MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
53,087
14,846
TheRegister.co.uk follows up a previous story regarding Panther with a claim that Apple has confirmed that Panther is technically a 32-bit operating system with 64-bit support.

They reference this PCWorld.com article which quotes Greg Joswiak of Apple Computer... however, the pertinent quote from the PCWorld.com article is not attributed to Joswiak. PCWorld writes:

Apple hasn't announced plans for a pure 64-bit operating system; Panther, an updated 32-bit OS due out the end of this year, will have Jaguar-like 64-bit support.

64-bit vs not 64-bit has spawned a significant debate but it's unclear how much relevance this has towards the average user -- especially as the Register claims that applications will be able to make use of the 64-bit addressing of the G5 under Panther (and 10.2.7).

PCWorld reminds users that "a 64-bit desktop computer won't make your word processing program run faster".
 

arn

macrumors god
Staff member
Apr 9, 2001
15,761
4,622
Another relevant quote:

http://arstechnica.com/cpu/03q1/x86-64/x86-64-1.html

The take-home point here is that only applications that require and use 64-bit integers will see a performance increase on 64-bit hardware that is due solely to a 64-bit processor's wider registers and increased dynamic range. So there's no magical performance boost inherent in the move from 32 bits to 64 bits, as people are often led to think by journalists who write things like, "64-bit computers can processes twice as much data per clock cycle as their 32-bit counterparts." Technically, this is true in a very restricted sense, but it would be better to say the following: "64-bit computers can process numbers that are 4.3 billion times as large as those processed by their 32-bit counterparts." It sounds a lot less sexy because it is, but at least no one is misled into thinking that 64-bitness makes a computer somehow twice as fast.__
 
Comment

Billicus

macrumors 6502a
Apr 3, 2002
980
2
Charles City, Iowa
Well, no kidding...:rolleyes: A good thanks to PCWorld for pointing out the obvious! Of course code that isn't optimized for the 64-Bit Processor isn't going to run faster on the 64-Bit Processor. But, in reality, they are going to run faster on a 2 Ghz x 2 processor than on a 1.42 Ghz x 2 processor.
 
Comment

Freg3000

macrumors 68000
Sep 22, 2002
1,914
0
New York
I trust seems to me that if Apple is going to make a 64 bit computer, there should be something that is designed for it. All of Apple's pro applications were updates last spring (FCP, DVDSP, etc.), I doubt Adobe will surprise us with a 64 it Photoshop 8, and we'll be at 128 bit before Quark goes to 64 bit, so what is the point of having it? Apple has about 3 months from the time G5 ships to when Panther ships (assuming it ships in December). So why not take a little time and make it 64 it. It couldn't hurt, it might make things a little faster.

I think we should have at least 1 reason to have a 64 bit computer.
 
Comment

arn

macrumors god
Staff member
Apr 9, 2001
15,761
4,622
Originally posted by Freg3000
I trust seems to me that if Apple is going to make a 64 bit computer, there should be something that is designed for it. All of Apple's pro applications were updates last spring (FCP, DVDSP, etc.), I doubt Adobe will surprise us with a 64 it Photoshop 8, and we'll be at 128 bit before Quark goes to 64 bit, so what is the point of having it? Apple has about 3 months from the time G5 ships to when Panther ships (assuming it ships in December). So why not take a little time and make it 64 it. It couldn't hurt, it might make things a little faster.

I think we should have at least 1 reason to have a 64 bit computer.

Two notes.

1) Adobe is releasing a 64-bit plug in for Photoshop 7 as a free download when the PowerMac G5's ship ( reference )

2) The major advantage of the G5 is that' is a much faster chip. Not that it's 64-bit.

arn
 
Comment

dietsoda

macrumors member
Jun 13, 2003
45
0
Bath, UK
People bemoaning Apple for not making Panther 64 bit should realise that if Panther were 64 bit, they wouldn't be able to run it on their G4s and G3s. They could release both 64 bit and 32 bit versions, but then there's a nightmare of admin and customer confusion. ("is that 10, 10.1, 10.2, 10.3 32-bit, or 10.3 64-bit you're running sir?")

