In the new article “Developing 64-bit Applications” of the
“Tiger Developer Overview Series” published on ADC, Apple states that the Cocoa and Carbon GUI application frameworks will not be ready for 64-bit programming. Even the kernel will be compiled in 32-bit address mode and will be provided in only one version for all the machines. The only 64-bit system framework which will be provided in a “fat” format will be libSystem which command-line applications, servers and computation engines will be linkable to. The 32-bit GUI clients will be capable however to communicate with the 64-bit server processes by using several IPC techniques.
64-bit Support in Tiger Is Only for Server Processes
About The Author
Adam Scheinberg
Technology Executive • Web Developer • Father • Foodie • Music Snob • OS enthusiast
Follow me on Mastodon @[email protected]
This makes total sense. In a world where you have to worry about backwards compatibility and supporting ISVs, optimizing the parts of the system that can really benefit from 64 bit-ness first is smart. Why do you care if the call to draw your button is 64 bit? Wouldn’t you rather not break a ton of apps?
Every application (compiled for the G5) can do 64-bit integer math native.
A 64-bit application is not faster than a 32-bit application (in fact it may be a little slower because of increased code size).
The advantage of 64-bit applications is that they can address more than 2 GB memory in one chunk, so it is for servers and scientific applications and not for gui (a 32-bit gui can communicate with a 64-bit server).
The BIG advantage of Mac OS X is that there is ONE OS for both 32-bit and 64-bit applications – no need to recompile!
I agree with you, I’d rather have all my apps still functioning.
Wouldn’t you rather not break a ton of apps?
Why would you have to break a ton of apps? When Sun and SGI went 64-bit in the 1990’s, they didn’t break any apps. They just provided both 32-bit and 64-bit compiled versions of each library. The 64-bit kernel allowed 32-bit apps to run under it just fine. Apple isn’t making Tiger only partially 64-bit because of app breakage. They are most likely doing it because some parts of the OS aren’t 64-bit clean, and they don’t consider making them 64-bit clean a priority right now.
The BIG advantage of Mac OS X is that there is ONE OS for both 32-bit and 64-bit applications – no need to recompile!
Nice spin, but it’s not correct. Under pretty much every other OS in existance (Linux, Windows, Solaris, AIX, IRIX, HP-UX), 64-bit binaries can run alongside 32-bit binaries just fine, without any limitations on the 64-bit binaries. No need to recompiled at all.
it is kind of funny that in an attempt to preempt the mac-bashers, the mac faithful have come in early to say “it doesn’t matter”, or “makes sense”, or “rather this than broken apps”. good stuff.
anyway, i’m inclined to ask someone more knowledgable than i if this makes any difference. what benefits are there to pure 64-bit vs the hybrid?
If Linux distro producers, with far less resources, can produce 64-bit and 32-bit versions why can’t Apple ? This makes Tiger seem somewhat of a disappointing hodge podge.
Is this really a surprise coming from the company that still had 68K code running in emulation mode in their OS many years after switching to PPC?
There is no reason Apple can’t write a 64-bit OS that supports all existing 32-bit applications. IBM touts tranparent 32-bit support in all of their G5 literature. Besides, Solaris and Irix have supported this for years.
Simple, FOSS developers design their software to open and portable. If one knew a thing or two about intermediate programming, one could easily submit a patch upstream to make a 32-bit application 64-bit. It isn’t rocket science, it is the phenomenal dynamism of open source software development.
Plus 64-bit computing is really overkill for desktop computing. You need gigantic resources to run a 64-bit environment reasonably well, in particular RAM and a CPU with plentiful registers and cache.
Although not published here, Apple eMacs made it into the top
ten worst prodcut of the year 2004:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1735287,00.asp
Apple needs to pull out of the desktop market and concentrate on the iPod, where they have a real profit.
The PPC architecture is great, but Apple is not the best company for it to make it work.
I want Apple to do well, but their desktop are over priced and generally give Apple a black eye. Their iPod prodcut, better represents great creativity of the company and shows the future for Apple.
Go Apple!!!
