A 64 bit operating system provides a wider "bandwidth" of information, in other words, it can process twice as much information as the older 32 bit OSes could, making it (and apps optimized for 64 bit) much faster. It can also address up to (I think) 32 gigs of RAM.
The reason why 64 bit apps run faster (some of the time) is because they rely on optimizations more tuned to modern processors, not because they are 64 bit. If the optimizations were taken out of the picture, 64 bit processing is, by definition, inherently slower for most tasks. Its just that in the real world, the 64 bit transition is happening at the same time as the other optimizations.
In other words, the bitness of the OS is irrelevant to the vast vast majority of users. "64" is a number and numbers are easy to comprehend. Yet the bitness has almost nothing to do with the average Joe's computing experience. It may be easy to latch onto "64 bits" as the major improvement, but in the end I think it just gives people a false sense of comprehension.
I'm just happy that an upgrade of Mac OS is coming out and it's only $29! As a Windows user I'm also excited for Windows 7 to come out. Wins for both Mac and Windows users. I don't really care which one has more users, just glad they are both better.
Sounds like silly BS speak to me. What is a launch window? To me, that implies that it is offered for sale, and later retracted from the market.
He's talking about 3rd quarter revenues (actually Apple's 4th quarter as they define it).
The launch window is from the release date (Aug. 28) to the end of the quarter (Sept. 30). That's the window in which Snow Leopard revenues will be counted in the quarter, and will be shown in Apple's next report.
If you have an Intel Mac, then your machine will run faster than it does now. If you have a 64-bit Intel machine, it will run even faster than that. If you have a 64-bit machine with a capable graphics card, then certain applications will run significantly faster than they would already.
SL is a lot like replacing the (already pretty good) stock parts of a vehicle with higher-performance parts. Except that you have to spend almost no money to do it. Under the hood there's a lot of changes that are future oriented, but to you right now that doesn't really matter so much. What matters is that you can get a faster Mac for little money.
I'm just happy that an upgrade of Mac OS is coming out and it's only $29! As a Windows user I'm also excited for Windows 7 to come out. Wins for both Mac and Windows users. I don't really care which one has more users, just glad they are both better.
Hear hear!
Maybe I'm just getting old, but MS Windows doesn't play any role in my anticipation of OS 10.6. The new OS is enticing because of what it can do, not because of better bragging rights or some other nonsense.
You have this totally wrong: Win 7 will become pervasive in the installed base of PCs and will reduce the Apple converts, as well.. I have Win 7 installed on a 4 year old, 1 GB sony Vaio and it works great. It is stable, fast and the install went VERY smoothly. I use Win 7/64 on my MBP for business reasons (MS Visio and MS Project) and it a terrific OS. Is it as good as OSX 10.5.8 or 10.6? No, but MS has significantly closed the gap with Win 7. Apple HAD to release Snore(sic) Leopard now to avoid the coming Tsunami. Corporate America has been waiting for 4 years for Win 7, a stable fast version of Vista, and it has arrived. There will be a mass adoption at the corporate level as well.
i don't think you've been paying attention. corporate america is going to do the same thing it always does when it comes to windows upgrades. wait and see...
they are certainly not excited about it. yes, it will become pervasive. i'm guessing it will take 5 years until it is, due to hardware upgrades that come with win7. the corporate world is not going to line up for upgrade packs on launch day.
os upgrades from xp will disrupt productivity, staff will have to be retrained, it departments are going to fight it for a while, and people generally resist change in the workplace.
there is really nothing in win7 that the corporate world is clamouring for. why would they all jump on it? they have their workflow in place and after 10 years, they have xp figured out.
But, on behalf of us lay folks, can someone explain what is so hot about 10.6 (other than setting up for future HW/SW developments, smaller footprint, and a few eye-candy enhancements)? I am not saying improvements are not welcome, but I am just failing to see the great leap forward.......
I'm honestly not sure what you are looking for. Is a new OS only worth it if it looks completely different? The changes they have made offer the potential for huge performance gains in the near future. To ignore the significance of the under the hood changes because OSX didn't get more pretty is very short sighted. Apple priced it at $29 so that even people viewing this as a minor update would upgrade and thus benefit from the performance gains in the future. I suspect "meh" will turn to "wow" as programs are written to support grand central and openCL.
"The release of Snow Leopard is not about new features; rather, it is about keeping Mac users up to date with the latest technology vs. Windows XP and Vista users on antiquated technology in our opinion," the note reads.
