I really think you people are dreaming if you believe that Apple is going to introduce a 64-bit chip, a 64-bit system and a bundle of 64-bit apps simultaneously - just isn't going to happen.
I think that's exactly what they're going to do. And it wouldn't surprise me if these pro apps today turn out to be 64-bit-ready.
Considering that there are no 64-bit APIs or hardware to test against yet...
Are you sure about APIs? They may be ready years before their implementation. Moreover, the architecture of PPC970 exists 'on paper' for no less than a year.
If developers wrap all calculations up in high level classes and try to isolate explicitly platform-dependent code, they might even have half-ready 64-bit versions of these apps. Untested? ? yes. Buggy? ? yes. But at least ready to be compiled for the first time. Is it impossible?
Quote:
Originally posted by Clive
I really think you people are dreaming if you believe that Apple is going to introduce a 64-bit chip, a 64-bit system and a bundle of 64-bit apps simultaneously - just isn't going to happen.
If I am not mistaken, quite separate groups of people are busy on these projects. Yes, some of them depend on the progress of others, but it's not like OS developers just sit and smoke while hardware is being made; and apps developers are all out on holidays because the OS is not here yet.
If developers wrap all calculations up in high level classes and try to isolate explicitly platform-dependent code, they might even have half-ready 64-bit versions of these apps. Untested? ? yes. Buggy? ? yes. But at least ready to be compiled for the first time.
If I am not mistaken, quite separate groups of people are busy on these projects. Yes, some of them depend on the progress of others, but it's not like OS developers just sit and smoke while hardware is being made; and apps developers are all out on holidays because the OS is not here yet.
It's true that many separate groups of people will be working on moving this whole scenario forward, yes.
But, what I can tell you, at least for thrid party developers, they aren't going to hold up their plans while some other group finalises their own. For instance Adobe will not hold up the next release of Photoshop because Apple says it's going to deliver some code at a certain point: Adobe knows that Apple's timetable will slip, and thus so will its own.
How does this fit into Apple's hardware/OS/software strategy. Well it seems clear enough to anyone that our holy grail, the 970, is 32-bit compatible - which means the whole OS doesn't need to be ported specifically for this chip. To me this means that the three groups can act semi-independently, and it's in their best interests to do so.
If the software team can get an update out without waiting for the other two, then they are going to do that, because they get kudos and revenue from doing so. Likewise the OS team isn't going to wait for the hardware team or the software team to get their acts together - they're going to keep on gunning for their targets.
And the hardware team - ditto.
It's to no one's advantage to wait for the other components to be ready.
So, I'll stick with what I wrote, the whole 64-bit intro will come over a period of time, not rolled out as one big package.
Considering that there are no 64-bit APIs or hardware to test against yet, this is unlikely. And I'm sure some nosy busy-body would have noticed by now if there was another executable stuffed into the application bundle.
If Apple is going with the 970 then there will have been hardware, software, OS versions and APIs existing in labs for sometime. If we're getting the 970 in August/September then FCP4 etc may well have 64bit versions on the CD or in the bundle.
WWDC is being hyped for a reason, as is Panther. What OS feature is worth the hype if not 64bitness?
What OS feature is worth the hype if not 64bitness?
Well many others to be truthful. If Apple wants to increase the percentage of users then SPEED, a better Finder, better metadata, UI tweaks, better networking for AFP and SMB, better printing are of more importance. 64bitness is surely less attractive to the greatest number of users than any of the above.
Well many others to be truthful. If Apple wants to increase the percentage of users then SPEED, a better Finder, better metadata, UI tweaks, better networking for AFP and SMB, better printing are of more importance. 64bitness is surely less attractive to the greatest number of users than any of the above.
I really hate being the contrarian here all the time, but at last someone posts something I can agree with! There are many things more important in the OS than 64-bit features. We've still got a pretty immature OS and I hope Apple spends its resources fixing that rather than working on 64-bit functions.
