I hope they don't pull that sh*t again, where the entry level machine is a stripped down version, or entirely different architecture to the rest of the family.
A lot of people I know fell foul of Yikes! or those 466MHz & 533MHz vs. 667MHz & 733MHz machines.
I'd hate for people to buy the first revision 970, only for them to find out it was a stop gap machine.
Well.. Apple still does this.. Look at the iMac and the Powermac.. The 'fast' machines are not as good as 'faster' or 'fastest'! (Besides HD, RAM, CPU)
There was a rumor that a 'stop-gap' 1.4 Ghz PM 970 would come out first... I dont believe it though, but who knows?
So, if Apple announced the availability of a 1.4GHz 970 tomorrow, but it didn't have 10.3 pre installed, and you wouldn't be able to take full advantage of the 970, you wouldn't buy it?
Why would you not be able to take full advantage of the 970? The 970 with 10.2.X != Yikes. Yikes was a G3 motherborad with the G4 processor. The 970 will have a new mother board, all the works. The only difference between buying a 970 machine with no 10.3 (if that happensm no one can say) and buying a machine a few months later with 10.3 will be the operating system. Nothing else. Nada. Zip. The machines would be the same, the software is what is different.
Worst case, you might need to pay $129 to upgrade your 970 to 10.3 (just like everyone else that will pay for the update). More likely will be that you get a free ($19.95 or whatever the up-to-date program does) upgrade for 970 owners.
I see no shafting going on, but maybe that is just me.
So, if Apple announced the availability of a 1.4GHz 970 tomorrow, but it didn't have 10.3 pre installed, and you wouldn't be able to take full advantage of the 970, you wouldn't buy it? Even with everyone raving about how it wiped the floor with the G4, you still wouldn't buy it?
And if they then announced the availability of 10.3, which offered you a major leap in productivity, you wouldn't be tempted to buy 10.3?
And when the next generation of 970 were released shortly afterward, and your "ultimate" machine became the "fast" machine, you wouldn't be pissed off?
Okay!
To be clear about this. If Apple releases a new "ultimate" machine based on the 970 (I don't think this would happen) they would NOT come out with a new line-up in anyting less than 3-5 months. They're not that stupid. And if they know that they are going to come out with a new line-up in say 30 days, WTH come out with a 1.4 ghz 970 in the first place? It simply won't happen. And if I bought a new ultimate machine say in June, I know Apple will eventually come out with something faster. And NO I won't get pissed, because we all know its in the cards that upgrades do happen. If I need a new "ultimate" machine I'll buy it even though I know it will be the "fast" or "faster" model in a few months time. But again, the 970 will not be introduced in the current line up. It will not happen!!! Case closed.
Exactly. The 970 works fine in 32bit mode. Even if Panther were released tomorrow, do you think there will be any 64 bit apps? Developers will get their copies of Panther at WWDC, as well as 970 macs. The developers will start developing 64bit applications for Panther and by the time Panther ships, there will actually be some apps which will be able to utilize 64bits. Why do you think FCP4 is coming out in August. I'd put money on it that FCP4 will be the first 64bit app for Panther. The main point is, the 970 can operate in 32bits, and there will be significant speed increases for current apps running in Jaguar. Therefire the sooner Apple gets out the 970, the better.
Why would you not be able to take full advantage of the 970? The 970 with 10.2.X != Yikes. Yikes was a G3 motherborad with the G4 processor. The 970 will have a new mother board, all the works. The only difference between buying a 970 machine with no 10.3 (if that happensm no one can say) and buying a machine a few months later with 10.3 will be the operating system. Nothing else. Nada. Zip. The machines would be the same, the software is what is different.
Worst case, you might need to pay $129 to upgrade your 970 to 10.3 (just like everyone else that will pay for the update). More likely will be that you get a free ($19.95 or whatever the up-to-date program does) upgrade for 970 owners.
I see no shafting going on, but maybe that is just me.
1. Running 32bit software on 64bit 970 is not taking full advantage of it. If it were, nobody would bother writing 64bit software.
2. I'm aware that Yikes! featured a G4 CPU, mounted on a G3 motherboard by means of a ZIF socket. My point is that Yikes! was a stop gap machine. The memory bandwidth was significantly less than the Sawtooth counterparts. With Yikes! you simply couldn't upgrade the components that were lacking. And you couldn't get up to speed by simply installing a new version of the OS. This is where your comparison falls down.
