PDA

View Full Version : Will Apple drop 32-bit support with Lion?




pineapple216
Oct 24, 2010, 08:24 AM
As the title states; Will OS X 10.7 Lion be 64-bit only?
Vote, and motivate your opinion.

I personally think they will. If you look at the statistics from adium users, 95% of the users of adium has a 64-bit capable mac

http://adium.im/sparkle/ (second graph from above).

And all news mac sold the last 4 years are macs with a core2duo/xeon/core-i-series or other 64 bit capable processor.

In the pas Apple has often used hardware features to decide if systems can or can't run a specific version of OS X; e.g. Snow Leopard, runs only on Intel macs.

EDIT 28 feb 2011:

I see there's a big discussion going on about this topic.
What I meant to state is; Will Apple drop support for Mac's with 32-bit processors, with Lion?
Because I think it's possible for Apple to reflash 32-bit EFI to 64-bit.



Osarkon
Oct 24, 2010, 08:38 AM
Actually the very very first macbooks came with Core Duo for a brief period of time, which are 32 bit.

It would be a bit of pain if they did drop support for 32 bit as mine is one of these, but it wouldn't be unexpected.

cal6n
Oct 24, 2010, 03:14 PM
The first series Intel-based iMacs and Macbook Pros were 32-bit too.

Corndog5595
Oct 24, 2010, 03:16 PM
It would seem like a bad choice (and one with few benefits).

flopticalcube
Oct 24, 2010, 03:19 PM
Minis didn't get C2D until 2007. I don't see any benefit to Apple save driving sales of new machines.

roadbloc
Oct 24, 2010, 03:41 PM
I hope it is 64bit only. Time to push the technology.

mulo
Oct 24, 2010, 03:43 PM
I hope it is 64bit only. Time to push the technology.

yeap, I'm hoping they will upgrade the entire OS to 64 bit. lots of the processes running, like secure empty trash is only coded to one core even. these are things that would be nice to support several cores

flopticalcube
Oct 24, 2010, 03:49 PM
yeap, I'm hoping they will upgrade the entire OS to 64 bit. lots of the processes running, like secure empty trash is only coded to one core even. these are things that would be nice to support several cores

But none of that requires 64bit. Very few things would benefit.

SplasherK
Oct 24, 2010, 04:26 PM
I hope it is 64bit only. Time to push the technology.

I agree with this 100%, if you're still using an older PowerPC, its time to upgrade. From what I've read, 64bit computers are able to access more RAM than the 32bit. I need my RAM. ;)

Corndog5595
Oct 24, 2010, 04:30 PM
I agree with this 100%, if you're still using an older PowerPC, its time to upgrade. From what I've read, 64bit computers are able to access more RAM than the 32bit. I need my RAM. ;)

OS X can run 32 and 64 bit apps at the same time, even when running the 32 bit kernel. If you have four or more GB of RAM, you are going to want to run 64 bit processes. Almost all of Apple's OOTB (out of the box) processes support both 64 and 32 bit modes. The only advantage to requiring 64 bit capable processors would be a smaller (think two or three gigs) OS footprint.

drjsway
Oct 24, 2010, 09:46 PM
If you mean, will they switch to a 64-bit kernel default, there is ZERO chance of that happening. Even the just released iLife '11 is still 32-bit.

aiqw9182
Oct 24, 2010, 09:56 PM
If you mean, will they switch to a 64-bit kernel default, there is ZERO chance of that happening. Even the just released iLife '11 is still 32-bit.

You can run 32-bit apps with a 64-bit kernel... I'm doing it right now.

Anyway I'm expecting support to be dropped for Core Duo machines in 10.7 then machines with a 32-bit EFI in 10.8 to be dropped or whatever they plan on calling the next version. Once your machine is out of its Apple Care range Apple doesn't have to support your machine and every Core Duo Mac is already 3-4 years old.

madstation
Oct 25, 2010, 12:56 AM
We still need 32 bit support. Not all software that I've purchased will eventually be ported to 64 bit so flexibility is a must.

