32 bit vista can't address more than 3.1-3.5 GB RAM
Jesper
to access more than 3.1-3.5 GB RAM. M$ wants people to buy their
expensive server solutions to run apps requirering more than approx 3.1
GB of RAM. Furthermore 64 bit vista is unable to run 32 bit apps. In
Leopard the support is seemless!
--
Jesper
- Jeg sover godt om natten, når han passer på mine penge.
Naser Khader om Anders Fogh Rasmussen.
http://theextract.blogspot.com/
Snit
1i9jjbb.8b3wm1hxq73uN%spamb...@users.toughguy.net on 12/22/07 1:22 PM:
> Of a modern OS, Vista is surprisingly oldfashioned: 32 bit vista fails
> to access more than 3.1-3.5 GB RAM. M$ wants people to buy their
> expensive server solutions to run apps requirering more than approx 3.1
> GB of RAM. Furthermore 64 bit vista is unable to run 32 bit apps. In
> Leopard the support is seemless!
I got 4 GB of RAM for my Mac and just took it for granted that modern OSs
would accept it with no problem. Amazing.
--
One who makes no mistakes, never makes anything.
Daniel Johnson
"Jesper" <spamb...@users.toughguy.net> wrote in message
news:1i9jjbb.8b3wm1hxq73uN%spamb...@users.toughguy.net...
> Of a modern OS, Vista is surprisingly oldfashioned: 32 bit vista fails
> to access more than 3.1-3.5 GB RAM.
Vista supports memory mapped hardware that uses some of the address space
that RAM might otherwise occupy. That hardware needs to be placed in the low
4GB where you RAM would be.
Theoretically, you can remap that extra RAM above the 4GB mark, and more
recent x86 chips can actually access it, even in 32-bit mode. XP tried to do
this, but it never worked very well. You need hardware support to do that
remapping, and even if you have it, many drivers have bugs that are exposed
when you do this.
And what you get for that all trouble is more disk cache. You still don't
get more than 3GB per process, tops.
> M$ wants people to buy their
> expensive server solutions to run apps requirering more than approx 3.1
> GB of RAM.
No. They also offer 64-bit versions of Windows Vista. Same price as 32-bit,
and you get 64-bit everything.
That is what Microsoft wants people to buy.
> Furthermore 64 bit vista is unable to run 32 bit apps. In
> Leopard the support is seemless!
64-bit Vista can run 32-bit apps, of course. Leopard supports 32-bit apps
seamlessly because it is a 32-bit OS, so it's only natural it so do so. It's
not quite so good at the 64-bit stuff, though.
PC Guy
"Jesper" <spamb...@users.toughguy.net> wrote in message
news:1i9jjbb.8b3wm1hxq73uN%spamb...@users.toughguy.net...
> to access more than 3.1-3.5 GB RAM. M$ wants people to buy their
> expensive server solutions to run apps requirering more than approx 3.1
> GB of RAM. Furthermore 64 bit vista is unable to run 32 bit apps. In
> Leopard the support is seemless!
Not another Mactard here to demonstrate to everyone how stupid they are.
This is not a limitation due to Vista but is found in 32 bit operating
systems. With a 32 bit address space a maximum of 4GB can be accessed
directly. Hardware and software has to share this 4GB address space along
with the OS and user applications. The amount of RAM directly accessible to
a 32 bit OS is dependent on many factors one of which is the memory consumed
by various hardware. With video cards having 256MB - 512MB of video memory
this address space is mapped into the 4GB space thus reducing RAM by a
corresponding amount. With a 512MB video card your 4GB of RAM drops to 3.5GB
from this one card alone. Add in the overhead of other devices and the
operating system itself and available RAM for user programs shrinks even
futher. Again this is NOT a Vista specific problem but a limitation of 32
bit operating systems. If you want all of your memory then use a 64 bit OS.
Unlike OS X Vista is offered in a 100% 64 bit edition.
Tommy Troll
> "Jesper" <spambus...@users.toughguy.net> wrote in message
It's simple math. 2^32 = 4,294,967,296 (4gb) unique binary addresses.
2^64 = 18,446,744,073,709,600,000. We should not need to add more ram
than that, even for OS X, for quite some time.
Snit
13mqv57...@news.supernews.com on 12/22/07 2:07 PM:
>
> "Jesper" <spamb...@users.toughguy.net> wrote in message
> news:1i9jjbb.8b3wm1hxq73uN%spamb...@users.toughguy.net...
>> Of a modern OS, Vista is surprisingly oldfashioned: 32 bit vista fails
>> to access more than 3.1-3.5 GB RAM.
>
> Vista supports memory mapped hardware that uses some of the address space
> that RAM might otherwise occupy. That hardware needs to be placed in the low
> 4GB where you RAM would be.
>
> Theoretically, you can remap that extra RAM above the 4GB mark, and more
> recent x86 chips can actually access it, even in 32-bit mode. XP tried to do
> this, but it never worked very well. You need hardware support to do that
> remapping, and even if you have it, many drivers have bugs that are exposed
> when you do this.
>
> And what you get for that all trouble is more disk cache. You still don't
> get more than 3GB per process, tops.
>
>> M$ wants people to buy their
>> expensive server solutions to run apps requirering more than approx 3.1
>> GB of RAM.
>
> No. They also offer 64-bit versions of Windows Vista. Same price as 32-bit,
> and you get 64-bit everything.
>
> That is what Microsoft wants people to buy.
You were talking about Apple's transitions... how well do you think MS is
transitioning to 64 bit?
>
>> Furthermore 64 bit vista is unable to run 32 bit apps. In
>> Leopard the support is seemless!
>
> 64-bit Vista can run 32-bit apps, of course. Leopard supports 32-bit apps
> seamlessly because it is a 32-bit OS, so it's only natural it so do so.
<http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/64bit.html>
-----
Now the Cocoa application frameworks, as well as graphics,
scripting, and the UNIX foundations of the Mac, are all
64-bit.
...
Even better, if you upgrade to new 64-bit-capable drivers,
your 32-bit applications will also benefit from the increased
throughput.
-----
The OS, it seems, has both 32 and 64 bit components.
> It's not quite so good at the 64-bit stuff, though.
Can you give a real world example of where OS X does not support 64 bit apps
well?
--
Try not to become a man of success, but rather try to become a man of value.
--Albert Einstein
Snit
jtGdnW5OTMRl4PDa...@comcast.com on 12/22/07 2:13 PM:
How many versions are there that a user has to select between? And at what
cost - if you use the 64 bit version you lose compatibility with many
programs (more than even with 32 bit Vista), registry weaknesses (no file
redirection), no ability to use 32 bit or unsigned drivers, etc.
--
The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is
generally employed only by small children and large nations. - David
Friedman
John
"Jesper" <spamb...@users.toughguy.net> wrote in message
news:1i9jjbb.8b3wm1hxq73uN%spamb...@users.toughguy.net...
I bought my Dell XPs 410 with Vista Ultimate configured with 4Gb of RAM.
Vista only recognizes 3.07 Gb. Nothing at all wrong with the machine. I am
dissiapointed that Dell allowed me to configure the machine as such. I was
just so used to Macs that I forgot that in the area of RAM Windows is still
back in the Stone Age.
Daniel Johnson
news:C392CFEA.9EB3D%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com...
> "Daniel Johnson" <danielj...@verizon.net> stated in post
> 13mqv57...@news.supernews.com on 12/22/07 2:07 PM:
>> 32-bit,
>> and you get 64-bit everything.
>>
>> That is what Microsoft wants people to buy.
>
> You were talking about Apple's transitions... how well do you think MS is
> transitioning to 64 bit?
I think they are doing better than Apple, since they do have 64-bit Windows
to sell.
Still, 32-bit Windows remains the most compatible version- it will run your
16-bit applications- and I think 64-bit will be held back by that. Nobody
would prefer 64-bit Windows unless than have at least 4 GB of memory; and
that's not too commonplace quite yet.
>>> Furthermore 64 bit vista is unable to run 32 bit apps. In
>>> Leopard the support is seemless!
>>
>> 64-bit Vista can run 32-bit apps, of course. Leopard supports 32-bit apps
>> seamlessly because it is a 32-bit OS, so it's only natural it so do so.
>
> <http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/64bit.html>
[snip- excerpt from that url]
> The OS, it seems, has both 32 and 64 bit components.
Yes. It's not completely devoid of 64-bit support. It's just kind of
limited.
It's not actually *useless*: your 32-bit apps will benefit from the
additional disk cache you will have because you can install more memory.
It's like Windows XP with PAE from back in the day, but with one difference:
Apple controls the drivers, the hardware, and the OS. They can make this
rube-goldberg machine work. MS couldn't really do that.
>> It's not quite so good at the 64-bit stuff, though.
>
> Can you give a real world example of where OS X does not support 64 bit
> apps
> well?
Adobe cannot write a 64-bit version of Photoshop for the Mac, because
Photoshop is a Carbon app, and Carbon does not support 64-bit.
And of course, it's not just apps. OS X does not yet support 64-bit drivers,
either.
Snit
> "Snit" <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
> news:C392CFEA.9EB3D%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com...
>> "Daniel Johnson" <danielj...@verizon.net> stated in post
>> 13mqv57...@news.supernews.com on 12/22/07 2:07 PM:
>>> No. They also offer 64-bit versions of Windows Vista. Same price as
>>> 32-bit,
>>> and you get 64-bit everything.
>>>
>>> That is what Microsoft wants people to buy.
>>
>> You were talking about Apple's transitions... how well do you think MS is
>> transitioning to 64 bit?
>
> I think they are doing better than Apple, since they do have 64-bit Windows
> to sell.
Apple has *one* OS - not two as MS does. You do not need to pick if you
want legacy 32 bit support or new 64 bit support.
> Still, 32-bit Windows remains the most compatible version- it will run your
> 16-bit applications- and I think 64-bit will be held back by that. Nobody
> would prefer 64-bit Windows unless than have at least 4 GB of memory; and
> that's not too commonplace quite yet.
>
>>>> Furthermore 64 bit vista is unable to run 32 bit apps. In
>>>> Leopard the support is seemless!
>>>
>>> 64-bit Vista can run 32-bit apps, of course. Leopard supports 32-bit apps
>>> seamlessly because it is a 32-bit OS, so it's only natural it so do so.
>>
>> <http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/64bit.html>
> [snip- excerpt from that url]
>> The OS, it seems, has both 32 and 64 bit components.
>
> Yes. It's not completely devoid of 64-bit support. It's just kind of
> limited.
In what way?
> It's not actually *useless*: your 32-bit apps will benefit from the
> additional disk cache you will have because you can install more memory.
>
> It's like Windows XP with PAE from back in the day, but with one difference:
> Apple controls the drivers, the hardware, and the OS. They can make this
> rube-goldberg machine work. MS couldn't really do that.
A benefit of Apple's model... they can get things to work.
>>> It's not quite so good at the 64-bit stuff, though.
>>
>> Can you give a real world example of where OS X does not support 64 bit apps
>> well?
>>
> Adobe cannot write a 64-bit version of Photoshop for the Mac, because
> Photoshop is a Carbon app, and Carbon does not support 64-bit.
Though Adobe can use Cocoa "parts", right? Isn't the distinction between
Cocoa and Carbon getting fuzzy anyway... what, really, do you mean by a
Carbon app these days?
> And of course, it's not just apps. OS X does not yet support 64-bit drivers,
> either.
According to the link and quote I provided you with it does - do you have
contrary info you can point to?
--
Look, this is silly. It's not an argument, it's an armor plated walrus with
walnut paneling and an all leather interior.
Tommy Troll
> "Jesper" <spambus...@users.toughguy.net> wrote in message
How much ram does the video card use?
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Daniel Johnson" <danielj...@verizon.net> stated in post
> 13mr3dn...@news.supernews.com on 12/22/07 3:20 PM:
>
> > "Snit" <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
> > news:C392CFEA.9EB3D%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com...
> >> "Daniel Johnson" <danielj...@verizon.net> stated in post
> >> 13mqv57...@news.supernews.com on 12/22/07 2:07 PM:
> >>> No. They also offer 64-bit versions of Windows Vista. Same price as
> >>> 32-bit,
> >>> and you get 64-bit everything.
> >>>
> >>> That is what Microsoft wants people to buy.
> >>
> >> You were talking about Apple's transitions... how well do you think MS is
> >> transitioning to 64 bit?
> >
> > I think they are doing better than Apple, since they do have 64-bit Windows
> > to sell.
>
> Apple has *one* OS - not two as MS does.
Hmmm... you'd better inform the Apple store of you claim... they seem to
feel they have a product called "Leopard Server"
John
"Tommy Troll" <tom_...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:33b19ff7-ead1-49b1...@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
None. I have a 512 Mb Nvidia Card.
Lefty Bigfoot
(in article
<1i9jjbb.8b3wm1hxq73uN%spamb...@users.toughguy.net>):
> Of a modern OS, Vista is surprisingly oldfashioned: 32 bit vista fails
> to access more than 3.1-3.5 GB RAM. M$ wants people to buy their
> expensive server solutions to run apps requirering more than approx 3.1
> GB of RAM. Furthermore 64 bit vista is unable to run 32 bit apps. In
> Leopard the support is seemless!
Not too surprising, given it's still a 32-bit OS, with 32-bit
address spaces. Without the /3GB flag, you have 2G of address
space per user process, not 3.
Even with PAE enabled to get above 4GB of total system memory,
that doesn't solve the per process issue. If you want 64-bit
address spaces, there are several options, but a 32-bit kernel
isn't it.
--
Lefty
All of God's creatures have a place..........
.........right next to the potatoes and gravy.
See also: http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/images/iProduct.gif
PC Guy
"John" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:AoidnWI9P-8rP_Da...@netlojix.com...
Then it uses 512MB which decreases the memory available to Vista by that
amount. This is NOT a Vista problem Mactards!
Titus Pullo
"Jesper" <spamb...@users.toughguy.net> wrote in message
news:1i9jjbb.8b3wm1hxq73uN%spamb...@users.toughguy.net...
> Of a modern OS, Vista is surprisingly oldfashioned: 32 bit vista fails
> to access more than 3.1-3.5 GB RAM. M$ wants people to buy their
> expensive server solutions to run apps requirering more than approx 3.1
> GB of RAM. Furthermore 64 bit vista is unable to run 32 bit apps. In
> Leopard the support is seemless!
Bullshit! I am running Vista Business 64 and it runs 32 bit apps just fine.
Stop being a brainwashed member of the Apple cult.
Jim Lee Jr.
"Titus Pullo" <nu...@unix.site> wrote:
Keep us out of your coprophilia.
--
Posted from my 1999 Apple G4 Sawtooth
A 450 MHz G4 running OS X 10.4.11
Lefty Bigfoot
(in article <4p-dnT2YR_1EOfDa...@comcast.com>):
Good catch. I missed that little bit of stupidity in my reply.
Dave Fritzinger
> "John" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>
> news:AoidnWI9P-8rP_Da...@netlojix.com...
