Snow Leopard 64-bit Rumor Mongering!
Dan Johnson
has (so far as we can tell) been no improvement in the 64-bit situation. It
looks very much like Apple has blown it *again*.
According to the leaks so far, Snow Leopard runs its 64-bit kernel on 2008
and 2009 XServes... and nothing else.
It can be made to boot in "64-bit mode" on a narrow selection of other Macs,
all pretty recent. This can be done by holding some keys down during boot,
or by using a nasty command line command. Clearly, this is not the sort of
thing a typical user will do.
Apple has complete control over this; they could have shipped all the
software (drivers, firmware updates, whatever) to get the 64-bit kernel
working on every Mac ever made with a 64-bit CPU. They could have made it
the default for all those systems; That was one of their big advantages over
MS in this 64-bit thing.
So why didn't they do it?
As it now appears, Apple will be about where MS was with Windows XP 64-bit:
they have a 64-bit version, but hardly anyone uses it, so hardly anyone
bothers to write drivers for it.
It's so senseless. Apple went into this with a lot of advantages over MS,
but they've squandered them. And they've done it while advertising
themselves as 64-bit leaders, so they obviously know this stuff matters.
I just can't figure out what Apple is thinking here.
Snit
8/15/09 4:42 AM:
Where did you hear this? Here is Apple's info on it:
http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/#sixtyfourbit
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Dan Johnson
news:C6AC0A3E.415CC%use...@gallopinginsanity.com...
> Dan Johnson stated in post GPCdndjojKG0AhvX...@supernews.com
> on
> 8/15/09 4:42 AM:
>
>> Snow Leopard isn't quite out yet, but supposedly it has gone gold, and
>> there
>> has (so far as we can tell) been no improvement in the 64-bit situation.
>> It
>> looks very much like Apple has blown it *again*.
>>
>> According to the leaks so far, Snow Leopard runs its 64-bit kernel on
>> 2008
>> and 2009 XServes... and nothing else.
[snip]
>>
> Where did you hear this? Here is Apple's info on it:
> http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/#sixtyfourbit
As the title of my thread suggests, I am rumor-mongering. But I have found
this rumor in several different sources.
[http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?t=101575]
[http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/8300945231/m/753008690041]
[http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=745003]
You will not find any official announcements there; people are experimenting
with recent seeds to see what works and what doesn't. The latest official
thing I can find are the April 2009 seed notes:
It's possible Apple has changed something since then, but the people fooling
around with recent Snow Leopard builds on the forums seem to be seeing the
behavior described in these notes.
Anyway, this is so delicious that I felt I had to jump on it, lest I lose
the opportunity by being proved wrong later.
Snit
8/15/09 7:43 AM:
Interesting... I look forward to it even if it is not 64 bit by default at
the kernel level. I suspect it would make no difference for my day to day
work.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Fa-groon
(in article <GPCdndjojKG0AhvX...@supernews.com>):
Apple is thinking that so few people have any use for 64-bit computing at
this time, that it's not worth the effort, and they're probably correct.
Dan Johnson
news:0001HW.C6AC1A2A...@news.giganews.com...
>> It's so senseless. Apple went into this with a lot of advantages over MS,
>> but they've squandered them. And they've done it while advertising
>> themselves as 64-bit leaders, so they obviously know this stuff matters.
>>
>> I just can't figure out what Apple is thinking here.
>
> Apple is thinking that so few people have any use for 64-bit computing at
> this time, that it's not worth the effort, and they're probably correct.
Well, sure, if Apple is willing to forego selling high-end computers, they
have no need for 64-bit support now, or in the near future. But if they do
that, what remains for them?
Snit
8/15/09 8:08 AM:
Assuming Photoshop and other applications are 64 bit, what do you see as a
problem with the kernel not being on some machines?
No matter what Apple does there will be growing pains with drivers -
hopefully not as much as what Windows is going through.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Dan Johnson
>> they
>> have no need for 64-bit support now, or in the near future. But if they
>> do
>> that, what remains for them?
>
> Assuming Photoshop and other applications are 64 bit,
This assumption is actually false, of course, but I admit that's not really
the kernel's fault...
> what do you see as a problem with the kernel not being on some machines?
Obviously, driver availability is going to be an issue. 64-bit XP had no
drivers because hardly anyone used it, so developers did not write drivers.
So nobody used it. Vicious cycle. Apple could have avoided this.
Further, the physical RAM limit of the 32-bit kernel is not that high: if
Apple's Snow Leopard pages are correct, it is 1/500th of the 16TB limit the
64-bit kernel has. This works out to 32GB. That's not unheard of RAM
loadout, even today. It won't be so long before common high end
"professional" desktops sport more RAM than that.
Netbooks and other low-end kit will be below that limit for many years, I'm
sure- but Apple' doesn't sell 'low end kit'.
> No matter what Apple does there will be growing pains with drivers -
> hopefully not as much as what Windows is going through.
You mean 'went through', as 64-bit is commonplace and well-supported today.
You know, in the Windows world.
Snit
8/15/09 9:34 AM:
>>> Well, sure, if Apple is willing to forego selling high-end computers, they
>>> have no need for 64-bit support now, or in the near future. But if they do
>>> that, what remains for them?
>>
>> Assuming Photoshop and other applications are 64 bit,
>
> This assumption is actually false, of course, but I admit that's not really
> the kernel's fault...
Most Apple apps will be 64 bit... and the next version of Photoshop for OS X
will be re-done as a Cocoa app and will be 64 bit.
<http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2009/08/goodnight_suite_risc.html>
-----
Bottom line: Time & resources are finite, and with big
transitions underway (going 64-bit-native, switching from
Carbon to Cocoa), you want Adobe building for the future, not
for the past.
-----
>> what do you see as a problem with the kernel not being on some machines?
>
> Obviously, driver availability is going to be an issue. 64-bit XP had no
> drivers because hardly anyone used it, so developers did not write drivers.
> So nobody used it. Vicious cycle. Apple could have avoided this.
How? Transitions take time... and Apple has a history of excellent ones.
Heck, what other consumer OS has made the transitions Mac OS has? Two chip
changes... a kernel and UI change... API changes. Really some pretty big
stuff. Windows has also had changes... including a kernel change and API
changes, but as many as Mac OS? I do not think so.
> Further, the physical RAM limit of the 32-bit kernel is not that high: if
> Apple's Snow Leopard pages are correct, it is 1/500th of the 16TB limit the
> 64-bit kernel has. This works out to 32GB. That's not unheard of RAM
> loadout, even today. It won't be so long before common high end
> "professional" desktops sport more RAM than that.
>
> Netbooks and other low-end kit will be below that limit for many years, I'm
> sure- but Apple' doesn't sell 'low end kit'.
Well, they send consumer high-end... which is still a bit away from going
over 32 GB of RAM except in very rare cases! In any case, it seems Snow
Leopard will be able to use far more memory than that:
<http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/#64bit>
-----
The 64-bit transition.
The entire computing industry is moving from 32-bit to 64-bit
technology, and it�s easy to see why. Today�s Mac computers
can hold up to 32GB of physical memory, but the 32-bit
applications that run on them can address only 4GB of RAM at
a time. 64-bit computing shatters that barrier by enabling
applications to address a theoretical 16 billion gigabytes of
memory, or 16 exabytes. It can also enable computers to
crunch twice the data per clock cycle, which can dramatically
speed up numeric calculations and other tasks. Earlier
versions of Mac OS X have offered a range of 64-bit
capabilities. Now Snow Leopard takes the next step in the
transition from 32-bit to 64-bit.
-----
>> No matter what Apple does there will be growing pains with drivers -
>> hopefully not as much as what Windows is going through.
>
> You mean 'went through', as 64-bit is commonplace and well-supported today.
> You know, in the Windows world.
Hardly the established view:
<http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-10302050-1.html>
-----
Despite the potential, the transition to the new platform has
been slow. This is because of the high price of RAM and the
lack of device drivers and 64-bit software applications.
(Drivers are a special type of software that make hardware
components work with the operating system. Without the sound
driver, for example, your computer wouldn't be able to play
music.)
-----
<http://www.fiercecio.com/techwatch/story/will-64-bit-finally-go-prime-time-
windows-7/2009-08-11>
-----
Let's not be mistaken, there will be some amount of
transitional pain involved here--as users find that legacy
devices with only 16-bit software can no longer be
used.�However, this should hopefully affect only a minority
of users.�On the other hand, as corporations start getting
in-house applications to work on 64-bit platforms, it will be
a short matter of time before 64-bit becomes the new
standard.
-----
<http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2351331,00.asp>
-----
Windows 7, which is based on Vista's architecture, is not
likely to have the same problems, but it will share one: You
still can't run Adobe Flash apps in pages you view in 64-bit
browsers. Internet Explorer, Firefox, it doesn't matter � if
you have a 64-bit OS, you'll need to use a 32-bit browser to
view the Flash on dynamic Web pages.
-----
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Priam
> Interesting... I look forward to it even if it is not 64 bit by default at
> the kernel level. I suspect it would make no difference for my day to day
> work.
Very little, even, as you alter quote:
"It can also enable computers to crunch twice the data per clock cycle,
which can dramatically speed up numeric calculations and other tasks."
<http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/#64bit>
Doubling the speed of a lame double Core 2 GHz CPU doesn't mean that
much and, since most new Macs are equipped with less than 2 GB, I can't
see what difference it would make unless you invest in *real* computer,
a PC beast with real specs for every component, instead of publicity
specs from Apple, all this at about 75% of a iMac lamie:
My Mac vs your iMac lamie:
Triple Core 2.8 GHz CPU | 2.66GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
Gigabyte MA770T-UD3P mobo | some unknown lowest bidder mobo
4 GB of DDR3 1333 MHz RAM | 2GB of 1066MHz DDR3
9400GT video card 1 GB RAM | 9400M with 256MB *shared* memory
640 GB Western Digital HD | 320 MB Samsung HD
Asus VW246H 24" 2ms monitor | 20" Lucky Goldstar monitor
Price US: ~ $850 | $1,2000
My Mac is running 64 bit Linux applications floor to floor.
So, just don't worry, and be happy. Send lots of money to Jobby. He just
luvsss you! If you are all good children, he might even downgrade your
Mac's specs even more compared to PC market standards with HIS next release.
Just don't dream of selecting a less expensive video card if you're not
a gamer: if you want power, you'll get the more -- far from the most! --
video card "included".
Instead, keep dreaming of running Final Cut Studio on your Mini like
Coppola does on his million dollars hardware.
Drea-ea-ea-ea-eam, dream, dream, dream
Drea-ea-ea-ea-eam
I can make you mine, taste your lips of wine
Anytime night or day
Only trouble is, gee whiz
I'm dreamin' my life away...
Snit
11:43 AM:
> On 08/15/2009 10:51 AM, Snit wrote:
>
>> Interesting... I look forward to it even if it is not 64 bit by default at
>> the kernel level. I suspect it would make no difference for my day to day
>> work.
>
> Very little, even, as you alter quote:
What quote do you think I "altered"?
...
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Priam
later, evidently.
Priam
> Apple is thinking that so few people have any use for 64-bit computing at
> this time, that it's not worth the effort, and they're probably correct.
Absolutely! It's phased out software for phased out hardware. The only
question is when the prices will be phased out too.
Never, of course. Jobby likes when you rub your credit cards on his bills.
Snit
12:19 PM:
Be specific. Show the original and my "alteration".
You will fail.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Fa-groon
(in article <4YCdneT8ct3DUhvX...@supernews.com>):
Nobody said that. The only real advantage to 64-bit computing is memory
addressing. Apple probably figures that for most people, 4 Gigs of memory is
sufficient for now. I'd say that in the next 5 years, the need of
applications for a wider memory bus to address more than 4-gigabytes is
probably going to happen, but still, the PHYSICAL space on the motherboard to
accommodate 16.8 million terabytes of DRAM is some way off.
Fa-groon
(in article <h671vb$l9o$1...@news.eternal-september.org>):
Come back for another basting by Neoptolemus (Pyrrhus), have we?
Priam
You don't read Snit when he quotes Apple?
"It can also enable computers to crunch twice the data per clock cycle,
which can dramatically speed up numeric calculations and other tasks."
<http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/#64bit>
Of course, you Mac users don't give a damn about "numeric calculations".
All you're interested in is graphics, say Photoshop . No numeric
calculations there, of course :)
I suggest you do like Snit and start a feud on a typo.
Snit
PM:
>> Apple is thinking that so few people have any use for 64-bit computing at
>> this time, that it's not worth the effort, and they're probably correct.
>
> You don't read Snit when he quotes Apple?
>
> "It can also enable computers to crunch twice the data per clock cycle,
> which can dramatically speed up numeric calculations and other tasks."
>
> <http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/#64bit>
>
> Of course, you Mac users don't give a damn about "numeric calculations".
> All you're interested in is graphics, say Photoshop . No numeric
> calculations there, of course :)
>
> I suggest you do like Snit and start a feud on a typo.
When do you think I did that? Please be specific.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Priam
That's about as close as you can get to a feud on a typo I suppose.
Well... looking up the name a single malt whiskey to pretend that's the
only kind of whiskey you would drink... to justify using your crappy Mac
wasn't bad either.
Amazing the stupidities you Mac users can come up with when you can't
face the plain truth: outdated software for outdated hardware.
Priam
Snit
PM:
To make it easier for others to follow, here is a link:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/86de97b4bcd5f595>
I do not see it. What typo are you in reference to? If I did as you said I
will apologize to the poster I was responding to - but I do not see what you
mean.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
PM:
Huh? My hardware is a couple years old and hardly feels "outdated", even
using the newest OS and the newest versions of programs such as Photoshop
and Dreamweaver. What do you mean?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Dan Johnson
>>> Assuming Photoshop and other applications are 64 bit,
>>
>> This assumption is actually false, of course, but I admit that's not
>> really
>> the kernel's fault...
>
> Most Apple apps will be 64 bit...
I've heard the bundled-with-OS-X apps will mostly be 64-bit, but no more: I
had not heard that Apeture or Final Cut Pro or any of those were. Nor iLife,
for that matter, or iWork.
> and the next version of Photoshop for OS X
> will be re-done as a Cocoa app and will be 64 bit.
>
> <http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2009/08/goodnight_suite_risc.html>
> -----
> Bottom line: Time & resources are finite, and with big
> transitions underway (going 64-bit-native, switching from
> Carbon to Cocoa), you want Adobe building for the future, not
> for the past.
> -----
This says no more that he's said in the past: they're working on it, and no
promises. But I admit that it is hopeful for the Mac that they are still
working on it, i.e., they have not given up yet. Darn it.
>>> what do you see as a problem with the kernel not being on some machines?
>>
>> Obviously, driver availability is going to be an issue. 64-bit XP had no
>> drivers because hardly anyone used it, so developers did not write
>> drivers.
>> So nobody used it. Vicious cycle. Apple could have avoided this.
>
> How?
They could have provided a complete set of 64-bit drivers and full support
for their own products, especially the Macs themselves. Every Mac with a
Core 2 or better should be able to run 64-bit- and should do so by default
if no 64-bit drivers are absent. 32-bit should strictly be for backwards
compatibility with old peripherals.
This way, ISVs who do not provide 64-bit drivers are visibly holding users
back; this will put some pressure on them to upgrade.
> Transitions take time... and Apple has a history of excellent ones.
> Heck, what other consumer OS has made the transitions Mac OS has? Two
> chip
> changes... a kernel and UI change... API changes.
None has, and none would want to.
> Really some pretty big
> stuff. Windows has also had changes... including a kernel change and API
> changes, but as many as Mac OS? I do not think so.
Not so many, but a few. And more gently that OS X, as a rule.
>> Further, the physical RAM limit of the 32-bit kernel is not that high: if
>> Apple's Snow Leopard pages are correct, it is 1/500th of the 16TB limit
>> the
>> 64-bit kernel has. This works out to 32GB. That's not unheard of RAM
>> loadout, even today. It won't be so long before common high end
>> "professional" desktops sport more RAM than that.
>>
>> Netbooks and other low-end kit will be below that limit for many years,
>> I'm
>> sure- but Apple' doesn't sell 'low end kit'.
>
> Well, they send consumer high-end... which is still a bit away from going
> over 32 GB of RAM except in very rare cases!
Once upon a time, Apple also sold computers to professionals.
But even for consumers, it's not that far off. The silliest Alienware
machine you can buy will come with 24 GB; that's not far off the limit for
OS X. One more doubling, and they'll have boldly gone where 32-bit OS X
can't follow, even with its 64-bit extensions.
OK, maybe Apple won't deign to compete with people whose logo is a Grey.
But HP's highest-end 'entertainment' desktop has 9 GB in its default
configuration. It can be customized down to 8, or up to 12. This isn't
halfway to the OS X limit, but it's nearly there.
Sure, the low-end configurations are much smaller than this. But Apple wants
to sell top-end kit and top-end prices (and top end margins).
> In any case, it seems Snow
> Leopard will be able to use far more memory than that:
>
> <http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/#64bit>
> -----
> The 64-bit transition.
[snip- 16TB physical RAM in Snow Leopard]
The text you quoted makes it clear that this is the 64-bit kernel they are
talking about. You need a large amount of kernel address space to hold all
the VM data structures you will need to handle that much memory.
You will get this 16 TB support only on XServes, by default.
