AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Apple's Snow Leopard rumored to be Gold Master
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's Snow Leopard rumored to be Gold Master - Page 4

post #121 of 235
8/12/09 at 2:05am
Quote:
Hardware Overview:

Model NametMacBook
Model IdentifiertMacBook5,1
Processor NametIntel Core 2 Duo
Processor Speedt2.4 GHz

Quote:
Last login: Wed Aug 12 18:31:01 on ttys000
Beau-MacBook:~ Beau$ ioreg -p IODeviceTree -w0 -l | grep firmware-abi | | "firmware-abi" = <"EFI64">
Beau-MacBook:~ Beau$

Looks like my unibody is all set and ready to go.

Also FWIW, not seeing anything in ADC yet, only have build 10A421 accessible for me.
Reply
Reply
post #122 of 235
8/12/09 at 2:05am
Want to know if your Mac will support a 64 bits kernel ?

Let's follow the instructions here. This allowed me to enable 64 bits kernel on my Late 2008 macbook pro unibody (with the 10A421 developer seed).
Reply
Reply
post #123 of 235
8/12/09 at 2:11am
It's not enough to have the 64-bit EFI. For example the 2009 Mac Mini has it but still can't run K64.
Reply
Reply
post #124 of 235
8/12/09 at 2:15am
Quote:
Originally Posted by magpie3d View Post

Here are some of the details from the system info app running on my Snow Leopard installation:

Model NametMacBook Pro
Model IdentifiertMacBookPro2,2
Processor NametIntel Core 2 Duo
Processor Speedt2.33 GHz
Number Of Processorst1
Total Number Of Corest2
L2 Cachet4 MB
Memoryt2 GB
Bus Speedt667 MHz

System VersiontMac OS X 10.6 (10A421)
Kernel VersiontDarwin 10.0.0
Boot ModetNormal
Secure Virtual MemorytEnabled
64-bit Kernel and ExtensionstNo


Looks like the kernel itself isn't running as 64-bit. In the Activity Monitor app most applications are running the "Intel (64 bit)" version where one is available.

Have you actually booted into the 64-bit kernel by holding down 6 and 4 while you boot?

I just did it on my 2.4ghz 2008 unibody MBP and i'm running 64bit kernel and extensions.

System Software Overview:

System VersiontMac OS X 10.6 (10A421a)
Kernel VersiontDarwin 10.0.0
Boot VolumetSnow Leopard
Boot ModetNormal
Computer NametBrian's MacBook Pro
User NametBrian (Brian)
Secure Virtual MemorytEnabled
64-bit Kernel and ExtensionstYes
Time since boott3 minutes
Reply
Reply
post #125 of 235
8/12/09 at 3:28am
Well with all this talk of Snow Leopard and what it can / will do, I'm wondering how long before Apple announces all new desktop units, and monitors that benefit from all this change?

Oh, and tablets and laptops too

Hell for that matter new iPod touches and

Skip
Reply
Reply
post #126 of 235
8/12/09 at 4:52am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

It's not enough to have the 64-bit EFI. For example the 2009 Mac Mini has it but still can't run K64.

Driver support is also required and seeing Apple's responsible for the drivers for the included hardware in Macs, if they don't write them, they'll probably disable booting in 64-bit mode to prevent errors or limited functionality, even if the hardware itself is 64-bit capable.

People have been mentioning that Late 2007 Macs have 64-bit EFI too, which wouldn't surprise me since they use the same Santa Rosa platform just with 800MHz FSB 65nm Meroms instead of 800MHz FSB 45nm Penryns. Most of the rest of the hardware should be the same too for driver support. Yet previous seed notes seem to mention 64-bit kernel support starting from early 2008 or Penryn equipped models. It'd be interesting if someone with a Late 2007, 800MHz FSB 65nm Merom on a Santa Rosa platform could try to boot in 64-bit mode.

My older 667MHz FSB 65nm Merom on the Napa platform only shows 32-bit EFI if anyone is keeping track.
Reply
Reply
post #127 of 235
8/12/09 at 5:09am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

It's not enough to have the 64-bit EFI. For example the 2009 Mac Mini has it but still can't run K64.

