It suggests that they would like new machines to run K64.
Look past the surface.
They've had to continue to convert the OS to 64 bit. iTunes is just one example of software that has only recently been converted.
From a technical standpoint, there's no reason to do so if they plan on continuing with both K32 and K64 support indefinitely.
There's other areas that still need converting with OS X itself (not just about the API's, but they're needed before the rest of it can be converted to a 64 bit environment).
When I sit back and think of reasons why, reducing development costs via streamlining their software support (single Kernel rather than dual) makes the most sense to me, and is quite a valid one to pursue.
Think of it this way... Which would you rather deal with from both a development and cost POV?
- 32bit iOS + K32 OS X + K64 OS X
- 32bit iOS + K64 only
BTW, ARM is moving to 64 bit (
Cortex A15 Eagle announcement). So at some point in the not too distant future, it will be possible to have both iOS and OSX as 64 bit only, if not just combine them into a single OS.
Lion seems to be the beginning of this in terms of getting users accustomed to the iOS "feel" on their desktops. So it seems this possibility has not escaped Apple's notice either IMO.
Yeah. I don't think they're really related. 64 bit process support came two versions of OS X before K64.
64 bit process, but not the rest of the system (not uniform across all areas). Memory for example, was still only 36 bit (compromise to get additional address space) so 64 bit processes had sufficient memory to operate properly (stuff that would starve on 4GB or less).
So it was a product that was a mix of 32, 36, and 64 bit parts. Aka a cobbled together mess that filled a short-term need.
I'd be more worried that a Mac Pro 1,1 is five years old and is going off their supported list. K64 vs. K32 is a distraction from the bigger issue.
K32 is part of it, but it's not the only issue, as there are hardware limitations already affecting users.
Sadly, these limitations are only under OS X. Windows and Linux in either 32 or 64 bit variants work just fine, as do PC card variants (can stuff the fastest ATI or nVidia graphics card you want for example; power may be an issue, but it's solvable, though wires hanging out of the case aren't exactly cosmetically pleasing).
VMware Fusion 4 (Beta) runs on SL64. I'm running it on that laptop right now, but it's still a bit buggy. Still, better than nothing. I have a backup of my Virtual Machine prior to installing.
I don't use VMWare Fusion these days, so I only did a quick look and didn't see that Beta 4 was able to run on K64 versions of SL (last I used it, it was still K32 only, and I was running Leopard, not SL).
All in all, my Mac Pro is seriously the fastest computer I own still after nearly 6 years. This thing is a beast, and I've upgraded it so much that if Apple stopped supporting it I would surely be devastated. However, as far as I know, a lot of MacBook Pro's and such weren't running EFI64 until 2008? At least, that's what I read.
I don't follow the consumer side that much, but it sounds reasonable to me, particularly since the MP didn't get EFI64 until 2008.
