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

Apple Seeds Mac OS X 10.6.2 Build 10C527f to Developers

skate71290 said:
apple could have done sooo much more with expose... instead of making it look better how bout making it work better :mad:
Click to expand...

Because a lot of people only want to see new eye candy. If its appearance hasn't changed in a blatantly obvious way, they don't care, to say nothing about under the hood stuff.

As for iTunes, I heard it was switched Cocoa in version 9. But if that's true, why isn't it 64-bit? Could it be something about working w/ Leopard/Tiger systems?

Sorry if this is a stupid question, but what does a 64-bit app offer over a 32-bit app, other than being able to access 4 billion times more memory? Also, there was a guy who said MS is developing a 128-bit version of Windows 8/9. That true? WIll there be any CPUs capable of that? What consumer level software can really benefit from that? I know the high end science & graphics apps might benefit, but we can't even fully utilize 64-bit goodness now.
 
Ah, they solved the unexpectedly-logout-problem. Very nice. Now I do not have to save my files every 1 minute anymore. That was quite a random bug.
 
mdriftmeyer said:
Originally Posted by AidenShaw
No chipmaker has 128-bit CPUs on the roadmap, and possibly never will.
Click to expand...


Spare us the misinformation.

Seriously.
Click to expand...


Please explain what you mean by "misinformation".

I can find no evidence that CPUs with 128-bit virtual addressing are on the horizon. (And clearly my comment did not refer to 128-bit data, since AltiVec/SSE have been dealing with 128-bit data for many years, 256-bit AVX is almost here, and data busses are commonly far wider than address busses.)

Here's a relevant comment from TechSpot:

And before anyone mentions Bill Gates and the 640kb again, put this in perspective; (from wikipedia)

"In the days when 4 MB of main memory was commonplace, the maximum memory ceiling of 2^32 addresses was about 1,000 times larger than typical memory configurations. Today, when over 2 GB of main memory is common, the ceiling of 2^64 addresses is about ten trillion times larger"

Microsoft employee hints at 128-bit support in Windows 8
Click to expand...

My "possibly never" comment is because it's possible that architectures will change before we need 10 trillion times more memory in a system. Perhaps cloud and mesh architectures will become the norm, and it will be more flexible to build huge systems with 64-bit nodes - rather than putting more than 17.2 billion GiB on a single CPU.
 
Povilas said:
iTunes would see benefits from going Cocoa + 64 bit.
Click to expand...

What could you do in a 64-bit iTunes that you can't in 32 bits?

For the person who called Apple's 64-bit implementation "half-baked," a more serious knock on it is that my 64-bit unibody MacBook can't run the 64-bit OS X kernel (although it could run a 64-bit Windows if I chose).
 
AidenShaw said:
Please explain what you mean by "misinformation".

I can find no evidence that CPUs with 128-bit virtual addressing are on the horizon. (And clearly my comment did not refer to 128-bit data, since AltiVec/SSE have been dealing with 128-bit data for many years, 256-bit AVX is almost here, and data busses are commonly far wider than address busses.)
Click to expand...

This article claims both Intel and AMD have plans for 128-bit processors. Not drawing any conclusions, just linking.

wschutz said:
Do you really know why and what for 64 bits are useful?

For sure marketing 64 bits vs 32 bits is a catchy slogan... but 99% of people don't know what's the difference and 99.9% don't know that for their use of OS and apps won't matter at all...

Perhaps we are going to start seeing a trend of numbers with OS as we saw with processor speed, later on with number of cores, then bus speed,... and almost 99% of the time a computer is turned on, not even 10% of that power is used (but companies cash a lot thanks to this :D)
Click to expand...
For me, it's because that in many cases, going 64-bit means the requirement of a rewrite of applications, taking advantage of the latest APIs, and gaining the ability of having new features with less of a hit on performance.
 
Eric S. said:
What could you do in a 64-bit iTunes that you can't in 32 bits?
Click to expand...

