Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

macrophyllum · Jun 20, 2003, 02:18 PM

64 bit sure sounds better than 32 bit, and If I remember correctly the first Nintendo was only 8 bit?

Can someone give the simple run down between 32 bit and 64 bit? Will 64 bit processors be twice as fast (64/32 = 2)?

wadesworld · Jun 20, 2003, 02:46 PM

In the simplest of terms, it means numbers and memory addresses can be larger than they are today.

In practical terms, it's unlikely the average user will notice any speed increase.

In corporate terms, a huge database could be faster on a 64-bit system simply because it can hold more of the data in memory and has to spend less time accessing the disk.

Wade

wadesworld · Jun 20, 2003, 02:54 PM

Will 64 bit processors be twice as fast (64/32 = 2)?

The 64-bit 970 will be dramatically faster, but not because it's 64-bit. It will be because of its higher clock speed, advanced caches, and fast bus and other such features.

The adding of "bits" doesn't speed up a processor - speeding up the processor and all the components around it does.

That's why even if you could put the fastest Pentium in your current Mac and make it work, it wouldn't be near as fast as the fastest Pentium PC - the bus and other subsystems just aren't fast enough to support it.

Wade

ckohler · Jun 20, 2003, 03:00 PM

I believe 64bit is advantageous to any application that benefits from dealing with very ram hungry files. For a normal consumer this would be things like video editing and even the OS itself.

Wadesworld is correct though. Don't think 64bit means twice as fast as 32bit. The reason the 970 will be faster will be because of other changes to the architecture.

macrophyllum · Jun 20, 2003, 03:15 PM

Thanks folks. I have a much better understanding now.

schuey100 · Jun 20, 2003, 03:18 PM

Good topic. I think this needs to be explained and the myth cleared up. I hear many people touting the 64 bit OS but in realirt it will make no difference to 99% of the people that use Apple Macs. In fact, a 32 bit OS has a limitation of 4gig ram. Therefore, unless your machine has more than 4gig then 64 bit makes no difference at all. It's really important if you're working with large amounts of data especially if multi dimensional or of course if your running a server. Longhorn may be 64 bit but at the moment there's no advantage to releasing it.

It's therefore strange that Apple are releasing a 64 bit OS unless they are looking to do something in the server world. After all, they have no market share in the DB, DW or OLAP space.

cwasko · Jun 20, 2003, 03:29 PM

Originally posted by schuey100:
It's therefore strange that Apple are releasing a 64 bit OS unless they are looking to do something in the server world. After all, they have no market share in the DB, DW or OLAP space.

It is a little odd, but if you look at it from a design standpoint.. its a little different. If a chip designer is concentrated in 64 bit designs for use in various applications, then it is overall cheaper for them to make a 64 bit CP
U than a 32 just for consumer use.

While the 970 may not provide any performance benefit to the end consumer-user, it will provide the benefit in the cost for all the end users - consumer and server. Due to the high volumes, the server will be cheaper and the the consumers get a rock-solid chip meant for some heavy duty work.

schuey100 · Jun 20, 2003, 03:34 PM

Originally posted by cwasko:
It is a little odd, but if you look at it from a design standpoint.. its a little different. If a chip designer is concentrated in 64 bit designs for use in various applications, then it is overall cheaper for them to make a 64 bit CP
U than a 32 just for consumer use.

While the 970 may not provide any performance benefit to the end consumer-user, it will provide the benefit in the cost for all the end users - consumer and server. Due to the high volumes, the server will be cheaper and the the consumers get a rock-solid chip meant for some heavy duty work.

You're right of course but it still doesn't explain who benefits from 64 bit? The Mac is dead in the business world. I know of one large vendor that would kill for a 64 bit OS but they will just not go for Apple. So who benefits and why?

However, it does seem as if the new G5 will support up to 8gig ram so something interesting is going to happen!?!

