Can someone please explain what really changed from a practical standpoint in the move from Core Duo to Core 2 Duo which allegedly has 64 bit support?
Both were dual-core, but the 32-bit to 64-bit was the main change. There are some other alterations you can read about at the links below, but the ability to address more RAM was the biggest one, even though it was really only a 3GB to 4GB increase in these notebooks . However, the first C2D chips still had a 32bit controller so they still couldn't address more than 3.3GB of RAM, of which Mac OS X would only address 3GB.
Secondly, would Apple be further along this path today if they went with AMD's architecture or is that inconsequential?
On the mobile side of things, not even close. Since Apple has about 50% of the retail notebook market in the US and also uses mobile chips in their iMac and Mac MIni lines the only benefit would have been in the Mac Pro or Xserve, and even the desktop performance side is debatable.
PS: The new Montebvina desktop chipsets from Intel could allow Apple to start using faster and cheaper desktop chips while reducing heat output, instead of chips designed for mobile applications. But will they go that route or try to make the iMac even slimmer and smaller?
2) Why are you here? (Curious, not judging as I do the same. Took a cruise last year and spent $400 on internet fees. I just get bored not researching something)
3) You can always disable images or use a text-based browser like Lynx (requires 10.5.1 or higher).
Hi solipsism
LOL, $400!! U R nuts too
Here as wife was off riding a horse. I will not do that until they have brakes. We are at our Lincoln, New Hampshire hideaway in the mountains. iPhone does work (Mk 1 too) we only have to hang off the balcony by the ankles to get a signal.
Re Ads; It's not the in page stuff, but a literal pop up that appears (it can take a while to load) and I have pop ups blocked on, and this behavior is limited to AppleInsider, very weird. Last time I mentioned it AI deleted my post.
OK, gotta go, the wife says I have to log off and go climb a mountain!
It's a technicality that makes little impact on most things right now, especially desktop users.
In a sense isn't that obvious because of the lack of userland programs. Given that even now people do make use of the current level of 64 bit support. That simply to accelerate thing by the use of more memory than 4GB. Often it is the number of apps you can keep working for you in memory that makes the difference. The ability of an app to address beyond 32bits doesn't come into play.
As an overview the article is well written! Unfortunately it really doesn't get into the really interesting parts of Snow Leopard. Hopefully Insider can work out something with Apple to start publishing info on the more interesting stuff coming.
Of course after tv 3G fiasco Apple might be tighter lipped than before with respect to coming tech.
Can you actually list those people/applications where it will have an impact now?
What would be the point? I mean you have already made up your mind that an OS that addresses more than 4GB is of no use to the average user. The first problem is what is the average user. The second problem is why do you think what is acceptably to you is OK for the "average user".
As mentioned previously it is the simple reality that more memory means more space for apps and data 32 bit or not. Even todays Photoshop users are taking advantage of the OS'es ability to address memory beyond 4GB. It is all in learning how to leverage your work space by keeping data and auxilirary apps in memory.
In any event the people who really need the memory will find a way to use it all. The difference with a full 64 bit OS is that those with modest needs or limited tech knowledge can benefit from that addressable memory without stress.
I'm going to have to correct your first chart. The Motorola 68000 was a 32-bit processor (you have 24-bit) that was limited to 24-bit address bus (which you got right). And the typical RAM limit by that generation of Mac was 4 MB. It wasn't able to address the full 16 MB range as I recall because of video, I/O, ROM (can't remember which, could have been all three) memory mapping by the original Mac started at the beginning of the 5MB address space (after all who would use more than 4 MB RAM anyway?!?).
Ironically, Apple has recently released 64bit Vista drivers for the Mac Pro, so Photoshop users who want to take advantage of 64bit Photoshop with CS4 and 4GB+ of RAM they can do so by using Windows in boot camp. So whilst this article argues the superior technical implementation of 64bit in OS X, the end user will see the exactly the opposite, Photoshop 64bit runs on Windows but not OS X. The fact that this is a result of Apple's own decision, is embarrassing for Apple.
I'm guessing that Apple does not revolve it's entire development schedule around the availability of Photoshop updates or lack there of.
Rather than embarrassing Apple, it's likely going to create an opportunity for anything close to a PhotoShop competitor to advertise against them.
If you think putting up with Vista is worth running PhotoShop in 64 instead of 32 mode, you're probably not in a majority. Who knows, maybe we finally found a good use for Vista. A way to get around Photoshops inability to keep up. So you need one extra piece of bad software to avoid running another outdated piece of software. Brillant.....
