The flaw is that you *don't* need to be running the 64 bit kernel to access more than 4GB of memory.
It's not a black and white situation but people have been able to access more than 4GB on Mac OS-X for a while. It's not the same architecture as Windows so the assumptions don't transfer over as well.
Yes, but you have to be careful there (as usual when it comes to computers). 32 bit kernel can not itself access more than 4 GB of RAM. Single 32 bit application can not access more than 4 GB of RAM.
32 bit kernel can (if you have enough physical RAM) give 2 32 bit processes each 4 GB of RAM at different locations in physical RAM, and if they can use it, your entire system would use 8 GB of RAM for those 2 processes, plus memory used by the kernel and other apps.
So, yes, 32 bit kernel has hacks to allow it to give applications up to 32 GB of address space, but itself can not use more than 4 GB to do its work.
Is that really hard to make 64 drivers for all those "different" mac systems supported by SL and leave 3rd party drivers(addon devices) for 3rd party Manufactureres to worry about, just like MS did.
Long time ago when taking plunge to 64bit XP, users knew that they are taking a risk... so why not give mac users that OPTION ?
I understand the "most users" approach is good mostly, but is there way for DIY users to forcefully use 64bit Kernel all the time ?
most new hardware has 64 bit drivers. i have a 10 year old scanner that is still pretty good, but i don't think there are 64 bit drivers for it. manufacturers aren't going to write new drivers for all the old hardware
Exactly, the dumb-axx author couldn't stay on topic for more than a paragraph at a time. He's too much of a mindless Microsoft hater to not bash Windows at any opportunity. Even when it makes very little sense.
Dear Applensider, please remove Dilger as an author. The only things he is good at are bashing Microsoft and apologizing for Apple (I'm guessing as a kid he won many "No Prize" awards from Marvel Comics). He has his own website for his crap articles. Let him stay there and play the rabid fanboy. His routine is tired and pathetic.
So when i buy brand new Macbook Pro 13" with 8GB and SL installed, it's running 32bit kernel ? Should not the drivers be no problem because they are already installed and provided by Apple ?
If i dont care about printer drivers(dont print at all), could i force it to use 64bit Kernel, because using that 6-4 keyboard combination every time it boots up, is quite dumb.
Ars Technica has a long review of Snow Leopard - on page 5 they give a terminal command for setting your Mac to boot into 64-bit kernel by default (you can always change it back later if need be).
Apple's strategy here is smart even if some don't get it. The end user doesn't need to worry about drivers with the kernel in 32 bit mode. The transition to 64 bit is gradual so that the user doesn't have printers that all of a sudden won't work.
hehe I got a chuckle reading your post while looking at my HP F340 all-in-one printer that does not work under SL.
I can't help but think that all the people scrambling around on Apple's support forums looking for ways to make their HP printers work could care less about the 32 vs 64 bit goodness, they just want their printer to work, as do I.
OK, I'm a little confused here. If running OS X with a 32-bit kernel doesn't give you access to accessing more than 4GB, then what's the added benefit from running the apps as 64-bit?
That being said, I was running Windows 7 64-bit and it had drivers for all of my hardware. 64-bit editions of Windows have been around for years, so making the move to 64-bit isn't going to be much of an issue for people. Most printer and other peripheral drivers are already included in 64-bit Windows and any new hardware that comes out usually has 64-bit versions available for download (or Windows will grab them on its own through Windows Update).
And I do believe that the majority of new Windows 7 PC purchases that will be sold this year and forward will be 64-bit editions because PCs (with the exception of maybe netbooks) have had the capability for quite some time and the driver situation is quite agreeable.
Microsoft should have made Windows 7 64-bit only IMHO and gotten rid of the 32-bit versions.
Ars provides a little more insight to SLs 64-bitness.
Essentially the 32Bit Kernel is limited to 4GB for it's own needs, the system overall still reaps the benefits of the virtually ridiculous 16 Exabyte limit.
The 64-bit edition of Windows XP or Vista will run on 64-bit Macs with 32-bit EFI via Boot Camp because Windows doesn't use EFI; it still lives in the simpler world of BIOS.
Complete BS!!! Windows Vista x64 runs on 64-bit EFI 2.0, i.e. newer version than 1.1 with which Macs ship! Why does such a serious site as AppleInsider have to do this propaganda?
