Fret not, 64-bit Leopard will still work with your machine
By Ryan Block 
posted Jun 12th 2007 8:57AM
posted Jun 12th 2007 8:57AM
As we mentioned yesterday (but didn't really dig into), Leopard isn't entirely like Windows, where you're expected to install the 32 or 64-bit variants of the OS based on the system / CPU that will run it. We discussed this with Apple, which expressed that this latest version of OS X takes a far simpler approach for the end-user than multiple hardware-centric OS versions, opting instead to run both 64 and 32-bit apps and drivers on any 64-bit machine (read: Core 2 Duo-based), and defaulting to the usual 32-bit app / driver operation on 32-bit Macs. In other words, users with 64-bit capable Intel machines will see a performance boost if running 64-bit apps, but those that don't have a newer Apple box won't be at all penalized -- nor will they be unable to upgrade. So, we cool?
Was there really that much doubt?
Doesn't sursprise me. The reason hy MS has a 32bit and a 63bit version of Vista is because it is impossible to develop one single version which is supposed to function flawlessly with a million different hardware configuration.
Since Apple computers don't use that many different types of hardware it is easier and quicker to develop an operating system which functions flawlessly with a set of computers.
Dude. Seriously. That's kind of been obvious for a long while. If Apple got one thing right, it's that they manage to tie-in users so well, that it's more easy for them to do it. Imagine of OS X was availiable on PC's. Then we would have problems.
You have to admit, that Microsoft overall does a good job of working with other computers. I mean it's pretty amazing how they manage most of the time to be able to be compatible with lots of other computers, and have a very good successful rate. It makes me angry sometimes when people make fun of Windows, and BSOD's, and whatnot, when overall, that doesn't even happen unless you do something wrong. So kudos for MS to work so well like that.
Well said Michael, however I think if OS-X was on other PC's we might have more issues but Apple would have more money!
Um, G5s are 64-bit.
Yeah, does that mean my 3 1/2 year old G5 is finally going to be living up to its potential?
Microsoft said a while ago that their next version of Windows will be all 64 bit too.
Yay! Finally. We're all officially moving to better computing of the future!
Their next *server* platform will be 64-bit only.
Engadget..this is boring. this is your tenth apple post in 3 days....no one uses Apple.
i'm sorry i didn't now you were being force to read them...
i personally find this article useful as is something that wasn't completely clear before.
Well, Apple is publishing all sorts of new interesting stuff at the moment. Apple is what's happening right now. It's not Engadget's fault that Apple happens to publish the Iphone, Leopard, and tons of new hardware all within a couple of weeks. There's a lot of information to publish. So fear not, the hype will soon be over. :P
Spot on.
yeah! come on engadget, it's not like there was some sort of apple conference or anything. geez.
Thousands of people are finally seeing the light and switching from PC to Mac...how many people do you know going the opposite direction?
None. Thanks, and in the future, keep your fanboy bullshit to yourself.
Um, I use Macs, as do many other people. Grow up.
I especially liked the part in Jobs' keynote where he said there will be a Basic, Premium, Business and Ultimate version of Leopard-- all for $129. A very nice jab at Micro$oft. I highly doubt Micro$oft ever considers the customers first and foremost. There is a high cost premium when upgrading or migrating to Vi$ta. Micro$oft has unfairly forced consumers to bare the brunt of the cost of going to Vi$ta. DirectX 10 is falsely being pushed around by M$ with them stating it can only run on Vista. I have had customers and friends that upgraded to Vista to realize they can't use their old hardware because manufacturers refuse to support old hardware for Vista. I have had customers who have four to six year old scanners, printers, and other devices that cannot work in Vista, and manufacturers stating clearly they won't support older hardware for Vista. This is forcing consumers to buy NEW hardware just so that they are compatible with Vista. It's absolutely unfair, and I hope that someday the SEC (Security Exchange Commission) or some other legal body in our U.S. Justice system, if they haven't been paid off by Microsoft just yet, force them to play fairly and more consciously to consumers.
At least Apple with Leopard OSX, they are willing to support their customers who have older hardware starting with the G4 by providing 32-bit drivers and compatibility within their new OS. I wish Micro$oft would do the same, instead of trying to control every facet of the industry through lawsuits and forceful, unfair, and coercive tactics.
