64 bit Windows does not run 32 bit apps directly. It runs them in a compatibility window. Most inefficient. There are other problems relating to this.
I remember that this was explicitly true of the Itanium editions of Windows, because the baseline Itamium processor wasn't directly capable of running any x86 code at all without software intervention or emulation.
Apparently when a 32-bit process coexists with 64-bit processes on an x64 edition Windows, the CPU is temporarily sent in and out of 32-bit compatibility mode so that the software doesn't need to know about any architectural differences. That necessarily involves a performance hit. But wouldn't something similar have to happen with 32-bit processes running on any other x64 operating system too?
I was under the impression that the biggest gotcha for most would-be 64-bit Windows users has been the availability of 64-bit kernel drivers for their hardware. A close second problem has been the incompatibility of 64-bit applications with 32-bit libraries and plug-ins, and vice-versa. (This latter limitation is technically true with Mac OS X as well, however Apple and most 3rd party software vendors have generally done a great job of preventing it from being visible to end-users.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bassoonx
I enjoyed the first and the second article on 64bit. But this one really confuses me!
1. How can Windows apps get several 4GB (-2GB for Kernel) virtual adress spaces? I thought without PAE, only one 4B adress space is possible.
Each process has its own virtual address space, each of which which may potentially grow to 4 GB. The MMU then keeps track of how each process's individual address space maps into the overall combination of physical RAM and pagefiles.
However, for most applications, the actual usage will be much smaller than that, and portions of each process's virtual address space which are not used, don't actually contribute to the system's total memory usage. Furthermore, the kernel's reserved space in each process is mapped into the identical space in physical memory.
Therefore, if you created two processes, each of which needed 0.5GB of application space, then each process would appear to be occupying 2.5GB of space (its own 0.5GB of space, plus the kernel's 2GB), for a total usage of 5 GB. However, the overall system memory usage would really only be 3GB (application 1's 0.5GB, plus application 2's 0.5GB, plus the single copy of the kernel's 2GB shared in common between the two). More savings are also possible if both applications make use of some common code from DLLs, because the system only needs to load the DLL into system memory once, and map that single copy into each process's virtual address. As well, it's likely that portions of the kernel's 2GB is actually unused.
Any process may potentially grow up to 4GB (minus the kernel's reserved space), provided the MMU has adequate resources (available system RAM plus pagefiles) available to accommodate it.
On a more serious note, I think most PC users are a bunch of dolts.
They don't really know what they are buying or why.
The problem will be glossed over by a simple "the extra memory you have, sets yo up to handle the new MicroSoft changes coming for 64 bit in the future.
Nevermind that by the time that stuff really gets it's act together the rest of your hardware is obsolete.....
I'm guessing that you are a dolt that doesn't know everything a good mechanic knows about your engine and car. For that matter, probably your plumbing, your electricity (don't do your own wiring!!!) and quite a few other things in life. My guess is that you only come outside to buy computer stuff and go back into your mom's basement until it's time to eat.
If anyone feels that I am not properly referring to computers sold by Apple, or computers sold by what was formerly known as the "Apple Computer" company...... well you just be sure to let me know because I really care if my street cred is effected because I call it a MAC.....\
Good grief. Ajmas explained it and you still don't get it. Writing in all-caps implies that a word is an acronym, therefore MAC = Medium Access Control, not short for Macintosh. Mac is short for Macintosh.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogue27
Historically, the only people writing "MAC" on this forum were ignorant PC trolls.
You run vista x64, (i have used that system) and your upset Apple patches to much? This is rich. If you think the only patch on your Vista x64 box was SP1, then your stupid.
Your main point of how well your computer performs is funny. Cause my Powerbook g4 had no problems running CS1, itunes and Warcraft 3 (windowed on a seperate vram eating display, concurrently).
My Macbook pro with 2 core2duo 2.6's right now is handling (with 66fps mind you)
WoW
Garage band (using it open as a virtual amp)
Safari
itunes
ichat
entourage
I do this every day. This is what i expect from my laptop
-from an actual user of all three platforms / IT guy
I'm an IT guy also 21+ years with IBM so I am far from stupid. Of course I know SP1 is not the only patch for Vista.
WoW is a joke any system can handle 66fps running WoW. My system can do that running Crysis, and I built my own system and it cost less then your Macbook.
