Snow Leopard 64-bit Questions

Discussion in 'macOS' started by Saladinos, Jun 11, 2009.

  1. Saladinos macrumors 68000

    Saladinos

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    #1
    Hey, I have two questions about 64-bit support in Snow Leopard:

    1. Is iTunes 64-bit?

    Apple says that "Nearly all" of the built-in applications are 64-bit. iTunes is notably absent from any images suggesting 64-bit apps, making me think it hasn't made the jump yet. Is it 64-bit in 10A380? If so, what are the encoding times like?

    2. Is Archive Utility 64-bit?

    I'd imagine there are pretty substantial gains to be had by making use of 64-bit processing when compressing files. Can anybody confirm this is 64-bit, and if you have any large files to backup, does it feel faster than Leopard?

    This stuff may be under NDA, I get it. If you know the answers, you can PM me and I'll edit this post with your views.
     
  2. t0mat0 macrumors 603

    t0mat0

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2006
    Location:
    Home
    #2
    From what i've heard - it's not yet 64-bit. My view is that they're holding back on an update to iTunes (why no mention at all about it on the preview pages? Surely at the very least mp3 encoding would be a great thing to demo being sped up by Snow Leopard).

    QT jumping to QT X, but iTunes keeping at 8.2 - 8.3? Sounds fishy to me. (Same with DVD Player, and Front Row too).

    [​IMG]
    Sky Blue's post highlighted it not being 64-bit.
     
  3. Biolizard macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 20, 2008
    Location:
    London, United Kingdom
    #3
    I don't have access to the Dev Preview, but at a guess, no. iTunes seems to follow a different cycle because it's cross-platform. If there were to be an updated version, possibly Cocoa+64 bit, it'd have to be at the iPod update event in September; same as last year with iTunes 8.
     
  4. Saladinos thread starter macrumors 68000

    Saladinos

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    #4
    There's a 64-bit iTunes for Windows. The Windows version also converts WMA files.
     
  5. t0mat0 macrumors 603

    t0mat0

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2006
    Location:
    Home
    #5
    I guess seeing as Snow Leopard is down for release September, they might wait a bit before we see anything in the 10.6 seeds so the surprises for iPods and the Touch isn't all given away early.
     
  6. Riemann Zeta macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    #6
    (1) No (as shown). 10A380 actually comes with iTunes 8.1.1, 8.2 is an update download.

    (2) Yes. /System/Library/CoreServices/ArchiveUtility has a "Run in x32 Mode" tag. But I don't think that unzipping a file is going to benefit all that much from those extra bits--I bet it is more of a disk speed dependent thing. Unless you like unzipping multi-terrabyte encrypted files.
     
  7. waffles123 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2009
    #7
    @t0mat0

    Please excuse me if this is a stupid question :p

    How did you get system profiler to say if it's 32 or 64 bit? Mine has everything except that.

    Thanks.
     
  8. Saladinos thread starter macrumors 68000

    Saladinos

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    #8
    Actually, there are gains to using 64-bit processors in computationally-heavy tasks like data compression. For example, here's a result somebody posted comparing WinRAR's benchmark mode on Windows' 32-bit and 64-bit platforms: http://forums.techpowerup.com/showpost.php?p=1361914&postcount=10. In that example, when running for 30 seconds, the data processed increased by 28%. That's nearly a one-third increase.
     
  9. cg0def macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2009
    #9
    Every application that is included in 10.6 can run in 32 bit mode ( if it is 64bit by default ).
    You know how Apple is saying that the kernel is now completely 64 bit? Well that is true but there is still a way to address it in 32 bit mode. The kernel_tast process is still a 32 bit application and rosetta is still here although it's an optional install now.

    As far as iTunes goes don't hold your breath on it being 64bit application. They need to maintain cross platform compatibility and there is no way that the dev team will split the project in 2. Actually iTunes is not even a cocoa application. If I am not mistaken the UI is written with QT ( the framework and not QuickTime ) and Trolltech has problems with Cocoa support.

    Anyway there seems to be some problem with running binaries in all sorts of modes. The problem is that I get lower battery life with the same software configuration on the same machine than I used to get with 10.5.7. I still haven't found which one of the programs is working overtime but it seems like turning off all of the "powerpc" apps and as many of the 32bit ones greatly increases the battery saving. There are a lot of system changes in the security model and the whole underlying core system so it is quite possible that many *tweak* applications need to be modified so that they comply with the new OS.

    As far as 64bit apps go, things like PS CS4 ( which is indeed 64 bit ) actually load up a little bit faster. I don't work with really huge images so I can't tell if it actually works faster but considering that Photoshop has this annoying startup delay the improvement is quite welcome.
     
  10. t0mat0 macrumors 603

    t0mat0

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2006
    Location:
    Home
    #10
    Ask Sky Blue - see link in the post - I just linked his picture :)
     
  11. RagePie macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 28, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #11
    IIRC, iTunes for Vista x64 is still a 32bit application, it just comes with 64bit drivers.
     
