OK, I've burned my karma squawking aobut this relative to G5's and 32-bit OSX, but let my try again anyway:
There's not much reason to go to a 64-bit chip unless either
1) You are going to use more than 4 GB of RAM in a single process (actually, more than
2 GB tends to be a pain on a typical 32-bit system, but let's say 4). I don't think you
can have that much in one of these.
2) You do a lot of stuff with files over 2 GB (yes, 32-bit OSes handle more than this all the
time, but it's more likely everything works on a 64-bit sys).
Really, (1) is the only reason these days, but I threw (2) in for fun.
64-bit doesn't make it faster; the chip might be, but it's not a direct result of 64 bitness. Usually, if there's a 32-bit compatibility mode, it runs faster. 64 bit is just useful for memory.
These observations are based on 10 years of experience with MIPS, POWER, alpha, and now opteron systems. I'd buy an opteron/athlon64, but not to use it with less than 4 GB of RAM.
So, as I sit here in front of my own G5, I can't help thinking... we're supposed to accept that:
1) The company that delivers a "unix" with notorously broken DNS client is delivering automated distributed computing?
2) The company that delivers a "unix" which is generally incapable of checking and fixing its own filesystem is delivering automated distributed computing?
3) The company that doesn't seem to have the slightest clue what 64-bit computing is is delivering automated distributed computing? On machines with 8GB of expensive RAM?
Believe it or no, there are some out there who read "64-bit computer" that "breaks the 4 GB barrier" and allows applications to access more memory as an indication that that's what they would get if they bought one.
Many of us who have worked with 64-bit systems (alpha, mips, and power) find Apple's idea of what that means a little novel. Rumor has it that apps running in 64-bit mode on the ppc970 will be a little slower than those in 32-bit mode (as was the case with mips, and power, too, I think) but if you need to access large amounts of memory you might put up with it, especially if it means not having to go to disk.
No, 64-bit integer arithmetic on the chip is not much of a consolation, tho it does compress mpeg2 awfully fast.
Not only is 32-bit sufficient, it is usually FASTER (as on Opteron and MIPS). This is why Apple's claim to have delivered a 64-bit computer, given that you won't see a 64-bit OS that can give more than 4GB to one app is a LIE.
OK. The article refers to "64-bit processor support".
Is that like saying a 10Mbit ethernet card has "100Mbit" network support because it will run on a 10/100 network at 10Mbit?
OSX Runs in 32-bit mode on a G5. There is no significant difference made to the user by the 64-bitness of the processor (please don't tell me about hardware 64-bit integer instructions).
If Linux gets around to running on the G5, it will likely be 32-bit for a while, too, since ppc32 is where the work is going these days. I'm still guessing Linux will support the G5 in all its glory before OSX does.
Does someone want to correct me? Can I write an OSX app that accesses the 42-bit address space of the G5?
More to the point, if he "never looked at 32 bit", why did he buy machines which will only run a 32-bit OS for the forseeable future? Until a pointer is a 64-bit number, you cannot do anything on these machines that a 32-bit CPU with a 32-bit OS won't do. You can buy 32-bit machines with more than 4 GB of RAM and use it just the same way OSX does.
This is essentially correct, but the situation is actually a little worse. You can buy a 32-bit Intel machine with more than 4 GB of RAM (try www.swt.com) and have all the "64-bitness" that you get on a G5 except for the hardware handling of 64-bit integers (whoopie!). The G5 systems they deliver do not "break through the 4 GB barrier" in any real way; they see the barrier the same way any other 32-bit system does.
Please, people... Apple owes anyone who bought a G5 system a FREE upgrade to a genuine 64-bit system. I'm just glad I didn't pay their frightening price to get 8 GB in mine.
Had they simply been honest about this in the first place, it might be OK, but they weren't.
Cool post. This is almost always what goes into numbers quoted by IT groups that don't know anything about the machines they're running (I know; it's a redundant sentence). Just take the marketing drivel from the manufacturer, multiply by how many you bought, and quote it! Everything I've read from VT appears to have been synthesized that way.
I'm running a G5 at home now. I'm still wondering how a machine with a 32-bit OS "breaks the 4 GB barrier", given that it can't do anything that a 32-bit Xeon with more than 4GB of RAM can't do.
But it hasn't quadrupled my home energy bills, at least, and that include air conditioning.
