64 Bit G5's Will Ship Without A 64 Bit OS

[jimvanson]

Sounds as if the G5's are getting slower all the <a

href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/39/31600.html">time</a>...

[Karim Ghantous]

Yeah, not surprised in some way. After all, I do remember years ago reading about how PPC was designed to be 64-bit when needed.

 

But the funny thing is that the G5 machines will still be faster than the G4s - and be cheaper or at worst no more expensive. So if I were a customer, I'd just shrug and know that the G5's potential can only improve over time.

 

I'd rather this than a rushed 64-bit OS. Those things these days are not quick to make and nor are they quick to bug test. I mean, not even Sun was first to get a 64-bit OS out. Silicon Graphics I think took that honour. And we have core Linux able to take advantage straight away, whatever good that does.

 

Most of us might remember the first PPC machines - QuickDraw was optimised for PPC but the rest of the OS was temporarily running as emulated 68000 code. The key though was that transition was not that painful.

[ellis_vener_photography]

Is this yet another troll from a whiney windows OS owner? If so do you really feel that

threatened by people using other computers & OS? Do you work for Microsoft

or do they just pay you for being a troll? NASA has run indepententl tests and found

that

a G5 running a single 2Ghz processor & Jaguar was about 32% faster than a 2.6Ghz

P4. Get a

life.

[pete_su]

"64 bit OS" is the current meaningless buzz-benchmark phrase thought up by the

technical ignorant to try and differentiate what they like from what they don't like.

The more interesting question than whether a system is "64 bit" is whether it does

what you need.

[Spearhead]

I think the Adobe/Apple rift will have much bigger implications than lack of a new OS.

[photomark]

Your kidding right? You mean apple didn't just pull the rug out from under all the

developers? It shocks me that Apple would want to make a smooth transition to 64

bit code. Even more shocking that they want the new OS to run on older machines for

a while.

 

Since you're the expert on this Jim, maybe you can explain to us what it REALLY

means when an OS is or isn't 64bit . Will applications be prevented from taking

advantage of 64bit addressing? Can I compile code with 64 bit pointers? Will file

addressing be 64bit? What about the application binary interface? And above all, what

does any of this mean to a photographer?

[joshroot]

I agree with Jeff. Apple needs to watch out and not shoot itself in the foot (again). Third party developers have been getting better about apple (since the imac increased sales 5 years or so ago). So now apple is going to alienate them? That will help I'm sure.

 

I'll probably do just what I am doing now. Keep sitting at a desk with a windows machine on my right and a Mac on my left.

[carl smith]

Interesting to see what's really going on here.

 

Ellis, of couse its faster, its also more expensive. You can put together a 2.6Ghz P4 for a lot less than a 2Ghz G5 could ever hope to be.

[scott_eaton]

<i>Get a life.</i><P>Been saying this about Mac users for 10 years, who have historically been more concerned about what Windows users are doing than what they can do on their own boxes. The 'Register' is also very non-partisan in regards to who they put under the spot light, and easily one of the best tech sites on the web. They thrash on everybody with equal time.<P>As for NASA and their tests on the G5, was the same synthetic tests they performed on the G5 the same ones they used to conclude that a loose piece of foam wouldn't penetrate a shuttle wing at 500mph? Yep, lots of strong credentials there.<P>What really is the surprise here? Apple has a choice of making a risky 64-bit move with OSX, or a conservative one. They choose a conservative one. Panther will still have a good deal of optimization for the G5 and be a step in the right direction.

<P><I>Ellis, of couse its faster, its also more expensive.</i><P>Faster at what? Are we going to load the G5 up with heavy server transaction loads, or base it's performance on Photoshop filter tests, and what are Mac users likely to really care about the most? I have Windows based production servers that cost less than the G5, and keep up with much more expensive IBM iSeries servers based on similiar architecture to the 970. Corporations won't buy $2000 desktop computers, most households can't afford them, and Mac based imaging labs will likely love the G5. If we ignore Apple's pointless, irrelevant, and rather flacid marketing shots at Windows/PCs (mostly to make their user base feel good than win market share), I fail to see a real issue here. I would have voted for a raw 64-bit hellion of an OS. I got out-voted, but it's still a win/win for Apple users.

[joshroot]

Scott,

<P>

Boo! <br><I>"As for NASA and their tests on the G5, was the same synthetic tests they performed on the G5 the same ones they used to conclude that a loose piece of foam wouldn't penetrate a shuttle wing at 500mph? Yep, lots of strong credentials there."</I>

<P>

You can't seriously be saying that just because someone at nasa made a stupid statement, all nasa science becomes worthless? Why would you even try to make a comparison like that? Not for humor when you consider the deaths involved. And not for a specific point, because obviously nasa is filled with very excellent scientific minds. I thought you more level headed than that.

<P>

It's true that Mac doesn't seem to do much with their marketing other than try to make their loyal fan base feel good. They shouldn't have given up on the Mac Clone idea of a few years ago. Maybe then economies of scale would have pushed the price of a mac down enough to where family users wouldn't have to chose between a well equiped Win machine or a low end Mac.

