or Connect
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 3

post #81 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario View Post

Yes, it's a big deal, since system function calls are much faster on 64 bit kernel.

All I can say is if 64 bit kernel is not supported on all 64 bit CPUs then they can take the Snow Leopard and shove it. It's a completely pointless stop gap update. Basically, re-purchase all your hardware when 10.7 comes out, and Mac will finally be 64 bit, full 12 years after Windows and Linux. What a shame.

There was a series here on AppleInsider a while back that talked about the changes in architecture. I was quite happy to see the route they were taking, and I didn't see anything that would necessarily preclude the Core 2 Duos like the one in my late 2007 MacBook from running with that sort of strategy. It runs a pure 64-bit (no 32-bit libs) Debian Linux just fine, as well as the latest Ubuntu 64-bit.
post #82 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by stonefree View Post

Doesn't the two different kernels require separate drivers for both? That could get confusing with third parties. I thought the main difference between Leopard and Snow Leopard (as far as the OS architecture) was Leopard's 32 bit kernel since everything else is already 64 bit. I have a Penryn / Santa Rosa Macbook (4,1). Will it be fully 64 bit?

Quote:
Originally Posted by foo2

The supporting chipset need not be 64-bit in order to run 64-bit apps, but it is possibly required to run the 64-bit kernel. A 32-bit chipset just won't run 64-bit applications as fast as if a 64-bit chipset was present.
I believe a 64-bit EFI is also required to run the 64-bit kernel, but again the EFI doesn't matter for running 64-bit apps.

So... who knows of any Apple laptops that use a 64-bit EFI?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru

Can 64-bit apps run in a 32-bit kernel?

This is a big difference that some people confused about. Snow Leopard will be the first Mac OS X operating system that comes with 64-bit slices for its applications by default. Leopard supported running 64-bit applications but nobody took advantage of it (for many reasons, mainly because of Apple). If you have a Core 2-based Mac, or a Nehalem-based Mac Pro, your computer will run 64-bit applications natively. If you have an original Yonah (Core) Intel Mac/Mac mini, your computer will run 32-bit applications just as it did in Leopard.

Snow Leopard is also the first operating system to support a 64-bit kernel. However, no computer will boot into a 64-bot kernel by default except the 2008 and later Xserve machines. Only Core 2 machines that came out in mid-2008 and later are capable of booting into a 64-bit kernel. There are many requirements for booting into a 64-bit kernel including driver support, 64 bit EFI support and more.

However a 64-bit kernel is nothing to write home about. Mainly, it allows the kernel to address large amounts of RAM, but unless you have 32GB of RAM there's nothing to write home about. In some cases K64 will be faster, but in some cases it can be slower. The kernel is very sensitive to memory and depending on how much/little you have, K64 may be slower. They'll continue to fine tune it but they make no contention that K64 is not for the average user right now. In the future it will be important but for now, it won't buy you anything. It's mainly for the future.
post #83 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghostface147 View Post

Yeah hopefully, but not really. They can make their money elsewhere.

Spoken like a tool.
post #84 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by ltcommander.data View Post

Actually the wording implies that the 9400M is not the minimum requirement for H.264 acceleration, rather it is the only graphics chip supported. Which of course might lead to the weird circumstance where switching to the 9600M GT in the MacBook Pro means losing H.264 acceleration support.

When you switch graphics chips on a MBP, does it completely turn off the other chip? It would make sense. But doesn't the 9600 have the same encoding engine as the 9400? I'm thinking maybe it's just clumsy wording on the web site, we'll see.