As to word processing not being made any faster by a 64 bit chip, well i guess that depends on how much text you're writing. ;)

Does anyone here know what would be involved if say Adobe shipped a 64-bit capable version of Photoshop? Would they have to provide 2 versions, or could the same app take advantage of 64-bit while maintaining compatibility with the 32 bit chips?
 
Comment

arn

macrumors god
Staff member
Apr 9, 2001
15,761
4,622
Originally posted by Billicus
Well, no kidding...:rolleyes: A good thanks to PCWorld for pointing out the obvious! Of course code that isn't optimized for the 64-Bit Processor isn't going to run faster on the 64-Bit Processor. But, in reality, they are going to run faster on a 2 Ghz x 2 processor than on a 1.42 Ghz x 2 processor.

I think you missed the point. A word-processing program will not benefit from a 64-bit processor -- no matter how "64-bit optimized" it is.

arn
 
Comment

eric_n_dfw

macrumors 68000
Jan 2, 2002
1,511
58
DFW, TX, USA
Originally posted by Freg3000
So why not take a little time and make it 64 it. It couldn't hurt, it might make things a little faster.
Beacuse the vast majority of people running 10.3 are on G3 and G4, 32 bit machines. Like the article says, Athlon 64 Bit users don't even have this option untill XP 64 bit rolls out. (except for Linux users)

Originally posted by Freg3000 I think we should have at least 1 reason to have a 64 bit computer. [/B]
Ability to address > 4 GB of RAM at a time is the main reason to go 64bit. (I know, P4 uses 36bit addressing, but that seems to be a hack, don't you think?)
 
Comment

idea_hamster

macrumors 65816
Jul 11, 2003
1,096
1
NYC, or thereabouts
Originally posted by Mudbug
not to mention it won't make your 28.8 dialup modem run at the speed of a T1 line... :)

Ha! True -- nor will it make me a faster typist!

But also, wasn't a big complaint about the G4 P'Mac that the bus, controller and RAM speeds were all slower than the actual processor, creating bottlenecks?

So, with the scalable FSB and new controller and RAM, isn't the G5 going to run much faster than the G4 even at equal processor clock speeds?
 
Comment

fred

macrumors member
Dec 24, 2002
55
0
Apple's implementation will however not allow any one application to access more than 4 gig of memory
 
Comment

uberman42

macrumors member
Sep 1, 2002
84
0
Orange County, CA
Gawd...

Well I am going to cancel my G5 now that I found out the new OS won't be 64-bit. I wanted Word to scroll super-fast (as opposed to just fast). Dammit. Must...wait...longer...for...full 64-bit...

Just kidding. WTF...that was a dumb comment by PCWorld in regards to the word processor not being any faster.
 
Comment

fred

macrumors member
Dec 24, 2002
55
0
Well if it's such a non issue why has Apple been so hush, hush about it ? Apple quickly and loudly heralded the fact that it was the first 64 bit desktop processor and yet we have the get the info that the OS isn't fully 64 bit compliant in bits and drabs and reading between the lines .... I have to say that this and Apple's repeated shenanigans with benchmarks makes me seriously question their credibility
 
Comment

dietsoda

macrumors member
Jun 13, 2003
45
0
Bath, UK
people just aren't getting it, apple deserves praise for coming up with a decent way of transitioning the mac world to 64 bit, without dumping it's G3 and G4 users.

it's good that it's not a 64 bit only OS.

Otherwise, you'd only be able to run it on a G5. Oh, and you wouldn't have any apps to use either!
 
Comment

arn

macrumors god
Staff member
Apr 9, 2001
15,761
4,622
Originally posted by fred
Well if it's such a non issue why has Apple been so hush, hush about it ?

Well, perhaps because it is a pretty big non-issue for most people. I think there's a lot of hyperbole about all this. going both ways.

The problem is that most people don't quite grasp the advantage of the 64-bit processor over the 32-bit processor.

I don't claim to be knowledgeable about all the details of it... but I also know enough that it probably doesn't affect me directly either way.

