64-bit apps-- Don't Hold Your Breath

Frodo · Post by **Frodo** » Wed Dec 27, 2006 4:33 am

That's not to say it will *never* happen, but it will happen later than sooner.

For the complete article:

http://www.macworld.com/2006/08/firstlo ... /index.php

Excerpts:

Full 64-bit support got top billing in Steve Jobs••™ Worldwide Developers Conference keynote••”it was first on the list of Leopard enhancements he previewed, ahead even of Apple••™s striking Time Machine backup-and-restore technology. Even at a developer conference, however, 64-bit support was an odd choice for the lead-off position, because it••™s an option even Apple admits doesn••™t yet make sense for most applications...

...the company [Apple] has gradually added some direct 64-bit support to its products: the PowerPC G5 processor, for example, was designed to handle 64-as well as 32-bit code, and Mac OS X 10.4 (Tiger) allows developers to create fully 64-bit command-line or background applications, though not 64-bit programs with their own graphical interface.

In a decade or two, 32-bit computing may only be a distant memory, and the Mac OS (or whatever succeeds it) and the hardware it runs on will be fully optimized for 64-bit operation. By then, in hindsight, the addition of 64-bit application support in Leopard will look like a milestone on an important evolutionary path. But in the near term, it••™s mostly of interest to developers of specialized technical applications.

For most Mac fans••”even graphics professionals and other power users••”this is one leap forward that••™s not likely to produce much of a splash when Leopard is unleashed next spring.

There ya go.

The promise of 64-bit apps finally appearing is a bust for now. That is a major factor that helps me determine when I'd go for an Intel. Given this info, I'm getting an Intel sooner than later to get the most out of it now. I was originally going to wait until late 2007 or even 2008 until now. By the time 64-bits even begin to appear (let alone DP), it will be time to get another computer. Suddenly Leopard for me becomes a near-non issue and the hardware alone is paramount. Onward and upward!!

Also, given this info, I will probably stick with Tiger for a while unless the new Intel comes shipped with Leopard on it.

I think I'll stop by the Apple Store tomorrow....

sdemott · Post by **sdemott** » Wed Dec 27, 2006 6:42 am

Frodo-

WWDC will be Jan. 8-12. The big expectation is the iPhone, but you never know what they will upgrade...it may be best to wait before buying a new Mac.

HTH

chucks · Post by **chucks** » Wed Dec 27, 2006 6:56 am

Cisco owns the iPhone trademark so it will be interesting to see what happens with Apple's phone product. Maybe iTalk? What about iCom?

Frodo · Post by **Frodo** » Wed Dec 27, 2006 2:57 pm

sdemott wrote:Frodo-

WWDC will be Jan. 8-12. The big expectation is the iPhone, but you never know what they will upgrade...it may be best to wait before buying a new Mac.

HTH

The one reason why I thought to get the Intel sooner than later is because some of the things touted to be on their way will be slow to be released-- things I can live without, and things that make adding an Intel more cost effective than initially anticipated-- the exception being RAM.

I need to add *something* to my setup and will keep my G5 as part of a network. Right now, if I had a choice of an older PPC or an Intel, I'd get an Intel-- I could keep my PCIx cards on the G5 and even run the Intel via SPDIF if I needed to-- no immediate need to go higher than 24/48 at the moment.

Having both an Intel and a G5 right now solves a number of issues (on paper, anyway):

1. PCIx will run native on the G5 while any PCIe upgrades can be made gradually on the Intel.

2. Most all software I use is Intel-ready. That which is not can easily remain on the G5.

3. Internal HDs on the Intel make dealing with audio easier than jumping into another gaggle of external drives.

It seems that I can keep the bathwater and the baby with both units. Otherwise, all I have is bathwater and no baby. For the first time it starts to make sense. I'm now looking for info on any problems networking an Intel with a PPC-- this would be the most prohibitive element for me at this point, but I only seek the most graceful path possible through this transition phase.

sdemott · Post by **sdemott** » Wed Dec 27, 2006 3:47 pm

So far I have not run into any issues with networking (with about 300 Macs, about 100 of which are Intel based). The only "networking" issue I have seen is because of Mac OS 10.4.4 and above. They changed the location that PHP uses for the MySQL socket. It's only an issue of you try to run a web server off a Mac (I have a mac-mini I use as a development server for web sites as I develop them). It's easy enough to fix...I just wish Apple had announced it before I spent a day trying to fix a "broken" MySQL install.

