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 5

post #161 of 235
8/12/09 at 11:03am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Logisticaldron View Post

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...87#post1463587

OK great- that's from the seed notes. Where can we get a chart describing which models will have 64-bit kernels on the final version of Snow Leopard?
Reply
Reply
post #162 of 235
8/12/09 at 11:04am
I have iMac 9,1 and I am waiting on the DVD to arrive via the up-to-date program once it is released.

April Beta Seed 64 bit compatible table.
Most of us employ the Internet not to seek the best information, but rather to select information that confirms our prejudices. - Nicholas D. Kristof
Reply
Most of us employ the Internet not to seek the best information, but rather to select information that confirms our prejudices. - Nicholas D. Kristof
Reply
post #163 of 235
8/12/09 at 11:05am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcarling View Post

If history is any indication, we can expect 10.7 to follow 10.6 by one to two years (or perhaps a bit more). That makes it likely that the newest 32-bit Macs will be approximately 4.5 to 5 years old when 10.7 will be introduced. The average age of a 32-bit Intel Mac will probably be over 5 years (perhaps even 6 years). Apple's general policy is to remove support for five year old hardware, as convenient opportunities arise to do so. It's difficult to imagine a more convenient opportunity to drop 32-bit CPU support, more inline with Apple's generally desired timing, than 10.7. Is it conceivable that Apple might drop support for 32-bit CPUs only with 10.8? It's conceivable, but the chances seem only a little bit more likely than a return to PowerPC.

The problem with dropping hardware support after less than about five years is that it reduces customer satisfaction. The problem with dropping hardware support after more than about five years is that it reduces sales.

I don't like making these kinds of predictions, because what is happening now with Apple's processors is not what happened before.

When Apple moved to an entirely different architecture going from 68xxxx to PPC, they dropped support because the technologies were so different and it was difficult to support features that were only found on the PPC, on the older 68xxxx. Same thing with PPC to Intel. Totally different architectures. As Intel moved away from more standard designs that weren't all that different in the features they supported from the G5's, supporting the older chips became a liability because of the increasing expense.

But this isn't so true with 32 bit x86 vs 64 bit x86. While it's true that newer chips support more sophisticated vector processors, memory etc, the basic ship architectures will continue to be the same.

Because of that, supporting 32 bit for one more generation of the OS is not out of the question. It now becomes a matter of marketing, sales numbers, and philosophy for Apple.

But much of the technical reasons won't be there.

By 10.8, it will be different for certain.
Reply
Reply
post #164 of 235
8/12/09 at 11:06am
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I don't like making these kinds of predictions, because what is happening now with Apple's processors is not what happened before.

When Apple moved to an entirely different architecture going from 68xxxx to PPC, they dropped support because the technologies were so different and it was difficult to support features that were only found on the PPC, on the older 68xxxx. Same thing with PPC to Intel. Totally different architectures. As Intel moved away from more standard designs that weren't all that different in the features they supported from the G5's, supporting the older chips became a liability because of the increasing expense.

But this isn't so true with 32 bit x86 vs 64 bit x86. While it's true that newer chips support more sophisticated vector processors, memory etc, the basic ship architectures will continue to be the same.

Because of that, supporting 32 bit for one more generation of the OS is not out of the question. It now becomes a matter of marketing, sales numbers, and philosophy for Apple.

But much of the technical reasons won't be there.

By 10.8, it will be different for certain.

I thought you didn't like making those kinds of predictions?
Reply
Reply
post #165 of 235
8/12/09 at 11:08am
Quote:
Originally Posted by zaphod4269 View Post

Ice cream is a real, physical thing and is a limited resource.

Software, music, etc... can be duplicated on a computer without 'taking' anything from anyone.

copying is not stealing.

Your definition of "stealing" is self serving, and you know it. Your lack of understanding of what constitutes a product is amazing.
Reply
Reply
post #166 of 235
8/12/09 at 11:10am
Quote:
Originally Posted by iansilv View Post

OK great- that's from the seed notes. Where can we get a chart describing which models will have 64-bit kernels on the final version of Snow Leopard?

