The Atom is there for 64 bits. Whether Aple uses that for it or not, likely the other manufacturers making ARMs, will be there too.
I'm starting to think it's a possibility now. Power consumption is the biggest issue, but it looks like an under-clocked 800MHz Atom may be good enough next year and Apple can be completely on x86.
The "how many Apps" argument is still valid, and mainstream-wise that means how many Cocoa64 apps we have at our disposal. We've got Mathematica, Cinema4D and that's mostly it, I think. The truth is, G5 and subsequent Macs' processors' 64bit abilities have been rather meaningless for us until now, and I don't think things will be that much better until around next year's end or so, one hopes.
Apple has made it very clear that Snow Leopard will support 32-bit Intel Macs, and it might even ship a PowerPC build just to sell more copies (because it would have nearly zero benefit for G5 users, it is unlikely that Apple would release SL as a quad binary (PPC+Intel x 32+64), and why ship it for G4 users? That indicates SL will most likely only be delivered as (32+64, Intel only).
Comments about SL not supporting 32-bit Core Solo/Duo were uninformed speculation and are in error.
Apple announced SL would ship "in about a year" at WWDC. That indicates it will ship to developers at WWDC, and then to consumers likely around the same time Leopard did: Sept-Oct. By that time, the newest G5s will be +3 years old but oldest 32-bit Core Macs will only barely be 3 years old.
Not shipping PPC SL would also help Apple focus on testing and optimizing Intel code. Also, with the increase in Mac sales since 2006, the overwhelming majority of the installed base of modern Macs is rapidly becoming Intel-based. This year, Apple could sell 10 million Macs. In 2005 it only sold 4.3 million, so the PPC population is quickly being watered down, particularly as older machines +3 years are reaching an end to their functional lifespan in terms of whether anyone needs to buy a new OS for them. They just got the Leopard upgrade, which will be supported for another year or two.
I kind of hope Apple will ship UB of SL. I am a owner of a last gen G5. I have 10 GB of ram installed on this puppy and would love to be able to utilize its full potential. I don't plan on buying a MacPro for a few more yrs. I bought my G5 here in Jan 06, so it has some life left in it still. Before my G5 I had a B&W G3 300mhz, which I bought in May of 99. So as this is my 2nd computer ever, I will wait for a while before I upgrade again. Either way Apple was so keen on UB's I don't understand why they would just drop it all together.
For starters, while "Windows 2003" is called that, a 64-bit version was only released for Itanium servers and workstations in 2003, and nobody used it. AMD64 wasn't released until the G5 in 2003, and an x64 version of "Windows 2003" wasn't released until later. Win2k3 SP1 is what WinXP for x64 is based on. Nobody has started using XP x64 until the last couple few years; it still has extremely minor penetration in the PC market. Apple figured out how to deliver 64-bit features to desktop users first, and continues to do so.
You have three arguments that all contradict each other: 64-bit Windows was important; 64-bit Unix was way earlier; Apple doesn't innovate. Well you're wrong: Apple makes the most popular Unix distribution on the planet, and has delivered 64-bit systems to desktop users rather than feeding the market outdated stuff and then dishonestly sell them RAM they can't use.
Bringing up Unix being 64-bit in the 80s just makes you look like a moron. The article is about desktop computing. And hey, what do you think is underneath Mac OS X?
No comment necessary for your rants, screeds, manifestos, and outright name calling.
This is coming from a Mac fan and let me say Apple does not have a 64-bit lead. Under my desk is a Mac Pro running 10.5.4 and a Home built PC running Vista 64. Both have 4GB ram and can fully utilize it.
I installed Vista 64 thinking it would be an experimental/enthusiast thing to do. But to my surprise this thing ran all my old 32-bit games and apps transparently and without issue.
MS have been keeping this one under their hat. Despite having a full 64-bit kernel it is actually ready for prime time/novice use and I predict will in fact be adopted more swiftly than we all expect.
I kind of hope Apple will ship UB of SL. I am a owner of a last gen G5. I have 10 GB of ram installed on this puppy and would love to be able to utilize its full potential.
An OS can't make a machine support more RAM that its hardware was designed to handle. The G5 was sold as being able to support 8GB of RAM. Installing a 64-bit OS doesn't automatically give it the capacity to use 16TB of RAM.
However, if you converted all your G5 software to 64-bit (something you can't do yourself!) you'd find that it only ran slightly slower and consumed a bit more RAM due to the 64-bit overhead.
The point of this series is to show that 64-bits is a complex subject, and for most software on modern platforms, 64-bits is not a pressing need. However, on Intel, the x64 enhancements add things that were holding the 32-bit x86 back. The G5 delivered 64-bit features long ago, while standard PCs are just now catching up. Making additional moves into 64-bit support have varying levels of need/desirablity/cost.