Infrared
Oct 25, 2010, 09:01 AM
My guess would be:

Kernel only 64-bit, but 32-bit app support remaining.

TheAngryKiwi
Oct 29, 2010, 05:32 AM
If you're talking about booting into a 64-bit Kernel being compulsory? That cuts off many more machines than just Core Duo/Solo Macs - it also cuts off a number of Core 2 Duo machines that currently can't boot into a 64-bit Kernel under SL (My iMac and MacBook - the MB is from 2008!), because there aren't 64-bit drivers for everything, as I understand it.

So unless Apple makes a big push to write new drivers, (or get vendors to), they'd cut off a huge chunk of users if they made the kernel 64-bit only.

Bernard SG
Oct 29, 2010, 05:42 AM
Nope, they just released iLife '11 in 32 bits.

Morris
Nov 7, 2010, 05:18 PM
But none of that requires 64bit. Very few things would benefit.

Actually, the benefits are huge. Instead of having to code, debug, test and deploy for both 32bit and 64bit systems Apple only needs to focus on 64bit systems. Easier and faster development, ~50% smaller binaries and likely higher quality code awaits...

Apple stopped selling non-64bit systems many years ago and currently only a few percent of all Macs out there do not have a 64bit CPU. The Adium stats (http://adium.im/sparkle/#detailedcputype) suggest >95% is now 64bit capable. And no, what type of EFI you have has nothing at all to do with this. If CPU is equal or better to Core2Duo there is no need for 32bit support. 64bit CPUs and OSs will happily run 32bit apps of course.

Therefore, Core2Duo is a likely to be the minimal CPU for OS X Lion. Apple has a lot to gain, very little to lose from that decision.

Lesser Evets
Nov 9, 2010, 05:41 AM
Nope, they just released iLife '11 in 32 bits.

Yep. Doubt this release will banish 32-bit machines or apps.

10.8 might very well only be able to run on 64-bit machines. That would be 2013: quite a way away.

Morris
Nov 9, 2010, 07:18 AM
Yep. Doubt this release will banish 32-bit machines or apps.

10.8 might very well only be able to run on 64-bit machines. That would be 2013: quite a way away.

I don't think anyone is expecting Apple to stop supporting 32bit apps anytime soon. There is no need for it as 64bit hardware and 64bit OSes run 32bit software just fine.

However, I see no reason at all why Apple would not drop 32bit machines for 10.7. It has only upsides for them: People with >4 year old machines will have to buy a new one if they want to run 10.7 and it makes their developer's lives a lot easier because they would only have to focus on developing and testing 64bit code. Joe Bloggs need never notice because they have been running 64bit software (Snow Leopard) on 64bit hardware (any Mac since early 2007) for years.

David085
Nov 9, 2010, 09:23 PM
It will more then likely still support 32bit it won't be drop anything time soon.

flopticalcube
Nov 9, 2010, 09:33 PM
Actually, the benefits are huge. Instead of having to code, debug, test and deploy for both 32bit and 64bit systems Apple only needs to focus on 64bit systems. Easier and faster development, ~50% smaller binaries and likely higher quality code awaits...

Apple stopped selling non-64bit systems many years ago and currently only a few percent of all Macs out there do not have a 64bit CPU. The Adium stats (http://adium.im/sparkle/#detailedcputype) suggest >95% is now 64bit capable. And no, what type of EFI you have has nothing at all to do with this. If CPU is equal or better to Core2Duo there is no need for 32bit support. 64bit CPUs and OSs will happily run 32bit apps of course.

Therefore, Core2Duo is a likely to be the minimal CPU for OS X Lion. Apple has a lot to gain, very little to lose from that decision.
No. The overhead is minor compared to having PPC and Intel. The developement process would gain minimal benefit. The only real benefit for Apple is driving sales of new machines. Having said that, there aren't many x86 left compared to x64 machines. Apple will be true to form most likely and abandon older users at the first opportunity.

