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.
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?
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 can?t. 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 we?re talking about so we are foolish to expect them to fully disclose their future plans to us as it?s 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.
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?
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.
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.
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...
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?
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.
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.
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.
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"?
Comments
April Beta Seed 64 bit compatible table.
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.
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?
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.
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 can?t. 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 we?re talking about so we are foolish to expect them to fully disclose their future plans to us as it?s 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.
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.
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
64-bits kernel en extensies
But where in the notes is this about nvram? (don't see it- Holding 4 and 6 works indeed)
Ah, yes I see now:
64-bits kernel en extensies
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″
[CENTER]
The table will be edited to take comments and new information into account. (Thanks to : Foo2)
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?
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.
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.
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.
This reminds me of self-proclaimed 'audiophiles' arguing over how many oxygen-free strands are in their speaker cables...
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?
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.
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.
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.
As a service to the community, this is an attempt to summarize the compatibility situation of all Macs.
[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"?