Quote:
Hopefully, Apple expands H.264 acceleration since there is no reason to limit it to the 9400M only. The 8600M GT, 9600M GT, GT120, and other similar nVidia GPUs have the same PureVideo HD decoder. SImilarly, ATI chips since the HD2000 series have had full hardware H.264 acceleration support. What's more, even the ATI X1000 series and nVidia 7000 series in the original Intel Macs had partial H.264 hardware acceleration support that is enabled in Windows. It's really a matter of whether Apple will refuse to support it.

http://www.apple.com/macosx/specs.html

We don't know if it's Apple refusing or if there are certain technical hurdles. I know they aren't going to explain it though. A plausible alternate explanation is that OS X uses the graphics chip in a little bit different way than Windows does, and that limits the ability to access certain video hardware features such as video encoding and video deinterlacing. I really don't know which is true, though I really wish I had access to the hardware video deinterlacing features.
post #85 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghostface147 View Post

Woohoo.....time to torrent when leaked!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_CA View Post

What a dick...

Quote:
Originally Posted by ghostface147 View Post

That's what she said

But you only thought it was a compliment.
post #86 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by plovell View Post

if the Up-To-Date program is limited to being within 90 days of purchase, and started June 8th, then Snow Leopard must be released by September 6th. Otherwise someone who purchased on June 8th wouldn't be eligible.

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/
post #87 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

When you switch graphics chips on a MBP, does it turn off the other chip? It would make sense. But doesn't the 9600 have the same encoding engine as the 9400? I'm thinking maybe it's just clumsy wording on the web site, we'll see.

You've just gotta be right. The "nothing but 9400" interpretation violates the principle of least astonishment. It's not like they rushed this thing out. Snow Leopard has been cooking quite awhile.
post #88 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

PPC was as scalable, maybe more, but there was no interest.

Correct, Apple and IBM had no interest in establishing a higher-performance alternative platform. If they had, they would not have completely dropped the ball on CHRP. Yet another golden opportunity lost to Jobs' unrelenting need for 100% control over everything Apple does.
APOSTROPHE: he's/she's/you're/it's
NO APOSTROPHE: his/hers/yours/its

Is this really so difficult?
Reply
APOSTROPHE: he's/she's/you're/it's
NO APOSTROPHE: his/hers/yours/its

Is this really so difficult?
Reply
post #89 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by skittlebrau79 View Post

However a 64-bit kernel is nothing to write home about. Mainly, it allows the kernel to address large amounts of RAM, but unless you have 32GB of RAM there's nothing to write home about. In some cases K64 will be faster, but in some cases it can be slower. The kernel is very sensitive to memory and depending on how much/little you have, K64 may be slower. They'll continue to fine tune it but they make no contention that K64 is not for the average user right now. In the future it will be important but for now, it won't buy you anything. It's mainly for the future.

A 64-bit kernel is actually an important security feature. For one thing, the few viruses there are for OS X would presumably be written to exploit the 32-bit kernel and would break in a 64-bit OS X kernel. I believe this is certainly one major benefit in running 64-bit Windows over 32-bit Windows. What's more, advanced security features, specifically memory randomization is significantly more effective with a 64-bit kernel since the much larger virtual memory space, regardless of how much RAM you actually have, means addresses are actually random. 10.5 Leopard's current memory randomization implementation is not effective and this has been pointed out by Charlie Miller, famous for his Pwn2Own Mac winnings, as one of the reasons why he's able to hack OS X so quickly. The much maligned Vista by contrast, does have an effective memory randomization implementation, so on the surface is harder to hack although more people try of course. The 32-bit kernel in Snow Leopard will no doubt improve things, but shortchanging older Macs either because they don't want to write more 64-bit drivers or push out 64-bit EFI firmware updates does mean they are shortchanging end user security as well. It is really in Apple's best interest to keep their users as secure as possible since as Microsoft found, once your security reputation is compromised by a major active exploit, it's very difficult to reverse public opinion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

When you switch graphics chips on a MBP, does it turn off the other chip? It would make sense. But doesn't the 9600 have the same encoding engine as the 9400? I'm thinking maybe it's just clumsy wording on the web site, we'll see.