Curious... how do you know what you know?
Reply
Reply
post #128 of 235
8/12/09 at 5:27am
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

12 years after Windows and Linux? That's a joke. Which versions of Windows and Linux did people buy 10 years ago?

Ok, as it is now, no Mac computer out there in the wild will install 64 bit kernel by default except XServe (yes, you can tinker with your Snow Leopard install to boot with 64 bit kernel and hope that there are 64 bit drivers for all your hardware. And you can NOT do this on all 64 bit CPUs. Your chipset, CPU and EFI all have to be 64 bit before you can even try). This means that Apple users will not have true 64 bit OS (64 bit kernel, 64 bit apps, 64 bit drivers) deployed until the next version of OS X 10.7, which I'm assuming will take another 2-3 years to develop and deploy which puts us into 2012 or 2013 range.

On the other hand Windows XP 64 bit was first released in 2002. Linux had 64 bit kernels significantly earlier than that.

Mac Pro, 8 Core, 32 GB RAM, nVidia GTX 285 1 GB, 2 TB storage, 240 GB OWC Mercury Extreme SSD, 30'' Cinema Display, 27'' iMac, 24'' iMac, 17'' MBP, 13'' MBP, 32 GB iPhone 4, 64 GB iPad 3

Reply

Mac Pro, 8 Core, 32 GB RAM, nVidia GTX 285 1 GB, 2 TB storage, 240 GB OWC Mercury Extreme SSD, 30'' Cinema Display, 27'' iMac, 24'' iMac, 17'' MBP, 13'' MBP, 32 GB iPhone 4, 64 GB iPad 3

Reply
post #129 of 235
8/12/09 at 5:34am
Quote:
Originally Posted by LocalMotion View Post

Have you actually booted into the 64-bit kernel by holding down 6 and 4 while you boot?

Yes. I tried that after I'd posted my reply. It still stayed with the 32 bit kernel.
Reply
Reply
post #130 of 235
8/12/09 at 5:36am
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Can you provide us with the information showing that Apple doesn't know how to write the drivers and isn't allowing Nvidia to do it?

Sure, here you go:

http://barefeats.com/harper10.html

and here is the relevant quote supported by tests in the article:

Quote:
The fastest times in all 15 cases were achieved by one of the two ATI Radeon graphics cards. The only time the nVidia GeForce 8800 GT beat the Radeon HD 2600 XT was when rendering the "Blocks-Detail.HD" APPLE MOTION 3 template. In all other cases, the Radeon HD 2600 XT's advantage over the GeForce 8800 GT (and Quadro FX 5600) was no less than 22% and as much as 42%.

We consider this incontrovertible evidence that the GeForce 8800 GT is deficient when rendering Core Image effects. This performance deficiency will extend to other Apple pro apps like Final Cut Pro video effects and Aperture functions that invoke Core Image.

Even more significantly, ATI Radeon 2600 XT with 256 MB (a $50 card in Windows world) beats nVidia Quadro FX 5600, a $3000 is lots of rendering tests.

Now, if you try the test on Windows, better cards as expected perform better. Why? The driver is better.

This means that someone at Apple doesn't know how to write optimized drivers for nVidia cards. But no big deal. No one uses Mac for graphics any more anyway. Since all Adobe apps (besides being 64 bit on Windows already) are optimized to smithereens for Windows platform, that there is a significant measurable performance gain running those same apps on Windows than Mac. Hence, anyone just starting computer purchase should consider these things.

Mac Pro, 8 Core, 32 GB RAM, nVidia GTX 285 1 GB, 2 TB storage, 240 GB OWC Mercury Extreme SSD, 30'' Cinema Display, 27'' iMac, 24'' iMac, 17'' MBP, 13'' MBP, 32 GB iPhone 4, 64 GB iPad 3

Reply

Mac Pro, 8 Core, 32 GB RAM, nVidia GTX 285 1 GB, 2 TB storage, 240 GB OWC Mercury Extreme SSD, 30'' Cinema Display, 27'' iMac, 24'' iMac, 17'' MBP, 13'' MBP, 32 GB iPhone 4, 64 GB iPad 3

Reply
post #131 of 235
8/12/09 at 6:13am
[Well, I've got a 64-bit efi, so I guess I will get a 64-bit kernel. A least I hope so. I think Apple might have disabled it in only a select group of machines during development and testing, we will ave to wait and see.
Reply
Reply
post #132 of 235
8/12/09 at 6:23am
Quote:
Originally Posted by iansilv View Post

[Well, I've got a 64-bit efi, so I guess I will get a 64-bit kernel. A least I hope so. I think Apple might have disabled it in only a select group of machines during development and testing, we will ave to wait and see.

iMac from mid 2007 (Revision 7.1) also has 64 bit EFI.