::maroma:: · Jun 20, 2003, 03:46 PM

Is it possible that Apple is moving to 64 bit just to keep themselves up to speed with the competition? Or maybe they have a much grander scheme waiting for 64 bit CPU?

schuey100 · Jun 20, 2003, 03:50 PM

Originally posted by ::maroma:::
Is it possible that Apple is moving to 64 bit just to keep themselves up to speed with the competition? Or maybe they have a much grander scheme waiting for 64 bit CPU?

What competition? No one else has a 64 bit OS?

RooneyX · Jun 20, 2003, 03:57 PM

Originally posted by schuey100:
What competition? No one else has a 64 bit OS?

Irix and Linux.

schuey100 · Jun 20, 2003, 04:00 PM

Originally posted by RooneyX:
Irix and Linux.

Sorry, you may have misread..I said competition

klinux · 05:26 PM

Much more informational than what has been posted:
http://arstechnica.com/cpu/03q1/x86-64/x86-64-1.html
http://www.anandtech.com/guides/viewfaq.html?i=112

DaGuy · Jun 20, 2003, 04:52 PM

Originally posted by schuey100:
The Mac is dead in the business world. I know of one large vendor that would kill for a 64 bit OS but they will just not go for Apple. So who benefits and why?

1. In the enterprise market, Apple is less dead than it was before OSX. If you consider how all of sudden Apple plays in the Java J2EE world then you would see that there's growth and even more important, RESPECT.

2. Why a 64 bit OS? Well why not, if the cost has come down. It's important to get a head start recompiling apps for 64 bit, and shaking out hardware bugs.

3. Who benefits. Anyone who deals with large amounts of data. The trend is for larger and larger data bases.

4. Another thing that folks are forgetting is that a performance boost with 64 bit is possible. Current PowerPCs running 32 bit architectures obviosly benefit from other optimizations i.e., Altivec. Having larger bit will remove constraints and open doors that most of us (myself included) cannot really get a grasp on.

Let's see what Monday brings.

schuey100 · 06:01 PM

Originally posted by DaGuy:
1. 3. Who benefits. Anyone who deals with large amounts of data. The trend is for larger and larger data bases.

Now this interests me. I have heard this from other people.

Now it's worth mentioning at this point that we are talking about large volumes of data. By large I mean 100gig at the very least. Consequently, for the those, as you say, that deal with large amounts of data you will be looking at a vendor offering from, for example, Microstrategy, SAP, Brio or hyperion. However none of these vendors have ever, or will ever consider the Mac platform as a viable choice.

Therefore, the assumption that the trend is for larger db's (which is of course correct) is completely irrelevant as they do not exist on the Mac.

sorry about the ramble

Scarpa · Jun 20, 2003, 05:19 PM

I bet that the average consumer of Apple products will benefit from 64bit processors more than you think. I'm thinking that there are benefits primarily in the 'digital hub' area. You can be sure Apple will be leveraging the features of the 970 chip as much as possible in this area, probably starting with the pro tools like FCP, shake, etc. and eventually trickling down into the iApps.

Also keep in mind that nobody has applied 64bit computing in a consumer environment. Who's to say that there may be some benefits that few can forsee? Who's to say that this won't open up a new class of applications to consumers like what we see happening with home video and DVD production.

I think this will be a good move for Apple, provided they invest the effort to reap the rewards of being an early mover. We've seen they can do that just fine. The question is how many people will buy into it before the Windows juggarnaut catches up.

klinux · Jun 20, 2003, 05:31 PM

Man, Scarpa, you have written so much yet still saying so little.

"On applications that do not require the extended dynamic range afforded by larger integers (and this covers the vast majority of applications, including games), the only kind of performance increase that you can expect from a straight 64-bit port is whatever additional performance you get from having more memory available. As I said earlier, 64-bitness, by itself, doesn't really improve performance for anything but the rare 64-bit integer application."