As far as patches at least if there is something wrong with one of my drivers I have options instead of having ot wait for Apple to get around to fixing the problem.
Good example firmware problems Alu iMac relating to the GPU. Took them a full 3-4 months to get around to that. I won't even bring up the 3g iPhone it should take them until mid 2009 to get that working correctly.
Sorry I cam back to edit I actually assume you knew wath Crysis was being a Macbook user.
Also while I am at it I was turning cache and setup up arrays before you even knew what they were.
One of the reasons wht Opertons, an Athlons were able to beat the Pentium back three years ago was because they used the more, wider register route in the designs, the same as the PPC. Intel's 64 bit chips have fixed most of the regester problems, whichh is acknowledged as bing one of the main reasons why Windows users will see speed increases in their computing using a 64 bit system.
What is it with this thread that has caused such a plethora of "grammatically challenged" posts?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SXT1
the first Intel iMac's that where shipped.
The plural of iMac is iMacs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by i386
I guess we'll see notebooks taking 8Gb's of RAM in 2009.
That should be 8 GBs. Or, if you want to be really pedantic, 8 GiBs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JesseDegenerate
I have to say your a toolbox.
Your != You are. You mean "you're".
Quote:
Originally Posted by JesseDegenerate
You run vista x64, (i have used that system) and your upset Apple patches to much? This is rich. If you think the only patch on your Vista x64 box was SP1, then your stupid.
How ironic you accuse someone else of being stupid, when you can't even get your/you're right.
What's up with the "half the price" thing? It makes it sound like apple announced pricing on SL and it will cost half as much as 10.5. Might want to change that, it's confusing and misleading.
And it's not official that 10.6 will be intel only! That's still speculation, stop saying it like it's fact when it's just a guess on your part. Right now, nobody knows for sure.
And it's not official that 10.6 will be intel only! That's still speculation, stop saying it like it's fact when it's just a guess on your part. Right now, nobody knows for sure.
I agree it's a bit much to state as if fact that 10.6 final will be Intel-only; however, all the signs point to Apple having made decisions about now being the time to make a few breaks with the past in order to build solid foundations for the future.
They worked on 64 bit carbon for ages, then ceased development; everything they say about 10.6 suggests under-the-hood changes aimed at a general tidy-up of the architecture. Apple presumably figures that they've built enough momentum now in the OS X platform that it can survive the disruptions of the abandonment of carbon-64, PPC and possibly even 32-bit Intel too.
I'm an IT guy also 21+ years with IBM so I am far from stupid. Of course I know SP1 is not the only patch for Vista.
WoW is a joke any system can handle 66fps running WoW. My system can do that running Crysis, and I built my own system and it cost less then your Macbook.
As far as patches at least if there is something wrong with one of my drivers I have options instead of having ot wait for Apple to get around to fixing the problem.
Good example firmware problems Alu iMac relating to the GPU. Took them a full 3-4 months to get around to that. I won't even bring up the 3g iPhone it should take them until mid 2009 to get that working correctly.
Sorry I cam back to edit I actually assume you knew wath Crysis was being a Macbook user.
Also while I am at it I was turning cache and setup up arrays before you even knew what they were.
Did you give yourself a boner there? I've been in IT for about 10 years, but either way, you should know that 1) WoW is not the same system to system, depends heavily on your plugin level, Rez, etc. 2) amp emulation is processor intensive and 3, your not replying to the point i was making.
I was saying that you *should not* be excited your computer can multi-task. It should be like this.
Welcome to 2008, old guy.
also:
*As a vista64 guy you should really not make arguments about drivers being compatible. Ask mac users how many times this is an issue for them.
*I have 8 iphone's sync'ing to my company's Exchange 2003 server, (I am one of them) No problems from any users. (feature requests yes, dropped calls, no) Personally i think it's cause were in NYC, which doesn't have the best, but far from the worst 3g coverage.
*I build my own machine's too. I have 2 Hackintosh's (one callaway one 10.4 one) A Fiesty Fawn machine and a XP sp2 box. (for orb, and old windows games) 2 are AMD x2's (before the coreduo line was released) one is a Pentium D, the last a Core2. I use a MBP as a laptop cause it's really well designed. If you built your own laptop ( i got the 2.6ghz model) with similar features, then i'm impressed.
*People who troll forums looking for grammatical errors. Really. You must be fun as hell at a party.
