iLife '11 Still 32-Bit

[leman]

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.

Please stop spreading FUD. 32bit code runs without any additional overhead when the CPU is in 64bit mode, even more, you can mix 32bit and 64bit code. This is a basic feature of AMD x86-64 design. That is how Mac OS X fully supports 64bit applications while running a 32bit kernel. If windows or linux don't want to do this, its their problem.

To the discussion: who cares? As long it works and you don't have any problems with the application, it does not matter if its 32 bit or 64 bit. The 64bit application may even be slower in some cases (due to more memory required to encode mem operands).

 

[John.B]

Will Office '11 be 64 bit?

No.

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.

You are confusing Microsoft Office with Adobe Photoshop. (And Ps5 *is* 64-bit, even though other parts of CS5 aren't.)

You're welcome.

 

[Vulpinemac]

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.

That may be the way it works in Windows, but from what I've seen so far, OSX seems to be able to operate both modes simultaneously. You may be able to force full-time 64-bit, but as yet I don't see the necessity.

 

[John.B]

Please stop spreading FUD. 32bit code runs without any additional overhead when the CPU is in 64bit mode, even more, you can mix 32bit and 64bit code. This is a basic feature of AMD x86-64 design. That is how Mac OS X fully supports 64bit applications while running a 32bit kernel. If windows or linux don't want to do this, its their problem.

To the discussion: who cares? As long it works and you don't have any problems with the application, it does not matter if its 32 bit or 64 bit. The 64bit application may even be slower in some cases (due to more memory required to encode mem operands).

If you think about from a Windows perspective, he's right. He's parroting what he's heard about Windows, assuming it applies to OSX. He doesn't seem to understand that OSX was written to be more flexible than Windows when it comes to this sort of thing...

At least he has the vitriol thing down pat...

As German pointed out, Adobe were going to have CS4 64bit ready until Apple changed the game.

John Nack (Adobe Ps Project Manager) never committed to releasing Ps CS4 as a 64-bit application, even back in the Carbon days. German is making stuff up as he goes.

 

[bouncer1]

FUD ALERT

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.

yes the os is 64 bit Rodimus. I can't believe how people posting rubbish comments against apple have to have such conviction in things they don't really now about.

The majority - if not the vast majority - of people running Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard are running in 32-bit mode. To the person who answered the question, they can go do the following to check which OS version they are running. And Rodimus you do that too, although I doubt it that you 'll report honestly that your os runs in 32 bit.

lick on the "Apple" menu and choose "About This Mac" then click on the "More Info..." button. This will launch "System Profiler" and if you look down the left side you'll see the major categories of "Hardware", "Network" and "Software". Click on "Software" and if you're running in 32-bit mode, you'll see the line "64 bit Kernel and Extensions"? The value "no" means that you're not running in 64-bit mode.

This is the default booting mode, but you can set it to but in 64 bit.

Also 64 bit apps run in 64 bits already in a 32 bit booted system, so no real point to boot in 64 bits.

Read this for more:
http://www.macworld.com/article/142379/2009/08/snow_leopard_64_bit.html

Re-writing a whole suit to be 64bit is less important at the moment that incremental software updates, anyone with any level of knowledge of software development knows that an app running bug free at 32 bit, a pretty fast one for that matter, is far better than a 64 bit one that has to be written from the bottom up and have all sorts of teething problems. It really doesn't matter almost at all to the average user what ilife is in. Heck, adobe with a much more buggy and heavier software in cs and they can get away, well almost, with 32 bi, and suddenly iphoto suffers for not being 64 bit, utter rubbish...

For any novice here, read this:
Get your new macs (or buy the new ilife) and enjoy this wonderful suite that really has no equal as a suite for lifestyle apps in any computer system on the globe. It's got even better. If you want to enjoy a faster system get an ssd and 4gb ram as standards. These are the real bottlenecks, 64 or 32 bits is negligible, If you have 2gb and an hd, 32 bit or 64 bit won't make one iota of a difference in real life, they really won't. (I am not going into cpu and gfx this time on purpose, these are important too, but relative to what you are going to be doing.)

