implementation of modes such as
LLP64 used by Microsoft Visual C++, where only pointers and long long
are 64-bit. It is of course compiler/application dependent issue,
and any program has the freedom to bloat as allowed by the architecture.
However, a properly optimized program should not do this. The 2x bloating
certainly does not happen to Linux 32 vs 64, or Windows Vista 32 vs 64.
post #65 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post




I don't mind being incorrect, but I do like to have some verifiable facts that will help educate me. Call me a cynic, but I actually require proof before changing my mind.

I don't have hard numbers to give you at this time.

All I can say is that Vista x64 SP1 has been able to run 100% of the x86 applications that I've thrown at it to date.

That is in fact one of Vista's x64 selling points, better x86 compatibility than XP SP2 x64.

In fact, I convinced one engineer at work to switch over to XP SP2 x64 (the government doesn't support Vista yet), basically because of the 32-bit OS memory and speed limitations of XP SP3 x86. He has the Windows/Intel equivalent of the top end Mac Pro (8-cores of 3GHz Xeon goodness for a 12 month old PC workstation) and was running a 2D wave overtopping RANS model.

A lot of horsepower was going to waste there with only 3GB of memory and running a 64-bit application as a 32-bit application. VM thrashing the HD with a typical 40 hour runtime for a single run. He typically did eight runs at a time (one run for each core). He also needed to get the latest Intel FORTRAN x86/x64 compiler.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #66 of 98
Most 64-bit apps should not see a doubling in the memory used. I think I remember reading that 33% larger was typical. While 'long' may double in size, apps that have currently been using 'long' as a 32-bit value should instead specify 'int', which continues to be 32-bits even on 64-bit systems. If an app needs a 64-bit value, it would already be using 'long long' on 32-bit systems. Pointers, of course, do double and there is nothing you can do about that.

But it is NOT TRUE that a 64-bit version of an app needs to take twice as much RAM. Carelessness could certainly cause that, but it is not a requirement.
post #67 of 98
The article is very clear that 64-bit windows does exist, but if it lacks 64-bit chipsets... Also, the point was made that earlier Mac's had 32bit chipsets, which would encounter similar issues.

"No version of 32-bit Windows supports this..." is in no way including 64-bit versions...

Other articles that I have read this year, have discussed the same issue, though with much less technical detail really

Cheers !


Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder View Post

That's wrong. There's also XP64 which can use as much ram as a mac (actually more in most cases since there are so many more 64 bit windows apps).

I guess there are probably some windows users who have more ram installed than the system can handle, but there are also plenty of PC users running the 64 bit version of either XP or Vista and using every bit of their ram.

This article is REALLY misleading, it spins things like mac users can use all the ram while PC users can't when in fact PC users can use it all with a 64 bit OS, and there are way more 64 bit apps on the PC side.
Cheers !
Reply
Cheers !
Reply
post #68 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

With Intel's "Santa Rosa" platform, Apple's Core 2 Duo machines gained chipset support to internally handle 8GB of address space. This allows Santa Rosa Macs to shove MMIO up into the high end of the space and reclaim all of the addresses below the 4GB mark, making the full amount available to the system. No version of 32-bit Windows supports this, and conversely, there is no 32-bit version of Mac OS X Leopard, so the "where is my full 4GB?" issue is now a Windows-only problem going forward.

Wow! When was Santa Rosa added to the C2D Mac Mini? I've been waiting for Apple to upgrade the Mini to Santa Rosa since May 2007. I thought all Mac Minis were still using Napa chips. Although at this point, I am expecting the Mac Mini to leapfrog Santa Rosa and just go straight Montevina chips. Won't that be fun to jump from GMA 950 graphics to GMA X4500 graphics.
post #69 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

Not all video cards take address space away from main memory do they? Some are communicated with via the PCI bus.

The article isn't talking about onboard graphics. The video memory on a separate graphics card is still part of the 32-bit address space, as the CPU needs to keep track of it somehow.
post #70 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squozen View Post

The article isn't talking about onboard graphics. The video memory on a separate graphics card is still part of the 32-bit address space, as the CPU needs to keep track of it somehow.

What do you mean by "keep track of it?" The GPU needs to be able to address the bytes of video ram individually, but the CPU just needs to be able to push data to it through the expansion bus. The only main memory address space required is for the control/data lines of the bus.
post #71 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

B
The Mac GUI is still 32-bit, only under the hood are applications 64-bit native.