>>> No matter what Apple does there will be growing pains with drivers -
>>> hopefully not as much as what Windows is going through.
>>
>> You mean 'went through', as 64-bit is commonplace and well-supported
>> today.
>> You know, in the Windows world.
>
> Hardly the established view:
>
> <http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-10302050-1.html>
These guys have not been paying attention, it seems. Consider this passage:
"[Back when Windows Vista was released] most hardware vendors didn't provide
the 64-bit version of the drivers."
But they did. One of the key changes in Vista was that drivers could only be
WHQL certified if they had a 64-bit version. This is what made 64-bit Vista
different from 64-bit XP- the drivers *were* there.
They've also missed that stock, off the shelf PCs are coming with 64-bit
Vista right now; you don't have to specially order extra RAM to get it, as
they seem to suggest.
> <http://www.fiercecio.com/techwatch/story/will-64-bit-finally-go-prime-time-
> windows-7/2009-08-11>
[snip]
This guy doesn't seem to be aware of the spread of 64-bit Vista, but he
never actually says anything that supports your "64-bit Windows doesn't
count" view, so far as I can see.
> <http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2351331,00.asp>
> -----
> Windows 7, which is based on Vista's architecture, is not
> likely to have the same problems, but it will share one: You
> still can't run Adobe Flash apps in pages you view in 64-bit
> browsers. Internet Explorer, Firefox, it doesn't matter � if
> you have a 64-bit OS, you'll need to use a 32-bit browser to
> view the Flash on dynamic Web pages.
> -----
This is true: 64-bit applications (and plug-ins) remain thin on the ground.
But on the Mac, they are rather thinner.
I daresay the transition isn't "complete" until the apps have all gone
64-bit as well. But they are coming; Office is to go 64-bit in its next
release, next year I believe.
Dan Johnson
>>>
>>> What quote do you think I "altered"?
>>
>> later, evidently.
>
> Be specific. Show the original and my "alteration".
>
> You will fail.
I believe he means that he mispelt "later" by transposing the first two
letters; he intended to say "as you later quote" rather than "as you alter
quote".
I do not think he means to accuse you of doctoring quotes.
Dan Johnson
>> Well, sure, if Apple is willing to forego selling high-end computers,
>> they
>> have no need for 64-bit support now, or in the near future. But if they
>> do
>> that, what remains for them?
>
> Nobody said that. The only real advantage to 64-bit computing is memory
> addressing. Apple probably figures that for most people, 4 Gigs of memory
> is
> sufficient for now.
For most people? Sure. But most people do not buy Macs: they buy cheaper,
low-end computers.
Apple doesn't compete there. In the price range they *do* compete in,
memories greater than 4GB are really quite common.
[snip]
Dan Johnson
news:h678dp$6b7$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
[snip]
> You don't read Snit when he quotes Apple?
>
> "It can also enable computers to crunch twice the data per clock cycle,
> which can dramatically speed up numeric calculations and other tasks."
>
> <http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/#64bit>
It is perhaps worth noting that this claim is not really true: 32-bit CPUs
*already* can process more than 64-bits per cycle with their SIMD
instructions (AltiVec, SSE, etc.) There is, consequently, not a whole lot
left to gain from a 64-bit ALU beyond address manipulation.
The main thing for 64-bit is the memory. Having twice as many registers that
are twice as big is nice too, but it is a small thing compared to the
memory.
[snip]
Snit
8/15/09 3:53 PM:
> "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
> news:C6AC3C06.4165E%use...@gallopinginsanity.com...
>>>> Assuming Photoshop and other applications are 64 bit,
>>>
>>> This assumption is actually false, of course, but I admit that's not
>>> really
>>> the kernel's fault...
>>
>> Most Apple apps will be 64 bit...
>
> I've heard the bundled-with-OS-X apps will mostly be 64-bit, but no more: I
> had not heard that Apeture or Final Cut Pro or any of those were. Nor iLife,
> for that matter, or iWork.
I did mean the bundled apps... but I would be surprised if iWork and iLife
(esp. iMovie) are not also moved to 64 bit programs in their next major
updates.
>> and the next version of Photoshop for OS X
>> will be re-done as a Cocoa app and will be 64 bit.
>>
>> <http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2009/08/goodnight_suite_risc.html>
>> -----
>> Bottom line: Time & resources are finite, and with big
>> transitions underway (going 64-bit-native, switching from
>> Carbon to Cocoa), you want Adobe building for the future, not
>> for the past.
>> -----
>
> This says no more that he's said in the past: they're working on it, and no
> promises. But I admit that it is hopeful for the Mac that they are still
> working on it, i.e., they have not given up yet. Darn it.
I will be surprised if Photoshop CS5 is not where they make the transition.
>>>> what do you see as a problem with the kernel not being on some machines?
>>>
>>> Obviously, driver availability is going to be an issue. 64-bit XP had no
>>> drivers because hardly anyone used it, so developers did not write drivers.
>>> So nobody used it. Vicious cycle. Apple could have avoided this.
>>>
>> How?
>
> They could have provided a complete set of 64-bit drivers and full support
> for their own products, especially the Macs themselves. Every Mac with a
> Core 2 or better should be able to run 64-bit- and should do so by default
> if no 64-bit drivers are absent. 32-bit should strictly be for backwards
> compatibility with old peripherals.
>
> This way, ISVs who do not provide 64-bit drivers are visibly holding users
> back; this will put some pressure on them to upgrade.
What 64 bit drivers for Apple hardware do you think Apple will not provide
with SL?
>> Transitions take time... and Apple has a history of excellent ones. Heck,
>> what other consumer OS has made the transitions Mac OS has? Two chip
>> changes... a kernel and UI change... API changes.
>>
> None has, and none would want to.
Oh, no doubt, Apple has been been in bad situations... but the reality is
tech changes so much, transitions are inevitable.
>> Really some pretty big stuff. Windows has also had changes... including a
>> kernel change and API changes, but as many as Mac OS? I do not think so.
>>
> Not so many, but a few. And more gently that OS X, as a rule.
How so? As MS migrated to an NT core they put out ME. Hard to find a worse
example from Apple!
>>> Further, the physical RAM limit of the 32-bit kernel is not that high: if
>>> Apple's Snow Leopard pages are correct, it is 1/500th of the 16TB limit the
>>> 64-bit kernel has. This works out to 32GB. That's not unheard of RAM
>>> loadout, even today. It won't be so long before common high end
>>> "professional" desktops sport more RAM than that.
>>>
>>> Netbooks and other low-end kit will be below that limit for many years, I'm
>>> sure- but Apple' doesn't sell 'low end kit'.
>>>
>> Well, they send consumer high-end... which is still a bit away from going
>> over 32 GB of RAM except in very rare cases!
>
> Once upon a time, Apple also sold computers to professionals.
I was speaking just in the consumer space... in response to "low end", my
thought was that was their "low end". I was not clear... sorry.
> But even for consumers, it's not that far off. The silliest Alienware
> machine you can buy will come with 24 GB; that's not far off the limit for
> OS X. One more doubling, and they'll have boldly gone where 32-bit OS X
> can't follow, even with its 64-bit extensions.
>
> OK, maybe Apple won't deign to compete with people whose logo is a Grey.
Soon OS X will handle more than that...
<http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/#sixtyfourbit>
-----
Today�s Mac computers can hold up to 32GB of physical memory,
but the 32-bit applications that run on them can address only
4GB of RAM at a time. 64-bit computing shatters that barrier
by enabling applications to address a theoretical 16 billion
gigabytes of memory, or 16 exabytes.
-----
Any Alienware computers with more than 16 exabytes of memory? :)
> But HP's highest-end 'entertainment' desktop has 9 GB in its default
> configuration. It can be customized down to 8, or up to 12. This isn't
> halfway to the OS X limit, but it's nearly there.
The current limit, yes. With Windows, you have to pick if you want to be
able to handle that much memory *or* if you want as much compatibility as
the your 32-bit using friends. To some extent OS X users will likely be in
that spot with Snow Leopard, but I doubt it will be as long or as painful of
a transition as Windows users have gone though.
> Sure, the low-end configurations are much smaller than this. But Apple wants
> to sell top-end kit and top-end prices (and top end margins).
Agreed.
>> In any case, it seems Snow
>> Leopard will be able to use far more memory than that:
>>
>> <http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/#64bit>
>> -----
>> The 64-bit transition.
> [snip- 16TB physical RAM in Snow Leopard]
>
> The text you quoted makes it clear that this is the 64-bit kernel they are
> talking about. You need a large amount of kernel address space to hold all
> the VM data structures you will need to handle that much memory.
>
> You will get this 16 TB support only on XServes, by default.
We do not know this... that is speculation. If it turns out to be true I
will be a bit disappointed... but not much. Not a big deal for most users.
Wonder which will be first: 64 bit Office or 64 bit iWork. Any guesses?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
8/15/09 3:55 PM:
Ah. My mistake. Thanks.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Tim Murray
> Doubling the speed of a lame double Core 2 GHz CPU doesn't mean that
Why are Windroids compelled to lie? The only 1 gig machine is the lowest cost
mini.
Priam
1) I haven't used Windows or any Microsoft product for 8 years.
2) The lowest cost Apple-spec-ed Mini costs with keyboard and mouse is
worth $170 more than my computer which has as much memory on the video
card as the whole Mini... which must share his with the video card. See
what I mean? Plain ludicrous!
So, of course, after you've been screwed big times by Jobby with the
Mini, you may decide to come to your senses and buy all the other stuff
at PC prices. But this would mean you don't believe in the Mac offering
V_A_L_U_E, otherwise, you wouldn't buy memory, larger HD, monitor, etc.
from PC stores.
I believe you get a better deal when you buy from a PC store from the
start: fully-spec-ed components with twice the power and memory/HD
capacity at a lesser price.
I gave you the figures. Go check at NewEgg and stop crying like a baby:
the good quality components that I listed will outlast any Mac.
Fa-groon
(in article <f5ednawjucAjoBrX...@supernews.com>):
> "Fa-groon" <fa-g...@mad.com> wrote in message
> news:0001HW.C6AC6621...@news.giganews.com...
>>> Well, sure, if Apple is willing to forego selling high-end computers,
>>> they
>>> have no need for 64-bit support now, or in the near future. But if they
>>> do
>>> that, what remains for them?
>>
>> Nobody said that. The only real advantage to 64-bit computing is memory
>> addressing. Apple probably figures that for most people, 4 Gigs of memory
>> is
>> sufficient for now.
>
> For most people? Sure. But most people do not buy Macs: they buy cheaper,
> low-end computers.
Please, understand this. When I talk of computers, just ASSUME that I'm
talking about Macs and Mac users unless I specifically say otherwise.
>
> Apple doesn't compete there. In the price range they *do* compete in,
> memories greater than 4GB are really quite common.
Since Macs won't address greater than 4 gigs at the present time, I'd say
that you are wrong.
Fa-groon
(in article <h67966$c86$1...@news.eternal-september.org>):
Better than NO real software like you Linux Weenies.
Fa-groon
(in article <h678dp$6b7$1...@news.eternal-september.org>):
I don't read Snit period. He's been killfiled since the first day I posted
here.
> "It can also enable computers to crunch twice the data per clock cycle,
> which can dramatically speed up numeric calculations and other tasks."
>
> <http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/#64bit>
>
> Of course, you Mac users don't give a damn about "numeric calculations".
> All you're interested in is graphics, say Photoshop . No numeric
> calculations there, of course :)
>
> I suggest you do like Snit and start a feud on a typo.
I don't want to "do like Snit". As far as I'm concerned, Snit doesn't even
exist.
Priam
> "Priam" <pr...@notsosure.com> wrote in message
> news:h678dp$6b7$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> [snip]
>> You don't read Snit when he quotes Apple?
>>
>> "It can also enable computers to crunch twice the data per clock
>> cycle, which can dramatically speed up numeric calculations and other
>> tasks."
>>
>> <http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/#64bit>
>
> It is perhaps worth noting that this claim is not really true: 32-bit
> CPUs *already* can process more than 64-bits per cycle with their SIMD
> instructions (AltiVec, SSE, etc.) There is, consequently, not a whole
> lot left to gain from a 64-bit ALU beyond address manipulation.
* Not all algorithms can be vectorized. For example, a
flow-control-heavy task like code parsing wouldn't benefit from SIMD.
* Currently, implementing an algorithm with SIMD instructions
usually requires human labor; most compilers don't generate SIMD
instructions from a typical C program, for instance. Vectorization in
compilers is an active area of computer science research. (Compare
vector processing.)
* Programming with particular SIMD instruction sets can involve
numerous low-level challenges.
o SSE has restrictions on data alignment; programmers
familiar with the x86 architecture may not expect this.
o Gathering data into SIMD registers and scattering it to the
correct destination locations is tricky and can be inefficient.
o Specific instructions like rotations or three-operand
addition aren't in some SIMD instruction sets.
o Instruction sets are architecture-specific: old processors
and non-x86 processors lack SSE entirely, for instance, so programmers
must provide non-vectorized implementations (or different vectorized
implementations) for them. Similarly, the next-generation instruction
sets from Intel and AMD will be incompatible with each other (see SSE5
and AVX).
o The early MMX instruction set shared a register file with
the floating-point stack, which caused inefficiencies when mixing
floating-point and MMX code. SSE2 corrects this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIMD
I don't believe anybody would care about SIMD today when most modern
CPUs are 64 bit. HAve a discussion about this with Apple :) Ask them if
they plan to SIMDise their applications.
> The main thing for 64-bit is the memory. Having twice as many registers
> that are twice as big is nice too, but it is a small thing compared to
> the memory.
Mainly when you can get better hardware, better software for half the price.
Tim Murray
> On 08/15/2009 07:44 PM, Tim Murray wrote:
>> On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 14:43:50 -0400, Priam wrote:
>>> Doubling the speed of a lame double Core 2 GHz CPU doesn't mean that
>>> much and, since most new Macs are equipped with less than 2 GB....
>>
>> Why are Windroids compelled to lie? The only 1 gig machine is the
>> lowest cost mini.
>
> 1) I haven't used Windows or any Microsoft product for 8 years.
>
> 2) The lowest cost Apple-spec-ed Mini costs with keyboard and mouse is
> worth $170 more than my computer which has as much memory on the video
> card as the whole Mini... which must share his with the video card. See
> what I mean? Plain ludicrous!
I find it interesting you used the word "worth". A Freudian slip?
> So, of course, after you've been screwed big times by Jobby with the
> Mini, you may decide to come to your senses and buy all the other stuff
> at PC prices. But this would mean you don't believe in the Mac offering
> V_A_L_U_E, otherwise, you wouldn't buy memory, larger HD, monitor, etc.
> from PC stores.
I'd be lying if I said I thought the mini was a deal. Perhaps when it first
came out, but not now. But I do think Apple in general represents value.
> I believe you get a better deal when you buy from a PC store from the
> start: fully-spec-ed components with twice the power and memory/HD
> capacity at a lesser price.
And Windows.
> I gave you the figures. Go check at NewEgg and stop crying like a baby:
Who's crying? I've always been very happy with my Mac purchases, and I've
owned, and still own, Windows machines (that now gather dust).
> the good quality components that I listed will outlast any Mac.
Perhaps, perhaps not. I notice Windows users (dunno about Linux) seem to
jettison their machines a helluva lot faser than Mac users. I have no plans
at this time to give up my PowerBook G4 1.66 -- it runs rings around the last
two new Vista machines I used.
And you still didn't answer the question.
Snit
8/15/09 7:01 PM:
Your loss.
>> "It can also enable computers to crunch twice the data per clock cycle,
>> which can dramatically speed up numeric calculations and other tasks."
>>
>> <http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/#64bit>
>>
>> Of course, you Mac users don't give a damn about "numeric calculations".
>> All you're interested in is graphics, say Photoshop . No numeric
>> calculations there, of course :)
>>
>> I suggest you do like Snit and start a feud on a typo.
>
> I don't want to "do like Snit". As far as I'm concerned, Snit doesn't even
> exist.
I am still waiting to find out what the heck I am being accused of...
specifically. What typo? What feud? Nobody seems to know!
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
David Empson
Most of the current models support at least 8 GB of RAM. The only
exceptions are the Mac Mini (4), MacBook (6) and MacBook Air (2).
Apart from the Mac Pro or Xserve, most people won't bother going over 4
GB because it is still too expensive and they won't gain much benefit
from it, but in a year or two I'd expect 8 GB to be standard on mid to
high end iMacs, and many current Macs using memory intensive software
will have been upgraded beyond 4 GB.
--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz
Snit
8/15/09 6:58 PM:
The limit is on any one 32 bit application addressing more than 4 GB. The
system itself can work with considerably more... already.
<http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/#sixtyfourbit>
------
Today�s Mac computers can hold up to 32GB of physical memory,
but the 32-bit applications that run on them can address only
4GB of RAM at a time.
-----
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
8/15/09 8:22 PM:
>> Since Macs won't address greater than 4 gigs at the present time, I'd say
>> that you are wrong.
>
> Most of the current models support at least 8 GB of RAM. The only
> exceptions are the Mac Mini (4), MacBook (6) and MacBook Air (2).
>
> Apart from the Mac Pro or Xserve, most people won't bother going over 4
> GB because it is still too expensive and they won't gain much benefit
> from it, but in a year or two I'd expect 8 GB to be standard on mid to
> high end iMacs, and many current Macs using memory intensive software
> will have been upgraded beyond 4 GB.