Anyone who wants to challenge what I am saying please do not nitpick, I am well aware there are some finer nuances to what I am saying, but I am speaking here in broad lines, for some people to get to the crux of what matters for the average and the above average consumer, and for some (not all of course) power users too.

Btw, why are we having this discussion? Shouldn't Slivka's article have some information on what 32 and 64 bit means instead of throwing terms around they and posting about some bloggers who are "disappointed". Or hire someone who knows about computers to explain things. Why do you have to torture users here who don't know what this means and all of a sudden think that somehow ilife will be slower and buggy and they shouldn't upgrade.

That's the worse kind of fud.

 

[MACRUS]

Apple Changes Name Yet Again

I guess this is why you don't buy software from a phone company.

Since they Dropped the Name Apple Computer
Apple should change its name to iToys.INC. or iPhone Company it would be more suitable to its current offerings

 

[daneoni]

Meh...i wasn't gonna upgrade anyway. Even more so given that Aperture got pretty much all of iPhoto 11's update.

 

[bouncer1]

Since they Dropped the Name Apple Computer
Apple should change its name to iToys.INC. or iPhone Company it would be more suitable to its current offerings

a ha ha ha ha, a ha ha ha . Come on Macrus (why not Marcus btw?) you are killing us, you are such a satirist.

 

[LagunaSol]

iWork - When ever it finally appears, 64bit? Hell will probably freeze first.

I'd rather see the ability to get to all sides of the pasteboard in Keynote and not have the slide locked to the top left corner first.

 

[Hisdem]

I don't care how well the applications run. I just want more bits.

Made no sense.

 

[aristotle]

I just have to laugh at the noobs here complaining about a lack of 64bit. Unless if the applications "REQUIRES" 64bit to handle the sort of data sets you would be dealing with, 64bit would just add overhead in terms of more memory required to just run the damn thing. A 64bit number (long) being used to represent data that can be handled by a 32bit integer is a "WASTE" of resources.

Noobs thinking "BIGGER" is always "BETTER".

Using 64bits in some cases can actually make software "SLOWER" rather than faster.

@Hisdem: Ignore the noobs. They think more "bits" is better.

 

[MACRUS]

Pro Apps No 64bit either. Now that is a Killer.

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.

Thank you. not like I did not know it but it would be nice if apple could keep up and stay current like they used to.
For me the killer is. No 64bit Apps. and yes Stevo Jobless is a Pathological Lier. maybe his guilty conscious is what is killing him.

 

[cult hero]

I just have to laugh at the noobs here complaining about a lack of 64bit. Unless if the applications "REQUIRES" 64bit to handle the sort of data sets you would be dealing with, 64bit would just add overhead in terms of more memory required to just run the damn thing. A 64bit number (long) being used to represent data that can be handled by a 32bit integer is a "WASTE" of resources.

Noobs thinking "BIGGER" is always "BETTER".

Using 64bits in some cases can actually make software "SLOWER" rather than faster.

@Hisdem: Ignore the noobs. They think more "bits" is better.

But... BUT!!! I need the 64 bits! It's got 32 more bits than the 32 bits! I MUST HAVE THE 64 BITS IN IPHOTO! If not, my photos will only have the 32 bits!

 

[leman]

If you think about from a Windows perspective, he's right. He's parroting what he's heard about Windows, assuming it applies to OSX. He doesn't seem to understand that OSX was written to be more flexible than Windows when it comes to this sort of thing...

Exactly. Why Windows devs have decided to go that way (all this windows on windows things etc.) — I do not know. Apple's solution is surely more elegant.

 

[14kvn]

It's likely going to stay that way until Apple updates the Quicktime X framework with Quicktime 7's encoding features/options.

If that's the case how come 64 Bit works perfectly in Aperture 3 ??

and all those who say 32 Bit is fine for iPhoto/ iMovie - rubbish , you clearly haven't experienced 64 Bit.

 

[cult hero]

I need the 64 bits! I need them! BRING ME ALL YOUR 64 BITS!

 

[franswa za]

It doesn't even matter.

For a change Slivka, you should report what others have posted with some intelligent commentary. Most people here don't even know what 64 bit is.