You cant. That is the best we have, but at this point in the game to think that all Macs with 64-bit CPUs and 64-bit chipsets will have a 64-bit EFI and be capable of loading a 64-bit kernel is unlikely considering that we are at the cusp of going Golden Master and there has been absolutely no developer testing of the 64-bit kernel for their most common machine hardware. Maybe they are having some problems and will include it later, this is Apple were talking about so we are foolish to expect them to fully disclose their future plans to us as its not in their nature. WE know what we know and we can infer some basic things. If your MBP is on that list then you are golden, if not, then you are likely SoL for the time being.
Reply
Reply
post #167 of 235
8/12/09 at 11:32am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Logisticaldron View Post

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...87#post1463587

I guess in place of the chart you posted, I see a little blue square with a question mark in the middle.
Reply
Reply
post #168 of 235
8/12/09 at 11:34am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foo2 View Post

I guess in place of the chart you posted, I see a little blue square with a question mark in the middle.

Here is a direct link to the image

http://images.worldofapple.com/sl64_grid.png
Reply
Reply
post #169 of 235
8/12/09 at 11:48am
Ah, yes I see now:

64-bits kernel en extensiestJa

But where in the notes is this about nvram? (don't see it- Holding 4 and 6 works indeed)
Reply
Reply
post #170 of 235
8/12/09 at 12:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macteach View Post

Ah, yes I see now:

64-bits kernel en extensiestJa

But where in the notes is this about nvram? (don't see it- Holding 4 and 6 works indeed)

You do it by running the following command (permanently boot with 64 bit kernel).

sudo nvram boot-args=arch=x86_64″

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 #171 of 235
8/12/09 at 12:04pm
As a service to the community, this is an attempt to summarize the compatibility situation of all Macs.

[CENTER][/CENTER]

The table will be edited to take comments and new information into account. (Thanks to : Foo2)
Reply
Reply
post #172 of 235
8/12/09 at 12:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BertP View Post

This thread has been a surprising and disappointing read since I knew I had a Core 2 Duo 64-bit CPU. But that CPU is a Merom version, prior to the Penryn version, so if the seed notes are correct, there will be not a 64-bit kernel for an iMac 7,1. From what I can see in the Activity Monitor, even after I open many apps, only about 1 GB of memory is utilized out of the 4GB installed. Nevertheless, I'm floored that only a portion of the Core 2 Duo CPUs will be 64-bit capable.

According to Intel's specs, you can only get 4MB of Ram for the 965 Express chipset, even though it uses 64 bit DIMMS.

It has a 32 bit downstream address in the DMI.

Chipset caches are 64 bit.

The chipset addresses 64 GB of addressable memory space. This answers some questions.

The processors have a 36 bit address interface.

It's not clear to me that any of the Santa Rosa platforms are capable of handling a 64 bit OS at the kernel level.

True for Windows or Mac.

Can someone else, who actually KNOWS (rather than assuming they know) explain this further?
Reply
Reply
post #173 of 235
8/12/09 at 12:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by nccyr View Post

From what I can tell (history's getting a bit foggy now), Red Hat Linux 2.1 for DEC Alpha (fully 64-bit) was available some time in 1996.

Not sure about Windows, but I seem to remember something with the number 98 in it.

Were not talking about that.

We're talking about Macs, PC's and desktop Linux.
Reply
Reply
post #174 of 235
8/12/09 at 12:08pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ltcommander.data View Post

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.

From what I just saw when looking Intel's information sheets for Santa Rosa, it doesn't look as though it can.
Reply
Reply
post #175 of 235
8/12/09 at 12:16pm
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 (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.

That's not entirely true. It's a matter of drivers. If the drivers are there, then it's no problem. If they aren't, well, then it's the 64 bit Vista problem.

Obviously, Apple will lock a 64 bit kernel out when there are no 64 bit drivers.

That doesn't mean that we won't see support coming soon.

You can show XP 64 bit users on one hand. It was of no importance at all, as the Windows community's howling about it showed.

And Linux couldn't run on a desktop in 64 bit mode with a 64 bit kernel either without the chip support, which is only recent in consumer machine availability.