Sounds to me like they have trouble with a 64bit OS running on their 32bit Moto PPC Processors in the eMac and Laptops, why not sell two os’s a 32bit and a 64bit? as stated before G5’s can natively run 32bit code so app’s shouldn’t struggle too much if they arn’t releasing a 64bit OS then what was the point in me shelling out for a 64bit Dual G5 ??
Notice that it isn’t really a Mac specific topic but a PPC specific topic.
The users are right that 64bit on PPC doesn’t really matter as it won’t improve performance, which is a very different situation from 80×86 where along the 64bitness, the number of register doubled, which is quite significant in a register starved ISA like 80×86..
So 64bit on PPC is not really a big deal because PPC ISA is already good.
But 64bit on 80×86 may be a nice boost for some application because x86-64 fix a little the braindead x86 ISA.
who cares, 64-bit is the new “dual CPU” of computer geeks. “hah I laugh at you puny mortals who have only one CPU” “hah I laugh at you puny mortals who have only 32-bit architectures”.
So 32-bit command line utilities but no 32-bit kernel. So they ported the exisitng BSD based 64-bit command line binaries. That probably took all of a week. Kinda lame Apple.
Actually they don’t. Yeah, they recompile libraries and programs on a 64 bit processor, but that doesn’t mean that they are taking advantage of having a bigger addressspace or being able to make calculations with huge numbers. You need to still actually hand-optimize some of those applications that handle big amounts of data.
Apple needs to pull out of the desktop market and concentrate on the iPod, where they have a real profit.
Actually that is incorrect. They generate a bigger profit with their computers than with the ipod. Don’t confuse market share with actual financial profit.
What on earth does this have to do with the subject of 64 bit architecture of the OS?
Although not published here, Apple eMacs made it into the top
ten worst prodcut of the year 2004:
I think that’s funny, but I agree that eMac needs to be upgraded. The eMac should be at the current speeds of the iMac, but without a flatscreen. Apple may be putting all thier resources in the iMac and others. They also need updates on some of the software niches too. Like Keynote for example.
Benefits to 32-bit Applications
Tiger’s support for 64-bit computing doesn’t leave 32-bit applications out in the cold. 32-bit applications will be able to access most of the 64-bit based registers in the G5 as well as take advantage of the 64-bit based load/store units and logic units of the G5.
In addition, 32-bit applications can take full advantage of the G5’s massively parallel execution core. This core sports two pipelined double-precision floating point units, support for more than 200 in-flight instructions, and more than three times the internal bandwidth of the G4. Even when running 32-bit applications, the G5 makes short work of the most complex tasks.
I really think that Apple’s shooting themselves in the foot on this one.
Why have a 64 bit processor if you’re not going to feed it 64 bit code? Now, I’m not talking about the desktop here — although there are some of us on the pro-sumer end of things that would dearly love the ability to use 8gigs of ram.
But on the server end of things, if there was a 64 bit Tiger server … they could cut a chunk out of Sun and SGI’s markets. I always look to see what kind of computers the scientists are running when I watch TV and I’ve seen some screamingly expensive setups (SGI) at the USGS and the Army Proving Grounds. I’ve also seen some Suns at NOAA. All of these computers were used for detailed mapping and modeling and were needed for the sheer muscle power of crunching datasets like that.
Granted, you can go to Terrasoft and buy an Xserve with a 64 bit compile of YDL … but it’s not OSX.
Scientific apps aside, once again, 64 bit compiles of Shake and FCP would also increase sales of X-Serves.
—
In the meantime, that’s another year of money in the New PowerMac Warchest and not only will I have enough to max out the ram and get a new monitor, I’ll also get that $900 widget that captures component video. Woot!
Nope.
The Linux applications automatically take advantage of the larger address space, it’s completely seamless. They can allocate more memory (assuming enough RAM or swap is available) without any changes to the code, just a recompile.
The compiler will automatically optimise many calculations to use the wider & faster 64-bit arithmetic. Most apps which need very large integers will already be using a 64-bit datatype, and apps which specified just a “long” integer which is 32-bit on previous systems will also use the fast 64-bit integers on the 64-bit hardware automatically.
