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

SL 64Bit you wish.

X

xeex

macrumors member
Original poster
May 22, 2006
94
0
Looking at the activity monitor windows and could help but noticing that 99% of apps that im running at the moment (apart from the ones that came as the default in SL) are all 32bit ----- if you ask me, this is a joke, why the hell would you call it 64bit when the app developers inc apple themselves havent released anything in 64bit, but they knew well in advance that it will be 64bit.

Another one of apple's branding mishap.
 
Pretty much all the included apps and daemons are 64bit, and run as such on my Mac. Apple has no control over whether or not third party apps are 64bit. If you going to accuse them of false advertising over that, you are an idiot.
 
just wait until those apps are re-encoded. It takes ages so don't freak. Look how long it took apple to iron out all the bugs....
 
Give it time, Most the standard apps are, itunes being the main one that is not. This will hopefully be updated shortly along with ilife etc.

I would say give it a couple of months for the developers to update their programs and the majority of well known apps will be.
 
J the Ninja said:
Pretty much all the included apps and daemons are 64bit, and run as such on my Mac. Apple has no control over whether or not third party apps are 64bit. If you going to accuse them of false advertising over that, you are an idiot.
Click to expand...

If you read carefully, you would see that even apple themselves havent provided apps in 64bit, no, im no talking about safari etc.... , yes, im talking about iwork, fcs, ls etc.... this is poor quality, if you ask me, or just pure lazy on apple's behalf as they cant even sort themselves inside the shop.

stridemat said:
Give it time, Most the standard apps are, itunes being the main one that is not. This will hopefully be updated shortly along with ilife etc.

I would say give it a couple of months for the developers to update their programs and the majority of well known apps will be.
Click to expand...

Oh come one, are you saying that developers didnt get the latest seeds from their adc subscription.

Minimoose 360 said:
Weren't most of the programs included with OS X re-written in 64-bit? Except for iTunes.....?
Click to expand...

and many other that they do inside the house
 
xeex said:
Looking at the activity monitor windows and could help but noticing that 99% of apps that im running at the moment (apart from the ones that came as the default in SL) are all 32bit ----- if you ask me, this is a joke, why the hell would you call it 64bit when the app developers inc apple themselves havent released anything in 64bit, but they knew well in advance that it will be 64bit.

Another one of apple's branding mishap.
Click to expand...

This is another one of those intellect mishaps.

Most of the apps you're running are 3rd party apps, which Apple has no control over and which will be re-written! And it's almost guaranteed that come iLife 10 and iWork 10 will be 64-bit.

Also, only looking at apps and not processes is pretty dumb. Looking at my Activity Monitor almost everything is 64-bit:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/40863813@N06/3882724234/
 
Minimoose 360 said:
Weren't most of the programs included with OS X re-written in 64-bit? Except for iTunes.....?
Click to expand...

Aye, just open up Activity Monitor, shows Intel then, say for finder, its 64-bit.

I always say, Apple cannot be blamed for third party apps for not being 64-bit.
There was no false advertising from Apple. any 64 Bit app WILL run in 64-bit, even if your still booted in 32-bit.

What is a joke is the printer drivers. I got mine from Apple, but even still...

I felt like most but the most obscure least purchased Printers would have drivers.
 
iWork and iLife are not a part of the core operating system. I'd bet money that the 2010 versions will be 32-/64-bit binaries - as there's no point to updating apps near the end of their lifecycle to a new architecture when there would be little-to-no benefit.

Seriously, there's not a huge difference between running an application in 32-bit and 64-bit. The main consumer-visible advantage of 64-bit apps are quicker access to large amounts of RAM (4GiB+). It has some benefits to scientific apps in being able to, in essence, do math better/faster too, but that's not terribly consumer-visible in most cases.

Converting an entire OS from 32-bit to 64-bit is a fairly major step forward just the same, so I'd advocate patience. Snow Leopard was a major jump - but this transition will likely take a few years to reach a near-full 64-bit OS and application set. (Also note that 32-bit will not entirely disappear for quite a while, for backward compatibility purposes.)
 
xeex said:
Oh come one, are you saying that developers didnt get the latest seeds from their adc subscription.
Click to expand...