Personally, I'm hoping that Apple will find a way to optionally enabled both the 9400M and the 9600M GT to operate at the same time. SLI isn't really worthwhile for Apple to invest in since it requires custom driver profiles for every game and application to be effective. However, Apple could still make use of both GPUs by say using the 9400M for OpenCL accelerating a physics engine and the 9600M GT for the graphics pipeline in a game. You'd better be plugged in of course.
post #90 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by ltcommander.data View Post

Personally, I'm hoping that Apple will find a way to optionally enabled both the 9400M and the 9600M GT to operate at the same time. SLI isn't really worthwhile for Apple to invest in since it requires custom driver profiles for every game and application to be effective. However, Apple could still make use of both GPUs by say using the 9400M for OpenCL accelerating a physics engine and the 9600M GT for the graphics pipeline in a game. You'd better be plugged in of course.

Me too, but they havent done it yet so it seems unlikely at this point. I wold have thought that you can set it up in Sys Prefs power savings to have the GPU or IGP on all the time, or have the GPU turn off when you go to battery. This just isnt the case and yet Apple with their control of limited HW configurations and OS should have the easiest time of this process. To have you restart to make the switch take and not be able to use both the IGP and GPU in conjunction is definitely a miss for coolness of Snow Leopard.
post #91 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by ltcommander.data View Post

Actually the wording implies that the 9400M is not the minimum requirement for H.264 acceleration, rather it is the only graphics chip supported. Which of course might lead to the weird circumstance where switching to the 9600M GT in the MacBook Pro means losing H.264 acceleration support. Hopefully, Apple expands H.264 acceleration since there is no reason to limit it to the 9400M only. The 8600M GT, 9600M GT, GT120, and other similar nVidia GPUs have the same PureVideo HD decoder. SImilarly, ATI chips since the HD2000 series have had full hardware H.264 acceleration support. What's more, even the ATI X1000 series and nVidia 7000 series in the original Intel Macs had partial H.264 hardware acceleration support that is enabled in Windows. It's really a matter of whether Apple will refuse to support it.

http://www.apple.com/macosx/specs.html

The 9400M is part of the chipset, and is thus always running.
post #92 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by skittlebrau79 View Post

If you have a Core 2-based Mac, or a Nehalem-based Mac Pro, your computer will run 64-bit applications natively.

More accurately, absolutely all Mac Pros can run 64-bit applications ("natively" [sic]). This includes the original Wolfdale (August 2006), Clovertown, Harpertown (2008) and Nehalem (2009) Mac Pros. But only the Harpertown and Nehalem Mac Pros have 64-bit EFIs with which to support the Snow Leopard 64-bit kernel.

The question no one here seems to have answered thus far is: which (if any) MacBook Pros have a 64-bit EFI?
post #93 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foo2 View Post

The question no one here seems to have answered thus far is: which (if any) MacBook Pros have a 64-bit EFI?

As convoluted as it is, your answer is in the link below

http://refit.sourceforge.net/info/apple_efi.html

It would appear that for Snow Leopard to allow a 64-bit kernel three criteria must be met: 64-bit CPU, 64-bit chipset and 64-bit EFI.
post #94 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Logisticaldron View Post

As convoluted as it is, your answer is in the link below…

http://refit.sourceforge.net/info/apple_efi.html

It would appear that for Snow Leopard to allow a 64-bit kernel three criteria must be met: 64-bit CPU, 64-bit chipset and 64-bit EFI.

Yes, yes, yes, but which (if any) MacBook Pros have a 64-bit EFI? That question is still not answered, not even by that webpage (which doesn't appear to be authoritative anyway). FWIW: I have no doubt that if an Apple has a 64-bit EFI, it has a 64-bit microprocessor and a 64-bit chipset (in laptops, Santa Rosa or newer).
post #95 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Logisticaldron View Post

As convoluted as it is, your answer is in the link below…

http://refit.sourceforge.net/info/apple_efi.html

It would appear that for Snow Leopard to allow a 64-bit kernel three criteria must be met: 64-bit CPU, 64-bit chipset and 64-bit EFI.

I guess there's my answer. If EFI must be 64-bit, then my 2006 Mac Pro tower probably won't qualify unless Apple offers a firmware upgrade.
post #96 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by dagamer34 View Post

The 9400M is part of the chipset, and is thus always running.