If Apple's Xserves will automatically boot the 64 bit kernel as we're reading they will, then by your standards, Apple will have full 64 bit OS support starting in September, no matter what the other machines may have.
Reply
Reply
post #176 of 235
8/12/09 at 12:17pm
Man, so many people getting worked up over this, when the real-world difference for most people will be undetectable. I wonder if Apple sarcastically announced a 65-bit OS how many people would worry and fret that their particular laptop couldn't take advantage of that extra bit?

This reminds me of self-proclaimed 'audiophiles' arguing over how many oxygen-free strands are in their speaker cables...
Reply
Reply
post #177 of 235
8/12/09 at 12:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario View Post

Sure, here you go:

http://barefeats.com/harper10.html

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



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.

Wow! You can't even read the report properly.

By the way, I see from all your posts here that you're trolling.

Why bother? Does it make you feel good to give only partly correct information, while disregarding the rest?
Reply
Reply
post #178 of 235
8/12/09 at 12:21pm
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

But again, we're not talking about those. We're talking about desktop Macs, PC's and Linux machines. Not servers, not heavy duty multi-chip (a big deal back then) workstations, not mini-computers.
Reply
Reply
post #179 of 235
8/12/09 at 12:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Logisticaldron View Post

Here is a direct link to the image

http://images.worldofapple.com/sl64_grid.png

The list of K64 "Capable" systems is incomplete. For one at least, "MacPro4,1" is the Nehalem generation of Mac Pro, which is listed, but the unlisted Harpertown generation ("MacPro3,1") also has a 64-bit EFI and will be able to run the 64-bit kernel.
Reply
Reply
post #180 of 235
8/12/09 at 12:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dlux View Post

I wonder if Apple sarcastically announced a 65-bit OS how many people would worry and fret that their particular laptop couldn't take advantage of that extra bit?

I sleep soundly, knowing my Mac Pro will run the new 65-bit OS.
Reply
Reply
post #181 of 235
8/12/09 at 12:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pascal007 View Post

As a service to the community, this is an attempt to summarize the compatibility situation of all Macs.

[CENTER][/CENTER]

I'm a bit (no pun intended) confused by the Snow Leopard column. Beneath that column, where it reads "32-bit Core" and "Core", do you perhaps mean "Kernel"?
Reply
Reply
post #182 of 235
8/12/09 at 12:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foo2 View Post

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.

Sorry, but it is true.

Yes, if you had old Windows code, written for old x86 cpus, then a re write of your 8 bit, 16 bit, 32 bit mangled code, written for the old chips will run faster. The main difference is the larger number of 64 bit registers over the smaller number of shorter registers.

But Apple never had programs with that old code written for the old chips. Yonah was the oldest chip they ran on. The same thing for Apple's third party developers.

As a result, Apple could take advantage of the better support in Yonah, and then went directly to the 64 bit chips.

so we won't see the differences Windows users have seen with SOME software.

There is still the overhead of needing all 64 bit instruction memory resources, and the extra time to run those 64 bit instructions, and other problems associated with it.

The result can very well be a wash.
Reply
Reply
post #183 of 235
8/12/09 at 12:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by iansilv View Post

I thought you didn't like making those kinds of predictions?

I knew someone wouldn't read what I said carefully, and would say that.

I made no prediction there.

What I did say is that there is no technical reason why Apple couldn't support 32 bit for one more upgrade beyond 10.6. I gave reasons why it was to difficult to do so before, as he was using examples from the past to support his contention.

Whether they will or won't isn't something I'm predicting.
Reply
Reply
post #184 of 235
8/12/09 at 12:42pm
I'm a geek, so I'm fascinated by all of these little intricacies, but ultimately I just want the OS do what I want/need with minimal annoyances, stability, and intuitive, classy GUI.

If OS X 10.6 does that, I'll be a happy camper - 64 bit or not.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #185 of 235
8/12/09 at 12:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Logisticaldron View Post

You cant. That is the best we have, but at this point in the game to think that all Macs with 64-bit CPUs and 64-bit chipsets will have a 64-bit EFI and be capable of loading a 64-bit kernel is unlikely considering that we are at the cusp of going Golden Master and there has been absolutely no developer testing of the 64-bit kernel for their most common machine hardware. Maybe they are having some problems and will include it later, this is Apple were talking about so we are foolish to expect them to fully disclose their future plans to us as its not in their nature. WE know what we know and we can infer some basic things. If your MBP is on that list then you are golden, if not, then you are likely SoL for the time being.

