Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
~loserman~ said:
It is a misconception to believe that just because an App is compiled as 64 bit that it will run faster. In many cases it will actually perform slower.
Depends. In the x86 world, apps are crippled severely by the lack of programmer-accessible registers (the registers are actually there, it's just that you can't access them directly; they're used internally by the CPU for register renaming and other fancy tricks -- at least with the PPro and subsequent CPUs). AMD's x86-64 platform, however, makes available a significant number of additional programmer-accessible registers.

So on x86, the move to 64 bits does provide major performance benefits for all applications, provided they are recompiled in 64 bit mode. Not because of an inherent speed up in 64 bits, but because of the additional registers.

PowerPC, because it already has a large number of usable registers, doesn't get that boost, so you'll see the performance hit from the greater amount of data transferred come into play. So in the context of PowerPC, the quote above is entirely accurate. In the context of x86, it isn't, but only because there are factors at play other than the size of data the processor can handle.
 
GodBless said:
I realize that. All that I am saying is that Apple, IBM and Motorola made the G5...

I know IBM made the G5, but since when did Apple get into the microprocessor business?

Sorry, couldn't resist. :p
 
my GeForce4Ti do not have full support on Core Image.....
poor.......
hopefully i can still enjoy most of the new functions of Tiger....
 
Laurent said:
And just shut up already with the "superb OS on a crappy hardware" joke. YOU won't do it, that doesn't mean OTHERS won't.
I would think it is more the case that Apple won't do it. Their ability to quality control the OS depends on their being able to dictate the hardware. At least, historically, that has been the argument....

If it were easy to do, you'd think there'd be more hypergeeks out there running Darwin on Intel boxes.
 
kako said:
And yes, that poster is false advertising. Unless they are talking about a comprehensive 64-bit environment including all hardware components, software and operating systems... that definately goes to Apple. However, the first 64-bit processor (yes, post 2002) was made by AMD.

One can also easy argue that with most distributions of Linux, alongside with AMD 64-bit processor, made the first comprehensive 64-bit environment including all hardware components, sofware and operating systems
 
Toe said:
I would think it is more the case that Apple won't do it. Their ability to quality control the OS depends on their being able to dictate the hardware. At least, historically, that has been the argument....

If it were easy to do, you'd think there'd be more hypergeeks out there running Darwin on Intel boxes.
No, Apple wont do it... But Microsoft is. PC users should be looking foward to using Mac OS 10.0 in 20xx(x?) when Longhorn is launched.
 
sunwarrior said:
One can also easy argue that with most distributions of Linux, alongside with AMD 64-bit processor, made the first comprehensive 64-bit environment including all hardware components, sofware and operating systems
I'm not that knowledgable in this field, but wasn't Apple (well, IBM) the [first] to build hard drives, ram and motherboards that could actually take advantage of the 64-bit processor? And I doubt those early 64-bit compatible linux OSes will be able to take advantage of 64-bit processing quite as well as Tiger will, as far as end consumer use goes.

Edit: sorry about the double post, I was expecting somebody to post something before me.
 
Ok, I'm not a mod or anything, and I'm not trying to start anything here, but could we please talk about Tiger going GM? All this 64-bit stuff is getting so annoying! Ok, thanks.

So, yeah, GM! I wonder if they've declared it GM, but may do a build or two more and then re-announce the GM internally? I really hope they announce and take pre-orders tomorrow though!
-Chase
 
kako said:
And yes, that poster is false advertising. Unless they are talking about a comprehensive 64-bit environment including all hardware components, software and operating systems... that definately goes to Apple. However, the first 64-bit processor (yes, post 2002) was made by AMD.

A 64-bit processor running a 2-bit operating system :) (sorry, couldn't help myself)

Wow, people get very uptight about this stuff, don't they. I guess the major distinction is that OS X allows 32-bit and 64-bit programs to run in at the same time (command line only on 64-bit, as I understand it), whereas Windows 64 requires that all programs be compiled for the 64-bit operating system. So, while the AMD 64-bit processors are currently available (in laptops, available at Wal-Mart no less) they can't run any existing 32-bit programs if they're operating a 64-bit OS.
 
rendezvouscp said:
Ok, I'm not a mod or anything, and I'm not trying to start anything here, but could we please talk about Tiger going GM? All this 64-bit stuff is getting so annoying! Ok, thanks.