I have my iMac maxed at 4GB. If it could go higher I would likely bump it
up.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
ed
> Dan Johnson stated in post 0ZedneHiYNoJfhvX...@supernews.com on
> 8/15/09 9:34 AM:
<snip>
> > You mean 'went through', as 64-bit is commonplace and well-supported today.
> > You know, in the Windows world.
>
> Hardly the established view:
>
> <http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-10302050-1.html>
from that link: " 64-bit has started to gain a significant foothold in
the past two years as more systems ship with 3GB or more of memory.
However, with Windows 7, 64-bit computing is likely to become even
more common."
sounds like they think it's at least relatively commonplace if they
think it has a "significant foothold" and 64 bit will become "even
more common."
<snip>
Sermo Malifer
My $550 HP PC came with 8 GB of RAM installed, and it's maximum is 16
GB.
Snit
on 8/15/09 9:37 PM:
Curious: what type of work do you do with your machine?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Mr X
> Snow Leopard isn't quite out yet, but supposedly it has gone gold, and there
> has (so far as we can tell) been no improvement in the 64-bit situation. It
> looks very much like Apple has blown it *again*.
Apps can have a 16 exabyte memory space even on the upcoming 32-bit
kernel.
The awkward situation is just WRT kernel extensions, which are 64-bit
on the 64-bit kernel and 32-bit on the 32-bit OS.
I'm not aware of any kexts that require 64-bit addressing so this
isn't much of an issue going forward.
"Built-in applications are now 64-bit.
Nearly all system applications — including the Finder, Mail, Safari,
iCal, and iChat — are now built with 64-bit code. So not only are they
able to take full advantage of all the memory in your Mac, but the
move to 64-bit applications also boosts overall performance."
Mr X
> "Priam" <pr...@notsosure.com> wrote in message
>
> are twice as big is nice too, but it is a small thing compared to the
> memory.
FWIW, I just fired up the Mac Pro (w/ 6GB) with 10.6 and mallocd 4GB +
500K successfully.
sizeof(size_t) reports 8 bytes. I guess this is a supported 64-bit
machine. It's a Rev A so I thought it had a 32-bit EFI but whatevs.
Sandman
<e5ff4165-042d-4ac6...@z31g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Mr X <imout...@mac.com> wrote:
Heywood? :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Tim Adams
Fa-groon <fa-g...@mad.com> wrote:
Then why is Apple selling a (stock) Mac Pro with 6 gig installed and offering
customized upgrades to 32 gig?
--
regarding Snit "You are not flamed because you speak the truth,
you are flamed because you are a hideous troll and keep disrupting
the newsgroup." Andrew J. Brehm
Dan Johnson
>> For most people? Sure. But most people do not buy Macs: they buy cheaper,
>> low-end computers.
>
> Please, understand this. When I talk of computers, just ASSUME that I'm
> talking about Macs and Mac users unless I specifically say otherwise.
My, this will be confusing.
Anyway: computers in the same price range as Macs routinely ship with more
than 4 GB today. These are a minority of the market because far more cheap
computers are sold, but Apple does not sell that sort of machine.
>> Apple doesn't compete there. In the price range they *do* compete in,
>> memories greater than 4GB are really quite common.
>
> Since Macs won't address greater than 4 gigs at the present time, I'd say
> that you are wrong.
You are mistaken. Even now they can use up to 32 GB, thanks to their hybrid
32-bit/64-bit extensions.
Admittedly, very few programs can address that much at once. The capability
is there; it's being held back because Apple keeps botching this stuff.
Dan Johnson
> On 08/15/2009 07:03 PM, Dan Johnson wrote:
>> "Priam" <pr...@notsosure.com> wrote in message
>> news:h678dp$6b7$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> [snip]
>> CPUs *already* can process more than 64-bits per cycle with their SIMD
>> instructions (AltiVec, SSE, etc.) There is, consequently, not a whole
>> lot left to gain from a 64-bit ALU beyond address manipulation.
>
> * Not all algorithms can be vectorized. For example, a
> flow-control-heavy task like code parsing wouldn't benefit from SIMD.
Not all algorithms use 64-bit integers anyway. Many use smaller integers, or
use floats or doubles or whatnot. Code parsing uses small integers, and
benefits not a bit from 64-bit arithmetic.
> * Currently, implementing an algorithm with SIMD instructions usually
> requires human labor; most compilers don't generate SIMD instructions from
> a typical C program, for instance. Vectorization in compilers is an active
> area of computer science research. (Compare vector processing.)
This is indeed a problem, but the technique has not been unfruitful.
> * Programming with particular SIMD instruction sets can involve
> numerous low-level challenges.
> o SSE has restrictions on data alignment; programmers familiar
> with the x86 architecture may not expect this.
This is not a problem. Outside of x86, pretty much every architecture
imposes this limitation on *every* data type, including 64-bit integers.
Even x86 imposes a performance penalty and other disabilities on misaligned
data.
> o Gathering data into SIMD registers and scattering it to the
> correct destination locations is tricky and can be inefficient.
This is true, but it is also true if you want to use 64-bit integer
arithmetic, and your original data isn't 64-bits wide. 64-bit integers are
not a common data item.
> o Specific instructions like rotations or three-operand addition
> aren't in some SIMD instruction sets.
This is also true of normal arithmetic; x86 is a 2-operand instruction set
in general. Its basic add instruction adds one integer to another,
overwriting the other: there's no separate destination you can specify.
This is just not a serious handicap.
> o Instruction sets are architecture-specific: old processors and
> non-x86 processors lack SSE entirely, for instance, so programmers must
> provide non-vectorized implementations (or different vectorized
> implementations) for them. Similarly, the next-generation instruction sets
> from Intel and AMD will be incompatible with each other (see SSE5 and
> AVX).
This isn't particularly less true of 64-bit math, either. Your 32-bit x86
computer can't use 64-bit arithmetic, say. SIMD instructions are pretty
sidely available- more so than 64-bit CPUs are, I believe. Nor are they
restricted to x86.
> o The early MMX instruction set shared a register file with the
> floating-point stack, which caused inefficiencies when mixing
> floating-point and MMX code. SSE2 corrects this.
Nobody uses this anymore.
[snip]
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIMD
>
> I don't believe anybody would care about SIMD today when most modern CPUs
> are 64 bit. HAve a discussion about this with Apple :) Ask them if they
> plan to SIMDise their applications.
You are mistaken on this; 64-bit arithmetic is still going to lose out to
SIMD, partly because your modern SIMD instructions can do 128-bits, and
partly because they can do floating point.
>> The main thing for 64-bit is the memory. Having twice as many registers
>> that are twice as big is nice too, but it is a small thing compared to
>> the memory.
>
> Mainly when you can get better hardware, better software for half the
> price.
I do not see what you mean here.
Dan Johnson
news:e5ff4165-042d-4ac6...@z31g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
No, that's not it. Apple has 64-bit extensions that let them run 64-bit
processes (with 8-byte pointers) on a 32-bit kernel. This is a neat trick,
but the 32-bit kernel limits them to 32 GB of physical RAM nonetheless.
So they can do 4 GB + 5 K fine, but there's still a limit on total physical
RAM that's not far off.
I don't know whether OS X can allocate more than 32 GB of virtual RAM,
backed by swap. But if you want to test this, don't forget to write some
data to that RAM: I believe OS X will lazy-allocate so that if you don't
really use the RAM, it doesn't really allocate it to you.
Be warned that if you actually do push the VM system over its limits, it may
crash: many Unixes handle memory exhaustion poorly, and I rather expect OS X
is one of them.
Dan Johnson
>> I've heard the bundled-with-OS-X apps will mostly be 64-bit, but no more:
>> I
>> had not heard that Apeture or Final Cut Pro or any of those were. Nor
>> iLife,
>> for that matter, or iWork.
>
> I did mean the bundled apps... but I would be surprised if iWork and iLife
> (esp. iMovie) are not also moved to 64 bit programs in their next major
> updates.
Maybe. But they may take quite a while before updating them.
And I suspect iTunes will lag anyway: it's Carbon, and cross-platform as
well.
[snip- depressing Photoshop news]
>> They could have provided a complete set of 64-bit drivers and full
>> support
>> for their own products, especially the Macs themselves. Every Mac with a
>> Core 2 or better should be able to run 64-bit- and should do so by
>> default
>> if no 64-bit drivers are absent. 32-bit should strictly be for backwards
>> compatibility with old peripherals.
>>
>> This way, ISVs who do not provide 64-bit drivers are visibly holding
>> users
>> back; this will put some pressure on them to upgrade.
>
> What 64 bit drivers for Apple hardware do you think Apple will not provide
> with SL?
I think they will not provide 64-bit drivers (or other necessary software)
for any Mac more than about two years old. Such is what the rumors are
suggesting.
[snip]
>> None has, and none would want to.
>
> Oh, no doubt, Apple has been been in bad situations... but the reality is
> tech changes so much, transitions are inevitable.
The inevitable changes are the bitness transitions: RAM is just that
important. In the x86 world, other alterations to the instruction set wind
up occurring at the same time as a bitness transition, as we are seeing now
with x64 and its extra registers.
>>> Really some pretty big stuff. Windows has also had changes... including
>>> a
>>> kernel change and API changes, but as many as Mac OS? I do not think
>>> so.
>>>
>> Not so many, but a few. And more gently that OS X, as a rule.
>
> How so? As MS migrated to an NT core they put out ME. Hard to find a
> worse
> example from Apple!
They put out Windows Me as a stopgap since Windows 2000 wasn't quite what it
needed to be for consumers. But it was a brief one.
It's easy to find worse from Apple: OS X 10.0 was worse, for instance.
[snip]
>>> Well, they send consumer high-end... which is still a bit away from
>>> going
>>> over 32 GB of RAM except in very rare cases!
>>
>> Once upon a time, Apple also sold computers to professionals.
>
> I was speaking just in the consumer space... in response to "low end", my
> thought was that was their "low end". I was not clear... sorry.
Well, you seemed to be excluding anything with more memory than a 'consumer
high-end' system. I don't know how else I was supposed to read your comment.
>> But even for consumers, it's not that far off. The silliest Alienware
>> machine you can buy will come with 24 GB; that's not far off the limit
>> for
>> OS X. One more doubling, and they'll have boldly gone where 32-bit OS X
>> can't follow, even with its 64-bit extensions.
>>
>> OK, maybe Apple won't deign to compete with people whose logo is a Grey.
>
> Soon OS X will handle more than that...
>
> <http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/#sixtyfourbit>
> -----
> Today�s Mac computers can hold up to 32GB of physical memory,
> but the 32-bit applications that run on them can address only
> 4GB of RAM at a time. 64-bit computing shatters that barrier
> by enabling applications to address a theoretical 16 billion
> gigabytes of memory, or 16 exabytes.
> -----
Soon *XServes* will be able to handle more than that.
> Any Alienware computers with more than 16 exabytes of memory? :)
Not yet, but I think I saw a flying saucer out the window... maybe their
next shipment is in? :D
>> But HP's highest-end 'entertainment' desktop has 9 GB in its default
>> configuration. It can be customized down to 8, or up to 12. This isn't
>> halfway to the OS X limit, but it's nearly there.
>
> The current limit, yes. With Windows, you have to pick if you want to be
> able to handle that much memory *or* if you want as much compatibility as
> the your 32-bit using friends.
No. If you buy a computer like these, you get 64-bit Windows. You can't get
32-bit Windows on them; that would be stupid. They don't give the choice of
crippling your computer like that.
Whereas with Apple, it will apparently be the default! :D
It looks like Windows will be offering a better compatibility story for
upgraders too: 64-bit Windows will run on anything with a 64-bit CPU from
2007 or later, thanks to MS's WHQL efforts, and some stuff from earlier
(depending on the drivers). Apple's 64-bit kernel will not work on anything
older than about 2 years, as I understand it.
> To some extent OS X users will likely be in
> that spot with Snow Leopard, but I doubt it will be as long or as painful
> of
> a transition as Windows users have gone though.
It looks like it already is. Ok, maybe most of the pain is coming from my
whining about it, but still. :D
[snip]
>> The text you quoted makes it clear that this is the 64-bit kernel they
>> are
>> talking about. You need a large amount of kernel address space to hold
>> all
>> the VM data structures you will need to handle that much memory.
>>
>> You will get this 16 TB support only on XServes, by default.
>
> We do not know this... that is speculation.
Well, I did put "rumor mongering" in the thread title.
> If it turns out to be true I
> will be a bit disappointed... but not much. Not a big deal for most
> users.
It's great troll-fodder, though.
[snip]
>> This is true: 64-bit applications (and plug-ins) remain thin on the
>> ground.
>> But on the Mac, they are rather thinner.
>>
>> I daresay the transition isn't "complete" until the apps have all gone
>> 64-bit as well. But they are coming; Office is to go 64-bit in its next
>> release, next year I believe.
>
> Wonder which will be first: 64 bit Office or 64 bit iWork. Any guesses?
Yes. I guess Office. We know MS Office is supposed to go 64-bit next year,
in Office 2010.
I think Apple is less likely to upgrade iWork *at all* in that timeframe:
it's just not all that important to them. Even if they do, they've been
botching 64-bit so much that they may well miss the chance to upgrade iWork.
Or more rationally, they may feel that other products need a 64-bit upgrade
more urgently, and allocate their efforts accordingly.
I therefore think a 64-bit Office in the near term is virtually certain, and
a 64-bit iWork quite doubtful in the same timeframe.
Dan Johnson
> On Aug 15, 4:42 am, "Dan Johnson" <danieljohns...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> Snow Leopard isn't quite out yet, but supposedly it has gone gold, and
>> there
>> has (so far as we can tell) been no improvement in the 64-bit situation.
>> It
>> looks very much like Apple has blown it *again*.
>
> Apps can have a 16 exabyte memory space even on the upcoming 32-bit
> kernel.
Yeah. But they can't populate it with RAM; there can only be 32 GB of that.
Interestingly, there are versions of 32-bit Windows that can go all the way
up to 128 GB, provided you use the (default) 2 GB kernel space. Not sure why
that is.
> The awkward situation is just WRT kernel extensions, which are 64-bit
> on the 64-bit kernel and 32-bit on the 32-bit OS.
Yeah, this is going to be a compatibility problem. Yet Apple could have
solved a lot of it by just shipping all their kexts as 64-bit promptly.
> I'm not aware of any kexts that require 64-bit addressing so this
> isn't much of an issue going forward.
They require it just to run at all, when a 64-bit kernel is in use. So I
would say that ultimately, *all* kexts need 64-bit addressing.
> "Built-in applications are now 64-bit.
> Nearly all system applications � including the Finder, Mail, Safari,
> iCal, and iChat � are now built with 64-bit code. So not only are they
> able to take full advantage of all the memory in your Mac, but the
> move to 64-bit applications also boosts overall performance."
>
> http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/
I note- just to add insult to injury- that on 64-bit Windows, it's not
"nearly all"; *all* bundled applications are 64-bit. A few have 32-bit
counterparts, but the 64-bit versions is there too.
Snit
8/16/09 4:31 AM:
> "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
> news:C6AC9119.41765%use...@gallopinginsanity.com...
>> Dan Johnson stated in post ytCdnRsylu78oRrX...@supernews.com
>> on
>> 8/15/09 3:53 PM:
>
>>> I've heard the bundled-with-OS-X apps will mostly be 64-bit, but no more: I
>>> had not heard that Apeture or Final Cut Pro or any of those were. Nor iLife,
>>> for that matter, or iWork.
>>
>> I did mean the bundled apps... but I would be surprised if iWork and iLife
>> (esp. iMovie) are not also moved to 64 bit programs in their next major
>> updates.
>
> Maybe. But they may take quite a while before updating them.
I bet they are undated within a few months of Snow Leopard's release.
> And I suspect iTunes will lag anyway: it's Carbon, and cross-platform as
> well.
Agreed.
<http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/#sixtyfourbit>
------
All system applications except DVD Player, Front Row, Grapher,
and iTunes have been rewritten in 64-bit.
------
> [snip- depressing Photoshop news]
>>> They could have provided a complete set of 64-bit drivers and full
>>> support for their own products, especially the Macs themselves. Every Mac
>>> with a Core 2 or better should be able to run 64-bit- and should do so by
>>> default if no 64-bit drivers are absent. 32-bit should strictly be for
>>> backwards compatibility with old peripherals.
>>>
>>> This way, ISVs who do not provide 64-bit drivers are visibly holding users
>>> back; this will put some pressure on them to upgrade.
>>>
>> What 64 bit drivers for Apple hardware do you think Apple will not provide
>> with SL?
>>
> I think they will not provide 64-bit drivers (or other necessary software) for
> any Mac more than about two years old. Such is what the rumors are suggesting.
They will not supply drivers for Macs that do not have the hardware to
handle it... but I bet my Mac, which is two years old, will be fully
supported.
> [snip]
>>> None has, and none would want to.
>>
>> Oh, no doubt, Apple has been been in bad situations... but the reality is
>> tech changes so much, transitions are inevitable.
>
> The inevitable changes are the bitness transitions: RAM is just that
> important. In the x86 world, other alterations to the instruction set wind
> up occurring at the same time as a bitness transition, as we are seeing now
> with x64 and its extra registers.
There are other transitions... such as the move of kernels in the case of XP
and OS X.
