Panther isn't 64 bits?

fahlmanfahlman
Posted:
in macOS edited January 2014
This is not an Apple bashing post. I read this artical that claims that Panther isn't 64 bits. I assume it's true, but to the average user I bet it doesn't affect us. Though it will affect the big render farm, microbiology type companies that would be looking to make the switch to apple.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 32
    jlljll Posts: 2,713member
    Panther will be able to run 64 bit apps - don't worry.
  • Reply 2 of 32
    baumanbauman Posts: 1,248member
    As the Apple Turns had a good article on this several days ago. They basically say that although Panther won't be optimized for gooey 64 bit goodness, it will allow other programs to use all 64 bits, and it contains updated libraries to access more than 4GB of RAM. Really, though, the OS wouldn't benefit very much from 64 bit optimization, as it only really affects programs that need to do large computations, not little moving of files and the like.
  • Reply 3 of 32
    snoopysnoopy Posts: 1,901member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by JLL

    Panther will be able to run 64 bit apps - don't worry.





    True, and this is what should define a 64-bit OS. I believe you are right, that the typical Mac user should not worry about it. Panther runs 64-bit applications, and Smeagol (OS 10.2.7) does not. IBM included a bridge within the 970 that allows 64-bit applications to use 32-bit APIs. This 'bridge' hardware troubles the purists out there and gives them an excuse to claim Panther is not a 64-bit OS. (This bridge is discussed under hardware.)
  • Reply 4 of 32
    leonisleonis Posts: 3,427member
    I find Pather as a "32bit" OS while allowing 64bit apps to run at their full potential a very smart approach....



    Going to high end computation while maintaining backward compatibility (for older hardware). Best of both world.
  • Reply 5 of 32
    kecksykecksy Posts: 1,002member
    So if Panther lets you run 64-bit code, but doesn't use 64-bit code itself, when will we have a full 64-bit solution? 10.4?
  • Reply 6 of 32
    snoopysnoopy Posts: 1,901member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Leonis

    I find Pather as a "32bit" OS while allowing 64bit apps to run at their full potential a very smart approach....



    Going to high end computation while maintaining backward compatibility (for older hardware). Best of both world.





    The Mac OS will always be backward compatible and be able to install on 32-bit or 64-bit PPC processors. Also, the 64-bit version will always run 32-bit applications and have the best of both worlds in this regard.



    Some of the code in Panther is not refined for 64-bits, and this troubles some people. For these folks, nothing short of rewriting every line of code for 64 bits will do before they call it a 64-bit OS. However, even when the Mac OS code is finally optimized, with all APIs written in 64-bit code, it will still run 32-bit software.
  • Reply 7 of 32
    snoopysnoopy Posts: 1,901member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Kecksy

    So if Panther lets you run 64-bit code, but doesn't use 64-bit code itself, when will we have a full 64-bit solution? 10.4?



    Panther has a good amount of 64-bit code, but some key features are not, like the APIs. OS 10.4 will surely have more 64-bit code. A lack of 64-bit APIs does not keep Panther from running 64-bit applications because of bridge hardware in the 970.
  • Reply 8 of 32
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Kecksy

    So if Panther lets you run 64-bit code, but doesn't use 64-bit code itself, when will we have a full 64-bit solution? 10.4?



    Why do we need one?
  • Reply 9 of 32
    airslufairsluf Posts: 1,861member
    Kickaha and Amorph couldn't moderate themselves out of a paper bag. Abdicate responsibility and succumb to idiocy. Two years of letting a member make personal attacks against others, then stepping aside when someone won't put up with it. Not only that but go ahead and shut down my posting priviledges but not the one making the attacks. Not even the common decency to abide by their warning (afer three days of absorbing personal attacks with no mods in sight), just shut my posting down and then say it might happen later if a certian line is crossed. Bullshit flag is flying, I won't abide by lying and coddling of liars who go off-site, create accounts differing in a single letter from my handle with the express purpose to decieve and then claim here that I did it. Everyone be warned, kim kap sol is a lying, deceitful poster.



    Now I guess they should have banned me rather than just shut off posting priviledges, because kickaha and Amorph definitely aren't going to like being called to task when they thought they had it all ignored *cough* *cough* I mean under control. Just a couple o' tools.



    Don't worry, as soon as my work resetting my posts is done I'll disappear forever.
  • Reply 10 of 32
    123123 Posts: 278member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by AirSluf

    For the most part, we don't. The vast lions share of 64-bit goodness will be here with full 64-bit virtual address space and a fully 64-bit Darwin API layer.