There are lots of things, as cowerd points out, that would improve the OS - I'd vote for anything listed above over spending time on 64-bit.
I genuinely think it's unrealistic to believe that Apple is going to run out new hardware, OS and apps within the next four months, all to meet a 64-bit demand. The demand is actually elsewhere, for a "snappier" and more functional OS and improved hardware speed.
At the end of the day I have to ask who buys copies of Shake? Why's it such a big deal that the OS and hardware strategy becomes subservient to it?
On the other hand, look at the obvious numbers of people more interested in a native XPress and various Adobe apps (Adobe just announced Acrobat 6.0 - finally we get a MacOS X native Distiller, only two years after the release of X!? But guess what, here's the rub, there's no 9.x version at all).
So, I really don't think Apple can stir up interest from third-parties for some monumental roll-out of 64-bit hardware/OS/software, and i don't think they can really even get that together for their own in-house elements either.
Do you want to wait for the hardware to get a much-needed OS update? I think the response on most people's lips is "no".
The thing to keep in mind here is that "Apple providing 64 bit support" is actually a multi-layered thing.
First, in order to provide baseline 64 bit support — i.e., to expose the hardware's capabilities so that a 64-bit application can run in the first place — is a relatively small change that can be easily made to an OS as portable as X is. The rest of the system and applications can run as they are, utterly oblivious to the change. I believe that this is actually done, and Apple's just sitting on the code tree, waiting for final hardware to test against. This change would involve a small team of kernel and framework programmers, so it's not a matter of diverting resources from other things. Apple should be able to roll this out concurrently with a release of the 970, no problem. The only other requirement would be that gcc and/or CodeWarrior be able to output 64-bit PPC code, so that it's actually possible to build a 64-bit application, but I believe that's been taken care of as well.
The next level is 64-bit support in the system service layer (Java, QuickTime, etc.). Apple can roll this out at a more leisurely pace, since none of them absolutely need to leap to 64-bit implementations. QuickTime will probably make the jump not long after, though, since it's the basis for Apple's leap into high-end video, and it'll have to get used to slinging a lot of data around gracefully.
Lastly, there's the application layer. I don't know Apple's pro apps all that well, but if any Apple applications move to 64-bit, it'll be one of those. The world is not thirsting for a 64 bit iCal.
Given that Apple has a lot of OS X engineers, including (as of the death of OS 9) the entire legion of OS 9 engineers, and the likes of Dominic Giampolo and sundry other BeOS programmers, this leaves a tremendous number of resources to work on things like the filesystem and the user experience. So I'm not worried about Apple concentrating on 64-bitness or file metadata (for example) or a more responsive Finder. They have more than enough people to work on all of these things concurrently.
Who is to say it isn't 64-bit ready right now? New 64-bit applications will be made to install and run on a 32 or 64 bit Mac. The code could be in there right now, no? Or is there something I don't know that makes this unlikely or impossible?
Quote:
Originally posted by Programmer (in reply to snoopy)
Considering that there are no 64-bit APIs or hardware to test against yet, this is unlikely. And I'm sure some nosy busy-body would have noticed by now if there was another executable stuffed into the application bundle.
Quote:
Originally posted by costique (in turn replying to Programmer)
Are you sure about APIs? They may be ready years before their implementation. Moreover, the architecture of PPC970 exists 'on paper' for no less than a year.
If developers wrap all calculations up in high level classes and try to isolate explicitly platform-dependent code, they might even have half-ready 64-bit versions of these apps. Untested? ? yes. Buggy? ? yes. But at least ready to be compiled for the first time. Is it impossible?
IBM already has working 970 chips, they just haven't announced that they have started mass-producing them.
The thing to keep in mind here is that "Apple providing 64 bit support" is actually a multi-layered thing.
First, in order to provide baseline 64 bit support — i.e., to expose the hardware's capabilities so that a 64-bit application can run in the first place — is a relatively small change that can be easily made to an OS as portable as X is.