Dude, when i'm trying to get a thought out, I'm less inclined to care about my proper apostrophes. I'm going back now, to revel in my "mediocrity" that i've placed myself in due to my lack of compassion for the english language.
Dude, when i'm trying to get a thought out, I'm less inclined to care about my proper apostrophes. I'm going back now, to revel in my "mediocrity" that i've placed myself in due to my lack of compassion for the english language.
Thanks for showing me the light.
/asshole
In case you hadn't noticed, this is not a party, but a website forum where people come to communicate. If you want your communiqués to be properly understood, appreciated and taken seriously, it pays to learn how to use your chosen language properly. And if you don't care about your points being taken seriously, why bother posting in the first place?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JesseDegenerate
do you get a t-shirt with those "higher standards? "
and does the ? go before or after the quotations?
The ? should go outside the quotation marks. Unless the ? was meant in an ironic/sarcastic way in which case it goes inside.
I didn't SAY the "pieces" are "manufactured by Apple.
According to Bill Gates, Apple moved into Intel hardware just as MicroSoft in the XBox started using chips that used to be used by Apple in the older systems. (in other words, old hardware Apple used to use)
I think the quote by Gates was something like "Apple moving away from those chips really allowed us the capacity we needed, ironic that Apple moving to Intel allowed us to move forward with what we were doing on a new platform".
I don't think the 360 uses any significant parts that Apple used other than farily generic stuff used industry-wide. The three-core 4+GHz PPC-based chip in the machine is custom built for the task, its design is not very related to any chip that Apple used other than being a similar platform.
G5 machines were used to develop the software as the hardware was being designed, because the instructions were compatible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H
Yeah! Let's all revel in mediocrity, stupidity, ignorance and sloppy thinking, and vilify all those who strive for higher standards.
Seriously, how hard is it for you to learn that plurals don't have apostrophes and "your" doesn't mean "you are"?
I think there has to be some moderation though. I personally try not to say anything unless a post is confusing.
BTW: the woman that does Grammar Girl says it's poor form to correct other people's grammar.
Quote:
Originally Posted by i386
As a photography with larger mega pixel sensors on the horizon, even the 50MP Canon sensor in development, the RAW files will be huge to work with. At the moment Aperture is such a resource hog, I reckon 64bit address space will be welcomed.
The 50 megapixel sensor at 16 bpp would mean 100 MB file uncompressed. Not that big of a deal for single files, unless you plan to have 20 of them open at the same time, I don't know if each file could get its own 2GB/4GB space or not.
Megapixels are old hat anyway, the latest hot high end cameras have about half the pixels of its flagship competitor, it's hot because it's producing fantastic pictures in low light, offering more shooting possibilities in the dark than ever previously thought possible.
Looking at all the technical specs available I believe that any user using less than the Core Duo 2 (64bit) will NOT be able to run Snow Leopard. 10.5 will be the last OS X version the first Intel Chipsets will run.....Looks like Apple will make the move to 64bit completely in the next version. PPC and Core Duo users will be left behind.
Remember how much of a big deal AppleInsider made of the fact that lots of PC users with slower machines wanted Windows XP after Vista came out?
I wondering if AI will also make a big deal of the fact that Apple will stop selling 10.5 when 10.6 comes out, thus screwing non-Intel C2D users...
That factor is also why PowerPC G5 users won't see much performance benefit from general purpose apps ported to 64-bits; 32-bit PowerPC apps already have plenty of registers. In many cases, they will actually get slightly slower due to the extra addressing overhead. That's also a key reason why Snow Leopard will be Intel only.*
I really don't think that's a key reason. I don't think that's even relevent. I would suggest that if they drop PPC, the real reason would be that there's not enough of them out there to justify the work needed to make them run the new OS. Only iMac G5s and PowerMac G5s can run 64 bit PPC code, and their relevance is fading pretty quickly. Only the towers can address more than 2.5GB of memory, all the base models except the dual core ones are effectively limited to 4GB based on memory board availability.
Comments
64 bit Windows does not run 32 bit apps directly. It runs them in a compatibility window. Most inefficient. There are other problems relating to this.
I remember that this was explicitly true of the Itanium editions of Windows, because the baseline Itamium processor wasn't directly capable of running any x86 code at all without software intervention or emulation.
