Inside Mac OS X Snow Leopard: 64-bits

1246

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 117
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    I can see some PS users benefiting from 64 bit, but Office? What kind of documents are you dealing with?



    Why do you think that there will be so many apps that can benefit from 64 bit but will never be?



    64-bit PS is a requirement for the work I'm doing right now.



    Excel, it already does everything in (FP) double precision, as 32-bit, that will now be 64-bit single precision, ~2X speedup.



    Larger spreedsheets (I'll check the 2010 Technical Preview shortly)?
  • Reply 62 of 117
    sabonsabon Posts: 134member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    Who is making multi-gigabyte Excel documents?



    Access is an exercise in self-flagellation, even many of the Microsoft proponents admit as much.



    It's not only about how big a file is. 32 bit CPUs have a lot of ... compromises and flaws. AMD (which Intel copied) learned a lot from going from 16 bit to 32 bit and a LOT of things were fixed. Because of those fixes things run a lot smoother. That in itself is reason to move to 64 bit.
  • Reply 63 of 117
    backtomacbacktomac Posts: 4,579member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jasenj1 View Post


    It better! Or there'll be a lot of early Intel adopters stuck with 32-bit EFI and 32-bit CPUs that will be hopping mad. Myself among them.



    I'd expect 32-bit support for at least another 3-5 years.



    - Jasen.



    If I remember correctly, the last G5 powermacs were sold alongside the first core duo Intel Macs. The g5s just got cut off. Would it really surprise you if 10.7 didn't support 32 bit machines.



    My core 2 duo MBP has 32 bit EFI firmware and I'm not holding my breath that 10.7 will support my machine.
  • Reply 64 of 117
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post


    Spoken like a true youngster. The same arguments were spit out for the transition from 16 to 32 bit, yet here we are. Saying something will never happen is rather foolish. You need only look at the last transition from 16 to 32 bits.



    The installed user base is irrelevant. It is platform dependent. If the platform no longer supports 32 bit then that pretty much forces 100% compliance. These things tend to take care of themselves as technology dictates. If there is a need, then it will happen.



    Your signature on the other hand, says something entirely different. There is no price difference between Windows PC manufacturers and Apple. That is a standard 'Windows' line that is patently not true. They cost the same for comparable hardware for any manufacturer like Dell, Apple, HP, Lenovo, Sony, etc. If you're happy buying parts piece mail and putting together your own mac at a much cheaper price, then more power to you but don't pretend there is some huge price difference when there isn't. The only thing you'll get with a Manufacturer's Windows PC is a ton of shovelware that has to be removed once you buy it, and the need to maintain malware for the rest of the PC's life.



    How old are you?



    I was very likely doing 64-bit programming on a Cray supercomputer before you were even born.



    25 years ago, to be exact.



    As to my current laptop 8GB, 2.5GHz Core 2 Duo, 500GB 7200RPM HD, Vista 64-bit Ultimate SP2, total cost ~$1,800. Price a 15" MacBook Pro with these specs for me if you don't mind.
  • Reply 65 of 117
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post


    Considering the switch from 16 to 32 happened 10 years ago, no I don't think it's wrong to state as much. I also didn't insult him. "spoken like a true youngster" is hardly some slap to the face. I have seen far worse online. I would consider that a very mild poke rather than a 'flame'.



    The first time I coded in 32-bits, 1972, or 37 years ago, to be exact.
  • Reply 66 of 117
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by franksargent View Post


    The first time I coded in 32-bits, 1972, or 37 years ago, to be exact.



    I respect that you did all of this so long ago... but none of these were in mainstream machines... I could never go buy a Cray Supercomputer at my local "big box" store. Desktop technology IS just now moving to 64-bit. Although MS Vista and XP had 64-bit editions, they were not widely adopted. Windows 7 will change that to a degree.



    Despite the existence of Vista/7 64-bit, I cannot get a driver for my Turtle Beach sound card and thus my machine has no sound unless I revert back to 32-bit, which I very well may do when Windows 7 is released and I install the retail version. I see no real reason to use 64-bit on my PC or my Mac... (except if I am editing HD video, like on my iMac).



