When will OSX be TRUE 64 bit?
 

Hi!

When Cinema 4D starts with a true 64 bit version, i woke up!

OSX is not able to support an 64 bit GUI application. Its online 64 bit in command line....

This really makes no sense and I'm really disapointed!

So i hope that someones knows when Apple wake up! So for 64 bit support you have to switch to Microsoft Windows!

If you want to read for your self... This part was taken form the www.maxon.net website...

===============================
Note for Apple users
Even though the G5 processors of the Apple Power Mac series are 64-Bit CPUs, 64-Bit applications are not entirely supported by the OS X operating system. Only command line based programs can take advantage of the 64-Bit memory adressroom. Programs with a graphical user interface (GUI) can only run in 32-Bit mode. Therefore we can unfortunately not offer a 64-Bit version of CINEMA 4D for Macintosh. More information on this topic can be found here:
http://developer.apple.com/macosx/64bit.html

As explained in the developer document you linked to, it is possible to have a 64-bit GUI app in the sense of the app being able to take advantage of 64-bit address space (for large data sets). It's just a technical limitation that the user-interface itself cannot be a 64-bit application because the user-interface programming libraries (Cocoa & Carbon) are not 64 bit capable. I.e. the application programmers need to do a bit more work. They can't make a monolithic app in which the user-interface and the calculational back-end are all in one executable - they need to separate out the calculations that need the 64 bit address space into a separate executable. This is something that only concerns the programmers - to the end user it will be indistinguishable from a monolithic 64 bit app.

And this does make sense. Moving to a 64 bit app will lose some performance since bigger chunks of data need to be pushed around inside the program. Since not all parts of the program (e.g. the GUI) need access to the full 64 bit address space, it is counterproductive to slow the whole program down.
I.e. going to 64 bits does not necessarily make things faster. It increases the amount of data a program can handle simultaneously and so is good for large data sets, but many programs will be slower in 64 bit due to the cost of passing around larger pieces of data. It's analogous to using a big truck to transport packages when a smaller car would do.

Ok I agree but be honest. How would there will be an 64 bit application like cinema4d? Never I guess.

It has no sense to build an 64 bit application in OSX that way!

So why saying its 64 bits, but in the 'real world' there is not a way to implement it correctly.

So what's the point of saying OSX is 64 bit? It would be honest to say that the CPU is capable of but the OS is not realy capable of doing it.

I think Apple should deliver an version of OSX in true 64 bit and make the user desides whats best for him/her.

Now at this moment the user/buyer is not capable of making this decision.

I am not a Microsoft Fan, but this is not a smart move!

64 bit verison of Cinema4d makes renders in 64 bit 20% faster. So at this moment Windows offers me that choise of making this true. On OSX it is still a guess when its available!

Moving to Coat Room...

It is important to realise that this is bull****. There is no technical reason why Maxon could not 'piggy-back' a 64-bit executable with a 32-bit GUI, and for the reasons listed by Hayne gain possibly better performance than on Windows.

The other important reason for Apple's approach is that by leaving the GUI at 32-bit, it ensures that display manufacturers aren't required to provide drivers and peripherals capable of handling 64-bits. IMO this is a much more sensible approach than that adopted by Microsoft.

You are bound to find that Maxon's real reason for not providing 64-bit code differs from that stated.

I agree with you. But when will OSX be true 64 bit.

If it continues to stick with 32bit solutions, software and hardware vendors are limited too.

If Apple is not giving an 64 OS incl. GUI, Vendors are not able to write 64 bit drivers.

And for that reason why should thirdparty's piggy-back to this 32-bit-> 64-bit work arrounds?

I also have ask Maxxon why the did not piggy-backed it?

Hardware drivers are also available for 64 bit linux so why not for OSX? Is it because vendors not want? Or is it that Apple is not give them a reason?

The approuch that Apple is using, looks familiar what Microsoft did.

Rember Windows 3.11 (semi 32 bit on an 16 bit OS).

The major difference being that most users today are not even close to needing 4 GB of RAM for a single application. I only have 1 GB of RAM on my system, and that is plenty for most tasks. What Apple is doing is far ahead of where Win 3.11 was because when Win 3.11 came out, EVERYONE needed more memory access. By the time the average user has any need for more memory this will no longer be an issue.

In the meantime, users who do need 64-bit need to lobby the correct people to get it: the software vendors. The fact is that the OS does provide it, it's up to the software developer to take advantage of it.

Ok also agree.

I also asked Maxon why the dont piggy back an 32 bit gui to use an 64 bit render performance.

And yes i am one of those users that are hoping for an true 64 bit OS.

Also vendors are able to commit to those 64 bit strategy if an OSX supports it. Also in the GUI. Whats the point of making 64 bit drivers when there is an OS that does not support it?

