PDA

View Full Version : Apple Quietly Intros 64-Bit Windows Support in Boot Camp




MacRumors
Jan 21, 2008, 11:07 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Apple has started quietly shipping 64-bit Windows Vista drivers with the install disks of the latest Mac Pros which were just released earlier this month. The installation instructions that come with the new Mac Pros specify this new feature:Important: You must use a single full-install Windows installation disc (Service Pack 2 is required for Windows XP installations). Do not use an upgrade version of Windows and do not install an earlier version of Windows XP and attempt to update it later to SP2 or later. Use only 32-bit versions of Windows. If you have a Mac Pro introduced in late 2007 or later, you can use a 64-bit version of Windows Vista.
The finding has been confirmed (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=418220) by multiple users. No indication if these drivers will become available with the next Mac OS X update. Mac OS X 10.5.2 has been undergoing testing and is expected to be released in the coming weeks.

Article Link (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/01/21/apple-quietly-intros-64-bit-windows-support-in-boot-camp/)



Peace
Jan 21, 2008, 11:09 AM
Does this mean the 64-bit windows will see all the Mac Pros memory above 2Gigs ?

donlphi
Jan 21, 2008, 11:10 AM
Is Windows Vista in high demand for Mac Owners? Not trying to be a fan boy, just curious about what has come out for Vista that OS X isn't going to be able to run or even a better question... what is Vista going to run that XP isn't going to run.

MS Access?:confused:

guzhogi
Jan 21, 2008, 11:15 AM
What about other Macs? Aren't all the other Macs 64-bit too?

thejadedmonkey
Jan 21, 2008, 11:16 AM
Good. Now how about some updated ATI graphic drivers for the Macbook Pro's...

LeviG
Jan 21, 2008, 11:17 AM
Is Windows Vista in high demand for Mac Owners? Not trying to be a fan boy, just curious about what has come out for Vista that OS X isn't going to be able to run or even a better question... what is Vista going to run that XP isn't going to run.

MS Access?:confused:

I would say its more 64 bit support which is important here and vista is the better option for this, xp 64bit never really got the drivers it needed. Anybody buying a mac pro is likely using it for workstation class programs and as such benefits from increased ram and performance (on supporting programs) etc that 64 bit offers over 32 bit.

Personally I've got 64bit vista (not on a mac) purely for these reasons.

cbrain
Jan 21, 2008, 11:18 AM
If this was introduced onto existing Macs with an update, we would probably have to start burning driver discs again instead of using the ones on the Leopard disc.

I wonder if XP Pro 64-bit works.

rockinrocker
Jan 21, 2008, 11:21 AM
I wonder if XP Pro 64-bit works.

i'm wondering this too, since xp64 is far and away the best version of windows out there (driver support or not). hopefully if more people use it developers will start to get on board....

samh004
Jan 21, 2008, 11:22 AM
Is Windows Vista in high demand for Mac Owners? Not trying to be a fan boy, just curious about what has come out for Vista that OS X isn't going to be able to run or even a better question... what is Vista going to run that XP isn't going to run.

MS Access?:confused:

Perhaps Apple has just worked out a deal with Microsoft, helping them transition users from XP to Vista as they're having problems right now.

What about other Macs? Aren't all the other Macs 64-bit too?

I thought so, I hope it's introduced for other macs.

If this was introduced onto existing Macs with an update, we would probably have to start burning driver discs again instead of using the ones on the Leopard disc.

That's inevitable anyway as a better driver could be built, or support for something that wasn't supported before could be released. And who knows, those drivers could become available through a software update on the windows side instead anyway.

roland.g
Jan 21, 2008, 11:24 AM
Windows isn't worth 2 bits, let alone 64. Why buy a Mac Pro to Boot Camp Windows on, whatever flavor it is?

TheThirdMan
Jan 21, 2008, 11:28 AM
Windows isn't worth 2 bits, let alone 64. Why buy a Mac Pro to Boot Camp Windows on, whatever flavor it is?

For 3D apps. 3ds max, zBrush, Mudbox and many other 3d apps are windows only.

This is the one announcement concerning the Mac Pro I've been waiting for. Now i can run 3ds max and it'll support more than 3gb of ram!

Anybody buying a mac pro is likely using it for workstation class programs and as such benefits from increased ram and performance (on supporting programs) etc that 64 bit offers over 32 bit.

Precisely.

aLoC
Jan 21, 2008, 11:28 AM
64-bit Vista - that means Vista Ultimate right? Which is pretty pricey...

Peace
Jan 21, 2008, 11:30 AM
64-bit Vista - that means Vista Ultimate right? Which is pretty pricey...


Vista Ultimate isn't 64-bit.The 64-bit version is though.:)

TBi
Jan 21, 2008, 11:33 AM
64-bit Vista - that means Vista Ultimate right? Which is pretty pricey...

I think all versions of Vista have a 64-bit equivalent (http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/editions/64bit.mspx).

daddywags214
Jan 21, 2008, 11:35 AM
Late 2007 . . . hmm, I bought mine in September of 2006. Damn.

sickracer2015
Jan 21, 2008, 11:36 AM
Just bring in a blank CD and burn a drivers CD from one of the new Mac Pro's there.

cokersa
Jan 21, 2008, 11:36 AM
So 64 bit support for the new Mac Pro (not "old" Mac Pro) and 8800GT support for the new Mac Pro (not "old" Mac Pro). I'm really feeling the love here...

aLoC
Jan 21, 2008, 11:36 AM
I think all versions of Vista have a 64-bit equivalent (http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/editions/64bit.mspx).

