Samsung's Best HDTV's - Click Here
Apple not pursuing 64-bit Intel processors? Preview of difficulty in porting
Apple has posted guidelines for programming Universal Binary files -- Mac OS X applications capable of running Intel processors.
In the guidelines, Apple gives a brief preview of the transition process developers will need to make for Intel compatibility:
"Architectural differences between Macintosh computers using Intel and PowerPC microprocessors can cause existing PowerPC code to behave differently when built and run natively on an Intel microprocessor. The extent to which architectural differences affect your code depends on the level of your source code. Most existing code is high-level source code that is not specific to the processor. If your application falls into this category, you?ll find that creating a universal binary involves adjusting code in a few places. Cocoa developers may need to make fewer adjustments than Carbon developers whose code was ported from Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X."
"Most code that uses high-level frameworks and builds with GCC 4.0 in Mac OS X v10.4 will build with few, if any, changes on a Macintosh using an Intel microprocessor. The best approach for any developer in that situation is to build the existing code on a Macintosh using an Intel microprocessor, run the native x86 binary, and see how the application runs. Find the places where the code doesn?t behave as expected and then consult the sections in this document that cover those issues."
Unfortunately, it appears that developers who made use of PowerPC-specific technologies like AltiVec will have the most work to do in the transition process:
"Developers who use AltiVec instructions in their code or who intentionally exploit architectural differences for optimization or other purposes, will need to make the most code adjustments."
Also of note is that Apple makes no mention of 64-bit Intel architectures in the programming guidelines, instead referring only to IA-32.
MacFixIt reader William Kucharski writes:
"It appears Apple may be giving up on 64-bit computing as far as the new Intel platform is concerned, at least to start with.
"As you may have noticed, the new Intel developer platform is Pentium 4-based, and the new Universal Binary Programming Guidelines document refers only to IA-32.
"This seems to indicate that Mac OS X will only support 32-bit x86 processors, not 64-bit x64/AMD64 (Intel calls them EMT64) CPUs (in anything other than 32-bit legacy mode), or the ABI would point people to the AMD64 ABI in addition to or instead of just the IA-32 ABI.
"This seems to indicate that Apple is abandoning 64-bit computing, or at least they don't feel it's as important as they've been positioning it as for the past few years.
"Certainly it's an important shift in philosophy, as it appears there is no capability to generate 64-bit Mac OS X Intel apps at present."
Feedback? Late-breakers@macfixit.com.
Resources
Remember, Steve pursued this deal based on the future roadmaps of the
processors and feels Intel has a better grip on what is happening in the future.
If a 32 bit 3.6 GHz Intel processor is runinning OS X as well as a dual 2 GHz 64
bit PPC, maybe the 64 bit isn't as beneficial as some think. I have heard on
many occasions when 64 bit was coming around that it really wouldn't matter
much.
It all depends on what you consider running "well."
Note for example the Virginia Tech supercomputing cluster of G5s that's been a source of much Apple pride would not be anywhere near the system it is if it used 32-bit CPUs.
So if you're just running Dashboard widgets, Safari and iPhoto, you probably won't notice; if you're running an app manipulating a lot of data, you may.
Would there be any purpose of them even using Apple anymore, when they
could buy the same processors from a company that sells them cheaper?
Who, precisely would that be? The only other company selling product based on the 970FX is IBM, and I presume if IBM had better prices than Apple they wouldn't have bought the machines from Apple in the first place. Recall Apple has educational and volume discounts, plus I'm sure they got a rather nice price due to the favorable publicity the cluster would generate.
It makes sense to start out using only the 32-bit processors. Has anyone
ever seen an 64-bit Intel processor in a laptop or AIO like an iMac? No. The
first machines out of the gate are going to appeal to everyone. The Apple
laptops have been way behind for awhile now. Boom, suddenly there will be
3ghz P4 laptops. I bet by the time Leopard comes around, Apple will be
introducing a 64-bit wave of machines to replace the G5 tower and X-serves.
Patience everyone, this is just getting started.
tom
Not Intel per se, but AMD's Athlon 64 series of CPUs is widely used in a variety of consumer desktops and there are Athlon 64-based laptops available from Acer, Compaq/HP and others.
We have had an Athlon FX-51 64 bit processor computer for over a year now. Microsoft STILL does not have the official release out for Windows XP 64 bit version. We have been running the evaluation copy of Windows XP 64 bit (supposedly "expired" but still functioning), which actually works well, but here is our situation.
The Windows 3rd party world does NOT have drivers out for printers, scanners, etc. Microsoft is reportedly leaning on the vendors, but the only people to produce have been the sound card and video card people (hoping to hook the gaming world). We are limping along on generic laser printer drivers, unable to use any other peripheral. This is really limiting the usefulness of the computer, unless we erase the HD and reinstall the usual Windows XP 32 bit version. It's actually worse than when OS X was released, waiting for the 3rd party vendors to write OS X drivers!
I don't know why 64 bit is not catching on. This computer is lightning fast. But most of the app's are still in 32 bit also.
64 bit just hasn't gotten traction yet.
G'day,
It depends on what youare using your G5 for. In my case and
running Adobe Creative Suite (and is geared to take advantage of
64bit) on a G5 there is a vast performance increase of 64bit over
32bit. Regardless of processor speeds eg. 1.6 G5 - 2.7 G5. Apple
would be making a big mistake to ditch 64bit.