    I really wonder how that (64-bit addressing) should work, especially when writing apps that use high-level APIs that are not yet compiled for 64 bit ints/pointers (Cocoa, Carbon etc.). Can anyone please provide a link to an official Apple statement? I'd like to know more about 64-bit addressing and those "libraries", that will allow 64-bit code to be run on 32-bit Panther.
  • Reply 11 of 32
    synpsynp Posts: 248member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Kecksy

    So if Panther lets you run 64-bit code, but doesn't use 64-bit code itself, when will we have a full 64-bit solution? 10.4?



    Apple will not release a 64-bit OS, because a 64-bit OS will not run on 32-bit hardware. As long as the lowliest Mac is sold with a 32-bit CPU (and probably about two years after that) the OS will remain 32-bit with some support for running 64-bit apps.



    Suppose on August 2005 the iBook finally moves to the G5, then on June 2007 Steve will announce Mac OS X 10.7 code named "Caracal" that will be 64-bit. 10.7 will ship in September 2007.



    At the same WWDC, steve will tell developers that we have finally finished the transition to 64-bit and they should now recompile all their code as 64-bit apps. 32-bit compatability mode will probably remain for an additional 2 years.



    Just my own speculation. I have no inside info.
  • Reply 12 of 32
    airslufairsluf Posts: 1,861member
    Kickaha and Amorph couldn't moderate themselves out of a paper bag. Abdicate responsibility and succumb to idiocy. Two years of letting a member make personal attacks against others, then stepping aside when someone won't put up with it. Not only that but go ahead and shut down my posting priviledges but not the one making the attacks. Not even the common decency to abide by their warning (afer three days of absorbing personal attacks with no mods in sight), just shut my posting down and then say it might happen later if a certian line is crossed. Bullshit flag is flying, I won't abide by lying and coddling of liars who go off-site, create accounts differing in a single letter from my handle with the express purpose to decieve and then claim here that I did it. Everyone be warned, kim kap sol is a lying, deceitful poster.



    Now I guess they should have banned me rather than just shut off posting priviledges, because kickaha and Amorph definitely aren't going to like being called to task when they thought they had it all ignored *cough* *cough* I mean under control. Just a couple o' tools.
  • Reply 13 of 32
    airslufairsluf Posts: 1,861member
    Kickaha and Amorph couldn't moderate themselves out of a paper bag. Abdicate responsibility and succumb to idiocy. Two years of letting a member make personal attacks against others, then stepping aside when someone won't put up with it. Not only that but go ahead and shut down my posting priviledges but not the one making the attacks. Not even the common decency to abide by their warning (afer three days of absorbing personal attacks with no mods in sight), just shut my posting down and then say it might happen later if a certian line is crossed. Bullshit flag is flying, I won't abide by lying and coddling of liars who go off-site, create accounts differing in a single letter from my handle with the express purpose to decieve and then claim here that I did it. Everyone be warned, kim kap sol is a lying, deceitful poster.



    Now I guess they should have banned me rather than just shut off posting priviledges, because kickaha and Amorph definitely aren't going to like being called to task when they thought they had it all ignored *cough* *cough* I mean under control. Just a couple o' tools.
  • Reply 14 of 32
    synpsynp Posts: 248member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by AirSluf

    The two most likely words that make that moot. Fat Binaries.



    There are other design methods Apple can get around those issues as well. These issues are more or less how, not if questions and not worth losing any sleep over.



    C'mon, don't you know how many programmers just write '4' instead of stuff like 'sizeof(long)' or 'sizeof(void*)' ? Unless you absolutely need to, or absolutely have to, you don't want to move your C code to 64-bits whether in regular or fat binary.



    As long as 32-bit apps are supported with no performance penalty, Safari, Mail and Word will continue to be 32-bit apps.
  • Reply 15 of 32
    snoopysnoopy Posts: 1,901member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by synp

    Apple will not release a 64-bit OS, because a 64-bit OS will not run on 32-bit hardware. As long as the lowliest Mac is sold with a 32-bit CPU (and probably about two years after that) the OS will remain 32-bit with some support for running 64-bit apps. . .



    . . . steve will tell developers that we have finally finished the transition to 64-bit and they should now recompile all their code as 64-bit apps. 32-bit compatability mode will probably remain for an additional 2 years.



    Just my own speculation. I have no inside info.