Ah Ok, Ultimate is the only one that comes with it in the box, but you can order it separately for the other editions.

Eidorian
Jan 21, 2008, 11:37 AM
Apple should just push a new disc image via Software Update. I don't want them to play games like only Mac Pro buyers are smart enough to buy 64-bit Windows.

Daveoc64
Jan 21, 2008, 11:38 AM
Just bring in a blank CD and burn a drivers CD from one of the new Mac Pro's there.

I don't think you can burn a driver CD in Leopard, so that wouldn't work.

kinless
Jan 21, 2008, 11:42 AM
Holy crap that's hilarious.

I just got my 8-core Mac Pro last week, and I was going to install Windows Vista Ultimate 64-bit this weekend, even though I didn't think it was supported. Had no idea that they made 64-bit drivers.

What a nice surprise. Thanks, Apple.

~j

djinn
Jan 21, 2008, 11:42 AM
Does this mean the 64-bit windows will see all the Mac Pros memory above 2Gigs ?

If your running a SR laptop, yes.

loveturtle
Jan 21, 2008, 11:54 AM
What's the big deal? I have 64bit vista installed on my late 2006 mac pro and have for months. Wow, Apple released drivers, congrats...now my volume keys have a little OSD. *claps*

AppleMojo
Jan 21, 2008, 11:56 AM
Finally, 16 nibbles of pure bitness!

hob
Jan 21, 2008, 12:08 PM
If this was introduced onto existing Macs with an update, we would probably have to start burning driver discs again instead of using the ones on the Leopard disc.

I wonder if XP Pro 64-bit works.

That was going to happen eventually anyway! Drivers wouldn't stay the same until OS X 10.6 is released...!

twoodcc
Jan 21, 2008, 12:13 PM
that's good and all, but what about the older mac pros?

Cuyahoga
Jan 21, 2008, 12:14 PM
With this news, I have a decision to make. I plan on using Windows both for a handful of engineering apps not available for OS X and playing games on my future Mac Pro. I don't expect the former to be very taxing, but I imagine a few might benefit from 64 bits. I remember hearing about incompatibilities with 64-bit Windows for some games/apps, and was wondering if that's still a big issue. I'd like to take advantage of a 64-bit OS, but not at the cost incompatibility. That said, here are my choices:

• XP x64
• XP
• Vista 64
• Vista

Assuming the costs for all 4 are identical (thank you MSDN Academic Alliance!), which one should I choose?

AidenShaw
Jan 21, 2008, 12:21 PM
• XP x64
• XP
• Vista 64
• Vista

Assuming the costs for all 4 are identical (thank you MSDN Academic Alliance!), which one should I choose?

If you have 4 GiB or more of RAM, get Vista 64. Otherwise Vista 32.

You could also dual-boot to either 32-bit or 64-bit Vista (each in a separate partition on the disk).

slackpacker
Jan 21, 2008, 12:30 PM
Good. Now how about some updated ATI graphic drivers for the Macbook Pro's...

Whats wrong with the current drivers....? All I noticed was the ATI menu is not there..

Cuyahoga
Jan 21, 2008, 12:32 PM
If you have 4 GiB or more of RAM, get Vista 64. Otherwise Vista 32.

You could also dual-boot to either 32-bit or 64-bit Vista (each in a separate partition on the disk).

So is the common internet belief that Vista is terrible for games becoming a myth? I have no real need for a flashy or even aesthetically bearable Windows OS. That said, I'd hate to have to upgrade the OS a year down the road (I can't imagine why I'd have to though).

50548
Jan 21, 2008, 12:40 PM
Windows isn't worth 2 bits, let alone 64. Why buy a Mac Pro to Boot Camp Windows on, whatever flavor it is?

Perhaps some people just wanna run MSN Messenger on that useless piece of software called 64-bit Windows, who knows...:rolleyes:

bittergourd
Jan 21, 2008, 12:41 PM
For 3D apps. 3ds max, zBrush, Mudbox and many other 3d apps are windows only.



Not entirely true.

Zbrush 2 runs on OS X. ZBrush 3 is still under development for Mac.



Also, just a question. What other 3D apps's are not on OS X besides ZBrush 3, Mudbox, XSI and Max? I know Rhino is currently in development.

talkatron
Jan 21, 2008, 12:43 PM
This is good news, as Matlab for the Mac is only 32-bit and runs much slower than the Windows version. Does anyone know whether the Windows Vista drivers will work with the forthcoming Windows Server 2008 (which lets multiple users log into and use the GUI at the same time, a feature Mac OS X lacks).

I assume the Vista drivers are incompatible with Windows XP x64 and Windows Server 2003 x64.

Seb D Photo
Jan 21, 2008, 12:51 PM
Correct me if I am wrong, but there is no technical reason why these new 64 bit drivers should not work on any Mac Pro, regardless of whether it is a newer or older model.

The xeon's in the older model are 64-bit CPU's....

I doubt that these drivers would not work in older Mac Pro's.

Marx55
Jan 21, 2008, 12:54 PM
Sorry for my ignorance but...

Is Mac OS X 10.4 64 bit?
Is Mac OS X 10.5 64 bit?

Do all current Macs support 64 bit?

Any Apple link to such information?

I am lost. Thanks.

Arkbargle
Jan 21, 2008, 01:04 PM
Correct me if I am wrong, but there is no technical reason why these new 64 bit drivers should not work on any Mac Pro, regardless of whether it is a newer or older model.

The xeon's in the older model are 64-bit CPU's....