You pick a site and quote it, with some guy saying he is "sorely disappointed". Who is this guy? Why is he sorely disappointed and what are his credentials? Does his view carry any weight. If this site is only going to relay info from other sites without some semblance of commentary as to the importance and content of what it relays it just adds to the pointless fud.

That's why the best articles here are those quoting Apple Insider (and these form the bulk of the mr content), because with these you can actually go to AI and get some informed opinion on the matter.

So it's not an issue with the german garbage site that relayed some prior rumors that were baseless (or at least a mere copy paste of rumors from elsewhere) is that you didn't bother checking out to see where they 'd gotten their news from. So in terms of news it's always, garbage in, garbage out.

Ok, apple's headquarters are at 4 infinite loop, that doesn't mean you should input completely unreliable rumors into an infinite loop where one reports what someone one has reported.

yes! other sites to follow, and by the way....... mostly earlier with apple stuff, most of the time are-

TiPb, engadget, gizmodo, TAUW, 9 to 5 Mac, edible apple, gigaom, macstories, boy genius, ars technica, patently apple, techcrunch, cult of mac, macworld, hardmac.com,

and of course........ WIKILEAKS, hehehe

 

[MACRUS]

Me a Satirist?? ... NOOO

a ha ha ha ha, a ha ha ha . Come on Macrus (why not Marcus btw?) you are killing us, you are such a satirist.

I Might be a Satirist but that is nothing compared to how Disgusted I am I would say it might be just a reaction to the hard work apple has put me thru. Learning most of adobe's Master Suite it is not an easy task.

 

[franswa za]

Handbrake faceoff makes me pick the 64-bit version every time. Not that I'm going to use it on a Core 2 Duo when I have a Core i5.

i agree, but 'm not so technically proficient..... handbrake and to some extent vlc convertor really revs up my mac's cpu activity and temperatures...... but should one worry?

Will Office '11 be 64 bit?

ballmer will give it 64 bytes

 

[Chase R]

Thanks for clearing things up Bouncer1... this thread needed it.

 

[franswa za]

Logic and reasoning will get you nowhere around here.

u r funny




ps- LOL

 

[emulator]

(why not Marcus btw?)

Mac"R"Us > Toys"R"Us.

Got it, NO?

 

[milo]

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.

The announcement of no carbon 64 was made mid 2007. I think that excuse is way past its expiration date. Developers should be able to have 64 bit versions by now, these years later.

To the discussion: who cares? As long it works and you don't have any problems with the application, it does not matter if its 32 bit or 64 bit. The 64bit application may even be slower in some cases (due to more memory required to encode mem operands).

I have yet to see an app that ran slower in 64 bit. If you have a link to a benchmark I'd love to see it, otherwise I'll go with all the evidence I've seen that says otherwise.

Using 64bits in some cases can actually make software "SLOWER" rather than faster.

Example? I have yet to see that happen, every app I've tried has been faster in 64 bit, which is why users care about this.

and yes Stevo Jobless is a Pathological Lier. maybe his guilty conscious is what is killing him.

Seriously, what is wrong with you? This is a computer company, why so hateful and personal?

 

[bouncer1]

Thank you. not like I did not know it but it would be nice if apple could keep up and stay current like they used to.
For me the killer is. No 64bit Apps. and yes Stevo Jobless is a Pathological Lier. maybe his guilty conscious is what is killing him.

Is this guy for real.

I 've reported few posts before. But this one has crossed the line, you are talking about life and death here.

It's one thing to post crude "jokes" and mock apple, it's quite another to post such offensive personal comments about Jobs and his health. These are vile hateful comments that have no place in public fora.

I can't believe how you 've been a member here since 2008, maybe the climate fostered here is conducive to such vileness, though I shudder with the mere thought of this.

But I am telling you I am reporting this because I am not a snitch or a coward. You are probably just going to get a slap on the wrist don't worry, I would have banned you permanently personally. You 've been constantly trolling this thread culminating to this vile slander on Jobs, it's not your fault really, the 've let you do this.

 

[canyonblue737]

Are the iLife apps intensive enough to benefit from 64 bit?

Absolutely. Photo and Video applications are some of the kinds of applications that benefit MOST from 64 bit. iWork, not so much... iPhoto, iMovie and even Garageband... you bet.