Apparently when a 32-bit process coexists with 64-bit processes on an x64 edition Windows, the CPU is temporarily sent in and out of 32-bit compatibility mode so that the software doesn't need to know about any architectural differences. That necessarily involves a performance hit. But wouldn't something similar have to happen with 32-bit processes running on any other x64 operating system too?
I was under the impression that the biggest gotcha for most would-be 64-bit Windows users has been the availability of 64-bit kernel drivers for their hardware. A close second problem has been the incompatibility of 64-bit applications with 32-bit libraries and plug-ins, and vice-versa. (This latter limitation is technically true with Mac OS X as well, however Apple and most 3rd party software vendors have generally done a great job of preventing it from being visible to end-users.)
I enjoyed the first and the second article on 64bit. But this one really confuses me!
1. How can Windows apps get several 4GB (-2GB for Kernel) virtual adress spaces? I thought without PAE, only one 4B adress space is possible.
Each process has its own virtual address space, each of which which may potentially grow to 4 GB. The MMU then keeps track of how each process's individual address space maps into the overall combination of physical RAM and pagefiles.
However, for most applications, the actual usage will be much smaller than that, and portions of each process's virtual address space which are not used, don't actually contribute to the system's total memory usage. Furthermore, the kernel's reserved space in each process is mapped into the identical space in physical memory.
Therefore, if you created two processes, each of which needed 0.5GB of application space, then each process would appear to be occupying 2.5GB of space (its own 0.5GB of space, plus the kernel's 2GB), for a total usage of 5 GB. However, the overall system memory usage would really only be 3GB (application 1's 0.5GB, plus application 2's 0.5GB, plus the single copy of the kernel's 2GB shared in common between the two). More savings are also possible if both applications make use of some common code from DLLs, because the system only needs to load the DLL into system memory once, and map that single copy into each process's virtual address. As well, it's likely that portions of the kernel's 2GB is actually unused.
Any process may potentially grow up to 4GB (minus the kernel's reserved space), provided the MMU has adequate resources (available system RAM plus pagefiles) available to accommodate it.
On a more serious note, I think most PC users are a bunch of dolts.
They don't really know what they are buying or why.
The problem will be glossed over by a simple "the extra memory you have, sets yo up to handle the new MicroSoft changes coming for 64 bit in the future.
Nevermind that by the time that stuff really gets it's act together the rest of your hardware is obsolete.....
I'm guessing that you are a dolt that doesn't know everything a good mechanic knows about your engine and car. For that matter, probably your plumbing, your electricity (don't do your own wiring!!!) and quite a few other things in life. My guess is that you only come outside to buy computer stuff and go back into your mom's basement until it's time to eat.
If anyone feels that I am not properly referring to computers sold by Apple, or computers sold by what was formerly known as the "Apple Computer" company...... well you just be sure to let me know because I really care if my street cred is effected because I call it a MAC.....
Good grief. Ajmas explained it and you still don't get it. Writing in all-caps implies that a word is an acronym, therefore MAC = Medium Access Control, not short for Macintosh. Mac is short for Macintosh.
Historically, the only people writing "MAC" on this forum were ignorant PC trolls.
Make that all forums, not just this one.
I have to say your a toolbox.
You run vista x64, (i have used that system) and your upset Apple patches to much? This is rich. If you think the only patch on your Vista x64 box was SP1, then your stupid.
Your main point of how well your computer performs is funny. Cause my Powerbook g4 had no problems running CS1, itunes and Warcraft 3 (windowed on a seperate vram eating display, concurrently).
My Macbook pro with 2 core2duo 2.6's right now is handling (with 66fps mind you)
WoW
Garage band (using it open as a virtual amp)
Safari
itunes
ichat
entourage
I do this every day. This is what i expect from my laptop
-from an actual user of all three platforms / IT guy
I'm an IT guy also 21+ years with IBM so I am far from stupid. Of course I know SP1 is not the only patch for Vista.
WoW is a joke any system can handle 66fps running WoW. My system can do that running Crysis, and I built my own system and it cost less then your Macbook.
As far as patches at least if there is something wrong with one of my drivers I have options instead of having ot wait for Apple to get around to fixing the problem.
Good example firmware problems Alu iMac relating to the GPU. Took them a full 3-4 months to get around to that. I won't even bring up the 3g iPhone it should take them until mid 2009 to get that working correctly.