- from Jon Stokes, one of the best technical writers I know.
http://arstechnica.com/cpu/03q1/x86-64/x86-64-5.html

Scarpa · 05:57 PM

OK I'll bite. You are correct, I didn't say a whole lot. Let me summarize then

- Apple consumers will benefit from 64bit processors. I agree that this has less to do with '64bit-ness' than other optimizations.

- There may be some use for 64bit processing that we haven't seen.

With respect to your quote, two things stand out. "direct 64bit port" ... how about optimized ports? which leads us to "the rare 64bit integer app" ... how many apps use 32bit integers simply because the use of 64bit integers would cause an unacceptable performance drop?

EDIT: OK the first line of your quote answers my last question. I get an F for reading comprehension today. This quote did stand out though as I read the article you linked: "On a daily basis we're running into the Windows 2GB barrier with our next-generation content development and preprocessing tools." - Tim Sweeney, Epic

Doesn't that sound a lot like a class of apps that Shake and FCP fall into?

... doh I said more than before! and probably communicated less! That is a function of a Friday afternoon brain fade I'm sure. Those articles were very good too, I appreciated the reading material.

Camelot · Jun 20, 2003, 06:16 PM

Originally posted by schuey100:
What competition? No one else has a 64 bit OS?

Hmm.. let me think... Solaris for one (and if you're talking server market you are definitely talking Solaris)

klinux · Jun 20, 2003, 07:01 PM

Scarpa: Friday afternoon can do that to the best of us!

!Confirmed!

schuey100 · Jun 20, 2003, 07:06 PM

Originally posted by Camelot:
Hmm.. let me think... Solaris for one (and if you're talking server market you are definitely talking Solaris)

Nope, definately not talking the server market. There are plenty of 64 bit servers out there. What I'm asking is why release a machine with 64 bit OS when for all intents and purposes it serves neither the home user or the professional market?

cwasko · Jun 20, 2003, 08:34 PM

Originally posted by schuey100:
You're right of course but it still doesn't explain who benefits from 64 bit? The Mac is dead in the business world. I know of one large vendor that would kill for a 64 bit OS but they will just not go for Apple. So who benefits and why?

However, it does seem as if the new G5 will support up to 8gig ram so something interesting is going to happen!?!

I'd bet the genome project corps would dig this. A lot of genome companies use the Xserves for calculations, due to the raw power of the G4. Plop a G5 in there with the capability of having 8G of RAM... and I bet they'd be ecstatic.

I think Apple is making a come back in the business world, albeit, a small one. The Xserve has seen to that. it is a very functional computer and has some very nice features and administration capabilities. If a company refuses to use Apple, but uses some sort of UNIX/Linux solution, then they are just being naive. Apple provides a very competitive product, and with the G5, it will no doubt open more of the market to them. Remember, just because there is presently no, or a very small market, does not mean they should not try.

Many people thought the mp3 player market was saturated. Now the iPod owns that market... Point is, if the product offers a substantial bang for the buck, people will put up for it. So, lets not pass judgment on the current business market for Apple just yet.

schuey100 · Jun 20, 2003, 08:42 PM

Originally posted by cwasko:
I'd bet the genome project corps would dig this. A lot of genome companies use the Xserves for calculations, due to the raw power of the G4. Plop a G5 in there with the capability of having 8G of RAM... and I bet they'd be ecstatic.

I think Apple is making a come back in the business world, albeit, a small one. The Xserve has seen to that. it is a very functional computer and has some very nice features and administration capabilities. If a company refuses to use Apple, but uses some sort of UNIX/Linux solution, then they are just being naive. Apple provides a very competitive product, and with the G5, it will no doubt open more of the market to them. Remember, just because there is presently no, or a very small market, does not mean they should not try.

Many people thought the mp3 player market was saturated. Now the iPod owns that market... Point is, if the product offers a substantial bang for the buck, people will put up for it. So, lets not pass judgment on the current business market for Apple just yet.

I need to say this here so people don't get me wrong..I LOVE APPLE! There I said it.