Going Cocoa means that that you get rid of Carbon and there is no point of leaving iTunes only 32 bit in this case. What could I do with 64 bit iTunes that I can't with 32 bit? I guess nothing, but overall integrity is good ;) There is no point of leaving Carbon in Mac OS X any longer, but I guess it's not so simple.
 
guzhogi said:
Because a lot of people only want to see new eye candy. If its appearance hasn't changed in a blatantly obvious way, they don't care, to say nothing about under the hood stuff.

As for iTunes, I heard it was switched Cocoa in version 9. But if that's true, why isn't it 64-bit? Could it be something about working w/ Leopard/Tiger systems?

Sorry if this is a stupid question, but what does a 64-bit app offer over a 32-bit app, other than being able to access 4 billion times more memory? Also, there was a guy who said MS is developing a 128-bit version of Windows 8/9. That true? WIll there be any CPUs capable of that? What consumer level software can really benefit from that? I know the high end science & graphics apps might benefit, but we can't even fully utilize 64-bit goodness now.
Click to expand...

its not a stupid question, but its my understanding (correct me anyone if i'm wrong) but 64bit will only really be used by people with seriously powerful Mac Pros/8GB Ram MBP, anything above 6 (i think) GB of RAM will utilise the 64 bitness and make it stupidly fast (although i got the feeling that with that amount of ram u can't possible experience sluggishness in 32bit), and any problems are likely to be bugs within the software/OS - its just nice to have unity and most people think a higher number means faster computing lol :D :apple:
 
Mr. Wonderful said:
This article claims both Intel and AMD have plans for 128-bit processors. Not drawing any conclusions, just linking.


For me, it's because that in many cases, going 64-bit means the requirement of a rewrite of applications, taking advantage of the latest APIs, and gaining the ability of having new features with less of a hit on performance.
Click to expand...

Going 64 bit doesn't effect any app which can use more than 4 Gig ram. So 64 bit iTunes wouldn't be any faster than 32 bit iTunes.

On the other hand there are other benefits of 64 bit. On scientific apps, 64 bit means speed. But only on scientific apps which actually do really big calculations which can benefit from 64 bit registers.

So in theory, 128 bit CPU+128 bit app might work faster than 64 bit one in case the app can actually do a calculation using 128 bit registers. But that's even a smaller pool of apps.

iTunes going 64 bit is only good for consistency overall the system but for nothing else.
 
skate71290 said:
same problem happens on my iPhone leading me to believe it might be setup up incorrectly... but i left Mail App to set it up for me...:mad:
Click to expand...

Yes, mail, by default sets up gmail to use imap (which i dont like at all). The best way I have discovered is to have imap support turned off in gmail account settings, for mail then to fail during setup but just to click continue, then on the next setup step in mail to change the setup to use smtp and remember to use full account name including @gmail dot com (note it still attempts to use port 993 so you'll have to change it to 995 manually after setup is complete - just uncheck 'take account online' until all accounts are properly setup)

wishing mail to be using smtp with correct port 995 by default when using gmail accounts.

Took me a little while and after discovering 'it just didn't work!'
 
Mr. Wonderful said:
This article claims both Intel and AMD have plans for 128-bit processors. Not drawing any conclusions, just linking.
Click to expand...

All of the articles on Bulldozer and Haswell talk about 128-bit data, not 128-bit addressing. There's also the 256-bit datatypes in AVX coming.

If the widest datatype determined the architecture, then a VAX-11/780 would have been called a 128-bit CPU in 1977. But it wasn't - it was called a 32-bit CPU because it had 32-bit addressing.

Intel and PowerPC have had 64-bit data and 128-bit vector registers all along, but they were called 32-bit or 64-bit processors - depending on the width of their virtual addressing.


iBug2 said:
Going 64 bit doesn't effect any app which can use more than 4 Gig ram. So 64 bit iTunes wouldn't be any faster than 32 bit iTunes.
Click to expand...

