I read about this on another site a WEEK AGO!

Welcome to CrapNN

Why would anyone actually think that Panther was going to be a full out 64-bit OS? To be a fully 64-bit OS ALL system APIs have to be revved to be able to handle a 64-bit pointer. And to maintain compatability with existing 32-bit code ALL system APIs have to also exist in a 32-bit form. This alone doubles the amount of code in the system that must be maintained and kept around. And the 32-bit mode that the 970 has just reverts the mentioned address mapping table to the 16 entries that existed in all other PowerPCs. Big Deal. That only means that Applications can't access more than 4GB each, the system however has always been able to access more than 4GB of ram due to the virtual memory system - I've seen times when my system has known about more than 6 GB of memory in use (not necessarily that much being used).

So anyone thinking that 10.3 would be a complete back to front 64-bit OS is smoking some good stuff. I wouldn't expect a completely 64-bit OS until at least 10.4.

Of course Panther is not a 64-bit OS! How could it be, and run on older or new non-G5 machines? Helllloooooo?

A true and complete 64-bit OS + apps is probably at least two years away, at a dead minimum.

That doesn't mean we won't kick Windows' a** for the next two years, of course -- we will.

The OS does not need to be 64bit for apps to run in 64Bit mode. 64Bit apps will be programmed to throw data directly to the processor. A good example of this is the Velocity-Engine which is 128Bit and runs under a 32Bit OS.

Most video cards are 256bit nowadays, and they smoke the older 128bit video cards. So somehow going to higher bits makes a difference. What most people here fail to realize is that the G5 can handle information in 64bit chunks instead of 32bit chunks and that in itself gives it increased bandwidth. More bandwidth equates to more performance. If what people here are saying were to be true that 64 bit does not increase performance, then why did computers in general migrate from 8 bit to 16 bit in the '80s to 32 bit in the '90s to 64 bit in the '00s? Why, because that is how to increase performance. If we are to believe those people who want to live in their 32 bit fantasy world, then computers should regress back to 8 bit as there would be no performance hit. Ha ha, what a bunch of nuckle heads!

At least it's not going to be a 2-bit OS like any version of Windows...

Hahahahahahah!

Quote: "The OS does not need to be 64bit for apps to run in 64Bit mode. 64Bit apps will be programmed to throw data directly to the processor. A good example of this is the Velocity-Engine which is 128Bit and runs under a 32Bit OS."

You must be seriously high. Do you even understand CPU and OS design? Programs don't make direct calls to the CPU. That's the whole point of an operating system. The OS interfaces with the CPU and hardware to give the user a usable environment in which to write and run programs that use the hardware to operate.

If apps could be programmed to "throw" data to the processor in the manner to which you are referring to, why would you need an Operating System?

Programs need the OS to allocate the process/memory space and necessary threads when requested (among other things) to them in order to execute. If the OS can't understand 64-bit addressing, how is it supposed to allocate 64-bit memory addresses to the 64-bit application?

The reason why the Velocity engine can handle 128-bit instructions is because Apple wrote a language (Altivec) and put Altivec code INTO the OS to handle it.

You're not going to see 64-bit Mac applications until a 64-bit version of the Mac OS appears.

"You're not going to see 64-bit Mac applications until a 64-bit version of the Mac OS appears."

There appears to be a lot of confusion about the 64bitness of Panther. To clarify :

1) There is 64bit code in Panther that WILL enable execution of 64bit apps.

2) Much of Panther itself will still be running 32bit code.

3) It is hard to predict how soon we will see any major software vendors release 64bit apps.

Listen the reason is quite simple, I don't even understand why they even mention it...

It is like this, if the new system would be 64-bit, none of the old machines would be able to use it...They need to clear some of those old machines before going full 64-bit.

Yes, there would be a ton of stuff the 32-bit would be missing out on... So they will wait till most of their product lines will be adapted to the 64-bit in one way or another. Then market those that are not with less features...

That is they say is that...

two facts:
1. IRIX on SGI is 64 bit. Maya for IRIX is a 32 bit program; somehow no one worries about this in Hollywood post shops or at A|W.
2. The G5 will most likely run Mac programs very fast indeed.

Good news for modern Macs. Who cares about anything else.

Of course Apple wouldn't make Panther 64-bit. I'd say only about 5% of its market will buy a G5 very soon (although I'm tempted...), so making Panther a 64-bit app would be like Microsoft deciding to stop making software that runs on Windows and going Mac-only. It's dumb to even think it would be 64.

Apple codenames OS 10.2.7 as "Smeagol". In response to the announcement, Microsoft codenames Windows 2004 as "Sauron".

This explains why someone from Apple said the G5 allows up to 4 MB *per process*. In other words, the OS itself can manage whatever the physical address space is, with basically each application being limited to 32 bits of address space.

Make that "8GB requires 33 bits" and "4 GB *per process*. :)

Here's a good site for everyone that wants the real skinny on 64 bit computing. You might be surprised at what you see here:
http://www.igeek.com/articles/Hardware/Processors/64bits.txt

enjoy-

" You must be seriously high. Do you even understand CPU and OS design? Programs don't make direct calls to the CPU. That's the whole point of an operating system. The OS interfaces with the CPU and hardware to give the user a usable environment in which to write and run programs that use the hardware to operate. "

Uhm... before you insult others, you should make sure you are correct so you don't look stupid. A program is perfectly capable of making direct CPU calls. Ever heard of assembly language? The OS can, however, use the MMU (memory management unit) on the CPU to act as a "traffic cop" to allow for protected memory (user spaces), etc. You can make direct CPU calls, but if you try something the naughty like trample another app's memory, the OS, together with the MMU on the CPU will stop you from doing it.

