Slashdot Mirror
Panther Will Not be a 64-bit OS
rouge86 writes "The Register has an article on what Mac OS X 10.3 will be like. Mac OS X 10.3, aka Panther, will not be a 64-bit operating system, despite running on a 64-bit processor. Instead, the next major release of the Mac operating system will be a hybrid, much like version 10.2.7." You mean they didn't rewrite the entire operating system from the ground up? And that it will run on older, 32-bit, Macs? I am shocked!
Or much like Windows 95. ;)
Who wants to place bets on the name of the next hybrid OS? We've had Cheetah, Puma, Jaguar, Panther, and now I'm guessing they'll switch to a softer more feminine side of things, like Tigger, or Hello Kitty. Anyone with me on this?
On the PC scene:
First 32 bits CPU: 386, 1985
First somewhat 32 bits OS: Windows 95, 1995
Hopefuly, it won't take so long for 64bits
Therefore backwards compat is not an acceptable excuse.
11*43+456^2
At this moment I am awaiting Apple to ship the G5's, and when it does I'll be interested to see how this new architecture works, as compared to my current G4. What I'm awaiting is who will be the first to release the first 64-bit system for it. Does this remind anyone when Apple first released the first PowerPC, and only like 10% of the code was optimized for it.
its called Solaris.
All of the BSDs and Linux support 64-bit, and as far as I know, they weren't rewritten "from the ground up." They are all also compatible with both 32- and 64-bit machines, so I don't see legacy hardware compatability being a huge problem.
You don't have to re-write code to make it 64-bit. You just have to re-compile it. Granted, you have to make sure it's 64-bit safe code, but there's not all that much effort involved in that. Basically, you just can't assume that you have 32-bit integers and pointers.
For instance, the Linux kernel was made 64-bit safe in version 2.0, when they added support for the Alpha architecture. It's one code base that can be compiled for different architectures, some 32-bit, some 64-bit. There's not a whole lot of 64-bit specific code.
Most Open Source programs are 64-bit clean now. I'd think Apple's programmers would have been working to make sure all the Mac OS X code is 64-bit clean.
Software sucks. Open Source sucks less.
http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Hardware/ Developer_Notes/Macintosh_CPUs-G5/PowerMacG5/Power MacG5.pdf
The data bus going to each processor is only 32 bit. It's fast, and it's full duplex, but it's only 32 bit. See page 22.
Instead, the next major release of the Mac operating system will be a hybrid, much like version 10.2.7
So what? This is already known. We know the OS itself will be capable of addressing 8 GB, that is, more than 32 bits. We also already know it will run on 32 bit processors since Panther made its debut on a G4.
I don't mean to be snarky, and I know that post keynote is always slow, but it seems the ./ Apple news moderation hasn't been up to task lately. Yesterday we had "news" because someone managed to compile a some open source software using the new QT libraries (and did nothing else, from the looks of it). When I manage to build ImageMagick's shared libs under OS X, I'll be counting on it being on the front page. :P
According to El Reg, Panther is not a true 64-bit operating system. However, Panther can do 64-bit tricks. So many 64-bit tricks that it works and behaves as a 64-bit OS would, accessing more than 8 GB of RAM, and so forth, if asked... but its not 64-bit.
I think I'll file under 'makes no difference to me'.
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
Smeagol is a 32-bit operating system, though certain libraries and other elements have been recoded to allow applications - and the OS itself - to make use of the 64-bit addressing and datapaths, sources close to Apple said. For example, that's how the Power Mac G5 is able to support at least 8GB of memory, double the 32-bit limit of 4GB. Panther will adopt the same approach, said the source.
:).
Don't Pentiums with PAE have this ability. 64 bit doesn't mean "double" the addressability. A fully 64bit address is 2^32 * 2*32 or roughly 4 billion SQUARED. Somone needs to learn binary
The Opteron doens't have full 64bit addressing either... I think its like 42 or 48bits.