>
>
>
>
>
That depends on if the card uses shared memory, or if it has its own
memory, doesn't it? If it uses shared memory, you are correct. If it
has its own memeory, it doesn't use the system RAM.
Perhaps you should find out more before you start calling people
Mactards, as it seems to me you didn't come out too well on this
exchange.
--
Dave Fritzinger
Honolulu, HI
Lefty Bigfoot
(in article <1f6dnau4CYboPvDa...@comcast.com>):
You are badly confused.
If it was for example, an intel mobo with on-board video, which
typically share system RAM (and are dog slow) you'd be right.
With add-on cards with their own RAM, this is /not/ the case.
PC Guy
"Dave Fritzinger" <dfri...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c9485533-9233-45d6...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 22, 1:53 pm, "PC Guy" <pc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "John" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> > None. I have a 512 Mb Nvidia Card.
>
>> Then it uses 512MB which decreases the memory available to Vista by that
>> amount. This is NOT a Vista problem Mactards!
> That depends on if the card uses shared memory, or if it has its own
> memory, doesn't it?
No, it does not.
> If it uses shared memory, you are correct. If it has its own memeory, it
> doesn't use the system RAM.
If it uses shared memory then it uses the system physical memory. If it has
it's own dedicated memory then it uses it's own physical memory. Regardless
of where the video memory resides it has to be mapped into the 4GB (for 32
bit systems/operating systems) address space. If you have a system with 4GB
or RAM and 512MB of dedicated video memory you have more (4.5GB) physical
memory than the system/os can address. In this situation the system maps the
dedicated 512MB into the 4GB somewhere overlaying system RAM. Thus total RAM
available to the user decreases by 512MB. If you have a system with 3GB of
RAM and a 512MB dedicated video card you have 3.5GB of physical memory total
and the system can map both within the 4GB constraint.
> Perhaps you should find out more before you start calling people Mactards,
> as it seems to me you didn't come out too well on this
> exchange.
Good advice. You'd be well to follow it yourself. Perhaps if you did you
wouldn't be making the stupid statements you just did.
PC Guy
"Lefty Bigfoot" <nu...@busyness.info> wrote in message
news:0001HW.C3930BEB...@news.verizon.net...
It's not the amount of physical memory that's the problem Mactards! It's the
fact that a 32 bit system can directly access 4GB of memory. Just because
it's physical memory existing on a video card does not make it any less than
real memory that needs to be mapped within the 4GB address space. Sheesh!
Why you clueless dolts think you're qualified to comment on things you no
nothing about is the question of the century. You're absolutely clueless!
John
"PC Guy" <pc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1f6dnau4CYboPvDa...@comcast.com...
THe VIDEO CARD HAS ONBOARD VRam dumbshit!!!! That is in addition to the
4Gb of system RAM
John
Absolute nonsense. My friend also has a Dell Machine with 4Gb of RAM and
only a 256Meg Video Card. Vista STILL SHOWS THE SAME 3.07Gb of Available
RAM. No matter what onboard memory a video card has ONLY 3.07Gig of RAM is
recognized by Vista.
Snit
If Vista is unable to deal with the memory then it *is* a Vista problem. OS
X, for example, does not share the same weakness - though even if it did
then it would be just a shared problem.
--
Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments
that take our breath away.
Snit
4p-dnT2YR_1EOfDa...@comcast.com on 12/22/07 4:59 PM:
How about 32 bit drivers?
--
Picture of a tuna milkshake: http://snipurl.com/f34z
Feel free to ask for the recipe.
Lefty Bigfoot
(in article <VMCdneJ13uVZLvDa...@comcast.com>):
Wrong again. The video adapter uses the display buffer memory
completely separate from the per process memory limits.
Daniel Johnson
> "Daniel Johnson" <danielj...@verizon.net> stated in post
> 13mr3dn...@news.supernews.com on 12/22/07 3:20 PM:
>>> is
>>> transitioning to 64 bit?
>>
>> I think they are doing better than Apple, since they do have 64-bit
>> Windows
>> to sell.
>
> Apple has *one* OS - not two as MS does. You do not need to pick if you
> want legacy 32 bit support or new 64 bit support.
Not quite: you have to pick if you want legacy 16-bit support or new 64-bit
support. You get 32-bit support either way.
That's a choice Apple doesn't demand you make. They don't offer that sort of
compatibility at all.
On the other hand, they also don't offer a True 64-bit OS. So you get
neither the one thing nor the other: you get weak 64-bit support *and* weak
backwards compatibility.
[snip]
>>> <http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/64bit.html>
>> [snip- excerpt from that url]
>>> The OS, it seems, has both 32 and 64 bit components.
>>
>> Yes. It's not completely devoid of 64-bit support. It's just kind of
>> limited.
>
> In what way?
You know that, I think.
>> It's not actually *useless*: your 32-bit apps will benefit from the
>> additional disk cache you will have because you can install more memory.
>>
>> It's like Windows XP with PAE from back in the day, but with one
>> difference:
>> Apple controls the drivers, the hardware, and the OS. They can make this
>> rube-goldberg machine work. MS couldn't really do that.
>
> A benefit of Apple's model... they can get things to work.
This thing, anyway. :D
[snip]
>> Adobe cannot write a 64-bit version of Photoshop for the Mac, because
>> Photoshop is a Carbon app, and Carbon does not support 64-bit.
>
> Though Adobe can use Cocoa "parts", right? Isn't the distinction between
> Cocoa and Carbon getting fuzzy anyway... what, really, do you mean by a
> Carbon app these days?
I mean "something that uses enough Carbon that it can't be recompiled for
64-bit".
By that standard, Photoshop qualifies, I think. Adding bits of Cocoa to an
app doesn't really help with this.
>> And of course, it's not just apps. OS X does not yet support 64-bit
>> drivers,
>> either.
>
> According to the link and quote I provided you with it does - do you have
> contrary info you can point to?
If you insist:
"The kernel (including the I/O Kit) remains a 32-bit environment in Mac OS
X."
Snit
> "Snit" <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
> news:C392EC0C.9EB6F%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com...
>> "Daniel Johnson" <danielj...@verizon.net> stated in post
>> 13mr3dn...@news.supernews.com on 12/22/07 3:20 PM:
>>>> You were talking about Apple's transitions... how well do you think MS
>>>> is
>>>> transitioning to 64 bit?
>>>
>>> I think they are doing better than Apple, since they do have 64-bit
>>> Windows
>>> to sell.
>>
>> Apple has *one* OS - not two as MS does. You do not need to pick if you
>> want legacy 32 bit support or new 64 bit support.
>
> Not quite: you have to pick if you want legacy 16-bit support or new 64-bit
> support. You get 32-bit support either way.
Well, other than drivers - if I understand correctly you can use only 32 or
64 bit, not the mix that Apple allows.
<http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/64bit.html>
-----
Now the Cocoa application frameworks, as well as graphics,
scripting, and the UNIX foundations of the Mac, are all
64-bit.
...
Even better, if you upgrade to new 64-bit-capable drivers,
your 32-bit applications will also benefit from the increased
throughput.
-----
> That's a choice Apple doesn't demand you make. They don't offer that sort of
> compatibility at all.
Sure they do - you can use Mac OS 7.x for free.
> On the other hand, they also don't offer a True 64-bit OS. So you get
> neither the one thing nor the other: you get weak 64-bit support *and* weak
> backwards compatibility.
One of their APIs is not 64 bit. Other than that what do you mean by poor
support?
> [snip]
>>>> <http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/64bit.html>
>>> [snip- excerpt from that url]
>>>> The OS, it seems, has both 32 and 64 bit components.
>>>
>>> Yes. It's not completely devoid of 64-bit support. It's just kind of
>>> limited.
>>
>> In what way?
>
> You know that, I think.
Carbon... and you think that is going away, meaning the whole OS will
support 64 bit well. :)
>>> It's not actually *useless*: your 32-bit apps will benefit from the
>>> additional disk cache you will have because you can install more memory.
>>>
>>> It's like Windows XP with PAE from back in the day, but with one
>>> difference:
>>> Apple controls the drivers, the hardware, and the OS. They can make this
>>> rube-goldberg machine work. MS couldn't really do that.
>>
>> A benefit of Apple's model... they can get things to work.
>
> This thing, anyway. :D
True... and many other things.
> [snip]
>>> Adobe cannot write a 64-bit version of Photoshop for the Mac, because
>>> Photoshop is a Carbon app, and Carbon does not support 64-bit.
>>
>> Though Adobe can use Cocoa "parts", right? Isn't the distinction between
>> Cocoa and Carbon getting fuzzy anyway... what, really, do you mean by a
>> Carbon app these days?
>
> I mean "something that uses enough Carbon that it can't be recompiled for
> 64-bit".
>
> By that standard, Photoshop qualifies, I think. Adding bits of Cocoa to an
> app doesn't really help with this.
Another reason for Adobe to make a modern program with a modern "engine".
Heck, if it is 32 bit on Windows it will remain that way unless they can
compile it 64 bit there as well.
>>> And of course, it's not just apps. OS X does not yet support 64-bit drivers,
>>> either.
>>
>> According to the link and quote I provided you with it does - do you have
>> contrary info you can point to?
>
> If you insist:
>
> [http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Darwin/Conceptual/64bitPorting/trans
> ition/chapter_3_section_4.html]
>
> "The kernel (including the I/O Kit) remains a 32-bit environment in Mac OS
> X."
Which does not say that it does not support 64 bit drivers.
--
Satan lives for my sins... now *that* is dedication!
Jesus
> "Daniel Johnson" <danieljohns...@verizon.net> stated in post
*snip*
> > If you insist:
>
> > [http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Darwin/Conceptual/64bitPorti...
> > ition/chapter_3_section_4.html]
>
> > "The kernel (including the I/O Kit) remains a 32-bit environment in Mac OS
> > X."
>
> Which does not say that it does not support 64 bit drivers.
How can the kernel load 64-bit kernel extensions when the kernel's not
64-bit?
Snit
032dffe7-5957-4700...@i3g2000hsf.googlegroups.com on 12/22/07
9:32 PM:
I do not know... I am not a programmer. But I do know that Apple says this:
<http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/64bit.html>
-----
Now the Cocoa application frameworks, as well as graphics,
scripting, and the UNIX foundations of the Mac, are all
64-bit.
...
Even better, if you upgrade to new 64-bit-capable drivers,
your 32-bit applications will also benefit from the increased
throughput.
-----
Sure sounds like it supports "64-bit-capable drivers" to me. Maybe someone
else will be able to shed some light on how and why and what, if anything,
is the difference between "64-bit-capable drivers" and "64-bit-drivers".
--
"If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
- Anatole France
nospamatall
>> Can you give a real world example of where OS X does not support 64
>> bit apps
>> well?
>
> Adobe cannot write a 64-bit version of Photoshop for the Mac, because
> Photoshop is a Carbon app, and Carbon does not support 64-bit.
That's an example of a software vendor who is not producing a 64 bit
app. That's not what he asked for.
nospamatall
> On Dec 22, 1:53 pm, "PC Guy" <pc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> "John" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:AoidnWI9P-8rP_Da...@netlojix.com...
>>>> I bought my Dell XPs 410 with Vista Ultimate configured with 4Gb of RAM.
>>>> Vista only recognizes 3.07 Gb. Nothing at all wrong with the machine. I
>>>> am
>>>> dissiapointed that Dell allowed me to configure the machine as such. I
>>>> was
>>>> just so used to Macs that I forgot that in the area of RAM Windows is
>>>> still
>>>> back in the Stone Age.
>>> How much ram does the video card use?
>>> None. I have a 512 Mb Nvidia Card.
>> Then it uses 512MB which decreases the memory available to Vista by that
>> amount. This is NOT a Vista problem Mactards!
>
> That depends on if the card uses shared memory, or if it has its own
> memory, doesn't it? If it uses shared memory, you are correct. If it
> has its own memeory, it doesn't use the system RAM.
>
> Perhaps you should find out more before you start calling people
> Mactards, as it seems to me you didn't come out too well on this
> exchange.
Should brush up on his arithmetic too.
Andy
Snit
12/22/07 10:19 PM:
Good point - a better answer than the one I provided.
--
Teachers open the door but you must walk through it yourself.
Jesus
> "Jesus" <rustybucket...@gmail.com> stated in post
> 032dffe7-5957-4700-b5d3-272237173...@i3g2000hsf.googlegroups.com on 12/22/07
Hmm... interesting. I wouldn't have thought a 32-bit kernel could
load a 64-bit kext, but like you, I'm not a programmer. Any Mac
people who can explain this?
Snit
12/22/07 10:39 PM:
> Hmm... interesting. I wouldn't have thought a 32-bit kernel could
> load a 64-bit kext, but like you, I'm not a programmer. Any Mac
> people who can explain this?
And, more to the point: how this would effect the user.
--
The answer to the water shortage is to dilute it.
Steve Hix
wrote:
Also a reminder of how long Adobe has had to port Photoshop from Carbon
to Cocoa; it's not like it wasn't clearly stated at the beginning that
Carbon is a stopgap to ease developer's transistion from the previous
century.
Daniel Johnson
> "Daniel Johnson" <danielj...@verizon.net> stated in post
> 13mrf3n...@news.supernews.com on 12/22/07 6:40 PM:
>>> want legacy 32 bit support or new 64 bit support.
>>
>> Not quite: you have to pick if you want legacy 16-bit support or new
>> 64-bit
>> support. You get 32-bit support either way.
>
> Well, other than drivers - if I understand correctly you can use only 32
> or
> 64 bit, not the mix that Apple allows.
You get *more* than the mix Apple allows: the whole userspace goes both
ways.
[snip- repetition]
>> That's a choice Apple doesn't demand you make. They don't offer that sort
>> of
>> compatibility at all.
>
> Sure they do - you can use Mac OS 7.x for free.
Well, that's not quite the same. Apple hasn't made any Macs that would run
that OS is many, many years. :D
I do not think there is *any* Mac that can dual-boot System 7 and OS X, say.
>> On the other hand, they also don't offer a True 64-bit OS. So you get
>> neither the one thing nor the other: you get weak 64-bit support *and*
>> weak
>> backwards compatibility.
>
> One of their APIs is not 64 bit. Other than that what do you mean by poor
> support?
The most important, widely used API is not 64-bit. Also the kernel is not.
[snip]
>> By that standard, Photoshop qualifies, I think. Adding bits of Cocoa to
>> an
>> app doesn't really help with this.
>
> Another reason for Adobe to make a modern program with a modern "engine".
> Heck, if it is 32 bit on Windows it will remain that way unless they can
> compile it 64 bit there as well.
At the least, Windows itself is not stopping them. The 64-bit version of
Win32 is ready today.
[snip]
>>> According to the link and quote I provided you with it does - do you
>>> have
>>> contrary info you can point to?
