GDC was created because multicore coding is extremely difficult, not in spite of it. It?s only been a few months that Apple stated that all GDC work has been complete at this stage so that 3rd-party developers can finally work on it without a looming change to the structure. GDC is so very fresh so give it some time to get worked in. The apps that will need it are the slow to be updated anyway, but how is it you know that nothing in Snow Leopard is utilizing it out of the box?
i dont really care if Mail or Dashboard utilize GDC. I care about ( or used to ) about Pro apps , Final Cut studio apps , Maxon apps , Adobe apps etc etc. So far not even simple syntetic demo has ben shown how good GDC really is. And coding it is nothing easy , easier yes , worth it ? For mac only apps yes , for multiplatform apps i doubt it. Will see.
BS, all 8-core Mac Pros will be able to run in 64-bit mode with a 64-bit kernel under Snow Leopard, I've seen Apple knowledge base articles saying as much. If you had an original quad core Mac Pro, then you're out of luck with a 32-bit kernel, supposedly software can run in 64-bit mode though.
How much RAM do you get to use in OS X in Leopard? Or are you blustering here? OS X in 32 bit mode can already access more than 4GB using PAE, this has been true since 10.4. I have not been able to get 32 bit Windows to do the same. My Mac Pro runs Tiger and Leopard in 32 bit mode, and both can access the whole 10GB of RAM that I have.
Another uninformed. Late 2007 Mac pro 8 core does not boot into 64 bit kernel no matter what you do.
I get to use all 16gb ram in after effects.
Like i said dont ask me why ... ask why NOT ? If such a 'crappy , old and useless' Windows can run 64bit kernel on my mac how come best operating system in the world cant ? There's absolutely no reason other than not giving shit about less than 2 year old hardware.
If such a 'crappy , old and useless' Windows can run 64bit kernel on my mac how come best operating system in the world cant ? There's absolutely no reason other than not giving shit about less than 2 year old hardware.
Your inability to understand why Apple has limited the optional booting into a 64-bit kernel does not mean that the limitation is not warranted. You are adhering to a concept that 64-bit is better for everything all the time when that simply isn't the case, while also ignoring the fct that even a 32-bit Snow Leopard kernel can utilize more than 4GB RAM and use 64-bit native apps, the most important aspects to having 64-bit and something Windows can't so without a 64-bit kernel which then requires all 64-bit drivers. Talk about uniformed.
PS: Jeff maturly acknowledged his mistake in his next posting. Frankly, this is pretty confusing stuff and on the surface it would seem that going full turkey into 64-bit is smart, but when you actually understand what is involved the caveats of the process you can see that Apple's systematic and user-oriented approach is much better in every way.
So far nobody even demo'ed OpenCL app , not even Apple at WWDC had any demos. If any worthy app utilizes it before 10.7 is out i'll be surprised.
Same goes for GDC. From benchmarks it seems newest Motion and Compressor export are +-5% on Leopard and Snow Leopard... so it begs the question. If its "so easy" to code for multicore now , how come Apple is not doing it ?
Because its not easy , not easy at all.
Its nice that groundwork is being laid out , but its little unrealistic to expect this new tech to be utilized anytime soon.
define "worthy" app, in the pro audio area we are gagging for openCL, the ability to access gigaflop of floating point without buying powercore, protools or whatever? yes please... FOr sure the major DAWS will make use of this before 10.7.
I've been thinking of what the best way to upgrade is for me. The £25 update now, hang around for the next Mac Box Set with iLife/iWork 2010 editions, or just get a new Mac (of some kind) in a while to replace my white MacBook 2.16GHz with Intel GMA graphics.
10.6.0 will probably have a few issues to iron out with .1 and .2 updates, iLife & iWork 2010 is probably due early next year, and a few of the new updates in the system probably won't work on Intel GMA anyway.
Your inability to understand why Apple has limited the optional booting into a 64-bit kernel does not mean that the limitation is not warranted.
so if i dont understand why they artificially limit 2006-2007 mac pros from booting into 64 bit kernel , please explain ? From my point of view its plain and simple , drivers. They dont feel like writing new drivers for 2 year old systems.
" FOr sure the major DAWS will make use of this before 10.7. "
i really hope so but i doubt it. its not as easy as its claimed to be.