3. It sounds like you know an awful lot about an as yet unannounced machine, perhaps you'd like to share the specs with us? What speeds will the CPU debut? What speed will the FSB be? What architecture will the board feature? Will the entire family use the same speed of RAM? Or will there be a difference like the current machines? I for one would like to know. There were rumours that Apple had ordered two different types of motherboard, one a single CPU design and the the other a dual. Is this true, and if so where do these motherboards fit into the family?
4. As for the shafting, compare what you pay for a new 970 + 10.3 to a rev. b release that ships with 10.3 pre-installed. I would suggest to you, that you pay a premium for being an early adopter, even although you won't be able to take full advantage of the hardware for that time.
I hope I'm wrong. I hope Apple do the right thing and give all 970 owners a free upgrade to 10.3 when it's available. But when you've bought as much Apple kit as I have, and witnessed as many product launches as I have, you start to grow a little sceptical. The funny thing is, after all the Apple kit I've bought, I've never once qualified for the "Up To Date" programme.
I would suggest to you, that you pay a premium for being an early adopter, even although you won't be able to take full advantage of the hardware for that time.
Being an early adopter always comes at a price. BUT, the price here is only a miniscule upgrade price you have to pay for panther when it's released. And I think Apple would have some sort of free upgrade to panther if these machines were to be released only one or two months ahed of the OS release.
And even if you cant take "full" advantage of the hardware, it WILL work, and provide a nice enough speed boost to get people to buy it. I know that I will buy it, with or without an "up to date" program.
Being an early adopter always comes at a price. BUT, the price here is only a miniscule upgrade price you have to pay for panther when it's released. And I think Apple would have some sort of free upgrade to panther if these machines were to be released only one or two months ahed of the OS release.
And even if you cant take "full" advantage of the hardware, it WILL work, and provide a nice enough speed boost to get people to buy it. I know that I will buy it, with or without an "up to date" program.
Yeah and I know I will buy it as well... that's the fecking problem!
And then I'll want to buy the rev. b when it appears as well!
1. Running 32bit software on 64bit 970 is not taking full advantage of it. If it were, nobody would bother writing 64bit software.
Sure it is. Not all applications need to be 64 bit capable and if your isn't, the PPC970 will run it at speed with no handicap for being only 32 bit.
Quote:
2. I'm aware that Yikes! featured a G4 CPU, mounted on a G3 motherboard by means of a ZIF socket. My point is that Yikes! was a stop gap machine. The memory bandwidth was significantly less than the Sawtooth counterparts. With Yikes! you simply couldn't upgrade the components that were lacking. And you couldn't get up to speed by simply installing a new version of the OS. This is where your comparison falls down.
Sounds to me that this where your comparison breaks down. There won't be a PPC970 version of Yikes because you can't put a PPC970 on a G4 mobo. Just won't work. Apple will have a new chipset for the PPC970 which means a new mobo design, no stop gap.
Quote:
3. It sounds like you know an awful lot about an as yet unannounced machine, perhaps you'd like to share the specs with us? What speeds will the CPU debut?
Speeds up to 1.8 GHz.
Quote:
What speed will the FSB be?
Half the speed of the CPU.
Quote:
What architecture will the board feature?
What's an architecture?
Quote:
Will the entire family use the same speed of RAM? Or will there be a difference like the current machines?
Ask Apple's marketing department. Either scenario is possible. What's that got to do with anything?
Quote:
I for one would like to know. There were rumours that Apple had ordered two different types of motherboard, one a single CPU design and the the other a dual. Is this true, and if so where do these motherboards fit into the family?
See above.
Quote:
4. As for the shafting, compare what you pay for a new 970 + 10.3 to a rev. b release that ships with 10.3 pre-installed. I would suggest to you, that you pay a premium for being an early adopter, even although you won't be able to take full advantage of the hardware for that time.
Once again, you're wrong. I don't suppose you're aware that it's not unusual for hardware to not fully support the features of an OS and vice versa? Try assigning more than 2GB of RAM to a classic app, if you don't believe me.
1. Running 32bit software on 64bit 970 is not taking full advantage of it. If it were, nobody would bother writing 64bit software.
There is absolutely _no_ way to improve _any_ aspect of iCal specifically for 64-bitness. Coding optimizations for minor timing issues - sure. Similar to the differences between the G4, G4+, G4e - mostly ignorable. But the overall return on optimizing the snot out of iCal for the ppc970 wouldn't exceed the return of optimizing it as heavily for the G4 or any of the other chips. The 64-bitness is not going to help iCal. Period. (The raw speed increase, of course, will) No, I haven't seen the code, but just name one aspect of the program that _might_ approach 2^32. Billions of 'scheduled events'? Baloney.