I wonder about that though, because power management techniques often mean that power and clock to unused portions of a chip are turned off. No sense in letting current drain needlessly.
post #97 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foo2 View Post

Yes, yes, yes, but which (if any) MacBook Pros have a 64-bit EFI? That question is still not answered, not even by that webpage (which doesn't appear to be authoritative anyway). FWIW: I have no doubt that if an Apple has a 64-bit EFI, it has a 64-bit microprocessor and a 64-bit chipset.

I posted this earlier.

http://news.worldofapple.com/archive...le-seed-notes/

Quote:
64-bit Kernel

The early 2008 models of the Mac Pro, 15" and 17" MacBook Pro and Xserve can be used for 64-bit kernel development. Audio and AirPort are now enabled on these on these testing configurations. In SnowLeopard, the 64-bit kernel is is used by default on the Xserve and the Mac Pro and MacBook Pro systems can be booted into the 64-bit kernel in one of two ways:

1) Temporarily boot into the 64-bit kernel by holding down "6" and "4" while powering on the machine
2) Run `sudo nvram boot-args="arch=x86_64" ` to set the 64-bit kernel as your default kernel, and append any other debugging flags you may need, such as "debug=0x144". To revert back to the 32-bit kernel as the default, you can run `sudo nvram -d boot-args`.

This seed contains the necessary support for porting kexts to 64-bit and developers are strongly encouraged to do so.

This might be a bit more authoritative, depending on whether you believe they accurately transcribed Apple's release notes. This is from an earlier developer seed so of course things could have changed, but basically 64-bit support looks to start from at least Macs with 45nm Penryns and up. (Harpertown being a Penryn derivative.)

Technically, Nehalem's are best for 64-bit support since Intel processors before Nehalem (Merom and Penryn) had macro-op fusion disabled in 64-bit mode meaning that they couldn't combine 2 instructions together an issue 5 instructions instead of 4. Intel estimated macro-op fusion could work with an average 10% of instructions that a processor received, which is probably very generous and not the same as a 10% performance boost anyways. Still, the raw potential performance of Merom and Penryn processors drops slightly in 64-bit mode compared to 32-bit mode. Other efficiencies in a 64-bit kernel code easily make up for this though.

I am still feeling that Apple's 64-bit kernel support should be as broad as possible, even for Macs that don't support 4GB+ of RAM, because of security reasons.

EDIT:
Reported seed notes from a more recent April 2009 developer build shows this:

http://news.worldofapple.com/archive...rd-seed-notes/


Again, Penryn and up.
post #98 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghostface147 View Post

Yeah hopefully, but not really. They can make their money elsewhere.

Even at full price, Apple's operating system is an insane value for the money. The fact that they optimized 90% of it and added huge new features and improvements and are only charging $29 is unbelievable. That's about 1/10th the price of Vista Home Premium crapware. They've had hundreds or even thousands of product managers, developers, researchers, QA people and senior management working on this for over a year.

How on Earth can anyone feel justified in STEALING this wonderfully-priced product that Apple put its blood, sweat and tears into?

Call my crazy, but I don't shoplift when I'm at the mall. I don't steal books from the library. I don't pocket money and jewelry when I'm at a friend's house. I don't steal money from my elderly parents. I don't steal my cable or my internet. I don't steal from the Salvation Army Santas or the donation bowl. I haven't dumped my obligations to my mortgage lender, cheated on my taxes or failed to pay the teenager who mows my lawn. And believe it or not, I don't steal music, or videos, or software. Maybe I'm just a "better" human being; I believe you shouldn't take what you haven't either earned, paid for or received as a gift. What the heck is wrong with people these days?

Ask yourselves this: How would you feel if someone stole something you put your blood, sweat and tears into? And please, don't say Apple can make their money elsewhere. So could you -- does that make it any less wrong when someone steals from you?

By the way, their operating system is a core revenue component. It's not like they do it for fun.
post #99 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario View Post

Yes, it's a big deal, since system function calls are much faster on 64 bit kernel.

