No 64-bit for you!
Come back - one year!
from a technical viewpoint, wouldn't a 64 bit app exclude non 64 bit previous OSXes?
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
from a technical viewpoint, wouldn't a 64 bit app exclude non 64 bit previous OSXes?
I have a question or two to submit here.
Why is 64-bit so important? I understand its capability for speed in some processor-intensive operations, but the different apps in iLife are really more limited by the operator's speed in using the software than they are by any perceived speed limitation within the app itself.
Making an app to 64-bit specs just to say they're there is like putting third-row seating in an SUV; very few people will actually use that capability, so it only adds bulk without serving any real purpose. Another way to look at it might be like buying a 1/4-ton full-sized pickup truck with a monster V-8 when a small four-cylinder diesel truck can carry a full ton of cargo. Where, exactly, do you start seeing the benefits of going 64-bit?
Sure, apps like Adobe Photoshop or Apple's Final Cut Studio might take advantage of that huge capability, but when you consider what iLife is--a set of consumer-grade creativity tools--do you really need that power? Yes, some day all applications may go that route and become 64- or 128- or who-knows-what-bit programs. Apple's advantage here is that OSX doesn't care; it uses as much power as it needs for the given app.
Which reminds me: On average, which consumer vehicles are managing the longest operational lifespans today, the ones with huge V8 engines that put out massive horsepower, or the ones with smaller 6s and 4s that put out what is needed and little more? I know there are a few older V8s that may have 120,000 miles on them, but it seems the 4s and 6s are pushing 300,000, 500,000 and even a million miles or more. Sometimes bigger isn't really better.
Why is 64-bit so important? I understand its capability for speed in some processor-intensive operations, but the different apps in iLife are really more limited by the operator's speed in using the software than they are by any perceived speed limitation within the app itself.
Making an app to 64-bit specs just to say they're there is like putting third-row seating in an SUV; very few people will actually use that capability, so it only adds bulk without serving any real purpose. Another way to look at it might be like buying a 1/4-ton full-sized pickup truck with a monster V-8 when a small four-cylinder diesel truck can carry a full ton of cargo. Where, exactly, do you start seeing the benefits of going 64-bit?
Sure, apps like Adobe Photoshop or Apple's Final Cut Studio might take advantage of that huge capability, but when you consider what iLife is--a set of consumer-grade creativity tools--do you really need that power? Yes, some day all applications may go that route and become 64- or 128- or who-knows-what-bit programs. Apple's advantage here is that OSX doesn't care; it uses as much power as it needs for the given app.
Which reminds me: On average, which consumer vehicles are managing the longest operational lifespans today, the ones with huge V8 engines that put out massive horsepower, or the ones with smaller 6s and 4s that put out what is needed and little more? I know there are a few older V8s that may have 120,000 miles on them, but it seems the 4s and 6s are pushing 300,000, 500,000 and even a million miles or more. Sometimes bigger isn't really better.
It's not that big of a deal to boot in 64-bit mode by default. When SL was released, a lot people worried about compatibility issues. I've been booting in 64bit for the past 9 months. At first, I noticed two programs that didn't work, but both of those have been updated to work in 64bit, so I have no issues. In fact, Geekbench shows that my system consistently runs a little faster in 64bit mode, so I have no reason not to do so by default (always could go back to 32bit, but haven't needed to).
That said, while Ilife 64 bit would show some minor improvement, and it does sort of irritate that the code hasn't been upgraded yet, it isn't such a difference that it's a game changer.
Exactly what Apple is counting on. Why should Apple improve their software when people will buy it anyway? It makes sense to pour all their resources into ios since it's much more profitable for them. Apple is a gadget company now like it or lump it.
they have been Bragging about 64bit software ever since they introduced 64bit Hardware. and when was that you might ask? Ages in the computer world.
I have a theory... and im not sure about previous previews of other Mac OS's but... I think that Apple wanted to announce something like the AIR iLife and Sample Lion ...however i don't think it's as far into development as they'ed like us to think im still hoping for a fresh ui... maybe there are features even they haven't worked out yet i think Lion is still a mystery.
Oh I know. I lost 40 lbs in the last year, but that was my choice. I think Steve's choices are limited.
But I doubt it. If I remember right, Logic 9 shipped just before 10.6 and the 64 bit support came a few months later. There's really no reason these updates would be 32 with the intention of 64 bit versions any time soon.
Yes, it's a performance and memory handling issue. The iApps (and especially iTunes!) tend to be bloated with poor performance - 64 bit wouldn't totally fix that but it would help a bit.
Which is also painfully overdue. I fear that "64 Bit Quicktime!" will be a big part of the hype for 10.7.
Not true, most apps get at least a modest performance boost running in 64 bit.
Logic and reasoning will get you nowhere around here.from a technical viewpoint, wouldn't a 64 bit app exclude non 64 bit previous OSXes?
Problem is our CPU are 64 bit but more importantly the OS is 64 bit.