...Apple can add as much RAM as users can afford. Of course, if you're buying RAM from Apple, upgrading a Mac Pro to 32GB of RAM currently costs $9,100, so it might be some time before home users decide they need more than that much RAM.
However if you are not purchasing from Apple, insane amounts of RAM are well within the reach of mere mortals.
If you have a current Mac Pro you can buy a 32GB upgrade kit for about $2400
If you have an older MacPro that uses 667Mhz RAM you can buy a 32GB upgrade kit for ONLY $1700!
I am currently running with 9GB of RAM and will be adding another 8GB when prices fall again.
Photoshop's got a number of up-and-coming competitors now, and I expect that Pixelmator and others will have vastly improved toolsets AND will be 64-bit on the day Snow Leopard launches.
I'm going to have to correct your first chart. The Motorola 68000 was a 32-bit processor (you have 24-bit) that was limited to 24-bit address bus (which you got right). And the typical RAM limit by that generation of Mac was 4 MB. It wasn't able to address the full 16 MB range as I recall because of video, I/O, ROM (can't remember which, could have been all three) memory mapping by the original Mac started at the beginning of the 5MB address space (after all who would use more than 4 MB RAM anyway?!?).
A very good article, BTW.
I was going to correct that but really the 68000 was 16bit, not 32bit. It had a 16bit data bus externally just as the address bus was 24bit externally despite it being what we'd call a 32bit processor today internally and to code for, the exception often being Microsoft who would do stupid things like using the spare byte in the address instructions for other purposes.
I also don't want to be defending Microsoft here but they've had a 32bit version of Windows out since the late 1980s - Windows/386 v2.1 allowed 32bit addressing and had a 32bit kernel, and they were 64bit in the 90s but then DEC went pop before they released the Alpha 64bit version of NT.
The Windows bashing is tiresome and doesn't shed any light on what Apple are doing with Snow Leopard TODAY or how Apple will tackle the same 32bit/64bit problems that Microsoft have had to deal with. It's nice to have a bit of history in an article, if it's correct, but I can't help but feel at this point in Apple's timeline, what it did on the 68K or what Microsoft did in the 80s has no relevance.
Now I see why Apple is trying to pull all drivers in-house for everything from printers to other peripherals... it would be a serious pain to have to go find the corporate web site of every single device that's attached to my computer and download the 10.6 driver (assuming the company will provide one).
And no 64-bit Photoshop is probably going to mean a couple years of very sluggish Mac Pro sales and a stalling of some of Apple's corporate gains.
Apple's Mac Pro sales are no longer dependent upon Adobe. This has become clear during this past year.
Mac OS X 10.6 allows/affords Apple many more vertical markets thus breaking the dependency on Adobe/Macromedia/Microsoft.
As it happens that's all Apple's fault. First they say that we'll have 64 bit Carbon, so Adobe head of in that direction, then they say no 64 bit Carbon for you! Adobe is caught half way down the former track and needs to restart development.
I guess 64 bit PS means a lot if you've just dropped 64GB of memory in your MacPro and you actually want to use it (and you mostly use PS) but surely most people will not notice the performance penalty. Those graphic artists aren't that techie surely.
Not really. Developers have been told repeatedly that the future is Cocoa if it wasn't obvious already.
The problem seems to be more Adobe's insistence on using a cross platform UI library.
I was going to correct that but really the 68000 was 16bit, not 32bit.
Hello, Newman :P
Quote:
I also don't want to be defending Microsoft here but they've had a 32bit version of Windows out since the late 1980s - Windows/386 v2.1 allowed 32bit addressing and had a 32bit kernel, and they were 64bit in the 90s but then DEC went pop before they released the Alpha 64bit version of NT.
Unfortunately all that cross-platform NT HAL work was abandoned in Windows 2000, and the experience didn't help Microsoft in pushing 64-bit support (or EFI support, the company also had Windows working on Itanium/EFI) to the Windows plebes. They'll still be on 32-bit Windows through Win7 (2010 through 2014?), while Mac users were silently and effortlessly migrated to 64-bits last year as an encore to the iPhone.
Quote:
The Windows bashing is tiresome and doesn't shed any light on what Apple are doing with Snow Leopard TODAY or how Apple will tackle the same 32bit/64bit problems that Microsoft have had to deal with.
There is no "bashing" involved, just a simple comparison between platforms that does exactly what you say it doesn't above.
