[J'nathus]

Does anyone know if Snow Leopard's commitment to go all 64-bit is about to massively neuter the back catalog of games available for the Mac?

If so, is this also going to create problems for ports in progress (BioShock, UT3, etc)?

[The Liberator]

Why would it neuter the backwards compatibility? Sure, Vista did that to a point, but that was because Vista was a mess, but is Win 7 doing that much?

By the way, I do not actually know the answer, I am just lightly contesting your question.

Liberator.

[J'nathus]

Vista and Windows 7 are evolutions of the NT kernal which we all know and love from NT 4 (the one STILL installed in workstations of companies that haven't had the money to upgrade in A WHILE)
Windows 2000 was NT 5
Windows XP was NT 5.1
Windows Vista was NT 6
And although Windows 7 is OFFICIALLY called NT 7, it is actually NT 6.x

There are some older games that went out of compatibility during the XP days with the ensuing service packs - the same happened with Vista. Windows 7 is actually more game compatible than Vista (in my personal experience . . .)

Even Windows 7 64-bit and Vista 64-bit have the ability to run 32-bit code, so aside from the slight wait for 64-bit drivers to mature in Vista, there's no reason NOT to install the 64-bit version.

So, Windows 7 64-bit will STILL run 32-bit code, but Snow Leopard will not. So, that huge back catalog I just linked to will still be available to me in Windows 7, but unless I'm mistaken, Snow Leopard is about to wipe quite a few pieces off of the chessboard in September.

Anyone have any solid evidence to the contrary?

[Janichsan]

Contrary to popular belief, Snow Leopard is not 64bit only.

[teflon]

Yeah, Windows 7 can run 32-bit code when its the 64-bit version, but its far from seamless.
The only reason why you're asking this question is because Apple's transition to being a full 64-bit OS has been completely seamless and transparent. You have no idea whether your app is running in 32-bit carbon or cocoa or 64-bit cocoa or Rosetta or anything (though you can obviously figure those out). But yeah, Snow Leopard still does 32-bit natively, so fingers crossed there wont be a swathe of games going knockers up...

[J'nathus]

teflon, on July 13th 2009, 01:17 AM, said:

Yeah, Windows 7 can run 32-bit code when its the 64-bit version, but its far from seamless.
The only reason why you're asking this question is because Apple's transition to being a full 64-bit OS has been completely seamless and transparent. You have no idea whether your app is running in 32-bit carbon or cocoa or 64-bit cocoa or Rosetta or anything (though you can obviously figure those out). But yeah, Snow Leopard still does 32-bit natively, so fingers crossed there wont be a swathe of games going knockers up...

I'm glad to hear that Snow Leopard will still do 32-bit code. I didn't realize initially, but they COULDN'T go 64-bit only as the Intel Core Duo models wouldn't work with it.

However, the 'Windows 7 32 bit code isn't seamless' concept baffles me a bit. I know there are 64 bit and 32 bit parts of the registry and folder directories 'intended' for 32 bit and 64 bit programs (although I have some older 32 bit programs that seem to sidestep that limitation like it doesn't exist - begging the question why it exists in the first place at all). In those cases, yes it's not seamless. Otherwise, I've seen no noticeable problems with 32 bit apps to speak of. I think iTunes complained that I was installing a 32 bit version into a 64 bit OS . . THEN after I installed the 64 bit version, the apple updater went ahead and grabbed a 32-bit update (that threw me a bit). Outside of that, I've seen no real problems. If it works in Vista, it works in Windows 7 . . . and a vast majority of what I've used in XP works in Windows 7, even some outdated apps (older versions).

Since I haven't had access to beta test Snow Leopard, I'm completely ignorant of what it can / will do for my particular needs / uses. Because of that, I have a bit more trepidation about moving to it when it comes out. Unlike Leopard, I may just sit on the sidelines and find out what others impressions will be before making the leap.

