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.
Intel Core Duo "is" 64-bit compatible.
- Thread starter mingisback
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
AJBMatrix said:
You misunderstood - Leopard will almost certainly be able to run on G4s (possibly even some G3s) as well as G5s, Cores and whatever they put in the x86 PowerMac, which will probably be 64 bit. Few, if any, computers will be orphaned by the next OS. But it will be 64 bit in 64 bit-capable machines.
ekenny said:
i`m afraid you`re wrong about this. The iMac G5 is 64 bit.
: http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2004/aug/31imac.html
olafen
olafen said:
Being that this is your first post and you just joined today, I hope you really are not trying to disguise yourself as someone else.
Anyway, if the iMac G5 was 64 bit, wouldnt apple advertise it on their product page? And as far as raw processing power, what advantage would the power mac have over the iMac if they both had the exact same cpu? The 64 bit G5 is only in the powermacs.
Kernal is virtually 64bit now. Few things are not, but it's not trivial. Who would want a mouse pointer that has 64bit memory addressing?jhu said:
AMD do things similar to this. Sometimes it's a BIOS hack, or a rewire with pins or resistors.
I had a P4 processor that was not HT, bridge a pin with solder, solder a wire between two blank holes where a resistor would go, hey presto, HT was enabled.
He has no idea. You and I both know G5 in the iMac is 64 bit. If it wasn't (for some insanely crazy idea i.e. not being a PPC970) it would have been posted all over these forums. The only thing that is different in the processors to my knowledge is the L2 cache and FSB.jhu said:
If you look at the link olafen provided it clearly states on Apples website that the first G5 iMacs were 64 bit processors.
ekenny said:
Wow... just... wow.
IBM doesn't produce any variant of the 970 (aka G5) that is 32-bit. The 970 family is 64-bit across the board. And should I mention that Apple doesn't need to advertise 64-bit support for a consumer product when 64-bit means jack in this case? The iMac doesn't have enough slots to go beyond 4GB of RAM, and the odds that your average joe even understanding what 64-bit MEANS is near-zero (considering the confusion of what 64-bit actually means to the prosumer as well)... why advertise it and potentially confuse the user? Apple wants joe to understand that the computer works, it is easy to use, and it is plenty powerful because it shares heritage with the PowerMacs.
Feel free to ask me to explain any part of my answer, I have plenty of knowledge and training/education to share... and Visual Studio is driving me nuts again.
howesey said:
everything but the xnu kernel and libsystem are 32-bit. eventually, apple would be doing themselves and their developers a disservice by not moving everything else to 64-bit. right now programmers have to fork off a 64-bit thread that communicates results to the 32-bit gui program. that seems less than ideal.
jhu said:
Thank you. So much. After reading page one I was having an argument in my head that went something like "post abuse! make them learn! take over the world!" vs. "goto bed you're tired!". You've possibly saved free speech and democracy
ekenny said:
Don't you feel silly now.
AppleMatt
AppleMatt said:
No, I dont. While Krevnik does have a point about the average Joe, etc. I would think Apple would atleast make some mention or referance to it in their technical specs page (being that the averge Joe would not normally look in that section. Does the average Joe know what L1 and L2 cache are? No, but its still listed there.) Sorry for hogging this thread, this is my last post on it.
Easiest way to settle this, who has a imac box at home? Does it say 64bit workstation on it? Power Mac does.
The iMac G5 is 64bit, Tiger is not. (Fully). Tiger is a 32bit OS that has several 64Bit Libraries installed that are loaded on PPC970 systems.
All G5 computers (iMac and PowerMac) use the PPC970. The first G5 systems were 180nm chips then moved to 90nm. At that point they pulled less power and could be installed in smaller enclosures. This is the only difference.
In fact, All PPC chips have been designed from the start to be 64bit. The first chip was suppose to be the 620. But it never developed. So we went from 601, 603, 603e, 604, (620 was to be here), G3, G4, G5 (620 feature set).
All G5 computers (iMac and PowerMac) use the PPC970. The first G5 systems were 180nm chips then moved to 90nm. At that point they pulled less power and could be installed in smaller enclosures. This is the only difference.
In fact, All PPC chips have been designed from the start to be 64bit. The first chip was suppose to be the 620. But it never developed. So we went from 601, 603, 603e, 604, (620 was to be here), G3, G4, G5 (620 feature set).
I suppose, but more importantly, so he can stop spreading that ignorance to others on these forums. Thankfully, other posters (like olafen's VERY FIRST POST!Hector said:
) explained very well that all G5s are 64-bit. Of course, ekenny was using the worst argument I've ever seen on this forum "If it was, wouldn't they have advertised that?" Which they actually did to a small extent...