>>
>> If you insist:
>>
>> [http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Darwin/Conceptual/64bitPorting/trans
>> ition/chapter_3_section_4.html]
>>
>> "The kernel (including the I/O Kit) remains a 32-bit environment in Mac
>> OS
>> X."
>
> Which does not say that it does not support 64 bit drivers.
<blink>
Er, yes it does.
Or, at least, I can't see how you are interpreting it to mean that the
kernel is 64-bit, or that 64-bit drivers are possible. To me it seems pretty
unequivocal. Perhaps you could elaborate on this point.
Anyway, if you read on at that link, you'll find out what "64-bit capable"
drivers are. It's essentially the same thing that Windows drivers had to do
to support >=4 GB of physical RAM on 32-bit Windows XP. And, as with XP,
it's largely a question of fixing bugs.
Daniel Johnson
news:fkkr53$26g$1...@aioe.org...
That's an example of a vendor that *can't* produce a 64-bit app, even
through there *is* demand from its customers that they do so. It's even a
pretty important app for the Mac.
Yes, it *is* possible that there are other things (besides Apple) holding
them back- but that is to be demonstrated.
Even if that is so, this is still a real world example of OS X not support
64-bit apps well.
Daniel Johnson
news:sehix-D5838C....@news.speakeasy.net...[snip- Photoshop can't go 64-bit, it's Carbon]
>> That's an example of a software vendor who is not producing a 64 bit
>> app. That's not what he asked for.
>
> Also a reminder of how long Adobe has had to port Photoshop from Carbon
> to Cocoa; it's not like it wasn't clearly stated at the beginning that
> Carbon is a stopgap to ease developer's transistion from the previous
> century.
It wasn't, though.
What The Steve said when he introduced OS X was that Carbon was for existing
OS 9 apps coming over to OS X, and Cocoa was for *new* apps.
Adobe Photoshop is clearly in the first category- clearly they should be
Carbon. Anyway Adobe had already told Apple that they weren't going to port
to Cocoa. That's one reason Carbon exists in the first place.
David Empson
> "Snit" <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
> news:C3930CAB.9EBC4%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com...
> > "Daniel Johnson" <danielj...@verizon.net> stated in post
> > 13mrf3n...@news.supernews.com on 12/22/07 6:40 PM:
> >> That's a choice Apple doesn't demand you make. They don't offer that sort
> >> of compatibility at all.
> >
> > Sure they do - you can use Mac OS 7.x for free.
>
> Well, that's not quite the same. Apple hasn't made any Macs that would run
> that OS is many, many years. :D
>
> I do not think there is *any* Mac that can dual-boot System 7 and OS X, say.
It depends on your definition of "System 7" and any conditions on how
you boot Mac OS X.
The PowerMac 7300-9600 series were originally supplied with System 7.5.2
through 7.6.1. They won't boot a retail copy of Mac OS X, but can be
made to run early versions using XPostFacto, which bypasses installer
checks and patches the system or adds drivers to get around a few
issues. (System 7.5.3 is the version Apple have available for free.)
The first PowerMac G3 was supplied with Mac OS 8.0 and it will boot Mac
OS X 10.0 through 10.2 without any third party assistance.
--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz
Snit
> "Snit" <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
> news:C3930CAB.9EBC4%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com...
>> "Daniel Johnson" <danielj...@verizon.net> stated in post
>> 13mrf3n...@news.supernews.com on 12/22/07 6:40 PM:
>>>> Apple has *one* OS - not two as MS does. You do not need to pick if you
>>>> want legacy 32 bit support or new 64 bit support.
>>>
>>> Not quite: you have to pick if you want legacy 16-bit support or new
>>> 64-bit
>>> support. You get 32-bit support either way.
>>
>> Well, other than drivers - if I understand correctly you can use only 32
>> or
>> 64 bit, not the mix that Apple allows.
>
> You get *more* than the mix Apple allows: the whole userspace goes both
> ways.
>
> [snip- repetition]
>
>>> That's a choice Apple doesn't demand you make. They don't offer that sort
>>> of
>>> compatibility at all.
>>
>> Sure they do - you can use Mac OS 7.x for free.
>
> Well, that's not quite the same. Apple hasn't made any Macs that would run
> that OS is many, many years. :D
Has MS made *any* machine that can run desktop Windows?
>
> I do not think there is *any* Mac that can dual-boot System 7 and OS X, say.
>
>>> On the other hand, they also don't offer a True 64-bit OS. So you get
>>> neither the one thing nor the other: you get weak 64-bit support *and*
>>> weak
>>> backwards compatibility.
>>
>> One of their APIs is not 64 bit. Other than that what do you mean by poor
>> support?
>
> The most important, widely used API is not 64-bit. Also the kernel is not.
How do you figure Carbon is the "most important, widely used API"?
>
> [snip]
>>> By that standard, Photoshop qualifies, I think. Adding bits of Cocoa to
>>> an
>>> app doesn't really help with this.
>>
>> Another reason for Adobe to make a modern program with a modern "engine".
>> Heck, if it is 32 bit on Windows it will remain that way unless they can
>> compile it 64 bit there as well.
>
> At the least, Windows itself is not stopping them. The 64-bit version of
> Win32 is ready today.
Apple is not stopping Adobe from updating their software.
> [snip]
>>>> According to the link and quote I provided you with it does - do you
>>>> have
>>>> contrary info you can point to?
>>>
>>> If you insist:
>>>
>>> [http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Darwin/Conceptual/64bitPorting/tra
>>> ns
>>> ition/chapter_3_section_4.html]
>>>
>>> "The kernel (including the I/O Kit) remains a 32-bit environment in Mac
>>> OS
>>> X."
>>
>> Which does not say that it does not support 64 bit drivers.
>
> <blink>
>
> Er, yes it does.
>
> Or, at least, I can't see how you are interpreting it to mean that the
> kernel is 64-bit, or that 64-bit drivers are possible. To me it seems pretty
> unequivocal. Perhaps you could elaborate on this point.
>
> Anyway, if you read on at that link, you'll find out what "64-bit capable"
> drivers are. It's essentially the same thing that Windows drivers had to do
> to support >=4 GB of physical RAM on 32-bit Windows XP. And, as with XP,
> it's largely a question of fixing bugs.
>
>
To summarize, comparing 64-bit Vista with OS X:
* OS X drops Classic.
Vista drops 16 bit apps.
* OS X has a migration path via Carbon, but Carbon is only 32-bit.
Vista's migration path is... um... do you know?
* OS X can handle both 32 and 64-bit drivers (or 64-bit-capable at least).
Vista can handle only 64-bit drivers.
Add to that with 64-bit Vista you lose compatibility with many programs
(more than even with 32 bit Vista), you have (more) registry weaknesses (no
file redirection), and you have no ability to unsigned drivers. OS X has no
similar weaknesses.
PC Guy
Video cards aren't the only things which consume address space. I was
focusing on the video card because it was being discussed and, being 512MB,
uses a considerable amount of the 4GB address space. Another consumer of
address space is the operating system. It requires part of the address space
for its executables and data. You can pretend this is some limit of Vista
all you want. It's not.
PC Guy
No SHIT DUMBASS! So you have 4GB + 512MB = 4.5GB of physical memory. But a
32 bit operating system can only address 4GB of memory whether it's on the
motherboard, video card, or somewhere else.
PC Guy
Yes, you are. No surprise there.
> The video adapter uses the display buffer memory completely separate from
> the per process memory limits.
Note the key words "per process memory limits".
PC Guy
This is NOT a limitation of Vista. It is a limitation of 32 bit operating
systems...including OS X.
> OS X, for example, does not share the same weakness - though even if it
> did
> then it would be just a shared problem.
32 bit versions of OS X do.
Snit
>>> Then it uses 512MB which decreases the memory available to Vista by that
>>> amount. This is NOT a Vista problem Mactards!
>>>
>> If Vista is unable to deal with the memory then it *is* a Vista problem.
>
> This is NOT a limitation of Vista. It is a limitation of 32 bit operating
> systems...including OS X.
I have 4 GB of memory... my OS X machine uses it just fine.
>
>> OS X, for example, does not share the same weakness - though even if it did
>> then it would be just a shared problem.
>
> 32 bit versions of OS X do.
I believe OS X has been able to handle more than 4 GB of memory since day
one.
--
"If you have integrity, nothing else matters." - Alan Simpson
PC Guy
> "Titus Pullo" <nu...@unix.site> stated in post
> 4p-dnT2YR_1EOfDa...@comcast.com on 12/22/07 4:59 PM:
>
>>
>> "Jesper" <spamb...@users.toughguy.net> wrote in message
>> news:1i9jjbb.8b3wm1hxq73uN%spamb...@users.toughguy.net...
>>> Of a modern OS, Vista is surprisingly oldfashioned: 32 bit vista fails
>>> to access more than 3.1-3.5 GB RAM. M$ wants people to buy their
>>> expensive server solutions to run apps requirering more than approx 3.1
>>> GB of RAM. Furthermore 64 bit vista is unable to run 32 bit apps. In
>>> Leopard the support is seemless!
>>
>> Bullshit! I am running Vista Business 64 and it runs 32 bit apps just
>> fine.
>> Stop being a brainwashed member of the Apple cult.
>>
> How about 32 bit drivers?
What about them?
Tommy Troll
> "Tommy Troll" <tom_e...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>
> news:33b19ff7-ead1-49b1...@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 22, 4:50 pm, "John" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >news:1i9jjbb.8b3wm1hxq73uN%spamb...@users.toughguy.net...
>
> > > Of a modern OS, Vista is surprisingly oldfashioned: 32 bit vista fails
> > > to access more than 3.1-3.5 GB RAM. M$ wants people to buy their
> > > expensive server solutions to run apps requirering more than approx 3.1
> > > GB of RAM. Furthermore 64 bit vista is unable to run 32 bit apps. In
> > > Leopard the support is seemless!
>
> > > Jesper
> > > - Jeg sover godt om natten, når han passer på mine penge.
> > > Naser Khader om Anders Fogh Rasmussen.
> > >http://theextract.blogspot.com/
>
> > I bought my Dell XPs 410 with Vista Ultimate configured with 4Gb of RAM.
> > Vista only recognizes 3.07 Gb. Nothing at all wrong with the machine. I am
> > dissiapointed that Dell allowed me to configure the machine as such. I was
> > just so used to Macs that I forgot that in the area of RAM Windows is
> > still
> > back in the Stone Age.
>
> How much ram does the video card use?
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
The 512 kb shares memory addresses with ram. In any 32 bit system
there will only be 4 gb of addresses, and all memory has to share
those. The remaining difference between 4 gb and what you see is
used by the system. You are right though, and I had not thought of
this, 3 gb is about the max ram you want to buy for a 32 gb OS with a
video card. If you are using shared ram for video you could use up to
the full 4 gb.
Tommy Troll
> In article <1i9jjbb.8b3wm1hxq73uN%spambus...@users.toughguy.net>,
>
> spambus...@users.toughguy.net (Jesper) wrote:
> > Of a modern OS, Vista is surprisingly oldfashioned: 32 bit vista fails
> > to access more than 3.1-3.5 GB RAM. M$ wants people to buy their
> > expensive server solutions to run apps requirering more than approx 3.1
> > GB of RAM. Furthermore 64 bit vista is unable to run 32 bit apps. In
> > Leopard the support is seemless!
>
> reserve about 700 meg of address space for hardware use (video memory
> among many other things.) Thus there is only about 3.3 gigs of space
> left for the OS to see. Vista is "seeing" all 4 gig, there is only 3.3
> gig left to see.
>
> OS X on the same hardware has the same issue. This problem is exactly
> analogous to the old DOS "640K barrier" of 20 years ago. The hardware
> could address 1 meg, 360K was reserved by the hardware for other things
> - including video ram.
>
> Fully 64 bit hardware running fully 64 bit software doesn't have this
> problem. Just like 32 bit hardware and software overcame the 16 bit
> DOS 640K limit.
>
> Bob Campbell
64 bit has the same problem, but the limits are just a LOT higher.
Snit
Vista-32 does not support them. OS X does.
Daniel Johnson
> "Daniel Johnson" <danielj...@verizon.net> stated in post
> 13msk0m...@news.supernews.com on 12/23/07 5:10 AM:
>> run
>> that OS is many, many years. :D
>
> Has MS made *any* machine that can run desktop Windows?
Er, I guess you have me there. :D
But other people have done that. Have other people made any machines that
can run System 7 in the last few years?
[snip]
>> The most important, widely used API is not 64-bit. Also the kernel is
>> not.
>
> How do you figure Carbon is the "most important, widely used API"?
I figured we all knew *that*.
We all know many important apps that are Carbon. Office. Photoshop. iTunes.
Let's look at it the other way. What are the important Cocoa apps?
[snip]
>> At the least, Windows itself is not stopping them. The 64-bit version of
>> Win32 is ready today.
>
> Apple is not stopping Adobe from updating their software.
Apple *is* stopping Adobe from going 64-bit, at least on the Mac.
Now, if Photoshop isn't 64-bit clean it might be well to make it so, so it
can go 64-bit on Windows. But it still won't be able to do it on the Mac.
[snip]
> To summarize, comparing 64-bit Vista with OS X:
>
> * OS X drops Classic.
> Vista drops 16 bit apps.
You mean "64-bit Vista" here, I imagine.
> * OS X has a migration path via Carbon, but Carbon is only 32-bit.
> Vista's migration path is... um... do you know?
For .NET apps, it's like Java: it's all pointer size neutral anyway. The
same app runs 64-bit on a 64-bit OS, 32-bit on 32-bit OS.
For Win32 apps, it looks a lot like the Win16->Win32 transition, only it's
less painful. There is now 'Win64', which is just like Win32 but uses 64-bit
pointers. It is fairly trivial to write an app that compiles both ways; much
easier than it was to do the same thing during the transition to Win32.
For drivers, the story looks like Win64: you can write your driver so it
compiles both ways. Again, this is much gentler than what you had with the
transition to Win32.
By contrast, OS X has a good story for Cocoa: it makes is easy to 'recompile
both ways'. But for Carbon there *is no* migration path. Not even a path
that leads to Cocoa.
And Apple hasn't told anyone what it's plans are for 64-bit kernel modules
and the like. If indeed it has any.
> * OS X can handle both 32 and 64-bit drivers (or 64-bit-capable at least).
> Vista can handle only 64-bit drivers.
OS X cannot use 64-bit drivers. "64-bit capable drivers" exist on Windows
and they work fine in Vista. They are considered by all to just be 32-bit
drivers. The difference is simply that "64-bit incapable drivers" are buggy.
> Add to that with 64-bit Vista you lose compatibility with many programs
> (more than even with 32 bit Vista),
Aside from the 16-bit thing, the defaults are different: 64-bit Vista has
DEP turned on by default, so older programs written before DEP break. You
can turn it off, of course.
The big thing is that you just cannot run 16-bit programs at all. There's no
workaround for that, except to install 32-bit Vista.