Some people, for reasons that are hard to fathom, seem to forget that a lot of this Linux software ran on 64-bit hardware for years already, it just wasn’t mainstream x86 boxes you bought at your local PC store. If the software needed changes to work on 64-bit hardware people were making those changes back in the 1990s, not now.
My daily box is Debian. OS X and Linux both use GCC. What makes you think the compiler specifics for Linux aren’t available for OS X?
In fact, GCC for OS X adds specifics to ObjC and ObjC++ that will merge into GCC 4.0, not to mention PPC specific additions.
Ok, its great that they are starting to take advantage of the whole 64bit proccesors but shouldnt they make all of the thingers they sell 64bit ie: IBOOK,POWERBOOK
The kernel will be 32bit but will support access to the whole 64bit memory space. (No way the kernel could do IPC if it couldn’t) This will be done with an additional API, not by just using pointers. I believe it is much like using mmap. Though I haven’t actually tried it myself.
There is very little reason I’d think you’d need to access a contiguous memory space greater than, say, 2gb from kernel space. IMO, that’d be a really bad idea. This way, drivers can stay 32bit and still support 64bit and 32bit platforms. All current 32bit drivers will function with no changes also.
Eventually there may be a need, but I wouldn’t want apple to use dev cycles to add support for a feature where there will be no benifit to anything I do.
For those linux people who might think my claim that there is little need for >2gb contiguous memory access (Much liess >4gb) from kernel space. Remember, much more happens in user space in OS X than in linux.
“I really think that Apple’s shooting themselves in the foot on this one.
Why have a 64 bit processor if you’re not going to feed it 64 bit code? Now, I’m not talking about the desktop here — although there are some of us on the pro-sumer end of things that would dearly love the ability to use 8gigs of ram.”
Nothing new here. Apple launched PPC when MacOS ran in 68K emulated mode on them!!! Huge ripoff. They(Apple) figure people do not know the difference. So if it worked then, why won’t it work now? At that time people were not so much into colors, like they are now. People seem willing to pay for unused hardware. As long as the hardware has good specs, who cares if OsX can actually use it? I think Apple can pull it off.
Go Apple!!
Ok, its great that they are starting to take advantage of the whole 64bit proccesors but shouldnt they make all of the thingers they sell 64bit ie: IBOOK,POWERBOOK>>
Have you seen the heatskink on a G5? Have you seen what Apple had to do to shoehorn it into an iMac and *still* keep it quiet?
Yeah, a g5 laptop would be nice, but at this point, given heat factors, we’re talking return of the luggable. And it would not be a near silent machine.
I’d like to see Freescale (or whatever it is that Moto’s chip division is named) come out with those dual core g4s and/or alter the design so that the bus-speed isn’t crippled.
“Nope.
The Linux applications automatically take advantage of the larger address space, it’s completely seamless. They can allocate more memory (assuming enough RAM or swap is available) without any changes to the code, just a recompile. ”
No. That is a gross simplification; if not just wrong. Many applications use autoconf to abstract the sizes of fundemental datatypes away, but there is still signifigant effort to make an application 64bit clean.
Recompiling an application as 64bit changes the size of two fundemental data types: “long” and all pointer types. This is the LP64 model. OS X, Solaris and Linux all use this model. Changes to these data type sizes is propogated into changing the size of all data structures that use these data types. This affects serialization, deserialization (Saving and loading essentially), network communication, argument stack space: *Everything* with the type specifiers “*” and “long” in the C/C++ world.
The autoconf build system produces a conf.h file that declares Int32, Int64, and others. Which, many developers use, but not all. This doesn’t abstract out all 64bit changes sadly. Smart development practices can make the transition appear seamless, but only in the ideal is the transition truly problem-free.
On a side note: The only truly seamless transition to 64bit with all the benies is possible only by virtual machine systems! No recompile nescessary! Some VM’s abstract out 64bit datatypes and pointers from any specific implementation and can happily use native 64bit ints and allocate the full 64bit dataspace without even a recompile. Still, this requires careful planning on the VM authors.