We can replace 'iCal' up there with a very large number of other programs. Far past "most". In the default Applications provided with OSX, I can see only three or so that might have a routine or two that could use 64-bitness. The encoders/decoders/players/etc. And even those wouldn't be 100% 64-bit code, so it isn't clear that they'll ever be recoded - making 1% of a program 500% faster doesn't imply that the entire program will feel anywhere near 500% faster. 20% maybe.
But the _reason_ for 64-bit apps and 64-bit hardware would still exist: 1) Programs that really _can_ use boatloads of memory (Photoshop, Final Cut Pro, things like this near their limits) and 2) programs that are inherently better served by 64-bit algorithms. (High-end databases)
So the ability to run 64-bit programs is 'nice', but the ability to run both 32-bit & 64-bit programs simultaneously is really the key part.
But shipping the 970 without a 64-bit OS isn't going to make iCal run slower. And most of the programs that _might_ be able to exploit the 64-bitness have either not yet been ported, or not yet released/thought of.
Sorry if I went into more detail than your comment really warranted, but people insist on seeing 64-bit computers as 'faster' than 32-bit computers simply due to bitness, the way 32-bit was faster than 8-bit. But there aren't _nearly_ as many (useful/discovered/and _used_) algorithms that are improved by the 32->64 transition as there were for the 8->32 (and everything inbetween). And a fair number of algorithms require more resources & might run slower on a 64-bit machine. (Which the Opteron/iTanium have to worry about, but the ppc won't - because it can switch back and forth 32<->64)
Jez, I'm gonna have to change my name again aren't I?
Completely and utterly humiliated by Nevyn...
So, let me take this opportunity to pick your brains, because you obviously know a lot more about this than I do...
Why is there all this excitement about moving to a 64bit OS on a 64bit CPU, when clearly it's not going to run any faster than a 32bit OS on a 64bit CPU?
Why is there all this excitement about moving to a 64bit OS on a 64bit CPU, when clearly it's not going to run any faster than a 32bit OS on a 64bit CPU?
Because, as Nevyn hinted, it opens up options at the high end. Want a Mac with more than 4GB RAM? Done. Want to open a 10GB file in Photoshop? Sure. Want to run Oracle on an Xserve? Sure.
What the 64 bit transition means that it Macs can suddenly scale higher architecturally (for instance: under OS 9 and earlier OS', they were limited to 1.5GB of physical RAM), and individual applications can sling mind-boggling amounts of data around, and take advantage of vast tracts of RAM - excellent for high-end A/V work, and for enterprise servers.
Also, if the 64-bit platform is available on a laptop, then all the people who do development work with and for those big systems can do so in the comfort of a coffeehouse, or on the road. Doing enterprise server development no longer means being tethered to an enterprise server, or even a traditional workstation.
This change isn't exciting because it affects the traditional Mac user base that much. It doesn't. It's exciting because it makes Macs attractive in areas where they've never even been considered before, and many of those areas are glamorous, influential, and lucrative.
Because, as Nevyn hinted, it opens up options at the high end. Want a Mac with more than 4GB RAM? Done. Want to open a 10GB file in Photoshop? Sure. Want to run Oracle on an Xserve? Sure.
What the 64 bit transition means that it Macs can suddenly scale higher architecturally (for instance: under OS 9 and earlier OS', they were limited to 1.5GB of physical RAM), and individual applications can sling mind-boggling amounts of data around, and take advantage of vast tracts of RAM - excellent for high-end A/V work, and for enterprise servers.
Also, if the 64-bit platform is available on a laptop, then all the people who do development work with and for those big systems can do so in the comfort of a coffeehouse, or on the road. Doing enterprise server development no longer means being tethered to an enterprise server, or even a traditional workstation.
This change isn't exciting because it affects the traditional Mac user base that much. It doesn't. It's exciting because it makes Macs attractive in areas where they've never even been considered before, and many of those areas are glamorous, influential, and lucrative.
So can you do all of these things with a 32bit OS on a 64bit CPU, or do you need a 64bit OS as well?
So can you do all of these things with a 32bit OS on a 64bit CPU, or do you need a 64bit OS as well?
You need a 64 bit OS (in other words, an OS that can expose the 64-bit capabilities of the CPU to applications). That's not all that big a change. Apple could just as easily patch Jaguar to do that if they felt like it.