All I can say is if 64 bit kernel is not supported on all 64 bit CPUs then they can take the Snow Leopard and shove it. It's a completely pointless stop gap update. Basically, re-purchase all your hardware when 10.7 comes out, and Mac will finally be 64 bit, full 12 years after Windows and Linux. What a shame.

12 years after Windows and Linux? That's a joke. Which versions of Windows and Linux did people buy 10 years ago?
post #100 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario View Post

I would not be surprised. It is well known fact in technical circles that entry level $50 ATI HD2600 card is beating $3000 nVidia Quadro 4800 in core animation benchmarks. And why? Because Apple doesn't know how to write the damn drivers and won't let nVidia do it.

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?
post #101 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foo2 View Post

Yes, yes, yes, but which (if any) MacBook Pros have a 64-bit EFI? That question is still not answered, not even by that webpage (which doesn't appear to be authoritative anyway). FWIW: I have no doubt that if an Apple has a 64-bit EFI, it has a 64-bit microprocessor and a 64-bit chipset (in laptops, Santa Rosa or newer).

This article from, of all places, AI, will answer some of these questions. It's in there, just read.

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...c_swindle.html
post #102 of 235
Other than some theoretical security advantages of a 64 bit kernel that ltcommander.data mentioned, there is no reason for older laptop users to get excited over the idea of a 64 bit kernel in the OS.

There is nothing that this will do for you than the 32 bit version won't. Older machines can't take more than 4 GB RAM. For newer machines that can, unless you're prepared to pay the still very high prices for the RAM, prices of which have been going up significantly for a while now, there is no real advantage either.

Until these machines get 4 cores, even the greater efficiency that's supposed to be coming in handling threads won't make a difference.

Too much commotion about too little advantage.

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.
post #103 of 235
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?

http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/Graphics/....html#storytop

Quote:
Will there updated/new drivers for the GeForce 6800 Ultra?

Yes. Apple provides all the drivers for NVIDIA-based add-in cards. We supply them with the source code and they provide the final driver. Apple will control the release schedules for drivers that provide even more performance, features and image quality enhancements.

This is the most recent official statement from nVidia on OS X drivers I could find, but it still seems consistent. Anything nVidia branded that you can configure as a bundled option in the Apple Store has it's drivers written by Apple. It's only recently that PNY and XFX branded nVidia GPUs, Apple doesn't officially write the drivers, because Apple doesn't bundle them in OS X.

http://www.barefeats.com/harper22.html

Likewise it's known that Apple's nVidia drivers can be all over the place. Even fairly recently in 10.5.6, the HD3870 outperformed the 8800GT in the Mac Call of Duty 4 even though the 8800GT is theoretically faster. What's more, Call of Duty 4 appeared to be a decent port since the HD3870 gets similar performance whether in OS X or in Windows. I believe the latest drivers in 10.5.8 have finally reversed this.

http://www.barefeats.com/imp04.html

And it was true that early drivers for the 8800GT in 10.5.2 had the HD2600XT outperforming the 8800GT in Apple's own Core Image accelerated applications. That has since also been fixed.
post #104 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by ltcommander.data View Post

A 64-bit kernel is actually an important security feature. For one thing, the few viruses there are for OS X would presumably be written to exploit the 32-bit kernel and would break in a 64-bit OS X kernel. I believe this is certainly one major benefit in running 64-bit Windows over 32-bit Windows. What's more, advanced security features, specifically memory randomization is significantly more effective with a 64-bit kernel since the much larger virtual memory space, regardless of how much RAM you actually have, means addresses are actually random. 10.5 Leopard's current memory randomization implementation is not effective and this has been pointed out by Charlie Miller, famous for his Pwn2Own Mac winnings, as one of the reasons why he's able to hack OS X so quickly. The much maligned Vista by contrast, does have an effective memory randomization implementation, so on the surface is harder to hack although more people try of course. The 32-bit kernel in Snow Leopard will no doubt improve things, but shortchanging older Macs either because they don't want to write more 64-bit drivers or push out 64-bit EFI firmware updates does mean they are shortchanging end user security as well. It is really in Apple's best interest to keep their users as secure as possible since as Microsoft found, once your security reputation is compromised by a major active exploit, it's very difficult to reverse public opinion.

