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.
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.
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)
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...
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.
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.
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 it?s 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
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
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 haven?t been able to test running Snow Leopard with a 640bit kernel to even test drivers.
Snow Leopard installs the 64-bit kernel, drivers and apps for more than the Xserve, but it?s 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.
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.
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 don?t 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.
[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.
In contrast, Windows users who wish to migrate from 32-bit to 64-bit are required to do a clean install. Pity.
I?m 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 won?t 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.
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).
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.
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.
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
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?
Comments
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.
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.
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)
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...
Hardware Overview:
Model Name
Model Identifier
Processor Name
Processor Speed
Number Of Processors
Total Number Of Cores
L2 Cache (per core)
L3 Cache
Memory
Processor Interconnect Speed
Boot ROM Version
SMC Version (system)
SMC Version (processor tray)
This is the latest 2009 Mac Pro.
but:
System Version
Kernel Version
Boot Volume
Boot Mode
Computer Name
User Name
Secure Virtual Memory
64-bit Kernel and Extensions
Time since boot
??
What does this mean...?
I have the latest Mac Pro, but NO 64 bit support???
64-bits kernel en extensies
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.
I have the latest Mac Pro, but NO 64 bit support???
Modelnaam
Modelaanduiding
Processornaam
Processorsnelheid
Aantal processors
Totaal aantal cores
L2-cache (per core)
L3-cache
Geheugen
Interconnectsnelheid processor
Opstart-ROM-versie
Systeemversie
Kernelversie
Opstartvolume
Opstartmodus
Computernaam
Gebruikersnaam
Beveiligd virtueel geheugen
64-bits kernel en extensies
Tijd sinds opstarten
???????
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.
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 it?s 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
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.
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 haven?t been able to test running Snow Leopard with a 640bit kernel to even test drivers.
Snow Leopard installs the 64-bit kernel, drivers and apps for more than the Xserve, but it?s 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.
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.
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 don?t 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.
[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.
In contrast, Windows users who wish to migrate from 32-bit to 64-bit are required to do a clean install. Pity.
I?m 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 won?t 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.
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).
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.
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.
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!
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?
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
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?