.....

Reporting Solutions
BPM
Database
OLAP
CMS System

In fact Business Intelligence as a whole. Apple haven't got a hope. Not a chance. They are dead in the business market. Never will they be able to offer a solution in the above catagories. EVER. Speak to ANY vendor and ask about Apple. I do every single day and get laughed at. Even Microsoft will discontinue Office in the very near future. That will be the nail in the coffin. Companies are almost unable to function with Macs nowadays. Believe me when I say, I have spent time, resources and tons of cash in trying to biuld and deploy a BI ssolution based on Macs for many months. It just isn't possible.

Even something as simple as a CMS system. What option do you have on a Mac? The only one I could think of or find was Daylite. Awful App. Sales Logix laughed at me. As did Siebel. As did Goldmine/Frontrange. It's a nightmare.

cwasko · 08:51 PM

Originally posted by schuey100:
Nope, definately not talking the server market. There are plenty of 64 bit servers out there. What I'm asking is why release a machine with 64 bit OS when for all intents and purposes it serves neither the home user or the professional market?

Why would any compnay make a product which proceeds down a path which they have very little market share in? This is the world of business, and to succeed, you have to be willing to take risks. Apple is number one at taking risks. I think introducing a consumer priced 64 bit CPU will open the server market considerably. Then, if they add in clustering capabilities into OSX Server... oh my.

Apple could also use this as marketing spin... the 'worlds only' consumer level 64 bit machine. It means just about as much as Intels clock speed, but people still want to see bigger numbers.

cwasko · Jun 20, 2003, 08:50 PM

Originally posted by schuey100:
Reporting Solutions
BPM
Database
OLAP
CMS System

I really don't have any experience with those apps, except for 'database'. I currently use serveral OSX Server machines to run my online based company, and they run exceptionally well. My company's site pushes about 60k pages a day and approx 3.5 TB of data a month. I have a MySQL database that is at 5G right now and grows at a rate of about 10% a month. I'd love to get my hands on a dual G5 2.0GHz with 8G of ram.

Apple's business market is probably going to be geared towards number-crunching, i.e., computation farms. After the introduction of the G5 in an Xserve, I wouldn't doubt if Pixar invested in Mac (about time).

Alex Duffield · Jun 20, 2003, 09:15 PM

Originally posted by schuey100:
I need to say this here so people don't get me wrong..I LOVE APPLE! There I said it.

.....

Reporting Solutions
BPM
Database
OLAP
CMS System

In fact Business Intelligence as a whole. Apple haven't got a hope. Not a chance. They are dead in the business market. Never will they be able to offer a solution in the above categories. EVER. Speak to ANY vendor and ask about Apple. I do every single day and get laughed at. Even Microsoft will discontinue Office in the very near future. That will be the nail in the coffin. Companies are almost unable to function with Macs nowadays. Believe me when I say, I have spent time, resources and tons of cash in trying to build and deploy a BI ssolution based on Macs for many months. It just isn't possible.

Even something as simple as a CMS system. What option do you have on a Mac? The only one I could think of or find was Daylite. Awful App. Sales Logix laughed at me. As did Siebel. As did Goldmine/Frontrange. It's a nightmare.

Well, I can think of one company for sure that proves you wrong.

Apple

They are using OSX for all there internal office systems. They use OSX in the retail stores, and to power there POS systems.

Apple is working damn hard to get the players on side that they need to make OSX more viable in the business world.

In the past year, they have gone from being a none player, to at least getting a seat at the table. There is still a lot to prove, but this is a market that Apple is taking seriously.

