because that will add lots of extra code that is not needed.
http://www.apple.com/macosx/snowleopard/
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.
OS X 10.6 'Snow Leopard' Seeded to WWDC Developers
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
because that will add lots of extra code that is not needed.
http://www.apple.com/macosx/snowleopard/
I think you'll find that's not how they're doing that particular bullet point. (can't elaborate, NDA, sorry
)I think you'll find that's not how they're doing that particular bullet point. (can't elaborate, NDA, sorry
OK that is fair enough but why would they include the PPC code on an intel machine and visa versa considering they are trying to decrease the footprint of the install. Because it has been shown that fat binaries are larger than the slimmed down versions.
Full 64-bit would be slower on G5s
If you know anything about processor design, you know that X86_64 is not faster because it's 32 bit * 2, but because of more GP-registers and dropped X86 (IA32) legacy cruft (IA32 has still very lot in common with 8086). The only genuine advantage of 64 bit is crunching of very large numbers. This is neither the case for the core OS nor the GUI.
It does pay off for video encoding/decoding and Photoshop filtering, which is both very math intensive. You would not have to change the whole OS to 64 bit to take advantage of this though.
To leave the old IA32 behind completely and utilize the new X86_64 interface it would make sense to make the whole OS 64 bit, especially for the additional registers. 64 bit is slower initially than 32 bit, because it needs twice the memory and memory-bandwith at first. This is made up for in the case of number crunching with better speed and in the case of going from IA32 to X86_64 with a more modern general architecture.
You don't have the latter on the G5s! The 32-bit PPC interface is just as modern as the 64-bit one. For 64 bit on PPC that means increased memory and memory-bandwith consumption => less speed, but no architectural quantum leap to compensate! So a full 64 bit OS is going to be slower on PPC as the OS & GUI usually don't employ any big number crunching tasks. The mixed approach of 32-bit for lean tasks and 64-bit for heavy math is the best approach you can get for a G5.
If you know anything about processor design, you know that X86_64 is not faster because it's 32 bit * 2, but because of more GP-registers and dropped X86 (IA32) legacy cruft (IA32 has still very lot in common with 8086). The only genuine advantage of 64 bit is crunching of very large numbers. This is neither the case for the core OS nor the GUI.
It does pay off for video encoding/decoding and Photoshop filtering, which is both very math intensive. You would not have to change the whole OS to 64 bit to take advantage of this though.
To leave the old IA32 behind completely and utilize the new X86_64 interface it would make sense to make the whole OS 64 bit, especially for the additional registers. 64 bit is slower initially than 32 bit, because it needs twice the memory and memory-bandwith at first. This is made up for in the case of number crunching with better speed and in the case of going from IA32 to X86_64 with a more modern general architecture.
You don't have the latter on the G5s! The 32-bit PPC interface is just as modern as the 64-bit one. For 64 bit on PPC that means increased memory and memory-bandwith consumption => less speed, but no architectural quantum leap to compensate! So a full 64 bit OS is going to be slower on PPC as the OS & GUI usually don't employ any big number crunching tasks. The mixed approach of 32-bit for lean tasks and 64-bit for heavy math is the best approach you can get for a G5.
In general that's true, but there's more to it than that on OSX. For example:
* In 64 bit x86 apps, Objective-C uses the new runtime, which is faster and has a few additional features.
* In 64 bit processes the kernel is mapped into the first 4GB of the address space, avoiding having to remap everything for system calls
* Loading a mix of 32 and 64 bit processes means having both versions of each library in memory, which is not so great
There are still definitely going to be cases where 64 bit apps are slower though.
* In 64 bit x86 apps, Objective-C uses the new runtime, which is faster and has a few additional features.
* In 64 bit processes the kernel is mapped into the first 4GB of the address space, avoiding having to remap everything for system calls
* Loading a mix of 32 and 64 bit processes means having both versions of each library in memory, which is not so great
There are still definitely going to be cases where 64 bit apps are slower though.
Some more from Prince McLean on AppleInsider in a series about this very issue.
I think there is some tradeoff between slightly slower on a given machine, and being more capable - e.g. in terms of the amount of memory able to be allocated, and simply the fact of sorting out the previous issues with memory Apple's OS currently has.