    In most everyday situations, 64-bit really won't have an impact except amungst the nerd and geek communities.
  • Reply 67 of 117
    mcarlingmcarling Posts: 1,106member
    I hope that Apple will drop runtime support for Carbon applications starting with 10.7.
  • Reply 68 of 117
    cmf2cmf2 Posts: 1,427member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by franksargent View Post


    One of the worst AI articles I've ever seen written.



    There are whole areas where software will almost certainly never be written for 64-bit OS X, engineering, science, business, not to mention games.



    XP SP3 64-bit, Vista SP2 64-bit, and Windows 7 64-bit. The latter two (Ultimate) I already have on my Asus 64-bit laptop with 8GM RAM.



    64-bit nVidia graphics drivers for Vista/7 updated frequently.



    Photoshop CS4 64-bit yesterday, today, tomorrow.



    Office 64-bit will appear on Windows systems a full year before an OS X version.



    First tier Widows 64-bit applications probably already outnumber all first tier OS X applications.



    The installed Windows 64-bit OS user base probably already outnumbers the entire OS X user base.



    Signed,

    I no longer can afford the price premium and lack of applications available on the OS X platform



    What are you ranting and raving about? 64 bit programs have very little to do with this article. They have been supported for quite some time in OSX. The whole lack of applications argument rings a little hollow to especially when it isn't the end of the world if you have only a 32 bit version of a program. Even in x64 versions of windows, most of the programs are 32 bit. IE and WMP open the 32 bit version by default too.



    Now if you were talking about drivers, you would have a point. Since Microsoft imposed 64 bit only versions, the 64 bit drivers had to be created as the 32 bit drivers wouldn't work. This lead to years of growing pains for anyone with x64 versions of Windows, and there is still hardware not supported to this day. Apple is making the transition a lot smoother, but that also makes for a slower process. However, the transition will be scarcely noticeable as systems will boot into 64 bit mode by default when the driver support is there.
  • Reply 69 of 117
    al_bundyal_bundy Posts: 1,525member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by webpoet73 View Post


    I respect that you did all of this so long ago... but none of these were in mainstream machines... I could never go buy a Cray Supercomputer at my local "big box" store. Desktop technology IS just now moving to 64-bit. Although MS Vista and XP had 64-bit editions, they were not widely adopted. Windows 7 will change that to a degree.



    Despite the existence of Vista/7 64-bit, I cannot get a driver for my Turtle Beach sound card and thus my machine has no sound unless I revert back to 32-bit, which I very well may do when Windows 7 is released and I install the retail version. I see no real reason to use 64-bit on my PC or my Mac... (except if I am editing HD video, like on my iMac).



    In most everyday situations, 64-bit really won't have an impact except amungst the nerd and geek communities.



    is turtle beach still around? seems like all audio on computers is realtek or ADI Soundmax



    seems like everyone has x64 drivers for hardware made in the last 3 years
  • Reply 70 of 117
    dcj001dcj001 Posts: 301member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by backtomac View Post


    You may not print but many people do. They also use scanners to. These require drivers as well. Apple doesn't make these drivers, AFAIK.



    As you say you can boot into 64 bit mode by holding down the 6 and 4 keys. If that's a PIA for you you can get a 64 bit flavor of windows. Then you're responsible for making sure your drivers are compatible with your systems OS. It doesn't sound like a big deal but plenty of people screw it up.



    Sure they do. I recently found out that Preview can be used to import scanner images - File > Import From Scanner.
  • Reply 71 of 117
    Update-



    While the "ioreg -l -p IODeviceTree | grep firmware-abi" command at the Terminal gives the following result for my late 2007 MacBookPro3,1... "firmware-abi" = <"EFI64", I continue to get a "64-bit Kernel and Extensions: No" result under Software in System Profiler while holding down the 6 and 4 during boot-up. So the result of this command in Terminal has the potential to be misleading on older MacBookPros.