Give it time.

schuey100 · Jun 20, 2003, 09:28 PM

Pheww..this is hard work

Also slightly off the original topic

http://www.microsoft.com/
http://www.cognos.com/index_nolayer.html
http://www.businessobjects.com/
http://www.comshare.com/
http://www.microstrategy.com/
http://www.applix.com/index.asp
http://www.oracle.com/
http://www.hyperion.com/
http://www.crystaldecisions.com/Default.asp

Until these guys develop for Apple, the Mac is dead in the business world. (This will never happen)

Unfortunately I don't have any information on what Apple uses internally. I'd love to know actually. Does anyone know what they use for reporting, accounting, BPM, contact managment, DW, analsysis?

I'd love to know. Wouldn't it be awful if they were all running terminal services?

Wouldn't suprise me at all.

Tyler McAdams · Jun 20, 2003, 10:08 PM

Think of a 32bit cpu as a V6 engine and a 64bit cpu as a V12... now, depending on how the cpu is used, the V12 may not be even as fast at some apps as a nice V6, but compare a school bus to a honda... you drop a vtec in a school bus, you'll be lucky to make it to school.

Because a 64bit cpu can address more data at one moment than a 32bit, (and a V12 can address more gas at one time than a V6 can) it will be much more efficient at certain tasks that optimize for 64bits. Not all apps need 64bits. (word, excel...) Anything that requires large amounts of data manipulation will be off the bat faster than 32bit. (all other optimizations like altivec kept equal.)

A Ferrari with a V12 will have a higher top speed than an Evo with a turbo charged V6... but that V6 will hang with the Ferrari, 0-60mph.

Apps like photoshop will see a sizable difference in certain circumstances, just because of the size of the files being processed.

Arkham_c · Jun 20, 2003, 10:50 PM

Originally posted by schuey100:
Pheww..this is hard work Also slightly off the original topic

http://www.microsoft.com/
http://www.cognos.com/index_nolayer.html
http://www.businessobjects.com/
http://www.comshare.com/
http://www.microstrategy.com/
http://www.applix.com/index.asp
http://www.oracle.com/
http://www.hyperion.com/
http://www.crystaldecisions.com/Default.asp

Until these guys develop for Apple, the Mac is dead in the business world. (This will never happen)

I work at and have worked at major Fortune 500 companies, and I've never heard of most of these. In the enterprise, there are only a few names that matter:

Oracle
Sybase
BEA (WebLogic)
IBM (WebSphere)
Microsoft (Exchange)

These are the real things Apple needs to compete in the enterprise. WebLogic runs on OSX but is not supported (it might be if there were customer demand). Oracle supports OSX as a develoment platform and will expand support as OSX matures. Sybase fully supports OSX. WebSphere and Exchange will never be supported on OS X (WebSphere could be, but IBM puts its eggs in the Linux basket, and Exchange is a foot in the server room door for Windows).

Apple needs to get into the data center first, and then they have a chance at the desktop. 64-bit computers help them get into the data center. Oracle and Sybase do really benefit from 64-bit processors. We have dozens of databases with hundreds of terabytes of data in each of them, and we rely on 64-bit Sybase and IBM Regatta to deal with it.

64-bit is NOT just about memory addressing. It's about register sizes, bus widths, ALU logical unit sizes, and more. If the compiler is wel optimized, it will result in faster computing.

The PPC 970 is good for a lot of other reasons too. It has more ALUs, so it can do more and better branch prediction. It has a second AltiVec vector processing unit on each chip, so AltiVec functions will be up to twice as fast as and equivalent G4. And it supports 2:1 bus speeds, so instead of a 133MHz bus we'll have a 900MHz-1GHz bus, which means that we'll be moving twice as many bits at a time, and moving them 7.5 times as fast.

Tyler McAdams · Jun 20, 2003, 11:20 PM

Originally posted by Arkham_c:
I work at and have worked at major Fortune 500 companies, and I've never heard of most of these. In the enterprise, there are only a few names that matter:

Oracle
Sybase
BEA (WebLogic)
IBM (WebSphere)
Microsoft (Exchange)

These are the real things Apple needs to compete in the enterprise. WebLogic runs on OSX but is not supported (it might be if there were customer demand). Oracle supports OSX as a develoment platform and will expand support as OSX matures. Sybase fully supports OSX. WebSphere and Exchange will never be supported on OS X (WebSphere could be, but IBM puts its eggs in the Linux basket, and Exchange is a foot in the server room door for Windows).