Mac Pro, 8 Core, 32 GB RAM, nVidia GTX 285 1 GB, 2 TB storage, 240 GB OWC Mercury Extreme SSD, 30'' Cinema Display, 27'' iMac, 24'' iMac, 17'' MBP, 13'' MBP, 32 GB iPhone 4, 64 GB iPad 3

Reply

Mac Pro, 8 Core, 32 GB RAM, nVidia GTX 285 1 GB, 2 TB storage, 240 GB OWC Mercury Extreme SSD, 30'' Cinema Display, 27'' iMac, 24'' iMac, 17'' MBP, 13'' MBP, 32 GB iPhone 4, 64 GB iPad 3

Reply
post #133 of 235
8/12/09 at 7:14am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario View Post

This means that Apple users will not have true 64 bit OS (64 bit kernel, 64 bit apps, 64 bit drivers) deployed until the next version of OS X 10.7...

No, there is no reason why Apple cannot add/debug/make default drivers with 10.6.x releases.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario View Post

... which I'm assuming will take another 2-3 years to develop and deploy ...

That's a strange assumption considering in every case but one the period between major releases of OS X has been 1-2 years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario View Post

... which puts us into 2012 or 2013 range.

No, your pessimistic assumption of 2-3 years would put us into 2011 or 2012.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario View Post

On the other hand Windows XP 64 bit was first released in 2002.

... and still isn't useable in most applications.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario View Post

Linux had 64 bit kernels significantly earlier than that.

Yes, but the early 64-bit Linux kernels were not for Intel.
Mac user since August 1983.
Reply
Mac user since August 1983.
Reply
post #134 of 235
8/12/09 at 7:17am
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Yes. But years ago may include Apple's early 64 bit machines.



all of apple's intel machines are based centrino and i think they are all 64 bit compatible.

AMD had the first x64 CPU back in 2003. Intel waited a year or two and then released their x64 which is the same instruction set that AMD made up. they have a cross licensing agreement and do a lot of R&D together
Reply
Reply
post #135 of 235
8/12/09 at 7:21am
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

12 years after Windows and Linux? That's a joke. Which versions of Windows and Linux did people buy 10 years ago?

microsoft had a 64bit version of Windows NT 4 for DEC Alpha back in the late 1990's. and for a few other 64 bit CPU's. they dropped it in windows 2000 and didn't do a 64bit OS until Windows 2003/Win XP when x64 came out.

RAM was so expensive back then that very few people had more than 4GB of RAM. these days if we buy a new server from HP we usually just get it with 32GB of RAM since it's so cheap
Reply
Reply
post #136 of 235
8/12/09 at 7:38am
This is my first post on here.

I enjoy all the technical talk on here and one day I hope to understand some of it...

I bought my Macbook 13" on June 23rd (birthday present to myself). It has Intel Core 2 Duo- 4GB 800MHz DDR2 SDRAM - 2x2GB 250GB Serial ATA Drive @ 5400 rpm (I did a cut and paste from Apple...)

Since I fell under the 'uptodate' upgrade to Snow Leopard timeline, (or so I thought) I clicked on the link to participate in the $9.95 upgrade. Long story short-the upgrade was put in my cart. I then bought Airport Express and when I checked out, I got an error that I already had my limit of Snow Leopard and it took it out of the cart.

I don't understand what happened. I checked my software updates and it is not on there.

Has anyone else had this happen? Am I missing something here? (I'm not usually this ignorant on stuff-but this has me baffled)...

Any help or advice? Thank you in advance!

Diane
There's a fine line between curiosity and stupidity.
Reply
There's a fine line between curiosity and stupidity.
Reply
post #137 of 235
8/12/09 at 7:55am
Quote:
Originally Posted by al_bundy View Post

microsoft had a 64bit version of Windows NT 4 for DEC Alpha back in the late 1990's. and for a few other 64 bit CPU's. they dropped it in windows 2000 and didn't do a 64bit OS until Windows 2003/Win XP when x64 came out.

