Post by: kimmer on March 01, 2011, 07:02:26 PM
) I now know that my iMac6,1 with an Intel Core 2 Duo processor is a 64-bit system. I don't have a clue what that means, so I went to wiki. I still don't have a clue what that means. 
Is anyone here able to 'splain this to me in nice, simple, plain english words? Please.
Post by: Paddy on March 01, 2011, 07:59:09 PM
It IS difficult to come by a simple explanation. However, one very simple analogy struck me and might help - it's like comparing a 32 lane highway with a 64 lane one - you can have a lot more cars (applications) running on the 64 bit one.
While this thread won't tell you much about WHAT it is, it does go through some of the info re: Macs and Snow Leopard 64-bit vs. 32-bit:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=783948
For what it is:
http://www.start64.com/index.php?option=co...0&Itemid=61
http://www.softwaretipsandtricks.com/windo...-bit-processors
BTW - as stated in the Macrumors thread, for most of us, running in 32-bit mode (the default for SL) is preferred as not all drivers etc. have been updated to work with the 64-bit OS.
Post by: kimmer on March 01, 2011, 10:02:05 PM
If I understand correctly, my iMac runs in 32-bit by default (even though I'm running 10.5 not 10.6). PS CS5 is 64-bit by default, but can be set to run in 32-bit. So which way do I run it -- 32 or 64?
A person should not have to annoy her tired brain cells this way just to play in PS!
Post by: Paddy on March 01, 2011, 10:15:32 PM
I doubt it will make much functional difference as one of the poster in the above thread notes. If you have plug-ins, then whether or not they run in 64-bit mode or not might be the determining factor. My CS5 is running in 64-bit mode (which it does by default) - my SL is 32-bit by default. The only major plug-in that I have is ColorEfex Pro and that works fine in 64-bit.
Post by: kimmer on March 01, 2011, 10:40:40 PM
Post by: Xairbusdriver on March 01, 2011, 10:43:41 PM
So, the minimum 'memory' is one bit. And it can be a 1 or a 0. Pretty simple, but not extremely useful...
Let's put two bits together on a chip. OK, now we can actually count to three!
- 0 1 = 1
1 0 = 2
1 1 = 3
How 'bout we double those bits and have four of them! Now we're really talkin' We can now count all the way to...
- 0 0 0 1 = 1
0 0 1 0 = 2
0 0 1 1 = 3 (just like above with two bits)
0 1 0 0 = 4
0 1 0 1 = 5
0 1 1 0 = 6
0 1 1 1 = 7
1 0 0 0 = 8 Whoa Nelly! There's no stoppin' us now!!!
1 0 0 1 = 9
1 0 1 0 = 10* Good grief! We only have four 'fingers' and we've already reached TEN!
1 0 1 1 = 11*
1 1 0 0 = 12*
1 1 0 1 = 13*
1 1 1 0 = 14* !!!!!
1 1 1 1 = 15* And we didn't even use our feet!
Now, if four bits are such fun, what would happen if we could double them again?! And what about 16 bits, or 32 and why not just go for broke and have SIXTY-FOUR bits!!!
You see, the 'trick' is to have each bit have a value that's twice the value of its neighbor just below it. We humans didn't think of that until recently...we just have each 'digit' equal to the same value; one! But this simple 'binary' system is really extremely valuable and efficient! Care to guess what the 'value' of the next bit we add to the four bits we had above (hint: 16) and what about the eighth added bit? Maybe...128? And guess what number 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 represents...with just four 'fingers!'
Of course, humans still wanted to think in round numbers. So when we got to 1024 (10 bits/fingers), some one decided it would be 'close enough' to call it a kilo-bit/byte. And this, dear friend, is what we call a "slippery slope!" You really don't want to know what happens next, after all, this is a family-friendly site...
* Here's part of the rotten little secret; we humans still couldn't come up with 15 unique 'numbers,' so we started using the other 'counting' system we used in Kindergarten: a, b, c, d, e and f!
Post by: kimmer on March 01, 2011, 11:55:47 PM
QUOTE(Xairbusdriver @ Mar 1 2011, 08:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Of course, humans still wanted to think in round numbers. So when we got to 1024 (10 bits/fingers), some one decided it would be 'close enough' to call it a kilo-bit/byte. And this, dear friend, is what we call a "slippery slope!" You really don't want to know what happens next, after all, this is a family-friendly site...
* Here's part of the rotten little secret; we humans still couldn't come up with 15 unique 'numbers,' so we started using the other 'counting' system we used in Kindergarten: a, b, c, d, e and f!
* Here's part of the rotten little secret; we humans still couldn't come up with 15 unique 'numbers,' so we started using the other 'counting' system we used in Kindergarten: a, b, c, d, e and f!