FYI, 64bit windows will use (LL)P64 (long-long and pointers are 64bit). Mostly because changing MFC to handle 64bit longs when it’s barely using 32bits is nigh impossible.
Apple launched PPC when MacOS ran in 68K emulated mode on them!!! Huge ripoff. They(Apple) figure people do not know the difference. So if it worked then, why won’t it work now?>>
There’s a big difference in the reasons this is being done and the results.
Your comments reveal nothing but profound and willful ignorance.
If you all need 64-bit so badly, how come you don’t all use a proven 64-bit platform like Compaq Alpha, SGI MIPS or Sun SPARC? The support is here, and has been here for ten years or so.
If you want to write 64-bit apps, you can do that, and if you have applications that require a 64-bit address space, you can do that too.
Sure, you can make the cost argument, So what pieces of software are people running on Athlon-64 that are unwieldy or impossible to run on PPC that aren’t supported by Apple’s approach?
Maybe Apple realise that 64-bit versions of their desktop apps will actually run slower than the 32-bit versions.
I mean, if youre all so interested in the state of the art with no regard for today’s application requirements, why aren’t you all Itanium customers?
Because they love to whine
Apple migrated to a 32bit HW platform, while running a 16bit OS (MacOS). Keep in mind Apple is both a SW/HW company.
People are more informed now adays, yet Apple is doing it again. G5 is a 64bit HW paltform running OsX a 32 bit OS. What are the reasons for this? Who cares? Apple is still pulling the wool over the eyes of users. That’s a fact, spare me the sob stories as to why this is, it just is!
I don’t care about Apple as a comune, I care about the company, moreoever I care about my money. Don’t get me wrong, owning Apple stock, in the short term the more people that buy under-utilized G5’s the better! But every time a news header shows up exposing OsX as a 32bit SW running on 64 bit HW is embarassing, and a risk for investors.
However, for long term sake I just wish they stop selling expensive under utilized hw, and concentrate on the iPods, my Apple stock would be healthier than relaying in a small, wanna stay blind, userbase. Apple’s hope is that the user base doesn’t wake up. Why the risk? Go with the iPods, at least those are not “under utilize” hardware. And break out of OsX only stuff and get any custumer, whether they use Windows or not, their money doesn’t come in x86 and PPC editions, they are all as good.
You hear Steve, I want Mo’money from my stock!
Go Apple, go!!!
Is it just me or is everyone forgetting that G3s and G4s aren’t 64bit CPUs so therefore, forcing everyone to dump their Hardware just to get Tiger is nothing but absurd.
You think people bitched about us NeXT folks over the OS direction, watch what would happen if Steve said this January, “All systems are G5 or newer, Tiger is 64 bit and only runs on G5 or greater so start upgrading folks!”
The transition will be much shorter than the 68k to 601 series.
What you’re missing is that Tiger could be pure 64-bit code AND still run on old Macs by making the OS itself fat. Solaris, IRIX, AIX, HP-UX, and Linux all did it, so Apple could do it if they wanted to.
beings i’m ignorant in all of it.. could some one tell me (whom actually knows what they are talking about) what it is that is so horribly wrong with the implimentation apple is doing for the time being?
saying “well its not true 64 bit” doesn’t count.. i need to know what apples method will actually prevent the end users from being able to accomplish
cheers.
The only thing that developers can not do is write 64 bit GUI apps. However, they can still write 64Bit back ends and 32 bit GUIs to go along with them. Then, use IPC to glue them together. In fact, there was a whole talk on that in the tiger tech talk that we gave recently.
“Why have a 64 bit processor if you’re not going to feed it 64 bit code?”
Because they’re committed to the PowerPC architecture and the G5 is (or was when they started using it) the best implementation of that architecture available to them. The fact that it’s capable of 64-bit processing is neither here nor there, really.
Does it exist 128bit?!?
>Because they’re committed to the PowerPC architecture and the >G5 is (or was when they started using it) the best >implementation of that architecture available to them.
>The fact that it’s capable of 64-bit processing is neither >here nor there, really.
Non sense! The fact that is a 64bit processor running 32bit code means you are paying premium for an expensive under-utilized piece of hardware.