[Janichsan]

Regarding Snow Leopard, the 64 bit thing is the least of my worries. I seriously expect 10.6 to break quite a few programs. All that changes in the system's underbelly are prone to cause compatibility problems, especially with drivers and other things that delve somewhat deeper into the system. Quicktime X can also be expected to be a source of woe – which even Apple acknowledges before SL's release by clarifying that Quicktime 7 can be installed alongside.

[teflon]

J, on July 13th 2009, 09:31 AM, said:

I'm glad to hear that Snow Leopard will still do 32-bit code. I didn't realize initially, but they COULDN'T go 64-bit only as the Intel Core Duo models wouldn't work with it.

However, the 'Windows 7 32 bit code isn't seamless' concept baffles me a bit. I know there are 64 bit and 32 bit parts of the registry and folder directories 'intended' for 32 bit and 64 bit programs (although I have some older 32 bit programs that seem to sidestep that limitation like it doesn't exist - begging the question why it exists in the first place at all). In those cases, yes it's not seamless. Otherwise, I've seen no noticeable problems with 32 bit apps to speak of. I think iTunes complained that I was installing a 32 bit version into a 64 bit OS . . THEN after I installed the 64 bit version, the apple updater went ahead and grabbed a 32-bit update (that threw me a bit). Outside of that, I've seen no real problems. If it works in Vista, it works in Windows 7 . . . and a vast majority of what I've used in XP works in Windows 7, even some outdated apps (older versions).

Not only the legacy 32-bit CPU intels, but also all the 32-bit apps that remain. 32-bit is still a very valid choice when creating an app, since in many cases 64-bit wont offer any real advantage at all. And since all the groundwork to do 32-bit apps on 64-bit chips is already in Leopard, it wouldn't make sense for Apple to destroy their software library in such a way.
32-bit wont be going anywhere for quite some time yet.

As to the seamless-ness, I am talking about how windows segregates 32-bit from 64-bit. Its just pointless and unintuitive. Specially from the clueless computer user point of view, fat binaries are waaaay more preferable to having two distinct versions of an app, one of which can't run on 32-bit, and the other of which won't be able to make full use of 64-bit capabilities. Its just stupid and will inevitably hold up the proliferation of 64-bit through much of the industry.

[J'nathus]

teflon, on July 13th 2009, 03:13 AM, said:

As to the seamless-ness, I am talking about how windows segregates 32-bit from 64-bit. Its just pointless and unintuitive. Specially from the clueless computer user point of view, fat binaries are waaaay more preferable to having two distinct versions of an app, one of which can't run on 32-bit, and the other of which won't be able to make full use of 64-bit capabilities. Its just stupid and will inevitably hold up the proliferation of 64-bit through much of the industry.

Possibly that's a limitation to the Windows APIs (or Microsoft - or both!). Intel had the Intanic, I mean the Itanium (IA-64). That CPU / platform could run 32-bit code at speeds that would make the simplest Celeron look like a champ. Not surprisingly the Itanium's angle on 64-bit is pretty much a non-entity these days. I remember reading about it when it came out and I wondered how that tech would ever trickle down to the desktop. Turns out, it never will!

[Vulpine]

J, on July 13th 2009, 05:35 PM, said:

Intel had the Intanic, I mean the Itanium (IA-64). That CPU / platform could run 32-bit code at speeds that would make the simplest Celeron look like a champ. Not surprisingly the Itanium's angle on 64-bit is pretty much a non-entity these days. I remember reading about it when it came out and I wondered how that tech would ever trickle down to the desktop. Turns out, it never will!

The difference is that the Itanium was never supposed to run x86 code - it's an entirely different architecture. For its own native code, it screams, but any x86 code has to be run in emulation. It was designed purely as a big iron, mainframe and server processor, and it was always unlikely that it would appear ont he desktop.

[teflon]

Yeah, since x86-64 is a superset of x86, it can run all 32-bit code natively. Its an upgrade instead of a side-grade.
So since there is no extra work to get 32-bit code to run on it, there's no need to consider dropping 32-bit, since for many apps, 64-bit would be overkill.

I mean, does Address Book really need to run 64-bit? I can see iLife, Safari, Mail all getting at least minor benefits from it, (the latter two especially with regards to security and because of going through a complete rewrite, also stability). But simple apps like Calculator or Address Book really don't need 64-bit in the slightest.

