64-bit doesn't help performance. It helps run apps that need >4Gigs memory. I doubt you need >4gigs for a web browser.
I'm sorry, you are wrong. While Apple might like you to believe 64-bit apps are slower, because that takes pressure off them to provide 64-bit apps, the fact is: Most (not all!) Intel architecture apps benefit from migrating to 64-bits, because the X64 instruction set supports twice the processor registers as the 32-bit X86 instruction set. On other architectures, like PowerPC and UltraSPARC, there's no increase in registers; consequently, going to 64-bit mode tends to yield slower apps, because data items are often twice as big (for example, 4 byte pointers become 8 byte). Bigger datums increase the consumption of processor-memory bandwidth and they create increased contention for processor caches. 64-bit apps can sooner push an application into slow, virtual memory swap space, as well. For X64, though, in most cases, the performance gain from having twice the registers more than offsets the performance loss from having larger datums.
That's entirely academic if the system is 64bit only. 32bit Cocoa is as irrelevant as 32bit Carbon.
I worked there. You don't grasp the politics behind the scene. Adobe was given the message that they no longer control the course of Apple's development process.
Making a pure Cocoa 32/64 bit system equivalently locks out their Carbon whims as much as dropping 64 Bit Carbon for future development--get on board with Cocoa or be left with legacy systems only.
Apple's largest growing market segments have nothing to do with Adobe Suite.
The rumour stated they were going 64bit ONLY - ie. dropping 32bit support. So no, that seamlessness does not remain. As I said, that would be nuts. OSX wouldn't be able to run major apps. Therefore I think this rumour is total garbage.
Oh so THAT'S why people are thinking this. Thank you.
But the rumour doesn't say that. That's your interpretation of the rumour.
It says
"it will leave the PowerPC behind: a fully 64-bit clean, Intel-only Mac OS X."
Note that it doesn't say it will leave powerpc applications behind, just the powerpc. I suspect the same for 32bit.
ie: They just want one 64bit Intel code base. What that base runs is a different issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign
What I suspect they might do is only support 10.6 on 64bit X86 machines and it will be a top to bottom 64bit OS so Core Duo Macs and PPC Macs are out of luck for upgrades, BUT it will support the running of 32bit X86 apps and probably 32/64bit PPC apps too via Rosetta. They've got that technology nailed in a way that makes Windows' 32/64bit support look pathetic so it seems quite silly to dump it after one OS release.
* user mobility windows has that you need a Server for that.
No - while the current way of keeping your desktop while moving machines is to use a local server, .Mac could allow your desktop to follow you anywhere. It'd be an online copy - so the biggest challenge would be how to send the minimal data such that (for example) you feel like you can move around your stuff seamlessly, but it doesn't hold you up by downloading a whole picture (or movie) when it only needs a thumbnail image etc. (multiply that by iTunes, iPhoto, data directories, email, calendar etc and it gets complicated!)
.Mac already lets you synchronise a lot of your desktop - it'd be an expansion on that and integration with iDisk. Or I guess it could use data synchronised to your iPod.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe_the_dragon
system self-reinstall alot of people don't have the bandwidth for that.
Yeah, a system capable of self-reinstalling itself over the net, including applications, and configuring it back to your standard setup (from your online backup) would use lots of bandwidth. But
1) bandwidth is increasing significantly.
2) no reason you cant use local data where it's available (install disks, local backups, other local Mac's OS or apps, other local Mac's copies of your data, and iPod syncs of your data.
I have no idea if Apple is working on this but it's got the pieces.
Question: I have a Intel Core Duo MacBook Pro... I think it was the second update of the line... anyway, if it's a 32bit system, will I be able to run 10.6 if it's 64bit native? Or will I have an oversized paperweight?