>>>> Really some pretty big stuff. Windows has also had changes... including a
>>>> kernel change and API changes, but as many as Mac OS? I do not think so.
>>>>
>>> Not so many, but a few. And more gently that OS X, as a rule.
>>>
>> How so? As MS migrated to an NT core they put out ME. Hard to find a worse
>> example from Apple!
>>
> They put out Windows Me as a stopgap since Windows 2000 wasn't quite what it
> needed to be for consumers. But it was a brief one.
>
> It's easy to find worse from Apple: OS X 10.0 was worse, for instance.
At the time, OS 9 was still the default OS. For a good reason. 10.0 was,
really, a beta as far as I am concerned... not usable for day to day work.
Even 10.1 was pretty bad. 10.2 was the first usable version of OS X, and
10.3 the first really good version.
I guess that makes it hard for me to really complain about ME. And Vista.
Both are pretty bad.
> [snip]
>>>> Well, they send consumer high-end... which is still a bit away from going
>>>> over 32 GB of RAM except in very rare cases!
>>>>
>>> Once upon a time, Apple also sold computers to professionals.
>>>
>> I was speaking just in the consumer space... in response to "low end", my
>> thought was that was their "low end". I was not clear... sorry.
>>
> Well, you seemed to be excluding anything with more memory than a 'consumer
> high-end' system. I don't know how else I was supposed to read your comment.
High end Macs already come with up to 32 GB of memory...
>>> But even for consumers, it's not that far off. The silliest Alienware
>>> machine you can buy will come with 24 GB; that's not far off the limit for
>>> OS X. One more doubling, and they'll have boldly gone where 32-bit OS X
>>> can't follow, even with its 64-bit extensions.
>>>
>>> OK, maybe Apple won't deign to compete with people whose logo is a Grey.
>>
>> Soon OS X will handle more than that...
>>
>> <http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/#sixtyfourbit>
>> -----
>> Today�s Mac computers can hold up to 32GB of physical memory,
>> but the 32-bit applications that run on them can address only
>> 4GB of RAM at a time. 64-bit computing shatters that barrier
>> by enabling applications to address a theoretical 16 billion
>> gigabytes of memory, or 16 exabytes.
>> -----
>
> Soon *XServes* will be able to handle more than that.
And, from any official source, so will my iMac. Well, the hardware will
not...
>> Any Alienware computers with more than 16 exabytes of memory? :)
>
> Not yet, but I think I saw a flying saucer out the window... maybe their
> next shipment is in? :D
Could be!
>>> But HP's highest-end 'entertainment' desktop has 9 GB in its default
>>> configuration. It can be customized down to 8, or up to 12. This isn't
>>> halfway to the OS X limit, but it's nearly there.
>>
>> The current limit, yes. With Windows, you have to pick if you want to be
>> able to handle that much memory *or* if you want as much compatibility as
>> the your 32-bit using friends.
>
> No. If you buy a computer like these, you get 64-bit Windows. You can't get
> 32-bit Windows on them; that would be stupid. They don't give the choice of
> crippling your computer like that.
>
> Whereas with Apple, it will apparently be the default! :D
Well, if you get a computer with more than 32 GB of memory.
> It looks like Windows will be offering a better compatibility story for
> upgraders too: 64-bit Windows will run on anything with a 64-bit CPU from
> 2007 or later, thanks to MS's WHQL efforts, and some stuff from earlier
> (depending on the drivers). Apple's 64-bit kernel will not work on anything
> older than about 2 years, as I understand it.
My computer is older than 2 years... just barely. It will likely be fully
supported.
>> To some extent OS X users will likely be in that spot with Snow Leopard, but
>> I doubt it will be as long or as painful of a transition as Windows users
>> have gone though.
>>
> It looks like it already is. Ok, maybe most of the pain is coming from my
> whining about it, but still. :D
Most OS X users have not even heard of you... maybe only a few dozen... and
even with the Macs smaller user base that is hardly a significant
percentage. :)
> [snip]
>>> The text you quoted makes it clear that this is the 64-bit kernel they are
>>> talking about. You need a large amount of kernel address space to hold all
>>> the VM data structures you will need to handle that much memory.
>>>
>>> You will get this 16 TB support only on XServes, by default.
>>>
>> We do not know this... that is speculation.
>>
> Well, I did put "rumor mongering" in the thread title.
True.
>> If it turns out to be true I will be a bit disappointed... but not much. Not
>> a big deal for most users.
>>
> It's great troll-fodder, though.
Great is an exaggeration.
> [snip]
>>> This is true: 64-bit applications (and plug-ins) remain thin on the ground.
>>> But on the Mac, they are rather thinner.
>>>
>>> I daresay the transition isn't "complete" until the apps have all gone
>>> 64-bit as well. But they are coming; Office is to go 64-bit in its next
>>> release, next year I believe.
>>>
>> Wonder which will be first: 64 bit Office or 64 bit iWork. Any guesses?
>>
> Yes. I guess Office. We know MS Office is supposed to go 64-bit next year, in
> Office 2010.
>
> I think Apple is less likely to upgrade iWork *at all* in that timeframe:
> it's just not all that important to them. Even if they do, they've been
> botching 64-bit so much that they may well miss the chance to upgrade iWork.
> Or more rationally, they may feel that other products need a 64-bit upgrade
> more urgently, and allocate their efforts accordingly.
Most of the apps that ship with OS X will be updated.
> I therefore think a 64-bit Office in the near term is virtually certain, and
> a 64-bit iWork quite doubtful in the same timeframe.
We shall see... not sure I disagree.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
8/16/09 4:38 AM:
> "Mr X" <imout...@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:f8c7c50b-ac0f-48f1...@b14g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>> On Aug 15, 4:42 am, "Dan Johnson" <danieljohns...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> Snow Leopard isn't quite out yet, but supposedly it has gone gold, and there
>>> has (so far as we can tell) been no improvement in the 64-bit situation. It
>>> looks very much like Apple has blown it *again*.
>>>
>> Apps can have a 16 exabyte memory space even on the upcoming 32-bit kernel.
>>
> Yeah. But they can't populate it with RAM; there can only be 32 GB of that.
That limit will likely go up with an OS that can handle it... but I bet not
to the full 15 Exabytes. Cheapola Macs strike again! :)
> Interestingly, there are versions of 32-bit Windows that can go all the way up
> to 128 GB, provided you use the (default) 2 GB kernel space. Not sure why that
> is.
The consumer version does not even use a full 4 GB.
>> The awkward situation is just WRT kernel extensions, which are 64-bit on the
>> 64-bit kernel and 32-bit on the 32-bit OS.
>>
> Yeah, this is going to be a compatibility problem. Yet Apple could have solved
> a lot of it by just shipping all their kexts as 64-bit promptly.
As they likely will with SL.
>> I'm not aware of any kexts that require 64-bit addressing so this isn't much
>> of an issue going forward.
>>
> They require it just to run at all, when a 64-bit kernel is in use. So I would
> say that ultimately, *all* kexts need 64-bit addressing.
>
>> "Built-in applications are now 64-bit. Nearly all system applications �
>> including the Finder, Mail, Safari, iCal, and iChat � are now built with
>> 64-bit code. So not only are they able to take full advantage of all the
>> memory in your Mac, but the move to 64-bit applications also boosts overall
>> performance."
>>
>> http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/
>>
> I note- just to add insult to injury- that on 64-bit Windows, it's not
> "nearly all"; *all* bundled applications are 64-bit. A few have 32-bit
> counterparts, but the 64-bit versions is there too.
Can you document that?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Dan Johnson
>>> iLife
>>> (esp. iMovie) are not also moved to 64 bit programs in their next major
>>> updates.
>>
>> Maybe. But they may take quite a while before updating them.
>
> I bet they are undated within a few months of Snow Leopard's release.
I suspect not; if they will update them soon, they'll try to do it all
together. Think of the OS X/iLife bundle: shipping that, then a new version
of iLife immediately after, would not be Apple's style.
>> And I suspect iTunes will lag anyway: it's Carbon, and cross-platform as
>> well.
>
> Agreed.
>
> <http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/#sixtyfourbit>
> ------
> All system applications except DVD Player, Front Row, Grapher,
> and iTunes have been rewritten in 64-bit.
> ------
The 32-bitness of DVD Player is odd. It seems like it would be an easy port-
it's pretty simple, isn't it? Maybe there's an still an issue with 64-bit
QuickTime. We still don't know what's going on with that, I believe.
[snip]
>> I think they will not provide 64-bit drivers (or other necessary
>> software) for
>> any Mac more than about two years old. Such is what the rumors are
>> suggesting.
>
> They will not supply drivers for Macs that do not have the hardware to
> handle it... but I bet my Mac, which is two years old, will be fully
> supported.
Sounds like its borderline. I'll be interested to know how it turns out for
you.
[snip]
>> The inevitable changes are the bitness transitions: RAM is just that
>> important. In the x86 world, other alterations to the instruction set
>> wind
>> up occurring at the same time as a bitness transition, as we are seeing
>> now
>> with x64 and its extra registers.
>
> There are other transitions... such as the move of kernels in the case of
> XP
> and OS X.
What MS did was pile a huge amount of stuff into the 16->32 bit transition.
A new UI, Unicode, multi-user security, domain networking, a real kernel,
and of course the new 32-bit memory model.
This made it a huge transition, and it was managed in overlapping stages.
You can argue this makes it two transitions- Win95, then WinXP later. But
even if you argue this, they were still trying to bundle it all together
into one package.
[snip]
>> It's easy to find worse from Apple: OS X 10.0 was worse, for instance.
>
> At the time, OS 9 was still the default OS. For a good reason. 10.0 was,
> really, a beta as far as I am concerned... not usable for day to day work.
> Even 10.1 was pretty bad. 10.2 was the first usable version of OS X, and
> 10.3 the first really good version.
Exactly.
> I guess that makes it hard for me to really complain about ME. And Vista.
> Both are pretty bad.
If by bad you mean awesome, sure! :D
[snip]
>>> <http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/#sixtyfourbit>
>>> -----
>>> Today�s Mac computers can hold up to 32GB of physical memory,
>>> but the 32-bit applications that run on them can address only
>>> 4GB of RAM at a time. 64-bit computing shatters that barrier
>>> by enabling applications to address a theoretical 16 billion
>>> gigabytes of memory, or 16 exabytes.
>>> -----
>>
>> Soon *XServes* will be able to handle more than that.
>
> And, from any official source, so will my iMac. Well, the hardware will
> not...
What official source has said anything about this? So far as I can see, it's
still all rumors.
[snip]
>> It looks like Windows will be offering a better compatibility story for
>> upgraders too: 64-bit Windows will run on anything with a 64-bit CPU from
>> 2007 or later, thanks to MS's WHQL efforts, and some stuff from earlier
>> (depending on the drivers). Apple's 64-bit kernel will not work on
>> anything
>> older than about 2 years, as I understand it.
>
> My computer is older than 2 years... just barely. It will likely be fully
> supported.
Will it? Just what have you got? I understood that they didn't introduce
their 64-bit EFI until 2008, and without that the 64-bit kernel won't boot.
[snip]
>> It looks like it already is. Ok, maybe most of the pain is coming from my
>> whining about it, but still. :D
>
> Most OS X users have not even heard of you... maybe only a few dozen...
> and
> even with the Macs smaller user base that is hardly a significant
> percentage. :)
Hey, I do the best I can! :/
[snip]
>>> If it turns out to be true I will be a bit disappointed... but not much.
>>> Not
>>> a big deal for most users.
>>>
>> It's great troll-fodder, though.
>
> Great is an exaggeration.
I think I've got excellent mileage out of this 64-bit thing. It's like the
Toyota Prius of trolling!
[snip]
>> I think Apple is less likely to upgrade iWork *at all* in that timeframe:
>> it's just not all that important to them. Even if they do, they've been
>> botching 64-bit so much that they may well miss the chance to upgrade
>> iWork.
>> Or more rationally, they may feel that other products need a 64-bit
>> upgrade
>> more urgently, and allocate their efforts accordingly.
>
> Most of the apps that ship with OS X will be updated.
iWork isn't one of these, and OS X is more important to Apple than iWork (in
my estimation).
>> I therefore think a 64-bit Office in the near term is virtually certain,
>> and
>> a 64-bit iWork quite doubtful in the same timeframe.
>
> We shall see... not sure I disagree.
Heh.
Dan Johnson
>> way up
>> to 128 GB, provided you use the (default) 2 GB kernel space. Not sure why
>> that
>> is.
>
> The consumer version does not even use a full 4 GB.
Yeah. And even many of the server versions are capped well below 128 GB.
[snip]
>> Yeah, this is going to be a compatibility problem. Yet Apple could have
>> solved
>> a lot of it by just shipping all their kexts as 64-bit promptly.
>
> As they likely will with SL.
I have only rumors, but from them it sounds like they won't.
[snip]
>>> "Built-in applications are now 64-bit. Nearly all system applications <
>>> including the Finder, Mail, Safari, iCal, and iChat < are now built with
>>> 64-bit code. So not only are they able to take full advantage of all the
>>> memory in your Mac, but the move to 64-bit applications also boosts
>>> overall
>>> performance."
>>>
>>> http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/
>>>
>> I note- just to add insult to injury- that on 64-bit Windows, it's not
>> "nearly all"; *all* bundled applications are 64-bit. A few have 32-bit
>> counterparts, but the 64-bit versions is there too.
>
> Can you document that?
I've got 64-bit Windows right here, and I've looked at this. Everything
bundled comes in 64-bit, most things come only that way. IE comes both ways,
with two start menu icons. WMP comes both ways, but there's no easy way to
start the 64-bit version- you have to navigate into "C:\Program Files" and
start the copy of WMP that is there; that's the 64-bit one. OTOH, Media
Center is only 64-bit.
If you think you know a bundled program that is only 32-bit on 64-bit
Windows, let me know and I'll check it.
Snit
8/16/09 9:27 AM:
> "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
> news:C6AD6C10.418BF%use...@gallopinginsanity.com...
>> Dan Johnson stated in post BK-dnSMrgbmdcxrX...@supernews.com
>> on
>> 8/16/09 4:31 AM:
>>>> I did mean the bundled apps... but I would be surprised if iWork and
>>>> iLife
>>>> (esp. iMovie) are not also moved to 64 bit programs in their next major
>>>> updates.
>>>
>>> Maybe. But they may take quite a while before updating them.
>>
>> I bet they are undated within a few months of Snow Leopard's release.
>
> I suspect not; if they will update them soon, they'll try to do it all
> together. Think of the OS X/iLife bundle: shipping that, then a new version
> of iLife immediately after, would not be Apple's style.
Hmmm, when was the last time they updated iWork? Hmmm, it is the '09
version... unlikely that they will have *another* version right when SL
comes out, but I could see it the first few months of '10. When is MS
Office '10 supposed to come out?
>>> And I suspect iTunes will lag anyway: it's Carbon, and cross-platform as
>>> well.
>>
>> Agreed.
>>
>> <http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/#sixtyfourbit>
>> ------
>> All system applications except DVD Player, Front Row, Grapher,
>> and iTunes have been rewritten in 64-bit.
>> ------
>
> The 32-bitness of DVD Player is odd. It seems like it would be an easy port-
> it's pretty simple, isn't it? Maybe there's an still an issue with 64-bit
> QuickTime. We still don't know what's going on with that, I believe.
Same thing with Front Row... seems odd.
> [snip]
>>> I think they will not provide 64-bit drivers (or other necessary software)
>>> for any Mac more than about two years old. Such is what the rumors are
>>> suggesting.
>>>
>> They will not supply drivers for Macs that do not have the hardware to handle
>> it... but I bet my Mac, which is two years old, will be fully supported.
>>
> Sounds like its borderline. I'll be interested to know how it turns out for
> you.
I will be surprised and disappointed if my Mac is not supported. I would be
shocked, though, if they surprise me by supporting my G4. :)
> [snip]
>>> The inevitable changes are the bitness transitions: RAM is just that
>>> important. In the x86 world, other alterations to the instruction set wind
>>> up occurring at the same time as a bitness transition, as we are seeing now
>>> with x64 and its extra registers.
>>>
>> There are other transitions... such as the move of kernels in the case of XP
>> and OS X.
>
> What MS did was pile a huge amount of stuff into the 16->32 bit transition.
> A new UI, Unicode, multi-user security, domain networking, a real kernel,
> and of course the new 32-bit memory model.
>
> This made it a huge transition, and it was managed in overlapping stages.
> You can argue this makes it two transitions- Win95, then WinXP later. But
> even if you argue this, they were still trying to bundle it all together
> into one package.
They were just late and thus created ME. I will say the move to the NT core
with XP was done fairly well... and by XP SP2 it was a pretty good OS. XP
is still a pretty good OS... and hopefully Win 7 will be, too. Vista has
been a disaster for MS.
> [snip]
>>> It's easy to find worse from Apple: OS X 10.0 was worse, for instance.
>>
>> At the time, OS 9 was still the default OS. For a good reason. 10.0 was,
>> really, a beta as far as I am concerned... not usable for day to day work.
>> Even 10.1 was pretty bad. 10.2 was the first usable version of OS X, and
>> 10.3 the first really good version.
>
> Exactly.
>
>> I guess that makes it hard for me to really complain about ME. And Vista.
>> Both are pretty bad.