Umm, all the OSes run on Intel chips and it's the Wintel market , if we're honest enough to admit it, that drives the hardware market. This statement is somewhat nonsensical.
Finally stopped lurking after not being able to resist this piece of "junk reporting"
The reason why 64 bit apps run faster (some of the time) is because they rely on optimizations more tuned to modern processors, not because they are 64 bit. If the optimizations were taken out of the picture, 64 bit processing is, by definition, inherently slower for most tasks. Its just that in the real world, the 64 bit transition is happening at the same time as the other optimizations.
In other words, the bitness of the OS is irrelevant to the vast vast majority of users. "64" is a number and numbers are easy to comprehend. Yet the bitness has almost nothing to do with the average Joe's computing experience. It may be easy to latch onto "64 bits" as the major improvement, but in the end I think it just gives people a false sense of comprehension.
...and since Snow Leopard will provide those optimizations, your nitpicking is less than useless.
Pretty much everything is faster, based on the fact that most of the internal apps are 64-bit now. No real stats, but I would say that my machine is about 30% faster overall, and I rarely get the beach ball.
Didn't have any sync issues prior, so no idea on that one.
My computer has yet to morph into a cool talking robot, though. That would probably cost more.
actually 16TB, but we have to wait until that happens hard ware wise
Well, 32 gigs is all Apple is claiming on current hardware, so that's why I cited that number. but you are right, future Macs should be amazing - IF we can afford the RAM to equip them with!
Is this worth my money if I am just a regular user that doesn't even take full capacity of my existing system? Microsoft 'gives' you Service Pacs for 'free', and Apple gives you Leopard updates for 'free'. Regardless of whether you like MS or not, practically speaking, the mac regular home user may not even benefit huge amounts, but may purchase this for bragging / gloating rights rather than performance. My mac is already much more stable and less error prone than any Win system out there, so is it really that much longer to wait until the next cat to be released in '11?
Yes, I know it's only $29, and it's sure cheaper than getting new hardware, and I'd probably get it too, but I'm just asking..
The fact is that no matter how good Windows 7 happens to be, the adoption will be very slow in coming. Snow Leopard, on the other hand, will hit the ground running.
Very true.
I work for a large Federal Agency, and we are still running XP, and probably will for the foreseeable future. We are not really anticipating Win7, according to our engineering team, and even if it were the cat's meow (pun intended!) we wouldn't move to it for several years while we prepared legacy apps to either work with it or get replaced.
This is the NORM for the Enterprise - there will be NO tsunami - somebody's drinking the M$ kool-aid! It will eventually replace the older versions, but unless M$ forces the issue through stopping the sales of OEM copies of XP or Vista, it will take years.
Is this worth my money if I am just a regular user that doesn't even take full capacity of my existing system? Microsoft 'gives' you Service Pacs for 'free', and Apple gives you Leopard updates for 'free'. Regardless of whether you like MS or not, practically speaking, the mac regular home user may not even benefit huge amounts, but may purchase this for bragging / gloating rights rather than performance. My mac is already much more stable and less error prone than any Win system out there, so is it really that much longer to wait until the next cat to be released in '11?
Yes, I know it's only $29, and it's sure cheaper than getting new hardware, and I'd probably get it too, but I'm just asking..
Maybe they will bundle this with iLife '10?
It's currently bundled with iLife 09.
If the testers already using it are right in their assessments of SL's speed improvements - and I have no reason not to believe them - this should be well worth it.
I have a Core Duo MacBook, which is NOT 64 bit, and I will buy it, as many of the improvements, especially the multi-thread enhancements, will still work with my two cores and should speed things up. Many of the other improvements are not dependent upon the 64 bit-ness of the OS, and should make things sail along nicely.
Hell, just the smaller size and tighter code should make it run faster, as there will be less code for the machine to process.
...and since Snow Leopard will provide those optimizations, your nitpicking is less than useless.
I see you took the clarification personally. Did you notice I didn't attribute the quote to anyone so as to not personalize the nitpick?
In my opinion, if people are going to figure bitness into their understanding of computers, we should at least try to help them understand what is going on. The programs that most people use aren't getting faster because they're 64 bit, but rather because those programs are using better optimized code, which simply happens to be 64 bits.
Because we all love car analogies...
Let's say all the 2011 Lamborghinis are blue and use an improved gear box to achieve a higher top speed. True, all the blue Lambos go faster in this scenario. But color isn't the reason even though color can be used to easily determine which will go faster.
This is what's going on with the bitness of computers. 64 bit software performs better, but normally not because of the bitness. In fact, it would be more accurate to say it performs better _despite_ the overhead imposed by 64 bits. Granted, there is plenty of software that does benefit from higher precision and access to more than 4GB per process.