And least we forget, Apple does make Shake, FCP and DVD SP which were just announced, if not yet released. Hardware? Oh yes, they make that two.
GCC is 64-bit already.
It is quite simple to run Solaris in 32-bit or 64-bit modes, even on Ultra 1's for C's sake!
Apple is working on 64-bit already, and if you don't believe that, well, head in sand is about all I can say....
Apple is working on 64-bit already, and if you don't believe that, well, head in sand is about all I can say....
I don't think anyone's arguing about that, but thinking that Apole can pull a 64-bit OS/hardware/software combination out of the hat simultaneously is just head in the clouds stuff.
I don't think anyone's arguing about that, but thinking that Apole can pull a 64-bit OS/hardware/software combination out of the hat simultaneously is just head in the clouds stuff.
Can we kill this thread now?
Oh, not just yet. Why not? The OS I think is the easiest of the combinations. After that, they can layer on support for their own apps.
We know that FCP, DVDSP, and Shake hve been updated. The update cycle for these products is a year or so. These are Pro apps. The 970 is a Pro chip. The 970 is supposed to be here in July, and the apps won't be updated for another year. Not good. \
Have you noticed that FCP, DVDSP2, and Shake won't be available until June and July.
I don't think anyone's arguing about that, but thinking that Apple [sic.] can pull a 64-bit OS/hardware/software combination out of the hat simultaneously is just head in the clouds stuff.
"heads in the clouds"?
Why?
Tweaks to the OS sufficient to call it "A 64 bit OS" can be minimal. (A couple drivers, xnu, and the virtual memory pager get nudged.) Converting/optimizing _everything_ would be a major chore - and counter-indicated for most things anyway. But getting all the crucial bits working isn't rocket science.
Hardware... well, IBM did the heaviest lifting there, then whoever designed the memory controller...
And for "software", there just _isn't_ that much that has any point being 64-bit. People keep pointing to Shake... but Apple _bought_the_company_ -> there were already people familiar with Shake at Nothing Real. (Duh.)
Those are (now) three separate pieces of Apple.
Now, if you're saying "simultaneous" as in all-three-on-same-day, that might be a bit much. But all-three-in-same-quarter seems close enough to me, and would be eminently doable, given a desire to actually do so.
If all three were truly independent, I could see how it would be tough to beleive they'd all get 'upgraded' simultaneously. But they _aren't_. You don't market a 64-bit OS _before_ you have hardware. You don't market a 64-bit program _before_ you have hardware.
You might however _finish_ the heavy lifting before you have 'production hardware'. GCC's emitted 64-bit code for awhile. Apple folk _comment_on_IBM_patches to GCC's IBM RS6000 code generation... Read "Power3" or "Power4" code. Read _64-bit_ code. And Shake64 appears to use '64bit color' already. Even if that's just 'double' floating point values, the ppc 970 will _still_ put a good showing on it.
Now, if you're saying "simultaneous" as in all-three-on-same-day, that might be a bit much. But all-three-in-same-quarter seems close enough to me, and would be eminently doable, given a desire to actually do so.
Obviously. Quite naturally, there are more organizational issues in the all-on-the-same-day scenario than technical ones. One thing is to showcase a product and the other is to ship it. Yes, they could show them all at the same special event, but why? Digital video apps are announced at NAB, Panther will be at WWDC, PPC970 will need a separate show. But this can be done in 2 to 3 months span. In fact, for the computer world it means simultaneously.
I think that if Apple has balls to show something new every month, whatever it is, they should do so in order to attract attention.
Comments
Originally posted by Clive
I really think you people are dreaming if you believe that Apple is going to introduce a 64-bit chip, a 64-bit system and a bundle of 64-bit apps simultaneously - just isn't going to happen.
I think that's exactly what they're going to do. And it wouldn't surprise me if these pro apps today turn out to be 64-bit-ready.
Originally posted by Programmer
Considering that there are no 64-bit APIs or hardware to test against yet...