Time machine also claimed to be best thing since sliced bread only to corrupt Apertures library if it happed to be running. it didnt get fully fixed till .4 update and i was one of the lucky ones who got hit by it. i had couple vaults but i still lost few pictures and adjustments.
so if i dont understand why they artificially limit 2006-2007 mac pros from booting into 64 bit kernel , please explain ? From my point of view its plain and simple , drivers. They dont feel like writing new drivers for 2 year old systems.
Exactly, it's down to drivers. Apple have understandably prioritised producing 64 bit drivers for their latest hardware. Developing drivers takes a long time; any bugs can lead to kernel panics and other hard crashes so it's vital that they are all squashed. As development on Leopard winds down and the programmers are moved to Snow Leopard, hopefully Apple will work on 64 bit drivers for older systems.
Like i said dont ask me why ... ask why NOT ? If such a 'crappy , old and useless' Windows can run 64bit kernel on my mac how come best operating system in the world cant ? There's absolutely no reason other than not giving shit about less than 2 year old hardware.
The reason is because your reasoning is flawed since you think that booting into 64-bit = better.
...and also because you are not looking for reasons but are just trolling.
I bet you don't even have a Mac but probably use a Hackintosh
Exactly, it's down to drivers. Apple have understandably prioritised producing 64 bit drivers for their latest hardware. Developing drivers takes a long time; any bugs can lead to kernel panics and other hard crashes so it's vital that they are all squashed. As development on Leopard winds down and the programmers are moved to Snow Leopard, hopefully Apple will work on 64 bit drivers for older systems.
I hope they do too, though I doubt it and in many ways it doesn't really matter, unlike with running a 64-bit kernel on Windows, with Snow Leopard you can still run a 64-bit apps and address more than 4GB RAM regardless of the bit of the kernel, drivers and extensions. This is why MS is Windows is crappy in comparison.
I hope they do too, though I doubt it and in many ways it doesn't really matter, unlike with running a 64-bit kernel on Windows, with Snow Leopard you can still run a 64-bit apps and address more than 4GB RAM regardless of the bit of the kernel, drivers and extensions. This is why MS is Windows is crappy in comparison.
(This was meant for Wally)
Um, no, Wally says that booting into 64-bit = better, so he is correct.
Also, apparently, "There's absolutely no reason other than not giving shit about less than 2 year old hardware."
You see, according to this guy's logic, not being able to boot natively into 64-bit means that Apple doesn't care about OLDER hardware. Just WOW.
Comments
GDC was created because multicore coding is extremely difficult, not in spite of it. It?s only been a few months that Apple stated that all GDC work has been complete at this stage so that 3rd-party developers can finally work on it without a looming change to the structure. GDC is so very fresh so give it some time to get worked in. The apps that will need it are the slow to be updated anyway, but how is it you know that nothing in Snow Leopard is utilizing it out of the box?
i dont really care if Mail or Dashboard utilize GDC. I care about ( or used to ) about Pro apps , Final Cut studio apps , Maxon apps , Adobe apps etc etc. So far not even simple syntetic demo has ben shown how good GDC really is. And coding it is nothing easy , easier yes , worth it ? For mac only apps yes , for multiplatform apps i doubt it. Will see.
BS, all 8-core Mac Pros will be able to run in 64-bit mode with a 64-bit kernel under Snow Leopard, I've seen Apple knowledge base articles saying as much. If you had an original quad core Mac Pro, then you're out of luck with a 32-bit kernel, supposedly software can run in 64-bit mode though.
How much RAM do you get to use in OS X in Leopard? Or are you blustering here? OS X in 32 bit mode can already access more than 4GB using PAE, this has been true since 10.4. I have not been able to get 32 bit Windows to do the same. My Mac Pro runs Tiger and Leopard in 32 bit mode, and both can access the whole 10GB of RAM that I have.
Another uninformed. Late 2007 Mac pro 8 core does not boot into 64 bit kernel no matter what you do.
I get to use all 16gb ram in after effects.
Like i said dont ask me why ... ask why NOT ? If such a 'crappy , old and useless' Windows can run 64bit kernel on my mac how come best operating system in the world cant ? There's absolutely no reason other than not giving shit about less than 2 year old hardware.
If such a 'crappy , old and useless' Windows can run 64bit kernel on my mac how come best operating system in the world cant ? There's absolutely no reason other than not giving shit about less than 2 year old hardware.
Your inability to understand why Apple has limited the optional booting into a 64-bit kernel does not mean that the limitation is not warranted. You are adhering to a concept that 64-bit is better for everything all the time when that simply isn't the case, while also ignoring the fct that even a 32-bit Snow Leopard kernel can utilize more than 4GB RAM and use 64-bit native apps, the most important aspects to having 64-bit and something Windows can't so without a 64-bit kernel which then requires all 64-bit drivers. Talk about uniformed.