So can you do all of these things with a 32bit OS on a 64bit CPU, or do you need a 64bit OS as well?
I'm not sure, but I would think that one would need a 64bit aware OS to run 64bit software, and a 64bit OS to code 64 bit Apps. That's why WWDC was delayed, so panther could get ready for developers and they can start writing 64bit apps on the 970s.
You need a 64 bit OS (in other words, an OS that can expose the 64-bit capabilities of the CPU to applications). That's not all that big a change. Apple could just as easily patch Jaguar to do that if they felt like it.
I'm sorry if this appears cheeky, or disrespectful - I appreciate that you're trying to explain this to me...
But doesn't what you just said mean that my original point holds true - that you need to run 64bit software (in this case the OS) to get the full advantage of the 970, because if you're running a 32bit OS, it won't reveal the 64bit capabilities of the CPU to the applications?
Why is there all this excitement about moving to a 64bit OS on a 64bit CPU, when clearly it's not going to run any faster than a 32bit OS on a 64bit CPU?
64-bit enables a few new capabilities which are interesting to fairly small groups of users. The really exciting thing about the 970 to almost everybody, however, is that it is MUCH faster. This doesn't have anything to do with its 64-bitness, it just happens to come in the same package. Think of it as a new car which not only has double the horsepower, but also comes with all wheel drive. In some situations the AWD makes it faster too, but usually only the horsepower makes it faster.
I'm sorry if this appears cheeky, or disrespectful - I appreciate that you're trying to explain this to me...
But doesn't what you just said mean that my original point holds true - that you need to run 64bit software (in this case the OS) to get the full advantage of the 970, because if you're running a 32bit OS, it won't reveal the 64bit capabilities of the CPU to the applications?
I think this is the bit I don't understand
The OS is an exception because while it doesn't take advantage of 64-bit hardware itself, it does enable other (application) software to take advantage of 64-bit hardware. If the application doesn't use 64-bit hardware then there is no need to run it on a 64-bit OS. If an application does want to use 64-bit hardware, however, then you need both 64-bit hardware and a 64-bit OS to make it possible for the application to do so. Think of the application as running on top of the OS and the OS on top of the software. The application can't see "through" the OS to the hardware unless the OS allows it to.
So can you do all of these things with a 32bit OS on a 64bit CPU, or do you need a 64bit OS as well?
Depends on what "is" is. Er, wait.
Minimal changes should make Mac OS X "64-bit-sane" (making up a term) so that it can run on 64-bit hardware. A different (I think, but still small) set of changes will allow access to 64 memory accesses for programs deliberately written to do 64-bit things. Let's call that "64-bit aware"
Both of those _could_ be a x.x.1 upgrade, and are (almost) typical of Apple always having slight changes in system software for new hardware.
BUT: This would _not_ be the "full 64-bit OS". To do _that_ will require more work on the provided libraries etc. Like having the Quicktime team pour over Quicktime looking for any function that could be written to have both a 32-bit version and a 64-bit version.
So iCal just needs "64-bit sane" to go 2x as fast.
Photoshop will go 2x at "64-bit sane"...
...but be able to access more memory/plugings at "64-bit aware"
Oracle will see a tremendous boost (Greater than 2x) at "aware"
But for all the nitty-gritty things that might see a _little_ improvement, that's going to wait for Apple to put out the "full 64-bit OS".
So what I'm trying to say is the 64-bit sane, or 64-bit aware tweaks, which aren't earth-shattering changes -> 90+% of the benefits. But even at this point the OS hasn't necessarily been tweaked _itself_ to improve its speed. Just to provide access to the hardware for the people that _need_ access.
So when you say" because if you're running a 32bit OS, it won't reveal the 64bit capabilities of the CPU to the applications?" You are right... and wrong.
The central bits have to be altered to understand & provide access. aka make it 'sane' and 'aware'. This isn't a 2-year undertaking.
But at that point the OS itself might not be able to (say) handle 4 billion items in a single finder view. -> All the frameworks/libraries/included programs do NOT need to be fully 64-bit, which _would_ be a major undertaking.
Edit: Heh, and Programmer contradicts me
I think he'd call a '64-bit aware OS', one that provides access without necessarily having a full rewrite a '64-bit OS' though.
So a "mostly 32-bit OS" that understands 64-bit, and exposes the 64-bit hardware/allows apps access -> _most_ of the benefit.
You aren't being obtuse, this is confusing, and I still don't think I explained it well... but I have to run for now.