RAM was so expensive back then that very few people had more than 4GB of RAM. these days if we buy a new server from HP we usually just get it with 32GB of RAM since it's so cheap

What most people don't understand is that Microsoft does upgrades like 64 bit to be able to stamp on their advert: "OH LOOK! We have 64 bit!!". But it is all half-assed and doesn't go anyware.

On the other hand apple is advertising: "OH LOOK our applications are 90% faster, oh yes and it is because of 64-bit". You see the difference?
Reply
Reply
post #138 of 235
8/12/09 at 8:39am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_CA View Post

Yes they would. The "normal" up-to-date" program is within 90 days of purchase.
Snow Leopard up-to-date is "if youve purchased a qualifying computer or Xserve on or after June 8, 2009 that does not include Mac OS X Snow Leopard, you can upgrade to Mac OS X Snow Leopard for $9.95."

http://www.apple.com/macosx/uptodate/

No - the text on that page does say that it must be within 90 days of purchase. The main headline doesn't, but the finer print half-way down does say "This program ends December 26, 2009. Your completed order form must be postmarked or faxed within 90 days of the date of your purchase of a qualifying computer or Xserve (described in this offer) or by December 26, 2009, whichever is earlier."

I bought a MacBook Pro just after June 8th, so I have only 90 days after that date to order the upgrade.
Reply
Reply
post #139 of 235
8/12/09 at 8:43am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Di623 View Post

I don't understand what happened. I checked my software updates and it is not on there.

What's not there? Snow Leopard? It has not been released yet. It should be out in september.
This thread is about a Developers Preview of SL.
Reply
Reply
post #140 of 235
8/12/09 at 8:53am
Got a new iMac 3.06GHz 24" recently to replace my 2007 model. Specced it up to 8GHz, not cheap as you can imagine. Made sure it had the top GPU ATI Radeon HD 4850 installed and I've had Snow Leopard rebate on back order for about a month at £7.95 ($13.05).

Sweet. Nothing like being prepared. All I've got to do is beat the bank manager away from my door now wanting money. Needs must.
Reply
Reply
post #141 of 235
8/12/09 at 9:34am
I have the latest Mac Pro, but NO 64 bit support???


ModelnaamtMac Pro
ModelaanduidingtMacPro4,1
ProcessornaamtQuad-Core Intel Xeon
Processorsnelheidt2,93 GHz
Aantal processorst1
Totaal aantal corest4
L2-cache (per core)t256 KB
L3-cachet8 MB
Geheugent8 GB
Interconnectsnelheid processort4.8 GT/s
Opstart-ROM-versietMP41.0081.B03


SysteemversietMac OS X 10.6 (10A421a)
KernelversietDarwin 10.0.0
OpstartvolumetOS X
OpstartmodustNormaal
ComputernaamtMacProFvdG
GebruikersnaamtFvdG (fvdg)
Beveiligd virtueel geheugentNiet geactiveerd
64-bits kernel en extensiestNee
Tijd sinds opstartent4:58


???????
Reply
Reply
post #142 of 235
8/12/09 at 9:55am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Logisticaldron View Post

The ability to run the 64-bit kernel is based on more than having a 64-bit CPU. MacBooks and MacBook Pros with only the Nvidia IGP will not have the 64-bit kernel option, and i don’t think older MBPs will get the option as well.

That would be unbelievably foolish on Apple's part. 64bit means 1 thing: larger addressing space. This applies to a number of different things, most visible to the *consumer* would be ram, but all are important. Additionally, we gain a large speed increase on x86 moving to 64bit because AMD took advantage of the move to 64bit to add more registers to the spec for AMD64 (which intel kept in their version, EM64T).

The ability to run a 64bit kernel and execute 64bit compiled programs should not be effected by the the IGP at all, it doesn't touch it. Additionally, having even a 32-bit chipset (like my 2.33 MBP) shouldn't be a problem except that the *chipset* will limit addressable memory to ~3.2GB. I run a pure 64bit copy of debian on my MBP already and if Apple were truly foolish enough to not support 64bit on it in MacOS 10.6 I would be astounded.

