As I said earlier, the biggest 32-bit to 64-bit hurdle that Apple has to face is iTunes. It's going to be a lot of work.
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.
iLife '11 Still 32-Bit
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
As I said earlier, the biggest 32-bit to 64-bit hurdle that Apple has to face is iTunes. It's going to be a lot of work.
When as a company you push the fact that the vast majority of your computers are 64bit compatible, yes it does matter. PowerMac G4's were capable of basic 64bit stuff. When the switch was made to Intel, Apple should have done all the conversions. Instead they bitch about everyone else's software.
If they can't get their own house in order they should just shut up. iLife and iWork not so important but when your "Professional - haha, that's a bloody joke" software is not up to scratch, then yes it does matter.
Flash worked fine in Safari up to the 5.0.1 release - funnily enough when Jobs got his head up his arse.
It would have been nice. What I really want is iTunes in 64-bit. That program could use the re-write.
I gotta say... I was pretty disappointed with iLife this year. I'm not upgrading from '09. Two years of development...and this.
I haven't been used iLife ever since I bought Aperture. I have no need for iPhoto, and I never used iMovie (that is what Final Cut is for), and GarageBand is useless to me as I have no musical talent.
So yeah, iLife has been useless to me for quite awhile. That said I think this update is actually pretty fantastic for people that use it, if only for fullscreen iPhoto alone.
Quad core macPros come with 3 GB.
You are living in the past. We've passed that threshold a long time ago with Apple's own iLife programs.
They might need aperture. Also, Aperture is a memory hog, at least it was when I tried version 3 in February. Importing 10 pictures used 1.7 GB of RAM and gigs of VM.
It truly doesn't. A lot of the time, '64-bit' is a marketing buzzword that gets consumers all hyped up.
Not Jobs' Top Priority
I think it's pretty obvious these kinds of applications and updates are not high on Jobs' priority list. His lack of involvement in the keynote yesterday said it all. When he has a huge iPhone or iPad update to announce, he plays a much larger role in the keynote. He even played a larger role in the iPod announcement in September. This is really the least of Jobs' priorities it would seem. And that's a shame.
I think it's pretty obvious these kinds of applications and updates are not high on Jobs' priority list. His lack of involvement in the keynote yesterday said it all. When he has a huge iPhone or iPad update to announce, he plays a much larger role in the keynote. He even played a larger role in the iPod announcement in September. This is really the least of Jobs' priorities it would seem. And that's a shame.
Can't see the benefit for most people if it was 64bit, it would have been nice, but not everyone is on snow leopard I guess for Lion we will see full 64bit all around finally.
so how many have the memory to take advantage of 64bit?
Yes, shame on Jobs, he should be writing code at night instead of answering random e-mails.
You've got to be kidding!
"who needs it anyway"
the same people who crucify other software companies for taking too long to roll out 64-bit apps are giving apple a pass on yet another 32-bit iMovie.
the same people who crucify other software companies for taking too long to roll out 64-bit apps are giving apple a pass on yet another 32-bit iMovie.
No, it's not.
Snow Leopard still runs on the 32-bit kernel anyway (unless you go in and modify some files to force it into 64-bit mode). Until this happens, there are little, if no, speed benefits to be gained from running a 64-bit process on top of a 32-bit kernel.
In Windows, a 32-bit process cannot be given more than 2gb of memory to run. Is this the case in Mac OS? I'm not sure....
I am not saying the transition to 64-bit is useless. Far from it. And who knows, maybe iLife still has some Carbon frameworks used within it. If this is the case, they'll have to shed all of that and make the app 100% Cocoa before they can move it to 64-bit.
You guys had better get readt to crucify Microsoft when Mac 2011 comes out. Almost the entire thing is Carbon-based, meaning it will be 32-bit only.
Ya you're right! He's a jerk! Man, just think how much better it would be if they got rid of him, then they might actually be successful.