How long did you spend writing all this? Here's what I do know about bits:2 bits -- 4 bits -- 6 bits -- a dollar
All for (school name here), stand up and holler!!!!!!
Shave and a haircut, 2 bits
Post by: tacit on March 02, 2011, 11:24:03 PM
QUOTE(kimmer @ Mar 2 2011, 04:02 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
If I understand correctly, my iMac runs in 32-bit by default (even though I'm running 10.5 not 10.6). PS CS5 is 64-bit by default, but can be set to run in 32-bit. So which way do I run it -- 32 or 64?
In practical terms, it depends on two things: how much RAM you have installed, and how fast your hard drive is.
If your computer has 4 GB or less of RAM, whether you run in 32-bit or 64-bit mode likely won't make any difference at all--not even with a stopwatch. The primary advantage of a 64-bit system is that it lets a single application access more than 4 GB of RAM directly.
Now, if you DO have more than 4 GB of RAM, whether or not you'll get increased performance from Photoshop in 64-bit mode depends on how much RAM you've told Photoshop to use in the preferences, how big the images you normally edit are, and how fast your hard drive is.
If the images are small enough to be contained entirely in RAM, you'll probably see a benefit from running in 64-bit mode. If your images are not small enough to fit in RAM, then the speed of your hard drive, and not the amount of RAM that Photoshop can access directly, becomes the bottleneck. Some operations might be faster, especially filters that also run entirely in RAM--but operations that rely on swapping bits of the image out to disk, not so much.
So, yeah, there are a lot of "it depends" in there. Bottom line: If you have 4GB of RAM or less, probably won't make even the smallest bit of difference. If you have more than 4GB of RAM, then maybe, and it depends.
Post by: Paddy on March 03, 2011, 12:10:09 AM
http://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/2...gb-memory-limit
Post by: antony on March 03, 2011, 06:43:00 AM
QUOTE(kimmer @ Mar 2 2011, 03:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
If I understand correctly, my iMac runs in 32-bit by default (even though I'm running 10.5 not 10.6). PS CS5 is 64-bit by default, but can be set to run in 32-bit. So which way do I run it -- 32 or 64?
One quick way to check.
Can you see the Lightning Filter in Photoshop CS5, then you are running it on 32-bit mode. That Filter is not compatible in 64-bit more.
Does it matter on 64bit or 32bit? If you are not doing something big you will be fine with either.
Post by: Xairbusdriver on March 03, 2011, 08:47:28 AM
The RAM size only matters because each bit is accessed by its "address" (where it is in the pile of bits). But the real advantage of 64bits comes in how the computer can operate on large number. 32bits limits you to 4,294,967,296 (counting zero) different values (for whatever you want to number). 64bits gives you 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 (counting zero) different values...see how much better that is?
I'm just glad we can use 4GB to represent that other number...
And there is a suggestion from some to simplify the decimal numbers even further; 1MB = 1,000,000 bits instead of 1,048,576, etc. Just don't try to convince a computer to drop those extra 48,576 bits...unless it's trying to tell you how much RAM you might have. Computers are getting nicer to people all the time. Others resent being spoken down to. 
"Is fearr Gaeilge bhriste ná Béarla cliste" ~ "broken user speak is better than clever geek speak"
Post by: kimmer on March 03, 2011, 12:11:26 PM
QUOTE(antony @ Mar 3 2011, 04:43 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
One quick way to check.
Can you see the Lightning Filter in Photoshop CS5, then you are running it on 32-bit mode. That Filter is not compatible in 64-bit more.
Can you see the Lightning Filter in Photoshop CS5, then you are running it on 32-bit mode. That Filter is not compatible in 64-bit more.
I'll have to look. I've never used the Lightning Filter.
So far all is working well, so I'm going to leave it be.
Post by: Xairbusdriver on March 03, 2011, 07:09:47 PM
- If it says "Core Duo" or "Core Solo", it's 32 bit
If it says "Core 2" and anything else, it's 64 bit
And, if it says "G3/4/5" or "PPC" or "A4" you need a new Mac or you need to give me your iPad(!).
Post by: antony on March 04, 2011, 01:10:37 AM
QUOTE(Xairbusdriver @ Mar 4 2011, 12:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Don't even need an adobe app installed.
Correct, except kimmer wanted to know if her Adobe Photoshop CS5 was suitable for the Topaz filters update. And base on the initial post, 32-bit or 64-bit might be an issue with the update. Therefore, I believe checking the Photoshop CS5 running mode is more relevant to her situation.
Post by: kimmer on March 04, 2011, 07:35:59 PM
The Topaz filters are all great. I downloaded an update from their site, and the update is 64-bit compatible. So I'm having fun with CS5.
Post by: Xairbusdriver on March 04, 2011, 09:07:18 PM