Full 64-bit RAM addressing is still in the distant future, as few people have exhausted the need for more than 36-bit RAM (32GB), delivered by the Mac Pro and Xserve. Microsoft hasn't got there at all yet for 90% of its Windows users. That's an independent issue from 64-bit software.
64-bit software is desirable for certain apps that need to handle huge data sets, such as video, scitech, and 3D modeling, and CAD. Mac OS X is seeing its first apps move to 64-bits. This benefits users on both PPC and Intel (although many developers aren't going to create 64-bit G5 PPC apps for the diminishing population of G5 users with machines that are approaching 3 or more years old). However, on Intel the move to 64-bits is far more valuable, as it brings a lot of the benefits that were already available to PPC users (as in both G4 and G5) as well as adding 64-bit instructions. So 64-bit Intel delivers more advantages than 64-bit G5 going forward; even basic apps run better on x64 because of the other improvements.
64-bit virtual memory allows apps to take advantage of large data sets and more efficient VM, even when running on a 32-bit kernel in Mac OS X Leopard. G5 users have had this since Tiger.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii
I installed Vista 64 thinking it would be an experimental/enthusiast thing to do. But to my surprise this thing ran all my old 32-bit games and apps transparently and without issue.
MS have been keeping this one under their hat. Despite having a full 64-bit kernel it is actually ready for prime time/novice use and I predict will in fact be adopted more swiftly than we all expect.
It's great you're not having any problems, but 90% of the Windows world is, or sees no reason to upgrade, limiting the market for 64-bit apps to around that of the Mac. Also, while Vista x64 might run 32-bit apps "transparently," it is actually running them in a 32-bit translation layer called "WoW64" for Windows on Windows64.
If Microsoft its OEMs were as confident in x64 as you, we'd having nothing but 64-bit PCs, just as we have in the Mac world. But we don't.
It's great you're not having any problems, but 90% of the Windows world is, or sees no reason to upgrade, limiting the market for 64-bit apps to around that of the Mac. Also, while Vista x64 might run 32-bit apps "transparently," it is actually running them in a 32-bit translation layer called "WoW64" for Windows on Windows64.
If Microsoft its OEMs were as confident in x64 as you, we'd having nothing but 64-bit PCs, just as we have in the Mac world. But we don't.
Which is it?
You need to support your conjectures with some verifiable data.
Otherwise all you are spewing is 100% BULLSHIT!
How many Mac only 64-bit applications are there on the market today? Zero? One? Two? A few? Some? A dozen? A few dozen? A score? A few score? One hundred? A few hundred?
I think the answer here is a definitive FEW, if any.
Quote:
Wow64Cpu.dll provides x86 instruction emulation on Itanium processors. It executes mode-switch instructions on the processor. This DLL is not necessary for x64 processors because they execute x86-32 instructions at full clock speed.
Quote:
No emulation is required for WOW64 on x64.
From what I've seen in terms of real world benchmark tests, 32-bit applications run almost the same speed-wise, as in it's in the single digits, percentage-wise.
You need to support your conjectures with some verifiable data.
Otherwise all you are spewing is 100% BULLSHIT!
How many Mac only 64-bit applications are there on the market today? Zero? One? Two? A few? Some? A dozen? A few dozen? A score? A few score? One hundred? A few hundred?
I think the answer here is a definitive FEW, if any.
Calm down nutty. First, explain what benefit you perceive to come from "64-bit" apps. On Windows, running the 64-bit "edition" means apps can use more than 2GB VM each and can access more than 3GB of system RAM.
Mac apps have been able to use a full 4GB VM since the beginning of Mac OS X, and 64-bit addressing in Tiger since 2005. All consumer Macs have also been able to address a full 4GB since the SR platform, but the G5 could handle 8GB long before that, and Mac Pro system can use 32GB of RAM. Only PCs with aligned planets, the right chipsets, the the x64 Windows can use a full 4GB or more.
So Windows PCs desperately need Vista x64, and can't use it, which is why only a fraction are using it.
Macs don't have nearly the need for additional 64-bit support because they don't have the same historical limitations and have had 64-bit features for years.
Snow Leopard will deliver an additional speed benefit by compiling all apps on Intel to 64-bit, and specialized 3rd party apps and languages (Apple's 64-bit Java, or 64-bit LispWorks for example) already allow users to write or port their own 64-bit apps. 64-bit Unix in Tiger has allowed scitech users to port over their existing 64-bit servers and apps, which is the prime need for 64-bits right now.
