Tim Anderson's ITWriting [Valid RSS]

Tech writing blog

Blog Home RSS Archives ITWriting.com
Add to Feedburner Add to Bloglines Add to Newsgator Add to My Yahoo

April 26, 2005

Microsoft and Apple take different paths to 64-bit

Posted 3381 days ago on April 26, 2005

This whole 64-bit debate is getting interesting. Last week I attended a Microsoft 64-bit briefing which listed various reasons why 64-bit Windows has advantages for pretty much any PC user. Yesterday I attended an Apple OS X 10.4 "Tiger" briefing, and was told that 64-bit is pretty much irrelevant on client computers. Tiger remains 32-bit although it supports 64-bit pointers so that apps running on a G5 can access huge amounts of memory. Parts of 10.4 take advantage of 64-bit processing for G5 optimization.

Clearly we will all move to 64-bit eventually. The reason for the different stories from Microsoft and Apple is that the companies are taking different routes to compatibility, which is the key obstacle here. Apple is keeping the OS essentially 32-bit for the moment. Microsoft is doing what it did with 16-bit apps in 32-bit Windows. On 64-bit Windows, 32-bit apps run in a compatibility layer, again called WOW ("Windows on Windows"). Both entirely reasonable approaches, but giving Microsoft a slight edge for 64-bit enthusiasts. On the other hand, lack of support for 32-bit drivers in 64-bit Windows makes the transition more painful.



Re: Microsoft and Apple take different paths to 64-bit

Posted 3380 days ago by Charles • • wwwReply

Who are the 64-bit enthusiasts? Surely businesses looking to run big databases. Wouldn't they be the ones migrating stuff to 64-bit, so wouldn't the lack of drivers be an issue?

My impression from the Apple briefing was that apps could run natively as 64-bit in Tiger on a G5, if someone writes them like that. But 32-bit can run natively too. So Tiger sort of straddles the divide, depending what processor it's running on.

Re: Microsoft and Apple take different paths to 64-bit

Posted 3379 days ago by Tim Anderson • • • Reply

Charles,

You might like to take a look at Apple's developer note:

http://developer.apple.com/macosx/tiger/64bit.html

(you'll have to copy and paste as this blog doesn't support hyperlinks in comments).

Here's a quote:

'It is important to note that in the Tiger release, the support for 64-bit programming does not extend throughout the entire set of APIs available on Mac OS X. Most notably, the Cocoa and Carbon GUI application frameworks are not ready for 64-bit programming. In practical terms, this means that the "heavy lifting" of an application that needs 64-bit support can be done by a background process which communicates with a front-end 32-bit GUI process via a variety of mechanisms including IPC and shared memory.'

Not too much problem, but it contrasts with the full 64-bit support you get in Windows. Does it matter? Probably not much; but there are some benefits.


Comments are closed

Recent posts

Users plead with Borland to give up .NET
IE7 to be released 18th October,...
If Microsoft doesn't use UAC, why...
Google's unsettling lack of direction
Vista security: now prove it


Powered by bBlog