Actually, ability to address more than 4 GB of RAM is NOT the only benefit of 64 bit kernel. Apple themselves are saying that 64 bit kernel is 250% faster than 32 bit kernel in making system calls, and 170% faster in mapping user address space to kernel space.
There are technical reasons for this. While windows, linux and BSD do 2/2 split of the 4 GB address space between the kernel and user apps (meaning kernel gets 2 GB of address space and 2 GB of address space for applications, with ability to do 1/3 split on windows with the 3G startup switch), in OS X the split is 4/4. This means kernel can address 4 GB of RAM, and user applications can also address 4 GB of RAM.
The benefit of this is that applications get more RAM, but the draw back is that each time user application makes a system call into the kernel, user data has to be copied into the kernel address space, and user data possibly paged out (since the kernel also wants those same 4 GB of RAM).
This makes system calls with 32 bit OS X kernel slow (much slower than in Linux, Windows or BSD).
64 bit kernel has no such limitations. It is also much more efficient managing larger amounts of memory (and this does not mean just more than 32 GB of RAM), it's better if you have more than 4 GB of RAM.
You mentioned address space randomization benefit as well.
So, yes 64 bit kernel is better for almost everyone (expect on hardware that can't physically address more than 4 GB of RAM anyway).
The ONLY reason 64 kernel is not the default is because of the driver problem. Third parties have not written 64 bit drivers and it remains to be seen how fast will printer, scanner and other peripherals manufacturers start making 64 bit drivers. My bet is that they will NOT, since no one uses the 64 bit kernel. The only time they will have to do this is when 64 bit kernel becomes the default. Which leads me to believe OS X will be stuck with 32 bit kernel for a long while, until more than 32 GB laptops become common things. Which is probably not for another 10 years.
Interesting. I had not heard that before. But just to make sure I understand correctly... my early 08 MBP is limited to 4 GB RAM. Does that mean that I wouldn't get the increased speed boost from the 64-bit kernel? That only applies if I have more than 4 GB of RAM?
Is that really hard to make 64 drivers for all those "different" mac systems supported by SL and leave 3rd party drivers(addon devices) for 3rd party Manufactureres to worry about, just like MS did.
Long time ago when taking plunge to 64bit XP, users knew that they are taking a risk... so why not give mac users that OPTION ?
I understand the "most users" approach is good mostly, but is there way for DIY users to forcefully use 64bit Kernel all the time ?
Apple doesn't want people to have issues compatibility issues. The would prefer for things to 'just work'.?
You act like you can't boot into 64 bit mode when all you have to do is hold down the 6 and 4 keys or use the terminal command the elroth refers too.
hehe I got a chuckle reading your post while looking at my HP F340 all-in-one printer that does not work under SL.
I can't help but think that all the people scrambling around on Apple's support forums looking for ways to make their HP printers work could care less about the 32 vs 64 bit goodness, they just want their printer to work, as do I.
No doubt that there'll be issues. But reading the Ars review leads me to believe that Apple's strategy minimizes these problems. But it doesn't eliminate them.
MacWorld really owes us mere users a translation when they print a piece that is this technical. I used the Terminal command the author provided (nice touch) to find out that my late 2007 iMac does in fact have a 64-bit EFI, yay! But the rest of the article left me wondering if that really does me any good. Does my new copy of Snow Leopard give me any advantage because of it? If printer drivers are the only thing keeping Snow Leopard from using the 64-bit architecture built in to my machine, will an OS upgrade someday finally force Snow Leopard to boot by default into 64-bit mode when 64-bit drivers are more common? I hope MW does an article in the magazine that answers consumer questions more plainly.
So when i buy brand new Macbook Pro 13" with 8GB and SL installed, it's running 32bit kernel ? Should not the drivers be no problem because they are already installed and provided by Apple ?
If i dont care about printer drivers(dont print at all), could i force it to use 64bit Kernel, because using that 6-4 keyboard combination every time it boots up, is quite dumb.
I ran the test and it says it is 32 bit. But if I compare (print screen) of what is running and what version (32bit/64bit) is running when not holding down 6 and 4 and when I DO hold down 6 and 4 when booting up, they are different.
When I do hold down 6 and 4 it is showing a LOT more 64 bit system programs. I thought, according to article like this, that it would boot the same since my EFI is 32 bit.
