I'm tempted to say "no" just in an attempt to be agreeable.
I'm not sure why Apple would do that unless Merom comes out near the end of 2006, rather than close to the middle. Jobs would surely love to announce a Merom based iMac in June.
As Merom looks to be ahead of schedule, that could happen. Conroe is also ahead of schedule.
But, the 64 bitness may depend upon Leopard, which will likely bring the OS to 64 bits. would Apple intro a 64 bit machine before the OS that would drive it?
Or will Leopard be out sooner than we expect? All we know is that Leopard should be out around the end of the year, or somewhat sooner. End of July could be possible. He's done it several times before.
heh. if only the real world was as nice and wise as a lot of you appleInsider peoples. spread the looooove yeahh.
okay, now back on point. do y'all think Leopard would not be 32bit compatible? I think Leopard will be one of the first OSes to truly operate on such a broad range of hardware, it will be quite an achievement this decade, maybe even this quarter-century. Leopard, being both black and white (or yellow and black) or whatever, getit? 32bit, 64bit, ppc, intel, singlecore, dualcore, it'll handle it all
But, the 64 bitness may depend upon Leopard, which will likely bring the OS to 64 bits. would Apple intro a 64 bit machine before the OS that would drive it?
They released dual processor computers before they had an OS (7.5) that would really utilize both processors. In fact there were only a few programs that would use both processors and Apple didn't even have an OS that was beyond the Wish stage that would use them. So the answer is a big
YES as long as there is a marketing value for them, it won't hurt the performance, and it won't be cost prohibative.
I'm tempted to say "no" just in an attempt to be agreeable.
I'm not sure why Apple would do that unless Merom comes out near the end of 2006, rather than close to the middle. Jobs would surely love to announce a Merom based iMac in June.
As Merom looks to be ahead of schedule, that could happen. Conroe is also ahead of schedule.
But, the 64 bitness may depend upon Leopard, which will likely bring the OS to 64 bits. would Apple intro a 64 bit machine before the OS that would drive it?
Or will Leopard be out sooner than we expect? All we know is that Leopard should be out around the end of the year, or somewhat sooner. End of July could be possible. He's done it several times before.
heh. if only the real world was as nice and wise as a lot of you appleInsider peoples. spread the looooove yeahh.
okay, now back on point. do y'all think Leopard would not be 32bit compatible? I think Leopard will be one of the first OSes to truly operate on such a broad range of hardware, it will be quite an achievement this decade, maybe even this quarter-century. Leopard, being both black and white (or yellow and black) or whatever, getit? 32bit, 64bit, ppc, intel, singlecore, dualcore, it'll handle it all
I'm sure that Leopard will be 32 bit compatible. MS hasn't gone that route with Win 64, but OS X is running both 64 bit and 32 bit now. It might not be fully 64 bit because of the GUI and such, but I can't imagine that Apple would let the 32 bit code base die so soon.
MS has both OS's out. I'm not sure that Apple can or would do that.
They released dual processor computers before they had an OS (7.5) that would really utilize both processors. In fact there were only a few programs that would use both processors and Apple didn't even have an OS that was beyond the Wish stage that would use them. So the answer is a big
YES as long as there is a marketing value for them, it won't hurt the performance, and it won't be cost prohibative.
Apple had a multiprocessing plug-in for the OS, so it did work. PS did as well.
People today are more sophisticated than they were then. The publicity might bot be good if they did that. It's always possible that they can do something with 1.4, but we'll see.
Apple had a multiprocessing plug-in for the OS, so it did work. PS did as well.
People today are more sophisticated than they were then. The publicity might bot be good if they did that. It's always possible that they can do something with 1.4, but we'll see.
PhotoShop worked and a few other applicatioins. There was a plug-in from DayStar if I recall that enabled the second processor but I'm not sure how much if any of the OS actually took advantage of both processors. I don't thik the Finder was ever MP aware, and wasn't untill OS X.
They also did again with the Dual 500 G4's, again a pre-OS X computer that still had minimal benefit from the second processor.
The G5 (aka 970) is a 64 bit processor as well, so there is nothing holding Apple back from releasing hardware or software that is 64 bit. I think that they will release the best configuration of hardware that they can to achieve marketing pariaty with the Windows computers that are on the market, and if they can move their entire line to 64 bit in January they will, if nothing else to have the bragging rights as being the first company to offer a complete line-up of 64 bit hardware.
PhotoShop worked and a few other applicatioins. There was a plug-in from DayStar if I recall that enabled the second processor but I'm not sure how much if any of the OS actually took advantage of both processors. I don't thik the Finder was ever MP aware, and wasn't untill OS X.
They also did again with the Dual 500 G4's, again a pre-OS X computer that still had minimal benefit from the second processor.
I remember using PS with it. It worker VERY well on the filters that were available for it. I often got a 180% advantage. The four chip 604 from Daystar often gave over 325%. Some rendering tasks were sped up by the same amount.