" The sad reality is that people clinging to legacy systems are albatross. "
Dude was that just to get flamed...or just for attention. Cmon, my take is that you don't understand that there are many users on PPC that have installations of macs not just one. I'm not advocating PPC support forever but intel doesn't represent a huge portion of the os just 19%. at the moment. But as you drink koolaid so I guess we should all buy any crap that apple produces no matter what just to stay "relevant"
Question: I have a Intel Core Duo MacBook Pro... I think it was the second update of the line... anyway, if it's a 32bit system, will I be able to run 10.6 if it's 64bit native? Or will I have an oversized paperweight?
Whether it's a 32bit system or not, you won't have an oversized paperweight. We don't really know Apple's plans, but no matter what they are, being a year behind in an upgrade doesn't affect people much.
But to answer the 32bit bit first - my mother has a 32bit MBP. It was the first one, a "Core Duo". Soon after Apple released the "Core 2 Duo" which was 64 bit. iirc. Do you know if you have a core 2 duo or core duo?
The name Snow Leopard is interesting. It almost implies "it's still leopard, just a specific type". Apple may be doing something we haven't seen (?) - and that is release a new OS with newer technologies (faster 64bit Intel, resolution independence, touch screen on some systems, ZFS etc) while continuing to have Leopard looking & feeling identical and with full equivalence at the application-level.
PPC machines are older, and are probably less likely to get software upgrades applied because of their age. A G4 iMac may be used for basic web stuff, it's perfectly serviceable for that, and for most people, I imagine it is not worth paying to upgrade to 10.6. However, an Intel iMac would get a lot more benefit from a new update.
Another is that this is a rumor. Rumors aren't worth getting this excited about, negatively or positively.
Just because there's a new OS version doesn't mean that you have to have it, and it doesn't mean that the old machine is suddenly worthless. As long as the hardware works, it should be able to do everything that it always has done. How much a person benefits from an update depends on how they use their computer.
" The sad reality is that people clinging to legacy systems are albatross. "
Dude was that just to get flamed...or just for attention. Cmon, my take is that you don't understand that there are many users on PPC that have installations of macs not just one. I'm not advocating PPC support forever but intel doesn't represent a huge portion of the os just 19%. at the moment. But as you drink koolaid so I guess we should all buy any crap that apple produces no matter what just to stay "relevant"
Well...I certainly sounded more obtuse than I wanted to. I guess my point really is that Apple has an advantage right now by "not" being Microsoft. Mac users tend to move up to the new OS rapidly and therein lies the problem. PPC owners know they want 10.6 even if the improvements are rather miniscule.
Apple's quandry is this. They are getting buried by a deluge of transitions Carbon to Cocoa, PPC to Intel , 32bit to 64bit. We are all seeing the fallout of this. Buggy OS releases that take successive patches.
I think Apple's trying to get this situation taken care of right now and delivering a 10.6 tailored for Intel systems and Cocoa sounds like a tough love strategy.
Let's say PPC owners are barred from 10.6. Leopard is hardly the type of OS that would be a bear to compute on for another year. PPC owners could plan to refresh when 10.7 hits and catch right up to the herd.
Apple benefits because the sooner they get important apps off of Carbon they can deprecate it and put resources into Cocoa same goes for PPC to Intel hardware.
This has been clear for some in the know
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Siracusa
With Leopard, Mac OS X's API future is clearer than it's ever been. The future is Objective-C, Cocoa, 64-bit. Full stop, no waffling, everyone get on board the train.
Agree or disagree with JS ....he is spot on with this.
The name Snow Leopard is interesting. It almost implies "it's still leopard, just a specific type".
I believe you're on the right track here. Snow Leopard will be a clean, fully 64-bit Leopard for Intel only. This will give 64-bit Macs a significant speed boost* and reduce the size of system software updates, while not introducing major incompatibilities. The lag between 10.5 and 10.6 could rightfully be much reduced from previous point releases, because most of the work has already been done by providing the current multi-platform, 32-bit and 64-bit support found in 10.5.
*As I've noted elsewhere in this thread, 32-bit X86 apps usually benefit significantly by going to 64-bit EM64T, because EM64T supports twice the number of processor registers as X86. This is not the case for 32-bit vs. 64-bit PPC apps.
