Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
In Apple's website literature (the attachment above from the iMac site) they list running iLife programs faster - does this mean iLife apps are in 64 bit? Or they will be on Leopard? Is there some way to know if a program in 64 bit (similar to how you can use 'get info' to see if an app is universal)?
 
mongoos150 said:
In Apple's website literature (the attachment above from the iMac site) they list running iLife programs faster - does this mean iLife apps are in 64 bit? Or they will be on Leopard? Is there some way to know if a program in 64 bit (similar to how you can use 'get info' to see if an app is universal)?

it probably means they're universal binaries
 
mongoos150 said:
In Apple's website literature (the attachment above from the iMac site) they list running iLife programs faster - does this mean iLife apps are in 64 bit? Or they will be on Leopard? Is there some way to know if a program in 64 bit (similar to how you can use 'get info' to see if an app is universal)?

iLife's apps and most any apps whatsoever will run faster on a Core 2 Duo machine because it's a faster processor - not necessarily in overall speed (2.16 GHz is still 2.16 GHz), but it's doing more in the same amount of time because of how the processor works compared to the Core Duo ones.

Sure, when Leopard is out and we're all basking in the glory of the first fully 64 bit operating system for personal computers with full hardware driver support we'll see nice boosts in performance, but not quite yet.

XP64 and other OSes that are somewhat 64 bit still fall prey to the lack of proper full support meaning each and every device is working completely and correctly - there's always something that just doesn't work right.

I'm sure Leopard will set the bar pretty high too. Vista 64 has a chance to work considering XP64 was more of an extended beta test for the 64 bit side of Windows... but it remains to be seen just how well the hardware support is going to be - and you can't blame Microsoft for that, you have to blame the hardware vendors for not writing the damned 64 bit drivers to start with.

Since Apple writes the OS for their own hardware, and practically writes the drivers too, this should not be an issue at all for Leopard.

We'll see what happens...

bb
 
related question

won't leopard, a 64 bit OS, really zoom on a 64 bit computer like an C2D iMac?

How much of a performance gain can this be expected to be? 10%? 20%? if it can execute code in bigger chunks, couldn't a 20% jump be possible with native 64 bit applications?
 
generik said:
Has anyone ever tried executing 64 bit applications on the C2D iMacs? There has been quite a bit of debate in the "MBP next Tuesday" thread after someone found a BusinessWeek article which stated that the current Meroms do not run 64 bit instructions due to the old chipset.

The first Intel mobile processor supporting EM64T is the Merom version of the Core 2 processor. And yes it's a true 64-bit!
To compare the older AMD 64 and draw straight parallel comparisons between them and EM64T is not quite right!
There are a small number of differences between each instruction set. Compilers generally produce binaries that target both AMD64 and EM64T, making the differences mainly of interest to compiler developers and operating system developers.

core 2 duo merom imacs can adress 3-4 GB of ram.. There is the proof that theyre 64 bits.

64bit Vista nearly crashed on Core Duo, but works like a charm on the Core 2 Duo.

Case closed!
 
will we see any significant performance increases over a CD iMac if both were running leopard, and we placed them side by side, well apart form the obvious that C2D is 39% faster or so they say
 
Macmadant said:
will we see any significant performance increases over a CD iMac if both were running leopard, and we placed them side by side, well apart form the obvious that C2D is 39% faster or so they say
It's possible that iLife and iWork will get 64-bit addressing abilities. Otherwise your standard applications won't faster in Leopard.

Really other then gaming and encoding does Safari running 20% faster amount to much for you?
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.