It does. But not every calculation benefits from 64 bit registers. And yes, it's about address space issue, at least the speed increase I'm talking about is about address space. Talked to a friend who is working on a Mathematica like project atm said that especially matrix computations can be done much faster in 64 bit address space. Yes iTunes does a bit of calculation while ripping/converting but not every calculation can be "widened" to 64 bit address space.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
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
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It does. But not every calculation benefits from 64 bit registers. And yes, it's about address space issue, at least the speed increase I'm talking about is about address space. Talked to a friend who is working on a Mathematica like project atm said that especially matrix computations can be done much faster in 64 bit address space. Yes iTunes does a bit of calculation while ripping/converting but not every calculation can be "widened" to 64 bit address space.
Keynote doesn't print Slides as small squares like on Office Powerpoint, its tries to print 6/9 slides just down one side of the paper.... i had to buy Office just to overcome this
Didn't Mr. Gates once say, "We will never make a 32-bit operating system?"
"People don't want to watch video on their iPod." Steve Jobs
This is not about 64-bit registers and 64-bit addressing!
x86 has 8 32-bit integer registers. 3 of these are usually dedicated to specific task, leaving effectively 5 free registers for the compiler to use.
x64 has 16 32-bit integer registers. Take away the three dedicated, that leaves 13 free registers for the compiler.
x64 has 2.6 times more free integer registers than x86! This is one of the big reasons why programs that do not need 64-bit addressing run faster on x64.
(x64 has 16 general purpose integer registers. They are physically 64-bits wide, but can also be used as 32-bit, 16-bit, or 8-bit registers depending on the instruction code.)
You mean x86-32 and x86-64
There are many different abbreviations for x64 - Microsoft and Sun use x86 and x64, the simple and short form.
http://www.sun.com/x64/products.jsp
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-7/get/system-requirements.aspx
If 10.7 is around 18months away then I see the possibility of LLVM with Clang becoming the new default compiler. With developers from the *BSD world jumping on the bandwagon, there is an even greater incentive to getting the C++ support up to speed.
Personally I'd love to see Apple finally move away from GCC but even if they did, they're still reliant on the GNU Bin Utils
hopefully they'll be replaced with *BSD licenced tools as well - making them liberated from GNU.
We are talking about different things. The stuff my friend told me requires 64 bit wide registers. Not more 32 bit registers.
Keynote doesn't print Slides as small squares like on Office Powerpoint, its tries to print 6/9 slides just down one side of the paper.... i had to buy Office just to overcome this
Hi there,
Best option around this is to select 'Layout' in the print settings and change it to, say, 4 pages. Then select 2 slides per page and voila - you have 8 slides on one page!
Best of luck, Mike
I'm not debating what your friend said about 64-bit addressing and big math programs.
I'm trying to explain why other programs, like Itunes, can benefit from the x64 architecture - even if they don't need 64-bit arithmetic or 64-bit addressing.
More registers is a good thing!
SIL3132 driver issue's
Are the driver issues resolved for all the e_sata cards that use this driver? And that is 'm told lik 80% off all those cards.
IT makes the os Panick in the kernel when connecting a drive with esata cards, like the on i have from LaCie.
Are the driver issues resolved for all the e_sata cards that use this driver? And that is 'm told lik 80% off all those cards.
IT makes the os Panick in the kernel when connecting a drive with esata cards, like the on i have from LaCie.
My understanding that the benefit from the extra registers ends up being much smaller than expected because of all the tricks modern x86 processors have to speed things up. This type of thing is part of why Itanium failed despite its "theoretical" superiority--the x86 processors just kept getting faster in spite of their ungainly architecture. Nevertheless, x64 is clearly the future of desktop/laptops, as long as there isn't some revolutionary switchover to ARM-based tablets or something.
As I said earlier - 5% to 20% improvement recompiling for x64 is not unusual.
Look at it another way. Apple charges $300 for the slightly more than 10% speed upgrade for the 2.66 to 2.93 GHz Imac.
So, you can "save" $300 by switching to the x64 version of a program !
What exactly is "half-baked" about it? The fact that Mac users haven't been forced to reinstall their OS from scratch and scrounge around trying to find 64-bit drivers for their hardware?
Apple deliberately took an incremental approach in moving to a 64 bit platform. By definition, that means running a mix of 32 bit and 64 bit apps and a dual mode kernel to support 32 bit drivers until 64 bit drivers are pervasive. This avoids the massive trauma that Windows users face when moving from 32 to 64 bit. They have to figure out what hardware they have, go to the vendor's website to check for 64 bit drivers, backup their data, reinstall a new OS from scratch and then move their data back over manually, Mac users simply upgrade to the latest OS in place and everything works. Now which approach is half-baked?