I doubt that these drivers would not work in older Mac Pro's.

A driver is made for a piece of hardware. It doesn't just automagically generalize to all similar pieces of hardware.

macguitarman
Jan 21, 2008, 01:08 PM
"You must have a Mac Pro from late 2007?"

I know for a fact we do not have this, and we still loaded Vista 64 bit straight in to 10.5.1 bootcamp (but i dont think the .1 release has anything to do with this, straight 10.5 would work).

I already tested this last month, it's old news. We do 64 bit research computing here at the hospital and we loaded the 64 bit version of Vista, no issues at all. All the drivers were there. Vista sees all 16 GB of RAM in the "not late 2007 Mac Pro"

macguitarman

HLdan
Jan 21, 2008, 01:08 PM
Holy crap that's hilarious.

I just got my 8-core Mac Pro last week, and I was going to install Windows Vista Ultimate 64-bit this weekend, even though I didn't think it was supported. Had no idea that they made 64-bit drivers.

What a nice surprise. Thanks, Apple.

~j


Yeah, thanks Apple for supporting Windows...:rolleyes:

cokersa
Jan 21, 2008, 01:09 PM
Correct me if I am wrong, but there is no technical reason why these new 64 bit drivers should not work on any Mac Pro, regardless of whether it is a newer or older model.

The xeon's in the older model are 64-bit CPU's....

I doubt that these drivers would not work in older Mac Pro's.

Drivers are written for specific hardware components (they "drive" the hardware). If the hardware components (e.g., video cards, network cards, bluetooth, etc) have changed between the old Mac Pro and the new Mac Pro, then the drivers won't necessarily work. I'll note that I've been running Vista Ultimate 64 bit on my old Mac Pro for almost a year, since there are native drivers for most of the components, or could be obtained from the hardware manufacturer (e.g., the sound card). There have been no drivers for the Apple bluetooth, however. I'd love to hear if anyone has actually tried the new drivers on an older Mac Pro to see if they work.

UPDATE: I installed the Bluetooth x64 drivers and they DO work on the older Mac Pro!

faumble
Jan 21, 2008, 01:19 PM
Can i run xp 32 and xp 64 in the same macpro, have them both installed at the same time like a dual boot?

slackpacker
Jan 21, 2008, 01:35 PM
For 3D apps. 3ds max, zBrush, Mudbox and many other 3d apps are windows only.

This is the one announcement concerning the Mac Pro I've been waiting for. Now i can run 3ds max and it'll support more than 3gb of ram!

Precisely.

So does 64bit make them faster or is it just the ability to address more memory the thing you are looking at? In my travels 64 bit windows Blows...chunks.. because there are quite a few issues with compatability with Games... is this true?

Also Does How many processor cores are supported on WIN XP and Vista Ultimate?

AidenShaw
Jan 21, 2008, 01:42 PM
Does anyone know whether the Windows Vista drivers will work with the forthcoming Windows Server 2008 (which lets multiple users log into and use the GUI at the same time, a feature Mac OS X lacks).

I know that the Vista 64-bit Nvidia Quadro drivers work on Windows Server 2008 - I'm running them.

rgovostes
Jan 21, 2008, 01:44 PM
I don't think you can burn a driver CD in Leopard, so that wouldn't work.

Actually you can, with a little bit of effort. These instructions (http://alacatialabs.com/2008/01/17/boot-camp-drivers-from-os-x/) are for getting them out of a disk image, but it wouldn't be impossible to get them out of an install disc.

I haven't tried, but I'd look up the device name (disk3 or whatever) in Disk Utility and start from the second step.

LeviG
Jan 21, 2008, 01:56 PM
So does 64bit make them faster or is it just the ability to address more memory the thing you are looking at? In my travels 64 bit windows Blows...chunks.. because there are quite a few issues with compatability with Games... is this true?

64bit 3ds max is upto about a third faster than xp on the same system in my experience.



Also Does How many processor cores are supported on WIN XP and Vista Ultimate?

cores is as many as the drivers support, the number of sockets is the issue - xp home and the lower vista iirc can only support one socket.

cokersa
Jan 21, 2008, 02:08 PM
So does 64bit make them faster or is it just the ability to address more memory the thing you are looking at? In my travels 64 bit windows Blows...chunks.. because there are quite a few issues with compatability with Games... is this true?

Also Does How many processor cores are supported on WIN XP and Vista Ultimate?

Because of the way most apps are written and compiled, you won't see much direct performance benefit from using x64. Memory utilization is certainly a primary driver for many folks using x64 versions of Windows, but I use it because it is MUCH more stable than the x32 versions (in part because x64 is much stricter about hardware drivers than the x32 version). Compatibility may indeed be an issue if you are running older games - but that lack of support for legacy games is also what makes it a more stable platform. I'm not a hard core gamer, but I've never had a problem with any games I've run that were written in the past two years. I've been running Vista Ultimate x64 for almost a year now, and its been far more stable than any version of Windows I've ever run.

All cores are supported under XP or Vista, 32 or 64 bit, if you have a version that is licensed to support them.

Mattww
Jan 21, 2008, 02:22 PM
Sorry for my ignorance but...

Is Mac OS X 10.4 64 bit?
Is Mac OS X 10.5 64 bit?

Do all current Macs support 64 bit?

Any Apple link to such information?

I am lost. Thanks.

Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger could run 64 bit Applications but the graphically interface part could only be 32 bit. Lots of science and maths applications run 64 bit from the command line.

Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard is 64 bit all the way to the GUI.

kingtj
Jan 21, 2008, 02:30 PM
I don't know. Personally, I've stuck with XP for gaming. I know there's a bit of a push on Microsoft's part to get people to hop on the Vista bandwagon for games, since "only Vista supports the new Direct-X 10.0 extensions". Regardless, if you look at the side-by-side comparisons of current games running with Direct-X 9.0 and 10 support, you quickly realize the additional features in 10 are of minimal significance at best. (For example, Bioshock offered slightly more realistic-looking waves in the water when you ran around in it. But as they pointed out, you'd hardly notice this during gameplay. You almost need a screen-shot to study it, compared to a screen-shot of the same scene without it, to see the improvement.)

On the other hand, Vista boots noticeably more slowly when I've used it, and has a lot more "overhead" all the way around. I imagine it's pretty good at putting background tasks on hold and "stepping out of the way" when a properly-coded game is launched and tells the OS it needs all the system resources.... but I still don't like the sluggish feel outside the games.

Plus, XP has a 3rd. service pack coming along soon - and I believe some of the improvements in Vista are slated to get rolled into it too. Given that, I don't think you're really going to feel a need to "ditch XP in a year". Surely, it will be longer than that before you feel like driver support for new devices has "dried up".


So is the common internet belief that Vista is terrible for games becoming a myth? I have no real need for a flashy or even aesthetically bearable Windows OS. That said, I'd hate to have to upgrade the OS a year down the road (I can't imagine why I'd have to though).

AidenShaw
Jan 21, 2008, 02:34 PM
All cores are supported under XP or Vista, 32 or 64 bit, if you have a version that is licensed to support them.

XP Home and lower Vista SKUs support one socket - or one to four cores currently.

XP Pro and higher Vista SKUs support two sockets - or one to eight cores currently.

Windows Server versions, using essentially the same code, support up to 32 cores (Server 2003) or 64 cores (Server 2008).

32-bit XP is using an older code base - SMP support is better in the Server versions, 64-bit XP and Vista.

CWallace
Jan 21, 2008, 02:45 PM
While I made as complete a switch as possible to OS X as I could, Windows still does a number of things I need that OS X as yet cannot, so having 64-bit support for Windows is important to me and I thank Apple for helping me until that glorious future when I can be 100% OS X. :p

buzlink
Jan 21, 2008, 02:50 PM
I was under the impression that my Macbook Revision 2 is 64 bit capable.
Why wouldn't I be able to install 64 bit Windows.

Apple is just not going to write 64 bit drivers for hardware, that isn't much diffrent than the current Macbook Pros? I think the main difference being the Graphic Card that would need a separate driver one being ATI, and the other NVIDIA. Elsewhere it would be small things here and there.

TMay
Jan 21, 2008, 03:08 PM
I know that the Vista 64-bit Nvidia Quadro drivers work on Windows Server 2008 - I'm running them.

Thanks for that.

I'm looking at a Mac Pro and Vista 64 bit to run Pro/Engineer WF 4.0 and Solidworks 2007, and the only potential issues are OpenGL drivers for the Quadro card. Right now, the Quadro 5600 is way overkill in both capabilities and price, so I'm hoping that I can get something more in the range of the Quadro 4600 as a BTO by the time I buy, which will be shortly after NAB (I want to see if there will be a Blu-Ray option, as well as new Cinema Displays).

talkatron
Jan 21, 2008, 03:38 PM
I was under the impression that my Macbook Revision 2 is 64 bit capable.
Why wouldn't I be able to install 64 bit Windows.

I have 64-bit Server on my late 2006 MacBook Pro purely to evaluate the technical possibility. It works fine, but with no customized drivers. With these drivers, you might do a little better with 64-bit Vista on your notebook, but as of now Apple is issuing no promises.

twitter
Jan 21, 2008, 05:55 PM
i dont really get this part

"Important: Do not install an earlier version of Windows XP and attempt to update it later to SP2 or later. Use only 32-bit versions of Windows."

of it.

Was Xp not always 32bit??
Whats the problem with instaling an before SP2 Win xp?
Usually compat. with older versions shouldnt be a problem.

I want to get the new MBP when it comes out and get paralles
to run some science and cad programs. But i have
only a CD version SP1 and a CD with SP2.

That should work right?

djinn
Jan 21, 2008, 06:00 PM
i dont really get this part

"Important: Do not install an earlier version of Windows XP and attempt to update it later to SP2 or later. Use only 32-bit versions of Windows."

of it.

Was Xp not always 32bit??
Whats the problem with instaling an before SP2 Win xp?
Usually compat. with older versions shouldnt be a problem.

I want to get the new MBP when it comes out and get paralles
to run some science and cad programs. But i have
only a CD version SP1 and a CD with SP2.

That should work right?

XP has a 32bit and 64bit. For boot camp to work you need Win XP SP2 integrated into it. Parallels and Fusion doesn't matter if you install the first copy of XP that came out or the latest with SP2 included. Its boot camp that requires the SP2.

coffey7
Jan 21, 2008, 07:14 PM
How will a macbook air run Vista premium without a good graphics card? You need horsepower to run Vista. I am running it right now and I can tell you it is slow if you don't have a half way decent card.

Stridder44
Jan 21, 2008, 07:29 PM
Apple should just push a new disc image via Software Update. I don't want them to play games like only Mac Pro buyers are smart enough to buy 64-bit Windows.


No. Please no. I know Apple can be stubborn sometimes, but that would just be 100% ignorant.