The issues I have seen are:

* MacBook Pro AirPort connection causes the machine to kernel panic - fixed in rev. c

* Some Intel based machines like to shutdown unexpectedly (just like you pulled the plug). This is something that should be addressable via a firmware upgrade (hopefully). As of yet Apple has not fully admitted that this is a problem...so I expect they're going to rev the Mac Pros, iMacs & Mac Minis to address this. The latest revision MacBook & MacBook Pros do not seem to exhibit this symptom.

* Rosetta is dog slow with any CPU intensive apps (like photoshop). I can run photoshop faster on my 667 MHz TiBook than a Core 2 Duo MacBook Pro...that's just not right! C'mon Adobe move that sorry @$$ of yours.

My only suggestion would be to buy after the WWDC keynote to be sure you don't miss out on anything. I mean, tomorrow vs. Jan. 9 isn't so bad, is it?

-Steve

Frodo · Post by **Frodo** » Wed Dec 27, 2006 4:02 pm

sdemott wrote:So far I have not run into any issues with networking (with about 300 Macs, about 100 of which are Intel based). The only "networking" issue I have seen is because of Mac OS 10.4.4 and above. They changed the location that PHP uses for the MySQL socket. It's only an issue of you try to run a web server off a Mac (I have a mac-mini I use as a development server for web sites as I develop them). It's easy enough to fix...I just wish Apple had announced it before I spent a day trying to fix a "broken" MySQL install.

The issues I have seen are:

* MacBook Pro AirPort connection causes the machine to kernel panic - fixed in rev. c

* Some Intel based machines like to shutdown unexpectedly (just like you pulled the plug). This is something that should be addressable via a firmware upgrade (hopefully). As of yet Apple has not fully admitted that this is a problem...so I expect they're going to rev the Mac Pros, iMacs & Mac Minis to address this. The latest revision MacBook & MacBook Pros do not seem to exhibit this symptom.

* Rosetta is dog slow with any CPU intensive apps (like photoshop). I can run photoshop faster on my 667 MHz TiBook than a Core 2 Duo MacBook Pro...that's just not right! C'mon Adobe move that sorry @$$ of yours.

My only suggestion would be to buy after the WWDC keynote to be sure you don't miss out on anything. I mean, tomorrow vs. Jan. 9 isn't so bad, is it?

-Steve

Thanks sdemott for the insights, as always.

Yes-- I will wait until the keynote before doing anything. The only thing that has changed is that I no longer *need* to wait until Leopord appears and is updated. It doesn't hurt to look and touch in the meantime!

Now, the Rosetta issue: I'm not 100% sure when this kicks in-- Apple claims that UB apps will run natively, but if Rosetta stands between these apps and the CPU, then it's not genuine native behavior. Since I'm keeping my G5 in the mix, there's no need for me to tempt an Intel Mac to utilize Rosetta.

Am I mistaken? Or does UB *not* bypass Rosetta?

sdemott · Post by **sdemott** » Wed Dec 27, 2006 9:08 pm

You are correct...Rosetta is the PPC emulator on the Intel Macs. Universal Binaries load natively without the need for Rosetta.

I was oogling a 17" MacBook Pro the other day...thinking "if I buy one of those I would have a good reason to upgrade to DP 5"".

Frodo · Post by **Frodo** » Wed Dec 27, 2006 10:13 pm

sdemott wrote:You are correct...Rosetta is the PPC emulator on the Intel Macs. Universal Binaries load natively without the need for Rosetta.

I was oogling a 17" MacBook Pro the other day...thinking "if I buy one of those I would have a good reason to upgrade to DP 5"".