Comments
Originally posted by Messiah
I hope they don't pull that sh*t again, where the entry level machine is a stripped down version, or entirely different architecture to the rest of the family.
A lot of people I know fell foul of Yikes! or those 466MHz & 533MHz vs. 667MHz & 733MHz machines.
I'd hate for people to buy the first revision 970, only for them to find out it was a stop gap machine.
Well.. Apple still does this.. Look at the iMac and the Powermac.. The 'fast' machines are not as good as 'faster' or 'fastest'! (Besides HD, RAM, CPU)
There was a rumor that a 'stop-gap' 1.4 Ghz PM 970 would come out first... I dont believe it though, but who knows?
Originally posted by Messiah
So, if Apple announced the availability of a 1.4GHz 970 tomorrow, but it didn't have 10.3 pre installed, and you wouldn't be able to take full advantage of the 970, you wouldn't buy it?
Why would you not be able to take full advantage of the 970? The 970 with 10.2.X != Yikes. Yikes was a G3 motherborad with the G4 processor. The 970 will have a new mother board, all the works. The only difference between buying a 970 machine with no 10.3 (if that happensm no one can say) and buying a machine a few months later with 10.3 will be the operating system. Nothing else. Nada. Zip. The machines would be the same, the software is what is different.
Worst case, you might need to pay $129 to upgrade your 970 to 10.3 (just like everyone else that will pay for the update). More likely will be that you get a free ($19.95 or whatever the up-to-date program does) upgrade for 970 owners.
I see no shafting going on, but maybe that is just me.
Originally posted by Messiah
So, if Apple announced the availability of a 1.4GHz 970 tomorrow, but it didn't have 10.3 pre installed, and you wouldn't be able to take full advantage of the 970, you wouldn't buy it? Even with everyone raving about how it wiped the floor with the G4, you still wouldn't buy it?
And if they then announced the availability of 10.3, which offered you a major leap in productivity, you wouldn't be tempted to buy 10.3?
And when the next generation of 970 were released shortly afterward, and your "ultimate" machine became the "fast" machine, you wouldn't be pissed off?
Okay!
To be clear about this. If Apple releases a new "ultimate" machine based on the 970 (I don't think this would happen) they would NOT come out with a new line-up in anyting less than 3-5 months. They're not that stupid. And if they know that they are going to come out with a new line-up in say 30 days, WTH come out with a 1.4 ghz 970 in the first place? It simply won't happen. And if I bought a new ultimate machine say in June, I know Apple will eventually come out with something faster. And NO I won't get pissed, because we all know its in the cards that upgrades do happen. If I need a new "ultimate" machine I'll buy it even though I know it will be the "fast" or "faster" model in a few months time. But again, the 970 will not be introduced in the current line up. It will not happen!!!
Originally posted by kupan787
Why would you not be able to take full advantage of the 970? The 970 with 10.2.X != Yikes. Yikes was a G3 motherborad with the G4 processor. The 970 will have a new mother board, all the works. The only difference between buying a 970 machine with no 10.3 (if that happensm no one can say) and buying a machine a few months later with 10.3 will be the operating system. Nothing else. Nada. Zip. The machines would be the same, the software is what is different.
Worst case, you might need to pay $129 to upgrade your 970 to 10.3 (just like everyone else that will pay for the update). More likely will be that you get a free ($19.95 or whatever the up-to-date program does) upgrade for 970 owners.
I see no shafting going on, but maybe that is just me.
1. Running 32bit software on 64bit 970 is not taking full advantage of it. If it were, nobody would bother writing 64bit software.
2. I'm aware that Yikes! featured a G4 CPU, mounted on a G3 motherboard by means of a ZIF socket. My point is that Yikes! was a stop gap machine. The memory bandwidth was significantly less than the Sawtooth counterparts. With Yikes! you simply couldn't upgrade the components that were lacking. And you couldn't get up to speed by simply installing a new version of the OS. This is where your comparison falls down.
3. It sounds like you know an awful lot about an as yet unannounced machine, perhaps you'd like to share the specs with us? What speeds will the CPU debut? What speed will the FSB be? What architecture will the board feature? Will the entire family use the same speed of RAM? Or will there be a difference like the current machines? I for one would like to know. There were rumours that Apple had ordered two different types of motherboard, one a single CPU design and the the other a dual. Is this true, and if so where do these motherboards fit into the family?