It just seems as though this is mostly driver issues. If they will run it on the Xserve with its reliance on reliability, then it's ready for primetime.

MS had to write many drivers themselves for 64 Vista because so many third parties either weren't going to be ready, or weren't bothering. They still had massive problems for at least a year after release. Some of that was due to the signing, but much of it was not.

It's possible that Apple is having the same problems with drivers, and doesn't want the resultant problems. Xserves wouldn't be expected to interact with so many third party peripherals, so would be good to go.
Reply
Reply
post #186 of 235
8/12/09 at 1:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foo2 View Post

The list of K64 "Capable" systems is incomplete. For one at least, "MacPro4,1" is the Nehalem generation of Mac Pro, which is listed, but the unlisted Harpertown generation ("MacPro3,1") also has a 64-bit EFI and will be able to run the 64-bit kernel.

Just having the 64-bit CPU, chipset and EFI doesn’t mean you will have access to the 64-bit kernel. I have all those on a 13” MBP and yet I can’t load the 64-bit kernel despite System Profiler stating quite clearly

BSDKernel:

Versiont10.0.0
Last Modifiedt7/24/09 8:31 PM
Get Info StringtBSD Kernel Pseudoextension, Apple Computer Inc, 10.0.0
KindtUniversal
Architecturesti386, ppc, x86_64
64-Bit (Intel)tYes
Locationt/System/Library/Extensions/System.kext/PlugIns/BSDKernel.kext
Kext Versiont10.0.0
Load Addresst(built-in to the kernel)
ValidtYes
AuthentictYes
DependenciestSatisfied

Being technically possible doesn’t mean that Apple is going to greenlight it.



Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

It just seems as though this is mostly driver issues. If they will run it on the Xserve with its reliance on reliability, then it's ready for primetime.

MS had to write many drivers themselves for 64 Vista because so many third parties either weren't going to be ready, or weren't bothering. They still had massive problems for at least a year after release. Some of that was due to the signing, but much of it was not.

It's possible that Apple is having the same problems with drivers, and doesn't want the resultant problems. Xserves wouldn't be expected to interact with so many third party peripherals, so would be good to go.

I’m sure it is. As you say, very few peripherals are plugged into servers so it’s easy to be assured that Xserves would have the 64-bit drivers required. Macs are a different story and I understand why defaulting to a 32-bit kernel is the smart move, what I don’t get is the inability for certain Macs that appear to match all the necessary criteria to not even be capable of loading the 64-bit kernel.
Reply
Reply
post #187 of 235
8/12/09 at 1:08pm
Hello Guys, I think this debate that a 64bit cpu with a 32bit EFI will not run a 64bit kernel is useless because I am running both Mac OS X Snow Leopard 10A421a and Ubuntu 9.04 64 bit on my mid 2007 core 2 duo mac mini. Though my mac has 32 bit EFI it happily loaded the 64 bit kernel of Ubuntu with all the drivers etc. Thus I am quite confident that I am running Snow Leopard in pure 64 bit mode.
Reply
Reply
post #188 of 235
8/12/09 at 1:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Logisticaldron View Post

Just having the 64-bit CPU, chipset and EFI doesnt mean you will have access to the 64-bit kernel. I have all those on a 13 MBP and yet I cant load the 64-bit kernel despite System Profiler stating quite clearly

BSDKernel:

Versiont10.0.0
Last Modifiedt7/24/09 8:31 PM
Get Info StringtBSD Kernel Pseudoextension, Apple Computer Inc, 10.0.0
KindtUniversal
Architecturesti386, ppc, x86_64
64-Bit (Intel)tYes
Locationt/System/Library/Extensions/System.kext/PlugIns/BSDKernel.kext
Kext Versiont10.0.0
Load Addresst(built-in to the kernel)
ValidtYes
AuthentictYes
DependenciestSatisfied

Being technically possible doesnt mean that Apple is going to greenlight it.