Quote:
It's nice to have a bit of history in an article, if it's correct, but I can't help but feel at this point in Apple's timeline, what it did on the 68K or what Microsoft did in the 80s has no relevance.
How ironic you'd say that after bringing up Alpha (which was mentioned in the article), work that hasn't had any beneficial impact on Microsoft's ability to ship 64-bit software without serious compromise. 68000 and the x86 were presented for context, not to praise Apple.
I think if I made you breakfast you'd complain about the coffee not being instant.
---
Here's some benchmarks that provide additional info on why Snow Leopard will be Intel only: the referenced site's benchmarks indicate 64-bit software runs only 90% as fast as 32-bit software on PPC G5, while 64-bit software on x64 Macs runs 105-107% as fast overall. Apple says Snow Leopard's move to 64-bit across the board will provide around 115% of the speed of a 32-bit build when running on 64-bit systems.
Here as wife was off riding a horse. I will not do that until they have brakes. We are at our Lincoln, New Hampshire hideaway in the mountains. iPhone does work (Mk 1 too) we only have to hang off the balcony by the ankles to get a signal.
Re Ads; It's not the in page stuff, but a literal pop up that appears (it can take a while to load) and I have pop ups blocked on, and this behavior is limited to AppleInsider, very weird. Last time I mentioned it AI deleted my post.
OK, gotta go, the wife says I have to log off and go climb a mountain!
New Hampshire has mountains? You mean geological pimples, don't you?
Amen to that. There still hasn't been any real confirmation that 10.6 will be intel only, just speculation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by merdhead
Can you actually list those people/applications where it will have an impact now?
Logic Audio. Big sample libraries are multi gig these days. I'd kill for a 64 bit version of the app, there have been 64 bit audio apps on the windows side for a couple years now, and us mac users are left out in the cold (Logic maxes out about 2.8 gigs of memory) while they can load up as much ram as they can afford to buy.
And isn't photoshop one where it could make a difference?
Sadly, right now Apple IS lagging behind windows in terms of 64 bit apps that are available. Of course it would be great to see APPLE release one of their own apps as 64 bit, but they seem to find doing it as difficult as everyone else.
Vista may actually push 64-bit though, as it has a true 64-bit kernel, 64-bit drivers, and a few 64-bit apps, as more and more new PCs are coming with 4 GB of RAM and hence Vista x64.
I like how Apple is going to handle 64-bit better than Windows in most respects, but Apple is still playing with a 32-bit kernel and PAE at the moment.
Comments
Can someone please explain what really changed from a practical standpoint in the move from Core Duo to Core 2 Duo which allegedly has 64 bit support?
Both were dual-core, but the 32-bit to 64-bit was the main change. There are some other alterations you can read about at the links below, but the ability to address more RAM was the biggest one, even though it was really only a 3GB to 4GB increase in these notebooks . However, the first C2D chips still had a 32bit controller so they still couldn't address more than 3.3GB of RAM, of which Mac OS X would only address 3GB.
Secondly, would Apple be further along this path today if they went with AMD's architecture or is that inconsequential?
On the mobile side of things, not even close. Since Apple has about 50% of the retail notebook market in the US and also uses mobile chips in their iMac and Mac MIni lines the only benefit would have been in the Mac Pro or Xserve, and even the desktop performance side is debatable.
PS: The new Montebvina desktop chipsets from Intel could allow Apple to start using faster and cheaper desktop chips while reducing heat output, instead of chips designed for mobile applications. But will they go that route or try to make the iMac even slimmer and smaller?
I believe there is a 12-step program for computer addiction
I've been looking for one, but none of them offer online classes.
1) Where on vacation are you?
2) Why are you here? (Curious, not judging as I do the same. Took a cruise last year and spent $400 on internet fees. I just get bored not researching something)
3) You can always disable images or use a text-based browser like Lynx (requires 10.5.1 or higher).
Hi solipsism
LOL, $400!! U R nuts too
Here as wife was off riding a horse. I will not do that until they have brakes. We are at our Lincoln, New Hampshire hideaway in the mountains. iPhone does work (Mk 1 too) we only have to hang off the balcony by the ankles to get a signal.
Re Ads; It's not the in page stuff, but a literal pop up that appears (it can take a while to load) and I have pop ups blocked on, and this behavior is limited to AppleInsider, very weird. Last time I mentioned it AI deleted my post.
OK, gotta go, the wife says I have to log off and go climb a mountain!
It's a technicality that makes little impact on most things right now, especially desktop users.