Whether it's a 32bit system or not, you won't have an oversized paperweight. We don't really know Apple's plans, but no matter what they are, being a year behind in an upgrade doesn't affect people much.
But to answer the 32bit bit first - my mother has a 32bit MBP. It was the first one, a "Core Duo". Soon after Apple released the "Core 2 Duo" which was 64 bit. iirc. Do you know if you have a core 2 duo or core duo?
The name Snow Leopard is interesting. It almost implies "it's still leopard, just a specific type". Apple may be doing something we haven't seen (?) - and that is release a new OS with newer technologies (faster 64bit Intel, resolution independence, touch screen on some systems, ZFS etc) while continuing to have Leopard looking & feeling identical and with full equivalence at the application-level.
I have a Core Duo... I think it was the second iteration of the MBP under that configuration - the machines received a small processor bump if I recall correctly.
Interesting point about the similar name to OSX 10.5. I guess we will see... Kinda hope it runs on my system. Hope Apple just drops PPC support but keeps the support for the entire Intel line. That way I can use my G5, but still have a MBP that runs up-to-date apps.
I believe you're on the right track here. Snow Leopard will be a clean, fully 64-bit Leopard for Intel only. This will give 64-bit Macs a significant speed boost* and reduce the size of system software updates, while not introducing major incompatibilities. The lag between 10.5 and 10.6 could rightfully be much reduced from previous point releases, because most of the work has already been done by providing the current multi-platform, 32-bit and 64-bit support found in 10.5.
*As I've noted elsewhere in this thread, 32-bit X86 apps usually benefit significantly by going to 64-bit EM64T, because EM64T supports twice the number of processor registers as X86. This is not the case for 32-bit vs. 64-bit PPC apps.
What does Apple do about Leopard's 32-bit Kernel and Device Drivers? The 64-bit Intel only approach doesn't seem to have much merit when you look at what's involved.
What does Apple do about Leopard's 32-bit Kernel and Device Drivers? The 64-bit Intel only approach doesn't seem to have much merit when you look at what's involved.
I'm probably completely off base here but I'd think that Apple would create a 64-Bit Intel only build that is for new machines only. This would be built alongside UB build but would offer a smaller, faster and more efficient OS.
They could advertise these new Macs as having a more streamlined OS than the UB builds, thus generating more sales as many Apple customers want "the latest and the greatest" even if it is only a marginal gain. But I don't see why they'd call this 10.6; that sounds confusing to me. If they called it 10.5.A and use a trailing letter instead of a number it would differentiate the two but also indicate that they are the same essential OS under the hood. Though, marketing-wise it would probably sell better to call it 10.6 but people will think that it means they are canceling all 32-bit and PPC support, which surely isn't the case.
What does Apple do about Leopard's 32-bit Kernel and Device Drivers? The 64-bit Intel only approach doesn't seem to have much merit when you look at what's involved.
Actually it has a lot of merit. "X64" apps tend to run significantly faster than 32-bit X86 apps. 25% faster is not unheard of. For applications that spend most of their time computing, as opposed to doing I/O in kernel drivers, going 64-bit on Intel will be a big win.
In one respect, Leopard 10.5 was a major let down as I saw it, because the Darwin commands and apps distributed by Apple still contain only 32-bit PPC and X86 code. That's in spite of Leopard supporting 64-bit GUI apps, compared to Tiger supporting only 64-bit command line apps.
"Snow Leopard" will hopefully rectify this situation, by providing fast 64-bit code wherever possible. To ease the transition, kernel drivers might remain 32-bit, but everything else will go 64-bit and be Intel only. People have been surprised at the size of the combined PPC and Intel updates from Apple, yet these updates consist almost entirely of just 32-bit code. Imagine their size if 64-bit Intel (and 64-bit PPC) code was included! By going all 64-bit and exclusively Intel for Snow Leopard, those updates should be about half the size of normal Leopard updates. PPC users should not complain, because typcially the 64-bit version of a PPC app runs significantly slower than the 32-bit PPC version, and most apps don't need the large address space afforded by 64-bits.
