There seems to be a real misconception that having a 64-bit version of Mac OS X implies that it is all new code. This doesn't have to be the case -- large tracts of the OS might not even be recompiled. There are many different degrees of 64-bitness. The minimum support required before I would consider it a 64-bit OS would be that it is possible to write POSIX-compliant applications which use a 64-bit address space. This also happens to be a very useful minimum because it allows the creation of 64-bit server apps (including having a core computational piece of an app as a seperate executable from its GUI front end). All this requires is the ability to create a 64-bit address space, which they pretty much have to do anyhow just to get running on the 970, and the creation of a set of dynamically loaded libraries for the FreeBSD & mach portions of the OS... most of which is already available in 64-bit versions thanks to the MIPS, Alpha, UltraSPARC, and IA-64 versions of FreeBSD. The kernel itself doesn't even need to run in 64-bit mode, although the VMM page table stuff could live above the 32-bit memory space in order to maximize the memory available to the drivers that live in the kernel. The page tables themselves aren't that huge so they could live in the 32-bit address space, although I suspect they don't have to because the page lookup code needs to be re-written just to run on the 970 and switching to/from 64-bit mode is just a matter of switching a supervisor bit -- trivial to do from the kernel which is already in supervisor mode.
Summary: adding basic 64-bit support to MacOS X is not a large amount of work and would not force lots of new (and unstable) code.
Its all about timing isn't it? Apple will announce the 970's (with the usual 4-6 week lead time) as soon as humanly possible. They know there is a pent up demand and they will want to get their manufacturing running a bit more smoothly than usual. At that time only two things are required; that OSX (10.2.6?) just runs and that as Programmer says the academics and biotechs can run their 64 bit nix'es. At this point the developers get a 10.3 beta to play with and some early 970's. They won't get all of 10.3 because the runes suggest that there are a few radical user interface changes that Apple will want to keep quiet until the big unveiling.
By January we should have 10.3.1 runing 'screamin fast' on 970's and maybe even a few 64 bit ports for hype's sake.
January is still Apple's big month and they will want all the ducks set up in a row by then. Photoshop bake-off time! (and iMusic and iConference and iFrame and iPad and iHaventgotaclue.....)
By January we should have 10.3.1 runing 'screamin fast' on 970's and maybe even a few 64 bit ports for hype's sake.
January?! Okay, for the .1 release and some 64-bit apps... maybe. The target for 10.3 is September, no? The 970 will probably ship and be in our hot little hands (well for those who are buying this round anyhow) at that time.
Yes! The only reason you did not have to pay for 10.1 was because it was for the most part a bug fix for 10.0. The other updates include new features which you will have to pay for. Get used to it thats how companies make money.
The fact that SJ will keynote and Apple has announced 10.3, its most likely that the 970 support is in 10.3 and NOT 10.2.5 - which has consistent OS updates.
And how many WWDC keynotes has he done since he has gotten back to Apple?
I just read this article regarding IBM and their Open Source/Linux efforts. Interestingly, Apple's OS was mentioned.
"IBM demonstrated its commitment to open source and the Linux platform by highlighting developer successes at the company's annual DeveloperWorksLive conference last week in New Orleans. IBM also announced several initiatives involving the company-sponsored Eclipse open-source, Java-based application development platform....IBM also announced Version 2.1 of the Eclipse platform. A new feature in Eclipse 2.1 is support for Apple Computer Inc.'s Mac OS."
I can't imagine that IBM would be including support in any of their efforts if they didn't see a return on the investment somehow and if there wasn't already clear committment on behalf of the beneficiaries of said efforts; in this case Apple. Would I be correct in assuming...???:
1. IBM would have to collaborate with Apple to write something specific to OS X being that it is a proprietary OS and thereby closed.
2. The above referenced functionality might require Apple to modify the OS to take advantage of Eclispse 2.1.
3. Said functionality might be available as early as the initial release of Panther.
While I admit to needing to read up on Eclispse it doesn't strike me as hardware specific or more pointedly 970 specific at first glance. I know that IBM intends their 970 for Linux workstation, blades and the like, but I find it odd that they would go right for our beloved OS as opposed to general BSD distro tool kits or something unless of course it is a 970 party (Hope upon hope).
Having read the white paper on Eclipse posted at Eclipse.org Eclispse reveals itself to be yet another Java IDE. Open sourceness aside, does Java need another IDE. Whatever the case, this doesn't appear to be a 970 party after all unless there is something I missed.
I am still curious why the Mac, not that I'm not happy, but when I think of Java strong holds, if there be any, the Macintosh does not come to mind. Perhaps it's all just me attempting to assign significance where none resides.
Comments
If you release a 64-bit OS (e.g., Panther) for the 970, what will you do with the old G4 machines? Are they left out in the cold?
Are you going to support a 32-bit and 64-bit OS?
Think about it.
Originally posted by Leonis
No matter how fast the hardware is if the OS keeps crashing that's counter-productive.
Oh, you mean like those "blazing-fast ? 3+ GHz Pentium 4s?
Summary: adding basic 64-bit support to MacOS X is not a large amount of work and would not force lots of new (and unstable) code.
By January we should have 10.3.1 runing 'screamin fast' on 970's and maybe even a few 64 bit ports for hype's sake.
January is still Apple's big month and they will want all the ducks set up in a row by then. Photoshop bake-off time! (and iMusic and iConference and iFrame and iPad and iHaventgotaclue.....)
Originally posted by vinney57
By January we should have 10.3.1 runing 'screamin fast' on 970's and maybe even a few 64 bit ports for hype's sake.
January?! Okay, for the .1 release and some 64-bit apps... maybe. The target for 10.3 is September, no? The 970 will probably ship and be in our hot little hands (well for those who are buying this round anyhow) at that time.
Originally posted by hasapi
The fact that SJ will keynote and Apple has announced 10.3, its most likely that the 970 support is in 10.3 and NOT 10.2.5 - which has consistent OS updates.
And how many WWDC keynotes has he done since he has gotten back to Apple?
"IBM demonstrated its commitment to open source and the Linux platform by highlighting developer successes at the company's annual DeveloperWorksLive conference last week in New Orleans. IBM also announced several initiatives involving the company-sponsored Eclipse open-source, Java-based application development platform....IBM also announced Version 2.1 of the Eclipse platform. A new feature in Eclipse 2.1 is support for Apple Computer Inc.'s Mac OS."
I can't imagine that IBM would be including support in any of their efforts if they didn't see a return on the investment somehow and if there wasn't already clear committment on behalf of the beneficiaries of said efforts; in this case Apple. Would I be correct in assuming...???:
1. IBM would have to collaborate with Apple to write something specific to OS X being that it is a proprietary OS and thereby closed.
2. The above referenced functionality might require Apple to modify the OS to take advantage of Eclispse 2.1.
3. Said functionality might be available as early as the initial release of Panther.
While I admit to needing to read up on Eclispse it doesn't strike me as hardware specific or more pointedly 970 specific at first glance. I know that IBM intends their 970 for Linux workstation, blades and the like, but I find it odd that they would go right for our beloved OS as opposed to general BSD distro tool kits or something unless of course it is a 970 party (Hope upon hope).
Am I wrong in this assumption?????
For your viewing Pleasure: http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,1023149,00.asp
I am still curious why the Mac, not that I'm not happy, but when I think of Java strong holds, if there be any, the Macintosh does not come to mind. Perhaps it's all just me attempting to assign significance where none resides.