Why Apple Went 64-Bit With the iPhone 5s 512
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Adrian Kingsley-Hughes says it's not just because Apple likes bragging about being first and because a 64-bit processor sounds cooler than 32-bits that Apple used the 64-bit A7 chip in the new iPhone 5s. A shift from a 32-bit processor to a 64-bit part paves the way for iPhones to be fitted out with 4GB+ of RAM down the line, but more importantly the move brings iOS and OS X apps much closer. The architecture for 64-bit apps on iOS will be almost identical to the architecture for OS X apps, making it easy to create a common code base that runs in both operating systems. 'Apple has slowly been bringing iOS-like features to Mac OS for years now: think of Launchpad and Gatekeeper,' writes Sascha Segan. 'The ultimate prize, of course, would be to bring the million-plus iOS apps to Macs. Apple could do that with an ARM-compatible virtual machine on Mac hardware, but it would want the VM, the OS and the associated apps to play nicely in the much larger memory space available on Macs. That means moving the whole system over to 64 bit.' By unifying iOS and Mac OS with Xcode developer tools in a 64-bit space, Apple could once again leap ahead of Microsoft and Google, says Segan. Microsoft hasn't yet been able to leverage its desktop strengths to achieve success as a mobile OS. The 64-bit chips for Android devices aren't ready, and neither is Android itself."
Debian (Score:5, Insightful)
If it's such a big deal in order to get the same software to run on both systems then how does the Debian project manage to bring 37 000 packages to all eight architectures that it's currently running on? Magic?
No. (Score:5, Insightful)
Moronic (Score:4, Insightful)
4GB RAM? Current iPhones have 1GB, and since they don't have real multitasking there is little need for 4GB+.
As for bringing OS X and iOS closer, clearly this guy doesn't understand what a compiler does or why the difference between 32 and 64 bit is irrelevant for porting 99.9% of apps.
Re:Debian (Score:4, Insightful)
If I had to guess, a large number of people put in a large amount of effort. A really fine cross-compiler probably helps immensely.
Re:64-bit BS (Score:4, Insightful)
Phones are not going to have more than 4GB or RAM any time soon.
Right, because they don't already have 2GB.
64-bit is Marketing BS at this point.
Right, because there are no algorithms, none whatsoever, not mmapped in-memory databases, not modern runtimes, which benefit from having a large address space that will not be exhausted by fragmentation. Yep, none at all.
Re:Debian (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, if I would interpolate from the code I saw in open source projects to closed source projects, being closed source because of bad code... oh boy.
I am always fascinated of our software driven society still working, despite our often really bad, ugly, bug ridden, ill-documented codes.
Re:Planned obsolescence (Score:3, Insightful)
The same way Windows 7 x64 made all Windows 7 installations and 32-bit programs worthless, huh?
Oh...wait...
Re: 64-bit BS (Score:5, Insightful)
I did. The whole thing is nonsense. You don't have to enforce a single architecture to have common code. Neither do you need to have a virtual machine running the same bit-ness as the host operating system. This is just the usual kind of cluelessness that comes from a community that is proud of being stupid.
Yeah. 64-bit BS.
Re:RISC (iPhone) vs. CISC (OSX) (Score:5, Insightful)
You're funny.
Are you seriously suggesting that Apple migrates their desktop machines to hardware that's about 10 years behind the curve in terms of performance when compared to x86?
Stop swimming in the kool-aid.
Re:Android is finished. (Score:2, Insightful)
Android is ready for x64, TFA doesn't have a clue. It's just a recompile away.
Bullshit. Making an OS 64 bit is far more complex than a recompile. And the next Android version, Kit-Kat is not expected to be 64 bit compatible.
Android 64 bit is at least a year away.
Re: 64-bit BS (Score:4, Insightful)
You don't have to enforce a single architecture to have common code.
But it makes it easier. In this case Apple will have 64-bit ARM and 64-bit Intel to maintain instead of 32-bit ARM and 64-bit Intel. I think there's a longer term strategy here. I'm not sure what it is.
Re:64-bit BS (Score:2, Insightful)
Right, because there are no algorithms, none whatsoever, not mmapped in-memory databases, not modern runtimes,
Yea, all those runtimes running on IOS! And mySQL, Apple edition, I love that!
Parent wasnt making an absolute statement, he was (correctly) stating that 64-bit will have almost no benefit on a cellphone for a very long time; and that the author of the article has no idea what they're talking about (since ARM being 64-bit has no relevance to compatibility with a 64-bit Intel processor).
Re:No. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's more like they didn't have much else for the iPhone 5S, just the fingerprint sensor. Everything else is either the same or a slight improvement, like the camera.
Really? I could say the same about the last two iterations of a whole gaggle of Android devices. Is the point you are trying to make that that we have reached 'Peak Smartphone'? If that is the case the obvious follow up question is: Did that just dawn on you? (because the rest of us have known this for a while now)