When the new OS comes out will there be a 64 bit and 32 bit and what will the differences be? Will the 64 bit version be better? Will there be intel and ppc versions?
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.
Mac OS Leopard
- Thread starter tim2006
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
mkrishnan
Moderator emeritus
All good questions... from appearances and my hunches... 😉
1) The OS will ship in 1 version. It will include both Intel and PPC binaries.
2) 64-bit will be available where coded and parts of the OS will have 64-bit trees, but I don't think there's been any evidence that there will be a "64 bit build" in the way there is XP-64.
I think this is sort of a bragging issue with Apple... I think they are keen to avoid the issue MS has with delivering 20 different builds of their OS and confusing consumers.
I'm guessing at this point, 64-bit will only be for Merom/Woodcrest/etc Intel processors... I don't think there's been any suggestion it will use G5 64 bit processing... but I'm not 100% sure about that.
1) The OS will ship in 1 version. It will include both Intel and PPC binaries.
2) 64-bit will be available where coded and parts of the OS will have 64-bit trees, but I don't think there's been any evidence that there will be a "64 bit build" in the way there is XP-64.
I think this is sort of a bragging issue with Apple... I think they are keen to avoid the issue MS has with delivering 20 different builds of their OS and confusing consumers.
I'm guessing at this point, 64-bit will only be for Merom/Woodcrest/etc Intel processors... I don't think there's been any suggestion it will use G5 64 bit processing... but I'm not 100% sure about that.
what will the difference be with the new OS for 32 bit users vs 64 bits users. Will 64 bit users get more out of the OS?
mkrishnan
Moderator emeritus
In the short term it's likely there will be core services and APIs that have been re-optimized for 64 bit. So for instance, right now, C2D processors running at the same clock speed as CD processors show about a 5-10% speed advantage. With Leopard and further refinement and at least some OS-level 64-bit code, it is likely there will be a slightly bigger margin of difference between the CD and C2D, probably especially in situations involving relatively intensive computing, lots of multi-threading, lots of memory usage, etc.
Beyond that, it's likely the same effect will happen with software...meaning the software would also show some differential advantage on a C2D above and beyond what it shows now. It's also possible that eventually software could be released that is 64-bit only. But that software probably won't be out anytime soon....
Beyond that, it's likely the same effect will happen with software...meaning the software would also show some differential advantage on a C2D above and beyond what it shows now. It's also possible that eventually software could be released that is 64-bit only. But that software probably won't be out anytime soon....
64 bit allows you to use more memory. Generally speaking, that's pretty much it (though x86 has some optimizations in 64 bit mode which PPC already had...e.g., more registers which typically equals more speed). Useful mostly for high-end apps where you need truckloads of RAM.
--Eric
mallbritton
macrumors 65816
When Mac OS X Leopard is released there will be one box on store shelves for you to purchase. It will be a "Universal binary" that will run on both PPC and Intel microprocessors. This Universal version of Mac OS X will also be fully 32-bit and 64-bit compliant. You will not even notice when you install it.
To give you an idea of just one of the under the hood advantages of 64-bit computing: Mac OS X Leopard will be able to address much larger amounts of RAM than Tiger can now.
So, the update for the macbook and macbook pro to C2D is a good update, they will get added performance with the new os. How big of a deal is the update meaning is it bigger than the next update C2D to Santa Rosa?
mallbritton
macrumors 65816
Yes, it's a good update. 🙂
The bump to the Core 2 Duo across the board, along with the Xeon processors in the Mac Pro, now makes Apple's entire lineup 64-bit. However any performance increases are going to be incremental. They are not going to suddenly get a, say, 200% increase in performance. So don't expect that kind of thing.
Since the "Santa Rosa" CPUs are still in development no one knows what real world advantages they will have over the present crop of C2Ds or Xeon processors.
My advice, as so many, many others have said in the past, is if you need a new Mac now then buy one. If you can wait then wait till after Macworld in January. Don't plan your purchases around what might be coming in the future, unless we are very close to something like Macworld. And don't expect huge gains in performance with each new hardware update. You'll only be disappointed.
Thank-you for your response very insightful. What is your take on black MB C2D new vs MB C1D 2.0 6 mts old which is more futureproof?
Catfish_Man
macrumors 68030
Another issue to consider is that, because there's 0 lines of 64 bit x86 Mac code out there right now... they may take the opportunity to say "if your application is running on 64 bit x86, xyz changes in ways we couldn't do because of backwards compatibility before". One non-NDA'd example of this is that the C API for QuickTime is not available in 64 bit mode. So although 64 bit itself is (as correctly described in this thread) not a huge change for most people... it may bring other changes along with it. Mostly only programmer-visible changes I would imagine though.
mallbritton
macrumors 65816
Well, in my opinion there's no such thing as "futureproof" computer hardware. It all becomes obsolete sooner or later. When considering a computer purchase you should always buy what suits your needs and fits into your budget. If you are looking to the future, then get the latest hardware and tack on all the extras and additions you can afford. If you're not as concerned about having the latest and greatest then save yourself a little money and get the first generation MacBook.
If I were buying a new MacBook I'd get the latest hardware and stuff as much RAM and HDD into it as it will hold. That's just me, though. 🙂
SMM
macrumors 65816
Apple has shipped many more G5 64 bit processors than Intel ones. I think it would be a PR disaster to drop full G5 support when they are less than a year old. I am not saying you are wrong, I have zip insider information and have only been a Mac man for 2 1/2 years. But, I think this would be an incredibly poor decision and I have not seen Apple make many of those.
mallbritton
macrumors 65816
I agree. There's just no way, at this point, that Apple is going to just drop support for PPC altogether. They will continue to support the processors for some period of time, but of course we have no idea of how long that might be. For now, though, Mac OS X will continue to run on both PPC and Intel processors.
mkrishnan
Moderator emeritus
Sorry... what I mean is that Tiger has 32-bit support for G3s, G4s, G5s, Core, and Core 2 architectures. Leopard will certainly also do so (unless perhaps they somehow manage to drop G3s). What I was talking about was whether *64-bit* support in Leopard would be limited to Intel processors that take 64-bit instructions or would also apply to the PowerPCs that do, but don't currently have 64-bit support in the OS....
mallbritton
macrumors 65816
It is my understanding Leopard will support 64-bit on both PPC and Intel processors, as well as being "Universal."
MacsRgr8
macrumors G3
64 bits = 64 bits.
Mac OS X 10.5 will be universal.
So, why would Apple not support 64 bits for the G5?
As some have said there are far more Pro users with a G5 than a Mac Pro out there. Presumably the next Final Cut Studio will support 64 bits, and (ofcourse) be universal. I can't imagine all those Quad G5 Pro's out there being left behind just yet....
It feels a bit like when the G5 was already available, that AltiVec support would be dropped for the G4 when Tiger was launched. No, if you can support these benefits, even on older hardware, Apple should support and advertise it. It will increase the sales of the software.
Mac OS X 10.5 will be universal.
So, why would Apple not support 64 bits for the G5?
As some have said there are far more Pro users with a G5 than a Mac Pro out there. Presumably the next Final Cut Studio will support 64 bits, and (ofcourse) be universal. I can't imagine all those Quad G5 Pro's out there being left behind just yet....
It feels a bit like when the G5 was already available, that AltiVec support would be dropped for the G4 when Tiger was launched. No, if you can support these benefits, even on older hardware, Apple should support and advertise it. It will increase the sales of the software.