Hopefully we'll all know for sure in just a few days.
I worked there. You don't grasp the politics behind the scene. Adobe was given the message that they no longer control the course of Apple's development process.
Making a pure Cocoa 32/64 bit system equivalently locks out their Carbon whims as much as dropping 64 Bit Carbon for future development--get on board with Cocoa or be left with legacy systems only.
Apple's largest growing market segments have nothing to do with Adobe Suite.
My point was that Cory's rumour at TUAW was that it was a 'fully 64bit clean' OS and so dropping 32bit and PPC. Ars then weighed in with it being Cocoa only.
If Cory is right - no 32bit - then Carbon is dead and Ars' 'Cocoa Only' would be true.
I agree with you that it would be particularly ballsy of Apple to send that message to Adobe and Microsoft and they really deserve it, but I can't help think that users in the middle wanting to run CS3 or Office won't quite agree on the advantages of Apple going 64bit cocoa only in 10.6, never mind many devs.
So for that reason, I think Cory and Ars have the wrong end of the stick somehow or have been fed misinformation. I'd guess 'Snow Leopard' is Apple's Cocoa only OS platform for their own devices where they don't need carbon.
My point was that Cory's rumour at TUAW was that it was a 'fully 64bit clean' OS and so dropping 32bit and PPC. Ars then weighed in with it being Cocoa only.
If Cory is right - no 32bit - then Carbon is dead and Ars' 'Cocoa Only' would be true.
The cocoa only rumour is a bit odd. And MacRumors updated their info to say "John Gruber clarifies that "pure Cocoa" does not have anything to do with dropping Carbon from the OS"
They said that some parts of the OS are only accessible via carbon at present, and they will now be accessible via cocoa.
I was actually wondering about the opposite. By that I mean - Carbon is currently an API available in parallel to Cocoa. Is it possible to rebuild Carbon such that Carbon works via Cocoa? I assume that it's possible but would have a high overhead and be needlessly complicated to implement?
The rumour stated they were going 64bit ONLY - ie. dropping 32bit support. So no, that seamlessness does not remain. As I said, that would be nuts. OSX wouldn't be able to run major apps. Therefore I think this rumour is total garbage.
It's pretty nuts to drop PPC support too IMHO although I can see that possibly happening - like Apple have dropped Classic and dropped 64bit Carbon for mostly strategic reasons rather than technical.
What I suspect they might do is only support 10.6 on 64bit X86 machines and it will be a top to bottom 64bit OS so Core Duo Macs and PPC Macs are out of luck for upgrades, BUT it will support the running of 32bit X86 apps and probably 32/64bit PPC apps too via Rosetta. They've got that technology nailed in a way that makes Windows' 32/64bit support look pathetic so it seems quite silly to dump it after one OS release.
Your interpretation is that they will get rid of all things 32-bit. That's one way they could go, but it's not the only interpretation.
It could simply mean that the Mac will no longer be able to boot on 32-bit machines. That in itself does not say anything about whether or not it will be able to run 32-bit apps.
The x86-64 architecture allows both 32-bit and 64-bit applications to coexist simultaneously in the same processor mode. There's no "emulation" required in the strictest sense of the word. All that's needed is two sets of entry points - one 32-bit and one 64-bit - to the OS's APIs.
Comments
They dropped Carbon 64 to force the developers to move to Cocoa. Cocoa as 32 bit has always been. It's not a Cocoa is 64 only issue.
That's entirely academic if the system is 64bit only. 32bit Cocoa is as irrelevant as 32bit Carbon.
64-bit doesn't help performance. It helps run apps that need >4Gigs memory. I doubt you need >4gigs for a web browser.