>
> If by bad you mean awesome, sure! :D
Both Apple and MS have had their "bad" OSs. At least Apple had the old OS
as a default for some time while they went through making OS X usable.
> [snip]
>>>> <http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/#sixtyfourbit>
>>>> -----
>>>> Today’s Mac computers can hold up to 32GB of physical memory,
>>>> but the 32-bit applications that run on them can address only
>>>> 4GB of RAM at a time. 64-bit computing shatters that barrier
>>>> by enabling applications to address a theoretical 16 billion
>>>> gigabytes of memory, or 16 exabytes.
>>>> -----
>>>
>>> Soon *XServes* will be able to handle more than that.
>>
>> And, from any official source, so will my iMac. Well, the hardware will
>> not...
>
> What official source has said anything about this? So far as I can see, it's
> still all rumors.
<http://www.apple.com/macosx/specs.html>
-----
General requirements
▪ Mac computer with an Intel processor
▪ 1GB of memory
▪ 5GB of free disk space
▪ DVD drive for installation
▪ Some features require a compatible Internet service
provider; fees may apply.
▪ Some features require Apple’s MobileMe service; fees and
terms apply.
-----
I do see for OpenCL:
-----
OpenCL
▪ NVIDIA Geforce 8600M GT, GeForce 8800 GT, GeForce 8800 GTS,
Geforce 9400M, GeForce 9600M GT, GeForce GT 120, GeForce
GT 130.
▪ ATI Radeon 4850, Radeon 4870
-----
I have an ATI Radeon HD 2600. Toast! I must say, I am a little
disappointed by that and did not know it.
> [snip]
>>> It looks like Windows will be offering a better compatibility story for
>>> upgraders too: 64-bit Windows will run on anything with a 64-bit CPU from
>>> 2007 or later, thanks to MS's WHQL efforts, and some stuff from earlier
>>> (depending on the drivers). Apple's 64-bit kernel will not work on
>>> anything
>>> older than about 2 years, as I understand it.
>>
>> My computer is older than 2 years... just barely. It will likely be fully
>> supported.
>
> Will it? Just what have you got? I understood that they didn't introduce
> their 64-bit EFI until 2008, and without that the 64-bit kernel won't boot.
I do not see the differentiation on MacTracker... nor do I see that as a
requirement from Apple.
> [snip]
>>> It looks like it already is. Ok, maybe most of the pain is coming from my
>>> whining about it, but still. :D
>>>
>> Most OS X users have not even heard of you... maybe only a few dozen... and
>> even with the Macs smaller user base that is hardly a significant percentage.
>> :)
>
> Hey, I do the best I can! :/
>
> [snip]
>>>> If it turns out to be true I will be a bit disappointed... but not much.
>>>> Not a big deal for most users.
>>>>
>>> It's great troll-fodder, though.
>>>
>> Great is an exaggeration.
>>
> I think I've got excellent mileage out of this 64-bit thing. It's like the
> Toyota Prius of trolling!
>
> [snip]
>>> I think Apple is less likely to upgrade iWork *at all* in that timeframe:
>>> it's just not all that important to them. Even if they do, they've been
>>> botching 64-bit so much that they may well miss the chance to upgrade iWork.
>>> Or more rationally, they may feel that other products need a 64-bit upgrade
>>> more urgently, and allocate their efforts accordingly.
>>>
>> Most of the apps that ship with OS X will be updated.
>>
> iWork isn't one of these, and OS X is more important to Apple than iWork (in
> my estimation).
Can you show support for this? :)
>
>>> I therefore think a 64-bit Office in the near term is virtually certain, and
>>> a 64-bit iWork quite doubtful in the same timeframe.
>>>
>> We shall see... not sure I disagree.
>>
> Heh.
>
>
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
8/16/09 9:33 AM:
>>> "Built-in applications are now 64-bit. Nearly all system applications <
>>>> including the Finder, Mail, Safari, iCal, and iChat < are now built with
>>>> 64-bit code. So not only are they able to take full advantage of all the
>>>> memory in your Mac, but the move to 64-bit applications also boosts
>>>> overall
>>>> performance."
>>>>
>>>> http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/
>>>>
>>> I note- just to add insult to injury- that on 64-bit Windows, it's not
>>> "nearly all"; *all* bundled applications are 64-bit. A few have 32-bit
>>> counterparts, but the 64-bit versions is there too.
>>
>> Can you document that?
>
> I've got 64-bit Windows right here, and I've looked at this. Everything
> bundled comes in 64-bit, most things come only that way. IE comes both ways,
> with two start menu icons.
And if you want to use Flash you need to use the 32 bit version.
> WMP comes both ways, but there's no easy way to start the 64-bit version- you
> have to navigate into "C:\Program Files" and start the copy of WMP that is
> there;
Any idea why?
> that's the 64-bit one. OTOH, Media Center is only 64-bit.
>
> If you think you know a bundled program that is only 32-bit on 64-bit
> Windows, let me know and I'll check it.
No idea what ones would or would not be. How about MovieMaker... or is that
a separate download? What about the games that come with the OS?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Fa-groon
(in article <0001HW.C6ACE387...@nntp.charter.net>):
> On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 21:55:56 -0400, Priam wrote:
>> On 08/15/2009 07:44 PM, Tim Murray wrote:
>>> On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 14:43:50 -0400, Priam wrote:
>>>> Doubling the speed of a lame double Core 2 GHz CPU doesn't mean that
>>>> much and, since most new Macs are equipped with less than 2 GB....
>>>
>>> Why are Windroids compelled to lie? The only 1 gig machine is the
>>> lowest cost mini.
>>
>> 1) I haven't used Windows or any Microsoft product for 8 years.
>>
>> 2) The lowest cost Apple-spec-ed Mini costs with keyboard and mouse is
>> worth $170 more than my computer which has as much memory on the video
>> card as the whole Mini... which must share his with the video card. See
>> what I mean? Plain ludicrous!
>
> I find it interesting you used the word "worth". A Freudian slip?
>
>
>> So, of course, after you've been screwed big times by Jobby with the
>> Mini, you may decide to come to your senses and buy all the other stuff
>> at PC prices. But this would mean you don't believe in the Mac offering
>> V_A_L_U_E, otherwise, you wouldn't buy memory, larger HD, monitor, etc.
>> from PC stores.
>
> I'd be lying if I said I thought the mini was a deal. Perhaps when it first
> came out, but not now. But I do think Apple in general represents value.
As a GP computer, no. But a lot of people use them as media servers in their
A/V systems and for that, they're on the money
Fa-groon
(in article <BK-dnSMrgbmdcxrX...@supernews.com>):
> "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
> news:C6AC9119.41765%use...@gallopinginsanity.com...
>> Dan Johnson stated in post ytCdnRsylu78oRrX...@supernews.com
>> on
>> 8/15/09 3:53 PM:
>
>>> I've heard the bundled-with-OS-X apps will mostly be 64-bit, but no more:
>>> I
>>> had not heard that Apeture or Final Cut Pro or any of those were. Nor
>>> iLife,
>>> for that matter, or iWork.
>>
>> I did mean the bundled apps... but I would be surprised if iWork and iLife
>> (esp. iMovie) are not also moved to 64 bit programs in their next major
>> updates.
>
> Maybe. But they may take quite a while before updating them.
>
> And I suspect iTunes will lag anyway: it's Carbon, and cross-platform as
> well.
What iTunes needs most is to add support for high-resolution audio files
(24/88/96/192).
Fa-groon
(in article <1j4jri6.nace8lbxnk23N%dem...@actrix.gen.nz>):
That's my point.
Fa-groon
(in article
<teadams$2$0$0$3-ACDA94.06...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>):
I'm sorry. I don't know that. Some Macs must already have more than a 32-bit
memory bus. Thanks for the heads-up. Another reason why 64-bit is not needed
at the present time.
Dan Johnson
>> together. Think of the OS X/iLife bundle: shipping that, then a new
>> version
>> of iLife immediately after, would not be Apple's style.
>
> Hmmm, when was the last time they updated iWork? Hmmm, it is the '09
> version... unlikely that they will have *another* version right when SL
> comes out, but I could see it the first few months of '10. When is MS
> Office '10 supposed to come out?
No official announcement, but I'm thinkin' sometime in 2010.
[snip]
>> The 32-bitness of DVD Player is odd. It seems like it would be an easy
>> port-
>> it's pretty simple, isn't it? Maybe there's an still an issue with 64-bit
>> QuickTime. We still don't know what's going on with that, I believe.
>
> Same thing with Front Row... seems odd.
I suspect when we find out the story with QuickTime X, then we'll understand
this.
[snip]
>> This made it a huge transition, and it was managed in overlapping stages.
>> You can argue this makes it two transitions- Win95, then WinXP later. But
>> even if you argue this, they were still trying to bundle it all together
>> into one package.
>
> They were just late and thus created ME.
Windows Me was just a wee little aberration.
> I will say the move to the NT core
> with XP was done fairly well... and by XP SP2 it was a pretty good OS. XP
> is still a pretty good OS... and hopefully Win 7 will be, too. Vista has
> been a disaster for MS.
This is a silly thing to say; you know better. Even OS/2 wasn't a 'disaster'
for MS, and that product actually failed.
[snip]
>>>> It's easy to find worse from Apple: OS X 10.0 was worse, for instance.
>>>
>>> At the time, OS 9 was still the default OS. For a good reason. 10.0
>>> was,
>>> really, a beta as far as I am concerned... not usable for day to day
>>> work.
>>> Even 10.1 was pretty bad. 10.2 was the first usable version of OS X,
>>> and
>>> 10.3 the first really good version.
>>
>> Exactly.
I leave this quote in because in includes your opinion on 10.1
>>> I guess that makes it hard for me to really complain about ME. And
>>> Vista.
>>> Both are pretty bad.
>>
>> If by bad you mean awesome, sure! :D
>
> Both Apple and MS have had their "bad" OSs. At least Apple had the old OS
> as a default for some time while they went through making OS X usable.
They made OS X 10.1 the default (or rather 10.1.2 according to Wikipedia).
That one was "pretty bad" according to my sources. :D
[snip]
>> What official source has said anything about this? So far as I can see,
>> it's
>> still all rumors.
>
> <http://www.apple.com/macosx/specs.html>
> -----
> General requirements
> ▪ Mac computer with an Intel processor
> ▪ 1GB of memory
> ▪ 5GB of free disk space
> ▪ DVD drive for installation
> ▪ Some features require a compatible Internet service
> provider; fees may apply.
> ▪ Some features require Apple’s MobileMe service; fees and
> terms apply.
> -----
Well, nobody is saying recent Intel Macs wont be able to run Snow Leopard;
just that they'll have to use the 32-bit version unless they are very
recent, etc, etc.
[snip]
>> Will it? Just what have you got? I understood that they didn't introduce
>> their 64-bit EFI until 2008, and without that the 64-bit kernel won't
>> boot.
>
> I do not see the differentiation on MacTracker... nor do I see that as a
> requirement from Apple.
Rumors, my boy, rumors. Better than fact any day. :D
[snip]
>> iWork isn't one of these, and OS X is more important to Apple than iWork
>> (in
>> my estimation).
>
> Can you show support for this? :)
I would, but it would be off topic for this thread. Not a rumor anymore. :P
[snip]
Dan Johnson
>> bundled comes in 64-bit, most things come only that way. IE comes both
>> ways,
>> with two start menu icons.
>
> And if you want to use Flash you need to use the 32 bit version.
Well, yeah. That's why that's the default.
>> WMP comes both ways, but there's no easy way to start the 64-bit version-
>> you
>> have to navigate into "C:\Program Files" and start the copy of WMP that
>> is
>> there;
>
> Any idea why?
Well, 64-bit IE has some security advantages over 32-bit. Maybe they felt
there was little reason to use the 64-bit WMP.
OTOH, why'd they include it at all, without provide a shortcut to it? It's
odd.
>> that's the 64-bit one. OTOH, Media Center is only 64-bit.
>>
>> If you think you know a bundled program that is only 32-bit on 64-bit
>> Windows, let me know and I'll check it.
>
> No idea what ones would or would not be. How about MovieMaker... or is
> that
> a separate download? What about the games that come with the OS?
Windows Movie Maker is 64-bit; just tried it. This is one of the apps that
was bundled with Vista, but is to be unbundled for Windows 7. The 'Windows
Live' version of it is in eternal beta, it seems.
The games are 64-bit. I believe we already discussed how many
bits-per-square the Chess implementation has, for instance.
I note, however, that *separate* MS products are often 32-bit only, even
when you'd expect the opposite. Windows Mail (bundled) is 64-bit; but
Windows Live Mail is 32-bit only. Chess Titans is 64-bit; Tinker (a
downloadable 'Ultimate Extras' game) is 32-bit only.
Snit
8/16/09 12:16 PM:
> "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
> news:C6AD8E51.41933%use...@gallopinginsanity.com...
>> Dan Johnson stated in post jOCdnd_MhPtcqRXX...@supernews.com
>> on
>> 8/16/09 9:33 AM:
>>
>>> I've got 64-bit Windows right here, and I've looked at this. Everything
>>> bundled comes in 64-bit, most things come only that way. IE comes both ways,
>>> with two start menu icons.
>>>
>> And if you want to use Flash you need to use the 32 bit version.
>>
> Well, yeah. That's why that's the default.
So not all apps that ship with the 64 bit version are 64 bit... and in this
case they have both a 32 and 64 bit versions, but the 64 bit is not even the
default. Again, users are put in a position to have to decide the lesser of
two evils.
>>> WMP comes both ways, but there's no easy way to start the 64-bit version-
>>> you have to navigate into "C:\Program Files" and start the copy of WMP that
>>> is there;
>>>
>> Any idea why?
>>
> Well, 64-bit IE has some security advantages over 32-bit. Maybe they felt
> there was little reason to use the 64-bit WMP.
>
> OTOH, why'd they include it at all, without provide a shortcut to it? It's
> odd.
So they can brag they have 64 bit versions of all software without really
having it be an advantage to the user?
>>> that's the 64-bit one. OTOH, Media Center is only 64-bit.
>>>
>>> If you think you know a bundled program that is only 32-bit on 64-bit
>>> Windows, let me know and I'll check it.
>>>
>> No idea what ones would or would not be. How about MovieMaker... or is that
>> a separate download? What about the games that come with the OS?
>>
> Windows Movie Maker is 64-bit; just tried it. This is one of the apps that was
> bundled with Vista, but is to be unbundled for Windows 7. The 'Windows Live'
> version of it is in eternal beta, it seems.
They are unbundling a lot from Win 7. Not exactly a user benefit... though
maybe will encourage choice. Is the EU pushing this?
> The games are 64-bit. I believe we already discussed how many
> bits-per-square the Chess implementation has, for instance.
You do need 64 bits to get all those squares. Explains why the older OSs
never had chess or checker games. :)
> I note, however, that *separate* MS products are often 32-bit only, even
> when you'd expect the opposite. Windows Mail (bundled) is 64-bit; but
> Windows Live Mail is 32-bit only. Chess Titans is 64-bit; Tinker (a
> downloadable 'Ultimate Extras' game) is 32-bit only.
They likely know how confusing it would be to users to have the two
versions.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
8/16/09 12:10 PM:
> "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
> news:C6AD8D2B.41931%use...@gallopinginsanity.com...
>> Dan Johnson stated in post EZednSRwFuDvrhXX...@supernews.com
>> on
>> 8/16/09 9:27 AM:
>>> I suspect not; if they will update them soon, they'll try to do it all
>>> together. Think of the OS X/iLife bundle: shipping that, then a new
>>> version
>>> of iLife immediately after, would not be Apple's style.
>>
>> Hmmm, when was the last time they updated iWork? Hmmm, it is the '09
>> version... unlikely that they will have *another* version right when SL
>> comes out, but I could see it the first few months of '10. When is MS
>> Office '10 supposed to come out?
>
> No official announcement, but I'm thinkin' sometime in 2010.
Any evidence for this?
> [snip]
>>> The 32-bitness of DVD Player is odd. It seems like it would be an easy port-
>>> it's pretty simple, isn't it? Maybe there's an still an issue with 64-bit
>>> QuickTime. We still don't know what's going on with that, I believe.
>>>
>> Same thing with Front Row... seems odd.
>>
> I suspect when we find out the story with QuickTime X, then we'll understand
> this.
Perhaps. I have heard QuickTime 7 is an optional extra install.
> [snip]
>>> This made it a huge transition, and it was managed in overlapping stages.
>>> You can argue this makes it two transitions- Win95, then WinXP later. But
>>> even if you argue this, they were still trying to bundle it all together
>>> into one package.
>>
>> They were just late and thus created ME.
>
> Windows Me was just a wee little aberration.
:)
>> I will say the move to the NT core
>> with XP was done fairly well... and by XP SP2 it was a pretty good OS. XP
>> is still a pretty good OS... and hopefully Win 7 will be, too. Vista has
>> been a disaster for MS.
>
> This is a silly thing to say; you know better. Even OS/2 wasn't a 'disaster'
> for MS, and that product actually failed.
Vista has been a bad thing for MS... call it what you will.
> [snip]
>>>>> It's easy to find worse from Apple: OS X 10.0 was worse, for instance.
>>>>>
>>>> At the time, OS 9 was still the default OS. For a good reason. 10.0 was,
>>>> really, a beta as far as I am concerned... not usable for day to day work.