Man, you guys are some dazed and confused folks. It looks to me like Apple could announce that then G5 was going to run at "half-speed" and you guys would proudly state:"Yeah, it aint how fast my computer is, but how cool it looks gettin' there." Don't you know when you're being played? Same thing is happening on the Intel side with the Itanium. The Itanium is a 64bit processor that actually runs existing OS/Software (non updated) slower than the Xeon. Don't you remember that Apple has never managed to get the OS optimized for the G4, and neither has Adobe? Why should we run out and buy a G5 when after three years the software hasn't even been updated for G4? I can't wait to see a real speed test between a G5 and a Xeon, or the Itanium. The G5 will be cool in two years when you can buy software for it! Get real! It was the same deal when they moved from the G3 to G4. The G4 is a G3 speedwise when running an app that doesn't take advantage of the AltiVec--like the OS itself AND most of Photoshop. Please don't support these fake upgrades until they do something real!

I don't know about the Xeon but to me, the coolest thing I know of is Freon... Okay, I'll go to bed now ;-)

You both are smokin' some fine stuff there. When you write a program that links to precompiled libraries, such as those provided by the APIs of the OS you are working in, then your code becomes machine code and runs in the processor of the machine while the linked libraries (precompiled execution code) also run in the processor. If you write most of your code in ANSI C, for example, all that code runs in the processor, and is not "interpreted" by the OS. If it was it would run very slow, like Java. But ANSI C is nothing more than a library too. Writing in Assembler is the surest way to manipulate data in cpu registers and is technique for optimizing a program that runs too slow through the standard APIs and libraries. The bottom line is that a programmer can make direct cpu calls.

The G5 is faster than the G4. Whether or not the OS is "optimized" it is faster - that's why people are buying it.

BTW, please tell us which code needs to be optimized and how you would go about optimizing it.

"Why should we run out and buy a G5 when after three years the software hasn't even been updated for G4? I can't wait to see a real speed test between a G5 and a Xeon, or the Itanium. The G5 will be cool in two years when you can buy software for it! Get real! It was the same deal when they moved from the G3 to G4. The G4 is a G3 speedwise when running an app that doesn't take advantage of the AltiVec--like the OS itself AND most of Photoshop. Please don't support these fake upgrades until they do something real!"

GET A CLUE!!!

The change from G4 to G5 is much more signifigant than the change from G3 to G4 --- and the biggest improvement has NOTHING to do with 64bit computing. There are a lot of new architectural changes in the G5 that put it above and beyond a G4.

ANOTHER CLUE FOR YOU :
32bit code runs faster on a G5 than it does on a G4 regardless of whether or not it has been optimized for the G5. The G5 has native handling of 32bit code as well as 64bit code. The problem with Itanium is that it DOES NOT handle 32bit code natively; the Itanium has to go into a kind of emulation mode. That is not the case for the G5. All current OS X apps already run signifigantly faster on a G5 without G5 optimization, but G5 optimization is also coming sooner than you think. G5 optimization of Photoshop will be out when the G5s start shipping. Several other apps are scheduled to be G5 optimized by the end of the year.

GOOD THINGS COME IN THREES :
Disregarding all other advancements in the G5, the 2Ghz G5 has almost 50% more Mhz than the 1.4Ghz G4. Even if your lame ignorant ideas regarding the G5 advantages were true, the Mhz alone would make the new G5 Macs signifigantly faster than the G4 systems.

Anyone who thinks that OS X is not heavily optimized for G4s is extremely ignorant or insane. Likewise for if you think that the G5s are not going to run EVERYTHING faster than the G4s.

Well put. I think Apple should start shipping a very low end machine with a 601 processor for those that think the new G5 is no better than a G3. Or better yet, make a machine with dual 68040's because, heck, RISC processing is really just a fake upgrade altogether, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

Look sonny, if you're going to sit back in your big old easy chair and try to think of ways to inflame the users here, at least make it a reasonable argument. Trying to say that the upgrades that Apple has made to their line of personal computers have not improved anything is patently ridiculous.
If you can't think of anything better than that, then at least try and be humorous. Arguments like yours make me think that you're just another Windows-hugging nancy-boy looking for a little attention before your mommy turns out the light.

Don't worry about replying. I know I'm right...

It's simple. Really really really simple. It's so simple that many of you will probably completely misunderstand what I tell you.

A 64-bit program is one that can access 2^64 bytes of memory. That is, 16 exabytes of RAM (not 18, at least, not the way we've used SI prefixes for bytes for the last 20+ years)

That is it. Nothing more nor less. If your program uses a 64-bit pointer, then you are a 64-bit program. If you do not, you are not.

Panther, as far as anyone knows, does not support 64-bit programs. It does require kernal drivers to be 64-bit clean (i.e. capable of dealing with 64-bit pointers).

Apple is gaining sense over competitive stubborness

I think i rember some looser saying something about 640k is more than enough ram for anything we'll ever need. The same is probly true about processors, untill some quantum/optical proccessors are availible (affordable) to the public. I can see some 5 year old kid maxing out a 128bit computer in a few years.

if you think 32bits is more than enough
"your too slow, your in demand, and your in denial"

damn ppl imagine how long it will take then to make games s*** like SOF or Q3A i bet the graphics will be better but not many ppl are going to have 64bit systems cause it is not going to be cheap cause
damn it fuking costs $800 for a 64 bit AMD processor
that is just the F**** processor