I don't know. Personally, I've stuck with XP for gaming. I know there's a bit of a push on Microsoft's part to get people to hop on the Vista bandwagon for games, since "only Vista supports the new Direct-X 10.0 extensions". Regardless, if you look at the side-by-side comparisons of current games running with Direct-X 9.0 and 10 support, you quickly realize the additional features in 10 are of minimal significance at best. (For example, Bioshock offered slightly more realistic-looking waves in the water when you ran around in it. But as they pointed out, you'd hardly notice this during gameplay. You almost need a screen-shot to study it, compared to a screen-shot of the same scene without it, to see the improvement.)

On the other hand, Vista boots noticeably more slowly when I've used it, and has a lot more "overhead" all the way around. I imagine it's pretty good at putting background tasks on hold and "stepping out of the way" when a properly-coded game is launched and tells the OS it needs all the system resources.... but I still don't like the sluggish feel outside the games.

Plus, XP has a 3rd. service pack coming along soon - and I believe some of the improvements in Vista are slated to get rolled into it too. Given that, I don't think you're really going to feel a need to "ditch XP in a year". Surely, it will be longer than that before you feel like driver support for new devices has "dried up".

Yeah, I've tested this too. Vista is a good idea, but it just needs some ironing out still. The OS itself isn't so bad, but the drivers are a different story. XP has SP3 coming pretty quick here (in a month or so) and is already very stable/compatable, making it the better option here. One day Vista (preferably x64) will be the gamers choice, but for now not so much.

knome
Jan 21, 2008, 07:58 PM
How will a macbook air run Vista premium without a good graphics card? You need horsepower to run Vista. I am running it right now and I can tell you it is slow if you don't have a half way decent card.

You really don't. You just have to turn off aero. Thats what takes up all the power and all it does is make the windows transparent. Its kinda funny in a sad way.

I run vista 64 business. The OS is pretty light, but then again i only use it for gaming so have have all the auxiliary services turned off and quite a few of the "necessary" services.

nospamboz
Jan 21, 2008, 08:01 PM
I sure hope they relax the "late-2007 Mac Pro only"
requirement, because I'd like to use 64-bit bootcamp
on my 2006 C2D iMac.

I wonder whether they'll charge extra for this on earlier
machines, though, like they did with the 802.11n enabler
and the new iPod Touch applications.

HLdan
Jan 21, 2008, 08:32 PM
Yeah, I've tested this too. Vista is a good idea, but it just needs some ironing out still. The OS itself isn't so bad, but the drivers are a different story. XP has SP3 coming pretty quick here (in a month or so) and is already very stable/compatable, making it the better option here. One day Vista (preferably x64) will be the gamers choice, but for now not so much.

Hmm, amazing. It's amazing that when Leopard has a couple of flaws especially when it's just about features and not how the OS is acting people complain so much and even make fake threats on the forum that they are going to quit using OS X and Apple is very good about providing updates often.

Funny how Vista's service pack has still not been sent out to the public after a year in service and people (even on the Mac forums) still have hope for Vista to get better and give it credit like it deserves a chance.

Wonder why Mac OS X isn't treated so well by the computer nerds like Vista?:rolleyes:

barefeats
Jan 21, 2008, 08:37 PM
I think all versions of Vista have a 64-bit equivalent (http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/editions/64bit.mspx).

I think only Ultimate has 64 bit installer Disc. I first bought Home Premium. Only had a 32-bit installer. Then I bought Ultimate. It had both 32-bit and 64-bit installer discs.

AidenShaw
Jan 21, 2008, 08:48 PM
I think only Ultimate has 64 bit installer Disc. I first bought Home Premium. Only had a 32-bit installer. Then I bought Ultimate. It had both 32-bit and 64-bit installer discs.

As was mentioned earlier, only Ultimate has both 32 and 64 on the same disc.

For some of the other versions, the 32-bit and 64-bit discs are different.

Also, it might be the case that the lowest versions don't have a 64-bit option - that would make sense, if you've put over 4 GiB in your system you're probably a bit less sensitive to the price of the OS license.

Edit: Seems that all have 64-bit: "Supported Operating Systems: Windows Vista Business 64-bit edition; Windows Vista Enterprise 64-bit edition; Windows Vista Home Basic 64-bit edition; Windows Vista Home Premium 64-bit edition; Windows Vista Ultimate 64-bit edition" http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=18499035-f799-4f93-bb3c-db70e22e1c1e&DisplayLang=en

ayeying
Jan 22, 2008, 12:58 AM
Ok... question. How do the ppl who didn't buy these newer computer be able to get ahold of the x64 drivers? I mean, currently, when we install boot camp, we can put in the leopard dvd and it'll install the boot camp drivers. What happens on the updated drivers? are we back at the burning a drivers disk again?

Furthermore, i read one post, not sure if its answered, the macbook air has a X3100 video card, it can handle Aero in Vista without any problems. I can run it on my macbook's GMA950.

FiveEcco
Jan 22, 2008, 04:24 AM
I get the info from the support of my 3D-software i working with that OSX 10.5 is NOT full 64bit. OSX doesn´t support more than 4 GB of memory for one application. They say that Apple will bring a fix for that but they don´t know when this would happen.

Last weekend i need 5 hours to get my renders running. Thank you Apple!!! Two thumbs up for "full 64bit"!!!!!! *ironie*

gnasher729
Jan 22, 2008, 05:49 AM
I get the info from the support of my 3D-software i working with that OSX 10.5 is NOT full 64bit. OSX doesn´t support more than 4 GB of memory for one application. They say that Apple will bring a fix for that but they don´t know when this would happen.