Why not stick with G4 or even G3 until OsX is really 64bit? Buying expensive G5 to put on a 32bit Os is loaning your money to Apple.
Which benefit us investor in the short term, but long term it can sink, when people realize that is based on lies, bait and switch and what not.
Better yet, a great honest Apple product is the iPod, people love it and it sells like hot cakes. Apple should pull off the G5 non sense and stick with iPods.
I feel so incredibly bad.
Really us poor OS X users are terribly misstreated by the fact that Apple doesn’t make everything in their arsenal 64bit, but do you know who I feel for the most…
It’s the PC users. I feel bad. Everywhere around the world upon hearing this news they come to forums to tell us how sad they are that Apple mistreats us so badly. We all thought they didn’t care, but really it means SO much to them that the OS they aren’t even using cripples us Mac uses. They can stop telling us of the misery they feel.
Apple should stop making the PC weenies feel so bad. Really it’s starting to make me unhappy!
Why not stick with G4 or even G3 until OsX is really 64bit? Buying expensive G5 to put on a 32bit Os is loaning your money to Apple.
Because they don’t make 2.5GHz G4 or G3 processors. As the original poster said, the fact that it is 64-bit is incidental.
Next question?
So all the people running XP on Athlon 64 processors are idiots, too? Even though it’s the single best CPU for the platform on price / performance, and comfortably outperforms the 32-bit AMD Athlon XP? Apple have a very good 32 bit operating system called OS X. They are committed to using the PowerPC processor to run that operating system. Every time a newer PowerPC processor capable of running that operating system better becomes available, they build a system using it. The company which manufactures the PowerPC processor decided to make recent versions capable of executing both 32-bit and 64-bit code natively, as the Athlon 64 does. It is superior in 32-bit performance to the previous revision, the G4. Therefore Apple decided to build new systems to run their 32-bit operating system on the CPU with the best 32-bit performance that was available to them, the G5. Where are you having a problem with this?
I would think the biggest reason for this is backwards compatibility: As one poster above said, there are still G4 machines BEING SOLD, as of today. How can they make a 64bit optomized version of OS X that will not run on those boxes. Yes, they could fork, and have 2 versions, or yes, they could have a “Fat” distro with both, but I have to give kudos to the apple engineers for putting the resources that they would be basically wasting on those endeavours into much more useful things, which can be seen by anyone who has worked their way up through the OS X releases. Me, I would like to see a pure 64bit release, but I think its a little early. Our good freinds at M$ have yet to release a 64bit windows ANYTHING, so why are we expection so much more from a much smaller company :
PS, turn off the flamethrowers, I don’t even own a mac.
Everyday I feel Tiger gets less and less interesting…
I wont be getting Tiger, beacuse Panther runs great on a G5.
For an end user i see no need or want in Tiger… maybe when apps come out that take advantage of the new features. By then i will probably upgrade to a new mac.
Although Tiger will gain market share only as people get new macs.
umm, I think Tiger has a lot of interesting features in it. I will be upgrading for the data centric focus that it gives rather than the file centric focus that Panther and all other OSs have right now.
I really feel like Apple is making a mistake on this. Even if the performance benefits aren’t there, having a 64bit OS is just one of those key buzzwords. I just know this story is going to get a lot of bad press for Apple. The work involved in doing this right would totally justify the bad press it would avoid.
I use OS X servers and clients all day at work, and for everything Apple does right they do something just as wrong. I’ll be pushing the Tiger upgrades because they’re going to FINALLY finish laptop support with home directory synching.. or thats what has been promised. I haven’t found out the real limitations on the feature yet.
I don’t think that people really understand the what does it mean to do 64-bit computation. 64-bit cpmputation means two things:
– 64 bit math computing (to be precise 64 bit interger math).
– Support of 64 bit adressing, in order to get ride of the 4 go of memory adressable with the 32 bit mode.
Ok that’s the definition of 64 bit computation, there is nothing else, no other magic things that can appear when doing 64 bits conputations. A lot of people that their applications becomes magically fast if they run it on 64 bit. That’s not true at all, 64-bit computing only delivers better performance in very defined and specific situations.
