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.
Have you actually booted into the 64-bit kernel by holding down 6 and 4 while you boot?
I just did it on my 2.4ghz 2008 unibody MBP and i'm running 64bit kernel and extensions.
Well with all this talk of Snow Leopard and what it can / will do, I'm wondering how long before Apple announces all new desktop units, and monitors that benefit from all this change?
It's not enough to have the 64-bit EFI. For example the 2009 Mac Mini has it but still can't run K64.
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.
12 years after Windows and Linux? That's a joke. Which versions of Windows and Linux did people buy 10 years ago?
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.
and here is the relevant quote supported by tests in the article:
Quote:
The fastest times in all 15 cases were achieved by one of the two ATI Radeon graphics cards. The only time the nVidia GeForce 8800 GT beat the Radeon HD 2600 XT was when rendering the "Blocks-Detail.HD" APPLE MOTION 3 template. In all other cases, the Radeon HD 2600 XT's advantage over the GeForce 8800 GT (and Quadro FX 5600) was no less than 22% and as much as 42%.
We consider this incontrovertible evidence that the GeForce 8800 GT is deficient when rendering Core Image effects. This performance deficiency will extend to other Apple pro apps like Final Cut Pro video effects and Aperture functions that invoke Core Image.
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.
[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.
[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.
iMac from mid 2007 (Revision 7.1) also has 64 bit EFI.
Yes. But years ago may include Apple's early 64 bit machines.
all of apple's intel machines are based centrino and i think they are all 64 bit compatible.
AMD had the first x64 CPU back in 2003. Intel waited a year or two and then released their x64 which is the same instruction set that AMD made up. they have a cross licensing agreement and do a lot of R&D together
12 years after Windows and Linux? That's a joke. Which versions of Windows and Linux did people buy 10 years ago?
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
I enjoy all the technical talk on here and one day I hope to understand some of it...
I bought my Macbook 13" on June 23rd (birthday present to myself). It has Intel Core 2 Duo- 4GB 800MHz DDR2 SDRAM - 2x2GB 250GB Serial ATA Drive @ 5400 rpm (I did a cut and paste from Apple...)
Since I fell under the 'uptodate' upgrade to Snow Leopard timeline, (or so I thought) I clicked on the link to participate in the $9.95 upgrade. Long story short-the upgrade was put in my cart. I then bought Airport Express and when I checked out, I got an error that I already had my limit of Snow Leopard and it took it out of the cart.
I don't understand what happened. I checked my software updates and it is not on there.
Has anyone else had this happen? Am I missing something here? (I'm not usually this ignorant on stuff-but this has me baffled)...
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
What most people don't understand is that Microsoft does upgrades like 64 bit to be able to stamp on their advert: "OH LOOK! We have 64 bit!!". But it is all half-assed and doesn't go anyware.
On the other hand apple is advertising: "OH LOOK our applications are 90% faster, oh yes and it is because of 64-bit". You see the difference?
Yes they would. The "normal" up-to-date" program is within 90 days of purchase.
Snow Leopard up-to-date is "if you?ve 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."
No - the text on that page does say that it must be within 90 days of purchase. The main headline doesn't, but the finer print half-way down does say "This program ends December 26, 2009. Your completed order form must be postmarked or faxed within 90 days of the date of your purchase of a qualifying computer or Xserve (described in this offer) or by December 26, 2009, whichever is earlier."
I bought a MacBook Pro just after June 8th, so I have only 90 days after that date to order the upgrade.
Got a new iMac 3.06GHz 24" recently to replace my 2007 model. Specced it up to 8GHz, not cheap as you can imagine. Made sure it had the top GPU ATI Radeon HD 4850 installed and I've had Snow Leopard rebate on back order for about a month at £7.95 ($13.05).
Sweet. Nothing like being prepared. All I've got to do is beat the bank manager away from my door now wanting money. Needs must.
Comments
Let's follow the instructions here. This allowed me to enable 64 bits kernel on my Late 2008 macbook pro unibody (with the 10A421 developer seed).
Here are some of the details from the system info app running on my Snow Leopard installation:
Model Name
Model Identifier
Processor Name
Processor Speed
Number Of Processors
Total Number Of Cores
L2 Cache
Memory
Bus Speed
System Version
Kernel Version
Boot Mode
Secure Virtual Memory
64-bit Kernel and Extensions
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.
Have you actually booted into the 64-bit kernel by holding down 6 and 4 while you boot?
I just did it on my 2.4ghz 2008 unibody MBP and i'm running 64bit kernel and extensions.