This and all the other news to come out of Apple choosing to go to
Intel chips really worries me and many others within the
advertising / design industry. In that they may be ditching their core
market for the lowest common denominator.
For anyone interested, it can actually be found here.
I Think Conroe (Desktop) Merom (Laptop) and Woodcrest (Server) will be the new
Intels Apple will use all are Dual-core, 65nm,64-bit, 4MB L2 with new Pentium M
Tech.
can be addressed (8GB) and the amazing amount that will be addressable in
the future. Probably most people don't even use the 8GB max that we now
have. And most PCs, that I run across, generally have 512MB of RAM or
maybe 1GB, if they are new and running XP Pro. Virtual RAM (hard disk
based-based scratch files) seem to be the norm.
But for audio, graphics, and video lots of real RAM can be very important.
For my money, I'd be more enthused if Apple had gone with AMD, who make
better processors in my book, and stayed with 64-bit. AMD seems to be the
leader there too.
I'll bet there will be a lot of PC hackers with Intels who will try to break the
code that will prevent the Mac OS from working on a vanilla Dell. Then Apple
will be just a software company. Steve almost seemed to infer that at the end
of his WWDC keynote.
I'll miss the design.
I miss Apple already.
The big win with 64-bit CPUs is that memory can be operated on in 64-bit chunks as opposed to 32-bit chunks, so for example a transform on a large memory array can be done with as few as half the memory operations. Also important is that pointers are 64-bits, so a single application can readily access more than 4GB of virtual memory.
Note that even Microsoft recently released a 64-bit version of Windows XP.
>>> As I understand it, the big deal about 64-bit is the amount of memory that
can be addressed (8GB) and the amazing amount that will be addressable in
the future.
8 GB can be addressed by 33 bits. 64-bit addressing can access 18 TB -- that is probably more memory than has ever been manufactured in the history of mankind. (If every human being on Earth had a computer with 3 GB of memory, one 64 bit computer coud access every last byte!)
64 bit also has implications on how many instructions can be pumped along each clock cycle and how big the data chunks can be.
>>> I'll bet there will be a lot of PC hackers with Intels who will try to break the
code that will prevent the Mac OS from working on a vanilla Dell. Then Apple
will be just a software company.
This may be possible for "hot-rodders", but normal users won't do it. Let's say you get a new car and are mechanically inclined. You re-program the computers, modify the exhaust system and add a nitrous tank to make a rocket out of your car. How likely are you to take it back to the dealership if you start to have trouble? Not very. They'd tell you to take a hike and that you've voided the warranty.
Most people who buy a name brand computer are doing so, in part, for the support they can get from the company. If you hack OS X onto a Dell and need help, both companies will tell you to fku off when you can in for support.
My question is: if flipping a switch in Xcode 2.1 is all it takes to make a Universal Binary that runs on Intel and PPC, why not have both kinds of Mac available? Mazda makes piston-engine and rotary-engine cars, is it that much tougher to have both Intel and PPC lines?
I agree, why not continue with both chips. I believe in 64-bit over 32 bit and I
love my G5 processors. Put the intels in the laptops if thats what it takes to
increase their speeds, but keep the powerful 64-bit G5's in the Desktops.
"8 GB can be addressed by 33 bits. 64-bit addressing can access 18 TB -- that
is probably more memory than has ever been manufactured in the history of
mankind. (If every human being on Earth had a computer with 3 GB of memory,
one 64 bit computer coud access every last byte!)"
that must be the "new math"?!?!? - a terabyte is a million million, or one million
gb. and there is somewhere around 6 billion people on earth...
but your underlying point is well taken. 64 bit is much better than 32 bit for
memory addressing.
Mazda makes piston-engine and rotary-engine cars, is it that much tougher
to have both Intel and PPC lines?
I think for Jobs it's about making a clean cut, all or nothing. This way any
ambiguity about the future is taken out of the equation and consumers 'know'
what's coming.
"I'll bet there will be a lot of PC hackers with Intels who will try to break the
code that will prevent the Mac OS from working on a vanilla Dell."
Break what code?
It's more like this: rewrite major portions of the kernel and IOKit. You don't
seriously think Apple is going to simply build a PC/AT clone, do you? No, they
will build a Macintosh with a different CPU; the motherboard won't
look like your average PC at all. Some of the support chips will be different, as
will their choice of I/O controllers. Where are you going to find drivers that
will work within the OS X IOKit? Where will you find the kernel code for
memory management, task switching, DMA, interrupt management, and
things like that?
You can find similar code in various Linux distributions, but porting
and rewriting that code to fit into OS X is a major job. If you've got the
time---and the expertise---it can be done. But if you do have both
the time and expertise, you can get paid well for doing this type of work. If
you're gonna spend all that time, why not get paid?
Because you'll get your arse sued!
Intels Apple will use all are Dual-core, 65nm,64-bit, 4MB L2 with new Pentium M
Tech.
- by zpro June 8, 2005 6:57 AM PDT
- Man, just when you thought it was safe to play in the water...
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (23 Comments)why does Apple use AMD 64 bit, and there dual core, its already running,
fine on Linux.
Sure we may gain speed, however...we are taking a step back,
and all those people whom use OS 9, will have NO Support once,
the Macintel boxes are out, with the new OS. 10.5
considering of switch to AMD and using a Iwill motherboard QK8S-8P
8-way processor, with 256GB of RAM. running Linux.
Tried of the Mac Games...