Kilamite
Nov 10, 2010, 07:51 AM
Apple stopped selling non-64bit systems many years ago and currently only a few percent of all Macs out there do not have a 64bit CPU. The Adium stats (http://adium.im/sparkle/#detailedcputype) suggest >95% is now 64bit capable. And no, what type of EFI you have has nothing at all to do with this. If CPU is equal or better to Core2Duo there is no need for 32bit support. 64bit CPUs and OSs will happily run 32bit apps of course.

Adium is not a reliable source to determine how many people have 64-bit capable Macs. I don't use Adium, none of my friends do either.

Granted, it is a popular IM app, but hardly a way to show how many people have 64-bit capable Macs..

Morris
Nov 10, 2010, 03:23 PM
Adium is not a reliable source to determine how many people have 64-bit capable Macs. I don't use Adium, none of my friends do either.

Granted, it is a popular IM app, but hardly a way to show how many people have 64-bit capable Macs..

I agree it is not perfect. However it is probably one of the better sources of data we have. Do you have any reason why you think it is not reliable?

The fact that you or your friends do not use Adium doesn't mean much. The sample size of Adium's data is hundreds of thousands clients. For most normal purposes a sample size of more than 10,000 is way overkill. Whether the data is based on 450,000 or 450,010 (when you and your friends would be included) would have no meaningful effect on the results. Not even in the unlikely event that you and all of your friends have machines bought in exactly that short time frame years ago that Apple sold Intel32 processors.

The only thing that would make the data unreliable is if there was an uneven distribution among the users of Adium, if the data would therefore not be representative (like those often misused browser stats of w3Schools, a site mostly visited by techies). If it were only used by grannies, or only by techies, that would skew the results. However, I would argue that a much-used program that appeals to a broad group of people, from 13 year old girls and techie boys to perhaps even grannies, would probably be one of the best cross sections of all OS X users.

Or do you have a particular large group in mind that is very likely to use machines bought before summer 2007 but not use Adium? Could there be a relationship between having bought your machine before summer 2007 and not having Adium? Because a massive group of those would be the only reason the 95% would be lower in reality than in Adium stats.

karsten
Nov 14, 2010, 07:53 PM
i think its early. mac pro 1,1 would be pissed

quactaur
Nov 15, 2010, 09:01 AM
I agree it is not perfect. However it is probably one of the better sources of data we have. Do you have any reason why you think it is not reliable?

The fact that you or your friends do not use Adium doesn't mean much. The sample size of Adium's data is hundreds of thousands clients. For most normal purposes a sample size of more than 10,000 is way overkill. Whether the data is based on 450,000 or 450,010 (when you and your friends would be included) would have no meaningful effect on the results. Not even in the unlikely event that you and all of your friends have machines bought in exactly that short time frame years ago that Apple sold Intel32 processors.



It is irrelevant whether 95 or even 100% or users have 64 bit processors, what matters if how many users' hardware has a full set of 64 bit drivers.

What also matters is how many peripherals from third parties also have 64 bit drivers



There is simply no way that 10.7 will drop 32 bit support. I imagine well over half of all macs on the market at the moment do not support a 64 bit kernel, and even if they did, a great number of printers, usb devices and pci-x ones would be made completely incompatible.

Morris
Nov 15, 2010, 01:10 PM
i think its early. mac pro 1,1 would be pissed

There is no need for them to be pissed. The Mac Pro1,1 has 64bit CPUs (Xeon Clovertown (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/List_of_Intel_Xeon_microprocessors#.22Clovertown.22_.2865_nm.29)) so are not in any way affected if Apple would stop supporting 32bit CPUs.

It is irrelevant whether 95 or even 100% or users have 64 bit processors, what matters if how many users' hardware has a full set of 64 bit drivers.