In short, it's possible that select models in the dev builds had 64bit off because they hadn't compiled a kernel for that model that was 64bit yet (or select builds did, or the machine was booted into a 32bit kernel because of a bug, or... etc), but I *really* doubt that any machine with a 64bit proc won't be supported with a 64bit kernel in the optical release.
MBP (15, 2.33, 3GB,10.6/win/lin on 250GB)
MP (3,1 oct 2.8, 10GB. 10.6 on 4x1TB RAID10, Win/Lin on 1x2TB, 2407WFP on 1x5770 + 2xSamsung 910t on 1xGT120)
also a lot of other systems :-p
I met a...
Reply
MBP (15, 2.33, 3GB,10.6/win/lin on 250GB)
MP (3,1 oct 2.8, 10GB. 10.6 on 4x1TB RAID10, Win/Lin on 1x2TB, 2407WFP on 1x5770 + 2xSamsung 910t on 1xGT120)
also a lot of other systems :-p
I met a...
Reply
post #143 of 235
8/12/09 at 9:58am
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Much of the speed advantages we read about in 10.6 will be there in the 32 bit version as well.

And very few 64 bit programs will see any speed advantages over their 32 bit counterparts.

Not true! With few exceptions, x64 code runs significantly faster than 32-bit x86 code. Most (not all) of the speed-up comes from the x64 instruction set supporting twice as many hardware registers as the x86 instruction set, so fewer load/store operations to/from memory are required in optimized code.

But the vast majority of users with 64-bit Intel processors that (for whatever reason) have to run the 32-bit kernel will not be running kernel code most of the day. The vast majority of the time, they will be running 64-bit apps--when available--and the vast majority of the computation time will take place within the apps. For the vast majority of users it won't matter whether they run the 32-bit or 64-bit kernel. The principal benefit to having 64-bit hardware will come from running 64-bit apps.
Reply
Reply
post #144 of 235
8/12/09 at 10:02am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foo2 View Post

Not true! With few exceptions, x64 code runs significantly faster than 32-bit x86 code.

But the vast majority of users with 64-bit Intel processors that (for whatever reason) have to run the 32-bit kernel will not be running kernel code most of the day. The vast majority of the time, they will be running 64-bit apps--when available--and the vast majority of the computation time will take place within the apps.


First of all, as I said above, I doubt that in the final release there will be a single 64bit cpu unsupported with the 64bit kernel.

Second of all, I expect that a lot of the parallel optimization that Apple seems to be focusing on will significantly increase speed regardless of a 64bit compile. (can't wait to see how that'll speed the system on my oct MP :-p)
MBP (15, 2.33, 3GB,10.6/win/lin on 250GB)
MP (3,1 oct 2.8, 10GB. 10.6 on 4x1TB RAID10, Win/Lin on 1x2TB, 2407WFP on 1x5770 + 2xSamsung 910t on 1xGT120)
also a lot of other systems :-p
I met a...
Reply
MBP (15, 2.33, 3GB,10.6/win/lin on 250GB)
MP (3,1 oct 2.8, 10GB. 10.6 on 4x1TB RAID10, Win/Lin on 1x2TB, 2407WFP on 1x5770 + 2xSamsung 910t on 1xGT120)
also a lot of other systems :-p
I met a...
Reply
post #145 of 235
8/12/09 at 10:03am
Quote:
Originally Posted by seek3r View Post

That would be unbelievably foolish on Apple's part. 64bit means 1 thing: larger addressing space. This applies to a number of different things, most visible to the *consumer* would be ram, but all are important. Additionally, we gain a large speed increase on x86 moving to 64bit because AMD took advantage of the move to 64bit to add more registers to the spec for AMD64 (which intel kept in their version, EM64T).

The ability to run a 64bit kernel and execute 64bit compiled programs should not be effected by the the IGP at all, it doesn't touch it. Additionally, having even a 32-bit chipset (like my 2.33 MBP) shouldn't be a problem except that the *chipset* will limit addressable memory to ~3.2GB. I run a pure 64bit copy of debian on my MBP already and if Apple were truly foolish enough to not support 64bit on it in MacOS 10.6 I would be astounded.