Mac OS X Server supplies 64-bit Apache 2, MySQL 5, Postfix, Podcast Producer, QuickTime Streaming Server, and the Java VM. And along with Mac OS X on the desktop, provides 64-bit math and imaging libraries that allow existing 32-bit applications which use the libraries to benefit without modification from those enhancements.
Perhaps you think you need a 64-bit Minesweeper on your PC? Too bad trying to run that won't work if you also need to use Office imaging tools or Windows Media Player or want your printer to work.
I think you're confused about the benefits of 64-bits. You are being emotionally argumentative but can't qualify your claims or quantify your problems. Maybe you need to chill out.
Calm down nutty. First, explain what benefit you perceive to come from "64-bit" apps. On Windows, running the 64-bit "edition" means apps can use more than 2GB VM each and can access more than 3GB of system RAM.
Mac apps have been able to use a full 4GB VM since the beginning of Mac OS X, and 64-bit addressing in Tiger since 2005. All consumer Macs have also been able to address a full 4GB since the SR platform, but the G5 could handle 8GB long before that, and Mac Pro system can use 32GB of RAM. Only PCs with aligned planets, the right chipsets, the the x64 Windows can use a full 4GB or more.
So Windows PCs desperately need Vista x64, and can't use it, which is why only a fraction are using it.
Macs don't have nearly the need for additional 64-bit support because they don't have the same historical limitations and have had 64-bit features for years.
Snow Leopard will deliver an additional speed benefit by compiling all apps on Intel to 64-bit, and specialized 3rd party apps and languages (Apple's 64-bit Java, or 64-bit LispWorks for example) already allow users to write or port their own 64-bit apps. 64-bit Unix in Tiger has allowed scitech users to port over their existing 64-bit servers and apps, which is the prime need for 64-bits right now.
Mac OS X Server supplies 64-bit Apache 2, MySQL 5, Postfix, Podcast Producer, QuickTime Streaming Server, and the Java VM. And along with Mac OS X on the desktop, provides 64-bit math and imaging libraries that allow existing 32-bit applications which use the libraries to benefit without modification from those enhancements.
Perhaps you think you need a 64-bit Minesweeper on your PC? Too bad trying to run that won't work if you also need to use Office imaging tools or Windows Media Player or want your printer to work.
I think you're confused about the benefits of 64-bits. You are being emotionally argumentative but can't qualify your claims or quantify your problems. Maybe you need to chill out.
How many 3rd party commercial retail Mac OS X only 64-bit applications can I buy and use today?
You seen to have a lack of fundamental understanding about the real world, boots on the ground, of 64-bit applications running on the desktop today.
You need to come to grips with this fundamental fact today.
What Apple did in the past, or what Apple does in the future, is currently a moot point, with respect to what Apple's 3rd party developers have delivered to date, in the form of 64-bit GUI desktop applications.
There appears to be a shift taking place in the PC industry: the move from 32-bit to 64-bit PCs.
We've been tracking the change by looking at the percentage of 64-bit PCs connecting to Windows Update, and have seen a dramatic increase in recent months. The installed base of 64-bit Windows Vista PCs, as a percentage of all Windows Vista systems, has more than tripled in the U.S. in the last three months, while worldwide adoption has more than doubled during the same period. Another view shows that 20% of new Windows Vista PCs in the U.S. connecting to Windows Update in June were 64-bit PCs, up from just 3% in March. Put more simply, usage of 64-bit Windows Vista is growing much more rapidly than 32-bit. Based on current trends, this growth will accelerate as the retail channel shifts to supplying a rapidly increasing assortment of 64-bit desktops and laptops.
And please try to stop with the name calling. It weakens whatever it is you are trying to say.
This is coming from a Mac fan and let me say Apple does not have a 64-bit lead. Under my desk is a Mac Pro running 10.5.4 and a Home built PC running Vista 64. Both have 4GB ram and can fully utilize it.
I installed Vista 64 thinking it would be an experimental/enthusiast thing to do. But to my surprise this thing ran all my old 32-bit games and apps transparently and without issue.
MS have been keeping this one under their hat. Despite having a full 64-bit kernel it is actually ready for prime time/novice use and I predict will in fact be adopted more swiftly than we all expect.
I think what he's talking about is that while very few Windows users have taken up the 64 bit version, it's on all machines made for a couple of years, or so, from Apple.
I think what he's talking about is that while very few Windows users have taken up the 64 bit version, it's on all machines made for a couple of years, or so, from Apple.
The link I posted above suggests otherwise. As of July of this year 20% of new Vista instillations are 64-bit.