So, yeah, GM! I wonder if they've declared it GM, but may do a build or two more and then re-announce the GM internally? I really hope they announce and take pre-orders tomorrow though!
-Chase
Haha agreed.
I dont know... I suppose now with all this anticipation that Tiger is going to be released soon nobody is going to buy a new computer from Apple until it is released, so it would be worth their while to just release it now.
Being an Australian, I'll get another week or so until it gets here... enough time perhaps to save up for it (along with some extra ram, haha).

Edit: I wasn't getting uptight about the whole 64-bit crap... I dont actually care what PC users do. Friend's have told me that the 64 bit chip allows the computer to run a fair bit faster when it's not doing anything 64-bit. Maybe it's just wishful thinking that the money they spent is worth something =P But yeah, let's move on.
 
lssmit02 said:
A 64-bit processor running a 2-bit operating system :) (sorry, couldn't help myself)

Wow, people get very uptight about this stuff, don't they. I guess the major distinction is that OS X allows 32-bit and 64-bit programs to run in at the same time (command line only on 64-bit, as I understand it), whereas Windows 64 requires that all programs be compiled for the 64-bit operating system. So, while the AMD 64-bit processors are currently available (in laptops, available at Wal-Mart no less) they can't run any existing 32-bit programs if they're operating a 64-bit OS.

Not so. They can definitely with Linux and Possibly with Windows XP 64
Edit: Just checked its fully compatible with 32bit apps also.
 
Fricking Apple, its site is still showing some crappy iPod stuff...
The last time I formatted my mac I made the awful mistake of formatting the hard drive to UFS... I've regretted it ever since. Do you think Tiger will run ok on UFS or should I include the cost of a few dozen DVD-Rs for backup in my budget for upgrading to Tiger?
 
Yup, as predicted, all of the Haters have come out.

Who cares what you think about 64 bit OS and whether Tiger is truly that?

Since 2001, you got a service pack to Windows to make it easier to find the firewall and nag you about security settings.

Apple folks on the other hand are on our 3 major revision of OSX, with Tiger looking to be the best yet. Yes, it is that fun.

So keep spewing your vile on random nonsensical technical details no one cares about.
 
The Tiger Server page is quite talkative about 64-bit capabilities...

With Mac OS X Server v10.4 Tiger, Apple brings you 64-bit application support — ideal for memory-intensive database, engineering and scientific applications. Tiger Server enables you to run demanding applications — such as server applications and background processes used by renderers and computational engines — as 64-bit applications. These 64-bit applications can take advantage of 64-bit virtual memory addressing and up to 4 terabytes of physical memory. With Tiger Server, Apple delivers 64-bit computing without compromising performance and support for 32-bit applications. Combined with Apple’s Xserve G5 server hardware, Tiger Server offers an affordable, easy-to-manage solution for high-performance computing.​
Hm. How much would 4TB of RAM cost?
 
~loserman~ said:
Not so. They can definitely with Linux and Possibly with Windows XP 64
Edit: Just checked its fully compatible with 32bit apps also.
Oops, sorry, you're right. It seems that 64-bit Windows runs an emulator, WOW64, which does allow 32-bit programs to run. Should have googled before I posted. :eek:
 
Forgotten the PPC 620?

This full 64 bit PPC implementation was considered by Apple for computers in 1995. Turned out it was late, slow, and expensive, so Apple went with something else (603, 604 at that time) in the PPC family. Groupe Bull supposedly made some servers with these, but, it was ultimately abandoned.
 
Toe said:
The Tiger Server page is quite talkative about 64-bit capabilities...

With Mac OS X Server v10.4 Tiger, Apple brings you 64-bit application support — ideal for memory-intensive database, engineering and scientific applications. Tiger Server enables you to run demanding applications — such as server applications and background processes used by renderers and computational engines — as 64-bit applications. These 64-bit applications can take advantage of 64-bit virtual memory addressing and up to 4 terabytes of physical memory. With Tiger Server, Apple delivers 64-bit computing without compromising performance and support for 32-bit applications. Combined with Apple’s Xserve G5 server hardware, Tiger Server offers an affordable, easy-to-manage solution for high-performance computing.​
Hm. How much would 4TB of RAM cost?