Im sure it is. As you say, very few peripherals are plugged into servers so its easy to be assured that Xserves would have the 64-bit drivers required. Macs are a different story and I understand why defaulting to a 32-bit kernel is the smart move, what I dont get is the inability for certain Macs that appear to match all the necessary criteria to not even be capable of loading the 64-bit kernel.

Well, I question whether the information as to the architecture being x86 64 bit follows through to the 965 chipset, or the 3000, or the 3100. It could just be referring to the cpu. In that case, it might not be possible.
Reply
Reply
post #189 of 235
8/12/09 at 1:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by skhalil View Post

Hello Guys, I think this debate that a 64bit cpu with a 32bit EFI will not run a 64bit kernel is useless because I am running both Mac OS X Snow Leopard 10A421a and Ubuntu 9.04 64 bit on my mid 2007 core 2 duo mac mini. Though my mac has 32 bit EFI it happily loaded the 64 bit kernel of Ubuntu with all the drivers etc. Thus I am quite confident that I am running Snow Leopard in pure 64 bit mode.

That is a fallacious conclusion. As we’ve been discussing, what Apple is allowing may not be the upper limits of what is technically possible.

If your /Library/Preferences/SystemConfiguration/com.apple.Boot.plist has a null value for Kernel Flag then you are running a 32-bit kernel. You can also click on Software in System Profiler to see if 64-bit Kernel and Extensions: says Yes or No.
Reply
Reply
post #190 of 235
8/12/09 at 1:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Well, I question whether the information as to the architecture being x86 64 bit follows through to the 965 chipset, or the 3000, or the 3100. It could just be referring to the cpu. In that case, it might not be possible.

Good point.
Reply
Reply
post #191 of 235
8/12/09 at 1:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Logisticaldron View Post

That is a fallacious conclusion. As we’ve been discussing, what Apple is allowing may not be the upper limits of what is technically possible.

If your /Library/Preferences/SystemConfiguration/com.apple.Boot.plist has a null value for Kernel Flag then you are running a 32-bit kernel. You can also click on Software in System Profiler to see if 64-bit Kernel and Extensions: says Yes or No.

Hello Dear, This is what is mentioned under my BSD Kernel in System profiler:
BSDKernel:

Versiont10.0.0
Last Modifiedt7/27/09 4:30 PM
Get Info StringtBSD Kernel Pseudoextension, Apple Computer Inc, 10.0.0
KindtUniversal
Architecturesti386, ppc, x86_64
64-Bit (Intel)tYes
Locationt/System/Library/Extensions/System.kext/PlugIns/BSDKernel.kext
Kext Versiont10.0.0
Load Addresst(built-in to the kernel)
ValidtYes
AuthentictYes
DependenciestSatisfied

And Also there is Yes after it there!

And this is what is see in com.Apple.Boot.plist file so you tell me am I running a 64 bit kernel or a 32 bit kernel?
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE plist PUBLIC "-//Apple Computer//DTD PLIST 1.0//EN" "http://www.apple.com/DTDs/PropertyList-1.0.dtd">
<plist version="1.0">
<dict>
\t<key>Kernel</key>
\t<string>mach_kernel</string>
\t<key>Kernel Flags</key>
\t<string></string>
</dict>
</plist>
Reply
Reply
post #192 of 235
8/12/09 at 1:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by skhalil View Post

Hello Dear, This is what is mentioned under my BSD Kernel in System profiler:
BSDKernel:

Versiont10.0.0
Last Modifiedt7/27/09 4:30 PM
Get Info StringtBSD Kernel Pseudoextension, Apple Computer Inc, 10.0.0
KindtUniversal
Architecturesti386, ppc, x86_64
64-Bit (Intel)tYes
Locationt/System/Library/Extensions/System.kext/PlugIns/BSDKernel.kext
Kext Versiont10.0.0
Load Addresst(built-in to the kernel)
ValidtYes
AuthentictYes
DependenciestSatisfied

And Also there is Yes after it there!