G4 (32-bit HW and 32-bit SW)
G5 (64-bit HW and no 64-bit 3rd party SW for the desktop)
Core Duo (32-bit HW and 32-bit SW)
Core 2 Duo (64-bit HW and no 64-bit 3rd party SW for the desktop)
Snow Leopard released a year or more from now with full 64-bit developers tools, full 64-bit OS, 3rd party Mac OS X only 64-bit applications trickle in at a snail's pace, IMHO.
Who had 64-bit hardware and when is a moot point, if the entire user base was stuck in an essentially 32-bit application world.
As we now know the Snow Leopard release will not support the G5's, so that now we can say that was a dead end, and produced few if any 64-bit applications.
Hopefully, by next year, Apple's improved market share will bring in a lot of additional 3rd party vendors selling shrink wrapped 64-bit applications.
The link I posted above suggests otherwise. As of July of this year 20% of new Vista instillations are 64-bit.
G4 (32-bit HW and 32-bit SW)
G5 (64-bit HW and no 64-bit 3rd party SW for the desktop)
Core Duo (32-bit HW and 32-bit SW)
Core 2 Duo (64-bit HW and no 64-bit 3rd party SW for the desktop)
Snow Leopard released a year or more from now with full 64-bit developers tools, full 64-bit OS, 3rd party Mac OS X only 64-bit applications trickle in at a snail's pace, IMHO.
Who had 64-bit hardware and when is a moot point, if the entire user base was stuck in an essentially 32-bit application world.
As we now know the Snow Leopard release will not support the G5's, so that now we can say that was a dead end, and produced few if any 64-bit applications.
Hopefully, by next year, Apple's improved market share will bring in a lot of additional 3rd party vendors selling shrink wrapped 64-bit applications.
Only time will tell.
I understand what you're saying, but the fact is still that all new Macs for some time have been 64 bit machines, running a 64 bit OS, and that's not true of Windows.
There are many scientific 64 bit apps on OS X, but you only count mainstream apps.
At any rate, it isn't really worth getting in a fizz about.
Their has been a frustration about Apple OS X and 64bit support directly related to DCC apps that keep on appearing on the other platforms in their 64bit iterations while 64bit Apple has had no 64bit gui support until recently. To compound the problem when Apple announced 64bit gui support in Leopard Jobs announced full Cocoa and Carbon support to developers and then only produced Cocoa support. Look at this announcement about no 64bit Qt support: http://trolltech.com/company/newsroo...-19.6756913411 Autodesk Maya still remains only 32bit on OS X even up to the present announcement of "Maya 2009": http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet...112&id=7639522
I can even configure what should be the Apple dream machine with 8 cores and 32GB of ram and a top of the line Nvidia Quadro FX 5600 graphics card and this type of machine gets passed over for an HP workstation running Redhat by a company like Autodesk. Imagine how much more seriously Apple would be taken as a 64bit platform if they made a deal with Autodesk to have the Discreet turnkey systems installed on Apple workstations running some version of OS X instead of HP machines running Redhat?
Neither Apple or Intel , AMD or IBM where the first bring out the 64 bit chip plus OS even though this product was a server or workstation , it was before it time , follow the link I provided. Please no more we came first crap !!! okay read some history before ya dribble rot !!!
Neither Apple or Intel , AMD or IBM where the first bring out the 64 bit chip plus OS even though this product was a server or workstation , it was before it time , follow the link I provided. Please no more we came first crap !!! okay read some history before ya dribble rot !!!
What the hell are you talking about? I ran WINNT 4.x and OSF/1 UNIX on DEC Alpha. The design still kicks ass.
The passive backplane and the 256bit memory bus on that motherboard was so far ahead of it's time that we're still catching up to it.
Hell, Nehalem's memory bus width is 64 bit or 8 bytes. Too bad they aren't at 256 bits or 32 bytes.
ANSYS and other Finite Element Analysis Programs loved it.
That's just "good old days" talking. Busses were wider then because they were so godawful slow, so they tried to hide glacial latency with 4-wide reads at a time. And all those extra traces cost a kings ransom.
Now you can take a 16-bit wide bus and outperform that 256 bit wide behemoth by an order of magnitude. Partly because the latency is a somewhat better, but mostly because clocking the busses is so much more precise that quad-pumping and higher frequencies push more data on fewer traces using fewer electrons.
Comments
How long before the iPhone is 64 bit powered?
The Atom is there for 64 bits. Whether Aple uses that for it or not, likely the other manufacturers making ARMs, will be there too.
Be interesting if the Flash would be shared memory under a 64 bit system instead of having system memory and Flash.
Is Snow Leopard late already?