4. As for the shafting, compare what you pay for a new 970 + 10.3 to a rev. b release that ships with 10.3 pre-installed. I would suggest to you, that you pay a premium for being an early adopter, even although you won't be able to take full advantage of the hardware for that time.
I hope I'm wrong. I hope Apple do the right thing and give all 970 owners a free upgrade to 10.3 when it's available. But when you've bought as much Apple kit as I have, and witnessed as many product launches as I have, you start to grow a little sceptical. The funny thing is, after all the Apple kit I've bought, I've never once qualified for the "Up To Date" programme.
Originally posted by Messiah
I would suggest to you, that you pay a premium for being an early adopter, even although you won't be able to take full advantage of the hardware for that time.
Being an early adopter always comes at a price. BUT, the price here is only a miniscule upgrade price you have to pay for panther when it's released. And I think Apple would have some sort of free upgrade to panther if these machines were to be released only one or two months ahed of the OS release.
And even if you cant take "full" advantage of the hardware, it WILL work, and provide a nice enough speed boost to get people to buy it. I know that I will buy it, with or without an "up to date" program.
Originally posted by NETROMac
Being an early adopter always comes at a price. BUT, the price here is only a miniscule upgrade price you have to pay for panther when it's released. And I think Apple would have some sort of free upgrade to panther if these machines were to be released only one or two months ahed of the OS release.
And even if you cant take "full" advantage of the hardware, it WILL work, and provide a nice enough speed boost to get people to buy it. I know that I will buy it, with or without an "up to date" program.
Yeah and I know I will buy it as well... that's the fecking problem!
And then I'll want to buy the rev. b when it appears as well!
Originally posted by Messiah
1. Running 32bit software on 64bit 970 is not taking full advantage of it. If it were, nobody would bother writing 64bit software.
Sure it is. Not all applications need to be 64 bit capable and if your isn't, the PPC970 will run it at speed with no handicap for being only 32 bit.
2. I'm aware that Yikes! featured a G4 CPU, mounted on a G3 motherboard by means of a ZIF socket. My point is that Yikes! was a stop gap machine. The memory bandwidth was significantly less than the Sawtooth counterparts. With Yikes! you simply couldn't upgrade the components that were lacking. And you couldn't get up to speed by simply installing a new version of the OS. This is where your comparison falls down.
Sounds to me that this where your comparison breaks down. There won't be a PPC970 version of Yikes because you can't put a PPC970 on a G4 mobo. Just won't work. Apple will have a new chipset for the PPC970 which means a new mobo design, no stop gap.
3. It sounds like you know an awful lot about an as yet unannounced machine, perhaps you'd like to share the specs with us? What speeds will the CPU debut?
Speeds up to 1.8 GHz.
What speed will the FSB be?
Half the speed of the CPU.
What architecture will the board feature?
What's an architecture?
Will the entire family use the same speed of RAM? Or will there be a difference like the current machines?
Ask Apple's marketing department. Either scenario is possible. What's that got to do with anything?
I for one would like to know. There were rumours that Apple had ordered two different types of motherboard, one a single CPU design and the the other a dual. Is this true, and if so where do these motherboards fit into the family?
See above.
4. As for the shafting, compare what you pay for a new 970 + 10.3 to a rev. b release that ships with 10.3 pre-installed. I would suggest to you, that you pay a premium for being an early adopter, even although you won't be able to take full advantage of the hardware for that time.
Once again, you're wrong. I don't suppose you're aware that it's not unusual for hardware to not fully support the features of an OS and vice versa? Try assigning more than 2GB of RAM to a classic app, if you don't believe me.
Originally posted by Messiah
1. Running 32bit software on 64bit 970 is not taking full advantage of it. If it were, nobody would bother writing 64bit software.
There is absolutely _no_ way to improve _any_ aspect of iCal specifically for 64-bitness. Coding optimizations for minor timing issues - sure. Similar to the differences between the G4, G4+, G4e - mostly ignorable. But the overall return on optimizing the snot out of iCal for the ppc970 wouldn't exceed the return of optimizing it as heavily for the G4 or any of the other chips. The 64-bitness is not going to help iCal. Period. (The raw speed increase, of course, will) No, I haven't seen the code, but just name one aspect of the program that _might_ approach 2^32. Billions of 'scheduled events'? Baloney.
We can replace 'iCal' up there with a very large number of other programs. Far past "most". In the default Applications provided with OSX, I can see only three or so that might have a routine or two that could use 64-bitness. The encoders/decoders/players/etc. And even those wouldn't be 100% 64-bit code, so it isn't clear that they'll ever be recoded - making 1% of a program 500% faster doesn't imply that the entire program will feel anywhere near 500% faster. 20% maybe.