I also see that programs take up less RAM with 6 and 4. But it still shows memory at 3gb (I have 4gb installed but it only recognizes 3 gb).
Any chance that Apple is going to release an update so people like me will get EFI 64?
hehe I got a chuckle reading your post while looking at my HP F340 all-in-one printer that does not work under SL.
I can't help but think that all the people scrambling around on Apple's support forums looking for ways to make their HP printers work could care less about the 32 vs 64 bit goodness, they just want their printer to work, as do I.
A complete list of supported priners and scanners so far. I believe HP has their own list as well.
I'm a bit in a fog after reading that article, since I'm just a lay consumer of software, not any sort of expert, so I have just one question (please forgive my ignorance): I'm about to purchase Final Cut Studio, for $1,000, and this article says Apple has yet to release a 64-bit version of it, despite that it just released a brand new version a few weeks ago. Should I wait until a 64-bit version is released, or does it really matter all that much? Would there be, ahem, a"patch" available at some point to upgrade the 32-bit version into 64-bit, or is that like saying you could buy oranges now if you want nectarines, because there might be magic nectarine seeds available later which you could implant in the oranges later to transform them into nectarines?
My understanding is that the 64-bit instruction set is cleaner, faster, better than the 32-bit instruction set. So running in 64-bit mode provides benefits beyond just the potential for more memory.
If you need FCS, then get it. Apple will eventually come out with a 64-bit version, but who knows how long that will be. I believe FCS uses a bunch of 32-bit Quicktime stuff and until there are 64-bit replacements for those in the newest Quicktime FCS will be 32-bit. So you'll be waiting for system updates AND software updates. That could be a while.
There are Macs with 32-bit EFI and 32-bit CPUs - the first generation of Intel Macs, machines with Core Duo CPUs. 64-bitness in SL is irrelevant to them.
There are Macs with 32-bit EFI and 64-bit CPUs. These machines can't run the 64-bit kernel, but can run 64-bit apps. They will get benefits from 64-bit apps and 64-bit SL.
There are Macs with 64-bit EFI and 64-bit CPUs. These machines can run "fully" 64-bit and will see benefits from doing so. But they may have problems with kernel level drivers.
The 64-bit capable machines can also run 32-bit applications seamlessly. 64 & 32 bit apps can coexist in peace. But at the kernel level, everything must be 32 or 64 bit.
My MacBook (5,1) has 64-bit EFI (by the check I ran) and obviously has 64-bit CPU (Core2Duo) yet, holding down 6-4 when booting, it will not boot into 64-bit mode. I am not even sure if I will even benefit. I only have 2GB of RAM installed.
By contrast, my iMac, which is older, booted fine into 64-bit mode. I didn't do anything that was CPU-intensive, so I still don't know if it will be of benefit (it might when I do some builds in FCE 4?)
OK, I'm a little confused here. If running OS X with a 32-bit kernel doesn't give you access to accessing more than 4GB, then what's the added benefit from running the apps as 64-bit?
That being said, I was running Windows 7 64-bit and it had drivers for all of my hardware. 64-bit editions of Windows have been around for years, so making the move to 64-bit isn't going to be much of an issue for people. Most printer and other peripheral drivers are already included in 64-bit Windows and any new hardware that comes out usually has 64-bit versions available for download (or Windows will grab them on its own through Windows Update).
And I do believe that the majority of new Windows 7 PC purchases that will be sold this year and forward will be 64-bit editions because PCs (with the exception of maybe netbooks) have had the capability for quite some time and the driver situation is quite agreeable.
Microsoft should have made Windows 7 64-bit only IMHO and gotten rid of the 32-bit versions.
I got 64-bit EFI I see in Activity Monitor 64-bit on all that and this is the 2009 Mac mini with 4GB DDR3 320GB Hard Drive!
My MacBook (5,1) has 64-bit EFI (by the check I ran) and obviously has 64-bit CPU (Core2Duo) yet, holding down 6-4 when booting, it will not boot into 64-bit mode. I am not even sure if I will even benefit. I only have 2GB of RAM installed.
By contrast, my iMac, which is older, booted fine into 64-bit mode. I didn't do anything that was CPU-intensive, so I still don't know if it will be of benefit (it might when I do some builds in FCE 4?)