It's truly astounding to see how many people purport to have an understanding of what "64-bit" means, but in fact do not.
There are three criteria that define "64-bitness."
One: can an application running on a given combination of hardware and software address up to 18 billion gigs of virtual memory?
Two: can an application running on said hardware and software read from and write to files that are up to 9 billion gigs long?
Three: can an application running on said hardware and software do arithmetic with 64-bit integers and doubles?
Existing Macs running Mac OS X have two and three down. File offsets are signed long longs (up to 2^63, or 9 billion billion), and any application can manipulate long longs and doubles.
G5's running Mac OS X 10.2.7 will have one taken care of. Now, in the current generation G5, memory is actually limited in hardware to four thousand gigabytes, and limited in practical terms to eight gigabytes. But applications can, nonetheless, allocate and address up to 18 billion gigs of virtual memory. The OS won't stop them from doing that. (Pointers under 10.2.7 with the 64-bit compiler settings are unsigned long longs, 2^64, or 18 billion billion.)
So by any meaningful criteria, Mac OS X 10.2.7 running on G5 hardware will be a 64-bit OS. So will Panther.
The guy who wrote the register article basically doesn't understand what "64-bit OS" means.
Mac OS X 10.3, aka Panther, will not be a 64-bit operating system, despite running on a 64-bit processor. Instead, the next major release of the Mac operating system will be a hybrid, much like version 10.2.7
Well there ya go. Obvious testament that the beleaguered company is doomed to fail. The nerve!
I wonder how long it will take for someone to be serious about how Apple is failing because of this. Bets anyone?
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts...for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang
That sounds rather limited to me.
Wouldn't that be for Mac OS ACK!?
The Mac OS has been 32-bit from day one, AFAIK. The memory addressing was 24-bit until the Mac II series, but the CPU and OS were always 32-bit.
"Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
So mark that down as 1984.
"Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
IMHO, if it's still thunking 64-bit operations down to 32-bit operations in software, it's not really 64-bit.
What exactly is a xx-bit operation? Is 32-bit MOV different than 64-bit MOV? The answer is no. Other than the AMOUNT of memory MOV copies, it's no different.
It's not like the 64-bit MOV does an extra bit flip on the last bit just for fun because it's 64-bit. Furthermore, if a program executes a 64-bit MOV and only 32-bit are used, a 64-bit MOV executes. There's just a lot of significant zeros.
Please.
Don't forget, slashdotters - programs run twice as fast in an OS with 64-bit support as in one with only 32-bit support. You can run two side-by-side 32-bit "shells" by only using half the bus for each, or you can just run one twice as fast. You also get twice the screen space, you can fit twice as much in RAM, and your Diablo II stash will be twice as big and you'll get twice as many skill points. That's the part I really can't wait for.
-- http://frobnosticate.com
..Ahem.. Microsoft was never one to innovate... I predict that serveral years after Mac OS XI runs on 64bits, Windows SX will come out with one too; of course, it'll still sell more.
Best. Webhost. Ever. Dreamhost.
The OS was RECOMPILED to work with the 64 bit processor. This is stupid. Why are you saying it isn't a 64 bit OS. Because it doesn't have 64 bit code? So? It only matters that it can address the processor and make use of that ability.
Dumb
I got nothin'.
There are many ways for an OS to be "a 64-bit OS". However programmers/users of existing 64bits OSes will typically check a single criterion, which is unlikely to be met by OS X 10.3 .
...) can make use of memory beyond the 4GB limit by using specific APIs that work around the 32bits pointers limitation. I hope that Panther will allow that.
1. An OS could be called "64bits OS" because it allows programs running on the computer to use 64bits-instructions, while leaving them with 32bits pointers. This is typically done by offering a 64bits datatype (int64_t/uint64_t in C99 compliant environments) and a compiler that will emit the right instruction sequences. It also requires that the underlying OS will be made somehow "64bits aware", ie that it will save/restore the full 64bits content of processor registers on context switches. My understanding is that Panther/10.3 will allow that, or at least most of that.