[Sargiel]

I'll buy Snow Leopard as the upgrade price is so attractive - however I'll definitely wait and see what the score is with the games & software I own before actually installing.

[Janichsan]

Sargiel, on July 14th 2009, 08:33 PM, said:

I'll buy Snow Leopard as the upgrade price is so attractive - however I'll definitely wait and see what the score is with the games & software I own before actually installing.

Exactly what I'm planning, too.

[DaveyJJ]

One of the developers here at work who was in SFO has installed it using a simple Archive and Install on his two generations ago 15" MacBook Pro, ran all the updaters, and it runs like a dream. It is, in his words, noticeably snappier.

He is so pleased with it's stability and performance that after testing some of his odd setups (php and SQL/DB stuff, server testing stuff and the like) he's going to go ahead and run it on his newer laptop as well. He doesn't do games though, nor anything I'd be interested in breaking (Unity, Xcode, Adobe etc), so this is not a call to arms to install your WWDC disk on your main machine.

[Tesseract]

teflon, on July 15th 2009, 03:22 AM, said:

x86-64 is a superset of x86

It really isn't. The hardware just happens to have a mode that is x86, which is switched to when executing 32-bit programs.

Quote

I mean, does Address Book really need to run 64-bit? I can see iLife, Safari, Mail all getting at least minor benefits from it, (the latter two especially with regards to security and because of going through a complete rewrite, also stability). But simple apps like Calculator or Address Book really don't need 64-bit in the slightest.

If you're going to have any 64-bit apps, it's advantageous to have them all. That way you don't have the 32-bit portions of the libraries hanging around in memory.

[teflon]

Whichever of us is right doesn't really matter too much, since running 32-bit on x86-64 CPUs has no real disadvantages other than that you could run it in 64-bit instead.

The problems we might face with Snow Leopard is that some apps and games may require some 32-bit parts to be in the OS, when 10.6 will be completely 64-bit from now on (as far as Im aware). I believe that Apple has created a 32-bit compatibility layer to smooth out problems with specific apps (but it should not be needed quite a lot of the time, specially if you update to the latest versions of whatever app).

The only two Apple apps which aren't 64-bit, that I can find, are actually DVD player and iTunes. My guess is that they haven't bothered to touch DVD player until they add BD support, and that iTunes is on its own development schedule which will get to 64-bit in its own good time (likely at the same time as Windows' version).

So the onus is really on 3rd party developers to switch over to 64-bit as time goes by.

[Janichsan]

Just to clarify which parts of Snow Leopard are 64 bit and which are not:

...ripped from Appleinsider's excellent (though very technical) series of articles on that topic.

[ltcommander.data]

Existing 32-bit game compatibility should be maintained assuming developers didn't do anything funny. The major things that need to be rewritten for a 64-bit OS is the low level stuff that touches the kernel, which is mainly Apple's own stuff and drivers for third-party developers. Assuming games use the regular APIs like OpenGL, Core Image, Core Audio, Quicktime, etc. there shouldn't be any problem outright. Of course, Apple may have made some changes to the individual APIs themselves which may break things. The biggest concern is QuickTime X but I believe Apple looks to be incorporating a full version of QuickTime 7 Pro alongside QuickTime X for compatibility reasons and because QuickTime X has fewer features.

In any case, I'm pretty sure Snow Leopard is available in 32-bit and 64-bit versions. I thought I read somewhere that Apple even figured out a way to seamlessly boot between the 2. Which isn't too hard to believe if the whole OS is a combined 32-bit/64-bit binary and all 64-bit drivers will require a 32-bit version be bundled as well.

Assuming Snow Leopard will incorporate OpenGL 3.x drivers, which is likely since OpenGL 3.x introduces interoperability with OpenCL, additional functionality in DX10 generation GPUs should be made available to developers.

[Cobra]

I'm looking forward to Snow Leopard although am a little concerned with the number of games I play that need Rosetta (as sad as that is as it is a nightmare for stability but no one will release a UB for these games!).