JJ you are a moron. Companies not supporting Vista is not Microsofts fault, it is those companies. MS did not tell them "don't update your drivers for Vista so we can force them to buy new products hahah."
No one forced your customers to buy Vista. And also why shouldn't MS offer different versions, considering Grandpa Joe isn't going to need the features in Ultimate. And I bet you feel real clever buy using a $ when spelling Microsoft? About as clever as using Crapple... They are both stupid. If you think MS is bad in the industry look at Apple in securing flash memory.
Windows and OSX can coexist, I don't see why one would hate another OS. There is no need for fanboyism.
nice jab? all apples marketing nowadays is just ms bashing, well, i guess it's better than iphone marketing which pretends being unique.
it's not exactly microsofts fault if hw companies refuse to release drivers for their old hw for vista(though, some xp drivers can be made to work in vista, ha). who cares anyways? almost all new released software for windows works still even on windows 2000.
"Micro$oft has unfairly forced consumers to bare the brunt of the cost of going to Vi$ta."
who do you think pays apples r&d if not apples consumers? are you serious? does apple get money from a magic money tree?
real uses for 64bitness are still far and between.. things don't automatically come faster if you use 64bits.
Are you 12 years old? Using the "$" in Microsoft and now Vista? Come on. Grow up.
Hey, its a free market system. If enough people get fed up with MS, then they will switch to Apple. It is not the governments place to force companies to do things differently. If you do not like MS product. DON'T BUY IT!!! If governments would but out of things like this our products would be cheaper as there would be more competition.
Over the years I have been a fairly big fan of Apple. As a matter of fact, I have used them all of my life. Apple's track record on providing support for it's older models completely sucks ass. You can't really criticize Microsoft and praise Apple because Apple has screwed over it's "legacy" users so many times I can't even count them. If you think about it, the entire transition to Intel has been one big FU to all the PPC users. Half of the good applications these days are Intel only. So, Apple really doesn't give a crap, and I'd be willing to put money down that the next version of OS X drops support for a significant number of "legacy" users.
Guess what? I had to reinstall my Tiger system software last night and Guess What? I can't use my i-tunes unless I upgrade to Leopard. I keep getting this message box that says I must have mac os x 10.4.7 or later. It also says "For more information on upgrading your computer, visit www.apple.com/macosx." Guess what shows up on that page? Fancy adverstising for Leopard and the expectation that I will fork out 129 euros for their shitty product or I don't get the i-tunes. I'm collecting Apple / i-mac war stories. Send me yours at greathierophant@yahoo.com Thanks, Martha
What are you, 12? While I admit that multiple versions of Vista was a mistake on MS's part (which they likely won't do again), you can't blame them when hardware doesn't work well with the software. For the most part, Microsoft does do well in compatibility with other computers. It's the hardware vendor's fault if it doesn't work well with Vista. If someone doesn't want to upgrade their digital cameras to Vista, then it's the camera makers fault. What do you expect? For MS to just 'try' to make it work. No. It's the hardware makers fault and I hate it when people keep blaming on Vista's problems having to do with MS, when it's not. What do you mean DirectX 10 is being unfairly pushed with Vista? DirectX 10 is a new feature, or an improvement in Vista. Nobody has to get DirectX 10.
And what's with the $ in MS words? How would you like it if people threw in O$ X? Both Apple and Microsoft are for-profit companies. It's hard for Microsoft to solve this problem with the many computers it's suppose to work with. So grow up, and learn why things are the way they are, instead of sprouting lies and slander at them.
Oh, and I was referring to JJ by the way.
You made good points, and I agree with everything except for one thing. I don't think the multiple versions of Vista was such a bad idea. I think it's good to give people the option of deciding what something is worth to them. A lot of people are saying it's confusing, but... confusing to who? The people who will be confused by this won't give a crap about Vista anyway. The ones will are interested in upgrading will know enough to make a decision about what features they want and how much they're willing to pay. Maybe next time they can cut it down to 2 or 3 versions instead of 4, but I don't think the concept is bad.