No, that's not true, it was true for Tiger, but not Leopard. Cocoa is 64 bit, its perfectly possible using Cocoa to make fully 64 bit native apps, including the GUI. Only Carbon lacks 64 bit support. Of course most of the "major" apps on Mac (Photoshop, Office) use Carbon.
post #72 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by HipPriest View Post

What 32-bit Linux apps did you have trouble running? We run an all 64-bit Debian Linux environment at work on hundreds of systems and my experience has been much better than yours. 64-bit Debian has packages for the most common 32-bit libraries used by third-parties and of course most Linux software is open source and 64-bit native. The only thing 32-bit we run is shake, which runs fine, and the flash plugin, which needs a wrapper, and runs as well as... flash usually runs.

The use of the word "most" in this paragraph is the killer, yes, most stuff works, but for mission critical machines it *all* has to work. Installing 32bit Debian made it all work, 64 bit wasn't worth the hassle for us. As an aside, the hassle that linux gives us in general is why we've almost exclusively moved to Macs in the space of 4 years at work.
post #73 of 98
Will Apple rewrite Final Cut Studio 2 so all apps are 64 bit? Seems like this suite would greatly benefit from 64 bit addressing. I've already read that Quicktime will finally be 64.
post #74 of 98
Can anyone explain what the advantage of a 64 bit kernel is? I feel like Leopard's 32/64 bit hybrid approach is the best of both worlds- you get access to large amounts of memory, you can run 64 bit apps natively, and you have good backward compatibility. Once Snow Leopard comes out, a lot of hardware won't be usable on it because of a lack of 64 bit drivers. I tried using Vista x64 but ran into this issue.
post #75 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by dr_lha View Post

This may be true to a hardcore Linux user, but let me tell you, at work one of our guys recently got a new Linux box with 64 bit linux installed, and non of the software we used worked on it. Getting the box to a point where it could actually run 32bit linux apps was by no means trivial, and in the end we just decided to install 32bit Debian on it as the easiest answer. So please don't make out that 64 bit linux is completely trivial compared to Mac OS X.

As for 64 bit Windows don't make me laugh, there's a reason why nobody uses it.

Macs have had by far the smoothest transistion to 64 bit. I've been running 64 bit apps on my Mac since Tiger came out. The only ball that Apple have dropped was not delivering 64 bit Carbon.

Apple's one OS strategy for 32bit/64bit CPUs compared to Windows and Linux separate versions is the far superior strategy both for compatibilty and user experience. I speak as someone who works in a 3 OS environment, where we have 64 bit capable chips, but due to the issues with Linux and Windows, only the Macs we have are actually capable of running 64 bit apps.

What were you guys running that you couldnt get to port easily to a 64bit install? I haven't had issues with 64bit linux (and yes, I'm a debian guy) in a *very* long time. hell, even most precompiled 32bit binaries will prolly run with the 32bit compat libs installed (apt-get install ia32-libs).

Also, as far as separate vers go... debian uses a more "pure" approach than many distros in their 64bit release, hence why it's possible the 32bit libs may not work, then you get the *fun* of creating a 32bit chroot, which may be what your coworker needed (though on lenny it'll be even less of a problem than it is now, which honestly isnt usually much of a problem for most things). You dont need to do that with all distros though, and debians approach makes very good sense for most of *it's* direct users (rock solid on servers, where we've been solidly 64bit for quite a while, and in most large-scale server-side apps)
MBP (15, 2.33, 3GB,10.6/win/lin on 250GB)
MP (3,1 oct 2.8, 10GB. 10.6 on 4x1TB RAID10, Win/Lin on 1x2TB, 2407WFP on 1x5770 + 2xSamsung 910t on 1xGT120)
also a lot of other systems :-p
I met a...
Reply
MBP (15, 2.33, 3GB,10.6/win/lin on 250GB)
MP (3,1 oct 2.8, 10GB. 10.6 on 4x1TB RAID10, Win/Lin on 1x2TB, 2407WFP on 1x5770 + 2xSamsung 910t on 1xGT120)
also a lot of other systems :-p
I met a...
Reply
post #76 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by zmonster View Post

HUH?? You are completely clueless. The Object-C object size in a 64-bit compilation is exactly 2x the size of the 32-bit data structure. The integer is 2x the size. Most every other data structure is nearly 2x the size. 64-bit apps take up ROUGHLY 2x the size that 32-bit apps do. PERIOD. You are wrong, my friend.

If you don't believe me, find a 64 bit machine, install both the 32-bit version of Java, and a 64-bit JVM. Run the same app on both. This is NOT limited to Apple, EVERY 64-bit architecture takes up nearly twice the memory that a 32-bit architecture takes up. Take a computer science class.