Last weekend i need 5 hours to get my renders running. Thank you Apple!!! Two thumbs up for "full 64bit"!!!!!! *ironie*

The programmers creating that application have to decide whether they want a 64 bit application or not. (Typically, you would create an application having Intel 32bit/64 bit and PPC 32 bit/64 bit support, four apps in one package, instead of Universal Binaries with just two apps in one package). If the application doesn't use 64 bit, there is nothing that Apple can do about it.

As an example, Mathematica has supported 64 bits with more than 4 GB of memory in that one application years ago on MacOS X 10.4.

TBi
Jan 22, 2008, 09:12 AM
As was mentioned earlier, only Ultimate has both 32 and 64 on the same disc.

I found out recently that Vista Ultimate ships with 32-bit and 64-bit in the same box but on different disks. OEM ultimate comes with only one version.

badgerpoison
Jan 22, 2008, 01:09 PM
I found out recently that Vista Ultimate ships with 32-bit and 64-bit in the same box but on different disks. OEM ultimate comes with only one version.

You can use any vista key with either 32 or 64 bit versions. You just need to find the right disc or pay Microsoft to ship one ($10?). You can even dual boot both versions on the same machine using a single key.

MikeTheC
Jan 22, 2008, 01:22 PM
Yip yip yip yahoo...

Why would someone want to run Vista64 on a MacPro anyhow?

Arkbargle
Jan 22, 2008, 02:19 PM
I think only Ultimate has 64 bit installer Disc. I first bought Home Premium. Only had a 32-bit installer. Then I bought Ultimate. It had both 32-bit and 64-bit installer discs.

You can buy copies of the lower versions with a 64-bit disc. They might not sell them in retail stores, but they're around online.

adamzx3
Jan 22, 2008, 02:23 PM
Does anyone know if the new high end games (like crysis) will take advantage of more than 2GB of ram? I have 5 in my MP and thats the only reason I would think of putting XP/Vista 64 bit.

Also does anyone know if 3ds Max 5 (yea I know im outdated :) ) was supported 64 bit rendering? I haven't used it in a long time but am finding that it's great for package design mockups when used with Photoshop (my go to app)

I won't install Vista for a long time (or ever) but shouldn't there be a chance of Win XP 64 bit??

ShiggyMiyamoto
Jan 22, 2008, 05:42 PM
Yip yip yip yahoo...

Why would someone want to run Vista64 on a MacPro anyhow?

Not to seem rude, but have you been reading this thread's posts? People have stated why they'd want Vista64 installed on their Mac Pros.

Anyway, I have a late 2007 MacBook (GMA X3100) and I was wondering.... Do these drivers support XP Pro 64? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'd think since the Santa Rosa chip that's in my MB is 64 bit that it'd make XP Pro run much smoother and make it more responsive. I have XP32 right now, and while it works fine I'm know it's not running to the full potential of my 2.2 GHz Core 2 Duo Santa Rosa chip.

jfremani
Jan 22, 2008, 06:58 PM
If your running a SR laptop, yes.


In a sense that you can go beyond 2gb of ram - This should also be true for the slightly older, non santa rosa macbooks, as the motherboard and processors are 64bit core 2 duos that can make use of 3gigs of RAM. i.e., you could have 4gigs of ram installed and 3gigs would be available for the OS to access. I'm currently using this arrangement (because 2x2gb sticks were so cheap) on my 2ghz white Sept '07 macbook, running Leopard 10.5.1. The 2gb sticks of mac-compatible ram can be purchased for around 70 bucks each. A must-have upgrade.

The real bummer is that I can't get 64 bit drivers for my macbook?

AidenShaw
Jan 22, 2008, 07:40 PM
In a sense that you can go beyond 2gb of ram - This should also be true for the slightly older, non santa rosa macbooks, as the motherboard and processors are 64bit core 2 duos that can make use of 3gigs of RAM. i.e., you could have 4gigs of ram installed and 3gigs would be available for the OS to access.

The 32-bit versions of XP and Vista do not have a 2 GiB limit (note that "gb" means "giga-bit", not "giga-byte").

>systeminfo

OS Name: Microsoft® Windows Vista™ Ultimate
OS Version: 6.0.6000 N/A Build 6000
OS Manufacturer: Microsoft Corporation
OS Configuration: Standalone Workstation
OS Build Type: Multiprocessor Free
Registered Owner: Aiden Shaw
Registered Organization:
Original Install Date: 2007-04-17, 07:26:35
System Boot Time: 2008-01-02, 17:04:43
System Manufacturer: Dell Inc.
System Model: Latitude D620
System Type: X86-based PC
Processor(s): 1 Processor(s) Installed.
[01]: x64 Family 6 Model 15 Stepping 6 GenuineIntel ~2000 Mhz
BIOS Version: Dell Inc. A08, 2007-04-03
Windows Directory: V:\Windows
System Directory: V:\Windows\system32
Boot Device: \Device\HarddiskVolume2
Total Physical Memory: 3,326 MB
Available Physical Memory: 1,003 MB


This is a Napa64 system....

The "missing" 3/4 GiB or so is used by the OS and hardware for I/O regions, over-mapping the graphics VRAM, and other very low-level functions.

The actual size of usable RAM will vary according to the installed hardware, but 3 GiB to 3 1/2 GiB is the typical range.

mcnaugha
Jan 24, 2008, 09:04 AM
Aw, no one else has mentioned this yet to wind us all up???