    Some good news though- With my new iMac9,1 I get the desired "64-bit Kernel and Extensions: Yes" even when booting with 6 and 4 using an Apple Wireless keyboard! The system appears to be smart enough to wait to connect to a wireless keyboard before continuing with important boot-up options.
  • Reply 72 of 117
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cmf2 View Post


    What are you ranting and raving about? 64 bit programs have very little to do with this article. They have been supported for quite some time in OSX. The whole lack of applications argument rings a little hollow to especially when it isn't the end of the world if you have only a 32 bit version of a program. Even in x64 versions of windows, most of the programs are 32 bit. IE and WMP open the 32 bit version by default too.



    Now if you were talking about drivers, you would have a point. Since Microsoft imposed 64 bit only versions, the 64 bit drivers had to be created as the 32 bit drivers wouldn't work. This lead to years of growing pains for anyone with x64 versions of Windows, and there is still hardware not supported to this day. Apple is making the transition a lot smoother, but that also makes for a slower process. However, the transition will be scarcely noticeable as systems will boot into 64 bit mode by default when the driver support is there.



    Go back and read the article again.



    I've had my say, I have a 64-bit OS, I have 64-bit drivers, I have 64-bit applications (just about every application I would use in engineering and science has a 64-bit varient), all on a hardware platform for ~1/2 the cost.



    And everything works just fine, not a single issue, ever.



    I have owned three Macs, when I had a regular high paying job, I now live on a fixed income, if I could still afford a new Mac, I would, in a heartbeat.



    When the P55 and i5 come out (next week (??)), I will build a DIY Windows 7 desktop, that is something that I can afford immediately without saving up several months for a Mac Pro.
  • Reply 73 of 117
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by al_bundy View Post


    is turtle beach still around? seems like all audio on computers is realtek or ADI Soundmax



    seems like everyone has x64 drivers for hardware made in the last 3 years



    Yeah, I got it off of NewEgg because I wanted a sound card with optical out for a home theater pc... then ended up not using the PC for a home theater pc... sigh. the onboard audio on this pc isn't 64-bit supported, either. Screwed either way.
  • Reply 74 of 117
    My late 2007 Santa Rosa MacBook has 64-bit EFI.



    Pretty damn sure.
  • Reply 75 of 117
    sabonsabon Posts: 134member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by franksargent View Post


    Go back and read the article again.



    I've had my say, I have a 64-bit OS, I have 64-bit drivers, I have 64-bit applications (just about every application I would use in engineering and science has a 64-bit varient), all on a hardware platform for ~1/2 the cost.



    And everything works just fine, not a single issue, ever.



    I have owned three Macs, when I had a regular high paying job, I now live on a fixed income, if I could still afford a new Mac, I would, in a heartbeat.



    When the P55 and i5 come out (next week (??)), I will build a DIY Windows 7 desktop, that is something that I can afford immediately without saving up several months for a Mac Pro.



    I won't disagree with you on anything that you have said.



    I will note that there is one HUGE disadvantage to your system. Windows. You may like it. I have no problem with you or anyone else liking it. I'd rather be using OS/2 or BeOS but they aren't really that available (yes I know about eComStation but there is just not enough compelling software that (underlined very heavily) I use. By default I've ended up with Macs. It is better for me.



    I'm not going to change no matter what you say on this message board and I'm pretty sure no one else is either. So what do you expect to gain by what you are saying?
  • Reply 76 of 117
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Sabon View Post


    I won't disagree with you on anything that you have said.



    I will note that there is one HUGE disadvantage to your system. Windows. You may like it. I have no problem with you or anyone else liking it. I'd rather be using OS/2 or BeOS but they aren't really that available (yes I know about eComStation but there is just not enough compelling software that (underlined very heavily) I use. By default I've ended up with Macs. It is better for me.



    I'm not going to change no matter what you say on this message board and I'm pretty sure no one else is either. So what do you expect to gain by what you are saying?



    A POV from the other side, which the AI article clearly lacks.



    I've used both platforms for dozens of years now, Windows 7 64-bit is arguably a robust OS, while the same can't yet be said with Snow Leopard, as far as a full compliment of 64-bit features goes.



    The AI article is loaded with weasel words. The article talks in generalities and not in specifics when comparing OS X with Windows 7, it's direct competitor given their respective launch dates.