An April 2009 launch of Snow Leopard would be best, but it was my impression that a May-June 2009 launch was scheduled.
Of course, my secret hope was a surprise MacWorld 2009 launch, but I acknowledge that it was possibly unrealistic.
So, late Summer 2009 sounds a bit late, doesn't it?
Well, summer is June 21st, so technically, it would still be in time. I'm not sure where the "late" part came in.
The Atom is there for 64 bits. Whether Aple uses that for it or not, likely the other manufacturers making ARMs, will be there too.
I'm starting to think it's a possibility now. Power consumption is the biggest issue, but it looks like an under-clocked 800MHz Atom may be good enough next year and Apple can be completely on x86.
Apple has made it very clear that Snow Leopard will support 32-bit Intel Macs, and it might even ship a PowerPC build just to sell more copies (because it would have nearly zero benefit for G5 users, it is unlikely that Apple would release SL as a quad binary (PPC+Intel x 32+64), and why ship it for G4 users? That indicates SL will most likely only be delivered as (32+64, Intel only).
Comments about SL not supporting 32-bit Core Solo/Duo were uninformed speculation and are in error.
Apple announced SL would ship "in about a year" at WWDC. That indicates it will ship to developers at WWDC, and then to consumers likely around the same time Leopard did: Sept-Oct. By that time, the newest G5s will be +3 years old but oldest 32-bit Core Macs will only barely be 3 years old.
Not shipping PPC SL would also help Apple focus on testing and optimizing Intel code. Also, with the increase in Mac sales since 2006, the overwhelming majority of the installed base of modern Macs is rapidly becoming Intel-based. This year, Apple could sell 10 million Macs. In 2005 it only sold 4.3 million, so the PPC population is quickly being watered down, particularly as older machines +3 years are reaching an end to their functional lifespan in terms of whether anyone needs to buy a new OS for them. They just got the Leopard upgrade, which will be supported for another year or two.
I kind of hope Apple will ship UB of SL. I am a owner of a last gen G5. I have 10 GB of ram installed on this puppy and would love to be able to utilize its full potential. I don't plan on buying a MacPro for a few more yrs. I bought my G5 here in Jan 06, so it has some life left in it still. Before my G5 I had a B&W G3 300mhz, which I bought in May of 99. So as this is my 2nd computer ever, I will wait for a while before I upgrade again. Either way Apple was so keen on UB's I don't understand why they would just drop it all together.
What absurd ranting.
For starters, while "Windows 2003" is called that, a 64-bit version was only released for Itanium servers and workstations in 2003, and nobody used it. AMD64 wasn't released until the G5 in 2003, and an x64 version of "Windows 2003" wasn't released until later. Win2k3 SP1 is what WinXP for x64 is based on. Nobody has started using XP x64 until the last couple few years; it still has extremely minor penetration in the PC market. Apple figured out how to deliver 64-bit features to desktop users first, and continues to do so.
You have three arguments that all contradict each other: 64-bit Windows was important; 64-bit Unix was way earlier; Apple doesn't innovate. Well you're wrong: Apple makes the most popular Unix distribution on the planet, and has delivered 64-bit systems to desktop users rather than feeding the market outdated stuff and then dishonestly sell them RAM they can't use.
Bringing up Unix being 64-bit in the 80s just makes you look like a moron. The article is about desktop computing. And hey, what do you think is underneath Mac OS X?
No comment necessary for your rants, screeds, manifestos, and outright name calling.
I installed Vista 64 thinking it would be an experimental/enthusiast thing to do. But to my surprise this thing ran all my old 32-bit games and apps transparently and without issue.
MS have been keeping this one under their hat. Despite having a full 64-bit kernel it is actually ready for prime time/novice use and I predict will in fact be adopted more swiftly than we all expect.
I kind of hope Apple will ship UB of SL. I am a owner of a last gen G5. I have 10 GB of ram installed on this puppy and would love to be able to utilize its full potential.
An OS can't make a machine support more RAM that its hardware was designed to handle. The G5 was sold as being able to support 8GB of RAM. Installing a 64-bit OS doesn't automatically give it the capacity to use 16TB of RAM.
However, if you converted all your G5 software to 64-bit (something you can't do yourself!) you'd find that it only ran slightly slower and consumed a bit more RAM due to the 64-bit overhead.
The point of this series is to show that 64-bits is a complex subject, and for most software on modern platforms, 64-bits is not a pressing need. However, on Intel, the x64 enhancements add things that were holding the 32-bit x86 back. The G5 delivered 64-bit features long ago, while standard PCs are just now catching up. Making additional moves into 64-bit support have varying levels of need/desirablity/cost.