Oh, the temptation! You experienced the "looking and touching" I mentioned.

And your mention of the MBP now has me wondering: such a laptop would be a good candidate for an additional member of a VI network.

Why does the word "lottery" keep echoing in my brain?

Man-- if money were no object....

HCMarkus · Post by **HCMarkus** » Thu Dec 28, 2006 2:11 pm

Yah Frodo... wait for the Conference. You may be rewarded with the chance to buy the Octa-core PowerMac! Now THAT will bring some serious horsepower to your desk. FYI, I was running and playing Ivory, BFD, MOTU Ethno and EW Symphony Orchestra (silver) simultaneously last night, at 128 buffer. A few Altiverbs, too, for good measure and sensory pleasure. Smooth sailing on my Quad PPC.

Eight processor cores is worth waiting for.

Frodo · Post by **Frodo** » Thu Dec 28, 2006 4:31 pm

HCMarkus wrote:Yah Frodo... wait for the Conference. You may be rewarded with the chance to buy the Octa-core PowerMac! Now THAT will bring some serious horsepower to your desk. FYI, I was running and playing Ivory, BFD, MOTU Ethno and EW Symphony Orchestra (silver) simultaneously last night, at 128 buffer. A few Altiverbs, too, for good measure and sensory pleasure. Smooth sailing on my Quad PPC.

Eight processor cores is worth waiting for.

All those VIs *inside* DP at once? Anything running in standalone mode, or... how... wha...?

Sweet!

Ran across a few reports on the Core 2 Quads... Evidently, the Core 2 Quad Extreme released in November by Intel is the big daddy. The new one to be released next month appears not to pack quite as much punch, being aimed at "mainstream" users. Hmmm.

At present, no one can confirm any rumors of any of the Core 2 Quads going into Macs soon. It's not that they won't because they will eventually. It could be June instead of January-- we shall see.

http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/12/ ... 4018.shtml

HCMarkus · Post by **HCMarkus** » Thu Dec 28, 2006 5:33 pm

I guess you could always spring for a Quad MacIntel today and change out the processors tomorrow, Frodo... But I have my fingers crossed for the forthcoming announcements. An eight-core MacPro release would be a seriously cool thing, dare I say insanely great? With the release of the Intel-native Mac Creative Suite, Apple would simply KILL with an OctaMac!

PS: yes, all those VI's were running inside DP!

Frodo · Post by **Frodo** » Thu Dec 28, 2006 7:39 pm

HCMarkus wrote:I guess you could always spring for a Quad MacIntel today and change out the processors tomorrow, Frodo... But I have my fingers crossed for the forthcoming announcements. An eight-core MacPro release would be a seriously cool thing, dare I say insanely great? With the release of the Intel-native Mac Creative Suite, Apple would simply KILL with an OctaMac!

PS: yes, all those VI's were running inside DP!

Hmm.

Let's see:

Two cores, four CPUs per core

Eight RAM slots @ 2GB each== found one price of $2900 for the RAM alone: 16GB x 8 sticks of 2GB

The machine has got to come in at least the price of the current 3G so getting out the abacus, that would be $6400 plus Apple Care.

chucks · Post by **chucks** » Tue Jan 02, 2007 2:54 pm

Ran across this on AppleInsider:

Byer said most Photoshop users are still running operating systems that only support 32-bit memory addressing for each program -- including Mac OS X Tiger, which can only assign 3GB per application. This, he says, eliminates the primary advantage of 64-bit technology: memory addressing beyond the 4GB barrier inherent to 32-bit software.

"Let's check all the 64-bit hype at the door," he wrote. "[64-bit apps] can address a much larger amount of memory. That's pretty much it. 64-bit applications don't magically get faster access to memory, or any of the other key things that would help most applications perform better."

In fact, Byer added that most of today's computers would actually incur a performance penalty as the code -- which is literally twice the size when accomplishing the same task -- would bog down the memory subsystem, reducing the amount of information that could pass through at any given time. Contemporary AMD and Intel processors only occasionally stand to gain from 64-bit code and often see their advantage negated by file caching.

