 |
 |
Darwin/OS X will be true 64-bit when? X.4, X.5?
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status:
Offline
|
|
So the scientists are already complaining that in OS X a single app cannot make use of more than 4 GB memory (even though the OS can).
So when do you expect OS X to go true 64-bit (or 42-bit or whatever)? OS X 10.4? 10.5?
I sure hope it doesn't require a 64-bit fork of the OS. (I'm guessing not.)
In the meantime, < 2 GB is fine for basically everything I personally run... for now. 2005 might be quite a different story though.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2002
Status:
Offline
|
|
It's quite a lot of work.. but the OS X internals are fairly future-proof. I expect we won't need to wait for X.5.
|
|
[vash:~] banana% killall killall
Terminated
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status:
Offline
|
|
Even if it is a lot of work to update the OS to 64 bit it isn't hard to update the OS (even core components) so assuming Apple is working on this it could well be a part of a 10.3.x release.
Unless Apple wants to cash in on the whole 64-bit OS thing. :/
|
|
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Columbia, MD
Status:
Offline
|
|
I thought that applications could be recompiled for OSX/g5 so that it can allocate more than 4Gb.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by rogerkylin:
I thought that applications could be recompiled for OSX/g5 so that it can allocate more than 4Gb.
No, according to Apple, if I understand the explanations correctly.
The OS is 8 GB (or 16 GB) aware, but doesn't currently allow any single app to make use of more than 4 GB at a time. You could have 2 separate apps under OS X use 4 GB though.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Columbia, MD
Status:
Offline
|
|
..nevermind, got the link.. ... that sucks
(Last edited by rogerkylin; Sep 30, 2003 at 01:43 PM.
)
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Woodridge, IL
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by rogerkylin:
..nevermind, got the link.. ... that sucks
Such is life with 32-bit pointers. However, I doubt this will impact all that many people in the short run (how many of you have more than 4GB  ).
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by diamondsw:
Such is life with 32-bit pointers. However, I doubt this will impact all that many people in the short run (how many of you have more than 4GB ).
Well, not me, and I probably won't for a couple of years. I'm just asking because I want to know just for my own edification.
However, like I said in my original post, it's seriously annoying some of the science-types who have to work with GOBS of data. That's why Apple's Ernest Prabhakar posted that message which I linked above.
The 4 GB barrier is a real one, and Darwin is oh-so-close to breaking it with uber-fast 64-bit consumer chips already shipping, and an OS with some 64-bit mods, including 42-bit addressing for the OS. But the 4 GB barrier is still there.
In contrast, one can run 64-bit Linux for scientific applications with the Opteron. No such Linux exists for the G5. (Yellow Dog is 32-bit.)
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top