    Mac OS will be a 64-bit OS that "fully" supports 32-bit-applications. You have it backward by describing the next few years of Mac OS, saying it will "remain 32-bit with some support for running 64-bit apps." It fully supports both 64 and 32.



    Regarding your second thought, there will be no 32-bit compatibility "mode" in Mac OS. It will be inherently compatible with 32-bit applications, even if every line of code in the Mac OS were written for 64 bits.
  • Reply 16 of 32
    curiousuburbcuriousuburb Posts: 3,325member
    CONFIRMED! by CARS



    Quote:

    Wednesday, July 09, 2003 _



    Apple To Move Incrementally To 64-Bit OS.



    When Apple recently announced that Panther would not be a 64-bit operating system, Mac users were left to wonder how the company would move toward maximizing the potential of the 64-bit G6 processor.



    According to sources, Panther will, in fact, be a 37-bit operating system and the company will release incremental upgrades to move Mac OS X to 64-bit.



    Apple's Chief Software Technology Officer, Avie Tevanian, said "We will be adding bits bit by bit, if you will."



    Asked how, exactly, Apple could make an operating system with an odd number of bits that is not a product of eight, or sixteen, or... uh... even two apparently...



    Wait... 37 divided by... carry the one...



    Yeah. No. No. 37 is not divisible by two.



    Anyway, Tevanian claims to be able to circumvent the laws of programming now that he has been given god-like powers.



    "Yeah, I'm a big shot now," Tevanian said, referring to his recently acquired title of Chief Software Technology Officer. "If I say 'Make a 37-bit operating system,' the programmers gotta say 'How high?!'



    "Or, uh, 'How many bits?!' Which is stupid because I already told them how many bits. 37. I already said that. So I'd fire 'em all and hire new programmers. That's right. Shiny new ones. Just because I can. Because I'm a big shot now.



    "What was the question again?"



    Tevanian also claimed that his new title bestowed on him the ability to determine who was good and who was evil just by looking at them.



    Standing at his window overlooking the Apple employees enjoying lunch on the campus lawn, Tevanian called out "Good. Good. Evil. Good. Evil. Evil. Evil. Evil. Good...."





    sorry, seemed too appropriate not to paste
  • Reply 17 of 32
    airslufairsluf Posts: 1,861member
    Kickaha and Amorph couldn't moderate themselves out of a paper bag. Abdicate responsibility and succumb to idiocy. Two years of letting a member make personal attacks against others, then stepping aside when someone won't put up with it. Not only that but go ahead and shut down my posting priviledges but not the one making the attacks. Not even the common decency to abide by their warning (afer three days of absorbing personal attacks with no mods in sight), just shut my posting down and then say it might happen later if a certian line is crossed. Bullshit flag is flying, I won't abide by lying and coddling of liars who go off-site, create accounts differing in a single letter from my handle with the express purpose to decieve and then claim here that I did it. Everyone be warned, kim kap sol is a lying, deceitful poster.



    Now I guess they should have banned me rather than just shut off posting priviledges, because kickaha and Amorph definitely aren't going to like being called to task when they thought they had it all ignored *cough* *cough* I mean under control. Just a couple o' tools.



    Don't worry, as soon as my work resetting my posts is done I'll disappear forever.
  • Reply 18 of 32
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    Pontificate on, brutha!



    IMNSHO, anyone who hardcodes like that while coding needs to be sent back to remedial programming.



    That's not programming, that's just transcribing into a syntax a compiler can handle. A trained monkey can do that.
  • Reply 19 of 32
    synpsynp Posts: 248member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by AirSluf

    I think maybe you mixed up your responses. You're addressing an entirely different set of concerns than those fixed by things like fat binaries (mainly deployment/support issues).



    Beyond that we agree. If you spend much time around here you will inevitably be subjected to yet another pontification of mine against lazy shoddy coders and programmers who try to call themselves engineers.



    What I mean is this. A major application is written by hundreds of programmers. You're bound to have stuff like that. To get your app to compile at 64-bit you have to go over all the code and fix all occurances. Unless you absolutely need 64 bits, you don't want to go through that.
  • Reply 20 of 32
    synpsynp Posts: 248member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Kickaha

    Pontificate on, brutha!



    IMNSHO, anyone who hardcodes like that while coding needs to be sent back to remedial programming.



    That's not programming, that's just transcribing into a syntax a compiler can handle. A trained monkey can do that.



    In the real world (as opposed to universities) any real application involves hundreds of people. They all contain atrocities such as this and worse.
Sign In or Register to comment.