    If AI wants to present some incontrovertible objective data, then and only then, will I reconsider the subjective nature in which this article is clearly written.
  • Reply 77 of 117
    sabonsabon Posts: 134member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by franksargent View Post


    A POV from the other side, which the AI article clearly lacks.



    I've used both platforms for dozens of years now, Windows 7 64-bit is arguably a robust OS, while the same can't yet be said with Snow Leopard, as far as a full compliment of 64-bit features goes.



    The AI article is loaded with weasel words. The article talks in generalities and not in specifics when comparing OS X with Windows 7, it's direct competitor given their respective launch dates.



    If AI wants to present some incontrovertible objective data, then and only then, will I reconsider the subjective nature in which this article is clearly written.



    Ok. We got the message.
  • Reply 78 of 117
    bertpbertp Posts: 274member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post


    MacWorld really owes us mere users a translation when they print a piece that is this technical. I used the Terminal command the author provided (nice touch) to find out that my late 2007 iMac does in fact have a 64-bit EFI, yay! But the rest of the article left me wondering if that really does me any good. Does my new copy of Snow Leopard give me any advantage because of it? If printer drivers are the only thing keeping Snow Leopard from using the 64-bit architecture built in to my machine, will an OS upgrade someday finally force Snow Leopard to boot by default into 64-bit mode when 64-bit drivers are more common? I hope MW does an article in the magazine that answers consumer questions more plainly.



    I can't provide an easy-to-understand answer. I too have an 2007 24" iMac, with an Intel Core 2 Duo CPU, and have upgraded to 4GB of memory. Yes, the CPU is 64-bit. The EFI is 64-bit. Nevertheless, my iMac is model 7,1. Apple decided that only models 8,1 and 9,1 are enabled to run K64 (by booting with the '6' and '4' key pressed down). I've tried it ? the System Profile says K32. If I go to the Activity Monitor, I can see that most of my bundled apps like Finder, Mail, Safari and more are running as 64-bit binaries. Yes, I do benefit the use of these 64-bit app binaries instead of the 32-bit binaries. My Samsung laser printer is 32-bit and the 'Smart Panel' software supporting that printer runs as a 32-bit binary.



    I rarely use more than 1 GB of memory, even with muliple apps open. I do benefit from SL; I experience better responsiveness across the OS and it's bundled apps. Kudos to Grand Central Dispatch! So, I hope to postpone buying a new iMac until 2012 (five years past 2007).



    As a previous post mentioned, Apple limited the booting of K64 to certain machines to avoid compatibility problems. It make good business sense. It is possible that a future point release of SL will add drivers to support the earlier machines (before 2008) with Intel Core 2 Duo CPUs. I'm not privy to Apple's product plans.
  • Reply 79 of 117
    backtomacbacktomac Posts: 4,579member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jasenj1 View Post


    Someone please correct me if I'm wrong here:



    There are Macs with 32-bit EFI and 32-bit CPUs - the first generation of Intel Macs, machines with Core Duo CPUs. 64-bitness in SL is irrelevant to them.



    There are Macs with 32-bit EFI and 64-bit CPUs. These machines can't run the 64-bit kernel, but can run 64-bit apps. They will get benefits from 64-bit apps and 64-bit SL.



    There are Macs with 64-bit EFI and 64-bit CPUs. These machines can run "fully" 64-bit and will see benefits from doing so. But they may have problems with kernel level drivers.



    The 64-bit capable machines can also run 32-bit applications seamlessly. 64 & 32 bit apps can coexist in peace. But at the kernel level, everything must be 32 or 64 bit.



    That sound about right?



    - Jasen.





    I think in 64 bit kernel mode you have to have 64 bit drivers. But I think 32 bit apps will work.
  • Reply 80 of 117
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by al_bundy View Post


    if you do photo or video editing and the file is over 4GB, or opening the file and manipulating it will require more than 4GB of RAM then 64bit will help.



    I just wonder what drivers are available for the MacBook that aren't available? My iMac is an 8,1.
Sign In or Register to comment.