Slashdot Mirror
OK, I've burned my karma squawking aobut this relative to G5's and 32-bit OSX, but
let my try again anyway:
There's not much reason to go to a 64-bit chip unless either
1) You are going to use more than 4 GB of RAM in a single process (actually, more than
2 GB tends to be a pain on a typical 32-bit system, but let's say 4). I don't think you
can have that much in one of these.
2) You do a lot of stuff with files over 2 GB (yes, 32-bit OSes handle more than this all the
time, but it's more likely everything works on a 64-bit sys).
Really, (1) is the only reason these days, but I threw (2) in for fun.
64-bit doesn't make it faster; the chip might be, but it's not a direct result of 64 bitness.
Usually, if there's a 32-bit compatibility mode, it runs faster. 64 bit is just useful for memory.
These observations are based on 10 years of experience with MIPS, POWER, alpha, and now
opteron systems. I'd buy an opteron/athlon64, but not to use it with less than 4 GB of RAM.
So, as I sit here in front of my own G5, I can't help thinking... we're supposed to accept that:
1) The company that delivers a "unix" with notorously broken DNS client is delivering automated distributed computing?
2) The company that delivers a "unix" which is generally incapable of checking and fixing its own filesystem is delivering automated distributed computing?
3) The company that doesn't seem to have the slightest clue what 64-bit computing is is delivering automated distributed computing? On machines with 8GB of expensive RAM?
Believe it or no, there are some out there who read "64-bit computer" that "breaks the 4 GB barrier" and allows applications to access more memory as an indication that that's what they would get if they bought one.
Many of us who have worked with 64-bit systems (alpha, mips, and power) find Apple's idea of what that means a little novel. Rumor has it that apps running in 64-bit mode on the ppc970 will be a little slower than those in 32-bit mode (as was the case with mips, and power, too, I think) but if you need to access large amounts of memory you might put up with it, especially if it means not having to go to disk.
No, 64-bit integer arithmetic on the chip is not much of a consolation, tho it does compress mpeg2 awfully fast.
Amen, brother!
Not only is 32-bit sufficient, it is usually FASTER (as on Opteron and MIPS). This is why Apple's claim to have delivered a 64-bit computer, given that you won't see a 64-bit OS that can give more than 4GB to one app is a LIE.
"Barnyard masturbator" sounded like the job I've been dreaming of all my life until I read the article...
OK. The article refers to "64-bit processor support".
Is that like saying a 10Mbit ethernet card has "100Mbit" network support because it will run on a 10/100 network at 10Mbit?
OSX Runs in 32-bit mode on a G5. There is no significant difference made to the user by the 64-bitness of the processor (please don't tell me about hardware 64-bit integer instructions).
If Linux gets around to running on the G5, it will likely be 32-bit for a while, too, since ppc32 is where the work is going these days. I'm still guessing Linux will support the G5 in all its glory before OSX does.
Does someone want to correct me? Can I write an OSX app that accesses the 42-bit address space of the G5?
More to the point, if he "never looked at 32 bit", why did he buy machines which will only run a 32-bit OS for the forseeable future? Until a pointer is a 64-bit number, you cannot do anything on these machines that a 32-bit CPU with a 32-bit OS won't do. You can buy 32-bit machines with more than 4 GB of RAM and use it just the same way OSX does.
The parent is not a troll.
This is essentially correct, but the situation is actually a little worse. You can buy a 32-bit Intel machine with more than 4 GB of RAM (try www.swt.com) and have all the "64-bitness" that you get on a G5 except for the hardware handling of 64-bit integers (whoopie!). The G5 systems they deliver do not "break through the 4 GB barrier" in any real way; they see the barrier the same way any other 32-bit system does.
Please, people... Apple owes anyone who bought a G5 system a FREE upgrade to a genuine 64-bit system. I'm just glad I didn't pay their frightening price to get 8 GB in mine.
Had they simply been honest about this in the first place, it might be OK, but they weren't.
Cool post. This is almost always what goes into numbers
quoted by IT groups that don't know anything about the machines they're running (I know; it's a redundant sentence). Just take the marketing drivel from the manufacturer, multiply by how many you bought, and quote it! Everything I've read from VT appears to have been synthesized that way.
I'm running a G5 at home now. I'm still wondering how a machine with a 32-bit OS "breaks the 4 GB barrier", given that it can't do anything that a 32-bit Xeon with more than 4GB of RAM can't do.
But it hasn't quadrupled my home energy bills, at least, and that include air conditioning.
If everybody does it, they might think it's a revolution.
OK, as someone who profits from proprietary software, I do sympathize with Ylonen, but can I trademark a name that's derived of someone else's?
selnet
sicrosoft
smazon.com