So, is 64-bit more hype than reality?
if you do photo or video editing and the file is over 4GB, or opening the file and manipulating it will require more than 4GB of RAM then 64bit will help.
Comments
The flaw is that you *don't* need to be running the 64 bit kernel to access more than 4GB of memory.
It's not a black and white situation but people have been able to access more than 4GB on Mac OS-X for a while. It's not the same architecture as Windows so the assumptions don't transfer over as well.
Yes, but you have to be careful there (as usual when it comes to computers). 32 bit kernel can not itself access more than 4 GB of RAM. Single 32 bit application can not access more than 4 GB of RAM.
32 bit kernel can (if you have enough physical RAM) give 2 32 bit processes each 4 GB of RAM at different locations in physical RAM, and if they can use it, your entire system would use 8 GB of RAM for those 2 processes, plus memory used by the kernel and other apps.
So, yes, 32 bit kernel has hacks to allow it to give applications up to 32 GB of address space, but itself can not use more than 4 GB to do its work.
Is that really hard to make 64 drivers for all those "different" mac systems supported by SL and leave 3rd party drivers(addon devices) for 3rd party Manufactureres to worry about, just like MS did.
Long time ago when taking plunge to 64bit XP, users knew that they are taking a risk... so why not give mac users that OPTION ?
I understand the "most users" approach is good mostly, but is there way for DIY users to forcefully use 64bit Kernel all the time ?
most new hardware has 64 bit drivers. i have a 10 year old scanner that is still pretty good, but i don't think there are 64 bit drivers for it. manufacturers aren't going to write new drivers for all the old hardware
Well, I'm glad the article cleared that one up
Exactly, the dumb-axx author couldn't stay on topic for more than a paragraph at a time. He's too much of a mindless Microsoft hater to not bash Windows at any opportunity. Even when it makes very little sense.
Dear Applensider, please remove Dilger as an author. The only things he is good at are bashing Microsoft and apologizing for Apple (I'm guessing as a kid he won many "No Prize" awards from Marvel Comics). He has his own website for his crap articles. Let him stay there and play the rabid fanboy. His routine is tired and pathetic.
So when i buy brand new Macbook Pro 13" with 8GB and SL installed, it's running 32bit kernel ? Should not the drivers be no problem because they are already installed and provided by Apple ?
If i dont care about printer drivers(dont print at all), could i force it to use 64bit Kernel, because using that 6-4 keyboard combination every time it boots up, is quite dumb.
Ars Technica has a long review of Snow Leopard - on page 5 they give a terminal command for setting your Mac to boot into 64-bit kernel by default (you can always change it back later if need be).
Apple's strategy here is smart even if some don't get it. The end user doesn't need to worry about drivers with the kernel in 32 bit mode. The transition to 64 bit is gradual so that the user doesn't have printers that all of a sudden won't work.
hehe I got a chuckle reading your post while looking at my HP F340 all-in-one printer that does not work under SL.
I can't help but think that all the people scrambling around on Apple's support forums looking for ways to make their HP printers work could care less about the 32 vs 64 bit goodness, they just want their printer to work, as do I.
OK, I'm a little confused here. If running OS X with a 32-bit kernel doesn't give you access to accessing more than 4GB, then what's the added benefit from running the apps as 64-bit?
That being said, I was running Windows 7 64-bit and it had drivers for all of my hardware. 64-bit editions of Windows have been around for years, so making the move to 64-bit isn't going to be much of an issue for people. Most printer and other peripheral drivers are already included in 64-bit Windows and any new hardware that comes out usually has 64-bit versions available for download (or Windows will grab them on its own through Windows Update).
And I do believe that the majority of new Windows 7 PC purchases that will be sold this year and forward will be 64-bit editions because PCs (with the exception of maybe netbooks) have had the capability for quite some time and the driver situation is quite agreeable.
Microsoft should have made Windows 7 64-bit only IMHO and gotten rid of the 32-bit versions.
Ars provides a little more insight to SLs 64-bitness.
Essentially the 32Bit Kernel is limited to 4GB for it's own needs, the system overall still reaps the benefits of the virtually ridiculous 16 Exabyte limit.
The 64-bit edition of Windows XP or Vista will run on 64-bit Macs with 32-bit EFI via Boot Camp because Windows doesn't use EFI; it still lives in the simpler world of BIOS.