Yeah, you have a 64-bit CPU from Intel. Great! That doesn’t mean you are running a 64-bit kernel at the moment or that you are even able to under Snow Leopard. Your Kernel Flag value is empty and you didn’t state the result for 64-bit Kernel and Extensions:. As you can see from my previous posting I have the same values for BSDKernel yet I have a No for 64-bit Kernel.
Reply
Reply
post #193 of 235
8/12/09 at 1:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by skhalil View Post

Hello Dear, This is what is mentioned under my BSD Kernel in System profiler:
BSDKernel:

Versiont10.0.0
Last Modifiedt7/27/09 4:30 PM
Get Info StringtBSD Kernel Pseudoextension, Apple Computer Inc, 10.0.0
KindtUniversal
Architecturesti386, ppc, x86_64
64-Bit (Intel)tYes
Locationt/System/Library/Extensions/System.kext/PlugIns/BSDKernel.kext
Kext Versiont10.0.0
Load Addresst(built-in to the kernel)
ValidtYes
AuthentictYes
DependenciestSatisfied

And Also there is Yes after it there!

And this is what is see in com.Apple.Boot.plist file so you tell me am I running a 64 bit kernel or a 32 bit kernel?
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE plist PUBLIC "-//Apple Computer//DTD PLIST 1.0//EN" "http://www.apple.com/DTDs/PropertyList-1.0.dtd">
<plist version="1.0">
<dict>
\t<key>Kernel</key>
\t<string>mach_kernel</string>
\t<key>Kernel Flags</key>
\t<string></string>
</dict>
</plist>

The "yes" is referring to the Intel 64 bit architecture, not whether the kernel is 64 bit. You might notice that it offer several.

How are you running your printer without the required 64 bit driver?
Reply
Reply
post #194 of 235
8/12/09 at 1:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Wow! You can't even read the report properly.

By the way, I see from all your posts here that you're trolling.

Why bother? Does it make you feel good to give only partly correct information, while disregarding the rest?

Wow, and how do you read that report? Please do tell, because that particular report has been discussed to death by now in technical circles, and I have followed it very closely.

Apple's core animation still runs slower on nVidia chips that it does on lower end ATI cards. It has gotten slightly better in 10.5.5, but it's still slower.

3D performance of nVidia (using Open GL) is better though, but games mostly use that (not apple pro apps). And who games on a Mac in OS X anyway.

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 #195 of 235
8/12/09 at 1:57pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario View Post

Wow, and how do you read that report? Please do tell, because that particular report has been discussed to death by now in technical circles, and I have followed it very closely.

Apple's core animation still runs slower on nVidia chips that it does on lower end ATI cards. It has gotten slightly better in 10.5.5, but it's still slower.

3D performance of nVidia (using Open GL) is better though, but games mostly use that (not apple pro apps). And who games on a Mac in OS X anyway.

Because your conclusions are a lot of BS to begin with.

According to you, the report tells you that, even it not in those words:

Quote:
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.

Now, show me exactly where in that report that anything you said here invalidated my statement. Where in that report did they say that Apple doesn't know how to write drivers?

Where did they say anything you've said other than the card did 3D games well?

So again, I repeat that you don't understand the report, or are trolling with your far out statements.
Reply
Reply
post #196 of 235
8/12/09 at 2:44pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hudson1 View Post

Curious... how do you know what you know?

From the interwebs.
Reply
Reply
post #197 of 235
8/12/09 at 2:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

According to Intel's specs, you can only get 4MB of Ram for the 965 Express chipset, even though it uses 64 bit DIMMS.

It has a 32 bit downstream address in the DMI.

Chipset caches are 64 bit.

The chipset addresses 64 GB of addressable memory space. — This answers some questions.

The processors have a 36 bit address interface.

It's not clear to me that any of the Santa Rosa platforms are capable of handling a 64 bit OS at the kernel level.

True for Windows or Mac.

Can someone else, who actually KNOWS (rather than assuming they know) explain this further?