So now imagine and try to quantify your need. What are doing with a computer usually. Well you go to surf on the web, you use for that a web browser. You write mails, you use word processing softwares, you listen music, you burn CD/DVD, you play games, you manage your photos, your movies,etc….
And know ask yourself, do i need the 64 bit computation (as described above) to write mails, surf on interbet, or even play games. Does a mail application needs to make 64 bit math computation, or does it need to address more than 4 go of memory?……. of course not! The same for the application that goes on internet, manages your photos and your holidays movies, or writes your text. Even games do not need 64 bits computations. Many game developpers have noticed that they don’t even use 64 bits interger math, they rather manipulate 64 bit floating point numbers. Moreover does a game need to address more than 64 bits of memory, of course not. Do you imagine that the developers of Doom come one day, and ask you to have more than 4 go of memory on your machine to run their last game. Maybe tomorrow, in the future, it will be the case, but now, absolutaley not….
So why 64 bits? Well high end computations have been using 64-bit computation for a while, in the workstation market and high end servers. Many people working in science, engeneering, or who manipulate huge data bases have the need to adress more than 4 go. Scientists often write processes that manipulate memory chunks greater than 4 go of memory, in order to increase the computation throughput and speed.Today’s high end 3D applications, viseo applications also need to access large portion of data for fast processing, and so they may need to run 64 bit processes.
So form the above description, the stratege of Apple is smart, as it allows all the people who really needs 64-bit computation to write 64 bit applications on Tiger. 64 bit processes, command line application and servers processes can be developped on Tiger. And as many of those applications still does not use a GUI (i know it because i am always dealing with this staff), not supporting 64 bit GUI is normal. Why should it be anyway, its not a duty, we are talking about number crunching here, that’s where the 64-bit computation is good for….
For people who need it, Tiger is gonna to deliver on 64 bits. Any 64 bit process can be done on Tiger, and Tiger fullt supports 64 bit interger math.
And again, apple approach is nice, as they allows 64 bit computing without to change the kernel, or to make it more complex. 32 bits applications do not have to run on a compatibility mode or something like that, and they still can profit from the 64 registers, access to the 64 bit load/store unit and the 64 bit logical units.
So people who really needs to make 64 bit computation , will be able to do it with Tiger, and even Gui can be created with their 64 bit processes by using messages passing with the two executables, as explained by Apple. For this reason Tiger competes with Solaris, 64 bits Linux, or any Os that support 64 bits computation, specially in the workstation market where again 64 bit computation is used.
For all the other users, Tiger support 32 bit applications, and again i don’t see really the need to have a GUI that can run on 64 bit mode, so Tigers delivers as it supposed to do……
I guess it would be nice if one day a small article could be published on OS news in order to explain what the 64-bit computing brings to the user, there are so much misunderstanding about it, that i think it would clarify a lot of minds.
How is it?
Write one (that last post of yours would be a good base, just edit it up a bit) and submit it, there’s a submissions link on the front page IIRC.
who cares, 64-bit is the new “dual CPU” of computer geeks. “hah I laugh at you puny mortals who have only one CPU” “hah I laugh at you puny mortals who have only 32-bit architectures”.
Now, dual 64-bit CPUs should make one… like… the uber-geek, right?
🙂
“Although not published here, Apple eMacs made it into the top
ten worst prodcut of the year 2004:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1735287,00.asp
Apple needs to pull out of the desktop market and concentrate on the iPod, where they have a real profit.
The PPC architecture is great, but Apple is not the best company for it to make it work. ”
C’mon you Apple hater! You no more own Apple stock than you ever used an Apple desktop.
I hate when people insert lies to justify their crappy point of view.
But to put your bullcrap into perspective I will point out how you chose to omit the remainder of the article you posted.
“Our Desktop Product Guide(http://www.pcmag.com/category2/0,1738,4,00.asp) can lead you to the best Apples, along with the best of the rest.