I think there is some tradeoff between slightly slower on a given machine, and being more capable - e.g. in terms of the amount of memory able to be allocated, and simply the fact of sorting out the previous issues with memory Apple's OS currently has.
This might be a giant understatement, but it looks like "Snow Leopard" is just a fancy name for "Leopard 64-bit Edition." Kinda sad after Steve blatantly poked fun at Vista's numerous editions.
A lot of the other features could have been made available by a patch.
A lot of the other features could have been made available by a patch.
you obviously know very little about the underpinnings of UNIX.
There are much more then "patches" involved.
Well Leopard does support 64-bit applications and has a 64-bit Unix APIs. Snow Leopard will, however, add 64-bitness to the drivers, kernel and KEXTs so it will be "fully" 64-bit.
And whether it uses 32-bit binaries or 64-bit, there is still only one version of (Snow) Leopard, as opposed to at least nine for Vista.
The thing is, I shouldn't have to write a research paper on UNIX to see a benefit of dropping $100+ on this (assuming that is the price point). That's what baffles me about this. Apple is a company that wants to appeal to casual users, and I think this will just confuse them more than it will help them.
Full 64-bit capability, better multiprocessor support, Quicktime X, the ability to use GPUs for general purpose computing - if those things have no value to you then don't spend the money for Snow Leopard. But even a casual user should understand that the OS can be improved without a bunch of new UI bells and whistles (and I'm guessing that Leopard already has more of those than you currently use or ever will).
It will work faster, especially as applications are ported to 64-bit Cocoa. That should be enough for casual users to understand.
It's a giant understatement. However, I have no idea if the magnitude of the understatement will be apparent even after it's released
(certainly the scale of the changes in Leopard wasn't, and still isn't, apparent to most people)
2 editions
there will be one edition for everyone and a server edition no support for non intel core 2 duo i have the developer preview. that is why it is more efficient. you get rid of all the crap for power pc since they have to rewrite drivers for 64 bit basically everything more than 2 years old or so will not be supported. just watch.
there will be one edition for everyone and a server edition no support for non intel core 2 duo i have the developer preview. that is why it is more efficient. you get rid of all the crap for power pc since they have to rewrite drivers for 64 bit basically everything more than 2 years old or so will not be supported. just watch.
I have a hard time parsing this because you need some more punctuation, but let's give it a shot.
I have no idea what this means.
No, there will be a 32-bit version for Core Duo systems.
Why? Not because Apple is removing PPC support. That reduces the disk "footprint" but doesn't improve performance one bit.
I'm not sure how you think the two are linked. G5 systems are 64-bit.
No, because again, Core Duo systems will still be supported.
I'm sure we will.
I have no idea what this means.No, there will be a 32-bit version for Core Duo systems.
Why? Not because Apple is removing PPC support. That reduces the disk "footprint" but doesn't improve performance one bit.I'm not sure how you think the two are linked. G5 systems are 64-bit.
No, because again, Core Duo systems will still be supported.
I'm sure we will.
Meaning there will be a consumer version and a server version, just like there always is.
neither of you know whether or not this is true. I think there will be support for core duo, but I'm not someone writing the OS so I don't know. Just because someone has a developer preview doesn't mean they know what sort of support there will be, Apple could remove support or add support.
makes sense.
PPC 64 bit is totally different than x86-64
again you don't know that.
I can understand that (although it implies that people who use the server version are somehow not part of "everyone"), but the server version is always a different product in any case.
True, I don't know for sure, but I'm going on what has been reliably reported. Of course things could change by Snow Leopard's release. But it wouldn't really make sense. Apple will generate enough bad feeling by dropping support for PPC at a time that many think is too soon. But if the new OS also won't run on Intel machines that people bought only two years ago (many of whom probably don't know the difference between Core Duo and Core 2 Duo), it will look like another black eye. As a Macworld article recently commented, "Right now, fairly or unfairly, Apple’s narrative has shifted from The Company That Can Do No Wrong to The Gang That Couldn’t Shoot Straight."
