New Finder in 10.3

[Dragonmaster Lou]

In article <heaney-4E0951.00333626062003@news.east.cox.net>, John Heaney wrote:

> In article <sdfisher-C53CD7.15082925062003@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net>,
> Steven Fisher <sdfisher@spamcop.net> wrote:
>

>>In article <Xns93A58032C3FC6jg2gclannet@127.0.0.1>,
>> Jerry Gardner <jg2-usenet@gardnerclan.net> wrote:
>>

>>> I wonder how much support for 64-bit processors will be implemented in
>>> 10.3? Will it be fully 64-bit native, or will it be like when the first PPC
>>> Macs came out, but most of MacOS was still 68K code for years and years?

>>
>>It won't ever really matter, as long as the kernel and other critical
>>components are updated. The G5 supports both 32 and 64 bit code
>>natively, as long as enough the OS itself is 64 bit.
>>
>>I doubt we'll ever see (for instance) a 64-bit recompile of things such
>>as the Address Book, since there'd be no advantage to it and it would
>>double the executables Apple needs to support.
>>
>>I think the only advantage of 64 bit executables is how much memory one
>>can access. The other advantages to recompiling can probably be reaped
>>without going 64 bit.

>
> Well, all that begs the question of what happens when you run 64-bit
> compiled code on a G4. Anyone know what the backward compatibility
> situation is?

It won't work -- at least that's the behavior on other 32/64 bit chip
families like SPARC, PA-RISC, etc.

However, the OS X application bundle format does support "fat"
executables, so it's certainly possible that they'll package both 32-bit
and 64-bit versions of applications in the same bundles, much like they
did in the 68k/PPC transition days with "fat binaries."

--

-------------------- [url]http://www.techhouse.org/lou[/url] ----------------------
"Dragonmaster Lou" | "Searching for a distant star, heading off to
lou at techhouse org | Iscandar, leaving all we love behind, who knows
Tech House Alum | what dangers we'll find..."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[Matthew Russotto]

In article <Xns93A59BB5EFFFCjg2gclannet@127.0.0.1>,
Jerry Gardner <jg2-usenet@gardnerclan.net> wrote:

>>>I wonder how much support for 64-bit processors will be implemented in
>>>10.3? Will it be fully 64-bit native, or will it be like when the
>>>first PPC Macs came out, but most of MacOS was still 68K code for
>>>years and years?

>>
>> It doesn't matter. The PPC supports 64 and 32 bit code natively.

>
>It bloody well matters. Will MacOS X, assuming it's still all 32-bit code,
>support a virtual memory space larger than 4GB? I doubt it.

We already know it isn't going to be "all" 32-bit code, so that's a
straw man.

However, most of the system -- even including most of the kernel --
can be 32-bit without degrading performance one iota.

--
Matthew T. Russotto [email]mrussotto@speakeasy.net[/email]
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.

[Steven Fisher]

In article <Xns93A679B7F1jg2gclannet@127.0.0.1>,
Jerry Gardner <jg2-usenet@gardnerclan.net> wrote:

> That's what my question boils down to: when will Apple rewrite those parts
> of OSX where 64-bit support is needed? Have they made any commitments?

They're advertising the machine as capable of supporting 8 gig of
memory, aren't they?

[Seebs]

In article <nKZJa.271654$3C2.7886936@news3.calgary.shaw.ca> ,
Steven Fisher <sdfisher@spamcop.net> wrote:

>Apple is slowly moving to brushed metal for all non-document (i.e.
>browser or database) applications. I wish they'd tweak metal a bit, but
>I've no objection to the idea of separate appearances for database vs.
>document applications since they behave differently.

Er. Non-document applications like Safari?

-s
--
Copyright 2003, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / [email]seebs@plethora.net[/email]
[url]http://www.seebs.net/log/[/url] - YA blog. [url]http://www.seebs.net/[/url] - homepage.
C/Unix wizard, pro-commerce radical, spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Consulting, computers, web hosting, and shell access: [url]http://www.plethora.net/[/url]

[Strider]

Steven Fisher <sdfisher@spamcop.net> wrote:

> In article <Xns93A679B7F1jg2gclannet@127.0.0.1>,
> Jerry Gardner <jg2-usenet@gardnerclan.net> wrote:
>

> > That's what my question boils down to: when will Apple rewrite those parts
> > of OSX where 64-bit support is needed? Have they made any commitments?

>
> They're advertising the machine as capable of supporting 8 gig of
> memory, aren't they?

Answer 1: when the G5 machines first ship they will be using a special
version of Jaguar which does not have 64 bit support so even if your
machine has more than 4 gig that's all it will see.

Answer 2: There are rumors that the first release of Panther will also
not be completely 64 bit compliant

Answer 3: It is Apple's stated intent that Panther will be a 64 bit OS