That's true if nothing else changes except the addressing - but x64 is a different architecture with more registers than x86. Many benchmarks show a 5% to 20% performance improvement due to the differences in the instruction set.

Not a huge difference, but worthwhile.
 
People please read this!

AidenShaw said:
.....

That's true if nothing else changes except the addressing - but x64 is a different architecture with more registers than x86. Many benchmarks show a 5% to 20% performance improvement due to the differences in the instruction set.

Not a huge difference, but worthwhile.
Click to expand...
People only need to go so far as to see the differences between 32 & 64 bit Safari. I believe in some cases it is more than 20% on Safari.

Then we have the reality that certain classes of programs just function better with the wider word sizes even if the extra instructions are not there.

Finally the address space issue is real and of interest even to Mac users. Nothing beats acres of RAM space. Well for select solutions to problems.

The important thing to understand in Apples case is that there are few negatives associated with going to 64 bit and a lot of positives. Those positives exist if you have the RAM or don't have it. It isn't rAtional to dismiss 64 bit out of hand, especially when SL is proving to be very capable and stable.

At least for me SL is stable. In fact it has far fewer bugs than Leopard did. Or at least bugs that bothered me. It's snappy too! ;).

Personally I can't wait for the update but that is more due to the fact that I like a fresh even bleeding edge system. I always keep my Fedora Linux updated because of that very same desire though that is admittedly more bleeding edge.

The other thing is that Apple seems to be pushing hard with the development tools. I'm wondering if CLang and LLVM get a boost.


Dave
 
AidenShaw said:
All of the articles on Bulldozer and Haswell talk about 128-bit data, not 128-bit addressing. There's also the 256-bit datatypes in AVX coming.

If the widest datatype determined the architecture, then a VAX-11/780 would have been called a 128-bit CPU in 1977. But it wasn't - it was called a 32-bit CPU because it had 32-bit addressing.

Intel and PowerPC have had 64-bit data and 128-bit vector registers all along, but they were called 32-bit or 64-bit processors - depending on the width of their virtual addressing.




That's true if nothing else changes except the addressing - but x64 is a different architecture with more registers than x86. Many benchmarks show a 5% to 20% performance improvement due to the differences in the instruction set.

Not a huge difference, but worthwhile.
Click to expand...

Always good to see someone on macrumors who knows what they are talking about :)

I would expect more registers in a x128 CPU and thus they would be faster than current chips...

Honestly, I do not see 128 bit chips coming out anytime soon, we don't even have everything running on x64 yet.

If we are gonna dream about x128 chips, we should dream of ditching the x86 arch altogether!
 
wilycoder said:
Honestly, I do not see 128 bit chips coming out anytime soon, we don't even have everything running on x64 yet.

If we are gonna dream about x128 chips, we should dream of ditching the x86 arch altogether!
Click to expand...

Enjoy...

Today, I read it on Slashdot. So, before Windows 8 for IA-128 becomes the digital equivalent of Sasquatch or the Loch Ness Monster, I figured it was prudent to point out the itty, bitty, tiny little problem that's keeping this story from having any basis in reality.

There is no IA-128. The Abominable Snowman and the Easter Bunny could hold a press conference about the lost sex tapes of The Tooth Fairy and it would have more credibility than this rumor. In fact, calling it a rumor lends too much credence to the story. There may be a Robert Morgan, there certainly is a Windows 8, but there is no IA-128.

http://www.downloadsquad.com/2009/10/08/excited-about-128-bit-windows-8-dont-hold-your-breath/
Click to expand...
 
jkmassel said:
Hold down the 6 and 4 buttons while launching snow leopard. It'll cause it to boot into a 64-bit only kernel, and iTunes will detect this and run in 64 bit mode
Click to expand...

Could you do that for us and post a screenshot from Activity Monitor please ?
I'm curious to see Process ID (PID) 0 (Kernel_Task) and your iTunes Process.
You seem to be getting different results than I am.