[e_m3]

>>Ellis, of couse its faster, its also more expensive. You can put together a 2.6Ghz P4 for a lot less than a 2Ghz G5 could ever hope to be.<<

 

Unless you make it a point to always buy the least expensive product, including a home or an education, insisting one should select a computer or camera based on price isn't a persuasive argument. There's nothing like seeing someone buy a new car, as opposed to certified pre-owned, and then complain about the extra grand a Mac might cost! :)

[scott_eaton]

<I>And not for a specific point, because obviously nasa is filled with very excellent scientific minds.</i><P>I didn't start this tangent, but I'll finish it. NASA's Shuttle program, is a big, fat, government welfare program for engineers and scientists that can't compete in the private sector. Strapping seven astronauts to 200,000 gallons of liquid hydrogen and lighting the fuse every couple of months while mission control sits safely back in concrete bunkers a few miles away hardly qualifies in my mind as "high science". You want safer shuttle flights? Force the senior safety engineer and one random quality control engineer (with a family) to sit on each shuttle flight. Congress also needs to slash half of NASA's shuttle budget and give it to either Lockheed-Martin or Boeing. Either could produce a cheaper, higher tech, simplier and much safer shuttle alternative in probably a couple of years. I'm also sick of hearing about Mac's and NASA. We lost fewer astronauts during the riskier Apollo program.... with no desktop computers.<I><P>They shouldn't have given up on the Mac Clone idea of a few years ago.</i><P>With the exception of the processor and case, Mac's are now PC clone hybrids considering most of the peripherals and I/O devices are virtually identical to PC's. Remember it wasn't too long ago when decked up 486's cost close to three grand, and a OSX port to i386 would put it squarely up against Linux and not Windows. While the price is high for the G5, it's easily justified if you do dedicated imaging on a professional basis. Home users have more thinking to do. I'm still miffed Microsoft dropped support for porting NT over to the PowerPC considering I was signed up to be one of the testers. I'm sick of being held hostage by Intel whenever they pull a booger out of their nose like the Xeon. Can you imagine dual booting Win2K and OSX on the same G5 box? Gawd, that would be awesome, not that IBM would let it happen.

[carl smith]

I agree Scott, Win2k and OSX dualboot would be pretty nice. The Win2k boot might start to come close to a native PC environment. All the emulators as of yet are lacking IME.

 

I know of several sites now that intend to put comparable Opteron and G5 systems against each other in Photoshop performance. I'm looking forward to seeing this once the software is available.

[qtluong]

I don't understand the original comment: "Sounds as if the G5's are getting slower all the time". The preproduction models were

running a 32 bit OS, and so will the models that will ship

in September. The models that will ship won't be any slower than

those that were demonstrated. On the other hand, it is quite

possible that in the future, just upgrading to a 64 bit OS will

make the G5 hardware that you already bought faster. So

"G5's will get faster" sounds more appropriate to me.

[joshroot]

I'm not going to argue that that Nasa (like all govt programs) is full of bloat and pork barrel crap. Personally I think that mid level bureaucracy costs this country more than we can ever count.

 

HOWEVER, I do not agree that just because the shuttle program is badly run and accounted for (like much of our govt), that all the science that comes out of nasa is somehow "bad" because of it. Nasa is filled with some of the best minds in the world. Sadly, none of them seem to be in a position of power. But isn't that always the way? Who knows, maybe I'm just defensive today after reading too many science magazines.

 

As for the Mac clone concept, I wasn't aware of how similar the two machines were. I was more thinking of getting moer people using the OS which would then create more demand for it third party programs, etc etc. Not just the dedicated group of mac users who prop up the company now.

[kelly_flanigan1]

OT; NASA changed and dropped the real FREON from the application of the FOAM to the tank several years ago; to please the "save the planet" folks......The old design had some adhesion problems; the new "save the planet" version has had alot of problems when applied at Michoud from the start; and also prior launches..; even lowly workers; applying the stuff had negative comments about the new "save the planet" formulation; not sticking as well..............<BR><BR>So a semisuccessfull design; that worked for 2 decades got replaced with alot poorer material; with worse performance; to "save the planet" from freon................NASA gambled and lost; after several launches; with the new "save the planet" process; they lost a valuable working shuttle; the crew; and a lot of crediblity; because they altered a working design; due to political pressure; to "save the planet" from a freon process...........The resulting breakup trail over Texas; and Louisana caused alot of pollution; the direct result of trying to "save the planet" from freon in a proven process...; with the replacement process being a much weaker adhesion......Basic Engineering was ignored; lives lost; due to politics that forced a proven process to be scrapped; and a less robust design used..................<BR><BR>The O ring problem was well documented too; it too failed in January; in cold weather......<BR><BR>NASA seems to have basic management problems; and has swept known problems under the rug; and then forms committees; after thinks crash............They need to bring known hunches; and problems to the surface; like in the glory days; the Saturn V era; where alot of basic design was done with a slide rule; and management had wisdom; backbone; and alot more common sense....

[Karim Ghantous]

Carl: "Ellis, of couse its faster, its also more expensive. You can put together a 2.6Ghz P4 for a lot less than a 2Ghz G5 could ever hope to be."