@Aaron:
Thanks for reading my comment and liking it. I do agree with you on that point. It's just that many of the naysayers hear on Engadget and other tech blogs feel it that way, and in a way they are right.
If Microsoft is going to have any versions of their operating systems, there should just be two: Home or Business. Basically Home would virtually be Vista Ultimate, and Business would combine the best of Vista Business and Enterprise and bring them in full potential use for business users. That's the way it should be.
> ...you can't blame them when hardware doesn't work well
> with the software. For the most part, Microsoft does do
> well in compatibility with other computers.
Heck, why not? You'll notice that getting iTunes to connect properly with the iPod under Vista required MS to release a patch to Vista.
Not to mention all the designed-in incompatibilities that the AntiVirus types have screamed about, and even led Google to complain to the court overseeing the supposed anti-trust settlement.
One step more: MS may not have forced firms to NOT update their drivers, but they provided a terrible economic incentive to do so: "You, Mr/Ms printer (scanner, dongle, ...) manufacturer, will have to write to an entirely new s/w model to be compatible. You won't sell any more copies of your old models, but your customers will grouse unless you do. We are planning this obsolescence for you. Maybe you'll sell your customers a new box." Or maybe, if you're not sitting on the mountain of cash and programmers that MS is, you won't be able to afford re-writing all your old stuff and your PO'd customers will go to the Big Competitor firm. Not quite as bad as having committed resources to Plays 4 Sure, but still a pretty sucko business proposition.
Yep so my G5 iMac will work beautifully I guess!
What confusion? Its been TWO DAYS. I have a Mac and all but jeez engadget, lay of on all the "just to remind you" apple posts.
Please enough with the Apple stuff already. Watching paint dry has become less boring than reading about and watching Apple. When is the last time Apple released something exciting? Not so fast there Mr. Apple TV, you're a flop.
So is ZFS still in Leopard? I guess it's not the default filesystem as hinted by Sun if Jobs didnt even mention it
MSFT and Apple look out for their consumers equally much.
Apple is just very reactionary. They try hard to be the anti-Microsoft. If you think they're doing that for the consumer rather than Steve Jobs' bank account then you are the type of consumer every company dreams about.
Apple, with all their marketing slickness, has achieved an enormous proportion of these fanatical, gullible consumers. Much of it is thanks to Microsoft. If they couldn't play off of what Microsoft does they would just be another corporation.
1. having M$ ship out 10 versions of one OS is confusing special when you have to pay to opt out if you have but don't need a 64 bit version that left some of your software in the dust.
2. M$ can't be blame for any problems with third party drivers, it's up to those companies to support their products not M$ {except for that whole DRM B$ when it comes to soundcards+HD}.
3. Their should only be 2 M$ Store Bought VISTA versions one server, one user, and the user should be able to install a 32bit version or the 64bit version from the same disc {like a double sided dual layer disc}, and be allow to switch to the 64-bit when it's viable (all those 32bit apps choke up the memory on 64bit Vista). {over the internet is a joke, and paying for the OEM price to upgrade is the punchline}.
4. Hopefully OS's start to see optimizations mixed in with OPTIONAL EYE CANDY, the user should be the one deciding between Function and Fun.
5. The Vista EULA is $#@%.
6. Apple is smart in seeing the user frustration and giving the consumer what they want {even though it might not be entirely what they want}.
7. Vista is better than Windows 95.
"Vista is better than windows 95"
....but not better than XP ?
If I ever see a post that has anything to do with apple go without having a remark like "oh not another apple ....etc." I'll be soooooo suprised. Guys, stop acting like 12 years olds and actually discuss the topic at hand. The hate is quite annoying and doesn't get anyone anywhere. Apple just happens to be a company that is great at marketing and great at generating stories and you guys are pissed that engadget is covering it? Get over it!
I haven't read anything about the G5s being supported :(
I want my DP 2.0Ghz G5 to work its 64bits in other OSs than my Fedora Core HDD!!
Am I the only one who so far has yet to see $ ONE HUNDRED $ and THIRTY DOLLARS $ worth of innovation in 10.5? Why would I give them all that money? Just because they've earned it?
