As far as I can tell, Apple kinda gave up on that. Does this mean we're back the theoretical 4gb cieling on memory, and all that other stuff 64 bit is good for? They couldn't possibly take the powermac back from 64 bit, could they?
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.
So... uh anyone remember 64 bit?
- Thread starter jimsowden
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Seems likely. It'd be a big blow to the "professional" image of the PowerMac line to go from 64-bit to 32-bit, I'd say.
Doing so on the "home" front (iMac, Mac mini, notebooks) isn't that big of a deal. So good news is that the Mac Pros will probably be the only 64-bit Intel Mac (sans servers) but they'll be one of the last lines to get the update depending on when Merom is available in quantity.
Doing so on the "home" front (iMac, Mac mini, notebooks) isn't that big of a deal. So good news is that the Mac Pros will probably be the only 64-bit Intel Mac (sans servers) but they'll be one of the last lines to get the update depending on when Merom is available in quantity.
If you notice which Mactels that get a 32 bit processor you'll notice it's the ones which cannot physically accommodate more than 4 GB RAM (and even that is just theoretical as the 2 GB chips needed for this isn't even out yet, as far as I knowjimsowden said:
).So, unless you need to do mathematical operations on longs, then you really don't need 64 bit. And if you need that (and/or more than 4 GB RAM) you really should get a workstation, like a shiny quad G5 PowerMac, anyway. I guess those are the last ones going Intel, and not before there's a true 64 bit Intel CPU to put into that, whatever that will be...
I garuntee you would have never said that when the powermac G5 came out. It seems us apple fans are as capable of backpeddling as much as apple. And i do know that nothing but the PMg5 can support over 4gb RAM. But the technology was still impressive.Mitthrawnuruodo said:So, unless you need to do mathematical operations on longs, then you really don't need 64 bit. And if you need that (and/or more than 4 GB RAM) you really should get a workstation, like a shiny quad G5 PowerMac, anyway. I guess those are the last ones going Intel, and not before there's a true 64 bit Intel CPU to put into that, whatever that will be...
<drool>As a workstation the G5s are awesome, the best there is, hardware and software.</drool> I would love to have a quad G5 to "complement" my iBook, but sadly I'm not even close to affording that at this point.jimsowden said:
But for the ordinary home user, who will not have more 4 GB RAM for several years yet, and who doesn't to too much heavy computational work (crunching numbers out over Folding/Seti@home), you won't benefit from 64 bits at all. Ok, so it's a cool marketing point and give you unlimited bragging rights, but you will not notice anything, performance wise...
Looking forward to the Mac Pros at WWDC. I am hoping to get one with a decent graphics card and then dual booting Windows XP64/Mac OS X.gekko513 said:
I will then be able to get rid of my PC and use Windows on the Mac Pro for games and Mac OS X for everything else.
mojohanna said:
Actually I think it is just the 64bit version of Yonah (the cpu used in the MacBook Pro/ Intel iMac).
Well, here's hoping they're out by WWDC. Considering the PowerMac may well be the final product to make the Intel switch, this seems too close.hvfsl said:
Damn you, get out of my head!I will then be able to get rid of my PC and use Windows on the Mac Pro for games and Mac OS X for everything else.
The nice thing is, by then, this EFI/bootloader mess will likely be solved.
I plan on shooting all the bullets in my barrel and my ADC once-per-lifetime discount and get the meanest PM they have at the time. My wallet will explode!
Haha, XP64, that's a good one... Last time I checked that, it didn't support 16-bit runtime or 32-bit drivers, thus you can't run anything. So, in other words, you're [expletive deleted]hvfsl said:
Also, they're not going to be released at WWDC. Apple said from 2006 to 2007. For the Mac Pros to come out at WWDC means the whole thing will be over in about 6 months
greatdevourer said:Haha, XP64, that's a good one... Last time I checked that, it didn't support 16-bit runtime or 32-bit drivers, thus you can't run anything. So, in other words, you're [expletive deleted]
There are plenty of XP64 drivers out there. What are you going on about?
This Tuesday Steve said they'll have all Macs on Intel by the end of this calendar year (2006).greatdevourer said:Also, they're not going to be released at WWDC. Apple said from 2006 to 2007. For the Mac Pros to come out at WWDC means the whole thing will be over in about 6 months
I do agree that won't include PMs by WWDC, though.
The Quad G5 is an amazingly fast machine, I have one! When Steve said all Macs would be transitioned by the end of 2006 I did wonder if Intel would be able to make a equally fast or faster machine by them. At the moment the dual core G5's are miles ahead of what Intel has, let alone two of them in one machine. I think it will be very interesting to see the new G5's.
The only platform that backpedaled from 64 to 32 bit was the iMac G5. G4s and the intels are still 32 bit. Expect the intel powermac to be 64 bit. Think any iMac users will miss having a 64 bit system
I don't think anyone has mentioned this yet, but Merom is the mobile 64-bit processor architecture Intel are planning. The desktop range, (which the PowerMac/Mac Pro/MacTower Pro will probably take), is based on the Conroe architecture I think. This will also lead to potentially quad core on a single chip.
Conroe is based on Merom, but with less power constraints allowing increased performance. I can't see Apple settling on Merom for the Pro Desktop when they can have Conroe. Woodcrest also comes along about the same time, (Q4 2006 rather than Q3), but is more likely to be used for XServe.
64-bit is not dead by any stretch of the imagination.
Conroe is based on Merom, but with less power constraints allowing increased performance. I can't see Apple settling on Merom for the Pro Desktop when they can have Conroe. Woodcrest also comes along about the same time, (Q4 2006 rather than Q3), but is more likely to be used for XServe.
64-bit is not dead by any stretch of the imagination.
belvdr said:
xp64 does run 32-bit applications. it cannot run 16-bit applications (without emulation), but that's due to the hardware. the original post stated that 32-bit drivers will not work, which is true. however, there are plenty of 64-bit drivers for most of the common hardware out there.
belvdr said:
i don't know about windows xp, but i think 2000 could execute 32-bit x86 programs due to emulation. i think intel wrote an emulation layer. additionally, the original itanium had an x86 execution mode so they could run windows directly. i don't know about the current itanium2.