I'm sorry, you are wrong. While Apple might like you to believe 64-bit apps are slower, because that takes pressure off them to provide 64-bit apps, the fact is: Most (not all!) Intel architecture apps benefit from migrating to 64-bits, because the X64 instruction set supports twice the processor registers as the 32-bit X86 instruction set. On other architectures, like PowerPC and UltraSPARC, there's no increase in registers; consequently, going to 64-bit mode tends to yield slower apps, because data items are often twice as big (for example, 4 byte pointers become 8 byte). Bigger datums increase the consumption of processor-memory bandwidth and they create increased contention for processor caches. 64-bit apps can sooner push an application into slow, virtual memory swap space, as well. For X64, though, in most cases, the performance gain from having twice the registers more than offsets the performance loss from having larger datums.
That's entirely academic if the system is 64bit only. 32bit Cocoa is as irrelevant as 32bit Carbon.
I worked there. You don't grasp the politics behind the scene. Adobe was given the message that they no longer control the course of Apple's development process.
Making a pure Cocoa 32/64 bit system equivalently locks out their Carbon whims as much as dropping 64 Bit Carbon for future development--get on board with Cocoa or be left with legacy systems only.
Apple's largest growing market segments have nothing to do with Adobe Suite.
The rumour stated they were going 64bit ONLY - ie. dropping 32bit support. So no, that seamlessness does not remain. As I said, that would be nuts. OSX wouldn't be able to run major apps. Therefore I think this rumour is total garbage.
Oh so THAT'S why people are thinking this. Thank you.
But the rumour doesn't say that. That's your interpretation of the rumour.
It says
"it will leave the PowerPC behind: a fully 64-bit clean, Intel-only Mac OS X."
Note that it doesn't say it will leave powerpc applications behind, just the powerpc. I suspect the same for 32bit.
ie: They just want one 64bit Intel code base. What that base runs is a different issue.
What I suspect they might do is only support 10.6 on 64bit X86 machines and it will be a top to bottom 64bit OS so Core Duo Macs and PPC Macs are out of luck for upgrades, BUT it will support the running of 32bit X86 apps and probably 32/64bit PPC apps too via Rosetta. They've got that technology nailed in a way that makes Windows' 32/64bit support look pathetic so it seems quite silly to dump it after one OS release.
Absolutely. But this IS the rumour (IMO).
* user mobility windows has that you need a Server for that.
No - while the current way of keeping your desktop while moving machines is to use a local server, .Mac could allow your desktop to follow you anywhere. It'd be an online copy - so the biggest challenge would be how to send the minimal data such that (for example) you feel like you can move around your stuff seamlessly, but it doesn't hold you up by downloading a whole picture (or movie) when it only needs a thumbnail image etc. (multiply that by iTunes, iPhoto, data directories, email, calendar etc and it gets complicated!)
.Mac already lets you synchronise a lot of your desktop - it'd be an expansion on that and integration with iDisk. Or I guess it could use data synchronised to your iPod.
system self-reinstall alot of people don't have the bandwidth for that.
Yeah, a system capable of self-reinstalling itself over the net, including applications, and configuring it back to your standard setup (from your online backup) would use lots of bandwidth. But
1) bandwidth is increasing significantly.
2) no reason you cant use local data where it's available (install disks, local backups, other local Mac's OS or apps, other local Mac's copies of your data, and iPod syncs of your data.
I have no idea if Apple is working on this but it's got the pieces.
Dude was that just to get flamed...or just for attention. Cmon, my take is that you don't understand that there are many users on PPC that have installations of macs not just one. I'm not advocating PPC support forever but intel doesn't represent a huge portion of the os just 19%. at the moment. But as you drink koolaid so I guess we should all buy any crap that apple produces no matter what just to stay "relevant"
Question: I have a Intel Core Duo MacBook Pro... I think it was the second update of the line... anyway, if it's a 32bit system, will I be able to run 10.6 if it's 64bit native? Or will I have an oversized paperweight?
Whether it's a 32bit system or not, you won't have an oversized paperweight. We don't really know Apple's plans, but no matter what they are, being a year behind in an upgrade doesn't affect people much.