But remember that currently, only low level tasks on X are 64 bit. Everything else is still 32.
I remember using PS with it. It worker VERY well on the filters that were available for it. I often got a 180% advantage. The four chip 604 from Daystar often gave over 325%. Some rendering tasks were sped up by the same amount.
But remember that currently, only low level tasks on X are 64 bit. Everything else is still 32.
I remember see good gains from PS on them as well, but not on much else. We know, or at least expect, Leopard to be the first fully 64 bit version of the OS, but there is nothing holding Apple back from releasing hardware that is 64 bit ahead of that. There is also nothing stopping them from releasing an OS update to 10.4 that expands the 64 bit capabilities of the OS ahead of the next major release.
I remember see good gains from PS on them as well, but not on much else. We know, or at least expect, Leopard to be the first fully 64 bit version of the OS, but there is nothing holding Apple back from releasing hardware that is 64 bit ahead of that. There is also nothing stopping them from releasing an OS update to 10.4 that expands the 64 bit capabilities of the OS ahead of the next major release.
Yes, that's what I've said.
I'm just talking about the political fallout from coming out with a 64 bit machine using a 32 bit OS. If you've seen some of the recent threads when this topic comes up, you have seen the almost fanatical opposition to that.
Some people are so opposed to Apple having ANYTHING with IA-32, that they think that iBooks and Mini's MUST be 64 bit right out of the gate, and that the OS had BETTER be 64 bit as well. They forget that none of the laptops have been 64 bit, and neither is the Mini.
I'm just talking about the political fallout from coming out with a 64 bit machine using a 32 bit OS. If you've seen some of the recent threads when this topic comes up, you have seen the almost fanatical opposition to that.
Some people are so opposed to Apple having ANYTHING with IA-32, that they think that iBooks and Mini's MUST be 64 bit right out of the gate, and that the OS had BETTER be 64 bit as well. They forget that none of the laptops have been 64 bit, and neither is the Mini.
I dount that political fallout amoung Mac fanatics on consumer machines not moving to 64 bit processors will be an equation in their processor decisions. Nor will it keep them from moving to 64 bit processors if the 64 bit OS is not "ready for prime time", after all neither is the OS supplied with the current computers that have 64 bit processors. They may get some rantings on the user forums like this one and there may be a few (Mac hating) reporters that mention it. But all indications are that the first intel Macs will be consumer models where the bulk of the consumers could care less if the computer or OS is 64 bit or 32 bit as long as it works and is competative in price and performance.
Comments
I'm tempted to say "no" just in an attempt to be agreeable.
I'm not sure why Apple would do that unless Merom comes out near the end of 2006, rather than close to the middle. Jobs would surely love to announce a Merom based iMac in June.
As Merom looks to be ahead of schedule, that could happen. Conroe is also ahead of schedule.
But, the 64 bitness may depend upon Leopard, which will likely bring the OS to 64 bits. would Apple intro a 64 bit machine before the OS that would drive it?
Or will Leopard be out sooner than we expect? All we know is that Leopard should be out around the end of the year, or somewhat sooner. End of July could be possible. He's done it several times before.
heh.
okay, now back on point. do y'all think Leopard would not be 32bit compatible? I think Leopard will be one of the first OSes to truly operate on such a broad range of hardware, it will be quite an achievement this decade, maybe even this quarter-century. Leopard, being both black and white (or yellow and black) or whatever, getit? 32bit, 64bit, ppc, intel, singlecore, dualcore, it'll handle it all
Originally posted by melgross
But, the 64 bitness may depend upon Leopard, which will likely bring the OS to 64 bits. would Apple intro a 64 bit machine before the OS that would drive it?
They released dual processor computers before they had an OS (7.5) that would really utilize both processors. In fact there were only a few programs that would use both processors and Apple didn't even have an OS that was beyond the Wish stage that would use them. So the answer is a big
YES as long as there is a marketing value for them, it won't hurt the performance, and it won't be cost prohibative.
Originally posted by sunilraman
Originally posted by melgross
I'm tempted to say "no" just in an attempt to be agreeable.
I'm not sure why Apple would do that unless Merom comes out near the end of 2006, rather than close to the middle. Jobs would surely love to announce a Merom based iMac in June.
As Merom looks to be ahead of schedule, that could happen. Conroe is also ahead of schedule.
But, the 64 bitness may depend upon Leopard, which will likely bring the OS to 64 bits. would Apple intro a 64 bit machine before the OS that would drive it?
Or will Leopard be out sooner than we expect? All we know is that Leopard should be out around the end of the year, or somewhat sooner. End of July could be possible. He's done it several times before.
heh.
okay, now back on point. do y'all think Leopard would not be 32bit compatible? I think Leopard will be one of the first OSes to truly operate on such a broad range of hardware, it will be quite an achievement this decade, maybe even this quarter-century. Leopard, being both black and white (or yellow and black) or whatever, getit? 32bit, 64bit, ppc, intel, singlecore, dualcore, it'll handle it all
I'm sure that Leopard will be 32 bit compatible. MS hasn't gone that route with Win 64, but OS X is running both 64 bit and 32 bit now. It might not be fully 64 bit because of the GUI and such, but I can't imagine that Apple would let the 32 bit code base die so soon.