This means to run a 32 bit app it requires having a emulation layer for the app to run int. A 32 bit app can not run naively in a 64 bit OS so the OS emulates a 32 bit OS for it. Pretty much it adds a fair amount of over head to the program because of the emulation layer.
Blaming Adobe Again Ahh?
Yeah that is what Stevo should have said. "We are proud to say. iLife '11 will not be 64bit". "We are also proud to say it is not our fault"... "It is Adobe's fault. They made us Lazy"
Yeah that is what Stevo should have said. "We are proud to say. iLife '11 will not be 64bit". "We are also proud to say it is not our fault"... "It is Adobe's fault. They made us Lazy"
Sorry guys! I'm not disappointed at all!
Are you having issues or bad performance in your iLife '11 suites? Are you really blaming for what? Are you like those Windows guys that just the numbers are the real world and having no experience at all!! Come on!
When I open Adobe Lightroom it seems to me that it has a bad performance, loading my 7D libraries is a hard work and it pushes my iMac Cores almost to the limit. Aperture 3.1 is a 64-bit app and it loads faster than Adobe Lightroom!!! And now?! What do you have to say?! And what about Adobe Photoshop CS5, the slowest Photoshop ever, "oh… wait" it is 64-bit uhhhhhh
Get over it guys, if it runs fast it doesn't matter!
Great job Apple!
Are you having issues or bad performance in your iLife '11 suites? Are you really blaming for what? Are you like those Windows guys that just the numbers are the real world and having no experience at all!! Come on!
When I open Adobe Lightroom it seems to me that it has a bad performance, loading my 7D libraries is a hard work and it pushes my iMac Cores almost to the limit. Aperture 3.1 is a 64-bit app and it loads faster than Adobe Lightroom!!! And now?! What do you have to say?! And what about Adobe Photoshop CS5, the slowest Photoshop ever, "oh… wait" it is 64-bit uhhhhhh
Get over it guys, if it runs fast it doesn't matter!
Great job Apple!
Jump it it is worth it.
I Did jump it and I got to say it it takes time and effort but it is worth it. specially for HD and DSLR work.
and and they say. Adobe CS6 will be Revolutionary, with unheard of performance and features. they are already working on it.
I Did jump it and I got to say it it takes time and effort but it is worth it. specially for HD and DSLR work.
and and they say. Adobe CS6 will be Revolutionary, with unheard of performance and features. they are already working on it.
So you bought ilife just because you thought it would be 64bit? Shouldn't you be buying a product because of its features?
Yes. Even on machines that don't have more than 4 gigs of ram, 64 bit apps typically run faster.
Some of the time. And some of the time it provides real benefits.
People have talked about iPhoto and iMovie a lot in this discussion, but Garage Band may be the easiest app of the three to max out the memory. Grab a few big sample libraries and you can run out pretty fast (there's a good reason Logic was one of the first big apple apps to get updated to 64 bit, it needs it).
Sure, these are "just" consumer apps, but do people miss that they include real time audio and video effects. You don't think those are demanding on the machine?
Have you tested this? The benchmarks say you're wrong - there is a decent speed boost even on the 32 bit kernel.
Great point. Anyone check to see how core use is?
So has anyone confirmed if iLife integrates Grand Central? Using more cores is more important to me right now than 64bit. I saw one post of someone saying it maces out his cores. Anyone else?
Okay Marcus, just for you.
iTunes 64bit? NO
iLife '11 64bit? NO
iWork - When ever it finally appears, 64bit? Hell will probably freeze first.
As German pointed out, Adobe were going to have CS4 64bit ready until Apple changed the game.
Jobs repeatedly bleats one thing and practices another.
Maybe its time people shut up about the time Adobe used to create 64-bit versions of its software (which of course is far more complicated and a much larger code than iLife).
The same goes for Microsoft. If Apple doesn't give a s@@t, why should other developers. Didn't jobs once write:
Adobe was the last major third party developer to fully adopt Mac OS X.
He's right of course. Apple hasn't adopted it, but they are not a third party developer.
The same goes for Microsoft. If Apple doesn't give a s@@t, why should other developers. Didn't jobs once write:
Adobe was the last major third party developer to fully adopt Mac OS X.
He's right of course. Apple hasn't adopted it, but they are not a third party developer.
I do not believe it will be and that is 100% apple's fault. Apple pulled the rug out from under MS and others when they were told that Carbon was going to be made 64 bit. Then 1 year later Apple said nope. This effectively forced Office to be 32 bit for another release since there was not enough time to port it over to coco and made it 64 bit.
I hear you
For me FCS is like a Puzzle put together with parts from different puzzles and to top it all, backwards. wich it is not too far fetch from reality. the apps were bought from different companies and mashed into what Final Cut Studio is Today
For me FCS is like a Puzzle put together with parts from different puzzles and to top it all, backwards. wich it is not too far fetch from reality. the apps were bought from different companies and mashed into what Final Cut Studio is Today