> you have (more) registry weaknesses (no
> file redirection),
I do not understand what you are referring to here. File redirection
appeared first in 64-bit XP: it is used to make 32-bit programs see the
directory structure they are used to. 64-bit programs don't get this, but I
don't see why that's a problem.
> and you have no ability to unsigned drivers. OS X has no similar
> weaknesses.
I don't exactly approve of the "no unsigned drivers" rule, but I understand
where MS is coming from. People- some on this very newsgroup- are very
insistent that all security issues are Microsoft's problem, even when it's
an ignorant end user installing malware voluntarily.
This 'signed drivers' thing should help with that last case: it does not
prevent a fool from installing a root kit, but it does mean that the root
kit can be traced back to its creators. That ought to be a deterrent.
PC Guy
I assume you meant to say Vista-64 instead of Vista-32. As for OS X
supporting both 32 and 64 bit drivers can you provide documentation to
support this claim?
Snit
>
> "Snit" <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
> news:C393F706.9ECAD%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com...
>> "PC Guy" <pc...@hotmail.com> stated in post
>> Q-SdnfrNPLV4DPPa...@comcast.com on 12/23/07 9:50 AM:
>>
>>>
>>> "Snit" <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
>>> news:C3930648.9EBB8%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com...
>>>> "Titus Pullo" <nu...@unix.site> stated in post
>>>> 4p-dnT2YR_1EOfDa...@comcast.com on 12/22/07 4:59 PM:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Jesper" <spamb...@users.toughguy.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:1i9jjbb.8b3wm1hxq73uN%spamb...@users.toughguy.net...
>>>>>> Of a modern OS, Vista is surprisingly oldfashioned: 32 bit vista fails
>>>>>> to access more than 3.1-3.5 GB RAM. M$ wants people to buy their
>>>>>> expensive server solutions to run apps requirering more than approx
>>>>>> 3.1
>>>>>> GB of RAM. Furthermore 64 bit vista is unable to run 32 bit apps. In
>>>>>> Leopard the support is seemless!
>>>>>
>>>>> Bullshit! I am running Vista Business 64 and it runs 32 bit apps just
>>>>> fine.
>>>>> Stop being a brainwashed member of the Apple cult.
>>>>>
>>>> How about 32 bit drivers?
>>>
>>> What about them?
>>>
>> Vista-32 does not support them. OS X does.
>
> I assume you meant to say Vista-64 instead of Vista-32.
Correct - my mistake.
> As for OS X supporting both 32 and 64 bit drivers can you provide
> documentation to support this claim?
<http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/64bit.html>
-----
Now the Cocoa application frameworks, as well as graphics,
scripting, and the UNIX foundations of the Mac, are all
64-bit.
...
Even better, if you upgrade to new 64-bit-capable drivers,
your 32-bit applications will also benefit from the increased
throughput.
-----
I will admit I am not sure if there is a difference between 64-bit drivers
and 64-bit-capable drivers.
--
Never stand between a dog and the hydrant. - John Peers
Snit
> "Snit" <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
> news:C393D698.9EC7F%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com...
>> "Daniel Johnson" <danielj...@verizon.net> stated in post
>> 13msk0m...@news.supernews.com on 12/23/07 5:10 AM:
>>> Well, that's not quite the same. Apple hasn't made any Macs that would
>>> run
>>> that OS is many, many years. :D
>>
>> Has MS made *any* machine that can run desktop Windows?
>
> Er, I guess you have me there. :D
>
> But other people have done that. Have other people made any machines that
> can run System 7 in the last few years?
Are you blaming Apple if they have not? Well, being that Apple has not, as
far as I know, allowed the old Mac ROMs to be copied that could be the case.
> [snip]
>>> The most important, widely used API is not 64-bit. Also the kernel is
>>> not.
>>
>> How do you figure Carbon is the "most important, widely used API"?
>
> I figured we all knew *that*.
>
> We all know many important apps that are Carbon. Office. Photoshop. iTunes.
>
> Let's look at it the other way. What are the important Cocoa apps?
Most of iLife and iWork and Safari and on and on an on. Clearly Apple
thinks Carbon is not as important.
> [snip]
>>> At the least, Windows itself is not stopping them. The 64-bit version of
>>> Win32 is ready today.
>>
>> Apple is not stopping Adobe from updating their software.
>
> Apple *is* stopping Adobe from going 64-bit, at least on the Mac.
Nope. Not at all.
> Now, if Photoshop isn't 64-bit clean it might be well to make it so, so it
> can go 64-bit on Windows. But it still won't be able to do it on the Mac.
Not in Carbon... but with Cocoa it could.
> [snip]
>> To summarize, comparing 64-bit Vista with OS X:
>>
>> * OS X drops Classic.
>> Vista drops 16 bit apps.
>
> You mean "64-bit Vista" here, I imagine.
Hence the "comparing 64-bit Vista with OS X" comment above.
>> * OS X has a migration path via Carbon, but Carbon is only 32-bit.
>> Vista's migration path is... um... do you know?
>
> For .NET apps, it's like Java: it's all pointer size neutral anyway. The
> same app runs 64-bit on a 64-bit OS, 32-bit on 32-bit OS.
>
> For Win32 apps, it looks a lot like the Win16->Win32 transition, only it's
> less painful. There is now 'Win64', which is just like Win32 but uses 64-bit
> pointers. It is fairly trivial to write an app that compiles both ways; much
> easier than it was to do the same thing during the transition to Win32.
>
> For drivers, the story looks like Win64: you can write your driver so it
> compiles both ways. Again, this is much gentler than what you had with the
> transition to Win32.
>
> By contrast, OS X has a good story for Cocoa: it makes is easy to 'recompile
> both ways'. But for Carbon there *is no* migration path. Not even a path
> that leads to Cocoa.
But Carbon runs on OS X.
> And Apple hasn't told anyone what it's plans are for 64-bit kernel modules
> and the like. If indeed it has any.
>
>> * OS X can handle both 32 and 64-bit drivers (or 64-bit-capable at least).
>> Vista can handle only 64-bit drivers.
>
> OS X cannot use 64-bit drivers. "64-bit capable drivers" exist on Windows
> and they work fine in Vista. They are considered by all to just be 32-bit
> drivers. The difference is simply that "64-bit incapable drivers" are buggy.
I would like to see this supported.
>> Add to that with 64-bit Vista you lose compatibility with many programs
>> (more than even with 32 bit Vista),
>
> Aside from the 16-bit thing, the defaults are different: 64-bit Vista has
> DEP turned on by default, so older programs written before DEP break. You
> can turn it off, of course.
>
> The big thing is that you just cannot run 16-bit programs at all. There's no
> workaround for that, except to install 32-bit Vista.
>
>> you have (more) registry weaknesses (no
>> file redirection),
>
> I do not understand what you are referring to here. File redirection
> appeared first in 64-bit XP: it is used to make 32-bit programs see the
> directory structure they are used to. 64-bit programs don't get this, but I
> don't see why that's a problem.
<http://www.dansdata.com/askdan00001.htm>
-----
No automatic registry and file redirection, which is what
32-bit Vista uses to allow existing software to work with
Vista's better user account security, even if the software
wants to do admin-rights stuff to the registry and Program
Files directory. Many apps still break in 32-bit Vista, but
many more break in the 64-bit version.
-----
>> and you have no ability to unsigned drivers. OS X has no similar
>> weaknesses.
>
> I don't exactly approve of the "no unsigned drivers" rule, but I understand
> where MS is coming from. People- some on this very newsgroup- are very
> insistent that all security issues are Microsoft's problem, even when it's
> an ignorant end user installing malware voluntarily.
>
> This 'signed drivers' thing should help with that last case: it does not
> prevent a fool from installing a root kit, but it does mean that the root
> kit can be traced back to its creators. That ought to be a deterrent.
A pain in the rump for users is still a pain in the rump for users.
--
I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is to try to please
everyone. -- Bill Cosby
Jesus
> "PC Guy" <pc...@hotmail.com> stated in post
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Snit" <C...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
> >news:C393F706.9ECAD%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com...
> >> "PC Guy" <pc...@hotmail.com> stated in post
>
> >>> "Snit" <C...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:C3930648.9EBB8%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com...
> >>>> "Titus Pullo" <n...@unix.site> stated in post
> >>>> 4p-dnT2YR_1EOfDanZ2dnUVZ_gydn...@comcast.com on 12/22/07 4:59 PM:
>
> >>>>> "Jesper" <spambus...@users.toughguy.net> wrote in message
There is. 64-bit-capable is not 64-bit. It sounds like 64-bit-
capable drivers are really just 32-bit drivers that can be assigned
chunks of memory beyond the first 4GB. They still can't address more
than 4GB of memory, but if you have two or three of these drivers on a
machine with lots of memory, each of them can claim more memory for
themselves (each up to 4GB). Am I understanding this correctly?
PC Guy
It appears Leopards kernel remains 32 bit:
"The kernel (including the I/O Kit) remains a 32-bit environment in Mac OS
X. "
And this appears to be the reason 64 bit drivers are not required.
Jesus
> "Daniel Johnson" <danieljohns...@verizon.net> stated in post
>
>
>
> > "Snit" <C...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
> >news:C3930CAB.9EBC4%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com...
> >> "Daniel Johnson" <danieljohns...@verizon.net> stated in post
> >> 13mrf3nl7d07...@news.supernews.com on 12/22/07 6:40 PM:
> >>>> Apple has *one* OS - not two as MS does. You do not need to pick if you
> >>>> want legacy 32 bit support or new 64 bit support.
>
> >>> Not quite: you have to pick if you want legacy 16-bit support or new
> >>> 64-bit
> >>> support. You get 32-bit support either way.
>
> >> Well, other than drivers - if I understand correctly you can use only 32
> >> or
> >> 64 bit, not the mix that Apple allows.
>
> > You get *more* than the mix Apple allows: the whole userspace goes both
> > ways.
>
> > [snip- repetition]
>
> >>> That's a choice Apple doesn't demand you make. They don't offer that sort
> >>> of
> >>> compatibility at all.
>
> >> Sure they do - you can use Mac OS 7.x for free.
>
> > Well, that's not quite the same. Apple hasn't made any Macs that would run
> > that OS is many, many years. :D
>
> Has MS made *any* machine that can run desktop Windows?
hah! :-P
> > I do not think there is *any* Mac that can dual-boot System 7 and OS X, say.
>
> >>> On the other hand, they also don't offer a True 64-bit OS. So you get
> >>> neither the one thing nor the other: you get weak 64-bit support *and*
> >>> weak
> >>> backwards compatibility.
>
> >> One of their APIs is not 64 bit. Other than that what do you mean by poor
> >> support?
>
> > The most important, widely used API is not 64-bit. Also the kernel is not.
>
> How do you figure Carbon is the "most important, widely used API"?
Many important commercial apps use Carbon, including Photoshop and
Office. Photoshop could benefit from increased memory availability,
but it's currently not possible to move Photoshop to 64-bit unless
Photoshop is ported to Cocoa, meaning much of its core code would have
to be rewritten using Cocoa. In essence, they'd have to rewrite much
of the underpinnings of Photoshop. If Adobe did that to take
advantage of things like Core Image, that'd be great, but it's still a
huge effort that wouldn't benefit their other primary platform,
Windows, one bit. If writing cross-platform programs is really that
much trouble using Cocoa, perhaps Apple could release Cocoa for
Windows. It looks like they've already at least partially done that
with Safari/QuickTime.
> > [snip]
> >>> By that standard, Photoshop qualifies, I think. Adding bits of Cocoa to
> >>> an
> >>> app doesn't really help with this.
>
> >> Another reason for Adobe to make a modern program with a modern "engine".
> >> Heck, if it is 32 bit on Windows it will remain that way unless they can
> >> compile it 64 bit there as well.
>
> > At the least, Windows itself is not stopping them. The 64-bit version of
> > Win32 is ready today.
>
> Apple is not stopping Adobe from updating their software.
They are in terms of the extra work involved. Had Apple released 64-
bit Carbon, Adobe could use their existing code base in moving to 64-
bit. Now they can't.
> > [snip]
> >>>> According to the link and quote I provided you with it does - do you
> >>>> have
> >>>> contrary info you can point to?
>
> >>> If you insist:
>
> >>> [http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Darwin/Conceptual/64bitPorti...
> >>> ns
> >>> ition/chapter_3_section_4.html]
>
> >>> "The kernel (including the I/O Kit) remains a 32-bit environment in Mac
> >>> OS
> >>> X."
>
> >> Which does not say that it does not support 64 bit drivers.
>
> > <blink>
>
> > Er, yes it does.
>
> > Or, at least, I can't see how you are interpreting it to mean that the
> > kernel is 64-bit, or that 64-bit drivers are possible. To me it seems pretty
> > unequivocal. Perhaps you could elaborate on this point.
>
> > Anyway, if you read on at that link, you'll find out what "64-bit capable"
> > drivers are. It's essentially the same thing that Windows drivers had to do
> > to support >=4 GB of physical RAM on 32-bit Windows XP. And, as with XP,
> > it's largely a question of fixing bugs.
>
> To summarize, comparing 64-bit Vista with OS X:
>
> * OS X drops Classic.
> Vista drops 16 bit apps.
Correct. To be fair, 16-bit apps are much older than many Classic
apps. Also, 16-bit is still supported in the 32-bit edition. Classic
isn't supported *at all*.
> * OS X has a migration path via Carbon, but Carbon is only 32-bit.
> Vista's migration path is... um... do you know?
Win32 and Win64. Most apps have already migrated to at least Win32
since Win16 was abandoned so many years ago.
> * OS X can handle both 32 and 64-bit drivers (or 64-bit-capable at least).
> Vista can handle only 64-bit drivers.
>
> Add to that with 64-bit Vista you lose compatibility with many programs
> (more than even with 32 bit Vista),
Do you mean beyond 16-bit apps? What 32-bit apps don't run under XP/
Vista 64? I know Data Execution Prevention causes problems with some
apps, and I think that's turned on by default in the 64-bit version.
It's a very smart security feature to have enabled, but it can be
turned off if need be. I don't see why it would have to be for most
apps, though, as I turned it on under Vista 32 and it hasn't caused
any problems for me.
> you have (more) registry weaknesses (no
> file redirection),
eh?
> and you have no ability to unsigned drivers.
Annoying, but it is meant to improve security. An argument could be
made that OS X has no way of verifying kexts as legit and is therefore
not as secure.
> OS X has no
> similar weaknesses.
I'm not sure I agree with the weaknesses you gave, but OS X certainly
has weaknesses of its own. A 32-bit kernel with 64-bit support
elsewhere in the OS boosts compatibility, but that means OS X still
isn't a true 64-bit OS.
Daniel Johnson
news:d4ddce11-ff41-4f8f...@b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 23, 2:21 pm, Snit <C...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> "PC Guy" <pc...@hotmail.com> stated in post
>> POGdnbtWq95mMfPanZ2dnUVZ_uWln...@comcast.com on 12/23/07 11:46 AM:
>> drivers
>> and 64-bit-capable drivers.
