So... uh anyone remember 64 bit?

[jimsowden]

As far as I can tell, Apple kinda gave up on that. Does this mean we're back the theoretical 4gb cieling on memory, and all that other stuff 64 bit is good for? They couldn't possibly take the powermac back from 64 bit, could they?

[Abulia]

The next Intel chip in the pipe is a 64-bit version...its possible that might be what the PM replacement (Mac Pro?) will get. I'll see if I can dig up a link.

[Edit] Here's the thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=172390) I was thinking of.

[gekko513]

The next Intel chip in the pipe is a 64-bit version...its possible that might be what the PM replacement (Mac Pro?) will get. I'll see if I can dig up a link.
Yes, Merom I think it's called, and it will be available this summer according to the roadmap.

[jimsowden]

very interesting, I wonder if it will work it's way into a pow.. MacBook pro.

[Abulia]

Seems likely. It'd be a big blow to the "professional" image of the PowerMac line to go from 64-bit to 32-bit, I'd say.

Doing so on the "home" front (iMac, Mac mini, notebooks) isn't that big of a deal. So good news is that the Mac Pros will probably be the only 64-bit Intel Mac (sans servers) but they'll be one of the last lines to get the update depending on when Merom is available in quantity.

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

As far as I can tell, Apple kinda gave up on that. Does this mean we're back the theoretical 4gb cieling on memory, and all that other stuff 64 bit is good for? They couldn't possibly take the powermac back from 64 bit, could they?If you notice which Mactels that get a 32 bit processor you'll notice it's the ones which cannot physically accommodate more than 4 GB RAM (and even that is just theoretical as the 2 GB chips needed for this isn't even out yet, as far as I know ;)).

So, unless you need to do mathematical operations on longs, then you really don't need 64 bit. And if you need that (and/or more than 4 GB RAM) you really should get a workstation, like a shiny quad G5 PowerMac, anyway. I guess those are the last ones going Intel, and not before there's a true 64 bit Intel CPU to put into that, whatever that will be... :)

[jimsowden]

So, unless you need to do mathematical operations on longs, then you really don't need 64 bit. And if you need that (and/or more than 4 GB RAM) you really should get a workstation, like a shiny quad G5 PowerMac, anyway. I guess those are the last ones going Intel, and not before there's a true 64 bit Intel CPU to put into that, whatever that will be... :)
I garuntee you would have never said that when the powermac G5 came out. It seems us apple fans are as capable of backpeddling as much as apple. And i do know that nothing but the PMg5 can support over 4gb RAM. But the technology was still impressive.

[hcuar]

I garuntee you would have never said that when the powermac G5 came out. It seems us apple fans are as capable of backpeddling as much as apple. And i do know that nothing but the PMg5 can support over 4gb RAM. But the technology was still impressive.

They actually told you to purchase a PM if you needed 4gb of RAM. I'm sure the new MP (Mac Pro) will support more than 4GB and will be 64bit.

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

I garuntee you would have never said that when the powermac G5 came out. It seems us apple fans are as capable of backpeddling as much as apple. And i do know that nothing but the PMg5 can support over 4gb RAM. But the technology was still impressive.<drool>As a workstation the G5s are awesome, the best there is, hardware and software.</drool> I would love to have a quad G5 to "complement" my iBook, but sadly I'm not even close to affording that at this point. :o :(

But for the ordinary home user, who will not have more 4 GB RAM for several years yet, and who doesn't to too much heavy computational work (crunching numbers out over Folding/Seti@home), you won't benefit from 64 bits at all. Ok, so it's a cool marketing point and give you unlimited bragging rights, but you will not notice anything, performance wise... :)

[mojohanna]

very interesting, I wonder if it will work it's way into a pow.. MacBook pro.
I doubt it will make it into the mobile line. It probably is a power hog that would kill battery life.

[hvfsl]

Yes, Merom I think it's called, and it will be available this summer according to the roadmap.
Looking forward to the Mac Pros at WWDC. I am hoping to get one with a decent graphics card and then dual booting Windows XP64/Mac OS X.

I will then be able to get rid of my PC and use Windows on the Mac Pro for games and Mac OS X for everything else. :)

[hvfsl]

I doubt it will make it into the mobile line. It probably is a power hog that would kill battery life.

Actually I think it is just the 64bit version of Yonah (the cpu used in the MacBook Pro/ Intel iMac).