Warning: computer science geekery!

zmonster:

There are a couple mistakes in your math there. The only data types that automatically double in size are pointers, which must by definition be 64 bits large to reference 64 bits of memory. While modern apps do use a lot of pointers, pointers are by far a tiny part of a program's total memory usage. 'long' also doubles in size, but to be fair, it's rarely used precisely because its size is a big "it depends".

For everything else, programmers are free to continue with the same sized types as before. 'int' and 'float' were 32-bit types before, and they still are now. 'long long' and 'double' were 64-bit types before, and they still are now. Really, nothing changed other than 'long long' now calculating just as fast as 'int' -- on 32-bit systems, they were slower.

Programmers choose types based on just how big their numbers can get, and if a range of zero to four billion is big enough for their needs, they'll keep using 32-bit math as long as they like. The jump to 32-bit systems didn't stop 8-bit 'char' and 16-bit 'short' from working either.

Objective-C objects also do not completely double in size. They definitely get bigger; every object stores a pointer to its class definition, and when you work with objects in your code you store pointers to the objects. But that's just the overhead. When it comes to the actual *data* contained within each object, programmers are free to use whatever types they want. And to be fair, many "power-user" apps only use Objective-C for the interface; the meat of the app is often done in a language with less RAM overhead.

Lastly, about Photoshop: this part killed your argument. 64-bit Photoshop does not exist yet, so you're stating facts about something that's fiction outside of Adobe. But if it did, I doubt that it would be that much bigger than the current Photoshop. The vast majority of Photoshop's memory usage is with image data, and 8-bit images eat up one byte per color channel, per pixel, per layer, regardless of what kind of computer you're running it on.

Rich
post #77 of 98
(Ultimately, I think that, as smooth as the transition to 64bitness has been for the OS, narrowing the upgrade from Carbon+Cocoa to Cocoa UI-able apps-only results into a developmental bottleneck which could exclude a lot of heavyweights for years or forever. The results are there for all to see: Photoshop 64 delayed for another year or year and a half, no Maya64 on the horizon, etc. Perhaps the only major creative apps to transtion to 64 bits are Lightroom (Cocoa-based from the start) and Cinema4D. In that sense, Windows, for all its accidents, is progressing far more solidly)
post #78 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post

I'm going to have to agree with Sol on this one. I consider myself a pro-user and I still couldn't put up with 64-bit XP, though I can't speak for Vista. A pro-user friend of mine is running 64-bit Vista and loves it, but he's a Windows-only guy, so who knows?

I know I criticize Apple a lot, but I have to hand it to them: their transition to 64-bit has been seamless. I'm really hoping Windows 7 will make it easier to switch, because there's no chance I'm going to install Vista.

-Clive

When Apple does make the switch to a 64-bit kernel, we'll see. Until then, we don't know how Apple's 64-bit transition is going to go-- it hasn't fully happened yet. Unlike Windows, in which the fully 64-bit version (something that doesn't exist on MacOS) is rapidly overtaking the 32-bit version in popularity and driver support.
post #79 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by thor79 View Post

Yeah...PC users are getting screwed over if they stay uninformed. If they choose to become informed even the most basic research will deliver the correct answer, upgrade to a 64 bit OS. Since all recent essential hardware supports 64 bit just throwing on a 64 bit OS is all that is needed to solve the problem.



PC Fan Boys such as me already know of the issue...this is nothing new. This only affects non-techies who know crap about their computer. These are the same people who take their computer troubles to the Geek Squad and get screwed over there...losing documents unnecessarily and buying unnecessary hardware when their current hardware is fine. These are the same people who, when they get fed up with their PC, switch to Mac after some salesman tells them Macs run flawlessly, which is another lie.

@thor79

I am not a gamer, but reading some of their posts-- gamers seem to favor PCs... they build their own boxes, [supposedly] selecting higher-quality/higher-performance matched components, use the latest/greatest graphics cards, yadda, yadda, yadda. One of the things they all seem to do is max out the RAM to get the best performance.

Have these "gamers" found a way to exploit the RAM address space? Or, do they upgrade from 2G to 4G, knowing that they really can only use .3G of the additional RAM?

If the above is true, wouldn't gamers put a lot of pressure on MS to fix the OS and/or put pressure on the game mfgrs. to port to a 64-bit OS, like the Mac.
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #80 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

And has nothing to do with the OS'es bitness.

but has a lot to do with one system using modern APIs while the other system is still constrained by API decisions made for 16 bit that have been carried over all the way to 64 bit windows.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac OS X
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Road to Mac OS X Snow Leopard: 64-bits, Santa Rosa, and the great PC swindle