2. An OS could be called "64bits OS" because parts of the kernel (VM / buffer cache,
3. An OS could be called "64bits OS" because it allows the usage of more than 4GB of memory by all userland processes, while any given process is still limited to 4GB (32 bits pointers). My understanding is that Panther will do that.
4. An OS could be called "64bits OS" because the kernel code is compiled to follow a 64bits ABI (Application Binary Interface). In such an ABI, pointers are 64bits entities and some integer types are also 64bits. While an ABI covers _a lot more_ ground than just the size of the common C types, those sizes are often used to characterize the ABI. The most common 64bits ABI is known as LP64 (aka I32LP64) where "int" remain 32bits, while "long" and "void*" are 64bits. By comparison the most common 32bits ABI is known as ILP32 (int, long, void* are all 32 bits). I don't think any "common" OS offered a ILP64 model (Cray maybe?). Windows64 is a different beast, being LLP64 (aka IL32 LLP64), where int and long are 32bits, while "long long" and pointers are 64bits. My understanding is that this will _not_ be the case for Panther, the kernel code will be compiled with a ILP32 ABI.
5. An OS could be called "64bits OS" because it offers a 64bits ABI to userland applications compiled in "64bit mode". My understanding is that this will _not_ be the case for Panther, all code will be compiled with the traditional ILP32 ABI.
My "belief"/"understanding" of the Panther situation comes from reading the WWDC reports, rumours reports and also the Darwin development mailing list where one Apple employee said that OS X won't offer an LP64 ABI until much later (not in Panther, at _least_ not in 10.3.0 and I doubt any 10.3.x release).
Most current users of 64bits systems will only use criterion 5, but I expect Apple PR to try to muddle the issue. And I won't blame them much, the issue is not as clear cut as some users think.
Some tidbits related to 64bits platforms:
- HP-UX 11.00 shipped as two different kernels, one 32bits kernel and one 64bits kernel. 64bits machines could run either of them, while 32bits machines were restricted to the 32bits kernel.
On the 64bits kernel a user could run 32 and/or 64bits processes, while the 32bit kernel could only run 32bits processes.
It sometimes made sense for the owner of a 64bits machine to only install the 32bits kernel, if they didn't intend to run any 64bits application and didn't have more than 4GB of ram (rare then). Running the 64bits kernel typically consumed a bit more memory and consumed a bit more memory bandwidth.
- Linux on 64bits machines is "pure" 64bits (today, this may change due to ISV pressure). It doesn't run anything but programs compiled with the 64bits ABI (I32LP64). A special case is Linux IPF (IA64) which also runs 32bits apps, but those aren't "native" applications using the Itanium ISA but x86 binaries running using the hardware (now) or software (future) emulation. Another special case will be Linux on x86-64 which also has to run "emulat
The presentation of the system said it the g5 could support up to 8GB of memmory. Okay. can a 32 bit OS actually address 8GB of memory. Or rather can apple's OS and applications (like photoshop) acutally address 8GB? No that I plan to deck mine out just yet. but I'm just curious.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
now we can say
MacOSX = Win32
well the similar situation anyway.
"I just can't sit while people are saying nonsense in a meeting without saying it's nonsense" J Watson, Sci Am 288:(4)51
SHEESH.
Some people can't take a damn joke...
And this coming from a Mac-o-phile!!
and it was relly usable back then...
From Apple's site:
Native compatibility with 32-bit application code
For PC users, going from 32-bit to 64-bit computing requires migrating to a 64-bit operating system (and purchasing the 64-bit applications that will work on it) or running a 32-bit operating system in slow-as-molasses emulation mode. The PowerPC G5, however, offers a seamless transition to 64-bit performance: Current 32-bit code -- such as Mac OS X, the Mac OS 9 Classic environment and existing applications -- runs natively at processor speed. With no interruptions to your workflow. And no additional investment in software required, period.