The distinction, even if properly acknowledged when discussing the subject, will probably go unnoticed by most. But for those of us that do have a grasp of the subject matter, I consider it worthwhile to insert an extra few words into each paragraph when talking about bitness so as to not perpetuate misunderstandings among those who are marginally able to comprehend.
1) Safari is much faster...using sunspider test, I found it to be faster than anything else out there...
2) Bootup time much faster, but more importantly to me, sleep, shut down and wake up are much faster!
3) Beach ball appearances have gone down for me, much less VM paging, but a lot of times the beach ball is for Flash, or plug-ins that don't work properly.
4) Not much of an improvement there, my time machine back-ups appear to go faster though...
Apple priced it at $29 so that even people viewing this as a minor update would upgrade .....
Careful with your casual assumptions. While I have OS10.5 on three of my Macs, two other machines at home are till running Tiger. The upgrade cost for that is not $29; it's a lot more than that.
Speaking for myself, from what I've seen and read so far, I'll probably wait until the inevitable initial bugs are sorted out, and a couple of versions go by. Say, until it gets to 10.6.2.
I see you took the clarification personally. Did you notice I didn't attribute the quote to anyone so as to not personalize the nitpick?
In my opinion, if people are going to figure bitness into their understanding of computers, we should at least try to help them understand what is going on. The programs that most people use aren't getting faster because they're 64 bit, but rather because those programs are using better optimized code, which simply happens to be 64 bits.
And Apple went to 64 bit, not because of that "bit-ness", but because it allows them to use those optimizations, and address larger amounts of memory, both of which are improving the responsiveness and speed of the computers it is installed on. They are delivering a complete product, and that required them to see that it DID deliver the speed and usefulness, and not just pure 64 bit computing. The optimizations to make it work are part and parcel of the package.
Most people don't care about what is under the hood, they just care about the results; I was responding to a question, and didn't want to muddy the waters with details. The questioner wanted to know why a 64 bit version of the OS made a difference, and I gave a short answer that also linked him/her to the Apple page in question so he could go find out more.
Sorry if my simple explanation offended your sense of proper under the hood correctness, but I don't think most people would have either understood or cared for the details.
Comments
A 64 bit operating system provides a wider "bandwidth" of information, in other words, it can process twice as much information as the older 32 bit OSes could, making it (and apps optimized for 64 bit) much faster. It can also address up to (I think) 32 gigs of RAM.
The reason why 64 bit apps run faster (some of the time) is because they rely on optimizations more tuned to modern processors, not because they are 64 bit. If the optimizations were taken out of the picture, 64 bit processing is, by definition, inherently slower for most tasks. Its just that in the real world, the 64 bit transition is happening at the same time as the other optimizations.
In other words, the bitness of the OS is irrelevant to the vast vast majority of users. "64" is a number and numbers are easy to comprehend. Yet the bitness has almost nothing to do with the average Joe's computing experience. It may be easy to latch onto "64 bits" as the major improvement, but in the end I think it just gives people a false sense of comprehension.
" antiquated technology in our opinion"
how is this guy qualified to state that ?
Windows 7 has TRIM , OpenGL 3.0 , full on 64 bit kernel on any 64 bit machine , something mac does not have nor will have for couple years.
Sounds like silly BS speak to me. What is a launch window? To me, that implies that it is offered for sale, and later retracted from the market.
He's talking about 3rd quarter revenues (actually Apple's 4th quarter as they define it).
The launch window is from the release date (Aug. 28) to the end of the quarter (Sept. 30). That's the window in which Snow Leopard revenues will be counted in the quarter, and will be shown in Apple's next report.
If you have an Intel Mac, then your machine will run faster than it does now. If you have a 64-bit Intel machine, it will run even faster than that. If you have a 64-bit machine with a capable graphics card, then certain applications will run significantly faster than they would already.
SL is a lot like replacing the (already pretty good) stock parts of a vehicle with higher-performance parts. Except that you have to spend almost no money to do it. Under the hood there's a lot of changes that are future oriented, but to you right now that doesn't really matter so much. What matters is that you can get a faster Mac for little money.
I'm just happy that an upgrade of Mac OS is coming out and it's only $29! As a Windows user I'm also excited for Windows 7 to come out. Wins for both Mac and Windows users. I don't really care which one has more users, just glad they are both better.
Hear hear!
