64 bits processing with Intel

[Palad1]

Hello fellow survivors.

I couldn't sleep tonight, thinking about what was said @ the wwdc keynote regarding the "Switch".

I kept wondering : Apple has commited huge efforts in porting OSX's Kernel and BSD substsystems to a 64bits architecture, but... Intel's previous forrays into 64bits was kind of... a gigantic failure, only AMD was able to create a good 64bits x86.

Now, what lies ahead? Will the switch mean we'll all go back to 32bits processors running a 64bits kernel?

Gosh, don't even get me started on the drivers if Macintel machines ever accept stock pci-x cards...

 

[G-Funk]

Hello fellow survivors.


Now, what lies ahead? Will the switch mean we'll all go back to 32bits processors running a 64bits kernel?

..

Keep in mind that apple will start shipping intel based macs by june 2006. by that time . intel would have come out with a 64bit based chip . or who knows.. it might be 128bit

 

[Palad1]

.. attachments ...

Now, that is cruel

ps: have a look at the pdf describing the steps required in porting your app to Mactel while maintaining compatibility with PPC... DO'H!

 

[TigerPRO]

I am willing to wager that by the time Apple starts using Intel chips, all their new computer will be 64bit. My prediction is that Apple won't even every use a 32 bit Intel chip. Further, Mac OS X Leopard will probably be fully 64 bit (although I woudn't rule out Apple making a 32 bit version of it).

 

[strider42]

I am willing to wager that by the time Apple starts using Intel chips, all their new computer will be 64bit. My prediction is that Apple won't even every use a 32 bit Intel chip. Further, Mac OS X Leopard will probably be fully 64 bit (although I woudn't rule out Apple making a 32 bit version of it).

Seems extremeley unlikely to me, because to make the next OS fully 64 bit, you preclude it from installing on any of the G4 processor based models that are shipping now and will continue shipping for the immediate future. There's basically no benefit to getting it fully 64 bit at this time, so why bother. Supporting two versions doesn't make much sense either.

The intel chips they use probably will be 64 bit. If I recall correctly, intel has already commited to using the 64 bit x86 extensions developed by AMD as they ditch the itanium.

 

[admanimal]

I am willing to wager that by the time Apple starts using Intel chips, all their new computer will be 64bit. My prediction is that Apple won't even every use a 32 bit Intel chip. Further, Mac OS X Leopard will probably be fully 64 bit (although I woudn't rule out Apple making a 32 bit version of it).

I bet they will use a 32-bit chip, because the Universal Binaries will support only intel's 32-bit architecture, so a 64-bit chip wouldn't do anything for them.

 

[bug]

I bet they will use a 32-bit chip, because the Universal Binaries will support only intel's 32-bit architecture, so a 64-bit chip wouldn't do anything for them.

There's nothing stopping them from updating XCode to compile to 64 bits for Intel. This is pretty early in the game, I'm sure Apple hasn't just sat back and said "There, we're done. Everyone commit your changes to CVS and go home. See you in 2007."

Any code written for 64 bits at the moment (in the consumer world) needs 32 bit fallback code, so its not like the missing option in XCode is 'proof' of anything. They could be expecting devs to just use the 32 bit code for now - especially since the most likely candidates for Intel chips in 2006 are all the current computers using G4s (which are 32 bits). I don't think we can say anything about the powermacs at this point.

It is disturbing though, and I hope it changes (as a developer).