Uh no, K64 has little bearing on security. Very few viruses will exploit the kernel, even on Windows. Literally 100% of the malware on Windows these days targets the userspace application layer, namely, the Web browser; I can't even remember a kernel based attack in the 5+ years I've worked in IT/security. If you just mean it makes it harder to guess an address--well yeah but these types of attacks are on their way out. Any malicious code targeted at the Mac won't need anything sophisticated like a return-to-libc; it'll just attack WebKit, QuickTime or Flash as those technologies routinely have the most remotely exploitable security vulnerabilities in them. Return to libc is a hard attack to pull off for a variety of reasons so buffer overflows on heap data, where the browser is supposed to be "interpreting" the code--just not the malicious code!!--is more common these days. But even more common are attacks that aren't attacks at all. Social engineering attacks are by far and away the most common, and they require no effort. Phishing attacks and trojan horses make up at least 95% of the security threats on Windows, mainly because of its market share. Apple can't do much about them (I don't count the woeful phishing filter in Safari/Firefox, which is basically just a big blacklist of Web sites that is never up to date).

Anyway, the memory randomization argument is valid except for the fact that Apple doesn't do it that way. The ASLR in Leopard is kind of broken because dyld, the thing that controls the ASLR, is always loaded at the same address, so anybody can just insert some jump instructions into their dyld initialization code and get around the ASLR. Apple acknowledges this, and in Snow Leopard it's fixed, but it has nothing to do with K64; 32-bit kernels will get this feature for free.

Finally, Windows NT-based kernels (basically Vista and Server 2003+) don't have many (any?) security problems with their kernel because they only load signed code, and the code signing certificates are strictly controlled by Microsoft's developer program. Apple is not requiring signed code to load kernel extensions into K64, and I doubt they want the overhead of Microsoft's driver signing program. The 64 bit kernel loads unsigned kernel extensions, and in fact in Snow Leopard you don't need to be root to load kernel extensions if the kernel extension developer so desires (scary!).
post #105 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by ltcommander.data View Post

http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/Graphics/....html#storytop


This is the most recent official statement from nVidia on OS X drivers I could find, but it still seems consistent. Anything nVidia branded that you can configure as a bundled option in the Apple Store has it's drivers written by Apple. It's only recently that PNY and XFX branded nVidia GPUs, Apple doesn't officially write the drivers, because Apple doesn't bundle them in OS X.

I saw nothing there that said that Apple wouldn't let them write the drivers if they wanted to. I doubt they would want to, because they would want to be paid for that.

Quote:
http://www.barefeats.com/harper22.html

Likewise it's known that Apple's nVidia drivers can be all over the place. Even fairly recently in 10.5.6, the HD3870 outperformed the 8800GT in the Mac Call of Duty 4 even though the 8800GT is theoretically faster. What's more, Call of Duty 4 appeared to be a decent port since the HD3870 gets similar performance whether in OS X or in Windows. I believe the latest drivers in 10.5.8 have finally reversed this.

http://www.barefeats.com/imp04.html

And it was true that early drivers for the 8800GT in 10.5.2 had the HD2600XT outperforming the 8800GT in Apple's own Core Image accelerated applications. That has since also been fixed.

That article said that the card was pretty close to the PC version, and that all it needed was a tweak.

As you must know, both Nvidia's and ATI's drivers for the PC go through long periods of upgrades before they become pretty good. The same thing happens on the Mac side.
post #106 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Hopefully, 10.7 will be two years from now, and 32 bit will be old hardware.

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

If a newer version drops 32 bit support, and we don't know that 10.7 will yet, it's just speculation right now, that's a good thing.

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.
Mac user since August 1983.
Reply
Mac user since August 1983.
Reply
post #107 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

So, when I go into the store and find my favorite ice cream on sale I will just steal it because hey the store can make it's money elsewhere. Yeah, right.