>>>> Even 10.1 was pretty bad. 10.2 was the first usable version of OS X, and
>>>> 10.3 the first really good version.
>>>>
>>> Exactly.
>>>
> I leave this quote in because in includes your opinion on 10.1
>
>>>> I guess that makes it hard for me to really complain about ME. And Vista.
>>>> Both are pretty bad.
>>>>
>>> If by bad you mean awesome, sure! :D
>>>
>> Both Apple and MS have had their "bad" OSs. At least Apple had the old OS as
>> a default for some time while they went through making OS X usable.
>>
> They made OS X 10.1 the default (or rather 10.1.2 according to Wikipedia).
> That one was "pretty bad" according to my sources. :D
It was. No argument here. :)
> [snip]
>>> What official source has said anything about this? So far as I can see,
>>> it's
>>> still all rumors.
>>
>> <http://www.apple.com/macosx/specs.html>
>> -----
>> General requirements
>> ▪ Mac computer with an Intel processor
>> ▪ 1GB of memory
>> ▪ 5GB of free disk space
>> ▪ DVD drive for installation
>> ▪ Some features require a compatible Internet service
>> provider; fees may apply.
>> ▪ Some features require Apple’s MobileMe service; fees and
>> terms apply.
>> -----
>
> Well, nobody is saying recent Intel Macs wont be able to run Snow Leopard;
> just that they'll have to use the 32-bit version unless they are very
> recent, etc, etc.
Maybe... just maybe.
> [snip]
>>> Will it? Just what have you got? I understood that they didn't introduce
>>> their 64-bit EFI until 2008, and without that the 64-bit kernel won't
>>> boot.
>>
>> I do not see the differentiation on MacTracker... nor do I see that as a
>> requirement from Apple.
>
> Rumors, my boy, rumors. Better than fact any day. :D
Ah. Of course.
> [snip]
>>> iWork isn't one of these, and OS X is more important to Apple than iWork (in
>>> my estimation).
>>
>> Can you show support for this? :)
>
> I would, but it would be off topic for this thread. Not a rumor anymore. :P
Fair enough. :)
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Dan Johnson
>>>
>> Well, yeah. That's why that's the default.
>
> So not all apps that ship with the 64 bit version are 64 bit... and in
> this
> case they have both a 32 and 64 bit versions, but the 64 bit is not even
> the
> default. Again, users are put in a position to have to decide the lesser
> of
> two evils.
So, you are saying 64-bit software is evil, yet Flash is also evil, and
Windows users must choose between them?
My personal view is that Flash is way, way more evil than 64-bit, so the
decision is easy!
[snip]
>> OTOH, why'd they include it at all, without provide a shortcut to it?
>> It's
>> odd.
>
> So they can brag they have 64 bit versions of all software without really
> having it be an advantage to the user?
I 'spose. Presumably, that is also why Apple is doing it. :D
[snip]
>> Windows Movie Maker is 64-bit; just tried it. This is one of the apps
>> that was
>> bundled with Vista, but is to be unbundled for Windows 7. The 'Windows
>> Live'
>> version of it is in eternal beta, it seems.
>
> They are unbundling a lot from Win 7. Not exactly a user benefit...
> though
> maybe will encourage choice. Is the EU pushing this?
Not so far as I know, but MS has been very very accommodating, and may be
trying to anticipate the EUs desires. If so, they are being fools.
However, I believe MS has said they are doing this because they don't like
having to sync up the release schedule of these programs with that of
Windows, and now that everybody has an internet connection, there's less
need to.
[snip]
>> I note, however, that *separate* MS products are often 32-bit only, even
>> when you'd expect the opposite. Windows Mail (bundled) is 64-bit; but
>> Windows Live Mail is 32-bit only. Chess Titans is 64-bit; Tinker (a
>> downloadable 'Ultimate Extras' game) is 32-bit only.
>
> They likely know how confusing it would be to users to have the two
> versions.
Er, Windows users are pretty dumb- witness the "virus" outbreaks- but they
aren't *that* dumb. "Pick the version for your computer" is not beyond them.
I should probably be offended that you think we can't handle this sort of
thing. Right after I click this attachment. It loves me, you see. It says
so.
Dan Johnson
>>> Office '10 supposed to come out?
>>
>> No official announcement, but I'm thinkin' sometime in 2010.
>
> Any evidence for this?
Well, I'm a-thinkin' that it's named "Office 2010", and that it's Microsoft
doing the naming, and they might know when they're gonna release it.
So I put 2 and 2 together, and I get 2010. Simple!
[snip]
>> I suspect when we find out the story with QuickTime X, then we'll
>> understand
>> this.
>
> Perhaps. I have heard QuickTime 7 is an optional extra install.
That's interesting, and suggests that some of the early rumors- that
QuickTime X was playback-only, or nearly so- may be wrong.
[snip]
>> This is a silly thing to say; you know better. Even OS/2 wasn't a
>> 'disaster'
>> for MS, and that product actually failed.
>
> Vista has been a bad thing for MS... call it what you will.
No. Vista has moved Windows platform forward quite a lot. "It only sold five
times better than Mac OS" isn't a "bad thing" in any objective sense.
Vista may be criticized, but critics who claim it was a net negative are
plainly wrong.
[snip]
Snit
8/16/09 2:07 PM:
> "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
> news:C6ADABE5.4199A%use...@gallopinginsanity.com...
>> Dan Johnson stated in post YZadnVEegr1rxxXX...@supernews.com
>> on
>> 8/16/09 12:16 PM:
>>>> And if you want to use Flash you need to use the 32 bit version.
>>>>
>>> Well, yeah. That's why that's the default.
>>>
>> So not all apps that ship with the 64 bit version are 64 bit... and in this
>> case they have both a 32 and 64 bit versions, but the 64 bit is not even the
>> default. Again, users are put in a position to have to decide the lesser of
>> two evils.
>>
> So, you are saying 64-bit software is evil, yet Flash is also evil, and
> Windows users must choose between them?
>
> My personal view is that Flash is way, way more evil than 64-bit, so the
> decision is easy!
Where did I say 64 bit was evil? It is not. It is not yet the norm on any
OS, at least to be "top to bottom" 64 bit. With OS X, users have a hybrid.
With Windows, users have to pick one or the other - go with tradeoffs. The
question becomes do you want a tradeoff where no choice is fully right, or a
single choice where you get most, but not all, of the benefits of both.
For most users the hybrid solution is the better one, though there are
special cases where a user might need the whole enchilada... um, 64 bit
enchilada.
> [snip]
>>> OTOH, why'd they include it at all, without provide a shortcut to it? It's
>>> odd.
>>>
>> So they can brag they have 64 bit versions of all software without really
>> having it be an advantage to the user?
>>
> I 'spose. Presumably, that is also why Apple is doing it. :D
Yes. Do you really think having TextEdit be a 64 bit app is going to have
one iota of benefit for, well, anyone? If so, who? Or the System
Preferences application. Or how about System Profiler or Terminal? The
benefits of a 64 bit Keychain Access program? On and on... all sorts of
things will see little if any benefit - on OS X or Windows.
> [snip]
>>> Windows Movie Maker is 64-bit; just tried it. This is one of the apps that
>>> was bundled with Vista, but is to be unbundled for Windows 7. The 'Windows
>>> Live' version of it is in eternal beta, it seems.
>>>
>> They are unbundling a lot from Win 7. Not exactly a user benefit... though
>> maybe will encourage choice. Is the EU pushing this?
>>
> Not so far as I know, but MS has been very very accommodating, and may be
> trying to anticipate the EUs desires. If so, they are being fools.
>
> However, I believe MS has said they are doing this because they don't like
> having to sync up the release schedule of these programs with that of Windows,
> and now that everybody has an internet connection, there's less need to.
So why not ship the current version and then have updates. You know, like
how it is done now? No need to sync the program schedules.
>
> [snip]
>>> I note, however, that *separate* MS products are often 32-bit only, even
>>> when you'd expect the opposite. Windows Mail (bundled) is 64-bit; but
>>> Windows Live Mail is 32-bit only. Chess Titans is 64-bit; Tinker (a
>>> downloadable 'Ultimate Extras' game) is 32-bit only.
>>
>> They likely know how confusing it would be to users to have the two
>> versions.
>
> Er, Windows users are pretty dumb- witness the "virus" outbreaks- but they
> aren't *that* dumb. "Pick the version for your computer" is not beyond them.
How many users know what version of Windows they have? You might be
surprised how many people have no clue. Heck, they do not know what OS they
have. Cannot tell how many times I get calls from people if they have XP or
Vista. And if they have Office they do not know the difference between
Office and Windows. Really.
> I should probably be offended that you think we can't handle this sort of
> thing. Right after I click this attachment. It loves me, you see. It says
> so.
Some guy in Nigeria told me not to trust those. Great guy... met him in a
deal where he had to transfer some money and I helped him out.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
8/16/09 2:12 PM:
...
>>>> When is MS Office '10 supposed to come out?
>>>>
>>> No official announcement, but I'm thinkin' sometime in 2010.
>>>
>> Any evidence for this?
>>
> Well, I'm a-thinkin' that it's named "Office 2010", and that it's Microsoft
> doing the naming, and they might know when they're gonna release it.
>
> So I put 2 and 2 together, and I get 2010. Simple!
Oh, is that what the "2010" in the name means. I thought they were trying
to make it look like binary and got confused. You know how those MS folks
are! :)
>
> [snip]
>>> I suspect when we find out the story with QuickTime X, then we'll understand
>>> this.
>>>
>> Perhaps. I have heard QuickTime 7 is an optional extra install.
>>
> That's interesting, and suggests that some of the early rumors- that QuickTime
> X was playback-only, or nearly so- may be wrong.
Well, if you have the Pro version of QuickTime 7, you supposedly get the
install of QuickTime 7 also.
> [snip]
>>> This is a silly thing to say; you know better. Even OS/2 wasn't a 'disaster'
>>> for MS, and that product actually failed.
>>>
>> Vista has been a bad thing for MS... call it what you will.
>>
> No. Vista has moved Windows platform forward quite a lot. "It only sold five
> times better than Mac OS" isn't a "bad thing" in any objective sense.
Yes, it is, when you consider the size of the Windows market place compared
to the Mac.
> Vista may be criticized, but critics who claim it was a net negative are
> plainly wrong.
Well, considering the age of XP, MS had to do *something*. Just sticking
with that, even though it is a pretty good OS, would not necessarily been
better.
I think Windows 7 will be much better. The drivers are already there and
the UI, if it works as they have demoed and as it has been shown on YouTube
and the like, is better. The task bar has been cleaned up (to be much more
OS X like, really), Window management / resizing has been improved (in some
ways sort of like Expos�, but also with the half-window resizing on drag and
the like... OS X *still* lacks a real maximize for most programs!). I still
think the extra wide / transparent window edges are rather hideous, but so
be it. Do you know if MS has toned down the transparency there?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Fa-groon
(in article <Pq-dne2syLjY6xXX...@supernews.com>):
No, it's not a bad thing, but given that the Windows market is hundreds of
times bigger, world-wide than is the Mac market, and given the amount of
money Microsoft spent developing it, that rate of adoption is disappointing
to the software giant, to say the least. To Microsoft, that makes it a
failure. On the other hand, the ratio of Vista copies sold, to the number of
Mac OS copies sold is totally irrelevant to anything and means nothing.
>
> Vista may be criticized, but critics who claim it was a net negative are
> plainly wrong.
Microsoft thinks its a net negative.
Tim Murray
> My $550 HP PC came with 8 GB of RAM installed, and it's maximum is
> 16 GB.
>
What model?
Sermo Malifer
HP Pavilion p6130f
Sermo Malifer
Your point is it's going to take a year or two for mid to high end Macs
to come standard with the 8 GB of RAM my $550 HP PC came with now?
The only Macs that come with quad core like my PC has start at $2500 and
still don't come with 8 GB RAM!
Sermo Malifer
Apple is selling computers with 64 bit processors that run into a 32 bit
memory bus!??!
Please tell me it ain't so!
You Apple fans may think 64 bit is unnecessary, but Linux and Windows
users do not agree!
Sermo Malifer
> On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 14:29:11 -0700, Priam wrote (in article
> <h67966$c86$1...@news.eternal-september.org>):
>
>> On 08/15/2009 04:22 PM, Fa-groon wrote:
>>> On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 12:26:02 -0700, Priam wrote (in
>>> article<h671vb$l9o$1...@news.eternal-september.org>):
>>>
>>>> On 08/15/2009 10:54 AM, Fa-groon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Apple is thinking that so few people have any use for 64-bit
>>>>> computing at this time, that it's not worth the effort, and they're
>>>>> probably correct.
>>>> Absolutely! It's phased out software for phased out hardware. The
>>>> only question is when the prices will be phased out too.
>>>>
>>>> Never, of course. Jobby likes when you rub your credit cards on his
>>>> bills.
>>>
>>> Come back for another basting by Neoptolemus (Pyrrhus), have we?
>>
>> That's about as close as you can get to a feud on a typo I suppose.
>> Well... looking up the name a single malt whiskey to pretend that's the
>> only kind of whiskey you would drink... to justify using your crappy
>> Mac wasn't bad either.
>>
>> Amazing the stupidities you Mac users can come up with when you can't
>> face the plain truth: outdated software for outdated hardware.
>>
>>
> Better than NO real software like you Linux Weenies.
"Linux Weenies" have a full 64 bit OS and 64 bit applications, running on
PCs that cost a fraction of a Mac's price. Our hardware won't be
obsoleted by a greedy corporation who's trying to force the sale of its
new machines either.
Sandman
Sermo Malifer <sermom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm sorry. I don't know that. Some Macs must already have more than a
> > 32-bit memory bus. Thanks for the heads-up. Another reason why 64-bit
> > is not needed at the present time.
>
> Apple is selling computers with 64 bit processors that run into a 32 bit
> memory bus!??!
>
> Please tell me it ain't so!
>
> You Apple fans may think 64 bit is unnecessary, but Linux and Windows
> users do not agree!
I don't think it's unnecessary at all, and I think Apple is dropping
the ball on this one. I use 3D graphics and video editing software
heavily on and off and 64bit in this area is more than just a buzz
word.
--
Sandman[.net]
ZnU
"Dan Johnson" <danielj...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Snow Leopard isn't quite out yet, but supposedly it has gone gold, and there
> has (so far as we can tell) been no improvement in the 64-bit situation. It
> looks very much like Apple has blown it *again*.
>
> According to the leaks so far, Snow Leopard runs its 64-bit kernel on 2008
> and 2009 XServes... and nothing else.
>
> It can be made to boot in "64-bit mode" on a narrow selection of other Macs,
> all pretty recent. This can be done by holding some keys down during boot,
> or by using a nasty command line command. Clearly, this is not the sort of
> thing a typical user will do.
>
> Apple has complete control over this; they could have shipped all the
> software (drivers, firmware updates, whatever) to get the 64-bit kernel
> working on every Mac ever made with a 64-bit CPU. They could have made it
> the default for all those systems; That was one of their big advantages over
> MS in this 64-bit thing.
>
> So why didn't they do it?
>
> As it now appears, Apple will be about where MS was with Windows XP 64-bit:
> they have a 64-bit version, but hardly anyone uses it, so hardly anyone
> bothers to write drivers for it.
>
> It's so senseless. Apple went into this with a lot of advantages over MS,
> but they've squandered them. And they've done it while advertising
> themselves as 64-bit leaders, so they obviously know this stuff matters.
>
> I just can't figure out what Apple is thinking here.
They're thinking that the benefits of having a 64-bit kernel (on a
system that already lets apps address more than 4 GB of memory even with
a 32-bit kernel) are not really worth the compatibility headaches for
regular users at this time.
And they're right. Quite obviously so, in fact.
You're just, as usual, more concerned with some sort of geeky
scorekeeping than with actual user experience.
--
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes
ZnU
"Dan Johnson" <danielj...@verizon.net> wrote:
> "Fa-groon" <fa-g...@mad.com> wrote in message
> news:0001HW.C6AC6621...@news.giganews.com...
> >> Well, sure, if Apple is willing to forego selling high-end
> >> computers, they have no need for 64-bit support now, or in the
> >> near future. But if they do that, what remains for them?
> >
> > Nobody said that. The only real advantage to 64-bit computing is
> > memory addressing. Apple probably figures that for most people, 4
> > Gigs of memory is sufficient for now.
>
> For most people? Sure. But most people do not buy Macs: they buy
> cheaper, low-end computers.
>
> Apple doesn't compete there. In the price range they *do* compete in,
> memories greater than 4GB are really quite common.
For the Mac Pro market, sure. But this whole thing is a strawman on at
least three levels.
1) It's rare that even Mac Pro customers will actually need to allocate
more than 4 GB to a single process; rather, having more memory is
primarily useful when you want to run Final Cut and After Effects and
Photoshop and Illustrator at the same time.
2) Even 32-bit OS X kernels allow 64-bit processes to access more than 4
GB of RAM.
3) Those very few users who will actually benefit from running their Mac
Pros with a 64-bit kernel will be able to do so by setting a boot option.
Yes, third-party 64-bit driver support might take a little longer
because Apple isn't defaulting to 64-bit. But one has to keep in mind
what the scope of this issue actually is. Drivers for things like
printers, scanners and cameras don't run in kernel space. Many other
types of hardware don't require third-party drivers. The average Mac
user has approximately zero third-party kernel extensions, and
practically no Mac user has more than two or three. For those few users
who actually have some need for a 64-bit kernel (and the probably much
larger pool who just want to run in 64-bit mode to feel cool), it
shouldn't be all that hard, assuming they have recent-model Macs.