PS: Jeff maturly acknowledged his mistake in his next posting. Frankly, this is pretty confusing stuff and on the surface it would seem that going full turkey into 64-bit is smart, but when you actually understand what is involved the caveats of the process you can see that Apple's systematic and user-oriented approach is much better in every way.
64 bit.
openCL, grand central thingy, exchange support, 7gb disk back. More than you will get from a windows 7 upgrade dude...
So far nobody even demo'ed OpenCL app , not even Apple at WWDC had any demos. If any worthy app utilizes it before 10.7 is out i'll be surprised.
Same goes for GDC. From benchmarks it seems newest Motion and Compressor export are +-5% on Leopard and Snow Leopard... so it begs the question. If its "so easy" to code for multicore now , how come Apple is not doing it ?
Because its not easy , not easy at all.
Its nice that groundwork is being laid out , but its little unrealistic to expect this new tech to be utilized anytime soon.
define "worthy" app, in the pro audio area we are gagging for openCL, the ability to access gigaflop of floating point without buying powercore, protools or whatever? yes please... FOr sure the major DAWS will make use of this before 10.7.
10.6.0 will probably have a few issues to iron out with .1 and .2 updates, iLife & iWork 2010 is probably due early next year, and a few of the new updates in the system probably won't work on Intel GMA anyway.
Your inability to understand why Apple has limited the optional booting into a 64-bit kernel does not mean that the limitation is not warranted.
so if i dont understand why they artificially limit 2006-2007 mac pros from booting into 64 bit kernel , please explain ? From my point of view its plain and simple , drivers. They dont feel like writing new drivers for 2 year old systems.
" FOr sure the major DAWS will make use of this before 10.7. "
i really hope so but i doubt it. its not as easy as its claimed to be.
Time machine also claimed to be best thing since sliced bread only to corrupt Apertures library if it happed to be running. it didnt get fully fixed till .4 update and i was one of the lucky ones who got hit by it. i had couple vaults but i still lost few pictures and adjustments.
so if i dont understand why they artificially limit 2006-2007 mac pros from booting into 64 bit kernel , please explain ? From my point of view its plain and simple , drivers. They dont feel like writing new drivers for 2 year old systems.
Exactly, it's down to drivers. Apple have understandably prioritised producing 64 bit drivers for their latest hardware. Developing drivers takes a long time; any bugs can lead to kernel panics and other hard crashes so it's vital that they are all squashed. As development on Leopard winds down and the programmers are moved to Snow Leopard, hopefully Apple will work on 64 bit drivers for older systems.
Like i said dont ask me why ... ask why NOT ? If such a 'crappy , old and useless' Windows can run 64bit kernel on my mac how come best operating system in the world cant ? There's absolutely no reason other than not giving shit about less than 2 year old hardware.
The reason is because your reasoning is flawed since you think that booting into 64-bit = better.
...and also because you are not looking for reasons but are just trolling.
I bet you don't even have a Mac but probably use a Hackintosh
Exactly, it's down to drivers. Apple have understandably prioritised producing 64 bit drivers for their latest hardware. Developing drivers takes a long time; any bugs can lead to kernel panics and other hard crashes so it's vital that they are all squashed. As development on Leopard winds down and the programmers are moved to Snow Leopard, hopefully Apple will work on 64 bit drivers for older systems.
I hope they do too, though I doubt it and in many ways it doesn't really matter, unlike with running a 64-bit kernel on Windows, with Snow Leopard you can still run a 64-bit apps and address more than 4GB RAM regardless of the bit of the kernel, drivers and extensions. This is why MS is Windows is crappy in comparison.
(This was meant for Wally)
I hope they do too, though I doubt it and in many ways it doesn't really matter, unlike with running a 64-bit kernel on Windows, with Snow Leopard you can still run a 64-bit apps and address more than 4GB RAM regardless of the bit of the kernel, drivers and extensions. This is why MS is Windows is crappy in comparison.
(This was meant for Wally)
Um, no, Wally says that booting into 64-bit = better, so he is correct.
Also, apparently, "There's absolutely no reason other than not giving shit about less than 2 year old hardware."
You see, according to this guy's logic, not being able to boot natively into 64-bit means that Apple doesn't care about OLDER hardware.