[Abulia]

Looking forward to the Mac Pros at WWDC. I am hoping to get one with a decent graphics card and then dual booting Windows XP64/Mac OS X.Well, here's hoping they're out by WWDC. Considering the PowerMac may well be the final product to make the Intel switch, this seems too close.I will then be able to get rid of my PC and use Windows on the Mac Pro for games and Mac OS X for everything else. :)Damn you, get out of my head! :)

The nice thing is, by then, this EFI/bootloader mess will likely be solved.

I plan on shooting all the bullets in my barrel and my ADC once-per-lifetime discount and get the meanest PM they have at the time. My wallet will explode! :D

[greatdevourer]

Looking forward to the Mac Pros at WWDC. I am hoping to get one with a decent graphics card and then dual booting Windows XP64/Mac OS X. Haha, XP64, that's a good one... Last time I checked that, it didn't support 16-bit runtime or 32-bit drivers, thus you can't run anything. So, in other words, you're [expletive deleted] :p

Also, they're not going to be released at WWDC. Apple said from 2006 to 2007. For the Mac Pros to come out at WWDC means the whole thing will be over in about 6 months :p

[Airforce]

Haha, XP64, that's a good one... Last time I checked that, it didn't support 16-bit runtime or 32-bit drivers, thus you can't run anything. So, in other words, you're [expletive deleted] :p

There are plenty of XP64 drivers out there. What are you going on about?

[Abulia]

Also, they're not going to be released at WWDC. Apple said from 2006 to 2007. For the Mac Pros to come out at WWDC means the whole thing will be over in about 6 months :pThis Tuesday Steve said they'll have all Macs on Intel by the end of this calendar year (2006).

I do agree that won't include PMs by WWDC, though.

[gangst]

The Quad G5 is an amazingly fast machine, I have one! When Steve said all Macs would be transitioned by the end of 2006 I did wonder if Intel would be able to make a equally fast or faster machine by them. At the moment the dual core G5's are miles ahead of what Intel has, let alone two of them in one machine. I think it will be very interesting to see the new G5's.

[Passante]

The only platform that backpedaled from 64 to 32 bit was the iMac G5. G4s and the intels are still 32 bit. Expect the intel powermac to be 64 bit. Think any iMac users will miss having a 64 bit system:D

[steve_hill4]

I don't think anyone has mentioned this yet, but Merom is the mobile 64-bit processor architecture Intel are planning. The desktop range, (which the PowerMac/Mac Pro/MacTower Pro will probably take), is based on the Conroe architecture I think. This will also lead to potentially quad core on a single chip.

Conroe is based on Merom, but with less power constraints allowing increased performance. I can't see Apple settling on Merom for the Pro Desktop when they can have Conroe. Woodcrest also comes along about the same time, (Q4 2006 rather than Q3), but is more likely to be used for XServe.

64-bit is not dead by any stretch of the imagination.

[ufoolme]

It seems now the intel iMac and MacBook Pro are using the same chip?
Has this happened before?

Is it just me or does it now seem like the iMac=MacBook Pro & (hence) dMac Mini will = MacBook iBook?

[belvdr]

There are plenty of XP64 drivers out there. What are you going on about?

He/she meant that it XP64 will not run 32-bit applications. I cannot confirm that, but that was their message as I read it.

[jhu]

He/she meant that it XP64 will not run 32-bit applications. I cannot confirm that, but that was their message as I read it.

xp64 does run 32-bit applications. it cannot run 16-bit applications (without emulation), but that's due to the hardware. the original post stated that 32-bit drivers will not work, which is true. however, there are plenty of 64-bit drivers for most of the common hardware out there.

[belvdr]

xp64 does run 32-bit applications. it cannot run 16-bit applications (without emulation), but that's due to the hardware. the original post stated that 32-bit drivers will not work, which is true. however, there are plenty of 64-bit drivers for most of the common hardware out there.

Ahh yes, you are right. I was a bit too sleepy last night to research that.

I remember Win2K3 x64 beta software could run 32-bit software as well. However, I don't think the Itanium edition could do that, as the processor was 64-bit only.

[jhu]

Ahh yes, you are right. I was a bit too sleepy last night to research that.

I remember Win2K3 x64 beta software could run 32-bit software as well. However, I don't think the Itanium edition could do that, as the processor was 64-bit only.

i don't know about windows xp, but i think 2000 could execute 32-bit x86 programs due to emulation. i think intel wrote an emulation layer. additionally, the original itanium had an x86 execution mode so they could run windows directly. i don't know about the current itanium2.

