What is Digg?134 Comments
- tacochampion, on 09/04/2008, -25/+93From the article:
"In 64-bit Windows, apps finally break out of the 2GB limit (they now split the 16TB address space in half with the kernel), but there's no significant new performance advantage related to the TLB, because Windows wasn't dealing with that problem. "
The summary is REALLY misleading. There is absolutely NOTHING faster about how apple is using 64 bit memory, they're now just doing it the way windows HAS ALWAYS done it. (The trade-off being that the mac os had more available memory in 32bit)
VERY misleading. - LennyX, on 09/05/2008, -0/+47Can anyone point me to the part that says it's half the price? Doesn't seem to be in the article at all, despite the title.
- pintomp3, on 09/05/2008, -5/+33OSX isn't already 64-bit? i remember apple ads talking about having the first 64-bit computer years ago.
- MrPig, on 09/05/2008, -3/+28Further:
"Windows 64-bit users complain about many 32-bit apps, drivers, codecs, and utilities not ready or not working properly. That includes Microsoft's own Office Document Imaging tools, Silverlight, and Windows Media Player. And because 64-bit kernels and apps won't work with 32-bit drivers or plugins, the lack of 64-bit Silverlight or Flash prevent many users from running the 64-bit Internet Explorer. Additionally, the way Microsoft delivered 64-bit Windows causes problems for app developers, as simple changes or customizations to the system can hose everything, as Adobe has warned the beta users of 64-bit Photoshop CS4."
This is very inaccurate. It sites the problems that many app developers have porting their apps to x64 versions however windows x64 (Vista and XP) can run x86 apps with no problems. (Unless there is some cross-cpu DLL injection or driver usage). Problems like these will also occur on Mac - although it'll be less prevalent as the hardware WILL have x64 drivers (as Apple sells their own hardware) and I can't believe many applications use *nix runtime linking abilities between applications from different vendors. - kyelewis, on 09/05/2008, -4/+29Dont see how it's misleading- all it says is that Snow Leopard's performance will increase more than Windows' did when moving to 64-bit... nowhere does it attribute that to a problem with windows. You're reading it and assuming that the person who wrote the summary had something against windows.
- CATSCEO2, on 09/05/2008, -4/+23It is, but Snow Leopard will be 64-bit only. (I think)
- WiseWeasel, on 09/04/2008, -3/+20What's wrong with it now?
- FasmTrout, on 09/05/2008, -1/+15Did... did you just moon us?
- spezi, on 09/05/2008, -3/+17But that Mac OS will now do it the way Windows has always done it is pretty clearly spelled out in the article. They basically say that Mac OS X will gain performance since the TLB flushing will be a thing of the past. Windows will not gain performance because it did not have that problem in the first place (instead sacrificing the amount of available memory per application - and the end of this memory limitation is the way in which Windows will benefit). Is that correct? If so, what is misleading about it? Otherwise, how have I been mislead? :)
- sonofalink, on 09/05/2008, -4/+18Even though OS X is half the price of Windows.
- WiseWeasel, on 09/05/2008, -1/+14Right now, Leopard supports 64bit background processes and daemons, but only 32bit GUI apps, simply because all their upper-level APIs and frameworks are still 32bit, along with the underlying kernel. So kernel drivers and extensions are now limited to 32bit in Leopard, along with GUI apps. Snow leopard will switch to a 64bit kernel, and provide new 64bit APIs (Cocoa only, no Carbon), in addition to the 32bit legacy APIs from the current OS. What this means is that in Snow Leopard, you'll need new 64bit drivers, and you can use either current 32bit apps with their 32bit plugins, or new 64bit apps with new 64bit plugins as developers add support for the new architecture.
- binorgog, on 09/05/2008, -2/+15I went with Vista SP1 64 and slapped 8 gig of RAM in it. I thought it would be a bit over the top, but I run normally with about 3-5 gig being used. It just smokes no matter how much i-Tunes and Firefox suck up. Also, I have NO issues with drivers or software....best thing I ever did since I slapped a whopping 4 megs of RAM into my Windows 95 box in Aug 1995!
- ExSlashdotter, on 09/05/2008, -2/+12Explaining software architecture to even most self-proclaimed 'geeks' these days is like trying to discuss the finer details of tuning an engine with a person who buys a car based on its color and how many cupholders it has.
How many other people here actually knows what 64-bit means?
*people think just because they're a half-way knowlegable shopper at best buy that they're all the sudden a computer science expert. - MrJagil, on 09/04/2008, -13/+23I just hope to god Snow Leopard fixes X11...