Are you sure about APIs? They may be ready years before their implementation. Moreover, the architecture of PPC970 exists 'on paper' for no less than a year.
If developers wrap all calculations up in high level classes and try to isolate explicitly platform-dependent code, they might even have half-ready 64-bit versions of these apps. Untested? ? yes. Buggy? ? yes. But at least ready to be compiled for the first time. Is it impossible?
Originally posted by Clive
I really think you people are dreaming if you believe that Apple is going to introduce a 64-bit chip, a 64-bit system and a bundle of 64-bit apps simultaneously - just isn't going to happen.
If I am not mistaken, quite separate groups of people are busy on these projects. Yes, some of them depend on the progress of others, but it's not like OS developers just sit and smoke while hardware is being made; and apps developers are all out on holidays because the OS is not here yet.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Ok man...that was a little harsh.
But right.
Originally posted by costique
If developers wrap all calculations up in high level classes and try to isolate explicitly platform-dependent code, they might even have half-ready 64-bit versions of these apps. Untested? ? yes. Buggy? ? yes. But at least ready to be compiled for the first time.
Usually at this moment 10% of the work is done
Originally posted by costique
If I am not mistaken, quite separate groups of people are busy on these projects. Yes, some of them depend on the progress of others, but it's not like OS developers just sit and smoke while hardware is being made; and apps developers are all out on holidays because the OS is not here yet.
It's true that many separate groups of people will be working on moving this whole scenario forward, yes.
But, what I can tell you, at least for thrid party developers, they aren't going to hold up their plans while some other group finalises their own. For instance Adobe will not hold up the next release of Photoshop because Apple says it's going to deliver some code at a certain point: Adobe knows that Apple's timetable will slip, and thus so will its own.
How does this fit into Apple's hardware/OS/software strategy. Well it seems clear enough to anyone that our holy grail, the 970, is 32-bit compatible - which means the whole OS doesn't need to be ported specifically for this chip. To me this means that the three groups can act semi-independently, and it's in their best interests to do so.
If the software team can get an update out without waiting for the other two, then they are going to do that, because they get kudos and revenue from doing so. Likewise the OS team isn't going to wait for the hardware team or the software team to get their acts together - they're going to keep on gunning for their targets.
And the hardware team - ditto.
It's to no one's advantage to wait for the other components to be ready.
So, I'll stick with what I wrote, the whole 64-bit intro will come over a period of time, not rolled out as one big package.
Why start another thread on this subject anyway. The stupidest post is the one my friend ran into the other day while jogging
Carry on about the relevant topic or it gets locked.
Originally posted by Programmer
Considering that there are no 64-bit APIs or hardware to test against yet, this is unlikely. And I'm sure some nosy busy-body would have noticed by now if there was another executable stuffed into the application bundle.
If Apple is going with the 970 then there will have been hardware, software, OS versions and APIs existing in labs for sometime. If we're getting the 970 in August/September then FCP4 etc may well have 64bit versions on the CD or in the bundle.
WWDC is being hyped for a reason, as is Panther. What OS feature is worth the hype if not 64bitness?
What OS feature is worth the hype if not 64bitness?
Well many others to be truthful. If Apple wants to increase the percentage of users then SPEED, a better Finder, better metadata, UI tweaks, better networking for AFP and SMB, better printing are of more importance. 64bitness is surely less attractive to the greatest number of users than any of the above.
Originally posted by cowerd
Well many others to be truthful. If Apple wants to increase the percentage of users then SPEED, a better Finder, better metadata, UI tweaks, better networking for AFP and SMB, better printing are of more importance. 64bitness is surely less attractive to the greatest number of users than any of the above.
I really hate being the contrarian here all the time, but at last someone posts something I can agree with! There are many things more important in the OS than 64-bit features. We've still got a pretty immature OS and I hope Apple spends its resources fixing that rather than working on 64-bit functions.
There are lots of things, as cowerd points out, that would improve the OS - I'd vote for anything listed above over spending time on 64-bit.
