Anyone have any ideas when they are going to release the 64bit OS? Seems like it's taking a while here.
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.
Where is the 64bit OS X?
- Thread starter jethroted
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It should. You realise that only 3 of Apple's computer currently have a 64 bit chip in them, don't you?jethroted said:
P-Worm
There's really no need for an OS to be coded entirely in sixty-four bits at this point. As long as the memory address space is there and there are sixty-four bit libraries for applications to use, the OS doesn't need that kind of processing muscle.
I would suspect that the next OS Release (I.e 10.3.3 or 10.3.4) will have a G5 optimized finder that will be installed only on G5 Machines. Aside from updating programs in piecemeal, I don't see a 64-Bit OS until at least the PowerBooks also have a G5.
In all reality, it is not yet necissary, however, when all Macs are G5+ it would be nice to ditch legacy code.
This is actually the main reason I suggest to people to buy the G5. In 2-3 years when with a PC you'd "have" to buy a new computer, Apple will create a 64-bit OS, and you will restart your 4-7 year Mac lifecycle.
TEG
In all reality, it is not yet necissary, however, when all Macs are G5+ it would be nice to ditch legacy code.
This is actually the main reason I suggest to people to buy the G5. In 2-3 years when with a PC you'd "have" to buy a new computer, Apple will create a 64-bit OS, and you will restart your 4-7 year Mac lifecycle.
TEG
The only place where Apple need a 64-bit operating system is for the server. UNIX servers have been running in 64-bit mode for 5-7 years now, although there were some changes as early as 1995.
It would be to their advantage to support database serving far past their current limits.
The desktop would gain something from 64-bits in 3D processing for both modeling and games but that's about it.
It would be to their advantage to support database serving far past their current limits.
The desktop would gain something from 64-bits in 3D processing for both modeling and games but that's about it.
bousozoku said:
My understanding is, applications on a G5 with existing versions of Panther can already use 64-bit memory addressing and store 64-bit values internally, so long as they have been compiled appropriately. Panther itself does not, and most existing software does not, but there is no barrier to prevent applications from doing so, IIRC.
So Panther 10.3 is a 32bit OS, and there aren't any 64bit apps...
Once there are 64bit apps, will they work properly on a 32bit OS and/or CPU?
Once there are 64bit apps, will they work properly on a 32bit OS and/or CPU?
jap4n said:So Panther 10.3 is a 32bit OS, and there aren't any 64bit apps...
Once there are 64bit apps, will they work properly on a 32bit OS and/or CPU?
Yeah, I believe the Adobe CS collection is already 64bit enabled.
arn said:
Well I just figured that if the os is in 64 bit, then it would run more efficiently. The size of values you can store in registers are WAY bigger, you can address more memory, support larger counters for various things. Right now the biggest value a 32 bit integer can hold is 0 to 4294967295. This restriction limits the number of elements in queues, arrays or other things programmers use to represent data. Encryption algorithms could be designed to encrypt data in 64 bit blocks (as ordinal values) which could drastically increase encryption speeds. 64 bit integers can store from 0 to 18446744073709551615.*It will just make everything more scalable in long run.*Keep in mind, It can represent values larger than 4294967295, but it requires memory. The operating system is a complex aggregation of linked lists, queues, arrays, scheduling algorithms, counters etc. The more data you can stuff into CPU registers, the faster and more scalable it will be in the long run. Because operating systems and software are aggregations of arrays, lists, queues and counters, and because of the amount of ordinal values you can manipulate is orders of magnitude greater than conventional 32 bit operating systems, a 64 bit processor w/ 64bit OS will be faster and more scalable. Period.
More bits doesn't mean faster. In some situations, it does, but in some situations, it doesn't.
For example, a MySQL binary compiled in 32 bits on a 64 bit UltraSparc is about 3% faster than a 64 bit binary on the same machine.
For example, a MySQL binary compiled in 32 bits on a 64 bit UltraSparc is about 3% faster than a 64 bit binary on the same machine.
portent said:
That is essentially correct. Panther, on boot, enables the bridge mode of the PPC970, allowing both 32-bit and 64-bit code to run. While the PPC970 works above 32-bit memory constraints, it isn't much more and the current G5 hardware only allows 33 bits of RAM--8 GB.
So, while there can be a claim to 64-bit applications, it is uneven and should be considered a compromise. Mac System 7.5.3 ran PowerPC applications but there was the compromise of the 68000 emulator holding back every one of them.
jethroted said:
I'm not too sure if you know what Apple means by 64bit CPU. They're talking about 64bit memory addressing. There is a difference between that & 64bit data paths. In your example 64bit data paths would be of help & every PPC Mac except for the cripled models in the 5x00 & 6x00 series has 64bit data paths (actually the G5 uses a 128bit memory bus). Thats one of the reasons PPC machines are faster at the same clock speed (a true RISC implimentation helps too but technically the modern x86 line is a RISC design in the core with some extra parts that in effect "convert" the CISC commands to RISC [yeah engineers, I know its not exactly like so don't jump on me]). Now the reason Apple has been toting 64bits like itsa big deal is because it is in cases thast you need more then 4GB of RAM (like in Graphic Design or 3D Design). Simply put The PPC 601-7457 are all 32/64bit selectable data bus, 32bit addressing bus CPUs. The G5 is a 32/64bit data secectable bus, 64bit addressing bus CPU.
On the PC side 64 bit is a bigger deal because the CPUs are switching from 32bit data bus, 32/36bit (Xeon) addressing bus to a 32/64bit selectable data bus, 64bit addressing bus. This will bring a good speed improvement to their products, even at the same clock speed, all other parts being equal. Anyway, poking around Moto's & IBM's Semiconductor pages will give you a ton of info.
Mac_Max said:
So is there any good data on what an optomised 64 bit Apple Panther OS would run at compared to its current configuration? How much faster as a % can we guestimate?
Mac_Max said:
It's not just sixty-four-bit memory addressing. The pipeline is also sixty-four bits wide. When you say "data paths", I assume you mean the frontside buses and the like.
Wouldn't one think of migrating to 64bit regardless of the need but rather of the option for the future? It might make it less painful when they actually decide to go all out.
~e
~e
More bits when you don't need them is bad. 64 bits take twice as much room to store as 32 bits, so you can only put half as much information in your cache, which can slow you down. Also, you're wasting memory bandwidth if you don't need those extra 32 bits on the stuff you're moving around. That's why optional 64-bit addressing is the way to go for most programs. Stuff that really benefits from 64-bit math is probably going to benefit even more from 128-bit math, and should be using AltiVec anyway.
7on said:
true.. cool
hey, nice desktop - btw where'd you get the StrongBad icon from?! its awesome, like StrongBad