That's because, unlike competing instruction sets, the PowerPC architecture was designed from the beginning to run both 32-bit and 64-bit application code. This enables the PowerPC G5 processor to run Mac OS X natively for an immediate performance boost. In addition, as applications are optimized and as Mac OS X is further enhanced for the PowerPC G5 processor, performance gains will be even more dramatic.
...that this is no different that Apple's transition from the 68k to the PowerPC. When the PPC Macs were released, the Mac OS (7?) at the time wasn't fully optimized for the PowerPC, so it required a hardware based 68k emulator. (Although I'm not sure "emulator" is the correct term to use in this case.) Over time Apple released subsequent versions of the Mac OS that contained more and more PPC optimizations and 3rd party developers released new versions of their software to take advantage of the PPC. The fact that Mac OS X 10.3 won't be a full 64-bit OS means that Apple is just in another transition with plenty of room for improvements and optimizations over the course of the transition. They never promised a 64-bit OS. But they are falling back on the "Macintosh Way" saying: Underpromise; Overdeliver.
We need Macintosh power. I *am* Macintosh power!
The currently known architectures are:
ppc
i386
m68k
hppa
i860
m88k
sparc
ppc601
ppc603
ppc604
ppc604e
ppc750
ppc7400
ppc7450
ppc970
i486
i486SX
pentium
i586
pentpro
i686
pentIIm3
pentIIm5
m68030
m68040
hppa7100LC
Anyone know when 10.3 is going to be released? How about G5?
I was developing for two different 32 bit [i386 native] OS's in the late 1980's.
NetWare 3.0 'NetWare Loadable Modules' [with Watcom C]
and
An early beta for Microsoft OS/2 v 2.0
Caution: Do not stare into laser with remaining eye.
After reading all of this I am still not clear on whether applications in Panther will be able to use more than 4 gigabytes of memory. Will this be possible? And if so, please point me to some documentation where this is stated. Thanks.
x86 "hybrid" operating systems had to mix segmented mode with flat addresses. This is a very complex problem. OS/2 had a more systematic approach to it, and even it had problems.
Going from a virtual 32 bit flat address space to a flat address space that can be 32 bit or 64 bit depending on the user process is far simpler.
It is also not that important until individual processes require more then 31 bits of address space. Being able to support more than 32 bits of physical address space is a more imminent problem. But given the specs on the latest G5 machines it is obviously solved already.
I think you're wrong... there is Windows XP for 64bit already out.
Until now, there haven't been any PowerPC processors that have been capable of processing the full 64-bit width of data though.
Not quite true. I believe that IBM fabbed at least a few samples of the PPC620, which was to be the original 64bit PPC processor. For the usual assorted reasons (low yields, high costs, poor performance compared to Motorola's PPC750 design), the chip was never adopted by anyone.
News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters? Like hell.
...the top 7 replies basically off-topic? The real informative stuff is half way down the list (sorted highest scores first).
Besides, if Mac OS is Garfield, then Windows is Odie.
Oh pshaw, go on. The movie isn't ruined, and the 'spoiler' is barely enough to give you even a hint of what happens. Really. Most of the audience has read the book multiple times, and so has much greater insight into the story than any shoddywood production can give. Even seeing the movie won't ruin the suspense of the book for you, as The Jackson greatly simplifies. So chill, and get into the spirit of it.
Damn those pesky terrorists
I know I was surprised when I read it.
Should make for one hell of a Happy Meal diorama though.
- learn to swim.
Wrong. sizeof(int) should be "The largest thing I can load in a single instruction cycle."
Manx Aztec C on Apple/Amiga was right, and Lattice/SAS C was wrong wrong wrong.
If apple comes out with its own PDA will the os be called kitty???
This is just like the original 68K to PPC transition, in which the system software wasn't fully optimized until Mac OS 8 (and even then, that was only the Finder).
Ever notice how fast Windows runs? Neither do I - get Mac OS