But to answer the 32bit bit first - my mother has a 32bit MBP. It was the first one, a "Core Duo". Soon after Apple released the "Core 2 Duo" which was 64 bit. iirc. Do you know if you have a core 2 duo or core duo?
The name Snow Leopard is interesting. It almost implies "it's still leopard, just a specific type". Apple may be doing something we haven't seen (?) - and that is release a new OS with newer technologies (faster 64bit Intel, resolution independence, touch screen on some systems, ZFS etc) while continuing to have Leopard looking & feeling identical and with full equivalence at the application-level.
I'm not advocating PPC support forever but intel doesn't represent a huge portion of the os just 19%. at the moment.
As of over six months ago, there were more Intel Macs on the Internet than PPC Macs:
http://arstechnica.com/journals/appl...in-february-08
And we need to keep in mind a few things:
PPC machines are older, and are probably less likely to get software upgrades applied because of their age. A G4 iMac may be used for basic web stuff, it's perfectly serviceable for that, and for most people, I imagine it is not worth paying to upgrade to 10.6. However, an Intel iMac would get a lot more benefit from a new update.
Another is that this is a rumor. Rumors aren't worth getting this excited about, negatively or positively.
Just because there's a new OS version doesn't mean that you have to have it, and it doesn't mean that the old machine is suddenly worthless. As long as the hardware works, it should be able to do everything that it always has done. How much a person benefits from an update depends on how they use their computer.
On PPC it doesn't, but on x86 it does. 64 bit x86 has twice as many processor registers as 32 bit x86 and this can really help speed up some software.
Is there any particular reason why you're using an acute accent character instead of an apostrophe? (not a flame, I'm genuinely curious)
i´m in España using the Mac of a friend and i don´t want to go tinkering around with his language preferences.
ah...here´s the proper ' button!
" The sad reality is that people clinging to legacy systems are albatross. "
Dude was that just to get flamed...or just for attention. Cmon, my take is that you don't understand that there are many users on PPC that have installations of macs not just one. I'm not advocating PPC support forever but intel doesn't represent a huge portion of the os just 19%. at the moment. But as you drink koolaid so I guess we should all buy any crap that apple produces no matter what just to stay "relevant"
Well...I certainly sounded more obtuse than I wanted to. I guess my point really is that Apple has an advantage right now by "not" being Microsoft. Mac users tend to move up to the new OS rapidly and therein lies the problem. PPC owners know they want 10.6 even if the improvements are rather miniscule.
Apple's quandry is this. They are getting buried by a deluge of transitions Carbon to Cocoa, PPC to Intel , 32bit to 64bit. We are all seeing the fallout of this. Buggy OS releases that take successive patches.
I think Apple's trying to get this situation taken care of right now and delivering a 10.6 tailored for Intel systems and Cocoa sounds like a tough love strategy.
Let's say PPC owners are barred from 10.6. Leopard is hardly the type of OS that would be a bear to compute on for another year. PPC owners could plan to refresh when 10.7 hits and catch right up to the herd.
Apple benefits because the sooner they get important apps off of Carbon they can deprecate it and put resources into Cocoa same goes for PPC to Intel hardware.
This has been clear for some in the know
With Leopard, Mac OS X's API future is clearer than it's ever been. The future is Objective-C, Cocoa, 64-bit. Full stop, no waffling, everyone get on board the train.
Agree or disagree with JS ....he is spot on with this.
The name Snow Leopard is interesting. It almost implies "it's still leopard, just a specific type".
I believe you're on the right track here. Snow Leopard will be a clean, fully 64-bit Leopard for Intel only. This will give 64-bit Macs a significant speed boost* and reduce the size of system software updates, while not introducing major incompatibilities. The lag between 10.5 and 10.6 could rightfully be much reduced from previous point releases, because most of the work has already been done by providing the current multi-platform, 32-bit and 64-bit support found in 10.5.