What also matters is how many peripherals from third parties also have 64 bit drivers


There is simply no way that 10.7 will drop 32 bit support. I imagine well over half of all macs on the market at the moment do not support a 64 bit kernel, and even if they did, a great number of printers, usb devices and pci-x ones would be made completely incompatible.

None of that is relevant for dropping support for 32bit CPUs. A lot of people with Core2Duo CPUs but with older machines will just run 10.7 with a 32bit kernel. No need for 64bit drivers.

To get this clear, I am not saying that machines that are currently running a 32bit kernel would be dropped. Only machines with CoreDuo CPUs.

So, if you currently run a 32bit kernel, you will probably still do under 10.7. However, most of your software and OS will be running under 64bit, as it already does for almost everyone who currently runs Snow Leopard.

It is very simple:

Forget about EFIs, they have nothing to do with this
Forget about Kernels, they have nothing to do with this
Forget about drivers, they have nothing to do with this
Only think about CPUs. If it is older than Core2Duo, I am expecting it not to be supported.

alleycat
Nov 23, 2010, 01:48 PM
Mac Pro 1,1 owner here. If they drop me, then I'm dropping Apple. Especially in this economy, I'm not made of money, and would like to see my desktop's useful life extended.

Build a Windows machine? It might happen for this 20 year Mac vet.

wrldwzrd89
Nov 23, 2010, 01:53 PM
I wouldn't be at all surprised if Apple drops support for the 32-bit Intel Macs with Lion. However... moving to K64 as the default for all supported Macs will cause hardware headaches, most definitely. I think there's a 50% chance K64 will be the default. Finally, the 3rd point mentioned: 32-bit application support. No reason for that to go away. Most of the applications that benefit greatly from being 64-bit native have made the move already. The remainder either do not benefit at all or don't benefit enough to justify migrating.

matspekkie
Nov 27, 2010, 06:45 PM
I don't think they can drop it yet. First of cpu is one thing the second thing is you efi. for example my macbook 2.1 has a 64bit cpu the efi is 32 bit so it is impossible to run a 64bit kernel. Then of course you have a lot of 3th party hardware that needs 64 bit drivers. And a lot don't have these at the moment (digidesign /avid) etc etc. the real advantage of 64 bit would be memory addressing more than the 4GB limit 32 bit has. so far slow leopard has done a good job being compatible with the both. you can try run your computer in 64
mode only see if everything still works. just hold 6+4 during boot and check system profiler afterwards. I wonder why itunes is still 32 bit?? :D

wrldwzrd89
Nov 27, 2010, 07:04 PM
I don't think they can drop it yet. First of cpu is one thing the second thing is you efi. for example my macbook 2.1 has a 64bit cpu the efi is 32 bit so it is impossible to run a 64bit kernel. Then of course you have a lot of 3th party hardware that needs 64 bit drivers. And a lot don't have these at the moment (digidesign /avid) etc etc. the real advantage of 64 bit would be memory addressing more than the 4GB limit 32 bit has. so far slow leopard has done a good job being compatible with the both. you can try run your computer in 64
mode only see if everything still works. just hold 6+4 during boot and check system profiler afterwards. I wonder why itunes is still 32 bit?? :D
You forget that dropping compatibility with 32-bit Macs and dropping compatibility with 32-bit software are NOT at all related.

mrsir2009
Nov 27, 2010, 10:48 PM
I want the whole OS to be 64bit. There aren't tons of people using 32bit Macs that would want to (or be able to) upgrade to Lion anyway.

Dentunes
Nov 30, 2010, 09:50 PM
Hi all,

I am a huge Apple fan and have purchased many of their products over the years. I currently have a Mac Pro 2,1 which has a 32bit EFI. While I can understand dropping PPC support as it is a completely different processor, I can't understand them dropping 32 bit support for a few reasons. Firstly, no Mac computer with a 32bit EFI will run a 64 bit kernel. Period. That wipes out quite a few Intel Macs, C2D and XEON included.

