64 bit

[theheyes]

Lol Windows.... Windows XP only supports 3GB of memory dispite being a 32bit OS which should allow 4GB,

Dont confuse RAM with address space, Windows is working within physical limits.

Windows Vista in 32bit flavor supports 4GB and Vista 64 presumably more, how much i do not know. 8x? maby 64GB of memory?

Try 17,000,000,000 GB of RAM. Theoretically of course.

 

[Logsi]

Woot! Here's my old school MBP.

Does that mean its fully 64 bit compliant or just the chip? People always said it was the chipset.

Josh

 

[Beepcake]

If you have an option to run in 32bit mode then Leopard is running in 64bit mode. I think some people are confusing the physical RAM limit with address space.

 

[MagicBoy]

Woot! Here's my old school MBP.

Does that mean its fully 64 bit compliant or just the chip? People always said it was the chipset.

Josh

It's 64-bit. Must be a Core2 machine so it can't be that old school - my original MBP (March 2006) is a 1.83GHz CoreDuo. Core2's were very late 2006 IIRC.

The Chipset thing is a load of rot, it was the same on all MBPs (i945PM) until the new Santa Rosa update a couple of months back.

A 32-bit intel machine will still see up to 4Gb of RAM, they just can use (address) it all. Due to history and the mists of time etc the memory space at the top end can be reallocated for other bits of hardware - eg Video RAM. Hence why machines with 4Gb of RAM and big graphics cards come out with about 3.3Gb of useable physical RAM. The other 700Mb just sits there twiddling it's thumbs having been evicted by various bits of bolt on hardware.

 

[Deleted member 651465]

You're right about that, CS3 runs a lot faster on Leopard than it did on Tiger

Seconded.

As does Safari

I don't think Photoshop is compiled for 64-bit actually! I would expect that CS4 will be fully 64-bit.

"The Snappy" must be coming from somewhere else

Probably the improved "Multi Processor Support" in Leopard, giving it the edge.

 

[Parsec]

No such thing as a 64-bit version of Leopard - you're thinking in a narrow tunnel vision Windows way. 64-bit apps are just an extension to universal binaries - so they'll just add 64-bit G5 and 64-bit x86 versions to the existing 32-bit PowerPC and 32-bit x86 versions. Maybe they should rename them Fat Universal Binaries?

I see, so the 64 bit code is just another branch in the binary file format. That's not good news for disk space then!! It's bad enough already with OSX.

 

[J1234]

Seconded.

As does Safari

Agree, I use it full time now, no more Firefox!