But the _reason_ for 64-bit apps and 64-bit hardware would still exist: 1) Programs that really _can_ use boatloads of memory (Photoshop, Final Cut Pro, things like this near their limits) and 2) programs that are inherently better served by 64-bit algorithms. (High-end databases)
So the ability to run 64-bit programs is 'nice', but the ability to run both 32-bit & 64-bit programs simultaneously is really the key part.
But shipping the 970 without a 64-bit OS isn't going to make iCal run slower. And most of the programs that _might_ be able to exploit the 64-bitness have either not yet been ported, or not yet released/thought of.
Sorry if I went into more detail than your comment really warranted, but people insist on seeing 64-bit computers as 'faster' than 32-bit computers simply due to bitness, the way 32-bit was faster than 8-bit. But there aren't _nearly_ as many (useful/discovered/and _used_) algorithms that are improved by the 32->64 transition as there were for the 8->32 (and everything inbetween). And a fair number of algorithms require more resources & might run slower on a 64-bit machine. (Which the Opteron/iTanium have to worry about, but the ppc won't - because it can switch back and forth 32<->64)
Messiah, your point here is just plain wrong.
Originally posted by Kickaha
What he said.
Messiah, your point here is just plain wrong.
Jez, I'm gonna have to change my name again aren't I?
Completely and utterly humiliated by Nevyn...
So, let me take this opportunity to pick your brains, because you obviously know a lot more about this than I do...
Why is there all this excitement about moving to a 64bit OS on a 64bit CPU, when clearly it's not going to run any faster than a 32bit OS on a 64bit CPU?
the 64bitness is just a wonderful by product in the short term.
Originally posted by Messiah
Why is there all this excitement about moving to a 64bit OS on a 64bit CPU, when clearly it's not going to run any faster than a 32bit OS on a 64bit CPU?
Because, as Nevyn hinted, it opens up options at the high end. Want a Mac with more than 4GB RAM? Done. Want to open a 10GB file in Photoshop? Sure. Want to run Oracle on an Xserve? Sure.
What the 64 bit transition means that it Macs can suddenly scale higher architecturally (for instance: under OS 9 and earlier OS', they were limited to 1.5GB of physical RAM), and individual applications can sling mind-boggling amounts of data around, and take advantage of vast tracts of RAM - excellent for high-end A/V work, and for enterprise servers.
Also, if the 64-bit platform is available on a laptop, then all the people who do development work with and for those big systems can do so in the comfort of a coffeehouse, or on the road. Doing enterprise server development no longer means being tethered to an enterprise server, or even a traditional workstation.
This change isn't exciting because it affects the traditional Mac user base that much. It doesn't. It's exciting because it makes Macs attractive in areas where they've never even been considered before, and many of those areas are glamorous, influential, and lucrative.
Originally posted by Amorph
Because, as Nevyn hinted, it opens up options at the high end. Want a Mac with more than 4GB RAM? Done. Want to open a 10GB file in Photoshop? Sure. Want to run Oracle on an Xserve? Sure.
What the 64 bit transition means that it Macs can suddenly scale higher architecturally (for instance: under OS 9 and earlier OS', they were limited to 1.5GB of physical RAM), and individual applications can sling mind-boggling amounts of data around, and take advantage of vast tracts of RAM - excellent for high-end A/V work, and for enterprise servers.
Also, if the 64-bit platform is available on a laptop, then all the people who do development work with and for those big systems can do so in the comfort of a coffeehouse, or on the road. Doing enterprise server development no longer means being tethered to an enterprise server, or even a traditional workstation.
This change isn't exciting because it affects the traditional Mac user base that much. It doesn't. It's exciting because it makes Macs attractive in areas where they've never even been considered before, and many of those areas are glamorous, influential, and lucrative.
So can you do all of these things with a 32bit OS on a 64bit CPU, or do you need a 64bit OS as well?
Originally posted by Messiah
So can you do all of these things with a 32bit OS on a 64bit CPU, or do you need a 64bit OS as well?
You need a 64 bit OS (in other words, an OS that can expose the 64-bit capabilities of the CPU to applications). That's not all that big a change. Apple could just as easily patch Jaguar to do that if they felt like it.
Originally posted by Messiah
So can you do all of these things with a 32bit OS on a 64bit CPU, or do you need a 64bit OS as well?