Architecturally that is true but I would expect, based on my experience in this area, that drivers are mainly written in architecturally-neutral code. Anyway, going to a 64-bit kernel is not why Apple is dropping support for PPC, or at least not the main reason. It has more to do with not expending resources to test and maintain hardware platforms that are no longer generating revenue, as well as the whole "disk footprint" thing that seems to be so important to Apple. (And I'm guessing that is mainly for the Macbook Air, for which disk sizes necessarily remain relatively small.)
Drivers are not written in architecturally neutral code. Hence the reason for Rosetta the difference in binaries with Universal application. Yes, there is an external benefit to dropping PPC (hardware platforms that aren't generating revenue) support, but I don't think that's the main reason at all. The less footprint an operating system has, the less time it has to take maintaining itself. And if you don't have to include all the extra code needed for the PPC line, it's going to make things significantly faster (above beyond the enormous speed increase given by OpenCL).
Wesley
Yes they are, except for possibly a very small amount of architecture-specific code.
Rosetta is user code that translates PPC user code into x86 user code. It is not concerned with drivers.
What do you mean by "maintaining itself"?
Dropping "extra" PPC code is not going to have any effect on performance. I'm talking about the operating system. Most of the code is common for the two architectures anyway. Most optimizations will benefit both. Optimizations that are x86-specific would have to be made anyway; corresponding optimizations don't have to be made for PPC code, it could simply be left as it is. x86 code is only going to run on x86; the fact that a PPC version exists doesn't affect its performance.
Hard to believe they'd come out with a new OS when they aren't even close to ironing out all the bugs of Leopard yet. Or is that what Snow Leopard is really all about.
I will not be surprised though to find SL unable to work on PPCs. Since the old days of "wow the customer" to the new days of "wow the shareholder", I think it will be a deliberate act on Apples part to obsolete as many of their old machines as they can.
I will not be surprised though to find SL unable to work on PPCs. Since the old days of "wow the customer" to the new days of "wow the shareholder", I think it will be a deliberate act on Apples part to obsolete as many of their old machines as they can.
Jobs stated that part of Snow Leopard was to really make the OS tight, and sort out any issues essentially. New technology obsolesces older tech. There are several technical reasons why they are dropping some compatability - for one the old OSs still work, the other being that it gives more benefits to the newer tech, in line with getting up to 64-bit through and through.
On a side note - has Snow Leopard had multiple seeds by now - has Apple given any updates?
Interesting discussion guys, keep it up, it's educating the rest of us too.
ON ANOTHER NOTE:
Is the "world's most advanced OS" FINALLY going to include merging folders when copying or are we still going to have to replace folders and not given an option to merge as PRETTY MUCH EVERYONE ELSE HAS ENABLED US TO DO. It's one thing self proclaiming the world's most advanced os, another thing doing it...
power pc
why are people still clinging to the thought that snow leopard will support power pc? if they were going to still use them wouldn't they have the developer preview able to install on a power pc? When leopard came out apple did not go back and add models that would support leopard after the previews came out. apple removed computers that would not run it well. At the last minute apple removed the 800 mhz g4.
why are people still clinging to the thought that snow leopard will support power pc? if they were going to still use them wouldn't they have the developer preview able to install on a power pc? When leopard came out apple did not go back and add models that would support leopard after the previews came out. apple removed computers that would not run it well. At the last minute apple removed the 800 mhz g4.
Too, too true. But it's much more likely, imho, that doing away with PowerPC support will be a deliberate act to boost Apples bottom line. If you're a G5 owner and have had to deal with Apple recently you'll already have found that they just don't want to deal with you anymore. iMovie and Final Cut Express won't work if you simply add a PCI card to your Mac. Talking (arguing) with an Apple 2 tier tech about that, he finally became so flustered that he blurted out, "Look, we just don't support our older products anymore!"
Revealing...
I can understand why people with the latest and greatest don't really give a damn, but not fully. The way things are going at Apple today not one of you has any sort of guarantee that what you have now will not be obsolete in a year from now. But if you're one of those people who stood in line for hours to get the first iPhone only to find out it was selling for hundreds less a couple months later, and were happy about it... Well, remember us little folks who took similar leaps of faith in buying our expensive equipment and are not happy with Apples attitude towards some of it's most loyal customers at all.