64 Bit Operation and the Mac Pro 2.66 x2 Dual-Core Computer

[BKK-OZ]

My rig is a 2.66 GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon, running 10.8.2, with 32 giggly bits of RAM. I run DP in 64bits all the time, and it is magic. My old 'puter can't cut it for my 3d graphics anymore (even with a Radeon 5870 installed), but for DP, it is like a hot knife through butta. The RAM makes a difference.

[HCMarkus]

Check relative Geekbench scores for your Macs for a pretty good indication.

[MIDI Life Crisis]

...

I'm sorry MLC. I didn't mean to jump you.

No need for an apology, sir. Jump away, I can take the heat. I took his request on face value and looked up the specs (as linked in my response) and answered. If the info is incorrect, then I'll blame the link. And maybe Apple is just trying to sell newer machines by telling people they can't address more than 4GB on those machines.

To tell a family secret, I'm (obviously) still confused by it all and don't understanding the finer details. What (if anything) is lost running 64 bit on a pre- 3,1 machine? If not RAM, then multi-threading? If not-multi-threading, then those pesky and elusive 3rd party extensions that have never been mentioned by name or what they do to enhance the function of the machine?

One thing is certain. No one will be running 10.7 or higher on a pre- 3,1 AFAIK without some expensive alterations - those alterations surely costing more than replacing that same machine with a used 3,1 or even better. Prices are dropping like prom dresses these days, making it easy to see the full goodness of those used, but still very capable boxes. Probably for not much more than the RAM he will add, he could get a replacement machine that will run Mavericks. This is no small consideration as more and more developers (like Finale) move to stop supporting SL or lower. The apps may well run on those earlier machines, but tech support will be lost as well and, IMO, Mavericks is an awesome OS. Not without bugs, for sure, but what piece of software is bug-less?

So jump away. I'm ready for you...

[James Steele]

No one will be running 10.7 or higher on a pre- 3,1 AFAIK...

Actually, I think Lion is the last version you can run on those machines. I was able to install Lion (10.7) on my MacPro 1,1, but I didn't like it. It felt sluggish and I immediately restored from an image I'd made of my boot drive. So I think Lion is the real end of the road for those machines. They definitely CANNOT run Moutain Lion (10. or later.

Even on my current MacPro 4,1, I had Lion on it for just a couple of days and I didn't like it at all. The sluggishness seemed like it wasn't just my MacPro 1,1 at fault. Mountain Lion is so much better and it's what I'm on currently. Waiting to see about Mavericks. It looks like MOTU released a new audio installer which may have the fix for Mavericks and MOTU PCI hardware so maybe I'll make the leap soon.

[MIDI Life Crisis]

Well dang, I got it wrong again?! I give up...

[James Steele]

Well dang, I got it wrong again?! I give up...

Sorry man. Only reason I know that is because I actually *DID* install Lion on my MacPro 1,1. It sucked though IMHO. Snow Leopard... to me anyway... is the "defacto" last OS on those machines and Lion just isn't all that great IMHO.

[MIDI Life Crisis]

SL over Lion ANY DAY! ML and above... not so much, IMO.

[James Steele]

I have to say, I'm really liking ML so far. I'm busy downloading Mavericks in the background. We'll see how that works out. LOL I'm going to trust in MOTU's latest driver which I already installed under Mountain Lion.

[Shooshie]

I'm just reporting what Apple specs are. I know we've been around the block, but... full 64 bit features appear to NOT be possible on a pre 3,1 machine, regardless of bold and/or capped text. I'm not making this stuff up. I'm providing reasonably reliable sources and links in response to the inquiry. That's all. If there's a contrary reliable source that's not anecdotal, I have yet to find it. Nothing personal.

It's all very confusing, because most of the people writing about it are also misinformed. On the 2007 Mac Pro there is only one part of the operating system that will not go into 64 bits: the Mach Kernel. That is all. Everything else, and I mean EVERYTHING else, will run in 64 bits on those machines. The kernel is a small but central and important part of the OS, but its lack of 64 bit capability does not get in the way of the rest of the OS and apps using 64 bits. My 2007 Mac Pro had printed prominently on the box (which is still in the garage) "64 bit Ready!" And it was. I only upgraded to a 12 core Mac Pro (2012) when my 2007 Mac Pro bit the dust. It was going to cost over $600 to fix it, so I just bought a new one. With it, I have no compatibility worries.

Anyway, to set the "Old Mac Pro" matter straight: all 64 bit apps will boot just fine. They WILL access over 4 GB RAM. The operating system itself will not, but the apps will. Remember, the operating system is not the app, and vice-versa. In the old days, when you booted an app you left behind the operating system. It didn't come back until you needed to save to disk, and some apps even did that part. Without going into a treatise on OS's, just suffice to say that when an app is running, it's interacting directly with the CPU. It doesn't necessarily go through the OS to do that. Of course, the OS provides pre-emptive multi-tasking, which makes it more invasive into an app's business than in the old days, but still it's the app that decides whether it's 64 bits or 32 bits.

People who have tried it can all tell you the truth: DP runs in 64 bits even with a 32 bit Mach Kernel running in the background. It accesses more than 4 GB RAM.

We've discussed this till we're all tired of having to correct it. Please understand that the popular press out there is NOT all that tech savvy, even though they learn to speak the language and fancy themselves tech writers. Tech support people often do not understand it, either. And why should they if they didn't actually have one of those computers? Please understand that in spite of thousands of sources which claim that those old Mac Pro's cannot run 64 bit apps, or if they can, the apps can't access more than 4 GB RAM, they are all wrong. Repeat a mistake enough times and pretty soon the whole world believes the mistake. Those who know the truth are often even marginalized or demonized; after all, who is right? The multitudes? Or the few? This turns out to be a case in which only a few actually know the truth. The multitudes repeated a mistake over and over and over, until it became "the truth." But it's wrong.

We clear?

Shooshie

[wvandyck]

Graphic proof here...
http://www.motunation.com/forum/viewtop ... &start=135

[Shooshie]

Graphic proof here...
http://www.motunation.com/forum/viewtop ... &start=135

As someone in that linked thread pointed out, kernel extensions on a Mac Pro 1.1 will only operate in 32 bits. That means that your MIDI and audio interfaces will still be operating with their 32 bit drivers. That does not change the fact that DP can run in 64 bits.

[wvandyck]

My point in the linked thread is that I was able to use more than 4GB of RAM (almost 10 GB in that particular virtual instrument project) with DP 8 in 64 bit mode on a Mac Pro1,1 running OSX 10.7.4.

[Shooshie]

My point in the linked thread is that I was able to use more than 4GB of RAM (almost 10 GB in that particular virtual instrument project) with DP 8 in 64 bit mode on a Mac Pro1,1 running OSX 10.7.4.

And a powerful point it was! Proof positive!

[wvandyck]

And a powerful point it was! Proof positive!

If Al Gore invented the internet, then I stand before you* with proof positive that 64 bit apps running on the venerable Mac Pro1,1 can access all available RAM beyond 4GB.

* Actually, I'm sitting.

Case closed?

[Shooshie]

Case closed?

NEVAH!

I suspect this case will only close by attrition, as people upgrade to newer Mac Pro's. This whole rumor started long before we actually began using 64 bits, and it got stronger as the day came. Finally, when we were able to try it out, we found that indeed, 64 bit apps work. But then I bought a 12 core, and there was no more reason for me to keep up with it. But I knew the truth.

It's funny how that works.