Full 64-bit RAM addressing is still in the distant future, as few people have exhausted the need for more than 36-bit RAM (32GB), delivered by the Mac Pro and Xserve. Microsoft hasn't got there at all yet for 90% of its Windows users. That's an independent issue from 64-bit software.
64-bit software is desirable for certain apps that need to handle huge data sets, such as video, scitech, and 3D modeling, and CAD. Mac OS X is seeing its first apps move to 64-bits. This benefits users on both PPC and Intel (although many developers aren't going to create 64-bit G5 PPC apps for the diminishing population of G5 users with machines that are approaching 3 or more years old). However, on Intel the move to 64-bits is far more valuable, as it brings a lot of the benefits that were already available to PPC users (as in both G4 and G5) as well as adding 64-bit instructions. So 64-bit Intel delivers more advantages than 64-bit G5 going forward; even basic apps run better on x64 because of the other improvements.
64-bit virtual memory allows apps to take advantage of large data sets and more efficient VM, even when running on a 32-bit kernel in Mac OS X Leopard. G5 users have had this since Tiger.
I installed Vista 64 thinking it would be an experimental/enthusiast thing to do. But to my surprise this thing ran all my old 32-bit games and apps transparently and without issue.
MS have been keeping this one under their hat. Despite having a full 64-bit kernel it is actually ready for prime time/novice use and I predict will in fact be adopted more swiftly than we all expect.
It's great you're not having any problems, but 90% of the Windows world is, or sees no reason to upgrade, limiting the market for 64-bit apps to around that of the Mac. Also, while Vista x64 might run 32-bit apps "transparently," it is actually running them in a 32-bit translation layer called "WoW64" for Windows on Windows64.
If Microsoft its OEMs were as confident in x64 as you, we'd having nothing but 64-bit PCs, just as we have in the Mac world. But we don't.
It's great you're not having any problems, but 90% of the Windows world is, or sees no reason to upgrade, limiting the market for 64-bit apps to around that of the Mac. Also, while Vista x64 might run 32-bit apps "transparently," it is actually running them in a 32-bit translation layer called "WoW64" for Windows on Windows64.
If Microsoft its OEMs were as confident in x64 as you, we'd having nothing but 64-bit PCs, just as we have in the Mac world. But we don't.
Which is it?
You need to support your conjectures with some verifiable data.
Otherwise all you are spewing is 100% BULLSHIT!
How many Mac only 64-bit applications are there on the market today? Zero? One? Two? A few? Some? A dozen? A few dozen? A score? A few score? One hundred? A few hundred?
I think the answer here is a definitive FEW, if any.
Wow64Cpu.dll provides x86 instruction emulation on Itanium processors. It executes mode-switch instructions on the processor. This DLL is not necessary for x64 processors because they execute x86-32 instructions at full clock speed.
No emulation is required for WOW64 on x64.
From what I've seen in terms of real world benchmark tests, 32-bit applications run almost the same speed-wise, as in it's in the single digits, percentage-wise.
Which is it?
You need to support your conjectures with some verifiable data.
Otherwise all you are spewing is 100% BULLSHIT!
How many Mac only 64-bit applications are there on the market today? Zero? One? Two? A few? Some? A dozen? A few dozen? A score? A few score? One hundred? A few hundred?
I think the answer here is a definitive FEW, if any.
Calm down nutty. First, explain what benefit you perceive to come from "64-bit" apps. On Windows, running the 64-bit "edition" means apps can use more than 2GB VM each and can access more than 3GB of system RAM.
Mac apps have been able to use a full 4GB VM since the beginning of Mac OS X, and 64-bit addressing in Tiger since 2005. All consumer Macs have also been able to address a full 4GB since the SR platform, but the G5 could handle 8GB long before that, and Mac Pro system can use 32GB of RAM. Only PCs with aligned planets, the right chipsets, the the x64 Windows can use a full 4GB or more.
So Windows PCs desperately need Vista x64, and can't use it, which is why only a fraction are using it.
Macs don't have nearly the need for additional 64-bit support because they don't have the same historical limitations and have had 64-bit features for years.
Snow Leopard will deliver an additional speed benefit by compiling all apps on Intel to 64-bit, and specialized 3rd party apps and languages (Apple's 64-bit Java, or 64-bit LispWorks for example) already allow users to write or port their own 64-bit apps. 64-bit Unix in Tiger has allowed scitech users to port over their existing 64-bit servers and apps, which is the prime need for 64-bits right now.
Mac OS X Server supplies 64-bit Apache 2, MySQL 5, Postfix, Podcast Producer, QuickTime Streaming Server, and the Java VM. And along with Mac OS X on the desktop, provides 64-bit math and imaging libraries that allow existing 32-bit applications which use the libraries to benefit without modification from those enhancements.