I'm not sure, but I would think that one would need a 64bit aware OS to run 64bit software, and a 64bit OS to code 64 bit Apps. That's why WWDC was delayed, so panther could get ready for developers and they can start writing 64bit apps on the 970s.
Originally posted by Amorph
You need a 64 bit OS (in other words, an OS that can expose the 64-bit capabilities of the CPU to applications). That's not all that big a change. Apple could just as easily patch Jaguar to do that if they felt like it.
I'm sorry if this appears cheeky, or disrespectful - I appreciate that you're trying to explain this to me...
But doesn't what you just said mean that my original point holds true - that you need to run 64bit software (in this case the OS) to get the full advantage of the 970, because if you're running a 32bit OS, it won't reveal the 64bit capabilities of the CPU to the applications?
I think this is the bit I don't understand
Originally posted by Messiah
Why is there all this excitement about moving to a 64bit OS on a 64bit CPU, when clearly it's not going to run any faster than a 32bit OS on a 64bit CPU?
64-bit enables a few new capabilities which are interesting to fairly small groups of users. The really exciting thing about the 970 to almost everybody, however, is that it is MUCH faster. This doesn't have anything to do with its 64-bitness, it just happens to come in the same package. Think of it as a new car which not only has double the horsepower, but also comes with all wheel drive. In some situations the AWD makes it faster too, but usually only the horsepower makes it faster.
Originally posted by Messiah
I'm sorry if this appears cheeky, or disrespectful - I appreciate that you're trying to explain this to me...
But doesn't what you just said mean that my original point holds true - that you need to run 64bit software (in this case the OS) to get the full advantage of the 970, because if you're running a 32bit OS, it won't reveal the 64bit capabilities of the CPU to the applications?
I think this is the bit I don't understand
The OS is an exception because while it doesn't take advantage of 64-bit hardware itself, it does enable other (application) software to take advantage of 64-bit hardware. If the application doesn't use 64-bit hardware then there is no need to run it on a 64-bit OS. If an application does want to use 64-bit hardware, however, then you need both 64-bit hardware and a 64-bit OS to make it possible for the application to do so. Think of the application as running on top of the OS and the OS on top of the software. The application can't see "through" the OS to the hardware unless the OS allows it to.
Originally posted by Messiah
So can you do all of these things with a 32bit OS on a 64bit CPU, or do you need a 64bit OS as well?
Depends on what "is" is. Er, wait.
Minimal changes should make Mac OS X "64-bit-sane" (making up a term) so that it can run on 64-bit hardware. A different (I think, but still small) set of changes will allow access to 64 memory accesses for programs deliberately written to do 64-bit things. Let's call that "64-bit aware"
Both of those _could_ be a x.x.1 upgrade, and are (almost) typical of Apple always having slight changes in system software for new hardware.
BUT: This would _not_ be the "full 64-bit OS". To do _that_ will require more work on the provided libraries etc. Like having the Quicktime team pour over Quicktime looking for any function that could be written to have both a 32-bit version and a 64-bit version.
So iCal just needs "64-bit sane" to go 2x as fast.
Photoshop will go 2x at "64-bit sane"...
...but be able to access more memory/plugings at "64-bit aware"
Oracle will see a tremendous boost (Greater than 2x) at "aware"
But for all the nitty-gritty things that might see a _little_ improvement, that's going to wait for Apple to put out the "full 64-bit OS".
So what I'm trying to say is the 64-bit sane, or 64-bit aware tweaks, which aren't earth-shattering changes -> 90+% of the benefits. But even at this point the OS hasn't necessarily been tweaked _itself_ to improve its speed. Just to provide access to the hardware for the people that _need_ access.
So when you say" because if you're running a 32bit OS, it won't reveal the 64bit capabilities of the CPU to the applications?" You are right... and wrong.
The central bits have to be altered to understand & provide access. aka make it 'sane' and 'aware'. This isn't a 2-year undertaking.
But at that point the OS itself might not be able to (say) handle 4 billion items in a single finder view. -> All the frameworks/libraries/included programs do NOT need to be fully 64-bit, which _would_ be a major undertaking.
Edit: Heh, and Programmer contradicts me
I think he'd call a '64-bit aware OS', one that provides access without necessarily having a full rewrite a '64-bit OS' though.
So a "mostly 32-bit OS" that understands 64-bit, and exposes the 64-bit hardware/allows apps access -> _most_ of the benefit.
You aren't being obtuse, this is confusing, and I still don't think I explained it well... but I have to run for now.