Secondly - A Jan 1, 2008 Mac Pro running Clovertown processors use a 32bit EFI, rendering them obsolete if that were the case. That would mean a Mac still under warranty with Apple Care, if purchased, would not be able to run current software. That doesn't make sense.

Finally, there are consumer computers in the Mac range currently that do not run 64 bit and need to be hacked to make them run. This is believed to be Apple differentiating the consumer lines to the pro lines.

There will be MANY unhappy users if 32bit is discontinued, myself included. That would only be done to push people to buy new products and in that case I have to give it to Microsoft. They do NOT do that. If your computer has the speed, Windows will run it. My 2 cents. :mad:

MattInOz
Dec 1, 2010, 09:02 PM
Hi all,

I am a huge Apple fan and have purchased many of their products over the years. I currently have a Mac Pro 2,1 which has a 32bit EFI. While I can understand dropping PPC support as it is a completely different processor, I can't understand them dropping 32 bit support for a few reasons. Firstly, no Mac computer with a 32bit EFI will run a 64 bit kernel. Period. That wipes out quite a few Intel Macs, C2D and XEON included.



Happy to be corrected, I didn't think it was that cut and dried. I was of the understanding that a 64bit Kernel can run on a 32bit EFI and has been done on a number of other systems. It's just that Apple choose not to support it in Snow Leopard. Maybe they saw it as a battle that could wait till later in the transition. That was 2+ year ago and they might have a plan that makes 64bit relevant to more people and worth the work of getting it to run on the 32bit EFI machines. I fully agree these machines are too new to be left behind.

It does raise the question, why is 64bit important for the common garden user?
I mean I understand it gives the computer the ability to address lots more memory but does that open up any interesting things?

I was thinking like mapping the whole hard drive to a region of the address space so that individual objects could be called direct from storage then returned as soon as operations where complete on them instead of the whole file and replace/upgrade virtual memory. So things like the users documents, core data stores, nib files, even program code could be a spare bundle of objects instead of being loaded as complete file to RAM unarchived to objects for used then with periodic rearchieved and saved to disk with the risk of loosing some work if an error occurs between.

Could this a way of Apple to add the two features they didn't say much about AutoSave and Apps relaunching where you left them?

Morris
Dec 4, 2010, 05:16 PM
Hi all,

I am a huge Apple fan and have purchased many of their products over the years. I currently have a Mac Pro 2,1 which has a 32bit EFI. While I can understand dropping PPC support as it is a completely different processor, I can't understand them dropping 32 bit support for a few reasons. Firstly, no Mac computer with a 32bit EFI will run a 64 bit kernel. Period. That wipes out quite a few Intel Macs, C2D and XEON included.

The Mac Pro 2,1 has a 64bit processor and if Apple were to decide to drop support for 32bit CPUs (as I expect they will) your machine will not be affected. Your EFI has absolutely nothing to do with this.

Secondly - A Jan 1, 2008 Mac Pro running Clovertown processors use a 32bit EFI, rendering them obsolete if that were the case. That would mean a Mac still under warranty with Apple Care, if purchased, would not be able to run current software. That doesn't make sense.
EFI is irrelevant, it's the CPU. Clovertowns are 64bit processors and are running 64bit code as we speak on millions of Macs, by default, for quite some time now.


Finally, there are consumer computers in the Mac range currently that do not run 64 bit and need to be hacked to make them run. This is believed to be Apple differentiating the consumer lines to the pro lines.

There will be MANY unhappy users if 32bit is discontinued, myself included. That would only be done to push people to buy new products and in that case I have to give it to Microsoft. They do NOT do that. If your computer has the speed, Windows will run it. My 2 cents. :mad:
Forget about EFI, that has nothing to do with this. You and everyone who has bought a Mac in the last few years has a 64bit machine, from the most basic consumer model to the high end pro machine. Years ago, Apple sold 32bit machines for a short while (less than a year) and no 32bit Pro has been sold for about nine years now.