>
> capable drivers are really just 32-bit drivers that can be assigned
> chunks of memory beyond the first 4GB. They still can't address more
> than 4GB of memory, but if you have two or three of these drivers on a
> machine with lots of memory, each of them can claim more memory for
> themselves (each up to 4GB). Am I understanding this correctly?
That is not quite right. Each virtual address space can be up to 4 GB in
size, and each process gets its own virtual address space- but not each
driver. The drivers in OS X share the address space of the kernel. They get
4 GB between them. [1]
However, OS X does let you have more physical memory than 4 GB. Since most
software deals only in virtual addresses, these can be transparently
translated into larger physical addresses- and in this way memory above 4 GB
can be used on a 32-bit system.
But drivers that deal in physical memory- and this is fairly common as I
understand it- must use the larger physical addresses. There are APIs to
help, but you have to use them for them to do any good. If you write a
driver that assumes that physical and virtual addresses are the same size,
that driver is then not "64-bit capable".
Apple is not much fazed by this, as they can just fix those bugs in their
drivers. MS doesn't make, and cannot fix, most of the drivers for Windows
systems, so they've had to a take a different approach: they keep the
virtual and physical addresses the same size.
[1] On 32-bit Windows, it's typically 2 GB.
Snit
12/23/07 12:48 PM:
> There is. 64-bit-capable is not 64-bit. It sounds like 64-bit-
> capable drivers are really just 32-bit drivers that can be assigned
> chunks of memory beyond the first 4GB. They still can't address more
> than 4GB of memory, but if you have two or three of these drivers on a
> machine with lots of memory, each of them can claim more memory for
> themselves (each up to 4GB). Am I understanding this correctly?
Could be - I admit I do not know the details. Still: if this limitation
exists but the user is not effected by this limitation it is a non-issue.
Frankly I doubt most people would be effected by a 4 GB limit (though that
may change over time).
--
Dear Aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1123221217782777472
Snit
OS X does have a 32 bit kernel... agreed. Not sure it has a "need" for more
than that.
Snit
12/23/07 1:04 PM:
>>> I do not think there is *any* Mac that can dual-boot System 7 and OS X, say.
>>
>>>>> On the other hand, they also don't offer a True 64-bit OS. So you get
>>>>> neither the one thing nor the other: you get weak 64-bit support *and*
>>>>> weak
>>>>> backwards compatibility.
>>
>>>> One of their APIs is not 64 bit. Other than that what do you mean by poor
>>>> support?
>>
>>> The most important, widely used API is not 64-bit. Also the kernel is not.
>>
>> How do you figure Carbon is the "most important, widely used API"?
>
> Many important commercial apps use Carbon, including Photoshop and
> Office. Photoshop could benefit from increased memory availability,
> but it's currently not possible to move Photoshop to 64-bit unless
> Photoshop is ported to Cocoa, meaning much of its core code would have
> to be rewritten using Cocoa. In essence, they'd have to rewrite much
> of the underpinnings of Photoshop. If Adobe did that to take
> advantage of things like Core Image, that'd be great, but it's still a
> huge effort that wouldn't benefit their other primary platform,
> Windows, one bit. If writing cross-platform programs is really that
> much trouble using Cocoa, perhaps Apple could release Cocoa for
> Windows. It looks like they've already at least partially done that
> with Safari/QuickTime.
Adobe programmers have publicly stated they plan on taking better advantage
of the tools the OSs now provide - I suspect they *are* planning on using
Core Image and the like on OS X. I doubt Apple would be making any big
decisions on Carbon without talking to the two biggies who use it, MS and
Adobe.
Cocoa is a very important tool in OS X - not sure you can say either it or
Carbon are the "most important", though if given a choice, based on Apple's
treatment of the two, I would say Apple sees Cocoa as the more important.
>
>>> [snip]
>>>>> By that standard, Photoshop qualifies, I think. Adding bits of Cocoa to
>>>>> an
>>>>> app doesn't really help with this.
>>
>>>> Another reason for Adobe to make a modern program with a modern "engine".
>>>> Heck, if it is 32 bit on Windows it will remain that way unless they can
>>>> compile it 64 bit there as well.
>>
>>> At the least, Windows itself is not stopping them. The 64-bit version of
>>> Win32 is ready today.
>>
>> Apple is not stopping Adobe from updating their software.
>
> They are in terms of the extra work involved. Had Apple released 64-
> bit Carbon, Adobe could use their existing code base in moving to 64-
> bit. Now they can't.
But if Adobe is already planning on using OS tools better they may very well
be moving to Cocoa. They have also suggested they know their UI and code
base are getting dated and need a major overhaul.
...
>> To summarize, comparing 64-bit Vista with OS X:
>>
>> * OS X drops Classic.
>> Vista drops 16 bit apps.
>
> Correct. To be fair, 16-bit apps are much older than many Classic
> apps. Also, 16-bit is still supported in the 32-bit edition. Classic
> isn't supported *at all*.
OS X 10.4 is still supported.
>> * OS X has a migration path via Carbon, but Carbon is only 32-bit.
>> Vista's migration path is... um... do you know?
>
> Win32 and Win64. Most apps have already migrated to at least Win32
> since Win16 was abandoned so many years ago.
How hard is it to migrate from Win32 to Win64?
>> * OS X can handle both 32 and 64-bit drivers (or 64-bit-capable at least).
>> Vista can handle only 64-bit drivers.
>>
>> Add to that with 64-bit Vista you lose compatibility with many programs
>> (more than even with 32 bit Vista),
>
> Do you mean beyond 16-bit apps? What 32-bit apps don't run under XP/
> Vista 64? I know Data Execution Prevention causes problems with some
> apps, and I think that's turned on by default in the 64-bit version.
> It's a very smart security feature to have enabled, but it can be
> turned off if need be. I don't see why it would have to be for most
> apps, though, as I turned it on under Vista 32 and it hasn't caused
> any problems for me.
<http://www.dansdata.com/askdan00001.htm>
-----
No automatic registry and file redirection, which is what
32-bit Vista uses to allow existing software to work with
Vista's better user account security, even if the software
wants to do admin-rights stuff to the registry and Program
Files directory. Many apps still break in 32-bit Vista, but
many more break in the 64-bit version.
-----
>> you have (more) registry weaknesses (no
>> file redirection),
>
> eh?
>
>> and you have no ability to unsigned drivers.
>
> Annoying, but it is meant to improve security. An argument could be
> made that OS X has no way of verifying kexts as legit and is therefore
> not as secure.
Do you have a real-world example where this has been a problem for OS X?
>> OS X has no
>> similar weaknesses.
>
> I'm not sure I agree with the weaknesses you gave, but OS X certainly
> has weaknesses of its own. A 32-bit kernel with 64-bit support
> elsewhere in the OS boosts compatibility, but that means OS X still
> isn't a true 64-bit OS.
What does that hurt?
--
God made me an atheist - who are you to question his authority?
Daniel Johnson
> "Daniel Johnson" <danielj...@verizon.net> stated in post
> 13mtave...@news.supernews.com on 12/23/07 11:41 AM:
>> can run System 7 in the last few years?
>
> Are you blaming Apple if they have not?
Hell yes! I blame Apple if the sun rises in the morning!
[snip]
>> We all know many important apps that are Carbon. Office. Photoshop.
>> iTunes.
>>
>> Let's look at it the other way. What are the important Cocoa apps?
>
> Most of iLife and iWork and Safari and on and on an on. Clearly Apple
> thinks Carbon is not as important.
Anyway, I am pretty sure iWork is Cocoa, but I am not so sure about iLife.
iTunes certainly is not; how do we know the other iLife apps are Cocoa?
iMovie started out on OS 9, so it was at one time Carbon at least. Is that
not also true of iDVD?
And are there any important 3rd party Cocoa apps?
[snip]
>> Now, if Photoshop isn't 64-bit clean it might be well to make it so, so
>> it
>> can go 64-bit on Windows. But it still won't be able to do it on the Mac.
>
> Not in Carbon... but with Cocoa it could.
That's a bit like saying "Not in Carbon.. but with Win64 it could". Except
Win64 is more realistic for them- they have a Win32 port already.
[snip]
>> By contrast, OS X has a good story for Cocoa: it makes is easy to
>> 'recompile
>> both ways'. But for Carbon there *is no* migration path. Not even a path
>> that leads to Cocoa.
>
> But Carbon runs on OS X.
For now. But that's not a "migration path"; Carbon seems to have no future.
Cocoa does, but Apple offers no way to get from Carbon to Cocoa, except to
rewrite from scratch.
[snip]
>> OS X cannot use 64-bit drivers. "64-bit capable drivers" exist on Windows
>> and they work fine in Vista. They are considered by all to just be 32-bit
>> drivers. The difference is simply that "64-bit incapable drivers" are
>> buggy.
>
> I would like to see this supported.
Sadly, it isn't. Microsoft abandoned this effort several years ago, so today
the only way to use more memory in Windows is to go 64-bit.
[snip]
>>> you have (more) registry weaknesses (no
>>> file redirection),
>>
>> I do not understand what you are referring to here. File redirection
>> appeared first in 64-bit XP: it is used to make 32-bit programs see the
>> directory structure they are used to. 64-bit programs don't get this, but
>> I
>> don't see why that's a problem.
>
> <http://www.dansdata.com/askdan00001.htm>
> -----
> No automatic registry and file redirection, which is what
> 32-bit Vista uses to allow existing software to work with
> Vista's better user account security, even if the software
> wants to do admin-rights stuff to the registry and Program
> Files directory. Many apps still break in 32-bit Vista, but
> many more break in the 64-bit version.
> -----
I think he is mistaken on this point. 32-bit programs would not run *at all*
on 64-bit Vista due to the goofy structure of the \Windows directory on that
OS. File redirection makes it work.
What I have read is that *64-bit apps* do not get any redirection, and maybe
that's the kernel of truth in all this.
[snip]
>> This 'signed drivers' thing should help with that last case: it does not
>> prevent a fool from installing a root kit, but it does mean that the root
>> kit can be traced back to its creators. That ought to be a deterrent.
>
> A pain in the rump for users is still a pain in the rump for users.
It's a pain for a very select group of users who write their own drivers.
It's also a pain for hardware vendors, many of whom were unwilling to make
the minimal effort to get signed for XP.
Snit
> "Snit" <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
> news:C39408F6.9ECCF%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com...
>> "Daniel Johnson" <danielj...@verizon.net> stated in post
>> 13mtave...@news.supernews.com on 12/23/07 11:41 AM:
>>> But other people have done that. Have other people made any machines that
>>> can run System 7 in the last few years?
>>
>> Are you blaming Apple if they have not?
>
> Hell yes! I blame Apple if the sun rises in the morning!
The sun rising in the morning helps the apples grow - not the other way
around. :)
>
> [snip]
>>> We all know many important apps that are Carbon. Office. Photoshop.
>>> iTunes.
>>>
>>> Let's look at it the other way. What are the important Cocoa apps?
>>
>> Most of iLife and iWork and Safari and on and on an on. Clearly Apple
>> thinks Carbon is not as important.
>
> Anyway, I am pretty sure iWork is Cocoa, but I am not so sure about iLife.
> iTunes certainly is not; how do we know the other iLife apps are Cocoa?
> iMovie started out on OS 9, so it was at one time Carbon at least. Is that
> not also true of iDVD?
>
> And are there any important 3rd party Cocoa apps?
I posted a list a while back... though my "test" was not fool proof. Not
even sure how you can tell which is which.
> [snip]
>>> Now, if Photoshop isn't 64-bit clean it might be well to make it so, so it
>>> can go 64-bit on Windows. But it still won't be able to do it on the Mac.
>>>
>> Not in Carbon... but with Cocoa it could.
>>
> That's a bit like saying "Not in Carbon.. but with Win64 it could". Except
> Win64 is more realistic for them- they have a Win32 port already.
Adobe programmers have already noted that their code base and UI are dated
and in need of major work... and have stated that they plan on using more OS
services (likely Core Image and the like on OS X). Sounds like they might
... *might*... be moving to Cocoa. Again: I seriously doubt Apple would
make any big changes in their Carbon plans without talking to MS and Adobe
to make sure that they were going to keep developing for the Mac. Makes no
sense not to... and there is no good reason to think Apple would not do
this.
>
> [snip]
>>> By contrast, OS X has a good story for Cocoa: it makes is easy to
>>> 'recompile
>>> both ways'. But for Carbon there *is no* migration path. Not even a path
>>> that leads to Cocoa.
>>
>> But Carbon runs on OS X.
>
> For now.
And for the announced future. There is no plan that we know of to "lose"
Carbon.
> But that's not a "migration path"; Carbon seems to have no future. Cocoa does,
> but Apple offers no way to get from Carbon to Cocoa, except to rewrite from
> scratch.
I would like verification on this.
> [snip]
>>> OS X cannot use 64-bit drivers. "64-bit capable drivers" exist on Windows
>>> and they work fine in Vista. They are considered by all to just be 32-bit
>>> drivers. The difference is simply that "64-bit incapable drivers" are
>>> buggy.
>>
>> I would like to see this supported.
>
> Sadly, it isn't. Microsoft abandoned this effort several years ago, so today
> the only way to use more memory in Windows is to go 64-bit.
I would like to see your *comments* supported.
> [snip]
>>>> you have (more) registry weaknesses (no
>>>> file redirection),
>>>
>>> I do not understand what you are referring to here. File redirection
>>> appeared first in 64-bit XP: it is used to make 32-bit programs see the
>>> directory structure they are used to. 64-bit programs don't get this, but
>>> I
>>> don't see why that's a problem.
>>
>> <http://www.dansdata.com/askdan00001.htm>
>> -----
>> No automatic registry and file redirection, which is what
>> 32-bit Vista uses to allow existing software to work with
>> Vista's better user account security, even if the software
>> wants to do admin-rights stuff to the registry and Program
>> Files directory. Many apps still break in 32-bit Vista, but
>> many more break in the 64-bit version.
>> -----
>
> I think he is mistaken on this point. 32-bit programs would not run *at all*
> on 64-bit Vista due to the goofy structure of the \Windows directory on that
> OS. File redirection makes it work.
>
> What I have read is that *64-bit apps* do not get any redirection, and maybe
> that's the kernel of truth in all this.
Could be - I acknowledge I do not know the details. Heck, really, what
matters to me is the user experience. On Vista 64 how well are most apps
able to run (without tweaking)? If they and drivers can run then the
details of how do not matter much - at least not to me.
>
> [snip]
>>> This 'signed drivers' thing should help with that last case: it does not
>>> prevent a fool from installing a root kit, but it does mean that the root
>>> kit can be traced back to its creators. That ought to be a deterrent.
>>
>> A pain in the rump for users is still a pain in the rump for users.
>
> It's a pain for a very select group of users who write their own drivers.
> It's also a pain for hardware vendors, many of whom were unwilling to make
> the minimal effort to get signed for XP.
Isn't there also a pretty hefty cost involved? And if getting drivers that
work is a pain that is a pain for the user - not just the developer.