System Software Overview:
System Version
Kernel Version
Boot Volume
Boot Mode
Computer Name
User Name
Secure Virtual Memory
64-bit Kernel and Extensions
Time since boot
Oh, and tablets and laptops too
Hell for that matter ? new iPod touches and ?
Skip
It's not enough to have the 64-bit EFI. For example the 2009 Mac Mini has it but still can't run K64.
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.
It's not enough to have the 64-bit EFI. For example the 2009 Mac Mini has it but still can't run K64.
Curious... how do you know what you know?
12 years after Windows and Linux? That's a joke. Which versions of Windows and Linux did people buy 10 years ago?
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.
Have you actually booted into the 64-bit kernel by holding down 6 and 4 while you boot?
Yes. I tried that after I'd posted my reply. It still stayed with the 32 bit kernel.
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?
Sure, here you go:
http://barefeats.com/harper10.html
and here is the relevant quote supported by tests in the article:
The fastest times in all 15 cases were achieved by one of the two ATI Radeon graphics cards. The only time the nVidia GeForce 8800 GT beat the Radeon HD 2600 XT was when rendering the "Blocks-Detail.HD" APPLE MOTION 3 template. In all other cases, the Radeon HD 2600 XT's advantage over the GeForce 8800 GT (and Quadro FX 5600) was no less than 22% and as much as 42%.
We consider this incontrovertible evidence that the GeForce 8800 GT is deficient when rendering Core Image effects. This performance deficiency will extend to other Apple pro apps like Final Cut Pro video effects and Aperture functions that invoke Core Image.
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.
[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.
iMac from mid 2007 (Revision 7.1) also has 64 bit EFI.
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...
No, there is no reason why Apple cannot add/debug/make default drivers with 10.6.x releases.
... which I'm assuming will take another 2-3 years to develop and deploy ...
That's a strange assumption considering in every case but one the period between major releases of OS X has been 1-2 years.
... which puts us into 2012 or 2013 range.
No, your pessimistic assumption of 2-3 years would put us into 2011 or 2012.
On the other hand Windows XP 64 bit was first released in 2002.
... and still isn't useable in most applications.
Linux had 64 bit kernels significantly earlier than that.
Yes, but the early 64-bit Linux kernels were not for Intel.
Yes. But years ago may include Apple's early 64 bit machines.
all of apple's intel machines are based centrino and i think they are all 64 bit compatible.
AMD had the first x64 CPU back in 2003. Intel waited a year or two and then released their x64 which is the same instruction set that AMD made up. they have a cross licensing agreement and do a lot of R&D together
12 years after Windows and Linux? That's a joke. Which versions of Windows and Linux did people buy 10 years ago?
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
I enjoy all the technical talk on here and one day I hope to understand some of it...
I bought my Macbook 13" on June 23rd (birthday present to myself). It has Intel Core 2 Duo- 4GB 800MHz DDR2 SDRAM - 2x2GB 250GB Serial ATA Drive @ 5400 rpm (I did a cut and paste from Apple...)
Since I fell under the 'uptodate' upgrade to Snow Leopard timeline, (or so I thought) I clicked on the link to participate in the $9.95 upgrade. Long story short-the upgrade was put in my cart. I then bought Airport Express and when I checked out, I got an error that I already had my limit of Snow Leopard and it took it out of the cart.
I don't understand what happened. I checked my software updates and it is not on there.
Has anyone else had this happen? Am I missing something here? (I'm not usually this ignorant on stuff-but this has me baffled)...
Any help or advice? Thank you in advance!
Diane
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
What most people don't understand is that Microsoft does upgrades like 64 bit to be able to stamp on their advert: "OH LOOK! We have 64 bit!!". But it is all half-assed and doesn't go anyware.
On the other hand apple is advertising: "OH LOOK our applications are 90% faster, oh yes and it is because of 64-bit". You see the difference?
Yes they would. The "normal" up-to-date" program is within 90 days of purchase.
Snow Leopard up-to-date is "if you?ve 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/
No - the text on that page does say that it must be within 90 days of purchase. The main headline doesn't, but the finer print half-way down does say "This program ends December 26, 2009. Your completed order form must be postmarked or faxed within 90 days of the date of your purchase of a qualifying computer or Xserve (described in this offer) or by December 26, 2009, whichever is earlier."
I bought a MacBook Pro just after June 8th, so I have only 90 days after that date to order the upgrade.
I don't understand what happened. I checked my software updates and it is not on there.
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.
Sweet. Nothing like being prepared. All I've got to do is beat the bank manager away from my door now wanting money. Needs must.
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
???????