Sorry I cam back to edit I actually assume you knew wath Crysis was being a Macbook user.
Also while I am at it I was turning cache and setup up arrays before you even knew what they were.
One of the reasons wht Opertons, an Athlons were able to beat the Pentium back three years ago was because they used the more, wider register route in the designs, the same as the PPC. Intel's 64 bit chips have fixed most of the regester problems, whichh is acknowledged as bing one of the main reasons why Windows users will see speed increases in their computing using a 64 bit system.
Sent from an iPhone, I presume?
the first Intel iMac's that where shipped.
The plural of iMac is iMacs.
I guess we'll see notebooks taking 8Gb's of RAM in 2009.
That should be 8 GBs. Or, if you want to be really pedantic, 8 GiBs.
I have to say your a toolbox.
Your != You are. You mean "you're".
You run vista x64, (i have used that system) and your upset Apple patches to much? This is rich. If you think the only patch on your Vista x64 box was SP1, then your stupid.
How ironic you accuse someone else of being stupid, when you can't even get your/you're right.
And it's not official that 10.6 will be intel only! That's still speculation, stop saying it like it's fact when it's just a guess on your part. Right now, nobody knows for sure.
And it's not official that 10.6 will be intel only! That's still speculation, stop saying it like it's fact when it's just a guess on your part. Right now, nobody knows for sure.
I agree it's a bit much to state as if fact that 10.6 final will be Intel-only; however, all the signs point to Apple having made decisions about now being the time to make a few breaks with the past in order to build solid foundations for the future.
They worked on 64 bit carbon for ages, then ceased development; everything they say about 10.6 suggests under-the-hood changes aimed at a general tidy-up of the architecture. Apple presumably figures that they've built enough momentum now in the OS X platform that it can survive the disruptions of the abandonment of carbon-64, PPC and possibly even 32-bit Intel too.
PC = Personal Computer
MAC = Media Access Control, as in MAC Address
Mac = short for Macintosh
Note the difference between acronyms and abbreviations. Its a touchy point for some
You forgot to include DOLT or is it dolt.....
I'm an IT guy also 21+ years with IBM so I am far from stupid. Of course I know SP1 is not the only patch for Vista.
WoW is a joke any system can handle 66fps running WoW. My system can do that running Crysis, and I built my own system and it cost less then your Macbook.
As far as patches at least if there is something wrong with one of my drivers I have options instead of having ot wait for Apple to get around to fixing the problem.
Good example firmware problems Alu iMac relating to the GPU. Took them a full 3-4 months to get around to that. I won't even bring up the 3g iPhone it should take them until mid 2009 to get that working correctly.
Sorry I cam back to edit I actually assume you knew wath Crysis was being a Macbook user.
Also while I am at it I was turning cache and setup up arrays before you even knew what they were.
Did you give yourself a boner there? I've been in IT for about 10 years, but either way, you should know that 1) WoW is not the same system to system, depends heavily on your plugin level, Rez, etc. 2) amp emulation is processor intensive and 3, your not replying to the point i was making.
I was saying that you *should not* be excited your computer can multi-task. It should be like this.
Welcome to 2008, old guy.
also:
*As a vista64 guy you should really not make arguments about drivers being compatible. Ask mac users how many times this is an issue for them.
*I have 8 iphone's sync'ing to my company's Exchange 2003 server, (I am one of them) No problems from any users. (feature requests yes, dropped calls, no) Personally i think it's cause were in NYC, which doesn't have the best, but far from the worst 3g coverage.
*I build my own machine's too. I have 2 Hackintosh's (one callaway one 10.4 one) A Fiesty Fawn machine and a XP sp2 box. (for orb, and old windows games) 2 are AMD x2's (before the coreduo line was released) one is a Pentium D, the last a Core2. I use a MBP as a laptop cause it's really well designed. If you built your own laptop ( i got the 2.6ghz model
*People who troll forums looking for grammatical errors. Really. You must be fun as hell at a party.
Sorry I cam back to edit I actually assume you knew wath Crysis was being a Macbook user.
Crysis in the apple world means waiting for MBP upgrade Jan 08 only to find it still not out at June 08.
Crysis is the pc world is heaven on earth
*People who troll forums looking for grammatical errors. Really. You must be fun as hell at a party.