Apple needs to get into the data center first, and then they have a chance at the desktop. 64-bit computers help them get into the data center. Oracle and Sybase do really benefit from 64-bit processors. We have dozens of databases with hundreds of terabytes of data in each of them, and we rely on 64-bit Sybase and IBM Regatta to deal with it.

64-bit is NOT just about memory addressing. It's about register sizes, bus widths, ALU logical unit sizes, and more. If the compiler is wel optimized, it will result in faster computing.

The PPC 970 is good for a lot of other reasons too. It has more ALUs, so it can do more and better branch prediction. It has a second AltiVec vector processing unit on each chip, so AltiVec functions will be up to twice as fast as and equivalent G4. And it supports 2:1 bus speeds, so instead of a 133MHz bus we'll have a 900MHz-1GHz bus, which means that we'll be moving twice as many bits at a time, and moving them 7.5 times as fast.

Don't forget DB and SAP!

DaGuy · Jun 21, 2003, 12:21 AM

Originally posted by schuey100:

Therefore, the assumption that the trend is for larger db's (which is of course correct) is completely irrelevant as they do not exist on the Mac.

Dang, in order to lift more weight you need the muscles to do it. You don't see any of those apps on the mac becuase it never had the muscle or the precense in those markets.

At the moment I have Oracle 9i and tested a bunch of J2EE application servers on MacOSX.
You would've never seen these on MacOS9. You build it and they will (well at least some) come.

klinux · Jun 21, 2003, 01:13 AM

Originally posted by Arkham_c:
I work at and have worked at major Fortune 500 companies, and I've never heard of most of these.

There is a good reason why you have not heard of most of the programs listed. This is because reporting solutions and OLAP do not benefit from 64-bit computing in as much having a fast database. I work at a Fortune 500 company doing datawarehousing with multiple databases each with multiple million row fact tables. [Oracle 9i and MS SQL Server].

I agree with most of what you said except you overempasized the role a 64-bit CPU plays.

As for the comparison of a V12 and V6 to 64 vs 32 bit CPU, that is so wrong and stupid on so many levels. Would people stop frigging comparing everything to cars?!

klinux · Jun 21, 2003, 01:25 AM

I still see many people here who equates 64-bit to being automatically faster - that is incorrect.

" The take-home point here is that only applications that require and use 64-bit integers will see a performance increase on 64-bit hardware that is due solely to a 64-bit processor's wider registers and increased dynamic range. So there's no magical performance boost inherent in the move from 32 bits to 64 bits, as people are often led to think by journalists who write things like, "64-bit computers can processes twice as much data per clock cycle as their 32-bit counterparts." Technically, this is true in a very restricted sense, but it would be better to say the following: "64-bit computers can process numbers that are 4.3 billion times as large as those processed by their 32-bit counterparts." It sounds a lot less sexy because it is, but at least no one is misled into thinking that 64-bitness makes a computer somehow twice as fast."

- Jon Stokes, CPU write for Ars Technia
http://arstechnica.com/cpu/03q1/x86-64/x86-64-1.html

DaGuy · Jun 21, 2003, 02:43 AM

Yes 64 bits doesn't mean an automatic speed boost but you can be sure that if some associated hardware optimazations need to be done to get solid performance gains then they will be done. Isn't that a reasonable overall objective for bringing in the new architecture?

Tyler McAdams · Jun 21, 2003, 03:57 AM

Originally posted by DaGuy:
Yes 64 bits doesn't mean an automatic speed boost but you can be sure that if some associated hardware optimizations need to be done to get solid performance gains then they will be done. Isn't that a reasonable overall objective for bringing in the new architecture?