Our cluster has 7.3 TB of total memory, the memory alone cost us 1.8 million $
 
~loserman~ said:
Our cluster has 7.3 TB of total memory, the memory alone cost us 1.8 million $
Of Apple RAM, yes. At, what is it?, $2 per byte, I'd need $US1.8m to fill up my iMac. It's hard for Mac users to keep all their components exclusively Apple when they intend on charging so much for RAM and including next to nothing in all their new boxes.
 
i think i heard that Toshiba developed a new technology that enables one to produce 80,000 boxed and printed cds ON the shelves only one minute after software reaches Goldmaster
 
crpchristian said:
i think i heard that Toshiba developed a new technology that enables one to produce 80,000 boxed and printed cds ON the shelves only one minute after software reaches Goldmaster
*ignoring your comment
I hate Toshiba, they're a bunch of ****s.
They try and match Apple with their second rate laptops and fail miserably, and they're backing HD-DVD instead of Blu-ray.
What morons.

Edit: Hmmm... this thread has come to a screeching slow...
Doo bee doo. Must be getting late/early in the U.S....
OOhhh, I just thought of something.... The free trade agreement our lovely prime minister just signed with the U.S. against all our wills might actually have some purpose! Tiger might be a bit cheaper than it would have been! Yay!
 
AidenShaw said:
There's also the fact that x64 on Windows supports most Windows APIs, whereas 64-bit on 10.4 is emphatically a sedond class citizen. Cocoa and Carbon are 32-bit only - what more needs to be said?
Which amounts to nothing; at best it's a wash, at worst the 64-bit GUI/UI runs a tad bit slower (it depends on the graphics driver, etc.). We don't work in native 64-bit color, yet.

So, again, why did you bring this up? All you're really saying is that OS X is progressing from 32-bit to 64-bit in a manner that best benefits the apps that can take advantage of the 64-bit attribute, and laying the foundation for other application categories that will benefit in the future. At least the PPC hardware architecture is advanced enough to be able to offer this kind of granularity (32-bit, 64-bit or mixed software models) without performance penalties.

What say you, sir? :)
 
daveL said:
So, again, why did you bring this up?
Maybe he really doesn't have a shred of useful information to contribute. Unlike some people who are know it alls. tough luck , eh? :rolleyes:
 
sjl said:
Depends. In the x86 world, apps are crippled severely by the lack of programmer-accessible registers (the registers are actually there, it's just that you can't access them directly; they're used internally by the CPU for register renaming and other fancy tricks -- at least with the PPro and subsequent CPUs). AMD's x86-64 platform, however, makes available a significant number of additional programmer-accessible registers.

So on x86, the move to 64 bits does provide major performance benefits for all applications, provided they are recompiled in 64 bit mode. Not because of an inherent speed up in 64 bits, but because of the additional registers.

PowerPC, because it already has a large number of usable registers, doesn't get that boost, so you'll see the performance hit from the greater amount of data transferred come into play. So in the context of PowerPC, the quote above is entirely accurate. In the context of x86, it isn't, but only because there are factors at play other than the size of data the processor can handle.
Only too bad that 99.999% of the code out there for x86 isn't compiled to take advantage of this, if in fact it's true. So what?
 
kako said:
I'm not that knowledgable in this field, but wasn't Apple (well, IBM) the [first] to build hard drives, ram and motherboards that could actually take advantage of the 64-bit processor? And I doubt those early 64-bit compatible linux OSes will be able to take advantage of 64-bit processing quite as well as Tiger will, as far as end consumer use goes.

That is just ridiculous. And by any token. Take a look at the specs:
PowerMac G5:
Harddisk - SATA 7200rpm
RAM - PC3200 (400Mhz)

iMac G5:
Harddisk - SATA 7200rpm
RAM - PC3200 (400Mhz)

These have been used by PCs before Apple does on Mac. As for the motherboard, I'll like to see you fit a AMD 64 bit processor into one of the motherboard for the 32 bit processor. It won't! Different pin numbers

Though I like Mac and think it's cool, I don't think anyone should make false and untrue claims.
 
sunwarrior said:
That is just ridiculous. And by any token. Take a look at the specs:
PowerMac G5:
Harddisk - SATA 7200rpm
RAM - PC3200 (400Mhz)

iMac G5:
Harddisk - SATA 7200rpm
RAM - PC3200 (400Mhz)

These have been used by PCs before Apple does on Mac. As for the motherboard, I'll like to see you fit a AMD 64 bit processor into one of the motherboard for the 32 bit processor. It won't! Different pin numbers

Though I like Mac and think it's cool, I don't think anyone should make false and untrue claims.
Chill
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.