So let me get this right you expect Apple to not only code the actual OS, but also at the same time re-write all the code in 64bit for the entire iwork and ilife range along with all the 3rd party apps.

Your title says 'SL 64Bit you wish', Snow Leopard is most definitely 64bit and it just a case of waiting for updates and to wait for the majority of the leopard user base to migrate to Snow so these users can use the new applications!
 
xeex said:
If you read carefully, you would see that even apple themselves havent provided apps in 64bit, no, im no talking about safari etc.... , yes, im talking about iwork, fcs, ls etc.... this is poor quality, if you ask me, or just pure lazy on apple's behalf as they cant even sort themselves inside the shop.
Click to expand...

Apple just released the new OS and the apps included (except for a few like iTunes which has one version for Tiger and later) are 64-bit. a little time is needed for Apple to update their other applications which arent included with the OS like iWork, iLife, Final Cut Studio, Aperture etc. you are just being a little impatient :rolleyes:… give it time, its been a week since Snow Leopard's launch.
 
xeex said:
If you read carefully, you would see that even apple themselves havent provided apps in 64bit, no, im no talking about safari etc.... , yes, im talking about iwork, fcs, ls etc.... this is poor quality, if you ask me, or just pure lazy on apple's behalf as they cant even sort themselves inside the shop.
Click to expand...
What's the use in recompiling every single application to be 64-bit? There isn't always a sizable benefit to doing so. However, the core applications that comprise the operating system, Safari, Finder, the Dock, and optionally the kernel on certain systems, are 64-bit right now. I'm currently booted into a 64-bit kernel typing this message in 64-bit Safari and copying files from one 64-bit Finder window to another. I also have 64-bit Mail and 64-bit TextEdit open in the background, which I opened through my 64-bit Dock. Your post is nonsensical.
 
I'm disappointed because my intel MacPro1,1 has an EFI 32 bit and I can't run the 64 bit kernel.
 
It seems like we've been waiting an eternity to move to 64 bit OS in general (I mean both Windows and OS X) when you consider that the first widely available X86 chips were released in 2003, so waiting a bit longer for 64 bit apps is to be expected.

Even Windows has lagged behind if you disregard the awful XP64.

Have to say though that I was using a 64bit clean linux workstation for a couple of years before moving to Mac / OS X, and I was suprised that OS X was lagging behind even windows, especially considering the BSD base.
 
Bill Gates said:
What's the use in recompiling every single application to be 64-bit? There isn't always a sizable benefit to doing so. However, the core applications that comprise the operating system, Safari, Finder, the Dock, and optionally the kernel on certain systems, are 64-bit right now. I'm currently booted into a 64-bit kernel typing this message in 64-bit Safari and copying files from one 64-bit Finder window to another. I also have 64-bit Mail and 64-bit TextEdit open in the background, which I opened through my 64-bit Dock. Your post is nonsensical.
Click to expand...

to me it still sounds like a false advertisement, whats the point of calling it 64bit when 99% of developers are way behind it even though they have a specially dedicated program for the developers to speed things up, it seems to me only fanboys and trolls sign up to the adc. and what is the point of having 64bit os when they state that you would need x-amount of ram to experience the potential, its futile really. its just another marketing department cr*p: ala "why drink normal milk when you can have artificial flavored one which is 100 times better but you wont get any benefits from it"
 
xeex said:
to me it still sounds like a false advertisement, whats the point of calling it 64bit when 99% of developers are way behind it even though they have a specially dedicated program for the developers to speed things up
Click to expand...
I'm going to call troll on this... You can't 'blame' a corporation for things that independent developers do or do not do. For the record, there were several 64-bit applications that ran in Leopard before the Snow Leopard release.

xeex said:
and what is the point of having 64bit os when they state that you would need x-amount of ram to experience the potential, its futile really.
Click to expand...
Having 4GiB+ of RAM is simply the circumstances when the most consumer visible advantages occur, namely (sometimes significant) speed increases - which are usable by all the 64-bit apps. There are other advantages to 64-bit - they're simply less immediately noticeable to the end-user. For a quick overview of some of them, I'd suggest Wikipedia.
 
broken-chaos said:
I'm going to call troll on this... You can't 'blame' a corporation for things that independent developers do or do not do. For the record, there were several 64-bit applications that ran in Leopard before the Snow Leopard release.