Bottom line, nobody here has a Phd in microprocessing (if so please correct me) But, 64bits is something that applications can be optimized for... or rewritten entirely. Looked at from that perspective it's just another way to get more out of your processing through optimization.

jock · Jun 21, 2003, 05:06 AM

Apple use SAP. As for the enterprise apps, well we use cognos and its contstantly in a state of beta and is bloody expensive, does have some nice features though (powerplay only as impromptu can be covered by access). Down here in Australia you might have read that Misrosoft is losing market share ( Telstra/ Ballmer visit this year) , primarily to *nix in the server region. On the health front there is a move to remove all IIS servers and replace them with any version of *nix and that includes the macintosh. This is almost unheard of but someone in the ivory tower of IT has done their homework.
As for your comment Scheuy100 re who will use the 64bit os, I'll tell you any video or audio professional, head over to arstechnica and read Hannibals articles and you'll get the drift.

schuey100 · Jun 21, 2003, 05:24 AM

Originally posted by jock:
Apple use SAP. As for the enterprise apps, well we use cognos and its contstantly in a state of beta and is bloody expensive, does have some nice features though (powerplay only as impromptu can be covered by access). Down here in Australia you might have read that Misrosoft is losing market share ( Telstra/ Ballmer visit this year) , primarily to *nix in the server region. On the health front there is a move to remove all IIS servers and replace them with any version of *nix and that includes the macintosh. This is almost unheard of but someone in the ivory tower of IT has done their homework.
As for your comment Scheuy100 re who will use the 64bit os, I'll tell you any video or audio professional, head over to arstechnica and read Hannibals articles and you'll get the drift.

Apple use SAP? As far as I am aware SAP do not support OS9 or X? Do they?? It's also very strange that Apple chose to go with SAP considering their US market penetration. It's very very very low compared to some of the other big boys. I will be speaking to SAP on Monday and I'll get more info on what exactly and how Apple use SAP.

Cognos isn't a bad choice at all. I'me suprised you say they are constantly in Beta. You are right, it's VERY expensive

Powerplay is excellent although PowerPlay as a stand-alone, client-based OLAP tool I'm not sure about. I guess you'd have more success running it as a client to Cognos�s own PowerPlay Enterprise Server. Of cousre Client platform support is 32-bit Windows only, plus Excel and thin-client Web (with restricted functionality).

schuey100 · Jun 21, 2003, 05:30 AM

Originally posted by DaGuy:
At the moment I have Oracle 9i and tested a bunch of J2EE application servers on MacOSX.
You would've never seen these on MacOS9. You build it and they will (well at least some) come.

You have the 9i OLAP? I feel for you

Whatever made you go for 9i? Are you running R1 or R2? I believe R3 will ddress many of the failings of both R1 and 2 but of course we can't be sure until we've seen it. Actually, come to think of it, Express Server 6.x is available on Windows NT 4 (Intel and Alpha) and a number of Unix platforms (Sun Solaris, IBM AIX, HP-UX, Compaq Tru 64, Sequent/IBM Dynix, Siemens SINIX, DG Aviion).

Windows NT and Solaris are the lead development platforms though.

Angus_D · Jun 21, 2003, 05:40 AM

Originally posted by schuey100:
Sorry, you may have misread..I said competition

Linux has a bigger marketshare than OS X.

schuey100 · Jun 21, 2003, 06:02 AM

Originally posted by Angus_D:
Linux has a bigger marketshare than OS X.

Of course it has. Which is why there is no competition.

Tyler McAdams · Jun 21, 2003, 06:02 AM

Originally posted by schuey100:
You have the 9i OLAP? I feel for you Whatever made you go for 9i? Are you running R1 or R2? I believe R3 will ddress many of the failings of both R1 and 2 but of course we can't be sure until we've seen it. Actually, come to think of it, Express Server 6.x is available on Windows NT 4 (Intel and Alpha) and a number of Unix platforms (Sun Solaris, IBM AIX, HP-UX, Compaq Tru 64, Sequent/IBM Dynix, Siemens SINIX, DG Aviion).