True, Apple is leading and MS is desperately struggling to follow. By taking an "all or nothing" approach to a 64 bit OS, MS has created a huge impediment to moving its user base to 64 bit. It's going to take at least 5 years before the majority of Windows users are running 64 bit systems and who knows how long before the number of 32 bit users is small enough that app and driver developers can stop supporting them. In the meantime, Mac users simply upgrade their OS and they keep moving toward a fully 64 bit system without having to worry about or understand any of the technical details.
Apple's approach has made life vastly easier for both developers and users by allowing the free intermixing of 32 and 64 bit apps in a single OS and, now, the ability to run the kernel in 32 or 64 bit mode in a single OS. MS can only dream of offering an upgrade path that's so easy and nearly invisible to users.
Yes, this one has bothered me for a long time, as I use rules to color code my emails (set background color of emails from certain sources).
"People don't want to watch video on their iPod." Steve Jobs
I guess the smiley faces mean you're joking. You do know that when he supposedly said that (to a guy from Engadget, I believe) Apple was already developing a video iPod, right?
As the single most copied company in the tech industry, it's no surprise that Jobs occasionally, deliberately misdirects the press. If you look this quote up on the net, it's given as an example of Jobs lying, not an example of being shortsighted.
The examples of shortsighted, ignorant quotes from MS execs could fill a book. Here's one from Ballmer that I still get a chuckle out of:
"There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance."
Mainly the fact that Apple doesn't support a 64-bit kernel on all systems with x64 CPUs.
That means that you can run Windows 7 x64 on Apples that will not run the Apple 64-bit kernel.
That's "half-baked"....
This statement is "massive drama".
When Windows users buy a new system, it comes with Windows x64 and they go with it. If they have old peripherals, they'll need to find drivers and perhaps update their printer or scanner. Ever notice that printers are often bundled with new systems? Ever wonder about what percentage of people have a big investment in PCI cards?
More than half the Vista systems selling today are x64, and the ratio for Windows 7 is expected to be overwhelmingly x64. (This excludes netbooks/nettops with x86-only Atoms....)
Windows is executing a great strategy for the x86->x64 migration. Most people with Windows x64 systems don't even realize that they've made the jump.
And then someone logs into the guest account, and all their data is gone.
A majority of new Windows systems are already x64.
And, applications do not have to be changed for x64. Windows x64 supports x86 applications completely.
Only drivers have to be x64, JUST LIKE OSX x64.
In any event, whether is due to 64-bit or the new OS or whatever - the chances that you'll find a new driver for that $99 printer or scanner that you bought 6 years ago are slim. None of these vendors have "perpetual upgrade support" in their EULA, nor in their business plans.
Look at Apple - not supporting PowerPC systems in 10.6 that are still under AppleCare.
Too bad tons of people still buy the 32 bit version because they don't know any different.
I can't count how many people I know running 32 bit windows on systems capable of 64 bit.
Apple's transition to 64 bit began in leopard and was truly fine tuned with snow leopard.
Microsoft's transition has been and continues to be completely half assed.
Who "buys" Windows?
How many people "buy" Windows? Just like Apple OSX, they get it on a new computer that they buy.
Most computers recently sold have Vista x64, with a free upgrade to Windows 7 x64. Come Thursday (or soon after), most computers will come with Windows 7 x64 included.
While the sheeple are saying that Apple has the right 64-bit strategy, Microsoft is shipping huge numbers of pure 64-bit systems, and Apple is shipping modest numbers of 32-bit systems that could boot 64-bit if they have the right firmware and if Apple has written the drivers for their hardware and if the user knows which chords to press at which time during booting.
The latter is half-baked.
How many people "buy" Windows? Just like Apple OSX, they get it on a new computer that they buy.
Most computers recently sold have Vista x64, with a free upgrade to Windows 7 x64. Come Thursday (or soon after), most computers will come with Windows 7 x64 included.
While the sheeple are saying that Apple has the right 64-bit strategy, Microsoft is shipping huge numbers of pure 64-bit systems, and Apple is shipping modest numbers of 32-bit systems that could boot 64-bit if they have the right firmware and if Apple has written the drivers for their hardware and if the user knows which chords to press at which time during booting.
The latter is half-baked.
I'm going to disagree with this, and say that Apple is the one who is half assed. They sold 64-bit G5 systems (AS 64-BIT!) in 2003 with no software support. They started moving to 64-bit with Tiger, with only the barest of support(but they SOLD IT HARD). They got major app support in Leopard( AND SOLD IT HARD AGAIN), and only with Snow Leopard do they have system/kernel support, but NOT FOR G5s. And still, a lot of Intel 64-bit Macs can't run in 64-bit mode (BUT THEY ARE STILL SELLING IT HARD).
XP64 did it all in the first release in 2005. No half-assing it.
It's only a shame those G5s couldn't do boot camp and run Windows in 64-bit. Can they perhaps through Virtual PC or similar? Height of irony there. Maybe something linux?
"People don't want to watch video on their iPod." Steve Jobs
Didn't bill gates say that people wouldn't need more than 680k of Ram?