Yeah! Let's all revel in mediocrity, stupidity, ignorance and sloppy thinking, and vilify all those who strive for higher standards.
Seriously, how hard is it for you to learn that plurals don't have apostrophes and "your" doesn't mean "you are"?
Thanks for showing me the light.
/asshole
and does the ? go before or after the quotations?
Dude, when i'm trying to get a thought out, I'm less inclined to care about my proper apostrophes. I'm going back now, to revel in my "mediocrity" that i've placed myself in due to my lack of compassion for the english language.
Thanks for showing me the light.
/asshole
In case you hadn't noticed, this is not a party, but a website forum where people come to communicate. If you want your communiqués to be properly understood, appreciated and taken seriously, it pays to learn how to use your chosen language properly. And if you don't care about your points being taken seriously, why bother posting in the first place?
do you get a t-shirt with those "higher standards? "
and does the ? go before or after the quotations?
The ? should go outside the quotation marks. Unless the ? was meant in an ironic/sarcastic way in which case it goes inside.
I didn't SAY the "pieces" are "manufactured by Apple.
According to Bill Gates, Apple moved into Intel hardware just as MicroSoft in the XBox started using chips that used to be used by Apple in the older systems. (in other words, old hardware Apple used to use)
I think the quote by Gates was something like "Apple moving away from those chips really allowed us the capacity we needed, ironic that Apple moving to Intel allowed us to move forward with what we were doing on a new platform".
I don't think the 360 uses any significant parts that Apple used other than farily generic stuff used industry-wide. The three-core 4+GHz PPC-based chip in the machine is custom built for the task, its design is not very related to any chip that Apple used other than being a similar platform.
G5 machines were used to develop the software as the hardware was being designed, because the instructions were compatible.
Yeah! Let's all revel in mediocrity, stupidity, ignorance and sloppy thinking, and vilify all those who strive for higher standards.
Seriously, how hard is it for you to learn that plurals don't have apostrophes and "your" doesn't mean "you are"?
I think there has to be some moderation though. I personally try not to say anything unless a post is confusing.
BTW: the woman that does Grammar Girl says it's poor form to correct other people's grammar.
As a photography with larger mega pixel sensors on the horizon, even the 50MP Canon sensor in development, the RAW files will be huge to work with. At the moment Aperture is such a resource hog, I reckon 64bit address space will be welcomed.
The 50 megapixel sensor at 16 bpp would mean 100 MB file uncompressed. Not that big of a deal for single files, unless you plan to have 20 of them open at the same time, I don't know if each file could get its own 2GB/4GB space or not.
Megapixels are old hat anyway, the latest hot high end cameras have about half the pixels of its flagship competitor, it's hot because it's producing fantastic pictures in low light, offering more shooting possibilities in the dark than ever previously thought possible.
I think there has to be some moderation though. I personally try not to say anything unless a post is confusing.
Indeed. I don't do it all that much; this particular thread though does have a high concentration of errors so I felt a post was warranted.
In general, apostrophes seem to be heavily misused hence my signature.
/never said it was a party, said you must be fun at them.
//clearly you need to get out more.
///i've been told i'm a comma whore.
Looking at all the technical specs available I believe that any user using less than the Core Duo 2 (64bit) will NOT be able to run Snow Leopard. 10.5 will be the last OS X version the first Intel Chipsets will run.....Looks like Apple will make the move to 64bit completely in the next version. PPC and Core Duo users will be left behind.
Remember how much of a big deal AppleInsider made of the fact that lots of PC users with slower machines wanted Windows XP after Vista came out?
I wondering if AI will also make a big deal of the fact that Apple will stop selling 10.5 when 10.6 comes out, thus screwing non-Intel C2D users...
That factor is also why PowerPC G5 users won't see much performance benefit from general purpose apps ported to 64-bits; 32-bit PowerPC apps already have plenty of registers. In many cases, they will actually get slightly slower due to the extra addressing overhead. That's also a key reason why Snow Leopard will be Intel only.*
I really don't think that's a key reason. I don't think that's even relevent. I would suggest that if they drop PPC, the real reason would be that there's not enough of them out there to justify the work needed to make them run the new OS. Only iMac G5s and PowerMac G5s can run 64 bit PPC code, and their relevance is fading pretty quickly. Only the towers can address more than 2.5GB of memory, all the base models except the dual core ones are effectively limited to 4GB based on memory board availability.