I genuinely think it's unrealistic to believe that Apple is going to run out new hardware, OS and apps within the next four months, all to meet a 64-bit demand. The demand is actually elsewhere, for a "snappier" and more functional OS and improved hardware speed.
At the end of the day I have to ask who buys copies of Shake? Why's it such a big deal that the OS and hardware strategy becomes subservient to it?
On the other hand, look at the obvious numbers of people more interested in a native XPress and various Adobe apps (Adobe just announced Acrobat 6.0 - finally we get a MacOS X native Distiller, only two years after the release of X!? But guess what, here's the rub, there's no 9.x version at all).
So, I really don't think Apple can stir up interest from third-parties for some monumental roll-out of 64-bit hardware/OS/software, and i don't think they can really even get that together for their own in-house elements either.
Do you want to wait for the hardware to get a much-needed OS update? I think the response on most people's lips is "no".
First, in order to provide baseline 64 bit support — i.e., to expose the hardware's capabilities so that a 64-bit application can run in the first place — is a relatively small change that can be easily made to an OS as portable as X is. The rest of the system and applications can run as they are, utterly oblivious to the change. I believe that this is actually done, and Apple's just sitting on the code tree, waiting for final hardware to test against. This change would involve a small team of kernel and framework programmers, so it's not a matter of diverting resources from other things. Apple should be able to roll this out concurrently with a release of the 970, no problem. The only other requirement would be that gcc and/or CodeWarrior be able to output 64-bit PPC code, so that it's actually possible to build a 64-bit application, but I believe that's been taken care of as well.
The next level is 64-bit support in the system service layer (Java, QuickTime, etc.). Apple can roll this out at a more leisurely pace, since none of them absolutely need to leap to 64-bit implementations. QuickTime will probably make the jump not long after, though, since it's the basis for Apple's leap into high-end video, and it'll have to get used to slinging a lot of data around gracefully.
Lastly, there's the application layer. I don't know Apple's pro apps all that well, but if any Apple applications move to 64-bit, it'll be one of those. The world is not thirsting for a 64 bit iCal.
Given that Apple has a lot of OS X engineers, including (as of the death of OS 9) the entire legion of OS 9 engineers, and the likes of Dominic Giampolo and sundry other BeOS programmers, this leaves a tremendous number of resources to work on things like the filesystem and the user experience. So I'm not worried about Apple concentrating on 64-bitness or file metadata (for example) or a more responsive Finder. They have more than enough people to work on all of these things concurrently.
Originally posted by Clive
Do you want to wait for the hardware to get a much-needed OS update? I think the response on most people's lips is "no".
your right, the answer is no, but you don't want to wait for the software eighter... but that won't be the problem, actually.
come as you are and first things first.
i would be glad when it's january 2004 and we aren't so eager to see the future anymore because the future is right in our hands.
hmm... watch to much BBCworld. makes me a little pesimistic though...
Originally posted by snoopy
Who is to say it isn't 64-bit ready right now? New 64-bit applications will be made to install and run on a 32 or 64 bit Mac. The code could be in there right now, no? Or is there something I don't know that makes this unlikely or impossible?
Originally posted by Programmer (in reply to snoopy)
Considering that there are no 64-bit APIs or hardware to test against yet, this is unlikely. And I'm sure some nosy busy-body would have noticed by now if there was another executable stuffed into the application bundle.
Originally posted by costique (in turn replying to Programmer)
Are you sure about APIs? They may be ready years before their implementation. Moreover, the architecture of PPC970 exists 'on paper' for no less than a year.
If developers wrap all calculations up in high level classes and try to isolate explicitly platform-dependent code, they might even have half-ready 64-bit versions of these apps. Untested? ? yes. Buggy? ? yes. But at least ready to be compiled for the first time. Is it impossible?
IBM already has working 970 chips, they just haven't announced that they have started mass-producing them.
http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/techlib/t...256C5200611780
--Alexis
Originally posted by Amorph
The thing to keep in mind here is that "Apple providing 64 bit support" is actually a multi-layered thing.