Steve Hix
Tim Murray <no-...@thankyou.com> wrote:
If it came with 8GB of RAM, it didn't cost $550 to the legal owner.
Taking advantage of a fence, on the other hand, might just get you a
very low price.
Fa-groon
(in article <h6bvdp$6ov$2...@news.albasani.net>):
Running what? The GIMP? LOL!
> Our hardware won't be
> obsoleted by a greedy corporation who's trying to force the sale of its
> new machines either.
Come back and tell us about it when Linux has a video editing suite as good
as Final Cut or Adobe Premier, or, for that matter, as good as iMovie.
Let us know when Linux has a graphics package as good as Adobe CS.
Also, come back when Linux has Digital Audio Workstation apps as good as
Cubase V, or Digital Performer 6, or Logic Studio or even Logic Express.
Let us know when Linux has an Office Suite as good as Microsoft Office - oh,
wait, you do. You have OpenOffice. But then, Open Office was developed by
Sun, wasn't it? And it's as good as it is BECAUSE of a large corporation's
involvement, isn't it?
But I gotta hand it to you. 64-bit Linux to run The GIMP (which cannot even
directly support CMYK). Best laugh I've had today.
Dan Johnson
>> five
>> times better than Mac OS" isn't a "bad thing" in any objective sense.
>
> Yes, it is, when you consider the size of the Windows market place
> compared
> to the Mac.
"It didn't take off like Windows 95" is not a serious criticism. You are
setting the bar for success absurdly high, but I suppose you have to to get
the result you want.
It is a measure of Vista's quality, and it's success, that its detractors
have to go to such extremes.
>> Vista may be criticized, but critics who claim it was a net negative are
>> plainly wrong.
>
> Well, considering the age of XP, MS had to do *something*. Just sticking
> with that, even though it is a pretty good OS, would not necessarily been
> better.
It's not clear what MS could have done that *would* have been better, except
release their next major OS revision earlier. A modest incremental upgrade
after 5 years would have gone down really poorly, don't you think?
But this opens the obvious question: would it have been better for MS to
skip their big security push? As far as I can see, that is the big thing
that they could have done differently.
> I think Windows 7 will be much better. The drivers are already there and
> the UI, if it works as they have demoed and as it has been shown on
> YouTube
> and the like, is better.
If you think this, they got you with their name change. It's very like
Vista. It's a little better, but not 'much better'.
That said, it's a great OS. But it is so largely because Vista is.
> The task bar has been cleaned up (to be much more
> OS X like, really),
It's not an improvement over the old taskbar, IMHO, but it's still better
than the actual OS X dock. :P
> Window management / resizing has been improved (in some
> ways sort of like Expos�, but also with the half-window resizing on drag
> and
> the like... OS X *still* lacks a real maximize for most programs!).
As far as I can see, the improvements do not resemble Expose at all.
I have found with the RC that the 'snap to edge' stuff is a really handy.
"Aero Peek" is rather less so.
> I still
> think the extra wide / transparent window edges are rather hideous, but so
> be it. Do you know if MS has toned down the transparency there?
Nope, it's exactly like Vista as far as I can see. And "Aero Peek" makes
everything go transparent, not just the edges. :D
Sermo Malifer
> In article <0001HW.C6AE28A9...@nntp.charter.net>,
> Tim Murray <no-...@thankyou.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 00:37:39 -0400, Sermo Malifer wrote:
>> > My $550 HP PC came with 8 GB of RAM installed, and it's maximum is 16
>> > GB.
>> >
>> >
>> What model?
>
> If it came with 8GB of RAM, it didn't cost $550 to the legal owner.
Yes it did.
> Taking advantage of a fence, on the other hand, might just get you a
> very low price.
All you have to do is go to the HP site and buy one for that price. One
need not stoop to your level to get a good price on a PC.
Dan Johnson
>>> this
>>> case they have both a 32 and 64 bit versions, but the 64 bit is not even
>>> the
>>> default. Again, users are put in a position to have to decide the
>>> lesser of
>>> two evils.
>>>
>> So, you are saying 64-bit software is evil, yet Flash is also evil, and
>> Windows users must choose between them?
>>
>> My personal view is that Flash is way, way more evil than 64-bit, so the
>> decision is easy!
>
> Where did I say 64 bit was evil? It is not.
But you said that Windows users must 'decide the lesser of two evils' in
picking between Flash and 64-bit.
> It is not yet the norm on any
> OS, at least to be "top to bottom" 64 bit.
Well, not if you include 3rd party software, no.
> With OS X, users have a hybrid.
> With Windows, users have to pick one or the other - go with tradeoffs.
> The
> question becomes do you want a tradeoff where no choice is fully right, or
> a
> single choice where you get most, but not all, of the benefits of both.
You seem to almost be admitting that Mac users face the same tradeoffs, but
Apple chooses what tradeoffs to make on your behalf.
Almost.
> For most users the hybrid solution is the better one, though there are
> special cases where a user might need the whole enchilada... um, 64 bit
> enchilada.
In theory this should be right; 64-bit programs on a 32-bit OS is a hack
worthy of Windows 95.
But Apple has made quite quite a few errors, and there are practically no
64-bit programs to run this way, whilst MS has, in something of a
role-reversal, gotten the 'real thing' out there first.
Apple should have done better than this.
[snip]
>> However, I believe MS has said they are doing this because they don't
>> like
>> having to sync up the release schedule of these programs with that of
>> Windows,
>> and now that everybody has an internet connection, there's less need to.
>
> So why not ship the current version and then have updates. You know, like
> how it is done now? No need to sync the program schedules.
This does seem sensible, but perhaps there are organizational reasons for
it. Maybe being part of windows places additional obligations on these
programs, like being 64-bit say, that they don't want to deal with.
[snip]
>>> They likely know how confusing it would be to users to have the two
>>> versions.
>>
>> Er, Windows users are pretty dumb- witness the "virus" outbreaks- but
>> they
>> aren't *that* dumb. "Pick the version for your computer" is not beyond
>> them.
>
> How many users know what version of Windows they have? You might be
> surprised how many people have no clue.
I never said they had clue; but they can look it up. They won't understand
what it means, but they don't need to.
And if they get it wrong, it's not big deal. Running 32-bit software on
64-bit Windows works fine.
> Heck, they do not know what OS they
> have. Cannot tell how many times I get calls from people if they have XP
> or
> Vista.
Those are both the same OS: Windows. :D
> And if they have Office they do not know the difference between
> Office and Windows. Really.
Sure. I'm not saying the average PC user can tie his own shoelaces.
I'm saying that this level of "complexity" is trivial.
[snip]
>> I should probably be offended that you think we can't handle this sort of
>> thing. Right after I click this attachment. It loves me, you see. It says
>> so.
>
> Some guy in Nigeria told me not to trust those. Great guy... met him in a
> deal where he had to transfer some money and I helped him out.
Gee, that was nice of you. I bet you made him very happy. :D
Snit
8/17/09 2:28 PM:
>>> No. Vista has moved Windows platform forward quite a lot. "It only sold five
>>> times better than Mac OS" isn't a "bad thing" in any objective sense.
>>>
>> Yes, it is, when you consider the size of the Windows market place compared
>> to the Mac.
>>
> "It didn't take off like Windows 95" is not a serious criticism. You are
> setting the bar for success absurdly high, but I suppose you have to to get
> the result you want.
>
> It is a measure of Vista's quality, and it's success, that its detractors have
> to go to such extremes.
I did not compare it to Win 95.
>>> Vista may be criticized, but critics who claim it was a net negative are
>>> plainly wrong.
>>>
>> Well, considering the age of XP, MS had to do *something*. Just sticking
>> with that, even though it is a pretty good OS, would not necessarily been
>> better.
>>
> It's not clear what MS could have done that *would* have been better, except
> release their next major OS revision earlier. A modest incremental upgrade
> after 5 years would have gone down really poorly, don't you think?
>
> But this opens the obvious question: would it have been better for MS to skip
> their big security push? As far as I can see, that is the big thing that they
> could have done differently.
They could have worked the market better so that computers that came with
Vista actually worked with it. They could have lacked having so many
different "flavors" of the product. They could have designed it to work
well on the then-current hardware. They could have made UAC not be so
annoying and, well, useless. Etc.
>> I think Windows 7 will be much better. The drivers are already there and the
>> UI, if it works as they have demoed and as it has been shown on YouTube and
>> the like, is better.
>>
> If you think this, they got you with their name change. It's very like Vista.
> It's a little better, but not 'much better'.
>
> That said, it's a great OS. But it is so largely because Vista is.
UAC is done better... hardware is better now... drivers are more ready...
the UI is better (or so it seems, I have not used it)...
... still too many versions.
>> The task bar has been cleaned up (to be much more OS X like, really),
>>
> It's not an improvement over the old taskbar, IMHO, but it's still better than
> the actual OS X dock. :P
It is much like the OS X dock. Not exact, of course... but much more like
it than any past Windows.
>> Window management / resizing has been improved (in some ways sort of like
>> Expos�, but also with the half-window resizing on drag and the like... OS X
>> *still* lacks a real maximize for most programs!).
>>
> As far as I can see, the improvements do not resemble Expose at all.
Getting mini-windows of all windows in an app, etc.
> I have found with the RC that the 'snap to edge' stuff is a really handy.
Seems that way.
> "Aero Peek" is rather less so.
>
>> I still think the extra wide / transparent window edges are rather hideous,
>> but so be it. Do you know if MS has toned down the transparency there?
>>
> Nope, it's exactly like Vista as far as I can see. And "Aero Peek" makes
> everything go transparent, not just the edges. :D
But it does it for a reason.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
ZnU
Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
Don't buy Johnson's trolling here. Not booting Snow Leopard in 64-bit
mode on desktop machines by default doesn't actually do anything
whatsoever to undermine the use of 64-bit applications.
Apple is simply being pragmatic, and Johnson is playing the usual
Wintroll game of focusing on tech specs and ignoring real world use
cases.
Snit
8/17/09 3:08 PM:
...
>>>> So not all apps that ship with the 64 bit version are 64 bit... and in this
>>>> case they have both a 32 and 64 bit versions, but the 64 bit is not even
>>>> the default. Again, users are put in a position to have to decide the
>>>> lesser of two evils.
>>>>
>>> So, you are saying 64-bit software is evil, yet Flash is also evil, and
>>> Windows users must choose between them?
>>>
>>> My personal view is that Flash is way, way more evil than 64-bit, so the
>>> decision is easy!
>>>
>> Where did I say 64 bit was evil? It is not.
>>
> But you said that Windows users must 'decide the lesser of two evils' in
> picking between Flash and 64-bit.
The "evils" were a lack of 64 bit goodness or lack of Flash flashiness. You
get stuck with one. With OS X you get Flash and you get most of the 64 bit
goodness - you can use far more than 4 GB memory (though only 4 GB per
program... or is that per thread?)
>> It is not yet the norm on any OS, at least to be "top to bottom" 64 bit.
>>
> Well, not if you include 3rd party software, no.
Right. Or the 32 bit software that ships with Windows.
>> With OS X, users have a hybrid. With Windows, users have to pick one or the
>> other - go with tradeoffs. The question becomes do you want a tradeoff where
>> no choice is fully right, or a single choice where you get most, but not all,
>> of the benefits of both.
>
> You seem to almost be admitting that Mac users face the same tradeoffs, but
> Apple chooses what tradeoffs to make on your behalf.
>
> Almost.
Sure: Apple is looking for the best user experience... and giving users if
not the best of both worlds, close to it. MS is trying to give users the
choice of the best of A or the best of B, but no combo where A and B both
work.
>> For most users the hybrid solution is the better one, though there are
>> special cases where a user might need the whole enchilada... um, 64 bit
>> enchilada.
>>
> In theory this should be right; 64-bit programs on a 32-bit OS is a hack
> worthy of Windows 95.
>
> But Apple has made quite quite a few errors, and there are practically no
> 64-bit programs to run this way, whilst MS has, in something of a
> role-reversal, gotten the 'real thing' out there first.
>
> Apple should have done better than this.
Huh? Apple is the one who has one OS with most of the best parts of MS's
two different versions... um, classes of versions.
> [snip]
>>> However, I believe MS has said they are doing this because they don't like
>>> having to sync up the release schedule of these programs with that of
>>> Windows, and now that everybody has an internet connection, there's less
>>> need to.
>>>
>> So why not ship the current version and then have updates. You know, like
>> how it is done now? No need to sync the program schedules.
>>
> This does seem sensible, but perhaps there are organizational reasons for it.
> Maybe being part of windows places additional obligations on these programs,
> like being 64-bit say, that they don't want to deal with.
Ah, so they do not ship 32 bit programs... they just make them be a separate
download. More work for the end user so they have bragging right. Lovely.
> [snip]
>>>> They likely know how confusing it would be to users to have the two
>>>> versions.
>>>>
>>> Er, Windows users are pretty dumb- witness the "virus" outbreaks- but they
>>> aren't *that* dumb. "Pick the version for your computer" is not beyond them.
>>>
>> How many users know what version of Windows they have? You might be
>> surprised how many people have no clue.
>>
> I never said they had clue; but they can look it up. They won't understand
> what it means, but they don't need to.
Where can they look it up? How would they know to?
> And if they get it wrong, it's not big deal. Running 32-bit software on 64-bit
> Windows works fine.
But not vice versa. And if you run 32 on 64, you lose the 64 bit
goodness... how fun is Chess on an 8 x 4 board? How about a board that is
2.44948974 by 2.44948974?
>> Heck, they do not know what OS they have. Cannot tell how many times I get
>> calls from people if they have XP or Vista.
>>
> Those are both the same OS: Windows. :D
They do not know what version. Same with OS X users by the way... OS 9? OS
X? 10.2? 10.5? They do not know.
>> And if they have Office they do not know the difference between Office and
>> Windows. Really.
>>
> Sure. I'm not saying the average PC user can tie his own shoelaces.
>
> I'm saying that this level of "complexity" is trivial.
Apple reduces the complexity. *One* consumer version (well, per language!)
> [snip]
>>> I should probably be offended that you think we can't handle this sort of
>>> thing. Right after I click this attachment. It loves me, you see. It says
>>> so.
>>>
>> Some guy in Nigeria told me not to trust those. Great guy... met him in a
>> deal where he had to transfer some money and I helped him out.
>>
> Gee, that was nice of you. I bet you made him very happy. :D
Just checked my account. Darn bank! It is taking forever!
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Sandman
ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
> > > Apple is selling computers with 64 bit processors that run into a 32 bit
> > > memory bus!??!
> > >
> > > Please tell me it ain't so!
> > >
> > > You Apple fans may think 64 bit is unnecessary, but Linux and Windows
> > > users do not agree!
> >
> > I don't think it's unnecessary at all, and I think Apple is dropping
> > the ball on this one. I use 3D graphics and video editing software
> > heavily on and off and 64bit in this area is more than just a buzz
> > word.
>
> Don't buy Johnson's trolling here. Not booting Snow Leopard in 64-bit
> mode on desktop machines by default doesn't actually do anything
> whatsoever to undermine the use of 64-bit applications.
Yeah, I know. About the trolling that is.
> Apple is simply being pragmatic, and Johnson is playing the usual
> Wintroll game of focusing on tech specs and ignoring real world use
> cases.
True to form, indeed. But a 32 bit kernel does impose limitations on
the drivers, does it not? I mean, even if it's a fringe case, it's
still a limit.
--
Sandman[.net]
Steve Carroll
> In article <znu-769A53.19162717082...@Port80.Individual.NET>,
>
>
>
>
>
> ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
> > > > Apple is selling computers with 64 bit processors that run into a 32 bit
> > > > memory bus!??!
>
> > > > Please tell me it ain't so!
>
> > > > You Apple fans may think 64 bit is unnecessary, but Linux and Windows
> > > > users do not agree!
>
> > > I don't think it's unnecessary at all, and I think Apple is dropping
> > > the ball on this one. I use 3D graphics and video editing software
> > > heavily on and off and 64bit in this area is more than just a buzz
> > > word.
>
> > Don't buy Johnson's trolling here. Not booting Snow Leopard in 64-bit
> > mode on desktop machines by default doesn't actually do anything
> > whatsoever to undermine the use of 64-bit applications.
>
> Yeah, I know. About the trolling that is.
I have far more respect for Dan as a troll than I do the likes of
Elam, Edwin, Snit... etc.
> > Apple is simply being pragmatic, and Johnson is playing the usual
> > Wintroll game of focusing on tech specs and ignoring real world use
> > cases.
>
> True to form, indeed. But a 32 bit kernel does impose limitations on
> the drivers, does it not? I mean, even if it's a fringe case, it's
> still a limit.
No question.
Sandman
<fad2fcac-82d2-4820...@v36g2000yqv.googlegroups.com>,
Steve Carroll <fret...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > Don't buy Johnson's trolling here. Not booting Snow Leopard in 64-bit
> > > mode on desktop machines by default doesn't actually do anything
> > > whatsoever to undermine the use of 64-bit applications.
> >
> > Yeah, I know. About the trolling that is.
>
> I have far more respect for Dan as a troll than I do the likes of
> Elam, Edwin, Snit... etc.