Dropping support for 32bit CPUs will not affect you, anybody with a Mac Pro or anyone who has bought a Mac in the last four years.

dermeister
Dec 13, 2010, 12:36 AM
The Mac Pro 2,1 has a 64bit processor and if Apple were to decide to drop support for 32bit CPUs (as I expect they will) your machine will not be affected. Your EFI has absolutely nothing to do with this.
EFI is irrelevant, it's the CPU. Clovertowns are 64bit processors and are running 64bit code as we speak on millions of Macs, by default, for quite some time now.


Forget about EFI, that has nothing to do with this. You and everyone who has bought a Mac in the last few years has a 64bit machine, from the most basic consumer model to the high end pro machine. Years ago, Apple sold 32bit machines for a short while (less than a year) and no 32bit Pro has been sold for about nine years now.

Dropping support for 32bit CPUs will not affect you, anybody with a Mac Pro or anyone who has bought a Mac in the last four years.

I think the case most people are concerned about (including me) is 64bit CPU machines stuck with EFI32s, which means they NEED a 32bit kernel.

What are we talking about exactly when we say 10.7 is "dropping 32bit"? Let's clarify!

Does it mean the 32bit kernel is kept, and all Apple/system processes are 64bit only, along with support for running old 32bit apps? This scenario is fine by me.

Or does it mean the kernel is 64bit only, and all Apple/system processes are 64bit only, along with support for running old 32bit apps? This scenario wipes out everybody in the EFI32+64bit CPU category.

The latter case would greatly piss me off. The only thing that could make the latter case fine would be a firmware update if update the EFI to 64bit... If that's even possible. I know Apple doesn't like to talk about future products to keep their edge, but they should really give us a clue on this. They could stop all the agony by answering this simple question.

They have already done a terrible job of supporting the macpro1,1, and making 10.7 EFI64-only would be the final F.U. to every owner out there.

Yaboze
Jan 5, 2011, 09:50 AM
I doubt it. Everyone wanted MS to do that with Windows 7 or maybe even Vista and there are still a lot of machines out there with 32-bit CPU's.

You also have to keep in mind that a 64-bit system requires more default memory. It's not a good idea to run a 64-bit OS with just 1-2GB of ram, which is possible now (although not great at 1GB), but due to addressing, more default ram is needed (4GB +).

Even if Lion was 64-bit, a 32-bit iLife or iWork would still run. I run a Windows 7 64-bit desktop and the majority of my apps and games are 32-bit still. Ironically enough, iTunes is one of the few 64-bit apps I do have installed, but I just use it for playback, all of my stuff is done on the Mac. The PC is just for working from home and games.

logandzwon
Jan 5, 2011, 01:54 PM
I highly, highly doubt they will drop 32 bit support. It's not about the machine but the devices. Many still don't have 64 drivers.

I would like to see the default kernel be 64 though. As of SL only for the servers are 64 by default.

You can boot a 64-bit kernel with a 32-EFI. Only your bootloader needs to be 32-bit. Apple currently does not allow this. I am pretty sure Ubuntu 64bit will boot on a mac with a 32 bit EFI. The page gives a good explanation; http://www.ahatfullofsky.comuv.com/English/Programs/SMS/SMS.html

wildpod
Jan 5, 2011, 10:53 PM
Don't count on it. Seeing as most of the machines apple sells are notebooks with 4 or less GB of memory, the advantages of dropping 32bit mode would be almost none.
That is not to say that they should not do it, they should at least enable the 64bit kernel by default on every new machine they sell since they are all capable of using it, and provide an option for everyone upgrading to enable it too.

slb
Jan 22, 2011, 05:11 PM
Requiring a 64-bit processor would mean AppKit could take advantage of the modern Objective-C 2.0 run-time used by iOS. This would initially be a developer-only benefit, but it would trickle down to users in improvements to the application frameworks. Snow Leopard dropped PowerPC support, so I would not be surprised if Lion dropped support for 32-bit processors. By the end of 2011, 32-bit Intel Macs will be six years old (time flies). The last PowerPC Macs were only four years old when OS X stopped supporting them in Snow Leopard.