  12. RagePie macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 28, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #12
    That would make sense, since there are early Apple Intel Macs that do not support 64bit processing (Core Duo systems).
     
  13. wrldwzrd89 macrumors G5

    wrldwzrd89

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2003
    Location:
    Solon, OH
    #13
    ... don't forget the even earlier Core Solo-based Intel Macs, that support neither GCD nor 64-bit.
     
  14. Tallest Skil macrumors P6

    Tallest Skil

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2006
    Location:
    1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
    #14
    All one of them. :D
     
  15. Saladinos thread starter macrumors 68000

    Saladinos

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    #15
    That one machine is a real pain though. It means that not all Intel Macs are 64-bit capable, which is just bad for the platform.

    IMO, it was a poor decision by Apple not to co-ordinate the 64-bit hardware transition with the Intel transition. If they had, they wouldn't have to worry about having to support too many iTunes code bases, for example.

    That said, if they rewrite it in Cocoa, much of the 64-bit conversion will be automatic. Yes, it's a pain, but that's the price of not having 64-bit Carbon support. Just think how Adobe feels.
     
  16. Catfish_Man macrumors 68030

    Catfish_Man

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2001
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #16
    Actually they do support GCD. It's a lot less useful, but still has some benefits.
     
  17. Peace macrumors Core

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #17
    I have a gut feeling that there's going to be an iTunes-X sometime in the near future.
     
  18. MDTyKe macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2007
    Location:
    Hawaii, USA
    #18
    OP - PS CS4 is 64-bit? I"m pretty sure it's 32 bit...
     
  19. danny_w macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2005
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    #19
    I haven't looked at 10A380 yet (I just installed it) but how many models now run 64-bit by default (or at all)? Earlier builds only supported 64-bit mode on a very few models (and NOT on my 2007 iMac 24"). You can boot 32-bit mode by holding down 3 and 2 while booting, and (if supported) boot into 64-bit mode by holding 6 and 4 while booting. I will have to check it when I get home tonight.
     
  20. Catfish_Man macrumors 68030

    Catfish_Man

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2001
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #20
    Calling K64 "64 bit mode" is a bit misleading. That's only one component of the system, and it's really not very important that it be 64 bit right now (it will be important once we start getting graphics cards with 4GB of vram, for example).
     
  21. Saladinos thread starter macrumors 68000

    Saladinos

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    #21
    I've got the dev preview loaded now.

    - Installed it on a USB stick. Boy is it slow. Sometimes takes a whole minute to respond to clicks. Hopefully that'll be fixed when it's on a real HDD. Never used Leopard from a USB stick. Update: Holy hell yet it did go. This thing is lightning fast on my SR MacBook compared to Leopard.
    - QuickTimeX spawns 32-bit processes. Some are kinda-sorta understandable, such as 3rd party codecs, but there are others which don't reference 3rd party plugins files at all. I'm not entirely sure how Apple's created it, but it feels like a hack-job. The only 64-bit part of it AFAIK is the UI (the non-computationally intensive part).
    - The Intel X3100 is the only GPU to not have 64-bit drivers. I'm not sure what this means for us Santa Rosa users, but I doubt it's good news. The SR MacBooks do run processes at 64-bit though.
    - System Prefs has an OK/Cancel dialog every time you use a 32-bit preference pane. It's seriously annoying. SysPrefs launches so fast they could probably quit it and relaunch in 32-bit mode without you noticing if they didn't prompt. Remove the prompt, Apple!

    Also, I never said CS4 was 64-bit. That was someone else. I don't have CS4.

    If you want to check if your CPU supports 64-bit, download CPU-X (http://netkas.org/?p=72) and check if it supports EM64T.
     

    Attached Files:

  22. Tallest Skil macrumors P6

    Tallest Skil

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2006
    Location:
    1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
    #22
    We... would have had G5 systems for almost a year longer... :eek:

    I shudder to think of the screaming for updates.
     
  23. Saladinos thread starter macrumors 68000

    Saladinos

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    #23
    Not necessarily. None of Intel's x86 notebook processors before the Core2 had EM64T, but AMD had 64-bit x86 processors for laptops. The iMacs could have used a Pentium D. It would have been a little sloppy, but it would have been better for the platform overall if it could have used the Intel transition as an excuse to go all-64-bit on the hardware side at least.
     
  24. Saladinos thread starter macrumors 68000

    Saladinos

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    #25
    Correct. However, the X3100 driver is 32-bit. Since 32-bit drivers only work with a 32-bit kernel, OSX also has to load a 32-bit kernel in parallel. If you look at the screenshot, this is what the BSDKernel/System/IOKit/Mach/Libkern 6.0 kernel extensions represent. This doesn't mean the kernel is not 64-bit however, as OSX also has a 10.0 version of all these kexts which are universal and 64-bit. That's the real kernel.

    I imagine these additional kexts/additional kernel increases overheads compared to a straight 64-bit system as depicted on that diagram. This would require that Apple rewrites/recompiles the drivers for 64-bit. Considering they called this their "best-selling Mac ever" and it's already an underpowered machine, I'd really recommend they do make it straight 64.
     

Share This Page