*As I've noted elsewhere in this thread, 32-bit X86 apps usually benefit significantly by going to 64-bit EM64T, because EM64T supports twice the number of processor registers as X86. This is not the case for 32-bit vs. 64-bit PPC apps.
Whether it's a 32bit system or not, you won't have an oversized paperweight. We don't really know Apple's plans, but no matter what they are, being a year behind in an upgrade doesn't affect people much.
But to answer the 32bit bit first - my mother has a 32bit MBP. It was the first one, a "Core Duo". Soon after Apple released the "Core 2 Duo" which was 64 bit. iirc. Do you know if you have a core 2 duo or core duo?
The name Snow Leopard is interesting. It almost implies "it's still leopard, just a specific type". Apple may be doing something we haven't seen (?) - and that is release a new OS with newer technologies (faster 64bit Intel, resolution independence, touch screen on some systems, ZFS etc) while continuing to have Leopard looking & feeling identical and with full equivalence at the application-level.
I have a Core Duo... I think it was the second iteration of the MBP under that configuration - the machines received a small processor bump if I recall correctly.
Interesting point about the similar name to OSX 10.5. I guess we will see... Kinda hope it runs on my system. Hope Apple just drops PPC support but keeps the support for the entire Intel line. That way I can use my G5, but still have a MBP that runs up-to-date apps.
I believe you're on the right track here. Snow Leopard will be a clean, fully 64-bit Leopard for Intel only. This will give 64-bit Macs a significant speed boost* and reduce the size of system software updates, while not introducing major incompatibilities. The lag between 10.5 and 10.6 could rightfully be much reduced from previous point releases, because most of the work has already been done by providing the current multi-platform, 32-bit and 64-bit support found in 10.5.
*As I've noted elsewhere in this thread, 32-bit X86 apps usually benefit significantly by going to 64-bit EM64T, because EM64T supports twice the number of processor registers as X86. This is not the case for 32-bit vs. 64-bit PPC apps.
What does Apple do about Leopard's 32-bit Kernel and Device Drivers? The 64-bit Intel only approach doesn't seem to have much merit when you look at what's involved.
What does Apple do about Leopard's 32-bit Kernel and Device Drivers? The 64-bit Intel only approach doesn't seem to have much merit when you look at what's involved.
I'm probably completely off base here but I'd think that Apple would create a 64-Bit Intel only build that is for new machines only. This would be built alongside UB build but would offer a smaller, faster and more efficient OS.
They could advertise these new Macs as having a more streamlined OS than the UB builds, thus generating more sales as many Apple customers want "the latest and the greatest" even if it is only a marginal gain. But I don't see why they'd call this 10.6; that sounds confusing to me. If they called it 10.5.A and use a trailing letter instead of a number it would differentiate the two but also indicate that they are the same essential OS under the hood. Though, marketing-wise it would probably sell better to call it 10.6 but people will think that it means they are canceling all 32-bit and PPC support, which surely isn't the case.
What does Apple do about Leopard's 32-bit Kernel and Device Drivers? The 64-bit Intel only approach doesn't seem to have much merit when you look at what's involved.
Actually it has a lot of merit. "X64" apps tend to run significantly faster than 32-bit X86 apps. 25% faster is not unheard of. For applications that spend most of their time computing, as opposed to doing I/O in kernel drivers, going 64-bit on Intel will be a big win.
In one respect, Leopard 10.5 was a major let down as I saw it, because the Darwin commands and apps distributed by Apple still contain only 32-bit PPC and X86 code. That's in spite of Leopard supporting 64-bit GUI apps, compared to Tiger supporting only 64-bit command line apps.
"Snow Leopard" will hopefully rectify this situation, by providing fast 64-bit code wherever possible. To ease the transition, kernel drivers might remain 32-bit, but everything else will go 64-bit and be Intel only. People have been surprised at the size of the combined PPC and Intel updates from Apple, yet these updates consist almost entirely of just 32-bit code. Imagine their size if 64-bit Intel (and 64-bit PPC) code was included! By going all 64-bit and exclusively Intel for Snow Leopard, those updates should be about half the size of normal Leopard updates. PPC users should not complain, because typcially the 64-bit version of a PPC app runs significantly slower than the 32-bit PPC version, and most apps don't need the large address space afforded by 64-bits.