Maybe I'm just getting old, but MS Windows doesn't play any role in my anticipation of OS 10.6. The new OS is enticing because of what it can do, not because of better bragging rights or some other nonsense.
You have this totally wrong: Win 7 will become pervasive in the installed base of PCs and will reduce the Apple converts, as well.. I have Win 7 installed on a 4 year old, 1 GB sony Vaio and it works great. It is stable, fast and the install went VERY smoothly. I use Win 7/64 on my MBP for business reasons (MS Visio and MS Project) and it a terrific OS. Is it as good as OSX 10.5.8 or 10.6? No, but MS has significantly closed the gap with Win 7. Apple HAD to release Snore(sic) Leopard now to avoid the coming Tsunami. Corporate America has been waiting for 4 years for Win 7, a stable fast version of Vista, and it has arrived. There will be a mass adoption at the corporate level as well.
i don't think you've been paying attention. corporate america is going to do the same thing it always does when it comes to windows upgrades. wait and see...
they are certainly not excited about it. yes, it will become pervasive. i'm guessing it will take 5 years until it is, due to hardware upgrades that come with win7. the corporate world is not going to line up for upgrade packs on launch day.
os upgrades from xp will disrupt productivity, staff will have to be retrained, it departments are going to fight it for a while, and people generally resist change in the workplace.
there is really nothing in win7 that the corporate world is clamouring for. why would they all jump on it? they have their workflow in place and after 10 years, they have xp figured out.
OK..... this will ruffle a few feathers.
But, on behalf of us lay folks, can someone explain what is so hot about 10.6 (other than setting up for future HW/SW developments, smaller footprint, and a few eye-candy enhancements)? I am not saying improvements are not welcome, but I am just failing to see the great leap forward.......
I'm honestly not sure what you are looking for. Is a new OS only worth it if it looks completely different? The changes they have made offer the potential for huge performance gains in the near future. To ignore the significance of the under the hood changes because OSX didn't get more pretty is very short sighted. Apple priced it at $29 so that even people viewing this as a minor update would upgrade and thus benefit from the performance gains in the future. I suspect "meh" will turn to "wow" as programs are written to support grand central and openCL.
Umm, all the OSes run on Intel chips and it's the Wintel market , if we're honest enough to admit it, that drives the hardware market. This statement is somewhat nonsensical.
Finally stopped lurking after not being able to resist this piece of "junk reporting"
. It can also address up to (I think) 32 gigs of RAM.
actually 16TB, but we have to wait until that happens hard ware wise
The reason why 64 bit apps run faster (some of the time) is because they rely on optimizations more tuned to modern processors, not because they are 64 bit. If the optimizations were taken out of the picture, 64 bit processing is, by definition, inherently slower for most tasks. Its just that in the real world, the 64 bit transition is happening at the same time as the other optimizations.
In other words, the bitness of the OS is irrelevant to the vast vast majority of users. "64" is a number and numbers are easy to comprehend. Yet the bitness has almost nothing to do with the average Joe's computing experience. It may be easy to latch onto "64 bits" as the major improvement, but in the end I think it just gives people a false sense of comprehension.
...and since Snow Leopard will provide those optimizations, your nitpicking is less than useless.
And it it really worth the upgrade?
is safari faster?
Bootup time, is it faster?
does your pc Think a lot(rainbow cirlce)
is iphone and moblie me synching better?
Please reply
Thanks :-)
Pretty much everything is faster, based on the fact that most of the internal apps are 64-bit now. No real stats, but I would say that my machine is about 30% faster overall, and I rarely get the beach ball.
Didn't have any sync issues prior, so no idea on that one.
My computer has yet to morph into a cool talking robot, though. That would probably cost more.
actually 16TB, but we have to wait until that happens hard ware wise
Well, 32 gigs is all Apple is claiming on current hardware, so that's why I cited that number. but you are right, future Macs should be amazing - IF we can afford the RAM to equip them with!
Yes, I know it's only $29, and it's sure cheaper than getting new hardware, and I'd probably get it too, but I'm just asking..
Maybe they will bundle this with iLife '10?
The fact is that no matter how good Windows 7 happens to be, the adoption will be very slow in coming. Snow Leopard, on the other hand, will hit the ground running.
Very true.
I work for a large Federal Agency, and we are still running XP, and probably will for the foreseeable future. We are not really anticipating Win7, according to our engineering team, and even if it were the cat's meow (pun intended!) we wouldn't move to it for several years while we prepared legacy apps to either work with it or get replaced.