Please make 64 but real for the OSX community. Not an half baked one!

As has already been stated three times, OSX Tiger is 64 bit.

They are not sticking with 32-bit solutions. There are no limits for software and hardware vendors.

Most vendors do not need 64-bit drivers because their equipment displays in 32-bit colour already - and users cannot perceive any difference between that and 64-bit colour. Any extremely specialised drivers needed for very large displays can be written because as has already been stated OSX Tiger supports 64-bit processing.

For the reasons already given in previous posts.

Yes

There is no comparison. I repeat - OSX Tiger supports 64-bit operations, and when run on a G5, will support an application using 64-bit code, without vendors having to rewrite their driver software to work with the user's existing display. If a vendor should wish to use a very large display with Mac OS X, they are no restrictions preventing them from writing the driver.

If you wish to make use of improved render speeds, be aware this has nothing to do with the GUI, and everything to do with 'back-end' processing. There is no technical reason preventing Maxon from improving back-end performance. If they have no intention of providing this, find a developer who will.

So what your saying Maxon will not do this, but the could!

Why pinpointing to the mac developers site from ther site to read the technical GUI limitation?

I understand your points, but I don't think maxon will not support 64 bit on OSX? This is not clear to me.

They haven't done the necessary work to get their application to function in 64bit, and they're trying to pass the blame to Apple. It's just another reason to find another software vendor.

Developers of apps that are sold for both Windows and OS X often want to minimize the amount of effort they put into the OS X version. This may make a lot of sense from a business perspective since OS X has (at the moment) a smaller market share than Windows. Thus these developers usually try to keep the implementation of their OS X version as similar as possible to their Windows version.
If Windows does something one way while accomplishing the same thing on OS X would require a substantially different implementation, developers will often point to this difference as a deficiency, claiming it prevents them from implementing that feature on OS X. But it isn't usually a technical limitation, it is merely a limitation in the amount of effort they want to put into their OS X implementation.

Reason more for Apple to make it full 64 bit so its easier to port/make for OSX.

This is not an easy subject to deal with, when you master C4D you want to best render platform. Choosing a Mac or Windows OS would be in the benefits for Windows.

So who is to blame. I think Apple should we awake for this kind of shifting...

If this is also the case with Maya...

I am going to stich with the Mac because I love it. But when you are only dealing with C4D or other 64 bit programs...

Make it easier for Developers so the can easily move their Window applications to OSX. If you make it harder for them. Well dont blame the developers in this. OSX is an smaller market but with this strategy the applications will not easily be available.

Apple already does as much as they can in this regard.
But often it's like trying to fit a Ford engine in a Toyota. Some things are just hard.
I'm sure that eventually, even the GUI libraries will be available in 64 bit versions. But it's not really a priority for Apple right now as the percentage of customers or even developers who would benefit (see above notes on likely performance degradation) is too small.

Well see it more this way.

If the performance is not noticable. I agree with that. But in return the chance of seeing an 64 bit version of Cinema4D/Maya is MUCH bigger.

Well thats something the enduser really would appreciate.

So in this case the best way for Apple is to make it happen!

I think until the Apple-Intel 64 bit processor strategy is announced this speculation is pretty pointless, and I can think of many better things to lose sleep over.

I also think letting the developer do the extra work and having their customers subsidize that is a reasonable compromise. These are not hobbyist or home-use applications and the expense should be able to be recouped by the pros who can take advantage of notions like distributed processing which will decouple the computational engine from the GUI anyway.

You're 100% wrong. OS X is 64 bit. The fact that a developer has chosen to write code the Windoze way on a Mac isn't Apple's fault. It is 100% the fault of the developer. Complain to them.

Well, not 100%.
As discussed above, the libraries used for programming the user-interface of apps (Cocoa & Carbon) are not 64-bit capable. So, if you consider those libraries as part of OS X (a justifiable way of thinking), then OS X is not yet fully 64-bit. But it is true (now, in Tiger) that both the kernel and user-space apps are 64-bit capable. So it is possible to write 64-bit apps, you just need to either implement the UI portion from scratch (rather hard) or else separate the UI from the calculational portion of your app so you can use Cocoa for the UI.

Does it mean the music software (Cubase and others) work diferently in MACs due to this limitation ? Is the PCs runing WINDOWS or other OS better machines for music then ??

No. A perfect example is Mathematica, which is a 64 bit application that uses the aqua GUI. 64 bit backend (the important stuff) and rendering, with a 32 bit interface. Your windows and icons don't need to be 64 bit.

I believe portions Final Cut Pro, Compressor, DVD Studio Pro, Motion, Logic, and Soundtrack are 64 bit as well. (If they're not, someone say so, it's a wild educated guess)

What limitation? If making the UI 64 bit will slow the system down, how does separating it from the back end qualify as a limitation and not an optimization?