Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple, Panther, and 32-bit OS's

If Apple made a true 64 bit OS it would still be able to run 32 bit code.


It just wouldn't run on any of the G3 and G4 machines ... and: I don't know why everybody is getting so exited about this ... I recall the Move from 68k code to "power PC native" being an issue, but it worked. And yes: Apps did run faster if they were PPC native, but did it really make that much of a difference? This whole thing sounds like the "chicken and egg" discussion to me. Just because cars may not have wheels one day does not mean we should quit paving roads when we see the first such car get built. (okay, it is a bad analogy, but how many people really need the OS to be 64bit ... sounds like P*n*s envy on the part of the windows crowd to me) ... :D
 
Why does the Windows crowd envy your penius?

I don't see what we're getting all worked up for. I just got a 12". I don't want a 64-bit OS!
 
PeniU(?)s - well, Macs are more beautiful and just work, 64 bit or not.:)
 
Re: Gawd...

Originally posted by uberman42
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.
Click to expand...

We dont want the word processor to use up more processor, this way designers and the like can get everyone in their staff dual g5s once clustering is readily availible.
:D
 
One thing i'm not so sure of.. but what's so hard about making fat executables? I.e. apps that look identical to the end user, but internally contain a 32bit, and 64bit version of the program. If the system is 64bit it runs the 64bit version. A system like this is quite possible considering NextStep's .app executable system. It seems like it was built from the beginning to be good at this sort of transitional use. However if that were the case, then why do i still see G3/G4 optimized apps separately distributed all the time.
 
FAT progs

Apple tried that before and it sucked...

Besides, it's completely unnecessary and would be pointlessly more work.

Only the applications that *should* be run on a tower anyways (high end apps that need top notch hardware to run well) are going to be coded 64 bit. Those versions will only run on a G5 processor. The previous versions will still run on g3/g4. You want to use the new versions, get a G5.

When Apple completes its hardware transition to G5 completely, then Apple can start thinking about a true 64 bit OS. Now, Apple still has a One OS strategy, so it's not going to actually release a true 64 bit operating system until non-G5's aren't even under Applecare... thus 3-4 years away... By then, all apps should be written for G5 and 64 bit, because everyone will want to take advantage. And when the OS is rewritten, then the computers running the existing hardware and programs will see vast improvements still.

The future is looking bright.

Jaedreth
 
Re: FAT progs

Originally posted by jaedreth
Apple tried that before and it sucked...
Click to expand...

Fat applications arent that bad of a solution with Cocoa .apps.

All that would be added is another 64bit compile of the app. Both compiles would still use the same images, audio sounds and lproj locale files etc. The file size would go up which will not be such a great solution for those still on dialup though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back