This link leads you to the article you purposely left out
“TOP RATED PRODUCTS: Apple iMac G5 ( http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1648796,00.asp )
Please don’t take one desktop, and paint a negative picture on a company, you non-Apple stock owner.
BTW I don’t own an Apple desktop, but have worked with them; they really are nice systems. No matter what you run in the Microsoft / Linux camp you can run OSX. Nuff said.
I also think that Jim Louderback is one of the worst people to give an opinion on desktop sys as he doesn’t qualify as a power user, and only a consumer.
Simple only the G5’s support 64 bit code.
Running 2 bit depths of OS requires much more manpower from their end than running just 1.
You can’t release software for people to buy thats just been recompiled with out testing it. If you did, you’d end up with a test team for Tiger 64 and Tiger 32. Plus a load of beta testers for both, what do you tell your 3rd party developers then, oh sorry you’ve now got to go shell out on a bunch of kit because you want to run this software on G4/3s and G5s. Wouldn’t that go down well…….
“With 64-bit power and high-bandwidth architecture, this groundbreaking system (the G5) alleviates the limitations and bottlenecks of the traditional PC”
“Specially tuned for the G5 processor, Panther provides a seamless transition to 64-bit power with optimized libraries that let today’s applications take advantage of tomorrow’s power.”
The main selling point of the G5 is what Apple calls 64-bit desktop computing. However, it seems now that the seamless transition to 64-bit paradise (through MacOS X) will happen at snail pace.
If Apple engineers bite more than they can chew, it’s no surprise that customers feel cheated.
“With 64-bit power and high-bandwidth architecture, this groundbreaking system (the G5) alleviates the limitations and bottlenecks of the traditional PC”
“Specially tuned for the G5 processor, Panther provides a seamless transition to 64-bit power with optimized libraries that let today’s applications take advantage of tomorrow’s power.”
Ditto!
Even the OsX kernel, the main OS component is 32bit! Apple advertized 64bit but it HAS NOT DELIVERED! This naturally worries investors. Investors are not fanboys, they do not believe in Apple as a club, they want Apple to produce and have a clean, profitable bussiness that does not depend on on the fanatism of a few users, but that this product may penetrate the “serious” market.
Remember Apple is trying to go into the high computing bussiness since the G4, this is not the market of fanatics, but of serious companies that need results.
I prefer Apple either pull out of the G5 fiasco, or deliver a true 64bit OS, without leving behind legacy systems. But better yet Apple should pull althogether from the desktop and concentrate on iPods, the real star of Apple Computer.
In fact iPods are bringing new investors on board, investors who are not blinded in a MacOS desktop do or die mentality.
To the flamers: You do not have to agree with me. Is just an informed opinion from a humble investor. This is after all a discussion forum. Lighten up, we can agree to disagree. And try to keep civility, it will make you look better.
Best wishes during this holiday season! Peace out!
“So all the people running XP on Athlon 64 processors are idiots, too? Even though it’s the single best CPU for the platform on price / performance, and comfortably outperforms the 32-bit AMD Athlon XP?”
two things:
one, an amd x64 or intel x64 cpu owner can run xp pro 64 bit today for free in release candidate status:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/evaluation/upgrade.mspx
not only that, but when xp pro x64 goes gold within the next so many months, current xp pro 32 bit owners get to upgrade for free:
http://news.com.com/Microsoft+nears+release+of+64-bit+Windows/2100-…
“Those who own a 32-bit version of Windows XP Professional or Windows Server 2003 will be able to exchange it for a license for the 64-bit edition, Microsoft has said.”
looks like buying an x64 intel or amd cpu was/is a good move.
Sure, that’s a good Microsoft policy. My point, though, was to use the Athlon 64 as an example of *another* processor which is best-in-class 32-bit performance as well as being capable of 64-bit execution.
Ahem, I was under the impression that Apple’s goal was to make money selling computers, not to decide who really needs such and such technology. Anybody remembers the “64 K of memory is enough for everybody” sentence by Bill Gates ?
It’s time for Steve Job to realize that he ain’t no Christian Dior. His business is mostly a hardware store; yet, despite all the fame and glory, it still hasn’t attracted more than 10 % of the market after twenty years of existence. That’s nothing to write home about.