Many posters are mentioning the current lack of 64-bit kernels and drivers. A 64-bit kernel is not required to run 64-bit applications on OS X, so it's an irrelevant issue.

chrismacguy
Jan 22, 2011, 06:30 PM
While I could see them dropping Support for Core Duo/Core Solo Macs (and the MP 1,1), I fully expect them to have 64-bit drivers for every Mac with a Core 2 Duo processor inside, however I expect they wont just so they dont annoy all the people who bought said MP 1,1s.

Tower-Union
Jan 22, 2011, 06:50 PM
Dermeister laid this out very well about 5 posts up. 64 bit DRIVERS are fine, even great! 64 bit kernel= Mac Pro 1,1 and 2,1 people are all screwed. This has been covered many times in these forums, a lot of us Mac Pro 1,1 people are pretty steamed about this. :mad:

chrismacguy
Jan 22, 2011, 07:05 PM
no 32bit Pro has been sold for about nine years now.
Last Time I checked the Mac Pro shipped in 2006. Thats a lot more recent than nine years ago. Thats 5 by my count. Nine Years Ago Apple was shipping PowerPC G4 based computers at the high-end. These arent Pros. They are PowerMacs. Massive, Massive difference :rolleyes:

Morris
Feb 12, 2011, 06:50 PM
Dermeister laid this out very well about 5 posts up. 64 bit DRIVERS are fine, even great! 64 bit kernel= Mac Pro 1,1 and 2,1 people are all screwed. This has been covered many times in these forums, a lot of us Mac Pro 1,1 people are pretty steamed about this. :mad:
The Mac Pro 1,1 uses a XEON CPU, they don't come in 32bit variety. If Apple were to drop support for 32bit CPUs (as I expect them to do for the many benefits that have been repeated throughout this thread) the Mac Pro 1,1 will happily run Lion as 32bit Mac Pros simply do not exist.

Last Time I checked the Mac Pro shipped in 2006. Thats a lot more recent than nine years ago. Thats 5 by my count. Nine Years Ago Apple was shipping PowerPC G4 based computers at the high-end. These arent Pros. They are PowerMacs. Massive, Massive difference :rolleyes:

Yes, and that Mac Pro that shipped in 2006 has a XEON as CPU. In other words, it is a 64 bit machine. If Lion would drop support for 32bit processors, it would still run perfectly on that 5 year old Mac Pro.

Again, the last 32bit CPU Apple used in its pro line was the G4, nine years ago, it has been exclusively 64bit ever since.

If your Mac Pro runs Snow Leopard it will run a 64bit-CPU-only Lion, simple.

GBGamer007
Feb 13, 2011, 04:32 AM
If Apple switches to only 64 bit support I will switch to Linux on Dells. I understand the move to Intel-only support, but this would be the last straw. Otherwise, I don't think Apple will move to only 64-bit support. Their history has been one of supporting processors well past their shelf end date.

Mal
Feb 13, 2011, 02:31 PM
If Apple switches to only 64 bit support I will switch to Linux on Dells. I understand the move to Intel-only support, but this would be the last straw. Otherwise, I don't think Apple will move to only 64-bit support. Their history has been one of supporting processors well past their shelf end date.

That's a pretty illogical viewpoint. You'll switch because Apple stops supporting computers that are 4+ years old? Even if you don't have one? 64-bit only support would only (possibly) affect the Core Duo MacBooks and Mac Mini's from the original Intel switch. I doubt more than 1% of Macs in use today would be affected by that decision, if they even make it.

jW

petvas
Feb 13, 2011, 02:40 PM
Apple won't drop support for the 32bit kernel, as the latest Macbook Airs do load it instead of the 64bit. I am sure Apple wouldn't be so crazy not supporting the MBA on Lion.

asdf542
Feb 14, 2011, 05:09 AM
Apple won't drop support for the 32bit kernel, as the latest Macbook Airs do load it instead of the 64bit. I am sure Apple wouldn't be so crazy not supporting the MBA on Lion.