I don't think any current processor or chipset actually has a physical 64-bit address interface since there is no reason to fully support 16 exabytes of physical memory at this time. I believe the meaning of a 36-bit address interface is that the chipset can support up to 64GB of RAM or in this case, since RAM support is limited to 4GB, the 4GB - 64GB region is used for device addresses. I believe the Napa platform only had a 32-bit address interface so device addresses were in the 3GB - 4GB region which is why the first-gen Core 2 Duo Macs only support 3GB of RAM. Being limited to a 32-bit or 36-bit address interface, should still mean you can get the full 16 exabytes worth of virtual memory.

http://downloadcenter.intel.com/filt...9&submit=Go%21

Regardless, both Napa and Santa Rosa can still run a 64-bit OS, even if they can't support greater than 4GB of RAM. Afterall, more RAM isn't the only feature of a 64-bit OS. For example, the above link is a GMA 950 driver for 64-bit Windows XP. There are similar 64-bit drivers available for 64-bit Vista and for the GMA X3100. If the Napa and Santa Rosa platforms can't support a 64-bit kernel, then why bother writing 64-bit drivers which would be useless in a 32-bit kernel? Lack of 64-bit kernel support in Snow Leopard for all Core 2 Duo Macs is not a hardware limitation, it's a matter of Apple writing and supporting 64-bit drivers and EFI firmware.
Reply
Reply
post #198 of 235
8/12/09 at 3:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ltcommander.data View Post

I don't think any current processor or chipset actually has a physical 64-bit address interface since there is no reason to fully support 16 exabytes of physical memory at this time. I believe the meaning of a 36-bit address interface is that the chipset can support up to 64GB of RAM or in this case, since RAM support is limited to 4GB, the 4GB - 64GB region is used for device addresses. I believe the Napa platform only had a 32-bit address interface so device addresses were in the 3GB - 4GB region which is why the first-gen Core 2 Duo Macs only support 3GB of RAM. Being limited to a 32-bit or 36-bit address interface, should still mean you can get the full 16 exabytes worth of virtual memory.

http://downloadcenter.intel.com/filt...9&submit=Go%21

Regardless, both Napa and Santa Rosa can still run a 64-bit OS, even if they can't support greater than 4GB of RAM. Afterall, more RAM isn't the only feature of a 64-bit OS. For example, the above link is a GMA 950 driver for 64-bit Windows XP. There are similar 64-bit drivers available for 64-bit Vista and for the GMA X3100. If the Napa and Santa Rosa platforms can't support a 64-bit kernel, then why bother writing 64-bit drivers which would be useless in a 32-bit kernel? Lack of 64-bit kernel support in Snow Leopard for all Core 2 Duo Macs is not a hardware limitation, it's a matter of Apple writing and supporting 64-bit drivers and EFI firmware.

Then we're back to what I was saying about drivers.
Reply
Reply
post #199 of 235
8/12/09 at 3:26pm
Try OpenGL Extensions Viewer on your Macs:
http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/55098


Quote:
Originally Posted by Logisticaldron View Post


Where can i find info on OpenGL versioning in OS X?
Reply
Reply
post #200 of 235
8/12/09 at 3:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ltcommander.data View Post

What I'd like to know is what level of OpenGL support exists. Leopard was OpenGL 2.1. Presumably Snow Leopard will be at least OpenGL 3.0 since that introduced interoperability with OpenCL. Hopefully, OpenGL 3.2 support comes quickly since one of it's key features is that it's easier to port DirectX applications to OpenGL which can only be a good thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by libertyforall View Post

Try OpenGL Extensions Viewer on your Macs:
http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/55098

Using the app Libertyforall suggested there is complete support for OpenGL 1.1-1.5 and 2.0-2.1. There is no test available for OpenGL 3.0 or 3.1, but under the OpenGL list for my machine it shows that I have support for 16 out of 25 (64%) features of 3.0 and 1 out of 7 (14%) features of 3.1.

Here is a partial report…

Renderer: NVIDIA GeForce 9400M OpenGL
Engine
Vendor: NVIDIA Corporation

Memory: 256 MB

Version: 2.1 NVIDIA-1.6.0

…
Core features
v1.1 (100 % - 7/7)

v1.2 (100 % - 8/8)

v1.3 (100 % - 9/9)

v1.4 (100 % - 15/15)

v1.5 (100 % - 3/3)

v2.0 (100 % - 10/10)

v2.1 (100 % - 3/3)

v3.0 (64 % - 16/25)

v3.1 (14 % - 1/7)

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