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

Leaked: ****** Info!

Re: Re: Re: Re: Another thought on the memory specs

Originally posted by Panther
On a historical note, its a bit like the original 68000 that Apple had in the original Macs... That was a 32-bit CPU, but only had 24 bit "real addressing", so it could only handle 16MB of physical memory. When the Mac II came out it used a 68020 which supported 32 bit real addressing. Turned out lots of apps blew up on the Mac II solely because they'd used the other 8 bits of the addressing registers as bonus 8 bit registers to hold onto data... which of course caused page fault exceptions once the CPU understood what those extra 8 bits meant. Even Apple's own MacPaint failed!
Click to expand...
Ah, yes. Remember the good old days when you had to use the mode32 extension and worry about which applications were 32-bit-clean?
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Another thought on the memory specs

Originally posted by Doctor Q
Ah, yes. Remember the good old days when you had to use the mode32 extension and worry about which applications were 32-bit-clean?
Click to expand...
Ah the tricks of the trade... back when you thought a machine with 512K of RAM was cooking with gas (4x more than the Classic!!)... and these little tricks were how you eeked the most out of it... and you'd still have MacWrite, HyperCard and CricketDraw all running on it at the same time.

Now we're complaining that 4GB addressable is not enough (on our office servers)... funny how times change.
 
Ok, here's something to ponder about..

the leaked specs, they talked about all 3 of the machines that will probably be released.. (assuming the leaked info is true). Now, if apple is going to release only the lower end 970 powermacs, why would they have a graphic for the specs of all of them?? (assuming thats the graphic they are going to use when they update their site after the keynote (also assuming that they will be announced)).

[discuss][/discuss]
 
Obviously a Hoaxs .. why ??

Lets face it Gerbils... if Apple was really about to release new G5 super duper machines don't you think they would change the graphics to reflect the fact that its a fantastic new machine..

It would be highly unlikely of the geniuses at Apple to use a worn out boring graphic on what will be their newest product yet.....
 
Re: Obviously a Hoaxs .. why ??

Originally posted by TheBrain
Lets face it Gerbils... if Apple was really about to release new G5 super duper machines don't you think they would change the graphics to reflect the fact that its a fantastic new machine..

It would be highly unlikely of the geniuses at Apple to use a worn out boring graphic on what will be their newest product yet.....
Click to expand...

Hey genius... that happens after they're announced...
 
Well.. Oh er of course after they are announced Apple will use the same graphics as they did for the G4.. NOT !!

Doh...Thats just stupid logic...
 
Originally posted by Doctor Q
As I understand it, 64-bit addressing is the end of the line. There may be 128-bit processors for computational purposes, but 64 bits is enough to address as much RAM as you could possibly ever have in a computer of the future. With 64 bits, you can address 2^64 bytes of memory, which is (hold on while I count on my fingers and toes...) something like 10 billion gigabytes. So we're in the range of exabytes, the units that come after terabytes and petabytes.

Unless you need to address every atom in the observable universe (estimated to be something like 10^80), you won't be needing more than 64-bit addressing.
Click to expand...

That sounds a lot like this famous quote...

"Nobody will ever need more than 640k RAM!" -- Bill Gates, 1981
 
Originally posted by moss84
That sounds a lot like this famous quote...

"Nobody will ever need more than 640k RAM!" -- Bill Gates, 1981
Click to expand...
Yup, and "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers", said in 1943 by Thomas Watson, then chairman of IBM.

That's why the article was so interesting. (I wish I had a real citation to post...sorry.) It wasn't saying that computer speed and memory capacities won't continue to grow at impressive speeds. It was disputing the common misconception that doubling the word size every few generations would be part of that process. Once your Mac has more RAM addresses than there are photons, it's hard to see how you could need more address space.
 
Hah! Get the T-shirts!

It may be too late for today's keynote, but wouldn't it rock to be in the audience with one of these?



The geekette-version is fun too:

 
Originally posted by Doctor Q
Once your Mac has more RAM addresses than there are photons, it's hard to see how you could need more address space.
Click to expand...

Well, think about how you would move that much information in and out of the RAM - its not instantaneous.

Right now its irrelevant and I'm looking forward to the new machines today.

D
 
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