In short, it's possible that select models in the dev builds had 64bit off because they hadn't compiled a kernel for that model that was 64bit yet (or select builds did, or the machine was booted into a 32bit kernel because of a bug, or... etc), but I *really* doubt that any machine with a 64bit proc won't be supported with a 64bit kernel in the optical release.

See- that's what I am thinking- they just don't have the kernel switched on for mbp 3,1 and other 64-bit capable machines. I would love it if someone could post on the developers forum and get straight answer on this...
Reply
Reply
post #146 of 235
8/12/09 at 10:15am
Still do NOT understand:

Hardware Overview:

Model NametMac Pro
Model IdentifiertMacPro4,1
Processor NametQuad-Core Intel Xeon
Processor Speedt2,93 GHz
Number Of Processorst1
Total Number Of Corest4
L2 Cache (per core)t256 KB
L3 Cachet8 MB
Memoryt8 GB
Processor Interconnect Speedt4.8 GT/s
Boot ROM VersiontMP41.0081.B03
SMC Version (system)t1.39f5
SMC Version (processor tray)t1.39f5


This is the latest 2009 Mac Pro.
but:

System VersiontMac OS X 10.6 (10A421a)
Kernel VersiontDarwin 10.0.0
Boot VolumetOS X
Boot ModetNormal
Computer NametMacProFvdG
User NametFvdG (fvdg)
Secure Virtual MemorytNot Enabled
64-bit Kernel and ExtensionstNo
Time since boott5:39


??
What does this mean...?
Reply
Reply
post #147 of 235
8/12/09 at 10:16am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macteach View Post

I have the latest Mac Pro, but NO 64 bit support???

64-bits kernel en extensiestNee

Of course you have 64-bit support. You can run 64-bit apps just fine, regardless of which kernel is being run. And Snow Leopard might boot the 64-bit kernel successfully if you press the magic 64 keys at boot time, but not by default unless you change nvram settings. You probably won't be able to perceive the difference between the 32-bit and 64-bit kernels, though.
Reply
Reply
post #148 of 235
8/12/09 at 10:16am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macteach View Post

I have the latest Mac Pro, but NO 64 bit support???


ModelnaamtMac Pro
ModelaanduidingtMacPro4,1
ProcessornaamtQuad-Core Intel Xeon
Processorsnelheidt2,93 GHz
Aantal processorst1
Totaal aantal corest4
L2-cache (per core)t256 KB
L3-cachet8 MB
Geheugent8 GB
Interconnectsnelheid processort4.8 GT/s
Opstart-ROM-versietMP41.0081.B03


SysteemversietMac OS X 10.6 (10A421a)
KernelversietDarwin 10.0.0
OpstartvolumetOS X
OpstartmodustNormaal
ComputernaamtMacProFvdG
GebruikersnaamtFvdG (fvdg)
Beveiligd virtueel geheugentNiet geactiveerd
64-bits kernel en extensiestNee
Tijd sinds opstartent4:58


???????

This is because at least on pre-release versions of the Snow Leopard, Apple has enabled the 64 bit kernel only on XServe machines, and no other hardware. You can manually enable the 64 bit kernel in several ways (temporary is to press 6 and 4 keys when booting and the other is to modify nvram params).

The whole speculation here is if this is going to be default behavior in the release version of Snow Leopard, or if perhaps 64 bit kernel will be a choice during install or even default on all supported hardware. If the premise of this article we are commenting on is true, then it may be that the release version will behave the same as the pre-release versions, in which case no mac out there will be running 64 bit kernel by default, which is a sad state of affairs.

Mac Pro, 8 Core, 32 GB RAM, nVidia GTX 285 1 GB, 2 TB storage, 240 GB OWC Mercury Extreme SSD, 30'' Cinema Display, 27'' iMac, 24'' iMac, 17'' MBP, 13'' MBP, 32 GB iPhone 4, 64 GB iPad 3

Reply

Mac Pro, 8 Core, 32 GB RAM, nVidia GTX 285 1 GB, 2 TB storage, 240 GB OWC Mercury Extreme SSD, 30'' Cinema Display, 27'' iMac, 24'' iMac, 17'' MBP, 13'' MBP, 32 GB iPhone 4, 64 GB iPad 3

Reply
post #149 of 235
8/12/09 at 10:17am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario View Post

Ok, as it is now, no Mac computer out there in the wild will install 64 bit kernel by default except XServe

Snow Leopard installs the 64-bit kernel, drivers and apps for more than the Xserve, but its the Xserve that has the 64-bit kernel (and drivers) on by default. 64-bit apps will run on a 32-bit kernel just fine, that is a separate issue


Quote:
Originally Posted by lenny View Post

What's not there? Snow Leopard? It has not been released yet. It should be out in september.
This thread is about a Developers Preview of SL.