I know OS News's opinion piece claims that each process can only address 4GB of ram. Is there documentation on this? Their report seems pieced together slashdot posts and mailing list posts.

arn
 
Comment

pretentious

macrumors regular
Sep 4, 2002
214
0
"Reality"
Most buyers of AMD's upcoming Athlon 64, by contrast, will have to wait until Microsoft ships a fully 64-bit version of Windows XP before they can take advantage of 64-bit computing. There is no Panther-like hybrid option available - 32-bit code that can cope with 64-bit addressing.

::Cue Nelson voice:: "Ha Ha"
 
Comment

jg3

macrumors member
May 3, 2002
90
0
Urbana, IL
Re: Apple, Panther, and 32-bit OS's

Originally posted by Macrumors
PCWorld reminds users that "a 64-bit desktop computer won't make your word processing program run faster".

Meanwhile, jg3 reminds users that nothing will make your word processing program run faster, unless you're using a 5 year-old system or some kind of massive bloatware. *cough*Word*cough*
 
Comment

simX

macrumors 6502a
May 28, 2002
757
0
Bay Area, CA
Re: Re: Apple, Panther, and 32-bit OS's

Originally posted by jg3
Meanwhile, jg3 reminds users that nothing will make your word processing program run faster, unless you're using a 5 year-old system or some kind of massive bloatware. *cough*Word*cough*

Wait, so, using a 5 year-old system or Word will make my word processing program run faster?!

I never knew that!

*** sim dusts off his bondi blue iMac.

D'oh! So much for that. ;)
 
Comment

Freg3000

macrumors 68000
Sep 22, 2002
1,914
0
New York
I agree with what everyone has said about the G5's more important features non being the 64 bit architecture. The ability to address more memory alone is incredibly important. All I am saying is that I find it weird that there will be very few Apps using it besides Photoshop (which Arn so aptly pointed out :)) I understand that companies like Adobe and Macromedia might not want to rush to make a 64 bit App, but what is even weirder to me is that Apple isn't making a new product they have 64 bit.

Then again, it might not make a difference at all, and that would explain.
 
Comment

simX

macrumors 6502a
May 28, 2002
757
0
Bay Area, CA
Originally posted by Freg3000
I understand that companies like Adobe and Macromedia might not want to rush to make a 64 bit App, but what is even weirder to me is that Apple isn't making a new product they have 64 bit.

Why is that weird? For the same reason that making a true 64-bit OS would cause confusion, so would making a true 64-bit product cause confusion. Just think: "64-bit Final Cut Pro", "32-bit Final Cut Pro", "64-bit DVD Studio Pro", "32-bit DVD Studio Pro".

Or maybe Apple would have to add an extra step in their online store: "Step 1, choose your number of bits."

If I'm understanding all this info correctly, a true 64-bit app wouldn't run on a 32-bit processor, even though the reverse is true. So making any true 64-bit product would just be a nightmare, even though the performance gain would probably be negligible.
 
Comment

BillGates

macrumors member
Jan 12, 2002
56
0
Minnesota
Final Cut Pro 64 bit support

Don't be so quick to count out 64bit support for some of the real time filters in Final Cut Pro 4.0.1.
 
Comment

BaghdadBob

macrumors 6502a
Apr 13, 2003
810
0
Gorgeous, WA
Re: Apple, Panther, and 32-bit OS's

Originally posted by Macrumors
PCWorld reminds users that "a 64-bit desktop computer won't make your word processing program run faster".
And I'm sure they were the first to point that out with every revision of the Pentium, right? :rolleyes:

Typical.
 
Comment

fpnc

macrumors 68000
Oct 30, 2002
1,933
100
San Diego, CA
Originally posted by arn

1) Adobe is releasing a 64-bit plug in for Photoshop 7 as a free download when the PowerMac G5's ship ( reference )

arn

Actually, I believe what they have announced is a G5-optimized plug-in, __not__ a "64-bit plug in." There is a big difference between the two.
 
Comment

MacRETARD

macrumors newbie
Jan 3, 2003
26
0
Originally posted by pretentious
::Cue Nelson voice:: "Ha Ha"

I think there is a misunderstanding here. Windows XP for amd64 will be able to run all older software just like windows NT/2000/XP can currently run 16 bit software originally written for windows 3.x. Amd been demonstrating this for months now.

If Apple made a true 64 bit OS it would still be able to run 32 bit code.
 
Comment
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.