--
Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments
that take our breath away.
nospamatall
> In article <1i9jjbb.8b3wm1hxq73uN%spamb...@users.toughguy.net>,
> spamb...@users.toughguy.net (Jesper) wrote:
>
>> Of a modern OS, Vista is surprisingly oldfashioned: 32 bit vista fails
>> to access more than 3.1-3.5 GB RAM. M$ wants people to buy their
>> expensive server solutions to run apps requirering more than approx 3.1
>> GB of RAM. Furthermore 64 bit vista is unable to run 32 bit apps. In
>> Leopard the support is seemless!
>
> reserve about 700 meg of address space for hardware use (video memory
> among many other things.) Thus there is only about 3.3 gigs of space
> left for the OS to see. Vista is "seeing" all 4 gig, there is only 3.3
> gig left to see.
So how is it that when I have 2 GB of RAM I am getting it all showing as
available?
And how do you account for the 750MB of video ram he has in the video card?
nospamatall
> "nospamatall" <nospa...@iol.ie> wrote in message
> news:fkkr53$26g$1...@aioe.org...
>> Daniel Johnson wrote:
>>
>>>> Can you give a real world example of where OS X does not support 64
>>>> bit apps
>>>> well?
>>>
>>> Adobe cannot write a 64-bit version of Photoshop for the Mac, because
>>> Photoshop is a Carbon app, and Carbon does not support 64-bit.
>>
>> That's an example of a software vendor who is not producing a 64 bit
>> app. That's not what he asked for.
>
> That's an example of a vendor that *can't* produce a 64-bit app, even
> through there *is* demand from its customers that they do so. It's even
> a pretty important app for the Mac.
>
> Yes, it *is* possible that there are other things (besides Apple)
> holding them back- but that is to be demonstrated.
>
> Even if that is so, this is still a real world example of OS X not
> support 64-bit apps well.
>
What? If they made a 64 bit version and apple didn't support it, you
would have a point, but they haven't done so. It is not an example of OS
X not supporting 64-bit apps. I don't know, maybe they don't, but that
isn't even a relevant example.
Daniel Johnson
> "Daniel Johnson" <danielj...@verizon.net> stated in post
> 13mtifc...@news.supernews.com on 12/23/07 1:49 PM:
>> And are there any important 3rd party Cocoa apps?
>
> I posted a list a while back... though my "test" was not fool proof. Not
> even sure how you can tell which is which.
Ah, that is the problem. You can tell some apps must be Carbon because they
ran at one time on OS 9, and haven't had a complete overhaul. But that
doesn't tell you when an app is Cocoa.
I like that. Works out pretty well for a wintroll! :D
[snip]
>> That's a bit like saying "Not in Carbon.. but with Win64 it could".
>> Except
>> Win64 is more realistic for them- they have a Win32 port already.
>
> Adobe programmers have already noted that their code base and UI are dated
> and in need of major work...
Programmers always think that. :D
However, even if it is very true, it does not mean the codebase isn't 64-bit
clean, or that it would be hard to make it so. The problem areas may well
lie elsewhere.
> and have stated that they plan on using more OS
> services (likely Core Image and the like on OS X).
Did they say which OS's services they wanted to use? :D
> Sounds like they might
> ... *might*... be moving to Cocoa. Again: I seriously doubt Apple would
> make any big changes in their Carbon plans without talking to MS and Adobe
> to make sure that they were going to keep developing for the Mac. Makes
> no
> sense not to... and there is no good reason to think Apple would not do
> this.
I have less faith in Apple's reasonableness than you do, I think. But I am
pretty sure Cocoa is Right Out. For one thing, they refused to do that years
ago when the Mac had a higher marketshare than it does now. For another,
Photoshop is a crossplatform app, and Objective-C is really an
Apple-specific language at this point.
[snip]
>>> But Carbon runs on OS X.
>>
>> For now.
>
> And for the announced future. There is no plan that we know of to "lose"
> Carbon.
This is Apple. The announced future is about five minutes. :D
That we don't know Apple's plans is not suprising. Neither is it reassuring.
>> But that's not a "migration path"; Carbon seems to have no future. Cocoa
>> does,
>> but Apple offers no way to get from Carbon to Cocoa, except to rewrite
>> from
>> scratch.
>
> I would like verification on this.
I don't know how to prove a negative. Has Apple presented either an account
of Carbon's future, or a migration path to get you from Carbon to Cocoa? If
they have, I have not heard of it. Have you?
[snip]
>>> I would like to see this supported.
>>
>> Sadly, it isn't. Microsoft abandoned this effort several years ago, so
>> today
>> the only way to use more memory in Windows is to go 64-bit.
>
> I would like to see your *comments* supported.
Oh. Well, I've given you the link to Apple's account of this stuff, anyway.
[snip]
>> I think he is mistaken on this point. 32-bit programs would not run *at
>> all*
>> on 64-bit Vista due to the goofy structure of the \Windows directory on
>> that
>> OS. File redirection makes it work.
>>
>> What I have read is that *64-bit apps* do not get any redirection, and
>> maybe
>> that's the kernel of truth in all this.
>
> Could be - I acknowledge I do not know the details. Heck, really, what
> matters to me is the user experience. On Vista 64 how well are most apps
> able to run (without tweaking)? If they and drivers can run then the
> details of how do not matter much - at least not to me.
Right. And 16-bit apps *don't* run, and neither do 32-bit drivers. The
former is pretty important.
The driver thing is less significant. Hardware has to be replaced anyway- it
wears out- so you do wind up moving to new drivers perforce.
[snip]
>>> A pain in the rump for users is still a pain in the rump for users.
>>
>> It's a pain for a very select group of users who write their own drivers.
>> It's also a pain for hardware vendors, many of whom were unwilling to
>> make
>> the minimal effort to get signed for XP.
>
> Isn't there also a pretty hefty cost involved?
It's trivial. About $500. You aren't required to pass WHQL certification or
anything like that.
> And if getting drivers that
> work is a pain that is a pain for the user - not just the developer.
I think the drivers will be there; as computer memories grow, 64-bit Vista
will look more attractive. It's problem right now is that most systems are
still below 4 GB, so it doesn't have all that much to offer, really.
Jesus
wrote:
> "Jesus" <rustybucket...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Oh, OK. I think I understand now. Thanks for clarifying that for
me. The point still stands, though - Mac OS X doesn't support 64-bit
drivers, nor are 64-bit capable drivers the same as true 64-bit
drivers.
nospamatall
>>>> None. I have a 512 Mb Nvidia Card.
>>>
>>> Then it uses 512MB which decreases the memory available to Vista by
>>> that amount. This is NOT a Vista problem Mactards!
>>
>>
>> THe VIDEO CARD HAS ONBOARD VRam dumbshit!!!!
>
> No SHIT DUMBASS! So you have 4GB + 512MB = 4.5GB of physical memory. But
> a 32 bit operating system can only address 4GB of memory whether it's on
> the motherboard, video card, or somewhere else.
>
And the whole point of this was to point out that this doesn't happen
under OS X.
nospamatall
>> OS X, for example, does not share the same weakness - though even if
>> it did
>> then it would be just a shared problem.
>
> 32 bit versions of OS X do.
Likewise any old operating system. There is only the one version of OS
X, which is presently at 10.5 and this is not an issue. You interrupted
the thread and diverted it with a spurious argument.
PC Guy
> Bob Campbell wrote:
>> In article <1i9jjbb.8b3wm1hxq73uN%spamb...@users.toughguy.net>,
>> spamb...@users.toughguy.net (Jesper) wrote:
>>
>>> Of a modern OS, Vista is surprisingly oldfashioned: 32 bit vista fails
>>> to access more than 3.1-3.5 GB RAM. M$ wants people to buy their
>>> expensive server solutions to run apps requirering more than approx 3.1
>>> GB of RAM. Furthermore 64 bit vista is unable to run 32 bit apps. In
>>> Leopard the support is seemless!
>>
>> This is a hardware issue, not software/OS. Most modern motherboards
>> reserve about 700 meg of address space for hardware use (video memory
>> among many other things.) Thus there is only about 3.3 gigs of space
>> left for the OS to see. Vista is "seeing" all 4 gig, there is only 3.3
>> gig left to see.
>
> So how is it that when I have 2 GB of RAM I am getting it all showing as
> available?
>
> And how do you account for the 750MB of video ram he has in the video
> card?
Maybe this will help:
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000811.html
PC Guy
Just because Apple detects 4GB of memory and reports it all available for
user applications does not make it so.
I now return the Mactards to their fantasy.
Snit
3:07 PM:
I would love to see something authoritative on the differences *and* how
this effects users - if at all.
--
Look, this is silly. It's not an argument, it's an armor plated walrus with
walnut paneling and an all leather interior.
BlueBuyYoo
>"nospamatall" <nospa...@iol.ie> wrote in message
>news:fkmlmb$2rt$1...@aioe.org...
>> Bob Campbell wrote:
>>> In article <1i9jjbb.8b3wm1hxq73uN%spamb...@users.toughguy.net>,
>>> spamb...@users.toughguy.net (Jesper) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Of a modern OS, Vista is surprisingly oldfashioned: 32 bit vista fails
>>>> to access more than 3.1-3.5 GB RAM. M$ wants people to buy their
>>>> expensive server solutions to run apps requirering more than approx 3.1
>>>> GB of RAM. Furthermore 64 bit vista is unable to run 32 bit apps. In
>>>> Leopard the support is seemless!
>>>
>>> This is a hardware issue, not software/OS. Most modern motherboards
>>> reserve about 700 meg of address space for hardware use (video memory
>>> among many other things.) Thus there is only about 3.3 gigs of space
>>> left for the OS to see. Vista is "seeing" all 4 gig, there is only 3.3
>>> gig left to see.
>>
>> So how is it that when I have 2 GB of RAM I am getting it all showing as
>> available?
>>
>> And how do you account for the 750MB of video ram he has in the video
>> card?
>Maybe this will help:
>http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000811.html
Nice article. A couple of years ago, 2GB RAM in a desktop would have been
thought of as extravagant. With OSes and apps taking advantage of the available
hardware and becoming more resource hungry, the 4GB limit will come into
play sooner rather than later.
Snit
> "Snit" <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
> news:C3941A22.9ED03%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com...
>> "Daniel Johnson" <danielj...@verizon.net> stated in post
>> 13mtifc...@news.supernews.com on 12/23/07 1:49 PM:
>
>>> And are there any important 3rd party Cocoa apps?
>>
>> I posted a list a while back... though my "test" was not fool proof. Not
>> even sure how you can tell which is which.
>
> Ah, that is the problem. You can tell some apps must be Carbon because they
> ran at one time on OS 9, and haven't had a complete overhaul. But that
> doesn't tell you when an app is Cocoa.
>
> I like that. Works out pretty well for a wintroll! :D
Actually it goes against your claim that Carbon is being abandoned. Seems
pretty mature if you cannot tell the difference.
> [snip]
>>> That's a bit like saying "Not in Carbon.. but with Win64 it could".
>>> Except
>>> Win64 is more realistic for them- they have a Win32 port already.
>>
>> Adobe programmers have already noted that their code base and UI are dated
>> and in need of major work...
>
> Programmers always think that. :D
>
> However, even if it is very true, it does not mean the codebase isn't 64-bit
> clean, or that it would be hard to make it so. The problem areas may well
> lie elsewhere.
Sure - but given the age of the program I doubt it was designed with 64 bit
addressing in mind.
>> and have stated that they plan on using more OS
>> services (likely Core Image and the like on OS X).
>
> Did they say which OS's services they wanted to use? :D
Not that I know of.
>> Sounds like they might ... *might*... be moving to Cocoa. Again: I seriously
>> doubt Apple would make any big changes in their Carbon plans without talking
>> to MS and Adobe to make sure that they were going to keep developing for the
>> Mac. Makes no sense not to... and there is no good reason to think Apple
>> would not do this.
>
> I have less faith in Apple's reasonableness than you do, I think. But I am
> pretty sure Cocoa is Right Out.
Yet you have no support for this... at least none I have seen.
> For one thing, they refused to do that years ago when the Mac had a higher
> marketshare than it does now.
Who refused to do what?
> For another, Photoshop is a crossplatform app, and Objective-C is really an
> Apple-specific language at this point.
So what do you think Apple and Adobe plan on doing with Photoshop?
>
> [snip]
>>>> But Carbon runs on OS X.
>>>
>>> For now.
>>
>> And for the announced future. There is no plan that we know of to "lose"
>> Carbon.
>
> This is Apple. The announced future is about five minutes. :D
>
> That we don't know Apple's plans is not suprising. Neither is it reassuring.
But to pretend you know what you do not is silly. Also to pretend Apple is
not communicating with MS and Adobe is silly.
>>> But that's not a "migration path"; Carbon seems to have no future. Cocoa
>>> does, but Apple offers no way to get from Carbon to Cocoa, except to rewrite
>>> from scratch.
>>>
>> I would like verification on this.
>>
> I don't know how to prove a negative. Has Apple presented either an account of
> Carbon's future, or a migration path to get you from Carbon to Cocoa? If they
> have, I have not heard of it. Have you?
I do not keep up with programming announcements... at least not as a rule.
> [snip]
>>>> I would like to see this supported.
>>>
>>> Sadly, it isn't. Microsoft abandoned this effort several years ago, so today
>>> the only way to use more memory in Windows is to go 64-bit.
>>
>> I would like to see your *comments* supported.
>
> Oh. Well, I've given you the link to Apple's account of this stuff, anyway.
And then offered a lot of unsupported "conclusions" based on those comments.
> [snip]
>>> I think he is mistaken on this point. 32-bit programs would not run *at all*
>>> on 64-bit Vista due to the goofy structure of the \Windows directory on that
>>> OS. File redirection makes it work.
>>>
>>> What I have read is that *64-bit apps* do not get any redirection, and maybe
>>> that's the kernel of truth in all this.
>>>
>> Could be - I acknowledge I do not know the details. Heck, really, what
>> matters to me is the user experience. On Vista 64 how well are most apps
>> able to run (without tweaking)? If they and drivers can run then the details
>> of how do not matter much - at least not to me.
>>
> Right. And 16-bit apps *don't* run, and neither do 32-bit drivers. The former
> is pretty important.
>
> The driver thing is less significant. Hardware has to be replaced anyway- it
> wears out- so you do wind up moving to new drivers perforce.
But not all at once.
> [snip]
>>>> A pain in the rump for users is still a pain in the rump for users.
>>>
>>> It's a pain for a very select group of users who write their own drivers.
>>> It's also a pain for hardware vendors, many of whom were unwilling to
>>> make
>>> the minimal effort to get signed for XP.
>>
>> Isn't there also a pretty hefty cost involved?
>
> It's trivial. About $500. You aren't required to pass WHQL certification or
> anything like that.
$500 is not trivial to a small business.
>> And if getting drivers that
>> work is a pain that is a pain for the user - not just the developer.