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.
post #108 of 235
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

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.

Nullis in verba -- "on the word of no one"

 

 

 

Reply

Nullis in verba -- "on the word of no one"

 

 

 

Reply
post #109 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by iansilv View Post

Can someone tell me i Snow Leopard will run a 64-bit kernel in a MBP with a 2.2 GHz core 2 duo? I have the one with the Santa Rosa chipset, and I cannot confirm this anywhere.

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.
post #110 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by camroidv27 View Post

I wonder what tricks they used this time to prevent installs on normal PCs?

the tricks that fail as usual.
post #111 of 235
Ladies... some of you have got it right... it's 64-bit EFI that's the key thing to enable access to the 64-bit kernel. Here's how you can tell if yours has it by running the following command:

ioreg -p IODeviceTree -w0 -l | grep firmware-abi

If your result says EFI64 then welcome to the future.


The guy who wanted to know about MacBook Pro's... yes indeed some MacBook Pro's do have 64-bit EFI.

Also the MacBook4,1 and later also have 64-bit EFI.

Originally Apple was only putting 64-bit EFI on Pro models. Then they started on the consumer ones too.

Unfortunately simply having a 64-bit processor is not enough.
post #112 of 235
For me, I want to see increased, double FPU for audio, faster redering, Photoshop, final cut pro and fast plug ins, aka FPU.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pats View Post

I have to ask why do you care? The applications you use will work under snow leopard and the size of the kernel is basically irrelevant except for really high performance apps. Apple is moving everything to 64 bit but will it be done at Snow Leopard answer is no, because lots of applications are not 64 bit so depending on what you do on your system your performance will vary. What are worried about. Is it an issue with address space or some other constraint that your trying to address?
post #113 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by ontheinside View Post


If your result says EFI64 then welcome to the future.

Hey thanks. If did what you suggested correctly, then a 24 " iMac 7,1 does have a future!

Nullis in verba -- "on the word of no one"

 

 

 

Reply

Nullis in verba -- "on the word of no one"

 

 

 

Reply
post #114 of 235
Having run

ioreg -p IODeviceTree -w0 -l | grep firmware-abi

I can confirm that the 2008 3.06ghz 800mhz 24" iMac 8,1 has EFI64
post #115 of 235
Mac mini 3,1 is showing EFI64 with that line as well.
post #116 of 235
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?

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.
post #117 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by japtor View Post

Mac mini 3,1 is showing EFI64 with that line as well.

My late 2007 MacBook shows EFI64 there too. Thanks for the one-liner to find that!
post #118 of 235
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.

Speculating, I would guess that 10.8 might drop support for all models lacking EFI64. In other words, I speculate that 10.8 might not include a 32-bit kernel. I expect 10.8 will still support 32-bit applications.

Quote:
Originally Posted by irnchriz View Post

Having run

ioreg -p IODeviceTree -w0 -l | grep firmware-abi

I can confirm that the 2008 3.06ghz 800mhz 24" iMac 8,1 has EFI64

I confirm that the late 2008 2GHz 1067MHz unibody MacBook 5,1 (with removable battery) has EFI64.
Mac user since August 1983.
Reply
Mac user since August 1983.
Reply
post #119 of 235
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.

Uh, no. Windows 98 was no where near 64-bit. It was a 16-bit kernel with 32-bit in the user space. AFAIK, Windows XP x64 was the first 64-bit release of Windows, and that came out much later (around 2003?)

Edit: Although, if I re-read the post you quoted, I see you weren't saying Windows 98 was 64 bit, but that it's what people were using then *oops*
post #120 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by ontheinside View Post

Here's how you can tell if yours has it by running the following command:

ioreg -p IODeviceTree -w0 -l | grep firmware-abi

If your result says EFI64 then welcome to the future.
...
Also the MacBook4,1 and later also have 64-bit EFI.

My MacBook 3,1 (10.5.8, 2.2GHz) has an EFI64 result also; is that an anomaly or is it golden?
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