 

Carl, you are right, but then this has always been right. We can also say this: putting together your own P4/Athlon system is cheaper than buying one from Dell or IBM or Compaq. Apple isn't competing with people like you and I who prefer to 'roll our own'. It's competing with Dell etc. And if I remember correctly the dual P4 Dell is more costly and not as fast as the dual G5 system. Plus, 64-bit CPUs mean more RAM, not just more speed. That's important, too.

 

I'm thinking of buying an Apple laptop to supplement my PC desktop system. And the G5 doesn't mean much for me, but it means that the base model iBooks will progressively get more powerful and by the time I want to get one they may even have G4s in them.

 

And healthy competition with variety in the marketplace is most important of all.

[brainbubba_motornapkins]

Kelly, you seem to have a beef with the notion of saving the planet. We can live without shuttle launches. We may not be able to live with a hole in the ozone. Caused by freon etc.

[mike sisk]

No surprise. Building a 64-bit OS into an existing 32-bit product isn't that easy.

 

<p>This is no different than when the 32-bit Intel 80386 came out with the usual

marketing hype about it's impressive performance when we were all running 16-bit

DOS applications. Sure, it was faster due to its faster clock speed but it took awhile

for protected-mode applications and a native 32-bit OS to arrive on the scene to

make full use of it.

 

<p>It's the same here--give 'em some time. And don't worry, Intel and Microsoft will

have

their 64-bit products out soon, too.

 

<blockquote><em>Congress also needs to slash half of NASA's shuttle budget and

give it to either Lockheed-Martin or Boeing.</em></blockquote>

 

Done. Shuttle operations are performed by an outfit called United Space Alliance

which is a joint venture between Rockwell International and Lockheed Martin. Has

been for awhile now.

 

<p>Scott, for someone who hates the Mac/PC bashing here on photo.net you sure

generate a lot of it.

[ellis_vener_photography]

<I> Done. Shuttle operations are performed by an outfit called United Space Alliance

which is a joint venture between Rockwell International and Lockheed Martin. Has

been for awhile now. </I><P>And weren't those United Space Alliance managers

who

made bad calls on the Challenger & Columbia missions? Maybe NASA should take

back over full management of space exploration, which I really do think is vital to our

survival as a species. they should also get a hell of a lot more money? Will they? Not

until Space Exploration is perceived once again to be a matter of national ego & ball

clanking. Maybe NASA should hire the guys who cooked the CIA's report on Iraq's

WMD program that was served to President Bush. Bureaucracies whether in the public

or private

sector always bloat: it is in their nature to do so. You are an IT manager at your

company Scott: how many unnecessary management hoops do you have to jump

through Scott to get something that is necessary approved?

[amy_hoy]

Jobs never claimed or insinuated that the G5s would ship with a "64-bit OS." The G5,

running a "32-bit" OS, still trounced the P4 in Photoshop tests (yes, the Photoshop

was somewhat optimized for the 64-bit processor... in a "32-bit" OS... figure that one

out?).

 

The kind of speed the G5 offers even "hobbled" by the OS means it can only stand to

improve with time! Apple has proven their commitment to improving performance/

speed with every new release of OS X, so G5 owners can look forward to feeling like

they have a brand new computer when the update after Panther comes out, just like

many felt they had a new computer upgrading from 10.1 to 10.2 (myself included).

 

Furthermore, the home user doesn't need to spend $2,000 on a G5. If they wanted

plenty of power, there are "new/old stock" G4 Power Macs still available starting at

$1299 for a single 1.25ghz. The deals on these machines will only get better, and

believe me, they are no slouches in the performance department. G4 iMacs are great,

even overkill for most people's needs... my father does a lot of hobbyist Photoshop

work on his (and he's a prepress director). I am personally fond of eMacs as a

fantastic budget choice.

 

The Apple Stores are doing well, the order numbers for G5s are phenomenal (for the

first time in Apple's history, the most expensive model is selling the most), the iTunes

Music Store is still doing great, and so on so forth. Apple is doing well.

[pete_su]

What exactly is a "64 bit" OS anyway? How does it make a computer "faster"?

 

If you just mean that the user or kernel address space becomes 64 bits wide, then

under most conditions this does nothing for performance.

 

If you mean that various other things in the OS, like disk sizes, or file offsets or

something, become 64 bits wide, then MacOS already does that (you can make files

larger than 2GB last time I checked).

 

The entire question is malformed and ambiguous.

 

I'm pretty sure that the G5s running Panther will be faster than the G4s running

Jaguar. That's all anyone really cares about.

[sk_arts]

Panther is comming out very soon, reminds me of the Contax N system where they released the the body about a month prior to the lens.

[sk_arts]

Maybe I should have read what th post said first... ignore what i said... Certainly adobe will run in 64-bit, right?

[sk_arts]

Pete-

64-bit also allows up to 8GB RAM in one machine, as if anyone realisticly would do that.

 

There a million zillion other reasons why the G5 is a superior machine to the last G4 that are indipendant of 64bit. I am not sure how/if this effects performance, but the general concensus is that it does.