Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

No 64 bit Leopard on MacBook Pros?

Furthermore, Leopard is a 64bit OS, with 32 and 64bit userspace (that is my understanding at least) so it will work just fine on 32bit machines, but also works on 64bit machines even better.
 
It's a fair question. I'd guess that the choice is more related to what you can actually accomplish with 64-bit and who will be doing it. For instance, the oft-repeated comment that 64-bit processing primarily benefits apps that are actively addressing more than 4GB of memory, which is going to be rare on a MBP that cannot have 8 or 16 GB of memory.
 
You will be able to take advantage of it with your MBP. They employ 64-bit processors and Leopard is Apple's first true 64-bit OS.
 
I've heard things about MacBooks having 64-bit processors but not being able to utilize them due to 32-bit bottlenecks in the system. Can anyone elaborate?
 
Deuz Augustine said:
I've heard things about MacBooks having 64-bit processors but not being able to utilize them due to 32-bit bottlenecks in the system. Can anyone elaborate?
Click to expand...
64-bit arithmetic can be done on the processor.

A program is still limited to a 32-bit addressing of RAM addressing though.

This is maybe the third time I've said this today.
 
Eidorian said:
64-bit arithmetic can be done on the processor.

A program is still limited to a 32-bit addressing of RAM addressing though.

This is maybe the third time I've said this today.
Click to expand...

Source? This cannot be correct. Addressing in a 32-bit memory space would mean that you couldn't address over 4GB of RAM. This is not the case...
 
Eidorian said:
64-bit arithmetic can be done on the processor.

A program is still limited to a 32-bit addressing of RAM addressing though.

This is maybe the third time I've said this today.
Click to expand...

Sorry. :( Not trying to be a nuisance. So is it just a RAM issue, then? Because if it is, I'm not bothered; I have 1GB right now and it's doing me just fine.
 
Eidorian said:
Can you address more then 4 GB of RAM using the 945PM/GM chipset? ;)
Click to expand...

But this is not a limitation of Leopard. Perhaps I misunderstood the point that you are trying to make, but Leopard will run on architectures that allow addressing beyond the 4GB boundary.
 
Deuz Augustine said:
Sorry. :( Not trying to be a nuisance. So is it just a RAM issue, then? Because if it is, I'm not bothered; I have 1GB right now and it's doing me just fine.
Click to expand...
It is a limitation of the 945GM/PM chipset.

Trepex said:
But this is not a limitation of Leopard. Perhaps I misunderstood the point that you are trying to make, but Leopard will run on architectures that allow addressing beyond the 4GB boundary.
Click to expand...
It is the hardware not the software.

64-bit applications will still run just fine. You won't get the benefit of being able to store large amounts of data in RAM though.
 
Eidorian said:
It is a limitation of the 945GM/PM chipset.

It is the hardware not the software.

64-bit applications will still run just fine. You won't get the benefit of being able to store large amounts of data in RAM though.
Click to expand...

We're on the same page. My apologies for the tangent :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back