Windows NT and Solaris are the lead development platforms though.

DB2 *would* be nice...

Angus_D · Jun 21, 2003, 06:25 AM

Originally posted by schuey100:
Of course it has. Which is why there is no competition.

I don't understand. OS X is competing with Linux. Many Linux users have switched to OS X because it gives them a nice, consistent UI with big-name applications as well as the power and flexibility of their favourite *nix.

Simon · Jun 21, 2003, 08:03 AM

Originally posted by Angus_D:
Many Linux users have switched to OS X because it gives them a nice, consistent UI with big-name applications as well as the power and flexibility of their favourite *nix.

I believe this when it comes to home users and the personal environment. On the other hand we have to wonder if these are just switch-backs from people who jumped the Mac ship a few years ago or if these are really die-hard x86 users that are going Mac as a first...

But have you heard something like this on the corporate level? I mean, have we ever heard something like "Oracle is switching from Linux development PCs to Macs running OS X" or something similar? I haven't yet (unfortunately).

schuey100 · Jun 21, 2003, 08:59 AM

Exactly the point Simon. It's not the home user we are arguing about here. It's the corporate level we need to consider.I just can't see vendors developinng for the Mac platform.

Arkham_c · 10:18 PM

Originally posted by Tyler McAdams:
Don't forget DB and SAP!

I assume you mean DB2. DB2 is comparable to Oracle or Sybase, so the same applies to it.

SAP in the sense that most people think of it is not a database, it's an ERP system (ERP = Enterprise Resource Planning). SAP's ERP runs on top or Oracle, Sybase, or DB2. ERP systems are huge, and do everything from asset management to inventory control to payroll. They're big, bloated, complex programs thst require expensive consultants to set up.

With that said, Apple will eventually want to woo ERP companies. They include:

Oracle 11i ERP
SAP
PeopleSoft

There are smaller ones as well (Microsoft, JD Edwards), but the big three are those I just mentioned. At my previous employer, we looked at all three and ended up with Oracle 11i, but it was pretty crappy when we actually got into implementation. I suspect they are all pretty nasty underneath.

[edit: Resource, not Release]

schuey100 · Jun 21, 2003, 09:24 AM

Sap is an interesting one. It has the most loyal user base, (as seen in the OLAP Survey 2) yet is the most expensive and time consuming product to implement. (Which is why consultants like it so much) Very rarely does it meet any prior business goals.

Source, http://www.optimamedia.co.uk/Busines...EPBTROLS021201

Zim · Jun 21, 2003, 09:34 AM

Wouldn't 64 bit also mean fewer memory accesses? (ie. instead of 2 32 loads, now you need 1 64 bit load).

Perhaps that is nullified with modern caches already?

Mike

ThisGuy · Jun 21, 2003, 10:02 AM

will any of this 64 bit mumbo jumbo allow us to download Mp3's or porno any faster via Acquisition? if not, then why do you guys care?

klinux · Jun 21, 2003, 07:18 PM

Originally posted by Tyler McAdams:
B But, 64bits is something that applications can be optimized for... or rewritten entirely. Looked at from that perspective it's just another way to get more out of your processing through optimization.

That is a common misunderstanding and it is still incorrect. If you have a 32 bit application and that's all it needs (32 bit), it will not run any faster on a 64 bit platform even if it is rewritten for a 64 bit OS.

The Placid Casual · 06:21 AM

A a note to newbies on the topic, 64 Bitness allows for one hell of a lot more RAM than the 8 Gig of the new Powermacs...

I suspect that this arbitrary limit is only because there are allegedly 8 slots on the up coming Powermacs, and the max RAM stick at the moment is 1Gig... Once we get RAM modules of more than 1Gig, the limit will in accordance increase dramatically...

Also look oout for the Apple/Oracle announcement on Monday... Looks like it could be interesting.