He may be running the Snow Leopard beta. The last 4 or 5 updates have been coming through Software Updater, which has been a convenient touch.


Quote:
Originally Posted by seek3r View Post

The ability to run a 64bit kernel and execute 64bit compiled programs should not be effected by the the IGP at all, it doesn't touch it. Additionally, having even a 32-bit chipset (like my 2.33 MBP) shouldn't be a problem except that the *chipset* will limit addressable memory to ~3.2GB. I run a pure 64bit copy of debian on my MBP already and if Apple were truly foolish enough to not support 64bit on it in MacOS 10.6 I would be astounded.

In short, it's possible that select models in the dev builds had 64bit off because they hadn't compiled a kernel for that model that was 64bit yet (or select builds did, or the machine was booted into a 32bit kernel because of a bug, or... etc), but I *really* doubt that any machine with a 64bit proc won't be supported with a 64bit kernel in the optical release.

I feel like I started a war on here. I can only say what Apple has done so far and have posted an image earlier from the Seed Notes that show which machines have 64-bit kernel (and driver) support. I have a 13 MBP with a 64-bit EFI, 64-bit CPU and 64-bit chipset, but we at the cusp of going Golden Master and I havent been able to test running Snow Leopard with a 640bit kernel to even test drivers.
Reply
Reply
post #150 of 235
8/12/09 at 10:19am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Logisticaldron View Post

Snow Leopard installs the 64-bit kernel, drivers and apps for more than the Xserve, but its the Xserve that has the 64-bit kernel (and drivers) on by default. 64-bit apps will run on a 32-bit kernel just fine, that is a separate issue

Yes, I'm fully aware of that, and that's exactly what I mean when I say that no mac out there will be running 64 bit kernel (since it is not the default kernel used). Unless Apple changes how things work for release, that means that only people who go out of their way to boot with 64 bit kernel will have it.

Mac Pro, 8 Core, 32 GB RAM, nVidia GTX 285 1 GB, 2 TB storage, 240 GB OWC Mercury Extreme SSD, 30'' Cinema Display, 27'' iMac, 24'' iMac, 17'' MBP, 13'' MBP, 32 GB iPhone 4, 64 GB iPad 3

Reply

Mac Pro, 8 Core, 32 GB RAM, nVidia GTX 285 1 GB, 2 TB storage, 240 GB OWC Mercury Extreme SSD, 30'' Cinema Display, 27'' iMac, 24'' iMac, 17'' MBP, 13'' MBP, 32 GB iPhone 4, 64 GB iPad 3

Reply
post #151 of 235
8/12/09 at 10:22am
I hope everyone appreciates how easy Apple has made it for users to transition from the 32-bit to 64-bit world!

Much of what's discussed here is irrelevant to the vast majority users, because the principal benefit of running 64-bit GUI apps has been available since Leopard. Snow Leopard will bring further performance improvements and 64-bitness to Apple's own apps. All of these improvements have and will be available through relatively easy and painless system upgrades.

In contrast, Windows users who wish to migrate from 32-bit to 64-bit are required to do a clean install. Pity.
Reply
Reply
post #152 of 235
8/12/09 at 10:23am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario View Post

Yes, I'm fully aware of that, and that's exactly what I mean when I say that no mac out there will be running 64 bit kernel (since it is not the default kernel used). Unless Apple changes how things work for release, that means that only people who go out of their way to boot with 64 bit kernel will have it.

I see that now in post 148. The use of the word of install through me, since many still dont get how Apple can have both kernels be available in the same OS install and easily switchable when Windows requires a separate installation to go switch if you had a legacy driver not yet updated to 64-bit.
Reply
Reply
post #153 of 235
8/12/09 at 10:25am
Quote:
Originally Posted by iansilv View Post

[Well, I've got a 64-bit efi, so I guess I will get a 64-bit kernel. A least I hope so. I think Apple might have disabled it in only a select group of machines during development and testing, we will ave to wait and see.

