Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Panther Will Not be a 64-bit OS

Posted by pudge on from the call-your-senator dept.

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!

12 of 229 comments (clear)

  1. You should not expect a 64bits OS yet by Smartcowboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

  2. What's up with the news these days? by Duke+Thomas · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

  3. Amazing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Amazing. by esme · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The criteria you lay out are fine and good, but leave out a crucial aspect: for a system to be 64-bit, it's assumed these tasks are done with minimal software intervention.

      So while the G5 can handle 64-bit math and memory/file addressing, it sounds like 10.2.7 and apps running on it aren't going to be using those. They're going to be using the existing emulations, and a few extra hacks bolted on a the last minute to get a few extra bits on the memory address space.

      IMHO, if it's still thunking 64-bit operations down to 32-bit operations in software, it's not really 64-bit.

      -Esme

    2. Re:Amazing. by inertia187 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Applications with 64-bit pointers do not use cache as efficiently as those with 32-bit pointers. Take the same application and compile it in 32- and 64-bit versions, and the 32-bit version will be measurably faster on the same hardware.

      Umm...does that mean a 16-bit and 8-bit versions will be measurably faster on the same hardware too? Just checking...thanks.

      --
      A programmer is a machine for converting coffee into code.
  4. Re:It will be interesting by RevAaron · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Does this remind anyone when Apple first released the first PowerPC, and only like 10% of the code was optimized for it [?]

    Superficially it does. However, there are a lot of differences between the switch from 68k and PPC and that of PPC/32 to PPC/64. There isn't emulation required, nor is a bunch of code rewriting to get your app optimized for the G5. It's a matter of installing the dev tools update, and recompiling. Things weren't that easy in the 68k->PPC transition days...

    --

    Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
  5. Re:It will be interesting by Steve+Cowan · · Score: 5, Insightful
    there are a lot of differences between the switch from 68k and PPC and that of PPC/32 to PPC/64. There isn't emulation required, nor is a bunch of code rewriting to get your app optimized for the G5. It's a matter of installing the dev tools update, and recompiling. Things weren't that easy in the 68k->PPC transition days...

    Agreed... a more accurate analogy might be waiting for AltiVec optimization. When the G4 was introduced, most software ran a bit faster on it, but certain apps saw incredible performance boosts when they were made AltiVec-aware.

  6. Re:64-bit OS's can run on 32-bit processors by guacamole · · Score: 2, Insightful

    No, you're wrong. Name one.64-bit OS that runs
    on 32-bit processors.

  7. Re:Not surprising..... by coolgeek · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So? The 8088 (ala 4.77Mhz IBM-PC and we O/C'd them to 7+) was a 16-bit machine even though it had an 8-bit data bus. The width of the registers is what dictates the width of a machine.

    --

    cat /dev/null >sig
  8. This is ignorance by Ballresin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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'.
  9. Re:Names... by gaelicwizard · · Score: 3, Insightful

    and the version of OSX that runs on x86 is being sold where? and being developed where? and is running on whose computer?

    Apple isn't stupid, they will never release a version of OSX that runs on x86. if you are talking about the old rhapsody builds then its not OSX, but rather OpenStep on steroids.

    I'm not looking to start a flame war, i'm just wondering exactly what you're referring to.

    --
    -- JP
  10. Re:Names... by imnoteddy · · Score: 2, Insightful
    That way, they could switch themselves over to the best offerings from Intel and/or AMD at a moment's notice rather than get caught with sub 2 GHz G4's for the next 2-3 years until a rushed port is available. Or worse yet, Motorola decides to sell off or get out of the CPU business.

    So you didn't notice that Apple announced that they'll be using an IBM processor in their next PowerMac desktop line?

    --
    No electrons were harmed creating this post, though some may have been subjected to electrical and/or magnetic fields.