>
> I think the drivers will be there; as computer memories grow, 64-bit Vista
> will look more attractive. It's problem right now is that most systems are
> still below 4 GB, so it doesn't have all that much to offer, really.
Well, my system is at 4 GB. :)
It would likely be more common if Windows could actually use the memory.
--
The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is
generally employed only by small children and large nations. - David
Friedman
Lefty Bigfoot
(in article <876dnYYs8oWME_Pa...@comcast.com>):
>
> "Lefty Bigfoot" <nu...@busyness.info> wrote in message
> news:0001HW.C3931489...@news.verizon.net...
>> On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 19:02:59 -0600, PC Guy wrote
>> (in article <VMCdneJ13uVZLvDa...@comcast.com>):
>>
>>>
>>> "Lefty Bigfoot" <nu...@busyness.info> wrote in message
>>> news:0001HW.C3930BEB...@news.verizon.net...
>>>> On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 17:53:24 -0600, PC Guy wrote
>>>> (in article <1f6dnau4CYboPvDa...@comcast.com>):
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "John" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:AoidnWI9P-8rP_Da...@netlojix.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Tommy Troll" <tom_...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:33b19ff7-ead1-49b1...@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com..
>>>>>> .
>>>>>> On Dec 22, 4:50 pm, "John" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> "Jesper" <spambus...@users.toughguy.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> news:1i9jjbb.8b3wm1hxq73uN%spamb...@users.toughguy.net...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Of a modern OS, Vista is surprisingly oldfashioned: 32 bit vista
>>>>>>>> fails
>>>>>>>> to access more than 3.1-3.5 GB RAM. M$ wants people to buy their
>>>>>>>> expensive server solutions to run apps requirering more than approx
>>>>>>>> 3.1
>>>>>>>> GB of RAM. Furthermore 64 bit vista is unable to run 32 bit apps. In
>>>>>>>> Leopard the support is seemless!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Jesper
>>>>>>>> - Jeg sover godt om natten, når han passer på mine penge.
>>>>>>>> Naser Khader om Anders Fogh Rasmussen.
>>>>>>>> http://theextract.blogspot.com/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I bought my Dell XPs 410 with Vista Ultimate configured with 4Gb of
>>>>>>> RAM.
>>>>>>> Vista only recognizes 3.07 Gb. Nothing at all wrong with the machine.
>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>> am
>>>>>>> dissiapointed that Dell allowed me to configure the machine as such.
>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>> just so used to Macs that I forgot that in the area of RAM Windows is
>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>> back in the Stone Age.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How much ram does the video card use?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> None. I have a 512 Mb Nvidia Card.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then it uses 512MB which decreases the memory available to Vista by
>>>>> that
>>>>> amount. This is NOT a Vista problem Mactards!
>>>>
>>>> You are badly confused.
>>>>
>>>> If it was for example, an intel mobo with on-board video, which
>>>> typically share system RAM (and are dog slow) you'd be right.
>>>> With add-on cards with their own RAM, this is /not/ the case.
>>>
>>> It's not the amount of physical memory that's the problem Mactards! It's
>>> the
>>> fact that a 32 bit system can directly access 4GB of memory.
>>
>> Wrong again.
>
> Yes, you are. No surprise there.
The video card memory, outside of shared memory mobo
implementations does /not/ share the same address space with PC
system memory.
>
>> The video adapter uses the display buffer memory completely separate from
>> the per process memory limits.
>
> Note the key words "per process memory limits".
Which you fail to understand anymore than the above.
--
Lefty
All of God's creatures have a place..........
.........right next to the potatoes and gravy.
See also: http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/images/iProduct.gif
Lefty Bigfoot
(in article <rtqdnWMJRKTlffPa...@comcast.com>):
The VM system in OS X is 64-bit, and has been for a very long
time, if not from the very beginning. You have been able to
compile and execute 64-bit command line apps for that period as
well. The limitation was the GUI frameworks not supporting
64-bit until recently.
Carbon still does not.
Lefty Bigfoot
(in article <C394032E.9ECC4%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>):
What this means is that 32-bit apps talk to device drivers
through an interface layer, not within the same process, so that
a 32-bit can and will talk to hardware through a 64-bit device
driver, just like 32-bit apps on win64. No big surprise.
David Empson
Yes it does.
Consider that the Mac Pro and PowerMac G5 can have up to 16 GB of RAM.
What would be the point of putting more than 4 GB of RAM into the
computer if you couldn't actually use it?
The original PowerMac G5 supported 4 GB or 8 GB (depending on the model)
and came with Mac OS X 10.2.7 (Jaguar). I don't know how limited that
version was. It is possible it really wasn't able to make use of more
than 4 GB of RAM, but I think it was similar to how 10.3 handles it.
Many more PowerMac G5s were supplied with 10.3 (Panther). In this case,
the operating system is able to make use of all the memory in the
computer (up to 8 GB RAM, plus whatever additional memory is supplied by
video cards.) Individual processes are limited to 4 GB address space, so
you need multiple processes to make use of more than about 3 GB of
actual RAM in a single application. You can of course run several large
and memory hungry applications (each using about 3 GB) at the same time.
With 10.4 (Tiger), it is possible to have 64-bit processes (on a
PowerMac G5, Mac Pro, or Core2 Duo models of the iMac, Mac Mini, MacBook
and MacBook Pro). These can have virtual address spaces larger than 4
GB, and in a PowerMac G5 or Mac Pro they can physically address more
than 4 GB of real RAM. They are rather limited in which APIs they can
use: I think 10.4 is limited to POSIX APIs for 64-bit processes, but
this means things like database engines can use as much memory as they
want. If a GUI application wants to use more than about 3 GB of real
memory, it can be broken up into a two process configuration with the
32-bit GUI part limited to 3 GB and a background faceless 64-bit process
which can use as much memory as it wants.
With 10.5 (Leopard), many more APIs are now 64-bit capable, including
Cocoa, so at least some GUI applications can be fully 64-bit, and make
use of almost all the RAM in a 4 GB "Santa Rosa" Core2 Duo (apart from
the "wired" part used by the kernel, typically less than 200 MB), or
nearly all of the 16 GB RAM in a PowerMac G5 or Mac Pro.
In an older model Core2 Duo, the memory controller only supports 3 GB of
RAM, so if you install 4 GB, no operating system will be able to access
the extra memory. It is the "Santa Rosa" Core2 Duo models which can make
use of the entire 4 GB of RAM, and with Mac OS X, all that RAM can be
used with either 10.4 or 10.5.
Arguments about whether 32-bit XP/Vista can access more than 3 GB RAM
are inconclusive unless you specify the chipset and processor type. If
you run 32-bit XP/Vista on a Santa Rosa Core2 Duo platform with 4 GB of
RAM, can it actually use all of it, in the same manner as Mac OS X, or
does it have a 32-bit restriction on the physical address space as well
as the virtual (per process) address space?
There should be no question as far as 64-bit XP/Vista is concerned.
--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz
PC Guy
Uh yes, yes it does. No matter how much you want to stomp your feet and cry
no it doesn't.
>
>>
>>> The video adapter uses the display buffer memory completely separate
>>> from
>>> the per process memory limits.
>>
>> Note the key words "per process memory limits".
>
> Which you fail to understand anymore than the above.
No surprise a Mactard doesn't get it.
PC Guy
> On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 16:25:53 -0600, PC Guy wrote
> (in article <rtqdnWMJRKTlffPa...@comcast.com>):
>
>>
>> "nospamatall" <nospa...@iol.ie> wrote in message
>> news:fkmmd3$2rt$4...@aioe.org...
>>> PC Guy wrote:
>>>
>>>>> OS X, for example, does not share the same weakness - though even if
>>>>> it did
>>>>> then it would be just a shared problem.
>>>>
>>>> 32 bit versions of OS X do.
>>>
>>> Likewise any old operating system. There is only the one version of OS
>>> X, which is presently at 10.5 and this is not an issue. You interrupted
>>> the thread and diverted it with a spurious argument.
>>
>> Just because Apple detects 4GB of memory and reports it all available for
>> user applications does not make it so.
>>
>> I now return the Mactards to their fantasy.
>>
>
> The VM system in OS X is 64-bit, and has been for a very long
> time, if not from the very beginning. You have been able to
> compile and execute 64-bit command line apps for that period as
> well. The limitation was the GUI frameworks not supporting
> 64-bit until recently.
>
> Carbon still does not.
Hello! McFly! We're not talking 64 bits here. Clueless Mactards...gotta
spell everyting out for them.
PC Guy
"David Empson" <dem...@actrix.gen.nz> wrote in message
news:1i9mjyk.klvdgm1o1qm96N%dem...@actrix.gen.nz...
> PC Guy <pc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "nospamatall" <nospa...@iol.ie> wrote in message
>> news:fkmmd3$2rt$4...@aioe.org...
>> > PC Guy wrote:
>> >
>> >>> OS X, for example, does not share the same weakness - though even if
>> >>> it did then it would be just a shared problem.
>> >>
>> >> 32 bit versions of OS X do.
>> >
>> > Likewise any old operating system. There is only the one version of OS
>> > X, which is presently at 10.5 and this is not an issue. You interrupted
>> > the thread and diverted it with a spurious argument.
>>
>> Just because Apple detects 4GB of memory and reports it all available for
>> user applications does not make it so.
>
> Yes it does.
>
> Consider that the Mac Pro and PowerMac G5 can have up to 16 GB of RAM.
> What would be the point of putting more than 4 GB of RAM into the
> computer if you couldn't actually use it?
Many operating systems can utilize the memory as cache. Solaris was notable
for this until it was written to be true 64 bit.
> The original PowerMac G5 supported 4 GB or 8 GB (depending on the model)
> and came with Mac OS X 10.2.7 (Jaguar). I don't know how limited that
> version was. It is possible it really wasn't able to make use of more
> than 4 GB of RAM, but I think it was similar to how 10.3 handles it.
Tiger was marketed as "64 bit capable". GUI applications couldn't access
more than 4GB. So what did Apple recommend? Writing a GUI client that passed
data to a CLI based backed which could access more than 4GB. What a kludge!
Snit
0001HW.C3944D3E...@news.verizon.net on 12/23/07 4:37 PM:
>>> As for OS X supporting both 32 and 64 bit drivers can you provide
>>> documentation to support this claim?
>>
>> <http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/64bit.html>
>> -----
>> Now the Cocoa application frameworks, as well as graphics,
>> scripting, and the UNIX foundations of the Mac, are all
>> 64-bit.
>> ...
>> Even better, if you upgrade to new 64-bit-capable drivers,
>> your 32-bit applications will also benefit from the increased
>> throughput.
>> -----
>>
>> I will admit I am not sure if there is a difference between 64-bit drivers
>> and 64-bit-capable drivers.
>>
>>
>
> What this means is that 32-bit apps talk to device drivers
> through an interface layer, not within the same process, so that
> a 32-bit can and will talk to hardware through a 64-bit device
> driver, just like 32-bit apps on win64. No big surprise.
So on OS X you can use 32 and 64 bit drivers and all is good. MS does not
have an OS that allows this. Is that correct?
--
"Innovation is not about saying yes to everything. It's about saying NO to
all but the most crucial features." -- Steve Jobs
Snit
12/23/07 2:58 PM:
> Bob Campbell wrote:
>> In article <1i9jjbb.8b3wm1hxq73uN%spamb...@users.toughguy.net>,
>> spamb...@users.toughguy.net (Jesper) wrote:
>>
>>> Of a modern OS, Vista is surprisingly oldfashioned: 32 bit vista fails
>>> to access more than 3.1-3.5 GB RAM. M$ wants people to buy their
>>> expensive server solutions to run apps requirering more than approx 3.1
>>> GB of RAM. Furthermore 64 bit vista is unable to run 32 bit apps. In
>>> Leopard the support is seemless!
>>
>> This is a hardware issue, not software/OS. Most modern motherboards
>> reserve about 700 meg of address space for hardware use (video memory
>> among many other things.) Thus there is only about 3.3 gigs of space
>> left for the OS to see. Vista is "seeing" all 4 gig, there is only 3.3
>> gig left to see.
>
> So how is it that when I have 2 GB of RAM I am getting it all showing as
> available?
And I see all 4 GB I have installed.
--
"If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
- Anatole France
PC Guy
> "Lefty Bigfoot" <nu...@busyness.info> stated in post
> 0001HW.C3944D3E...@news.verizon.net on 12/23/07 4:37 PM:
>
>>>> As for OS X supporting both 32 and 64 bit drivers can you provide
>>>> documentation to support this claim?
>>>
>>> <http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/64bit.html>
>>> -----
>>> Now the Cocoa application frameworks, as well as graphics,
>>> scripting, and the UNIX foundations of the Mac, are all
>>> 64-bit.
>>> ...
>>> Even better, if you upgrade to new 64-bit-capable drivers,
>>> your 32-bit applications will also benefit from the increased
>>> throughput.
>>> -----
>>>
>>> I will admit I am not sure if there is a difference between 64-bit
>>> drivers
>>> and 64-bit-capable drivers.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> What this means is that 32-bit apps talk to device drivers
>> through an interface layer, not within the same process, so that
>> a 32-bit can and will talk to hardware through a 64-bit device
>> driver, just like 32-bit apps on win64. No big surprise.
>
> So on OS X you can use 32 and 64 bit drivers and all is good. MS does not
> have an OS that allows this. Is that correct?
There don't appear to be any 64 bit drivers. So the answer is: Apple doesn't
appear to allow it either.
Snit
Does not "appear' to be? How do you figure? Based on the quote, above, it
seems as though there likely are. If you have contrary information then
please post it.
--
When I'm working on a problem, I never think about beauty. I think only how
to solve the problem. But when I have finished, if the solution is not
beautiful, I know it is wrong. -- R. Buckminster Fuller
PC Guy
Oh, I don't know. Perhaps Apple had something to say about it:
"The kernel (including the I/O Kit) remains a 32-bit environment in Mac OS
X. "
> Based on the quote, above, it seems as though there likely are. If you
> have contrary information then
> please post it.
Already posted and I know you've already seen it because you responded to
the post where it was made.
Tommy Troll
>
> - Show quoted text -
Simple. You have not hit the 4 gb limit so you can use all the memory
- ram and vram
Snit
You pointed to information about drivers that *do* support 64-bit
addressing. Perhaps you meant to post another link?
Snit
8befb94b-16df-4fb2...@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com on
12/23/07 6:49 PM:
I have 4 GB of RAM and get to use it all. Why can't someone do the same
with the most common versions of Windows?
Lefty Bigfoot
(in article <MeKdneHCKpvKbPPa...@comcast.com>):
I'm guessing you'll tell us next that the cache ram on high-end
RAID controllers is also in the same address space too.
Daniel Johnson
>>> Daniel Johnson wrote:
[snip- no Photoshop 64-bit]
>> Even if that is so, this is still a real world example of OS X not
>> support 64-bit apps well.