Complete BS!!! Windows Vista x64 runs on 64-bit EFI 2.0, i.e. newer version than 1.1 with which Macs ship! Why does such a serious site as AppleInsider have to do this propaganda?
Actually, ability to address more than 4 GB of RAM is NOT the only benefit of 64 bit kernel. Apple themselves are saying that 64 bit kernel is 250% faster than 32 bit kernel in making system calls, and 170% faster in mapping user address space to kernel space.
There are technical reasons for this. While windows, linux and BSD do 2/2 split of the 4 GB address space between the kernel and user apps (meaning kernel gets 2 GB of address space and 2 GB of address space for applications, with ability to do 1/3 split on windows with the 3G startup switch), in OS X the split is 4/4. This means kernel can address 4 GB of RAM, and user applications can also address 4 GB of RAM.
The benefit of this is that applications get more RAM, but the draw back is that each time user application makes a system call into the kernel, user data has to be copied into the kernel address space, and user data possibly paged out (since the kernel also wants those same 4 GB of RAM).
This makes system calls with 32 bit OS X kernel slow (much slower than in Linux, Windows or BSD).
64 bit kernel has no such limitations. It is also much more efficient managing larger amounts of memory (and this does not mean just more than 32 GB of RAM), it's better if you have more than 4 GB of RAM.
You mentioned address space randomization benefit as well.
So, yes 64 bit kernel is better for almost everyone (expect on hardware that can't physically address more than 4 GB of RAM anyway).
The ONLY reason 64 kernel is not the default is because of the driver problem. Third parties have not written 64 bit drivers and it remains to be seen how fast will printer, scanner and other peripherals manufacturers start making 64 bit drivers. My bet is that they will NOT, since no one uses the 64 bit kernel. The only time they will have to do this is when 64 bit kernel becomes the default. Which leads me to believe OS X will be stuck with 32 bit kernel for a long while, until more than 32 GB laptops become common things. Which is probably not for another 10 years.
Interesting. I had not heard that before. But just to make sure I understand correctly... my early 08 MBP is limited to 4 GB RAM. Does that mean that I wouldn't get the increased speed boost from the 64-bit kernel? That only applies if I have more than 4 GB of RAM?
Is that really hard to make 64 drivers for all those "different" mac systems supported by SL and leave 3rd party drivers(addon devices) for 3rd party Manufactureres to worry about, just like MS did.
Long time ago when taking plunge to 64bit XP, users knew that they are taking a risk... so why not give mac users that OPTION ?
I understand the "most users" approach is good mostly, but is there way for DIY users to forcefully use 64bit Kernel all the time ?
Apple doesn't want people to have issues compatibility issues. The would prefer for things to 'just work'.?
You act like you can't boot into 64 bit mode when all you have to do is hold down the 6 and 4 keys or use the terminal command the elroth refers too.
hehe I got a chuckle reading your post while looking at my HP F340 all-in-one printer that does not work under SL.
I can't help but think that all the people scrambling around on Apple's support forums looking for ways to make their HP printers work could care less about the 32 vs 64 bit goodness, they just want their printer to work, as do I.
No doubt that there'll be issues. But reading the Ars review leads me to believe that Apple's strategy minimizes these problems. But it doesn't eliminate them.
So when i buy brand new Macbook Pro 13" with 8GB and SL installed, it's running 32bit kernel ? Should not the drivers be no problem because they are already installed and provided by Apple ?
If i dont care about printer drivers(dont print at all), could i force it to use 64bit Kernel, because using that 6-4 keyboard combination every time it boots up, is quite dumb.
http://www.macupdate.com/info.php/id...tyfourswitcher
or
http://www.macupdate.com/info.php/id...-mode-selector
I ran the test and it says it is 32 bit. But if I compare (print screen) of what is running and what version (32bit/64bit) is running when not holding down 6 and 4 and when I DO hold down 6 and 4 when booting up, they are different.
When I do hold down 6 and 4 it is showing a LOT more 64 bit system programs. I thought, according to article like this, that it would boot the same since my EFI is 32 bit.
I also see that programs take up less RAM with 6 and 4. But it still shows memory at 3gb (I have 4gb installed but it only recognizes 3 gb).