As long as your OS kernel is 64-bit, it doesn't matter too much if individual applications are 32-bit or 64-bit. On a 64-bit OS each 32-bit application can address 4GB of RAM of its own. An application only really needs to be 64-bit if it can benefit from using more than 4GB of RAM. Photoshop is one application that can truly benefit from being 64-bit. Oracle is another example. But an application isn't normally faster just because it's 64-bit. On the contrary, 64-bit application are a bit larger and may use around 30% more memory than 32-bit applications.
Now the system is a different story, that needs to be 64-bit, or else you won't be able to use more than a couple of GB of RAM altogether. 32-bit OS X can only address 4GB of RAM, 32-bit Windows has a limitation of just a little above 3GB. That's very limiting.
That said, any well written application is very easy to be compiled to both 32-bit and 64-bit. Xcode will automatically do that. It'll produce an executable file that contains both targets. On the other hand, if your application depends on a 32-bit only component, then you can't make it 64-bit very easily.
Now the system is a different story, that needs to be 64-bit, or else you won't be able to use more than a couple of GB of RAM altogether. 32-bit OS X can only address 4GB of RAM, 32-bit Windows has a limitation of just a little above 3GB. That's very limiting.
That said, any well written application is very easy to be compiled to both 32-bit and 64-bit. Xcode will automatically do that. It'll produce an executable file that contains both targets. On the other hand, if your application depends on a 32-bit only component, then you can't make it 64-bit very easily.
To say no user needs more than 4GB is ignorant, so please stop saying it.... multiple people in this post and other have alluded to it.
That having been said, if you have enough of an iPhoto Library that the machine is bogged down either b/c of memory or HD upgrade it, if you have hit a ceiling on either and it is 32-bit then maybe you should explore a program better for your computer usage/ habits.
It's pretty simple, eventually you outgrow things and you move onto something that suits you better, which if you REALLY have those issues with iPhoto or iMovie, there are paths to Pro/ Prosumer Apps.
A perfect example of what happened with iMovie 06' HD. Too much was going on and people ended up doing way more than it was ever intended for, and it ended up alienating consumers in many ways...... too much going on, not necessarily too complicated but intimidating, so they went back and re-wrote it to 08'.
That having been said, if you have enough of an iPhoto Library that the machine is bogged down either b/c of memory or HD upgrade it, if you have hit a ceiling on either and it is 32-bit then maybe you should explore a program better for your computer usage/ habits.
It's pretty simple, eventually you outgrow things and you move onto something that suits you better, which if you REALLY have those issues with iPhoto or iMovie, there are paths to Pro/ Prosumer Apps.
A perfect example of what happened with iMovie 06' HD. Too much was going on and people ended up doing way more than it was ever intended for, and it ended up alienating consumers in many ways...... too much going on, not necessarily too complicated but intimidating, so they went back and re-wrote it to 08'.
I believe that's not true. 32-bit Windows can only use a little bit over 3GB of RAM. However, on 64-bit Windows each 32-bit application can use a total of 4GB of RAM. The 32-bit Mac OS X should be able to address the full 4GB RAM. It is clear that you want to run a 64-bit OS, but 32-bit applications are not necessarily deal breakers. If an individual application uses more than 4GB RAM, like Photoshop, then 32-bit is limiting.
Multi-core enabled?
Might not be 64 bit but I am hoping iLife starts using all the CPUs and cores available in a modern mac. iLife '09 would never use more than 1.
My iPhoto '11 is currently converting my old library to the new format and from looking at the CPU monitor it appears that it is using all the CPUs instead of just one. So hopefully iMovie and iPhoto will still have a nice performance gain in this release.
Might not be 64 bit but I am hoping iLife starts using all the CPUs and cores available in a modern mac. iLife '09 would never use more than 1.
My iPhoto '11 is currently converting my old library to the new format and from looking at the CPU monitor it appears that it is using all the CPUs instead of just one. So hopefully iMovie and iPhoto will still have a nice performance gain in this release.
LOL, good call.
Yes but of course this is the company of double-standards we are dealing with ><. Kind of surprised there is not more flaming in this here thread. Or maybe I just skipped pages
.I didn't say Jobs should be doing any work on the actual apps. I said his lack of involvement in the keynote shows that it's not a top priority for him at Apple. You've got to be kidding that your reading comprehension is that poor.