In a sense isn't that obvious because of the lack of userland programs. Given that even now people do make use of the current level of 64 bit support. That simply to accelerate thing by the use of more memory than 4GB. Often it is the number of apps you can keep working for you in memory that makes the difference. The ability of an app to address beyond 32bits doesn't come into play.
As an overview the article is well written! Unfortunately it really doesn't get into the really interesting parts of Snow Leopard. Hopefully Insider can work out something with Apple to start publishing info on the more interesting stuff coming.
Of course after tv 3G fiasco Apple might be tighter lipped than before with respect to coming tech.
Dave
we only have to hang off the balcony by the ankles to get a signal.
I think Melgross is doing the same for 3G... and he is in NYC.
Can you actually list those people/applications where it will have an impact now?
What would be the point? I mean you have already made up your mind that an OS that addresses more than 4GB is of no use to the average user. The first problem is what is the average user. The second problem is why do you think what is acceptably to you is OK for the "average user".
As mentioned previously it is the simple reality that more memory means more space for apps and data 32 bit or not. Even todays Photoshop users are taking advantage of the OS'es ability to address memory beyond 4GB. It is all in learning how to leverage your work space by keeping data and auxilirary apps in memory.
In any event the people who really need the memory will find a way to use it all. The difference with a full 64 bit OS is that those with modest needs or limited tech knowledge can benefit from that addressable memory without stress.
Dave
A very good article, BTW.
Ironically, Apple has recently released 64bit Vista drivers for the Mac Pro, so Photoshop users who want to take advantage of 64bit Photoshop with CS4 and 4GB+ of RAM they can do so by using Windows in boot camp. So whilst this article argues the superior technical implementation of 64bit in OS X, the end user will see the exactly the opposite, Photoshop 64bit runs on Windows but not OS X. The fact that this is a result of Apple's own decision, is embarrassing for Apple.
I'm guessing that Apple does not revolve it's entire development schedule around the availability of Photoshop updates or lack there of.
Rather than embarrassing Apple, it's likely going to create an opportunity for anything close to a PhotoShop competitor to advertise against them.
If you think putting up with Vista is worth running PhotoShop in 64 instead of 32 mode, you're probably not in a majority. Who knows, maybe we finally found a good use for Vista. A way to get around Photoshops inability to keep up. So you need one extra piece of bad software to avoid running another outdated piece of software. Brillant.....
...Apple can add as much RAM as users can afford. Of course, if you're buying RAM from Apple, upgrading a Mac Pro to 32GB of RAM currently costs $9,100, so it might be some time before home users decide they need more than that much RAM.
However if you are not purchasing from Apple, insane amounts of RAM are well within the reach of mere mortals.
If you have a current Mac Pro you can buy a 32GB upgrade kit for about $2400
If you have an older MacPro that uses 667Mhz RAM you can buy a 32GB upgrade kit for ONLY $1700!
I am currently running with 9GB of RAM and will be adding another 8GB when prices fall again.
I'm going to have to correct your first chart. The Motorola 68000 was a 32-bit processor (you have 24-bit) that was limited to 24-bit address bus (which you got right). And the typical RAM limit by that generation of Mac was 4 MB. It wasn't able to address the full 16 MB range as I recall because of video, I/O, ROM (can't remember which, could have been all three) memory mapping by the original Mac started at the beginning of the 5MB address space (after all who would use more than 4 MB RAM anyway?!?).
A very good article, BTW.
I was going to correct that but really the 68000 was 16bit, not 32bit. It had a 16bit data bus externally just as the address bus was 24bit externally despite it being what we'd call a 32bit processor today internally and to code for, the exception often being Microsoft who would do stupid things like using the spare byte in the address instructions for other purposes.
I also don't want to be defending Microsoft here but they've had a 32bit version of Windows out since the late 1980s - Windows/386 v2.1 allowed 32bit addressing and had a 32bit kernel, and they were 64bit in the 90s but then DEC went pop before they released the Alpha 64bit version of NT.
The Windows bashing is tiresome and doesn't shed any light on what Apple are doing with Snow Leopard TODAY or how Apple will tackle the same 32bit/64bit problems that Microsoft have had to deal with. It's nice to have a bit of history in an article, if it's correct, but I can't help but feel at this point in Apple's timeline, what it did on the 68K or what Microsoft did in the 80s has no relevance.
Now I see why Apple is trying to pull all drivers in-house for everything from printers to other peripherals... it would be a serious pain to have to go find the corporate web site of every single device that's attached to my computer and download the 10.6 driver (assuming the company will provide one).