- merreborn, on 09/05/2008, -5/+15The various versions of Windows 3.x were virtually indistinguishable. Windows 95, 98, and ME were all pretty much the same OS. There wasn't that much of a difference between NT 3.1, 3.5, 3.51, and 4.0.
The market also seems to think that Vista offers minimal improvement over XP.
So, really, I don't see how Windows isn't guilty of the same crime.
BTW, each major OSX release adds dozens of features. 10.5 added time machine and bootcamp, filevault, spaces, coverflow, screensharing, and more. That's more than any service pack has ever offered. - MacParrot, on 09/05/2008, -0/+9All of them
- skoles, on 09/05/2008, -1/+10The chip architecture was and some of the system utilized it. But from the user level you didn't have any 64-bit applications.
- WiseWeasel, on 09/05/2008, -0/+9@josh25 & colincornaby: My bad, you guys are absolutely correct; I was apparently confused. 64-bit cocoa is available now in 10.5 Leopard, as is made clear in the diagram in the first article in this series:
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/08/08/26/road ...
So I guess the only difference between Leopard and Snow Leopard regarding 64-bit capability is that the kernel and system calls will be swapped for 64-bit versions. Bury my previous misinformed comment. - sarchosis, on 09/05/2008, -0/+8It's broken/bugged, or at least that's what the WINE dev team cites as their reason for not getting WINE to run properly in OS X.
- robdazomba, on 09/05/2008, -0/+8May 16, 2009, 11:14AM.
- estvir, on 09/05/2008, -1/+9It's double 32! What else is there to know?!
- colincornaby, on 09/05/2008, -2/+9"Right now, Leopard supports 64bit background processes and daemons, but only 32bit GUI apps"
Incorrect. Leopard currently supports fully 64 bit apps (Carbon is the only API that won't run in 64 bit) For example, the Chess app included with the system is 64 bit.
The only thing not 64 bit are the drivers and the kernel. - 5xSTUN, on 09/05/2008, -0/+7I certainly love my own.
- joshc25, on 09/05/2008, -0/+7@WiseWeasel. You're talking about Tiger. Leopard supports 64 bit Cocoa applications. Lightroom 2 and Xcode are a couple of examples.
http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/64bit.html - inactive, on 09/05/2008, -1/+8smarch
- ThinkBox, on 09/05/2008, -4/+11Wrong.
And stop acting like Steve Jobs says we need 64 then 32 then 64. That isnt how the tech industry works, and that isnt how ANYONE who understands what that even really means makes a decision on a computer purchase. You're really struggling with maturity issues if you do believe that. - mrBitch, on 09/05/2008, -1/+7RE : " Too bad Adobe is making their next CS4 64 bit for Windows only "
Actually, the only 32 bit part of CS4 for OS X will be the UI -- the CS4 engine and all the CS4 processes will be spawned off as fully 64 bit processes under OS X.
Isn't it cool what you can do with a Unix based OS ? - york2600, on 09/05/2008, -0/+6http://osx.iusethis.com/app/x11
There's a much newer version of X11 available. There's a lot of active development going on in the X11 for OS X community. Go grab the newest edition and see if that helps out. Now Apple just needs to bundle the updated version in Snow Leopard. - mrebay007, on 09/05/2008, -0/+5lousy Smarch weather
- colincornaby, on 09/05/2008, -2/+7"The summary is REALLY misleading. There is absolutely NOTHING faster about how apple is using 64 bit memory, they're now just doing it the way windows HAS ALWAYS done it."
This is incorrect.
Under 64 bit, the number of available registers doubles, meaning operations that normally involve swapping things out of registers and into memory can be made faster because there are more registers. It's much like how adding VRAM to a computer can speed up games because it means the computer is swapping things in and out of VRAM less.
Snow Leopard optimizes for this, Windows does not. Leopard does things the "Windows way", Snow Leopard expands on this. - york2600, on 09/05/2008, -0/+5That sacrifice became a really big problem in the server arena as admins wanted to be able to suck up lots of memory in an app. Apple avoided this and let an app take as much memory as it wanted, but the trade off was a performance hit as the app and the OS couldn't access that memory at once. Each has its merits.
- CIAVT, on 09/05/2008, -1/+6I don't recall him saying we need 32bit chips, I do recall him saying we need Intel.
- BootsElectric, on 09/05/2008, -1/+6That was the most mature series of comments I think I've ever read on digg.