Oh undoubtedly. While Dan sure makes up things as he goes along, he
does so without actually making people dislike him. While few would
argue that he is a troll (self-admitted, no less), few would really
claim they have anything against him.
While he gets the technical bits mixed up. Or rather, while he
intentionally mixes up the technical aspects of Windows and OSX, his
trolls are usually coherent and has a clear path. And, which I think
is an important point for the other trolls in this group; he can
actually successfully pull off a troll without insulting people or
lying about something (with "omitting stuff" not being the same as
lying, that is).
David Corn (dc) from way back, was also a good troll in that he would
post things to start an argument, but he was - like Dan, and unlike
the ones you mention - not completely clueless about OSX and Windows.
John Jensen is also worth mentioning, even though both he and dc did
end up misrepresenting more than necessary (i.e. misrepresenting
another poster rather than OSX/Windows, which is fair play for a
troll) and even bordering to right out insulting people
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
8/18/09 10:43 AM:
I wish you and Carroll could rise to his level. Seriously, I do not get the
constant lying and lashing out the two of you do - Carroll *far* more than
you, to be fair to you. If the two of you could just find some self
confidence and not be so jealous of others who know things you do not I
suspect you would be far less offensive.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Sandman
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
Snit Objective Troll Criteria Summary
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1 [ ] Obfuscation
2 [ ] Antagonizing threads
3 [ ] Ignoring evidence
4 [ ] Antagonizing through other media
5 [ ] Quote-scavanging
6 [X] Thread hijacking
7 [ ] Projection
8 [ ] Unsubstantiated accusations
9 [ ] Unsubstantiated "refutations"
10 [ ] Forging posts and material
11 [X] Insults
12 [X] Role Reversal
13 [ ] Lying
14 [ ] Having an agenda
15 [ ] Diversion
16 [X] Misinterpretation
17 [ ] Creative snipping
18 [ ] Dig up arguments from the past
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Objective Troll Criteria
http://csma.sandman.net/TrollCriteria
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
8/18/09 10:57 AM:
Sandman Objective Troll Criteria Summary
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1 [X] Obfuscation
2 [ ] Antagonizing threads
3 [X] Ignoring evidence
4 [ ] Antagonizing through other media
5 [ ] Quote-scavanging
6 [ ] Thread hijacking
7 [ ] Projection
8 [X] Unsubstantiated accusations
9 [ ] Unsubstantiated "refutations"
10 [ ] Forging posts and material
11 [ ] Insults
12 [ ] Role Reversal
13 [X] Lying
14 [X] Having an agenda
15 [X] Diversion
16 [X] Misinterpretation
17 [ ] Creative snipping
18 [ ] Dig up arguments from the past
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Sermo Malifer
I looked up some info on the G5, and it said that it could address 8 GB.
It couldn't do that with a 32 bit bus, so the person I responded to
is wrong about that.
Dan Johnson
>> picking between Flash and 64-bit.
>
> The "evils" were a lack of 64 bit goodness or lack of Flash flashiness.
> You
> get stuck with one.
Oh, I see: you mean you have to choose the greater of two goods.
What I often do is run the 64-bit version until I actually *want* flash.
Flash is, after all, mostly used for obnoxious ads.
> With OS X you get Flash and you get most of the 64 bit
> goodness - you can use far more than 4 GB memory (though only 4 GB per
> program... or is that per thread?)
Per process, which on the Mac pretty much means "program".
Except, of course, Flash is still 32-bit: thus, and your Safari is 32-bit.
You don't get the choice.
This is a shame, as Flash itself is a well know security weakness, and
running it in the more-security 64-bit environment would be nice. But no,
you can't.
>>> It is not yet the norm on any OS, at least to be "top to bottom" 64 bit.
>>>
>> Well, not if you include 3rd party software, no.
>
> Right. Or the 32 bit software that ships with Windows.
What software is that?
[snip]
>> You seem to almost be admitting that Mac users face the same tradeoffs,
>> but
>> Apple chooses what tradeoffs to make on your behalf.
>>
>> Almost.
>
> Sure: Apple is looking for the best user experience... and giving users if
> not the best of both worlds, close to it.
Not so close to it, really.
> MS is trying to give users the
> choice of the best of A or the best of B, but no combo where A and B both
> work.
This is wrong too. 64-bit Windows is the combo where A and B both work.
[snip]
>> In theory this should be right; 64-bit programs on a 32-bit OS is a hack
>> worthy of Windows 95.
>>
>> But Apple has made quite quite a few errors, and there are practically no
>> 64-bit programs to run this way, whilst MS has, in something of a
>> role-reversal, gotten the 'real thing' out there first.
>>
>> Apple should have done better than this.
>
> Huh? Apple is the one who has one OS with most of the best parts of MS's
> two different versions... um, classes of versions.
No 64-bit Carbon, hardly any 64-bit applications, and no 64-bit kernel
except on XServes.
[snip]
>>> So why not ship the current version and then have updates. You know,
>>> like
>>> how it is done now? No need to sync the program schedules.
>>>
>> This does seem sensible, but perhaps there are organizational reasons for
>> it.
>> Maybe being part of windows places additional obligations on these
>> programs,
>> like being 64-bit say, that they don't want to deal with.
>
> Ah, so they do not ship 32 bit programs... they just make them be a
> separate
> download. More work for the end user so they have bragging right.
> Lovely.
Yeah. But it's a good illustration of why MS shouldn't listen to the haters:
they got lots of flak for bundling stuff, and now they get flak when they
don't. :D
[snip]
>> I never said they had clue; but they can look it up. They won't
>> understand
>> what it means, but they don't need to.
>
> Where can they look it up? How would they know to?
They can look it up in the control panel.
Yeah, they'd need to be told about that. They do get told this when it
matters.
[snip]
>>> Heck, they do not know what OS they have. Cannot tell how many times I
>>> get
>>> calls from people if they have XP or Vista.
>>>
>> Those are both the same OS: Windows. :D
>
> They do not know what version. Same with OS X users by the way... OS 9?
> OS
> X? 10.2? 10.5? They do not know.
They do not care, either.
>>> And if they have Office they do not know the difference between Office
>>> and
>>> Windows. Really.
>>>
>> Sure. I'm not saying the average PC user can tie his own shoelaces.
>>
>> I'm saying that this level of "complexity" is trivial.
>
> Apple reduces the complexity. *One* consumer version (well, per
> language!)
This just doesn't matter. Even the dumb users have no problem with the
different versions of Windows. Or other products.
[snip]
>>> Some guy in Nigeria told me not to trust those. Great guy... met him in
>>> a
>>> deal where he had to transfer some money and I helped him out.
>>>
>> Gee, that was nice of you. I bet you made him very happy. :D
>
> Just checked my account. Darn bank! It is taking forever!
I hear when the money-order clears, they'll send you a statement with the
magic words "balance: 0". It's like a code or something. :D
Sandman
Sermo Malifer <sermom...@gmail.com> wrote:
What is "it" in the sentence above? I don't know what the G5 has to do
with anything, but apps running on Leopard and Snow Leopard can
address more than 4GB of RAM, in spite of the kernel being 32 bit.
The G5 is a 64 bit processor, so I'm unsure what you are in reference
to with your "32 bit bus" remark.
The limitations a 32bit kernel imposes in OSX's case is for drivers
and kernel extensions.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
8/18/09 1:12 PM:
>>> But you said that Windows users must 'decide the lesser of two evils' in
>>> picking between Flash and 64-bit.
>>>
>> The "evils" were a lack of 64 bit goodness or lack of Flash flashiness. You
>> get stuck with one.
>>
> Oh, I see: you mean you have to choose the greater of two goods.
If both are good, then why not use a 32 bit system that does not support
Flash?
> What I often do is run the 64-bit version until I actually *want* flash. Flash
> is, after all, mostly used for obnoxious ads.
It is sometimes used for other things... but, yeah, often it is just an
annoyance.
>> With OS X you get Flash and you get most of the 64 bit goodness - you can use
>> far more than 4 GB memory (though only 4 GB per program... or is that per
>> thread?)
>>
> Per process, which on the Mac pretty much means "program".
OK.
> Except, of course, Flash is still 32-bit: thus, and your Safari is 32-bit. You
> don't get the choice.
What advantage would I get from a 64 bit Safari? Viewing really big web
pages?
> This is a shame, as Flash itself is a well know security weakness, and running
> it in the more-security 64-bit environment would be nice. But no, you can't.
Any evidence of a single person, outside of a lab for testing such things,
being effected by this security weakness on OS X?
>>>> It is not yet the norm on any OS, at least to be "top to bottom" 64 bit.
>>>>
>>> Well, not if you include 3rd party software, no.
>>
>> Right. Or the 32 bit software that ships with Windows.
>
> What software is that?
The ones you listed... where they have both the 32 and 64 bit on the system.
Sort of like how Apple has both the PPC and Intel programs on Macs, but with
OS X Apple makes it impossible for a user to "pick" the wrong one.
> [snip]
>>> You seem to almost be admitting that Mac users face the same tradeoffs, but
>>> Apple chooses what tradeoffs to make on your behalf.
>>>
>>> Almost.
>>>
>> Sure: Apple is looking for the best user experience... and giving users if
>> not the best of both worlds, close to it.
>>
> Not so close to it, really.
Give a non-fringe example of where a user is likely to run into problems.
>> MS is trying to give users the choice of the best of A or the best of B, but
>> no combo where A and B both work.
>>
> This is wrong too. 64-bit Windows is the combo where A and B both work.
Then why sell the 32 bit version at all? That makes no sense.
> [snip]
>>> In theory this should be right; 64-bit programs on a 32-bit OS is a hack
>>> worthy of Windows 95.
>>>
>>> But Apple has made quite quite a few errors, and there are practically no
>>> 64-bit programs to run this way, whilst MS has, in something of a
>>> role-reversal, gotten the 'real thing' out there first.
>>>
>>> Apple should have done better than this.
>>>
>> Huh? Apple is the one who has one OS with most of the best parts of MS's two
>> different versions... um, classes of versions.
>>
> No 64-bit Carbon, hardly any 64-bit applications, and no 64-bit kernel except
> on XServes.
Right now no 64 bit kernel period. But, again, give a non-fringe example
where a Mac user is going to run into a problem.
> [snip]
>>>> So why not ship the current version and then have updates. You know, like
>>>> how it is done now? No need to sync the program schedules.
>>>>
>>> This does seem sensible, but perhaps there are organizational reasons for
>>> it. Maybe being part of windows places additional obligations on these
>>> programs, like being 64-bit say, that they don't want to deal with.
>>>
>> Ah, so they do not ship 32 bit programs... they just make them be a separate
>> download. More work for the end user so they have bragging right. Lovely.
>>
> Yeah. But it's a good illustration of why MS shouldn't listen to the haters:
> they got lots of flak for bundling stuff, and now they get flak when they
> don't. :D
I do not have a problem with them bundling a browser... though, yes, many
people do (or did).
> [snip]
>>> I never said they had clue; but they can look it up. They won't understand
>>> what it means, but they don't need to.
>>>
>> Where can they look it up? How would they know to?
>>
> They can look it up in the control panel.
>
> Yeah, they'd need to be told about that. They do get told this when it
> matters.
So before they can download software they have to go to a control panel and
check the specs on their machine. With OS X, assuming a relatively modern
computer, no such problems.
> [snip]
>>>> Heck, they do not know what OS they have. Cannot tell how many times I get
>>>> calls from people if they have XP or Vista.
>>>>
>>> Those are both the same OS: Windows. :D
>>>
>> They do not know what version. Same with OS X users by the way... OS 9? OS
>> X? 10.2? 10.5? They do not know.
>>
> They do not care, either.
Right: on OS X there is less reason for the general person to care... though
they could likely benefit from getting updates. On Windows, they are forced
to care.
>>>> And if they have Office they do not know the difference between Office
>>>> and Windows. Really.
>>>>
>>> Sure. I'm not saying the average PC user can tie his own shoelaces.
>>>
>>> I'm saying that this level of "complexity" is trivial.
>>>
>> Apple reduces the complexity. *One* consumer version (well, per language!)
>>
> This just doesn't matter. Even the dumb users have no problem with the
> different versions of Windows. Or other products.
You missed all the articles on how confusing it has been... and missed the
lawsuits.
> [snip]
>>>> Some guy in Nigeria told me not to trust those. Great guy... met him in a
>>>> deal where he had to transfer some money and I helped him out.
>>>>
>>> Gee, that was nice of you. I bet you made him very happy. :D
>>>
>> Just checked my account. Darn bank! It is taking forever!
>>
> I hear when the money-order clears, they'll send you a statement with the
> magic words "balance: 0". It's like a code or something. :D
Oh, cool! That just came in. Thanks.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Dan Johnson
>> setting the bar for success absurdly high, but I suppose you have to to
>> get
>> the result you want.
>>
>> It is a measure of Vista's quality, and it's success, that its detractors
>> have
>> to go to such extremes.
>
> I did not compare it to Win 95.
Yeah, that was me. But what *is* your benchmark? What version of Windows has
been a success, in your view?
[snip]
>> It's not clear what MS could have done that *would* have been better,
>> except
>> release their next major OS revision earlier. A modest incremental
>> upgrade
>> after 5 years would have gone down really poorly, don't you think?
>>
>> But this opens the obvious question: would it have been better for MS to
>> skip
>> their big security push? As far as I can see, that is the big thing that
>> they
>> could have done differently.
>
> They could have worked the market better so that computers that came with
> Vista actually worked with it.
It did, of course.
>They could have lacked having so many
> different "flavors" of the product.
This would not have helped at all.
> They could have designed it to work
> well on the then-current hardware.
It did. It had trouble with the old stuff, not the new stuff.
Maybe it could have worked better on netbooks; but this would have required
further delay. Would that be better?
> They could have made UAC not be so annoying and, well, useless. Etc.
It's been remarkably effective. But they could only make it less annoying by
making it less effective- as they are doing in Windows 7. Even that wouldn't
have helped much, as long as it still existed: the big problem with UAC was
that it was incompatible with existing software.
[snip]
>> If you think this, they got you with their name change. It's very like
>> Vista.
>> It's a little better, but not 'much better'.
>>
>> That said, it's a great OS. But it is so largely because Vista is.
>
> UAC is done better...
They turned it down a bit. It's bypassable now, by default. Like OS X.
I can see why they'd do that - the UAC whining was just deafening - but I
don't approve of security theater.
Of course, you can turn it back up to full, so it still beats OS X for users
who know what they are doing.
it's cold comfort for a wintroll, though.
> hardware is better now... drivers are more ready...
It's slightly smaller, and it has the same drivers as Vista.
> the UI is better (or so it seems, I have not used it)...
It's pretty much the same. Some tweaks here and there. They've "Aero-ized"
the control panel more, that sort of thing.
> ... still too many versions.
:D
>>> The task bar has been cleaned up (to be much more OS X like, really),
>>>
>> It's not an improvement over the old taskbar, IMHO, but it's still better
>> than
>> the actual OS X dock. :P
>
> It is much like the OS X dock. Not exact, of course... but much more like
> it than any past Windows.
Yes, that's true. Too bad about that.
>>> Window management / resizing has been improved (in some ways sort of
>>> like
>>> Expos�, but also with the half-window resizing on drag and the like...
>>> OS X
>>> *still* lacks a real maximize for most programs!).
>>>
>> As far as I can see, the improvements do not resemble Expose at all.
>
> Getting mini-windows of all windows in an app, etc.
It doesn't do that. It shows 'insides' of windows, not whole windows. So
with IE, you get to see each tab. That's actually nice; it's just that for
most apps it's no better than showing windows, and the hover-and-point thing
adds overhead.
But the alt-tab preview thing is more like Expose than it is.
[snip]
>>> I still think the extra wide / transparent window edges are rather
>>> hideous,
>>> but so be it. Do you know if MS has toned down the transparency there?
>>>
>> Nope, it's exactly like Vista as far as I can see. And "Aero Peek" makes
>> everything go transparent, not just the edges. :D
>
> But it does it for a reason.
Oh sure, psychoanalyze it why don't you! :D
Dan Johnson
news:mr-5DAB76.19...@News.Individual.NET...
> In article
> <fad2fcac-82d2-4820...@v36g2000yqv.googlegroups.com>,
> Steve Carroll <fret...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Oh undoubtedly. While Dan sure makes up things as he goes along, he
> does so without actually making people dislike him. While few would
> argue that he is a troll (self-admitted, no less), few would really
> claim they have anything against him.
Yet I still can't win Troll of the Month. It ain't fair!
[snip]
Snit
PM:
<http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Hardware/Developer_Notes/Macintosh
_CPUs-G5/PowerMacG5/2Architecture/Q87_archi.html>
-----
Dual processor bus: 1 GHz/1.15 GHz/1.35 GHz (running at half the
speed of the processor), 64-bit (32-bit in and 32-bit out) data
throughput per processor connecting the processor module to the U3H IC
-----
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Sandman
"Dan Johnson" <danielj...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > Oh undoubtedly. While Dan sure makes up things as he goes along, he
> > does so without actually making people dislike him. While few would
> > argue that he is a troll (self-admitted, no less), few would really
> > claim they have anything against him.
>
> Yet I still can't win Troll of the Month. It ain't fair!
Well, that's just because your threads generate pretty much no
replies. If they did, You'd be right there. Trust me.
--
Sandman[.net]