Frodo · Post by **Frodo** » Tue Jan 02, 2007 3:41 pm

hey chucks...

I remember that article, actually. Interesting points it makes, especially the one about Tiger (!) only allowing 3GB passthrough per app. I'd previously thought this was a limitation of Panther.

I'm now curious to see what data is now available from the Apple Developer site regarding the same issue with Leopard. If the same 3GB limit appears in Leopard, then our hopes for 64-bit apps will be detained further until 10.6 or later.

Should this 3GB limit be lifted, then it would suggest that builds of Leopard already seeded to developers are at least inspiring early stages of true 64-bit development. Still, consumers will have to exercise continued patience.

Someone on another forum also mentioned problems with heat vs energy of CPUs above 3Ghz, and until this issue is addressed we will see CPUs clustering by a factor of two (Duals, Quads, Octos...).

At some point, the continued clustering of CPUs is going to play itself out and new innovations with an entirely different kind of chip will have to be developed-- ones that run faster and cooler.

It's interesting to consider that the Motorola chips kicked in around 1985-86 and ran until 1994 or so when IBM's PPC chip was installed. That means Motorola ran for 11 years or so, IBM ran for 12 years or so.

Given that we're already at the 3GB stall with Intel chips for Macs in the first year of their use, I'd be interested to see what happens-- either there will be a major breakthrough sooner than later, or Intel may not last the "baker's decade" (10+ years) at the "core" of the Apple. It would be truly exciting to see Intel deliver the goods for longer than Morotola or IBM could.

It's actually a lot of fun to monitor this transition and to muse about the future of desktop computing. If Apple remains the innovative champion it always has been, then we're in for some very exciting developments.

Frodo · Post by **Frodo** » Tue Jan 02, 2007 3:49 pm

Ah, here is some promising news of 64-bit apps with a caveat of sorts-- Leopard indeed lifts the memory limit!!

from apple developer white pages:

The latest Mac systems are incredibly powerful. They feature the latest in CPU technology and, in the case of the latest Mac Pros and Xserves, can be configured with far more than 4GB of memory. These Macs run current 32-bit Mac OS X applications faster than ever, but their capabilities, especially their ability to address large amounts of memory, can't be fully utilized by those applications. When an application's needs exceed the ability of a 32-bit memory space, it's time to change it so that it can run as a 64-bit application. Leopard brings complete 64-bit support to all of the Mac OS X frameworks, allowing you to create Carbon and Cocoa applications that can take full advantage of the latest hardware now and well into the future.

Not only does 64-bit support let your application address all of the memory in a Mac Pro or an Xserve, it may let you take advantage of CPU characteristics that could further increase the performance of your application. For example, there may be performance benefits for CPU-bound code thanks to the increased number of registers available to 64-bit applications on Intel-based systems. And, the ability to load datasets in excess of 4GB will open up the potential for entirely new classes of applications••”many of which couldn't have even been imagined in a 32-bit world.

Most applications won't need to make the jump to 64-bit yet. However, there's no reason not to be ready to move an application to 64-bit in the future. To ensure that you are ready, you'll want to be sure that you write your code in a manner that's easier to move to a 64-bit later future. The best way to do this is to move away from deprecated APIs, such as QuickDraw, and adopt the use of the new NSInteger and NSUInteger data types that are used throughout the system frameworks in Leopard in place of int and unsigned int. By doing these tasks now, you'll have much less work to do later.

The one caveat-- "most applications won't need to make the jump to 64-bit yet...."

The words that jump out are "won't need..." (I wonder why?) and "most applications..." (yikes! Which ones will and which ones won't? Where does DP fit into all of this?).

It's a step in the right direction, I suppose, but perhaps I along with other consumers have overrated or overestimated the need-- given that apps running in true 64-bit are faster and more efficient, and that the causes for 64-bit threading running slower than 32-bit threading have been addressed.

LOL-- this has become quite a spectator sport, has it not?