Vista Starter is not available in 64-bit. :p

Maybe Apple doesn't want consumers to get confused about 32-bit vs. 64-bit and this might explain Apple avoiding putting drivers out with consumer models despite their support for 64-bit.

Eidorian
Jan 24, 2008, 09:34 AM
On an interesting side note I only seem to be able to address 3.8 GB of RAM on my MacBook Santa Rosa under Ubuntu 64-bit. I have a feeling that even though the GM965 chipset allows the laptop to address up to 8 GB. When you're in BIOS mode you're still in 32-bit mode on the MacBook SR.

Aw, no one else has mentioned this yet to wind us all up???

Vista Starter is not available in 64-bit.

Maybe Apple doesn't want consumers to get confused about 32-bit vs. 64-bit and this might explain Apple avoiding putting drivers out with consumer models despite their support for 64-bit.You might want to see this post (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=4803576&postcount=14). Vista Starter? If you can easily find it please do tell.

iSamurai
Jan 24, 2008, 09:48 AM
yay! this means my extra gb of ram wont go to waste with this stupid 3gb limit on x86... and an extra core can go to use properly now.

TBi
Jan 24, 2008, 09:51 AM
yay! this means my extra gb of ram wont go to waste with this stupid 3gb limit on x86... and an extra core can go to use properly now.

There is no stupid <sic> 3GB limit on x86. There is an addressable memory limit of 4GB for all 32-bit systems though (including G4's).

AidenShaw
Jan 24, 2008, 11:32 AM
There is no stupid <sic> 3GB limit on x86. There is an addressable memory limit of 4GB for all 32-bit systems though (including G4's).

Actually, G4 processors (like most Pentium III and Xeon processors) have 36-bit addressing and can access up to 64 GiB of RAM - even with 32-bit operatiing systems.

Apple never supported 36-bit addressing, and on the Intel side many of the Northbridges have a 32-bit limit.

On the server/workstation Intel chipsets, 64 GiB support is the norm - even with 32-bit CPUs and operating systems. (36-bit only available in 32-bit server Windows systems - XP 32-bit restricts the capability, even though the OS runs in 36-bit mode.)

TBi
Jan 24, 2008, 11:43 AM
Actually, G4 processors (like most Pentium III and Xeon processors) have 36-bit addressing and can access up to 64 GiB of RAM - even with 32-bit operatiing systems.

Apple never supported 36-bit addressing, and on the Intel side many of the Northbridges have a 32-bit limit.

On the server/workstation Intel chipsets, 64 GiB support is the norm - even with 32-bit CPUs and operating systems. (36-bit only available in 32-bit server Windows systems - XP 32-bit restricts the capability, even though the OS runs in 36-bit mode.)

You are right. I'm normally the one to first point this out. However i was mainly pointing out that this limitation of x86, as he put it, is also a limitation of other 32bit chips.

From what i remember the 36bit mode (Physical Address Extension) doesn't use a linear address space. It uses "pages" of 32bit addressable spaces which means a program can't use more than 4GB addressable space at once.

indiecraig
Jan 25, 2008, 10:26 PM
I have just installed Vista Business 64-bit onto my Macbook, replacing Vista Ultimate 32-bit, and it works perfectly using the drivers from the new Mac Pro version of Boot Camp (torrent them!). I had to get the video card drivers off intel's website and it works flawlessly - no driver issues at all. I haven't done any benchmarks, but I can now play Portal without the frame rate dropping to an unplayable level when you, you know, fire a portal, which always happened with 32-bit Ultimate. Apparently source games benefit from 64-bit quite a lot. Also, all 4GB of ram can now be seen. I say it's worth a try.

Here's some proof (http://www.flickr.com/photos/indiecraig/2220143058/). View full size and it should be self explanatory.

P.s. If you're thinking of doing this, check the search box in the top right of the screen shot.

Eidorian
Jan 25, 2008, 10:36 PM
I have just installed Vista Business 64-bit onto my Macbook, replacing Vista Ultimate 32-bit, and it works perfectly using the drivers from the new Mac Pro version of Boot Camp (torrent them!). I had to get the video card drivers off intel's website and it works flawlessly - no driver issues at all. I haven't done any benchmarks, but I can now play Portal without the frame rate dropping to an unplayable level when you, you know, fire a portal, which always happened with 32-bit Ultimate. Apparently source games benefit from 64-bit quite a lot. Also, all 4GB of ram can now be seen. I say it's worth a try.

Here's some proof (http://www.flickr.com/photos/indiecraig/2220143058/). View full size and it should be self explanatory.

P.s. If you're thinking of doing this, check the search box in the top right of the screen shot.The cake is a lie!

I think you're hitting the same 32-bit BIOS mode that I was seeing in Ubuntu AMD64. How much video RAM is in use?

indiecraig
Jan 25, 2008, 10:47 PM
The cake is a lie!

I think you're hitting the same 32-bit BIOS mode that I was seeing in Ubuntu AMD64. How much video RAM is in use?

Not sure how to check how much vram is in use, but dxdiag said that there was 364MB overall. It's an integrated card though, so it doesn't mean much. Is that what you meant?

Every time I mention Portal to my friends they say that. By the way... the cake is NOT a lie!! :eek:

Eidorian
Jan 25, 2008, 10:51 PM
Not sure how to check how much vram is in use, but dxdiag said that there was 364MB overall. It's an integrated card though, so it doesn't mean much. Is that what you meant?

Every time I mention Portal to my friends they say that. By the way... the cake is NOT a lie!! :eek:I suspected that while in BIOS mode on EFI you're limited to 32-bits of addressing space. In Ubuntu I get 3.8 GB of available RAM and the rest is for the video card.