First, in order to provide baseline 64 bit support — i.e., to expose the hardware's capabilities so that a 64-bit application can run in the first place — is a relatively small change that can be easily made to an OS as portable as X is.
And least we forget, Apple does make Shake, FCP and DVD SP which were just announced, if not yet released. Hardware? Oh yes, they make that two.
GCC is 64-bit already.
It is quite simple to run Solaris in 32-bit or 64-bit modes, even on Ultra 1's for C's sake!
Apple is working on 64-bit already, and if you don't believe that, well, head in sand is about all I can say....
Originally posted by Rhumgod
Apple is working on 64-bit already, and if you don't believe that, well, head in sand is about all I can say....
I don't think anyone's arguing about that, but thinking that Apole can pull a 64-bit OS/hardware/software combination out of the hat simultaneously is just head in the clouds stuff.
Can we kill this thread now?
Originally posted by Clive
I don't think anyone's arguing about that, but thinking that Apole can pull a 64-bit OS/hardware/software combination out of the hat simultaneously is just head in the clouds stuff.
Can we kill this thread now?
Oh, not just yet. Why not? The OS I think is the easiest of the combinations. After that, they can layer on support for their own apps.
Originally posted by Placebo
I'll make this brief...
We know that FCP, DVDSP, and Shake hve been updated. The update cycle for these products is a year or so. These are Pro apps. The 970 is a Pro chip. The 970 is supposed to be here in July, and the apps won't be updated for another year. Not good.
Have you noticed that FCP, DVDSP2, and Shake won't be available until June and July.
Originally posted by Clive
I don't think anyone's arguing about that, but thinking that Apple [sic.] can pull a 64-bit OS/hardware/software combination out of the hat simultaneously is just head in the clouds stuff.
"heads in the clouds"?
Why?
Tweaks to the OS sufficient to call it "A 64 bit OS" can be minimal. (A couple drivers, xnu, and the virtual memory pager get nudged.) Converting/optimizing _everything_ would be a major chore - and counter-indicated for most things anyway. But getting all the crucial bits working isn't rocket science.
Hardware... well, IBM did the heaviest lifting there, then whoever designed the memory controller...
And for "software", there just _isn't_ that much that has any point being 64-bit. People keep pointing to Shake... but Apple _bought_the_company_ -> there were already people familiar with Shake at Nothing Real. (Duh.)
Those are (now) three separate pieces of Apple.
Now, if you're saying "simultaneous" as in all-three-on-same-day, that might be a bit much. But all-three-in-same-quarter seems close enough to me, and would be eminently doable, given a desire to actually do so.
If all three were truly independent, I could see how it would be tough to beleive they'd all get 'upgraded' simultaneously. But they _aren't_. You don't market a 64-bit OS _before_ you have hardware. You don't market a 64-bit program _before_ you have hardware.
You might however _finish_ the heavy lifting before you have 'production hardware'. GCC's emitted 64-bit code for awhile. Apple folk _comment_on_IBM_patches to GCC's IBM RS6000 code generation... Read "Power3" or "Power4" code. Read _64-bit_ code. And Shake64 appears to use '64bit color' already. Even if that's just 'double' floating point values, the ppc 970 will _still_ put a good showing on it.
Originally posted by Nevyn
Now, if you're saying "simultaneous" as in all-three-on-same-day, that might be a bit much. But all-three-in-same-quarter seems close enough to me, and would be eminently doable, given a desire to actually do so.
Obviously. Quite naturally, there are more organizational issues in the all-on-the-same-day scenario than technical ones. One thing is to showcase a product and the other is to ship it. Yes, they could show them all at the same special event, but why? Digital video apps are announced at NAB, Panther will be at WWDC, PPC970 will need a separate show. But this can be done in 2 to 3 months span. In fact, for the computer world it means simultaneously.
I think that if Apple has balls to show something new every month, whatever it is, they should do so in order to attract attention.