The quote mentioned 640k not 64k, and Bill Gates has denied saying it many times.
The quote never has a consistant date or event attached to it, has several variations, and both Bill’s and MS’ actions during the era of the IBM PC directly conflict with the quote.
I agree with the rest of your post.
From a non mac user (who’ll buy a Mac ASAP because want to try linux/BSD on a POWER 64 bit processor) accept these words:
Apple is well known to the rest of the world (= non Mac fanatics) as a society that sells things at high prices.
These prices are balanced by the easy environment, the machine power and the good design of the entire Apple line.
Apple is NOW losing some points on ease of use: a friend of mine has two G4, she use them to do web sites on the web and graphics but, she says, today Apple isn’t anymore worth the price it is paid.
Either the power that apple deliver is becoming less and less necessary (compared to the x86 family that is orrible but runs the quite well).
Now they are running a closed OS on a closed architecture, yet they are unable to deliver an OS providing full 64 bit math on a G5.
And (most of) you think that a 64 bit architecture is useless ?
Computers make operations and throw out results, that’s their job, plain and simple, how this is useful on a desktop ?
Fixed point math for example (often used in graphic filters); word size matters when you have to move up & down large regions of memory, bit streaming when you’re dealing with compessed formats like mpeg or jpeg (that works with a modified huffman engine) and so on…
Listen, I have an XP/64 and it runs very well with Mandrake Linux; can Apple do this ?
Linux did it (on a Mac, with PPC too!), Microsoft did it (you can download for free Windows XP64 Beta or buy an IA64 Windows Server), xxxBSD did it (just to say some MacOSX competitor in the desktop market) so… why can’t Apple do this?
They’re unwilling to invest money and mens when they’re making a lot of money in a more easy way selling a portable player.
Got it ?
MacOSX is magnificent… but is expensive, too expensive to port to a full 64 bit environment if you can get more money just selling some song over the net.
Please don’t run the song “It doesn’t matter… it’s better this way…” just accept that hardware and software markets are less interesting (they may give a better income but they surely have a lower profit than running some web server and “mass produce” portable media players) than media market.
For istance it is possible to migrate from 32 to 64 bit simply recompiling the source code, but sometimes you’ve to rework the entire project and, anyway, to run 64 bit code you need a 64 bit kernel (that cannot be just recompiled, have to be entirely reenginereed; not much with Darwin microkernel architecture but enough to need some month of research).
Anyway making a 64 bit MacOSX is nowhere as trivial as changing OS revision, is more like passing from MacOS-X to MacOS-XI.
Did any of you morons actually -read- the technical documentation from Apple?
OS X 10.4 (Tiger) can, indeed, execute 64-bit applications. They are providing a 64-bit libsystem, as well as a 64-bit ABI, which is all anyone who actually knows what 64-bit computing means (read this as NONE OF YOU IDIOTS) will need to build a 64-bit binary, of say, MySQL, from source.
Tiger supports LP64, the exact same 64-bit model as Linux, Solaris and IRIX.
What they are -not- shipping is a 64-bit kernel or 64-bit applications, since the Cocoa and Carbon frameworks will remain 32-bit.
AND THIS IS A GOOD THING.
Shipping a 64-bit kernel means needing 64-bit drivers. This is fine for Apple’s drivers, but 3rd party drivers would need to be re-built. This is no different on Solaris, where both a 64-bit driver is needed on UltraSPARC. Apple is actually saving a lot of hassle going this route.
64-bit BSD binary support -is all- that Tiger needs, and Apple is delivering it. The PowerPC ISA is not any faster in 64-bit mode… in fact, it’s actually slower due to the bus overhead. Opteron apps get faster in 64-bit mode only because AMD64 adds more registers, but on PowerPC there are already 32 registers.
I don’t -want- a 64-bit Finder. I -do- want a 64-bit ABI for building binaries from source.
They are delivering.
And as for that ultra-moron who keeps going on about how Apple should give up on everything but the iPod… do us all a favor and cut your hands off. Nobody wants to see you type any more moronic drivel anymore.