Man. This is still unclear. Will a mid 08 run pure 64? 2.4 mbpro with express slot right before uni body. Will be shocked if it requires new hardware. Apple will face some big battles IMHO.

Ps. I can see dl it from usenet because you want goldmaster now but then you should pay for it. Only reason I could see not paying us if the 64 bit doesn't work. But if there is any imrovement at all, you really should as what comes around goes around. I have some audio wares. Most studios do. I plan on buying this whole set of stuff. Why? Because I scored a tralier with a $99 sound card and sonic foundry acid that I got free as a beta tester and have never made money with warez. So I think you have to own it to be blessed IMHO.
Reply
Reply
post #154 of 235
8/12/09 at 10:27am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foo2 View Post

In contrast, Windows users who wish to migrate from 32-bit to 64-bit are required to do a clean install. Pity.

Im sure there will be more than a few Windows users that will run across a scenario where they have to use some old HW but find that the old hardware has no 640bit driver available. They wont simply be able to restart holding down the 3 and 2 to make it work properly like Mac users can. Apple really has done this in the most user friendly way possible.
Reply
Reply
post #155 of 235
8/12/09 at 10:27am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario View Post

that means that only people who go out of their way to boot with 64 bit kernel will have it.

That makes sense, doesn't it? Most of the drivers out today are 32-bit. The 64-bit kernel won't load them. Until drivers are routinely 64-bit, why make a 64-bit kernel the default, particularly when the advantages to running a 64-bit kernel are pretty minimal anyway. Most of the goodness in running 64-bit hardware comes from running 64-bit apps.

(Note: on PowerPC architectures, as well as UltraSPARC and Alpha, 32-bit code tends to run faster than 64-bit code, except when the increased precision and larger memory addresses are actually required and utilized extensively within an app. These architectures were all newer than x86 and had no need to replicate the crippled legacy design of Intel x86 in their 32-bit incarnations).
Reply
Reply
post #156 of 235
8/12/09 at 10:30am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foo2 View Post

That makes sense, doesn't it? Most of the drivers out there today are 32-bit. The 64-bit kernel won't load them. Until drivers are routinely 64-bit, why make a 64-bit kernel the default, particularly when the advantages to running a 64-bit kernel are pretty minimal anyway. Most of the goodness in running 64-bit hardware comes from running 64-bit apps.

I think Apple should address this specific question:

What Mac, Macbook, and Macbook Pro models will run a 64-bit kernel?


I don't care about arguments of being able to perceive a different in performance, or whether or not it will matter. I want to know if my MBP will run a 64-bit kernel.
Reply
Reply
post #157 of 235
8/12/09 at 10:30am
Quote:
Originally Posted by hiimamac View Post

Man. This is still unclear. Will a mid 08 run pure 64? 2.4 mbpro with express slot right before uni body. Will be shocked if it requires new hardware. Apple will face some big battles IMHO.

How can it be unclear? I posted a chart right from the Seed Notes showing which MBP models will be able to run in 64-bit mode. To find your model go to System Profiler.
Reply
Reply
post #158 of 235
8/12/09 at 10:44am
Quote:
Originally Posted by iansilv View Post

I don't care about arguments of being able to perceive a different in performance, or whether or not it will matter. I want to know if my MBP will run a 64-bit kernel.

Me, too!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Logisticaldron View Post

How can it be unclear? I posted a chart right from the Seed Notes showing which MBP models will be able to run in 64-bit mode. To find your model go to System Profiler.

Okay, I give up. You've now said twice that you've posted it. Now, where did you post it?
Reply
Reply
post #159 of 235
8/12/09 at 10:48am
So will 10.6 automatically prune PPC code from all applications including those from 3rd parties? If so, then we can see even more space savings...
Reply
Reply
post #160 of 235
8/12/09 at 10:48am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foo2 View Post

Okay, I give up. You've now said twice that you've posted it. Now, where did you post it?

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...87#post1463587
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac OS X
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Apple's Snow Leopard rumored to be Gold Master