[stevesnj]

I don't remember reading or hearing anything about this. Maybe this was what Apple gave up to switch to Intel.

[Agasthya]

32 bit

[mduell]

32 bit

I have yet to hear a good reason for 64-bit in a machine that supports 4GB RAM (or less).

[The Godfather]

No researcher is going to want a Mac to build a supercomputer cluster ever again.

[Kerrigan]

Why do researchers like slower computers?

[himself]

Originally Posted by The Godfather

No researcher is going to want a Mac to build a supercomputer cluster ever again.

true dat

[Leia's Left Bun]

Are any future Intel chips 64 bit? Non-server based chips that is.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by The Godfather

No researcher is going to want a Mac to build a supercomputer cluster ever again.

i agree.

Also...is it just me or does "MacBook Pro" soun rather cheap ? it sounds too peecee-ish imo. im gonna miss the "Power" prefix. <sigh>

[JoshuaZ]

Powerbook sounded sexy.

[himself]

Originally Posted by JoshuaZ

Powerbook sounded sexy.

Chicks dig Power.






*grunt* *grunt* *grunt*

[JoshuaZ]

chicks also dig books.

[Kerrigan]

But da Mac gots teh power

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by Leia's Left Bun

Are any future Intel chips 64 bit? Non-server based chips that is.

i hope so. how is a 64-bit slower than a 32-bit chip? forgive my ignorance, but isn't a 64-bit chip able to do two

Code:
int

calculations to the 32-bit's one? and vice-versa it takes a 32-bit twice as long to calculate a

Code:
long

than a 64-bit chip?

i understand that 64-bit is more than any normal user needs, esp. for GUI, but for those working with long datasets, it probably helps, no?

[SVass]

Double precision numbers are represented by 64 bits (see ANSI/IEEE STD 754). If you have a 64 bit bus and a 64 bit processor, then double precision math is faster. Supercomputers are used for math. Actually, extended double precision requires 80 bits. sam

[SpaceMonkey]

Actually what happens is that 64-bit systems secrete viruses that attack 32-bit systems and automatically make them twice as slow as they were when they were originally purchased. So when 64-bit MacBook Pros are actually released, anyone who bought one of the current MacBook Pros will find their tasks taking twice as long as they used to. Actually with the Duos it's even easier for the 64-bit systems to use their viruses, because all they have to do is disable one of the cores.

It's true.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by black bear theory

how is a 64-bit slower than a 32-bit chip?

In 64 bit each instruction is twice as large so the same program is twice as large as in 32 bit and therefore only half as much of program code fits into the processor's cache. With less program code cached 64 bit is slower.

[Leia's Left Bun]

It isn't that 32 bit is slower but it doesn't support as much RAM.

[BrunoBruin]

Merom, the next-generation chip from Intel due later this year, is 64-bit. It's clocked higher and supports a faster bus than the Yonah Apple is using now as well, and I THINK it's even better on power consumption. (Conroe is the 64-bit desktop chip, also due later this year; Merom and Conroe are dual-core as well.)

My guess is that the plan was to use Merom in the "PowerBooks" all along, but they brought the 15-inch forward and used Yonah. It's a nice notebook, but it does have the whiff of Yikes! about it. It's basically the G4 case with Intel innards. It's certainly not the revolutionary, thin, light notebook we were told to expect with the switch to Intel. I think we'll see those later this year - a full family of sizes, plus a more thoroughly revamped 15-inch.

[Leia's Left Bun]

I wonder what they will use in the Intel Towers as it would be hard to go back to supporting only 4 Gigs of RAM.

[TheoCryst]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

Actually what happens is that 64-bit systems secrete viruses that attack 32-bit systems and automatically make them twice as slow as they were when they were originally purchased. So when 64-bit MacBook Pros are actually released, anyone who bought one of the current MacBook Pros will find their tasks taking twice as long as they used to. Actually with the Duos it's even easier for the 64-bit systems to use their viruses, because all they have to do is disable one of the cores.

It's true.

GASP! Conspiracy!!! Now we will all have to buy newer and better Macs when they come out! Oh, woe is me...

[BrunoBruin]

Originally Posted by Leia's Left Bun

I wonder what they will use in the Intel Towers as it would be hard to go back to supporting only 4 Gigs of RAM.

Conroe. 64-bit and shipping mid-year.

[production_coordinator]

Originally Posted by Leia's Left Bun

I wonder what they will use in the Intel Towers as it would be hard to go back to supporting only 4 Gigs of RAM.

I wouldn't put it past them... and I don't mean that in a bad way...

While the 4GB limit is a big deal for a number of people... many "power users" use well under that amount. I'm guessing that the PowerMac will be one of the last systems they update with the hope that they will get the 64 bit CPU in there.

[jcadam]

EM64T (intel's version of the AMD x86-64 extensions) ain't in that there intel core duo. Remember it's based on the Pentium M - a 32-bit laptop chip. I imagine Apple is waiting on Conroe - a beefed up desktop-version of the Pentium-M that DOES support EM64T, to release the MacTel towers...

[wdlove]

IMHO the most important would be having software that will make use of the 64 bit.

[Tomchu]

It's not about the double-precision, it's not about the total addressable RAM ... it's all about the registers. 32-bit x86 is in a tight spot when it comes to CPU registers, which is why the PPC processors were considerably better when compared against an equivalent x86 generation. AMD64 (x86-64) adds many more registers to the instruction set, which automatically increases performance for 64-bit applications compiled by a smart compiler.

It's a shame that the MacBook Pro is stuck with a cheesy x86 32-bit CPU, even if it is fast.

[Chuckit]

Conroe is supposed to be comparable to an AMD64 chip as far as registers go, I believe. Doesn't really affect the Scottish Laptop, but at least the desktop line won't suffer.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by Tomchu

It's a shame that the MacBook Pro is stuck with a cheesy x86 32-bit CPU, even if it is fast.

What do you mean by "it's stuck"? Is Intel not able to make any progress any more?

It sucks that as soon as Apple uses one chip the chipmaker is getting problems and we are stuck without significant improvements for years.
The same happened with the Motorola G4 and the IBM G5.

[Chuckit]

Erm…round these parts, the phrase "stuck with" usually means "forced to accept something bad."

[cheruman]

Originally Posted by wdlove

IMHO the most important would be having software that will make use of the 64 bit.

Exactly

Originally Posted by The Godfather

No researcher is going to want a Mac to build a supercomputer cluster ever again.

Researchers aren't exactly building supercomputers out of iMacs and PowerBooks today. Do you honestly think that the Intel replacement for the PowerMac G5 and XServe G5 isn't going to have a 64-bit Intel chip? Ever?

[Cadaver]

Originally Posted by Leia's Left Bun

Are any future Intel chips 64 bit? Non-server based chips that is.

Yes. Many of them are. Certainly the desktop-oriented chips (not out yet) are, and I think the next round of mobile processors are, too.