Perhaps you think you need a 64-bit Minesweeper on your PC? Too bad trying to run that won't work if you also need to use Office imaging tools or Windows Media Player or want your printer to work.
I think you're confused about the benefits of 64-bits. You are being emotionally argumentative but can't qualify your claims or quantify your problems. Maybe you need to chill out.
Calm down nutty. First, explain what benefit you perceive to come from "64-bit" apps. On Windows, running the 64-bit "edition" means apps can use more than 2GB VM each and can access more than 3GB of system RAM.
Mac apps have been able to use a full 4GB VM since the beginning of Mac OS X, and 64-bit addressing in Tiger since 2005. All consumer Macs have also been able to address a full 4GB since the SR platform, but the G5 could handle 8GB long before that, and Mac Pro system can use 32GB of RAM. Only PCs with aligned planets, the right chipsets, the the x64 Windows can use a full 4GB or more.
So Windows PCs desperately need Vista x64, and can't use it, which is why only a fraction are using it.
Macs don't have nearly the need for additional 64-bit support because they don't have the same historical limitations and have had 64-bit features for years.
Snow Leopard will deliver an additional speed benefit by compiling all apps on Intel to 64-bit, and specialized 3rd party apps and languages (Apple's 64-bit Java, or 64-bit LispWorks for example) already allow users to write or port their own 64-bit apps. 64-bit Unix in Tiger has allowed scitech users to port over their existing 64-bit servers and apps, which is the prime need for 64-bits right now.
Mac OS X Server supplies 64-bit Apache 2, MySQL 5, Postfix, Podcast Producer, QuickTime Streaming Server, and the Java VM. And along with Mac OS X on the desktop, provides 64-bit math and imaging libraries that allow existing 32-bit applications which use the libraries to benefit without modification from those enhancements.
Perhaps you think you need a 64-bit Minesweeper on your PC? Too bad trying to run that won't work if you also need to use Office imaging tools or Windows Media Player or want your printer to work.
I think you're confused about the benefits of 64-bits. You are being emotionally argumentative but can't qualify your claims or quantify your problems. Maybe you need to chill out.
How many 3rd party commercial retail Mac OS X only 64-bit applications can I buy and use today?
You seen to have a lack of fundamental understanding about the real world, boots on the ground, of 64-bit applications running on the desktop today.
You need to come to grips with this fundamental fact today.
What Apple did in the past, or what Apple does in the future, is currently a moot point, with respect to what Apple's 3rd party developers have delivered to date, in the form of 64-bit GUI desktop applications.
Windows Vista 64-bit Today
There appears to be a shift taking place in the PC industry: the move from 32-bit to 64-bit PCs.
We've been tracking the change by looking at the percentage of 64-bit PCs connecting to Windows Update, and have seen a dramatic increase in recent months. The installed base of 64-bit Windows Vista PCs, as a percentage of all Windows Vista systems, has more than tripled in the U.S. in the last three months, while worldwide adoption has more than doubled during the same period. Another view shows that 20% of new Windows Vista PCs in the U.S. connecting to Windows Update in June were 64-bit PCs, up from just 3% in March. Put more simply, usage of 64-bit Windows Vista is growing much more rapidly than 32-bit. Based on current trends, this growth will accelerate as the retail channel shifts to supplying a rapidly increasing assortment of 64-bit desktops and laptops.
And please try to stop with the name calling. It weakens whatever it is you are trying to say.
This is coming from a Mac fan and let me say Apple does not have a 64-bit lead. Under my desk is a Mac Pro running 10.5.4 and a Home built PC running Vista 64. Both have 4GB ram and can fully utilize it.
I installed Vista 64 thinking it would be an experimental/enthusiast thing to do. But to my surprise this thing ran all my old 32-bit games and apps transparently and without issue.
MS have been keeping this one under their hat. Despite having a full 64-bit kernel it is actually ready for prime time/novice use and I predict will in fact be adopted more swiftly than we all expect.
I think what he's talking about is that while very few Windows users have taken up the 64 bit version, it's on all machines made for a couple of years, or so, from Apple.
I think what he's talking about is that while very few Windows users have taken up the 64 bit version, it's on all machines made for a couple of years, or so, from Apple.
The link I posted above suggests otherwise. As of July of this year 20% of new Vista instillations are 64-bit.