I don't see $100 of innovation in Vista Home Basic (upgrade, $200 for the full install) or $160 of innovation in Vista Home Premium (upgrade, $240 full install). Also, realizing that OS X (full install) costs the same as an OEM license of XP Pro made adding Windows to a Macbook of mine painful on the wallet.
Also, to save money on the OS, I'll buy my next laptop in October (instead of now) when Leopard comes out and there’s way more than enough innovation in 10.5 to make me wish it were October already.
Boy, that's gonna be one FAT binary... 32-bit PPC, 64-bit PPC, 32 bit-intel, 64-bit intel. Time for a hard-drive upgrade, methinks...
Perhaps 32-bit/64-bit binary combinations on multiple architectures
also (partially) explains why ZFS is not ready for prime time.
Sun designed ZFS to be 64-bit from the ground up, and it's
hard to imagine Apple wanting to backport it to just the G5.
So, ZFS waits for:
- Apple's patented in-place filesystem converter
- Boot-from-ZFS capability
- 64-bit Intel only, so available as an option where
applicable no sooner than 10.5.1
Agreeing with the other two, I would like to confirm whether G5 owners still get the 64-bit luv. I mean, I can understand the Core owners being screwed as that was only a stopgap chip for Intel. Still, a 64-bit OS brings other improvements and I hope PPC isn't being ignored THIS soon.
Another post for 'my 3 year old G5 is 64-BIT, someone didn't do their research. Your DO NOT NEED an Intel machine to enjoy 64-bitness.
@ echo
Crapple...Lol...never heard that one!!!
Hey I am an apple fan, but see thats funnY! so is micro$oft, jeez learn to laugh at yourselves once in a while!
guys i have a macbook core 2 duo....so is it 64 bit ???
THANK YOU for this post! I was actually starting to worry about this. I have a first gen Macbook with a 2.0ghz Intel Core Duo, and I thought leopard was going to run badly on this! I cant afford to buy another mac!
FYI, unlike MS OS's, new versions of Mac OS X run faster than your previous version. Even on an old G4 let's say, 10.3 ran faster than 10.2, 10.4 runs faster than 10.3, and shhhhhhh 10.5 is very noticeably zippier than 10.4.
hmm well it does seem like that little beach ball rotates faster but clearly you've never tried to run 10.4 on an old powerbook and watched that sucker take a minute to open word
Correct me if im wrong but isnt the G5 a 64bit processor or maybe I'm just reading this wrong.....
64-bit is a scam to sell more ram. Every application running on a 64-bit OS will use more ram, since things which used to have a 32-bit "locator" (read wikipedia's article on pointers) now have a 64-bit one. In my performance lab, on server apps, we see a ~30% overhead of running a 64-bit OS.
Your average user, including photoshoppists and the like, don't need to directly address that much memory. And, unless you do, if you run in 64-bit, you're wasting memory.
I have a question for anyone not busy arguing.
I just bought a new MacBook Pro, which was just updated making it seem like the perfect time to buy, plus I got a free iPod nano to sell on ebay. My question is if the MacBook Pros are 64 bit?
I checked all over the internets and all the info I gound says that core 2 duo is a 64 bit processor. But in a conflict of intrests, 64 bit is mentioned no where on apple website in relation to the Macbook pro. Why wouldn't they advertise this feature like they do with the iMacs and Mac Pros?
I'm not really worried if it's only 32 bit, becuase I'm not planning on doing any super intesive computer work in college (i woulda bought a mac pro If i where) but an answer would be great!
Ogvor,
I can't answer your question but I LOVE your opening sentence!!! LOL
If I recall correctly, all Core 2s are 64-bit.
Core's (Without the 2) are 32-bit though.
You're kidding, right?
You answered your own question.
@Mike
I know tons who are ditching OS X for Linux though.
@Brutha
It's to be expected because, you know, Apple just had WWDC.
The same thing happens when CES or E3 comes around. It's just common sense.
What a bullshit guys. Who said, that Apple suxx. I know 4 men that came to Mac from a PC, cause of my advice. And now they are happy. They forgot about system errors, viruses, hardware upgrades. PC era has past, Mac is coming back again.