Having 4GiB+ of RAM is simply the circumstances when the most consumer visible advantages occur, namely (sometimes significant) speed increases - which are usable by all the 64-bit apps. There are other advantages to 64-bit - they're simply less immediately noticeable to the end-user. For a quick overview of some of them, I'd suggest Wikipedia.
Click to expand...

I get your point, and i didnt start using computers yesterday, but thank you very much for the link to the ever-evolving wiki.

If its not fully 64bit like for example linux is then its false statement on behalf of the company who is releasing it. just to cash in on the fancy label, as i said earlier read above - marketing and branding bull.....
 
xeex said:
to me it still sounds like a false advertisement, whats the point of calling it 64bit when 99% of developers are way behind it even though they have a specially dedicated program for the developers to speed things up, it seems to me only fanboys and trolls sign up to the adc. and what is the point of having 64bit os when they state that you would need x-amount of ram to experience the potential, its futile really. its just another marketing department cr*p: ala "why drink normal milk when you can have artificial flavored one which is 100 times better but you wont get any benefits from it"
Click to expand...

What false advertisement? Are you even listening to yourself? Apple is saying 64bit for their OS. They are not even talking about any other software, it's not even the point. The support for 64bit applications has been there since Leopard. If your applications aren't 64bit, it has absolutely nothing to do with Apple, it is because of two reasons; one is the developer sees no need for 64bit or they don't have the resources to do a 64bit.

You can't start the movement to 64bit if you don't have the OS ready for it. The whole movement has to begin from the source, and the source is the OS. Now that there's a 64bit kernel, everybody can start moving toward the 64bit future. However everybody could start developing 64bit applications back when Leopard was released in 2007. The only thing that was not worth developing was 64bit kexts as the kernel itself isn't 64bit.

There's also no reason to have a simple app be 64bit. The 64bit OS will run both 32bit and 64bit applications just fine. Eventually everything will move toward 64bit, even for the most simplistic application but there's no need for that.
 
I only have few 32 bit processes -- sadly, one of them is the kernel process, and another one being "usbmuxd" whatever that does...
 
I'm no expert on these matters, but I have often wondered what the difficulty in re-compiling for 64 bit is ?

I know that when I was using the Linux system, you could literally download the source for any opensource application and recompile with GCC into a 64 bit binary.

Does recompiling like this just create a binary, but not necessarily a 64 bit optimised one or is there some other difficulty involved ?
 
steerpikegg said:
It seems like we've been waiting an eternity to move to 64 bit OS in general (I mean both Windows and OS X) when you consider that the first widely available X86 chips were released in 2003, so waiting a bit longer for 64 bit apps is to be expected.

Even Windows has lagged behind if you disregard the awful XP64.

Have to say though that I was using a 64bit clean linux workstation for a couple of years before moving to Mac / OS X, and I was suprised that OS X was lagging behind even windows, especially considering the BSD base.
Click to expand...
You might want to do some more homework since 64 bit was already out there years before 2003 (and by that I don't mean something like 4 years, more like 10). If you really want a fully 64 bit system go buy a Sun Blade 100 and install the SPARC64 OpenBSD or NetBSD port on it. They won't letyou run/compile 32 bit code ;)

The 64 bit stuff has been there for years and has earned it's place in IT. The point is that 64 bit is not something that really is something for the average Joe. They simply don't gain much when switching to 64 bit. Right now we are getting at the point that some applications can benefit from 64 bit but about 99% do not. So it's a wise decision to have a transition era where we can run both 32 and 64 bit software. Windows, Linux and MacOS X do not lag behind, they are at the right point of time regarding 64-bitness.

BTW: if your Linux system was running on x86 it was not a 64 bit system but a 32 bit system capable of running 64 bit software. Does that really matter in the end? No, it runs 32 and 64 bit software just fine, it's just nitpicking :)
 
Would 64-bit make any difference to Apps like Photoshop?
The more high-end professional stuff. Not like Word, but the creative ones. (The whole Adobe collection I suppose. :p)

I'm pretty sure that the PS3 is 64-bit. Just thought to add that in. ;)
 
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