This might be related to the Mac Pro 8800GT (EFI32 vs. EFI64) issue.

RRutter
Jan 25, 2008, 11:43 PM
Does this mean the 64-bit windows will see all the Mac Pros memory above 2Gigs ?

Yes, I have the same question. Even though I don't have a pro, it's interesting. Is that the case?

:apple:

ayeying
Jan 25, 2008, 11:55 PM
Try using iSight on Skype or some other IM program. I'm not saying you're lying, I'm running x64 in a Virtual Machine installed with the same Mac Pro x64 drivers. However, I can't seem to get iSight working, it crashes whenever it tries to load.

indiecraig
Jan 26, 2008, 06:51 AM
The iSight works fine with Windows Live Messenger, which is quite a surprise as apple don't sell external iSights anymore, so they can't have developed these drivers specifically for Mac Pros. I reckon Apple will introduce driver CD burning within Boot Camp again and give official 64-bit support to all, possibly with 10.5.2. Why else would they make a 64-bit iSight driver?

indiecraig
Jan 26, 2008, 07:09 AM
Here's a screenshot for you, just so you're sure.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/indiecraig/2220740232/
:)

miniHope
Jan 26, 2008, 10:04 AM
For 3D apps. 3ds max, zBrush, Mudbox and many other 3d apps are windows only.

This is the one announcement concerning the Mac Pro I've been waiting for. Now i can run 3ds max and it'll support more than 3gb of ram!



Sorry 'TheThirdMan'. From the '3ds max' site (http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/index?siteID=123112&id=5659453), under system requirements:

"Note: Apple® computers based on Intel processors and running Microsoft operating systems are not currently supported."

Time to check the people of 'Ashlar-Vellum'?

Daveoc64
Jan 26, 2008, 10:12 AM
Sorry 'TheThirdMan'. From the '3ds max' site (http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/index?siteID=123112&id=5659453), under system requirements:

"Note: Apple® computers based on Intel processors and running Microsoft operating systems are not currently supported."

Time to check the people of 'Ashlar-Vellum'?

Surely that was made before Apple introduced the 64 bit drivers though?

sevimli
Jan 26, 2008, 03:41 PM
I am just getting errors while installing bluetooth drivers :(

I am on a Macbook Pro 2.4ghz.

Anyhelp?

Og Oggilby
Jan 27, 2008, 12:17 PM
Sorry 'TheThirdMan'. From the '3ds max' site (http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/index?siteID=123112&id=5659453), under system requirements:

"Note: Apple® computers based on Intel processors and running Microsoft operating systems are not currently supported."

Time to check the people of 'Ashlar-Vellum'?

3ds max runs great using bootcamp and XP64. That statement just means that Autodesk doesn't provide support for it on a Mac Pro :rolleyes:

jb60606
Jan 28, 2008, 09:09 AM
Is Windows Vista in high demand for Mac Owners? Not trying to be a fan boy, just curious about what has come out for Vista that OS X isn't going to be able to run

MS Access?:confused:

how about any of the tens of thousands of applications available for the MS OS and not Apple's?

Not all of us use our Macs exclusively for web surfing, music and checking email.

CWallace
Jan 28, 2008, 12:57 PM
how about any of the tens of thousands of applications available for the MS OS and not Apple's?

Not all of us use our Macs exclusively for web surfing, music and checking email.

There are few things I cannot do under OS X that I can do under Windows, but I freely admit those few things are critical to me, so Boot Camp and Parallels were instrumental and critical for me to switch to the Mac. :cool:

RevoX
Jan 28, 2008, 01:12 PM
actually i just installed Vista Business x64 on my 17" iMac (late 2006) and used the drivers from my Mac Pro and it works perfectly, sound, graphics, isight, bluetooth all working.

edit: i can post a screenshot if u want proof

pyzon
Jan 31, 2008, 03:39 AM
here's my experience of using the 64bit drivers on an imac-24 purchased December 2007 with bluetooth k/b and mouse.

Ran bootcamp assistant and created partitions and started installtion of Vista Ultimate 64-bit edition.
When it came to selecting regional settings and timezones etc..the apple bluetooth k/b and mouse would not function (obviously).

Plugged in Dell USB keyboard and MS intellimouse from PC and the worked almost instantaneously, so proceeded with install at this point.

Vista installed without issue.

first time entering vista i wanted to run bootcamp and get the drivers so had to download a sub-set of the vista 64bit drivers from a torrent, this activated bluetooth k/b and mouse so off with the USB k/b mouse.

Could not get vista to recognise my ATI RADEON HD 2600 PRO card even with native drivers from ATI, so proceeded to torrent the bootcamp64 executable and ALL the drivers this time.

Turned off UAC in Vista and ran bootcamp64 with installed bootcamp on Vista and all the relevant drivers..presto, everything works now like a charm...no need to use and mobile modders or stuff like that.

scores on the doors after install were:

Processor 5.3
RAM 4.8
Graphics (AERO) 5.9
Graphics (GAMING) 5.3
H.Disk 5.5

Spec is imac-24" alu 2.4Gig, 320GB HD and 2GB RAM

Hope this might help somebody out who wants to do similar, only one issue I'm aware of and that is when you hold the option key on reboot to select the O/S to boot to the bluetooth mouse does not seem to work, so I use the bluetooth k/b arrow keys and return to select the O/S.

(my reason for doing this was the p!ss poor performance of Vista Ultimate 64-bit under VMWARE fusion 1.1)