Hopefully we'll all know for sure in just a few days.
I worked there. You don't grasp the politics behind the scene. Adobe was given the message that they no longer control the course of Apple's development process.
Making a pure Cocoa 32/64 bit system equivalently locks out their Carbon whims as much as dropping 64 Bit Carbon for future development--get on board with Cocoa or be left with legacy systems only.
Apple's largest growing market segments have nothing to do with Adobe Suite.
My point was that Cory's rumour at TUAW was that it was a 'fully 64bit clean' OS and so dropping 32bit and PPC. Ars then weighed in with it being Cocoa only.
If Cory is right - no 32bit - then Carbon is dead and Ars' 'Cocoa Only' would be true.
I agree with you that it would be particularly ballsy of Apple to send that message to Adobe and Microsoft and they really deserve it, but I can't help think that users in the middle wanting to run CS3 or Office won't quite agree on the advantages of Apple going 64bit cocoa only in 10.6, never mind many devs.
So for that reason, I think Cory and Ars have the wrong end of the stick somehow or have been fed misinformation. I'd guess 'Snow Leopard' is Apple's Cocoa only OS platform for their own devices where they don't need carbon.
A faster finder that does not slow down to a crawl by folders many items (thousands)
I would be happy with a OS that work more under the hood ( ZDF file system etc) than just adding gleaming features
It is OK to leave PPC behind, My Sawtooth acvtually runs 10.5, I do not think that Vista would work as well on a 8 year old upgraded PC.
In the next Mac Pro with ditched FSB I will get a mac Pro
My point was that Cory's rumour at TUAW was that it was a 'fully 64bit clean' OS and so dropping 32bit and PPC. Ars then weighed in with it being Cocoa only.
If Cory is right - no 32bit - then Carbon is dead and Ars' 'Cocoa Only' would be true.
The cocoa only rumour is a bit odd. And MacRumors updated their info to say "John Gruber clarifies that "pure Cocoa" does not have anything to do with dropping Carbon from the OS"
They said that some parts of the OS are only accessible via carbon at present, and they will now be accessible via cocoa.
I was actually wondering about the opposite. By that I mean - Carbon is currently an API available in parallel to Cocoa. Is it possible to rebuild Carbon such that Carbon works via Cocoa? I assume that it's possible but would have a high overhead and be needlessly complicated to implement?
The rumour stated they were going 64bit ONLY - ie. dropping 32bit support. So no, that seamlessness does not remain. As I said, that would be nuts. OSX wouldn't be able to run major apps. Therefore I think this rumour is total garbage.
It's pretty nuts to drop PPC support too IMHO although I can see that possibly happening - like Apple have dropped Classic and dropped 64bit Carbon for mostly strategic reasons rather than technical.
What I suspect they might do is only support 10.6 on 64bit X86 machines and it will be a top to bottom 64bit OS so Core Duo Macs and PPC Macs are out of luck for upgrades, BUT it will support the running of 32bit X86 apps and probably 32/64bit PPC apps too via Rosetta. They've got that technology nailed in a way that makes Windows' 32/64bit support look pathetic so it seems quite silly to dump it after one OS release.
Your interpretation is that they will get rid of all things 32-bit. That's one way they could go, but it's not the only interpretation.
It could simply mean that the Mac will no longer be able to boot on 32-bit machines. That in itself does not say anything about whether or not it will be able to run 32-bit apps.
The x86-64 architecture allows both 32-bit and 64-bit applications to coexist simultaneously in the same processor mode. There's no "emulation" required in the strictest sense of the word. All that's needed is two sets of entry points - one 32-bit and one 64-bit - to the OS's APIs.