And no 64-bit Photoshop is probably going to mean a couple years of very sluggish Mac Pro sales and a stalling of some of Apple's corporate gains.
Apple's Mac Pro sales are no longer dependent upon Adobe. This has become clear during this past year.
Mac OS X 10.6 allows/affords Apple many more vertical markets thus breaking the dependency on Adobe/Macromedia/Microsoft.
As it happens that's all Apple's fault. First they say that we'll have 64 bit Carbon, so Adobe head of in that direction, then they say no 64 bit Carbon for you! Adobe is caught half way down the former track and needs to restart development.
I guess 64 bit PS means a lot if you've just dropped 64GB of memory in your MacPro and you actually want to use it (and you mostly use PS) but surely most people will not notice the performance penalty. Those graphic artists aren't that techie surely.
Not really. Developers have been told repeatedly that the future is Cocoa if it wasn't obvious already.
The problem seems to be more Adobe's insistence on using a cross platform UI library.
I believe there is a 12-step program for computer addiction
Actually, they've just upgraded this to a 64-bit 12-step program.....you get through it much faster now!
I was going to correct that but really the 68000 was 16bit, not 32bit.
Hello, Newman :P
I also don't want to be defending Microsoft here but they've had a 32bit version of Windows out since the late 1980s - Windows/386 v2.1 allowed 32bit addressing and had a 32bit kernel, and they were 64bit in the 90s but then DEC went pop before they released the Alpha 64bit version of NT.
Unfortunately all that cross-platform NT HAL work was abandoned in Windows 2000, and the experience didn't help Microsoft in pushing 64-bit support (or EFI support, the company also had Windows working on Itanium/EFI) to the Windows plebes. They'll still be on 32-bit Windows through Win7 (2010 through 2014?), while Mac users were silently and effortlessly migrated to 64-bits last year as an encore to the iPhone.
The Windows bashing is tiresome and doesn't shed any light on what Apple are doing with Snow Leopard TODAY or how Apple will tackle the same 32bit/64bit problems that Microsoft have had to deal with.
There is no "bashing" involved, just a simple comparison between platforms that does exactly what you say it doesn't above.
It's nice to have a bit of history in an article, if it's correct, but I can't help but feel at this point in Apple's timeline, what it did on the 68K or what Microsoft did in the 80s has no relevance.
How ironic you'd say that after bringing up Alpha (which was mentioned in the article), work that hasn't had any beneficial impact on Microsoft's ability to ship 64-bit software without serious compromise. 68000 and the x86 were presented for context, not to praise Apple.
I think if I made you breakfast you'd complain about the coffee not being instant.
---
Here's some benchmarks that provide additional info on why Snow Leopard will be Intel only: the referenced site's benchmarks indicate 64-bit software runs only 90% as fast as 32-bit software on PPC G5, while 64-bit software on x64 Macs runs 105-107% as fast overall. Apple says Snow Leopard's move to 64-bit across the board will provide around 115% of the speed of a 32-bit build when running on 64-bit systems.
http://www.geekpatrol.ca/2006/09/32-...t-performance/
Hi solipsism
LOL, $400!! U R nuts too
Here as wife was off riding a horse. I will not do that until they have brakes. We are at our Lincoln, New Hampshire hideaway in the mountains. iPhone does work (Mk 1 too) we only have to hang off the balcony by the ankles to get a signal.
Re Ads; It's not the in page stuff, but a literal pop up that appears (it can take a while to load) and I have pop ups blocked on, and this behavior is limited to AppleInsider, very weird. Last time I mentioned it AI deleted my post.
OK, gotta go, the wife says I have to log off and go climb a mountain!
New Hampshire has mountains? You mean geological pimples, don't you?
Well, we have got some bold statement here.
Amen to that. There still hasn't been any real confirmation that 10.6 will be intel only, just speculation.
Can you actually list those people/applications where it will have an impact now?
Logic Audio. Big sample libraries are multi gig these days. I'd kill for a 64 bit version of the app, there have been 64 bit audio apps on the windows side for a couple years now, and us mac users are left out in the cold (Logic maxes out about 2.8 gigs of memory) while they can load up as much ram as they can afford to buy.
And isn't photoshop one where it could make a difference?
Sadly, right now Apple IS lagging behind windows in terms of 64 bit apps that are available. Of course it would be great to see APPLE release one of their own apps as 64 bit, but they seem to find doing it as difficult as everyone else.
I like how Apple is going to handle 64-bit better than Windows in most respects, but Apple is still playing with a 32-bit kernel and PAE at the moment.