>
> What? If they made a 64 bit version and apple didn't support it, you
> would have a point, but they haven't done so. It is not an example of OS
> X not supporting 64-bit apps. I don't know, maybe they don't, but that
> isn't even a relevant example.
If that is not a relevant example, what possibly could be?
Daniel Johnson
> "Daniel Johnson" <danielj...@verizon.net> stated in post
> 13mtmrc...@news.supernews.com on 12/23/07 3:04 PM:
>
>> they
>> ran at one time on OS 9, and haven't had a complete overhaul. But that
>> doesn't tell you when an app is Cocoa.
>>
>> I like that. Works out pretty well for a wintroll! :D
>
> Actually it goes against your claim that Carbon is being abandoned. Seems
> pretty mature if you cannot tell the difference.
I don't see that: it is mature, and Apple is abandoning it anyway.
There is, as Darth Vader would say, no conflict.
[snip]
>> However, even if it is very true, it does not mean the codebase isn't
>> 64-bit
>> clean, or that it would be hard to make it so. The problem areas may well
>> lie elsewhere.
>
> Sure - but given the age of the program I doubt it was designed with 64
> bit
> addressing in mind.
Perhaps not. But it may have been designed to be portable. That would
encourage proper treatment of pointers.
Or not. We just don't know.
[snip]
>>> and have stated that they plan on using more OS
>>> services (likely Core Image and the like on OS X).
>>
>> Did they say which OS's services they wanted to use? :D
>
> Not that I know of.
Then I will cling to my hope that they meant *Windows* services of some
sort. :D
[snip]
>> I have less faith in Apple's reasonableness than you do, I think. But I
>> am
>> pretty sure Cocoa is Right Out.
>
> Yet you have no support for this... at least none I have seen.
Well, read on to my next sentence!
>> For one thing, they refused to do that years ago when the Mac had a
>> higher
>> marketshare than it does now.
>
> Who refused to do what?
Adobe refused to go to Cocoa back in the late nineties, when the Mac had a
higher marketshare than it does now. That is one reason Carbon exists at
all.
>> For another, Photoshop is a crossplatform app, and Objective-C is really
>> an
>> Apple-specific language at this point.
>
> So what do you think Apple and Adobe plan on doing with Photoshop?
I think there is only one thing for Adobe to do at this juncture: stand pat
on 32-bit Carbon, and if that ultimately forces them to leave the Mac
platform, then they must leave it. They obviously need to make sure the
Windows version of Photoshop keeps moving forward, since that's presumably
where the future lies for the product now.
Of course, they can also try to convince Apple to change its mind. That is
their best hope of staying on the platform, I think. But that's not
something to bet a large hunk of your business on.
I suspect Apple, on the other hands, has no plans for Photoshop. If they
had, they'd not be treating Carbon like they are.
[snip]
>> This is Apple. The announced future is about five minutes. :D
>>
>> That we don't know Apple's plans is not suprising. Neither is it
>> reassuring.
>
> But to pretend you know what you do not is silly.
Welcome to c.s.mac.advocacy!
> Also to pretend Apple is not communicating with MS and Adobe is silly.
Ah, well, this does *appear* to be Apple's standard procedure.
[snip]
>> I don't know how to prove a negative. Has Apple presented either an
>> account of
>> Carbon's future, or a migration path to get you from Carbon to Cocoa? If
>> they
>> have, I have not heard of it. Have you?
>
> I do not keep up with programming announcements... at least not as a rule.
I do. They haven't.
[snip]
>> Oh. Well, I've given you the link to Apple's account of this stuff,
>> anyway.
>
> And then offered a lot of unsupported "conclusions" based on those
> comments.
I can only say that I think you are being unreasonable about that.
I do not think you could, say, prove that 64-bit Windows has inferior
compatibility to the standard you are asking me to meet.
[snip]
>> Right. And 16-bit apps *don't* run, and neither do 32-bit drivers. The
>> former
>> is pretty important.
>>
>> The driver thing is less significant. Hardware has to be replaced anyway-
>> it
>> wears out- so you do wind up moving to new drivers perforce.
>
> But not all at once.
Sure. That's why Microsoft needs to have both 32-bit and 64-bit Vista.
[snip]
>>> Isn't there also a pretty hefty cost involved?
>>
>> It's trivial. About $500. You aren't required to pass WHQL certification
>> or
>> anything like that.
>
> $500 is not trivial to a small business.
Perhaps we should say that for small business, it is instead "very small".
One copy of Vistual Studio Professional costs more than that. Programmers
cost a hell of a lot more than that.
If you are hard up for $500, you aren't going to be writing drivers,
realistically.
[snip]
>> I think the drivers will be there; as computer memories grow, 64-bit
>> Vista
>> will look more attractive. It's problem right now is that most systems
>> are
>> still below 4 GB, so it doesn't have all that much to offer, really.
>
> Well, my system is at 4 GB. :)
>
> It would likely be more common if Windows could actually use the memory.
It can use the memory. You just need to get the right version of Windows.
Still, you have a point: some people will avoid getting so much RAM since
they gain compatibility in exchange for having a little less RAM.
But that has long been an issue. You needed Windows NT to use multiple CPUs,
for instance, and that meant sacrificing some 16-bit compatibility. That
discouraged the use of SMP on the desktop; but that transition did
eventually happen anyway. And SMP on the desktop has now arrived.
Snit
> "Snit" <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
> news:C39437C3.9ED81%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com...
>> "Daniel Johnson" <danielj...@verizon.net> stated in post
>> 13mtmrc...@news.supernews.com on 12/23/07 3:04 PM:
>>
>>> Ah, that is the problem. You can tell some apps must be Carbon because
>>> they
>>> ran at one time on OS 9, and haven't had a complete overhaul. But that
>>> doesn't tell you when an app is Cocoa.
>>>
>>> I like that. Works out pretty well for a wintroll! :D
>>
>> Actually it goes against your claim that Carbon is being abandoned. Seems
>> pretty mature if you cannot tell the difference.
>
> I don't see that: it is mature, and Apple is abandoning it anyway.
>
> There is, as Darth Vader would say, no conflict.
Please point to evidence that shows Apple is "abandoning" Carbon.
>
> [snip]
>>> However, even if it is very true, it does not mean the codebase isn't 64-bit
>>> clean, or that it would be hard to make it so. The problem areas may well
>>> lie elsewhere.
>>>
>> Sure - but given the age of the program I doubt it was designed with 64 bit
>> addressing in mind.
>>
> Perhaps not. But it may have been designed to be portable. That would
> encourage proper treatment of pointers.
>
> Or not. We just don't know.
Of course it was designed to be portable - many people run Photoshop on
their laptops. Gee, don't you know anything? :)
If it is portable should it not be portable to Cocoa? Maybe not...
>
> [snip]
>>>> and have stated that they plan on using more OS
>>>> services (likely Core Image and the like on OS X).
>>>
>>> Did they say which OS's services they wanted to use? :D
>>
>> Not that I know of.
>
> Then I will cling to my hope that they meant *Windows* services of some
> sort. :D
Cling away!
> [snip]
>>> I have less faith in Apple's reasonableness than you do, I think. But I
>>> am
>>> pretty sure Cocoa is Right Out.
>>
>> Yet you have no support for this... at least none I have seen.
>
> Well, read on to my next sentence!
>
>>> For one thing, they refused to do that years ago when the Mac had a higher
>>> marketshare than it does now.
>>
>> Who refused to do what?
>
> Adobe refused to go to Cocoa back in the late nineties, when the Mac had a
> higher marketshare than it does now. That is one reason Carbon exists at
> all.
So Apple "caved" to Adobe then but refuses to now? What? As shown by the
very existence of Carbon Apple listens to Adobe and others.
>>> For another, Photoshop is a crossplatform app, and Objective-C is really an
>>> Apple-specific language at this point.
>>>
>> So what do you think Apple and Adobe plan on doing with Photoshop?
>>
> I think there is only one thing for Adobe to do at this juncture: stand pat on
> 32-bit Carbon, and if that ultimately forces them to leave the Mac platform,
> then they must leave it. They obviously need to make sure the Windows version
> of Photoshop keeps moving forward, since that's presumably where the future
> lies for the product now.
Why "presumably"? Adobe has always had a strong presence on the Mac.
> Of course, they can also try to convince Apple to change its mind. That is
> their best hope of staying on the platform, I think. But that's not something
> to bet a large hunk of your business on.
>
> I suspect Apple, on the other hands, has no plans for Photoshop. If they had,
> they'd not be treating Carbon like they are.
So you say... but you have no evidence of this.
> [snip]
>>> This is Apple. The announced future is about five minutes. :D
>>>
>>> That we don't know Apple's plans is not suprising. Neither is it
>>> reassuring.
>>
>> But to pretend you know what you do not is silly.
>
> Welcome to c.s.mac.advocacy!
>
>> Also to pretend Apple is not communicating with MS and Adobe is silly.
>
> Ah, well, this does *appear* to be Apple's standard procedure.
Apple is very unlikely to be doing things to get Adobe to drop Mac
Photoshop. Frankly that is pretty absurd. They *might* be doing so - but
there is *zero* evidence of it.
> [snip]
>>> I don't know how to prove a negative. Has Apple presented either an account
>>> of Carbon's future, or a migration path to get you from Carbon to Cocoa? If
>>> they have, I have not heard of it. Have you?
>>>
>> I do not keep up with programming announcements... at least not as a rule.
>>
> I do. They haven't.
>
> [snip]
>>> Oh. Well, I've given you the link to Apple's account of this stuff,
>>> anyway.
>>
>> And then offered a lot of unsupported "conclusions" based on those
>> comments.
>
> I can only say that I think you are being unreasonable about that.
>
> I do not think you could, say, prove that 64-bit Windows has inferior
> compatibility to the standard you are asking me to meet.
I am not asking you to meet a standard - other than honesty and logic.
> [snip]
>>> Right. And 16-bit apps *don't* run, and neither do 32-bit drivers. The
>>> former is pretty important.
>>>
>>> The driver thing is less significant. Hardware has to be replaced anyway- it
>>> wears out- so you do wind up moving to new drivers perforce.
>>>
>> But not all at once.
>>
> Sure. That's why Microsoft needs to have both 32-bit and 64-bit Vista.
That does not help... unless you have two machines each handling the
hardware that it handles best.
> [snip]
>>>> Isn't there also a pretty hefty cost involved?
>>>
>>> It's trivial. About $500. You aren't required to pass WHQL certification
>>> or
>>> anything like that.
>>
>> $500 is not trivial to a small business.
>
> Perhaps we should say that for small business, it is instead "very small".
>
> One copy of Vistual Studio Professional costs more than that. Programmers
> cost a hell of a lot more than that.
>
> If you are hard up for $500, you aren't going to be writing drivers,
> realistically.
It is still an MS tax that is now forced on companies.
> [snip]
>>> I think the drivers will be there; as computer memories grow, 64-bit
>>> Vista
>>> will look more attractive. It's problem right now is that most systems
>>> are
>>> still below 4 GB, so it doesn't have all that much to offer, really.
>>
>> Well, my system is at 4 GB. :)
>>
>> It would likely be more common if Windows could actually use the memory.
>
> It can use the memory. You just need to get the right version of Windows.
Right version... for that... but then you lose other things. So much give
and take... and no one good choice. No thanks.
> Still, you have a point: some people will avoid getting so much RAM since
> they gain compatibility in exchange for having a little less RAM.
>
> But that has long been an issue. You needed Windows NT to use multiple CPUs,
> for instance, and that meant sacrificing some 16-bit compatibility. That
> discouraged the use of SMP on the desktop; but that transition did
> eventually happen anyway. And SMP on the desktop has now arrived.
Sure, and 64 bit will eventually be the norm. Even for Windows.
--
Teachers open the door but you must walk through it yourself.
PC Guy
Since you won't trust me:
PC Guy
No Snit. I pointed to an Apple article clearly stating:
Snit
>>>> Based on the quote, above, it seems as though there likely are. If you
>>>> have contrary information then please post it.
>>>
>>> Already posted and I know you've already seen it because you responded to
>>> the post where it was made.
>>>
>> You pointed to information about drivers that *do* support 64-bit
>> addressing. Perhaps you meant to post another link?
>
> No Snit. I pointed to an Apple article clearly stating:
>
> The kernel (including the I/O Kit) remains a 32-bit environment in Mac OS X.
The fact the kernel is 32-bit is not in contention. OS X is, however, able
to use both 32-bit and 64-bit capable drivers.
--
It usually takes me more than three weeks to prepare a good impromptu
speech. -- Mark Twain
Ilgaz Öcal
> "Jesper" <spamb...@users.toughguy.net> stated in post
> 1i9jjbb.8b3wm1hxq73uN%spamb...@users.toughguy.net on 12/22/07 1:22 PM:
>
>> Of a modern OS, Vista is surprisingly oldfashioned: 32 bit vista fails
>> to access more than 3.1-3.5 GB RAM. M$ wants people to buy their
>> expensive server solutions to run apps requirering more than approx 3.1
>> GB of RAM. Furthermore 64 bit vista is unable to run 32 bit apps. In
>> Leopard the support is seemless!
>
> I got 4 GB of RAM for my Mac and just took it for granted that modern OSs
> would accept it with no problem. Amazing.
If Apple did the insane mistake of directly adopting "PC" architecture
instead of EFI kinds of things, this could be the case on Intel Macs
too. No kidding.
MS is not alone to blame on that 3.2 GB thing, it is part of the
archaic PC architecture too. Even Intel could be to blame on those
things.
How could PPC G5 Machine of mine, while being 64 bit could happily run
32bit OS with 32bit apps happily? Because PPC was designed to be 64bit
in future.
If I had a PC with 4+ GB of RAM, I would run Vista 64bit edition and
would demand my Apps to be ported to 64bit. Now, Windows users buy
32bit Vista in 2007 and whine about memory, it is part of the PC
culture. Just see how fast Leopard incompatible apps gets updated for
Leopard, that is part of the reason why we don't mess with such archaic
issues. Developers know Apple won't care about their App working so
they sit and recompile/recode for Leopard.
Ilgaz
Ilgaz Öcal
> Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
>>> Can you give a real world example of where OS X does not support 64
>>> bit apps
>>> well?
>>
>> Adobe cannot write a 64-bit version of Photoshop for the Mac, because
>> Photoshop is a Carbon app, and Carbon does not support 64-bit.
>
> That's an example of a software vendor who is not producing a 64 bit
> app. That's not what he asked for.
That is also a wrong example. Adobe's user base in some cases uses 16GB
RAM installed Macs. It is the Photoshop family which will benefit from
64bit memory addressing, not some low end shareware graphics
application.
Adobe released Photoshop G5 plugin at OS X 10.2.7 times just to use
some features of that 64bit processor.
Photoshop is not a trivial application coded by amateurs, if some part
of it needs 64bit memory addressing, at worst scenario, they would
detach a Unix 64bit process, let it do the work with the results used
by the "Carbon" app.
Ilgaz