MS has both OS's out. I'm not sure that Apple can or would do that.
Originally posted by JCG
They released dual processor computers before they had an OS (7.5) that would really utilize both processors. In fact there were only a few programs that would use both processors and Apple didn't even have an OS that was beyond the Wish stage that would use them. So the answer is a big
YES as long as there is a marketing value for them, it won't hurt the performance, and it won't be cost prohibative.
Apple had a multiprocessing plug-in for the OS, so it did work. PS did as well.
People today are more sophisticated than they were then. The publicity might bot be good if they did that. It's always possible that they can do something with 1.4, but we'll see.
Originally posted by melgross
Apple had a multiprocessing plug-in for the OS, so it did work. PS did as well.
People today are more sophisticated than they were then. The publicity might bot be good if they did that. It's always possible that they can do something with 1.4, but we'll see.
PhotoShop worked and a few other applicatioins. There was a plug-in from DayStar if I recall that enabled the second processor but I'm not sure how much if any of the OS actually took advantage of both processors. I don't thik the Finder was ever MP aware, and wasn't untill OS X.
They also did again with the Dual 500 G4's, again a pre-OS X computer that still had minimal benefit from the second processor.
The G5 (aka 970) is a 64 bit processor as well, so there is nothing holding Apple back from releasing hardware or software that is 64 bit. I think that they will release the best configuration of hardware that they can to achieve marketing pariaty with the Windows computers that are on the market, and if they can move their entire line to 64 bit in January they will, if nothing else to have the bragging rights as being the first company to offer a complete line-up of 64 bit hardware.
Originally posted by JCG
PhotoShop worked and a few other applicatioins. There was a plug-in from DayStar if I recall that enabled the second processor but I'm not sure how much if any of the OS actually took advantage of both processors. I don't thik the Finder was ever MP aware, and wasn't untill OS X.
They also did again with the Dual 500 G4's, again a pre-OS X computer that still had minimal benefit from the second processor.
I remember using PS with it. It worker VERY well on the filters that were available for it. I often got a 180% advantage. The four chip 604 from Daystar often gave over 325%. Some rendering tasks were sped up by the same amount.
But remember that currently, only low level tasks on X are 64 bit. Everything else is still 32.
Originally posted by melgross
I remember using PS with it. It worker VERY well on the filters that were available for it. I often got a 180% advantage. The four chip 604 from Daystar often gave over 325%. Some rendering tasks were sped up by the same amount.
But remember that currently, only low level tasks on X are 64 bit. Everything else is still 32.
I remember see good gains from PS on them as well, but not on much else. We know, or at least expect, Leopard to be the first fully 64 bit version of the OS, but there is nothing holding Apple back from releasing hardware that is 64 bit ahead of that. There is also nothing stopping them from releasing an OS update to 10.4 that expands the 64 bit capabilities of the OS ahead of the next major release.
Originally posted by JCG
I remember see good gains from PS on them as well, but not on much else. We know, or at least expect, Leopard to be the first fully 64 bit version of the OS, but there is nothing holding Apple back from releasing hardware that is 64 bit ahead of that. There is also nothing stopping them from releasing an OS update to 10.4 that expands the 64 bit capabilities of the OS ahead of the next major release.
Yes, that's what I've said.
I'm just talking about the political fallout from coming out with a 64 bit machine using a 32 bit OS. If you've seen some of the recent threads when this topic comes up, you have seen the almost fanatical opposition to that.
Some people are so opposed to Apple having ANYTHING with IA-32, that they think that iBooks and Mini's MUST be 64 bit right out of the gate, and that the OS had BETTER be 64 bit as well. They forget that none of the laptops have been 64 bit, and neither is the Mini.
Originally posted by melgross
Yes, that's what I've said.
I'm just talking about the political fallout from coming out with a 64 bit machine using a 32 bit OS. If you've seen some of the recent threads when this topic comes up, you have seen the almost fanatical opposition to that.
Some people are so opposed to Apple having ANYTHING with IA-32, that they think that iBooks and Mini's MUST be 64 bit right out of the gate, and that the OS had BETTER be 64 bit as well. They forget that none of the laptops have been 64 bit, and neither is the Mini.
I dount that political fallout amoung Mac fanatics on consumer machines not moving to 64 bit processors will be an equation in their processor decisions. Nor will it keep them from moving to 64 bit processors if the 64 bit OS is not "ready for prime time", after all neither is the OS supplied with the current computers that have 64 bit processors. They may get some rantings on the user forums like this one and there may be a few (Mac hating) reporters that mention it. But all indications are that the first intel Macs will be consumer models where the bulk of the consumers could care less if the computer or OS is 64 bit or 32 bit as long as it works and is competative in price and performance.