 |
 |
64 bit in Leopard also for G5?
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: France
Status:
Offline
|
|
Is the PowerMac G5 going to enjoy the 64 bits in Leopard, or will that be an Intel-only thing?
Thanks.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Northwest Ohio
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Appleman 
Is the PowerMac G5 going to enjoy the 64 bits in Leopard, or will that be an Intel-only thing?
Thanks.
Yes, the 64-bitness of Leopard will work just fine on a G5.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Baltimore
Status:
Offline
|
|
That's good to hear. His Steveness seemed intent on attributing all his 64-bit advantages to Intels. I was wondering if those of us on the PPC side would see any benefit.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: In front of my LCD
Status:
Offline
|
|
Am I wrong, or was Tiger already 64-bit?
|
|
8GB iPhone
Coming Soon: Mac mini Core 2 Duo 2.0Ghz
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by stwain2003
Am I wrong, or was Tiger already 64-bit?
Tiger itself, yes. Many of the system frameworks were not, though. Now it's possible to have graphical 64-bit apps.
|
|
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status:
Offline
|
|
The benefits of 64-bit will be few and far between, on both platforms.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by mduell
The benefits of 64-bit will be few and far between, on both platforms.
This is truth. But where it does help, it will help a lot.
|
|
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator  Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status:
Offline
|
|
As Steve has shown, it helps whenever an app (or more generally the system) needs more than 4 GB of RAM. 64 bit means two things: 64 bit integers (which are usually not that useful) and 64 bit memory address space, i. e. the ability to work with more than 4 GB RAM directly.
So for people with huge Aperture libraries, this might be good news. However, unlike mduell, I think Apple has a big edge here: the biggest obstacle to 64 bit Windows are drivers. Basically you can forget about `old' hardware. You have to handpick your system to be compatible as drivers (this includes scanners and printers as well) need to be 64 bit. I can even run drivers which are PowerPC binaries on my ProBook. So on Windows you only use the 64 bit version if you really have to. There is no such hurdle here.
|
|
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status:
Offline
|
|
For the 32-bit drivers, how does that work anyway? Why is there no limitation on running 32-bit and 64-bit commands side-by-side? To put it another way, why is this borked in Vista?
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
It's "borked" in Vista because Microsoft has more backwards compatibility baggage then Apple that they carry, and their move to 64bit is one of their attempts to shed some of it. They removed the 16 bit compatibility in 64 bit Windows, and that breaks some things because people were lazy and never jumped to 32 bit. They locked down drivers to make things a bit more stable, so that blocks out crappy drivers, a common source of blue screens. Drivers inherently have to match the kernel of the system, and be 64 bit aware to run on a 64 bit system due to possible memory spaces above 4 gigs for the device, so 32 bit drivers don't work for this reason.
Apple is doing better because the OS came neatly packaged for multiple architectures from the beginning. Microsoft on the other hand has never stayed with a non x86 version of Windows to add such portability into the code, even though Windows has run on a variety of processors over the years. PowerPC, SPARC, Alpha, Itanium (and including WinCE code) StrongArm and a few others I Can't remember off the top of my head.
|
|
<This space under renovation>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Washington, DC
Status:
Offline
|
|
I wonder how much RAM Photoshop will need in 10 years. Will Photoshop even exist? Scary to think about...
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: France
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by krove
I wonder how much RAM Photoshop will need in 10 years. Will Photoshop even exist? Scary to think about...
In ten years we'll all be flying with our 3D-Segways through the skies 
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
|
|
|
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
