PDA

View Full Version : I feel ripped off...


apples
2005-10-24, 06:48
I just cancelled my voodoopc AMD Turion 64 bit laptop, and ordered a 15" PB. I just thought of something that I haven't thought of before, though... After the switch to intel, and after all the software developers switch to Intel, does that mean that new software will not run on a PPC? And will they still run on a 32-bit PPC? I feel like I'm all ready buying outdated hardware that is about to be completely orphaned... Does anyone think I should cancel my PB, in hopes that soon a newer updated PB will be released to include all the things that Apple forgot to put in these ones? I am really having a bad case of buyer's remorse. I appreciate any help...

torifile
2005-10-24, 06:51
Reading makes you smarter (http://forums.applenova.com/showthread.php?t=8488).

Brad
2005-10-24, 07:09
What this guy said.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v34/ifpt999/mr-t.png

Also, 64-bitness is greatly over-hyped by marketing departments and spec whores. Almost no software on the desktop actually takes advantage of 64-bit operations. Only specialty applications need more than 32 bits of precision. Don't mention the greater amount of addressable memory because most notebooks can't even fit more than can be addressed by 32-bit processors.

Mac+
2005-10-24, 07:12
No matter how many times I see that flash demo, I always laugh at the "Whoah ho ho slow down there little Billy - you're not ready to start a new thread just yet. Looks like you've got some more learning to do first ... (you dumbass)"

No offense to you apples I just like the voice over. :lol:

beardedmacuser
2005-10-24, 07:23
Also, 64-bitness is greatly over-hyped by marketing departments and spec whores. Almost no software on the desktop actually takes advantage of 64-bit operations. Only specialty applications need more than 32 bits of precision. Don't mention the greater amount of addressable memory because most notebooks can't even fit more than can be addressed by 32-bit processors.

I've only ever seen one real-life example here at work where 64 bit was a noticeable improvement. And that was for a stupidly huge 3D model created in realtime from lots of 2D images. And they had something crazy like 16 or 32 gigs of RAM (it was a 64 bit Windows machine on a quad-Opteron beast). That kind of thing simply wasn't possible with 32 bit.

starcat102
2005-10-27, 15:39
Using 64bit you may adress and handle more data but your performance (if everything is the same) compared to 32bit will be slower, simply because handling larger memory address pointers is more cpu time consuming.

However, 64bit is needed for instance in large database systems where you can handle hundreds of gigabytes of RAM for the complete SGA, located all in memory.

On the desktop, for most of the time, 64bit isn't that important, and especially not for a laptop!!

Cheers,
Bob.

bassplayinMacFiend
2005-10-27, 18:21
Not to mention that at this point in time, 64bit GUI programs aren't supported in OS X. Only 64bit command line programs are supported.

chucker
2005-10-27, 18:46
Not to mention that at this point in time, 64bit GUI programs aren't supported in OS X. Only 64bit command line programs are supported.

That doesn't make much of a difference, however. It poses two limitations:

to take advantage of 64-bit, developers are forced to split front-end (GUI; 32-bit) and back-end (CLI; 32-bit/64-bit). They should, however, be doing that anyway, as it greatly increases efficiency no matter what.
here's the kicker: if we're talking applications that need to display something in the GUI with 64-bit precision -- an extremely detailed 3D model, for instance, then you're out of luck with OS X: you'll have to convert back to 32-bit in the process. That means you either have to interpolate, thus lose precision, or recalculate, thus lose performance.