[greatdevourer]

There are plenty of XP64 drivers out there. What are you going on about? As said, when I last checked, which was at least a year ago

[belvdr]

i don't know about windows xp, but i think 2000 could execute 32-bit x86 programs due to emulation. i think intel wrote an emulation layer. additionally, the original itanium had an x86 execution mode so they could run windows directly. i don't know about the current itanium2.

Windows 2000 is a 32-bit only operating system, so it could obviously run 32-bit programs, but not through emulation. Maybe you're thinking 16-bit?

I misspoke, as it was the Itanium2 I was referring to.

[Airforce]

As said, when I last checked, which was at least a year ago

Ah, it must have still been in beta or something then. It was released last April to manufacturers.

[jhu]

Windows 2000 is a 32-bit only operating system, so it could obviously run 32-bit programs, but not through emulation. Maybe you're thinking 16-bit?

I misspoke, as it was the Itanium2 I was referring to.

this was in regards to windows xp64 on itanium. windows has been 64-bit since 2000 on the itanium. on itanium, the x86 programs usually run through software emulation because the hardware emulation layer has even poorer performance even on the itanium2

[ChrisA]

So unless you need to do mathematical operations on longs, then you really don't need 64 bit.

I'm pretty sure the floating point units in Intel chips do thier work on 64 bit floating point data. Internally they are much wider than 64. Well, at least this is how it's been since the days of the 386. Notice that the MMX stuff operates on eight 8-bit integers and uses the FP registers.

Intel chips like to Xeon are only "psuedo 64 bits" in the a t processor can access more RAM but user level process run in 32bit addressspce.

From a C programmers point of view on the current Xeon the sizeof() a pointer is 32.

[jhu]

I'm pretty sure the floating point units in Intel chips do thier work on 64 bit floating point data. Internally they are much wider than 64. Well, at least this is how it's been since the days of the 386. Notice that the MMX stuff operates on eight 8-bit integers and uses the FP registers.

actually, it's 80-bit floating point.


Intel chips like to Xeon are only "psuedo 64 bits" in the a t processor can access more RAM but user level process run in 32bit addressspce.


that's only true for chips using pae. xeons that support emt64 are true 64-bit processors.

[CubaTBird]

i say...

ibooks go intel this april/may..

new powermacs with intel proc's at wwdc..

...and mac mini goes intel in late august just in time for back to school

[CubaTBird]

what about when apple said this?

http://www.uriah.com/apple-qt/snail.html

irony...

[cnakeitaro]

what about when apple said this?

http://www.uriah.com/apple-qt/snail.html

irony...

not like it was a lie >.>
apple had to switch, IBM was being lazy with the PPC processor line

[QCassidy352]

i say...

ibooks go intel this april/may..

new powermacs with intel proc's at wwdc..

...and mac mini goes intel in late august just in time for back to school

I disagree... i think the mini will go intel at the same time as the ibook (they are likely to use the same processor - the single core yonah) while the powermac will stay with the G5 for a while and be the last to switch. Reasons being that 1) the dual core G5s (and especially the quad) are still extraordinarily good machines, probably as good or better than anything that intel can do yet, and 2) pro users/powermac owners probably don't want to deal with a lot of rosetta emulation, so the powermacs won't go intel until almost everything is universal

[kzg]

Well the chip may not have 64-bit instructions. But the core duo supports the PAE (Physical Address Extension) so we are not limited to 4GB of RAM but 32GB because PAE gives you 36-bit addressing.

[Abulia]

I disagree... i think the mini will go intel at the same time as the ibook (they are likely to use the same processor - the single core yonah) while the powermac will stay with the G5 for a while and be the last to switch. Reasons being that 1) the dual core G5s (and especially the quad) are still extraordinarily good machines, probably as good or better than anything that intel can do yet, and 2) pro users/powermac owners probably don't want to deal with a lot of rosetta emulation, so the powermacs won't go intel until almost everything is universalI agree with everything you said and would add the following:

Since the PMs had a recent revision, Apple could be sitting on some inventory for some time. They'll want to clear out as much as possible.

The desktop line is the most profitable for Apple, so they'll want to save something for the Q4/Q1 financials, such as the Intel model.

Add on the aforementioned problem of not having a chip for it yet :) and I think we'll see the PMs dead last, just before the end of the calendar year (so Steve can keep his word).

[jhu]

Well the chip may not have 64-bit instructions. But the core duo supports the PAE (Physical Address Extension) so we are not limited to 4GB of RAM but 32GB because PAE gives you 36-bit addressing.

except no one really uses pae