This is the NORM for the Enterprise - there will be NO tsunami - somebody's drinking the M$ kool-aid! It will eventually replace the older versions, but unless M$ forces the issue through stopping the sales of OEM copies of XP or Vista, it will take years.
Is this worth my money if I am just a regular user that doesn't even take full capacity of my existing system? Microsoft 'gives' you Service Pacs for 'free', and Apple gives you Leopard updates for 'free'. Regardless of whether you like MS or not, practically speaking, the mac regular home user may not even benefit huge amounts, but may purchase this for bragging / gloating rights rather than performance. My mac is already much more stable and less error prone than any Win system out there, so is it really that much longer to wait until the next cat to be released in '11?
Yes, I know it's only $29, and it's sure cheaper than getting new hardware, and I'd probably get it too, but I'm just asking..
Maybe they will bundle this with iLife '10?
It's currently bundled with iLife 09.
If the testers already using it are right in their assessments of SL's speed improvements - and I have no reason not to believe them - this should be well worth it.
I have a Core Duo MacBook, which is NOT 64 bit, and I will buy it, as many of the improvements, especially the multi-thread enhancements, will still work with my two cores and should speed things up. Many of the other improvements are not dependent upon the 64 bit-ness of the OS, and should make things sail along nicely.
Hell, just the smaller size and tighter code should make it run faster, as there will be less code for the machine to process.
...and since Snow Leopard will provide those optimizations, your nitpicking is less than useless.
I see you took the clarification personally. Did you notice I didn't attribute the quote to anyone so as to not personalize the nitpick?
In my opinion, if people are going to figure bitness into their understanding of computers, we should at least try to help them understand what is going on. The programs that most people use aren't getting faster because they're 64 bit, but rather because those programs are using better optimized code, which simply happens to be 64 bits.
Because we all love car analogies...
Let's say all the 2011 Lamborghinis are blue and use an improved gear box to achieve a higher top speed. True, all the blue Lambos go faster in this scenario. But color isn't the reason even though color can be used to easily determine which will go faster.
This is what's going on with the bitness of computers. 64 bit software performs better, but normally not because of the bitness. In fact, it would be more accurate to say it performs better _despite_ the overhead imposed by 64 bits. Granted, there is plenty of software that does benefit from higher precision and access to more than 4GB per process.
The distinction, even if properly acknowledged when discussing the subject, will probably go unnoticed by most. But for those of us that do have a grasp of the subject matter, I consider it worthwhile to insert an extra few words into each paragraph when talking about bitness so as to not perpetuate misunderstandings among those who are marginally able to comprehend.
And it it really worth the upgrade?
is safari faster?
Bootup time, is it faster?
does your pc Think a lot(rainbow circle).
is iphone and moblie me synching better?e
Please reply
Thanks :-)
1) Safari is much faster...using sunspider test, I found it to be faster than anything else out there...
2) Bootup time much faster, but more importantly to me, sleep, shut down and wake up are much faster!
3) Beach ball appearances have gone down for me, much less VM paging, but a lot of times the beach ball is for Flash, or plug-ins that don't work properly.
4) Not much of an improvement there, my time machine back-ups appear to go faster though...
R
Apple priced it at $29 so that even people viewing this as a minor update would upgrade .....
Careful with your casual assumptions. While I have OS10.5 on three of my Macs, two other machines at home are till running Tiger. The upgrade cost for that is not $29; it's a lot more than that.
Speaking for myself, from what I've seen and read so far, I'll probably wait until the inevitable initial bugs are sorted out, and a couple of versions go by. Say, until it gets to 10.6.2.
I see you took the clarification personally. Did you notice I didn't attribute the quote to anyone so as to not personalize the nitpick?
In my opinion, if people are going to figure bitness into their understanding of computers, we should at least try to help them understand what is going on. The programs that most people use aren't getting faster because they're 64 bit, but rather because those programs are using better optimized code, which simply happens to be 64 bits.
And Apple went to 64 bit, not because of that "bit-ness", but because it allows them to use those optimizations, and address larger amounts of memory, both of which are improving the responsiveness and speed of the computers it is installed on. They are delivering a complete product, and that required them to see that it DID deliver the speed and usefulness, and not just pure 64 bit computing. The optimizations to make it work are part and parcel of the package.
Most people don't care about what is under the hood, they just care about the results; I was responding to a question, and didn't want to muddy the waters with details. The questioner wanted to know why a 64 bit version of the OS made a difference, and I gave a short answer that also linked him/her to the Apple page in question so he could go find out more.
Sorry if my simple explanation offended your sense of proper under the hood correctness, but I don't think most people would have either understood or cared for the details.