Any chance that Apple is going to release an update so people like me will get EFI 64?
hehe I got a chuckle reading your post while looking at my HP F340 all-in-one printer that does not work under SL.
I can't help but think that all the people scrambling around on Apple's support forums looking for ways to make their HP printers work could care less about the 32 vs 64 bit goodness, they just want their printer to work, as do I.
A complete list of supported priners and scanners so far. I believe HP has their own list as well.
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT3669
I'm a bit in a fog after reading that article, since I'm just a lay consumer of software, not any sort of expert, so I have just one question (please forgive my ignorance): I'm about to purchase Final Cut Studio, for $1,000, and this article says Apple has yet to release a 64-bit version of it, despite that it just released a brand new version a few weeks ago. Should I wait until a 64-bit version is released, or does it really matter all that much? Would there be, ahem, a"patch" available at some point to upgrade the 32-bit version into 64-bit, or is that like saying you could buy oranges now if you want nectarines, because there might be magic nectarine seeds available later which you could implant in the oranges later to transform them into nectarines?
My understanding is that the 64-bit instruction set is cleaner, faster, better than the 32-bit instruction set. So running in 64-bit mode provides benefits beyond just the potential for more memory.
If you need FCS, then get it. Apple will eventually come out with a 64-bit version, but who knows how long that will be. I believe FCS uses a bunch of 32-bit Quicktime stuff and until there are 64-bit replacements for those in the newest Quicktime FCS will be 32-bit. So you'll be waiting for system updates AND software updates. That could be a while.
- Jasen.
64 bit???? Please
Safari is super slow
Takes 4 seconds for any page except yahoo to load up
whats up with that?
Reset your Safari then take a look at it.
There are Macs with 32-bit EFI and 32-bit CPUs - the first generation of Intel Macs, machines with Core Duo CPUs. 64-bitness in SL is irrelevant to them.
There are Macs with 32-bit EFI and 64-bit CPUs. These machines can't run the 64-bit kernel, but can run 64-bit apps. They will get benefits from 64-bit apps and 64-bit SL.
There are Macs with 64-bit EFI and 64-bit CPUs. These machines can run "fully" 64-bit and will see benefits from doing so. But they may have problems with kernel level drivers.
The 64-bit capable machines can also run 32-bit applications seamlessly. 64 & 32 bit apps can coexist in peace. But at the kernel level, everything must be 32 or 64 bit.
That sound about right?
- Jasen.
By contrast, my iMac, which is older, booted fine into 64-bit mode. I didn't do anything that was CPU-intensive, so I still don't know if it will be of benefit (it might when I do some builds in FCE 4?)
So, is 64-bit more hype than reality?
OK, I'm a little confused here. If running OS X with a 32-bit kernel doesn't give you access to accessing more than 4GB, then what's the added benefit from running the apps as 64-bit?
That being said, I was running Windows 7 64-bit and it had drivers for all of my hardware. 64-bit editions of Windows have been around for years, so making the move to 64-bit isn't going to be much of an issue for people. Most printer and other peripheral drivers are already included in 64-bit Windows and any new hardware that comes out usually has 64-bit versions available for download (or Windows will grab them on its own through Windows Update).
And I do believe that the majority of new Windows 7 PC purchases that will be sold this year and forward will be 64-bit editions because PCs (with the exception of maybe netbooks) have had the capability for quite some time and the driver situation is quite agreeable.
Microsoft should have made Windows 7 64-bit only IMHO and gotten rid of the 32-bit versions.
I got 64-bit EFI I see in Activity Monitor 64-bit on all that and this is the 2009 Mac mini with 4GB DDR3 320GB Hard Drive!
My MacBook (5,1) has 64-bit EFI (by the check I ran) and obviously has 64-bit CPU (Core2Duo) yet, holding down 6-4 when booting, it will not boot into 64-bit mode. I am not even sure if I will even benefit. I only have 2GB of RAM installed.
By contrast, my iMac, which is older, booted fine into 64-bit mode. I didn't do anything that was CPU-intensive, so I still don't know if it will be of benefit (it might when I do some builds in FCE 4?)
So, is 64-bit more hype than reality?
if you do photo or video editing and the file is over 4GB, or opening the file and manipulating it will require more than 4GB of RAM then 64bit will help.