I'm still pretty sure it's because iTunes is done (at least in part) in Carbon, and that Carbon based apps cannot run 64-bit.
 
AidenShaw said:
That's true if nothing else changes except the addressing - but x64 is a different architecture with more registers than x86. Many benchmarks show a 5% to 20% performance improvement due to the differences in the instruction set.

Not a huge difference, but worthwhile.
Click to expand...
I added in my post that certain applications gain speed from 64 bit addressing space, but they are scientific apps, which iTunes is not. I should have edited that first sentence maybe.

But I'm pretty sure iTunes won't see any kind of speed increase by going 64 bit.
 
DCJ001 said:
In case either of you is serious, this 10.6.2 update is over 400 MB; not GB.

There's no need to buy an external terabyte drive for the update.
Click to expand...

LOL, my bad. Yes, 400Mb is still huge :eek: but not the whale I was making it out to be. :eek:
 
iBug2 said:
I added in my post that certain applications gain speed from 64 bit addressing space, but they are scientific apps, which iTunes is not. I should have edited that first sentence maybe.

But I'm pretty sure iTunes won't see any kind of speed increase by going 64 bit.
Click to expand...

If Itunes compresses or transcodes video and audio, that's every bit as demanding as "scientific" applications. (And it's not an "address space" issue - it's that x64 is a different, more modern, more efficient architecture than x86.)

I haven't used Itunes since someone stole the Ipod Touch that I had for a work project, but I'm pretty sure that it could rip CDs and convert video for the Ipod. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
 
Seems like a really juicy update! Looking forward to it, although I have no problems with Snow Leopard as of 10.6.1.

For the clown saying that Windows 7 64-bit Rock Solid, No. No it is not. Windows 7 is built on Windows Vista and as previously Windows 7 64-bit is more incompatible with Applications than the 32-bit version and I've seen first hand how half baked many Windows 7 64-bit drivers are.

As for Snow Leopard and 64-bit'ness. It's the most compatible, fastest and most reliable 64-bit mass market OS that exists. Running both 32-bit and native 64-bit Applications brilliantly.
 
SmugMac said:
For the clown saying that Windows 7 64-bit Rock Solid, No. No it is not. Windows 7 is built on Windows Vista and as previously Windows 7 64-bit is more incompatible with Applications than the 32-bit version and I've seen first hand how half baked many Windows 7 64-bit drivers are.

As for Snow Leopard and 64-bit'ness. It's the most compatible, fastest and most reliable 64-bit mass market OS that exists. Running both 32-bit and native 64-bit Applications brilliantly.
Click to expand...

Your nickname explains it all...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smug_Alert! ;)


Oh, to ask about your response - which Win7 x64 drivers have you had trouble with? Which version of Win7? What are the problems?

I'm using Win7 x64 on most of my desktops, two of my laptops, and a number of VMs. Other than the "problem" that HP won't do Vista/Win7 x64 drivers for my 8 year old 1100DTN inkjet, I haven't seen any issues. (HP does support an HP 1000 driver that works with the printer, but it won't do recto-verso. I need to print from an XP VM to do dual-sided printing.)

(Edit: 2nd problem is that my company is using a 6 year old out-of-support Cisco VPN solution - and Cisco won't do Vista/Win7 x64 drivers (they want you to buy a new VPN box for $400K). Also solved with running the Cisco VPN in a 32-bit Windows 7 VM.)
 
elliethebug said:
It's been two hours...what are they cooking? I bet it is not a fix for SL that crashes every application one tries to use?!...
Click to expand...

Strange you say that. I run FCPro Studio 3, CS4 and all Apple i apps in SL and don't seem to have any issues and not a single crash ever. In fact I have never had a crash per se in OS X in years, at worst I have occasionally done a force quit on the Finder and all was well again. What are you running on?
 
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