G4 (32-bit HW and 32-bit SW)
G5 (64-bit HW and no 64-bit 3rd party SW for the desktop)
Core Duo (32-bit HW and 32-bit SW)
Core 2 Duo (64-bit HW and no 64-bit 3rd party SW for the desktop)
Snow Leopard released a year or more from now with full 64-bit developers tools, full 64-bit OS, 3rd party Mac OS X only 64-bit applications trickle in at a snail's pace, IMHO.
Who had 64-bit hardware and when is a moot point, if the entire user base was stuck in an essentially 32-bit application world.
As we now know
Hopefully, by next year, Apple's improved market share will bring in a lot of additional 3rd party vendors selling shrink wrapped 64-bit applications.
Only time will tell.
The link I posted above suggests otherwise. As of July of this year 20% of new Vista instillations are 64-bit.
G4 (32-bit HW and 32-bit SW)
G5 (64-bit HW and no 64-bit 3rd party SW for the desktop)
Core Duo (32-bit HW and 32-bit SW)
Core 2 Duo (64-bit HW and no 64-bit 3rd party SW for the desktop)
Snow Leopard released a year or more from now with full 64-bit developers tools, full 64-bit OS, 3rd party Mac OS X only 64-bit applications trickle in at a snail's pace, IMHO.
Who had 64-bit hardware and when is a moot point, if the entire user base was stuck in an essentially 32-bit application world.
As we now know
Hopefully, by next year, Apple's improved market share will bring in a lot of additional 3rd party vendors selling shrink wrapped 64-bit applications.
Only time will tell.
I understand what you're saying, but the fact is still that all new Macs for some time have been 64 bit machines, running a 64 bit OS, and that's not true of Windows.
There are many scientific 64 bit apps on OS X, but you only count mainstream apps.
At any rate, it isn't really worth getting in a fizz about.
I can even configure what should be the Apple dream machine with 8 cores and 32GB of ram and a top of the line Nvidia Quadro FX 5600 graphics card and this type of machine gets passed over for an HP workstation running Redhat by a company like Autodesk. Imagine how much more seriously Apple would be taken as a 64bit platform if they made a deal with Autodesk to have the Discreet turnkey systems installed on Apple workstations running some version of OS X instead of HP machines running Redhat?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEC_Alpha
Neither Apple or Intel , AMD or IBM where the first bring out the 64 bit chip plus OS even though this product was a server or workstation , it was before it time , follow the link I provided. Please no more we came first crap !!! okay read some history before ya dribble rot !!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEC_Alpha
Most of us know thisalready. It's old news.
We aren't interested in OS's from mini computer manufacturers, or mainframe manufacturers, or supercomputer manufacturers.
We're only interested in OS's from personal computers, and small servers, for the purpose of this discussion.
If you want, I can post links about 128 bit, and higher, OS's from older manufacturers of highly parallel computers from the mid 80's.
But those are also irrelevant.
Most of us know thisalready. It's old news.
We aren't interested in OS's from mini computer manufacturers, or mainframe manufacturers, or supercomputer manufacturers.
We're only interested in OS's from personal computers, and small servers, for the purpose of this discussion.
If you want, I can post links about 128 bit, and higher, OS's from older manufacturers of highly parallel computers from the mid 80's.
But those are also irrelevant.
What the hell are you talking about? I ran WINNT 4.x and OSF/1 UNIX on DEC Alpha. The design still kicks ass.
The passive backplane and the 256bit memory bus on that motherboard was so far ahead of it's time that we're still catching up to it.
Hell, Nehalem's memory bus width is 64 bit or 8 bytes. Too bad they aren't at 256 bits or 32 bytes.
ANSYS and other Finite Element Analysis Programs loved it.
The passive backplane and the 256bit memory bus on that motherboard was so far ahead of it's time that we're still catching up to it.
Hell, Nehalem's memory bus width is 64 bit or 8 bytes. Too bad they aren't at 256 bits or 32 bytes.
What benefits would that have for personal computing today if they did offer that?
What the hell are you talking about? I ran WINNT 4.x and OSF/1 UNIX on DEC Alpha. The design still kicks ass.
The passive backplane and the 256bit memory bus on that motherboard was so far ahead of it's time that we're still catching up to it.
Hell, Nehalem's memory bus width is 64 bit or 8 bytes. Too bad they aren't at 256 bits or 32 bytes.
ANSYS and other Finite Element Analysis Programs loved it.
That's just "good old days" talking. Busses were wider then because they were so godawful slow, so they tried to hide glacial latency with 4-wide reads at a time. And all those extra traces cost a kings ransom.
Now you can take a 16-bit wide bus and outperform that 256 bit wide behemoth by an order of magnitude. Partly because the latency is a somewhat better, but mostly because clocking the busses is so much more precise that quad-pumping and higher frequencies push more data on fewer traces using fewer electrons.