Bravo? - WiseWeasel, on 09/05/2008, -1/+6@colincornaby: In Mac OS 10.5 Leopard, there are no 64bit GUI APIs available. If the chess program uses a background process, it's possible that THAT runs 64bit native. 64bit Cocoa is scheduled to be released with 10.6 Snow Leopard. Otherwise, please cite a source for your claim, as mine is supported by this article, and the previous ones in this series.
- tacochampion, on 09/05/2008, -0/+4By the way, I'd like to note that my OUTRAGE at being 'misled' comes not from any sort of 'giving a *****' about windows or apple, but that I read an article I didn't care about because the summary made it sound like they came up with some new brilliant way to handle memory, not because they were just doing it 'slower' to begin with. Maybe I over-reacted...
- e_mnc, on 09/05/2008, -4/+8To answer pintomp3 first Leopard is 32 bit and 64 bit. The kernel is 32 bit with 32 bit drivers etc but can run 64 bit applications due to the way Apple has coded the OS. The benefit from this is 3rd party driver, codecs etc didn't have to be updated until Snow Leopard but can still run 64 bit applications.
I believe that Snow Leopard gives 3rd parties extended time to get there ***** together to write 64 bit driver support.
To answer trogdor282 IBM promised Apple more than they were willing to deliver. You may remember Steve Jobs announced the G5, saying the G5 will be at 3GHz within a year. IBM failed to deliver on that promise and also IBM with Sony and Toshiba created the Cell chip used in the PS3 today used Apples PPC R & D. A year later Apple moved to Intel. The only problem was at that time Intel only had 32 bit consumer chips. Even the Itanium was 64 bit only and the Xeon at the time was 32 bit. - TheR3dMenace, on 09/05/2008, -1/+5Januaryish
- Raian, on 09/04/2008, -2/+6And snow leopard arrives when?
- SlyCooper360, on 09/05/2008, -1/+5that sounds really dirty
"twice the ram half the price" - MtheoryX, on 09/05/2008, -0/+3@binorgog:
"I am also very fortunate to have more money than sense so thank you."
No, the retail world is very fortunate that you have more money than sense. And they do thank you. - WiseWeasel, on 09/05/2008, -0/+3They meant half the performance penalty of having to flush the TLB with each context change and system call. The price we're currently paying with Leopard's memory allocation is performance, not cost.
- robdazomba, on 09/05/2008, -6/+9OMFG! Yer so right! And that sucks because Macs can only use RAM purchased from Apple! It's a conspiracy! Computer companies are evil! Vote Ron Paul!
- LeonardNimrod, on 09/05/2008, -5/+8Can you point me to the Windows Service Pack that made your 32-bit version of XP become a 64-bit version Vista Ultimate? If you really think that frequent software updates that happen about every 6 weeks and new OS that happens 4x faster than MS can put out is a bad thing then you are free to keep using crusty versions of XP, that is what Vista users are doing if they aren't jumping to OS X. Can you really think the time between updates is an indication of the quality of the update then you need to look at Vista as proof that your logic heavily flawed.
- mrBitch, on 09/05/2008, -1/+4Bravo!
- CIAVT, on 09/05/2008, -1/+4No one has said that Snow Leopard will be a paid upgrade yet. Don't pass judgement until an announcement is made.
- jp12380, on 09/05/2008, -0/+3filevault has been in the Mac os long before 10.5
- WiseWeasel, on 09/05/2008, -1/+4Even if the new end user features seem non-existent (besides support for 64bit apps with better performance), the fundamental changes in the underlying APIs and kernel to support 64bit executables definitely do warrant a new version number. To a developer, you're targeting a whole new OS with Snow Leopard.
- Fubeman, on 09/05/2008, -1/+4Who buys RAM from Apple?
Pleeeeaaase . . . - Oddish, on 09/05/2008, -0/+3That's gotta be the worst variation of the Chuck Norris meme, ever.
- kitsua, on 09/05/2008, -2/+4I let your first iteration of this comment pass, but seeing as you've just duped yourself I'll call you up on it;
You bought and installed 8GB of RAM into your machine and your "power-user" apps that so desperately need it are iTunes and Firefox? Wow.
I'm sure that you've seen a massive improvement in the performance of your PC - especially considering all the high-intensity computing you're clearly demanding from it - but it's surely nothing compared to the sense of self-fulfillment you must be feeling from letting a bunch of strangers on the internet know that you've pimped out your home computer, regardless of cost or necessity.
You = money>sense. -
Show 51 - 100 of 135 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is