Actually all of those MacBook Airs are capable of running a 64-bit kernel(even though that's not what this thread is about, it's about dropping 32-bit processors)

http://www.everymac.com/articles/q&a/snow-leopard-mac-os-x-faq/mac-os-x-snow-leopard-64-bit-macs-64-bit-efi-boot-in-64-bit-mode.html

All of the Macs with an asterisk next to 32 under boot are capable of running a 64-bit kernel, Apple just doesn't allow it for whatever reason.

The only machines people are suggesting will get dropped from Lion are those that have a 32-bit processor which will be all of the Core Duo/Solo machines. Should Apple want to remove the 32-bit kernel after Lion then only some early Core 2 Duo Macs and late 2006 Mac Pros will not be supported(which by the time that happens those machines will be 6-7 years old if the next major OS release is in 2013).

petvas
Feb 14, 2011, 07:02 AM
Actually all of those MacBook Airs are capable of running a 64-bit kernel(even though that's not what this thread is about, it's about dropping 32-bit processors)

http://www.everymac.com/articles/q&a/snow-leopard-mac-os-x-faq/mac-os-x-snow-leopard-64-bit-macs-64-bit-efi-boot-in-64-bit-mode.html

All of the Macs with an asterisk next to 32 under boot are capable of running a 64-bit kernel, Apple just doesn't allow it for whatever reason.

The only machines people are suggesting will get dropped from Lion are those that have a 32-bit processor which will be all of the Core Duo/Solo machines. Should Apple want to remove the 32-bit kernel after Lion then only some early Core 2 Duo Macs and late 2006 Mac Pros will not be supported(which by the time that happens those machines will be 6-7 years old if the next major OS release is in 2013).

Yes, that is correct. I hadn't checked if the Air has a 64bit EFI. I still don't think Apple will drop 32bit support. Maybe the next version.

karsten
Feb 14, 2011, 08:44 AM
Actually all of those MacBook Airs are capable of running a 64-bit kernel(even though that's not what this thread is about, it's about dropping 32-bit processors)

http://www.everymac.com/articles/q&a/snow-leopard-mac-os-x-faq/mac-os-x-snow-leopard-64-bit-macs-64-bit-efi-boot-in-64-bit-mode.html

All of the Macs with an asterisk next to 32 under boot are capable of running a 64-bit kernel, Apple just doesn't allow it for whatever reason.

The only machines people are suggesting will get dropped from Lion are those that have a 32-bit processor which will be all of the Core Duo/Solo machines. Should Apple want to remove the 32-bit kernel after Lion then only some early Core 2 Duo Macs and late 2006 Mac Pros will not be supported(which by the time that happens those machines will be 6-7 years old if the next major OS release is in 2013).

actually people are suggesting dropping support for any machine with a 32-bit EFI regardless of its processor being 64 or 32-bit. i.e. the original macbook air and the original mac pro

mjsmke
Feb 14, 2011, 10:08 AM
If they dropped support for PPC Macs 5 years after they stopped producing them it'l probably be a few years yet before they go 64Bit only.

If they do it too quick it may push people away from Macs.

asdf542
Feb 14, 2011, 10:21 AM
actually people are suggesting dropping support for any machine with a 32-bit EFI regardless of its processor being 64 or 32-bit. i.e. the original macbook air and the original mac pro

The main discussion I see in this thread is those confused between the 32 bit processors and the 32 bit EFI. The chances of Apple dropping all 32 bit EFI only machines in 10.7 is not as likely to happen as them simply dropping 32 bit processors. Does that mean Apple can't do both at the same time in 10.7 should they want to? No, it doesn't.

karsten
Feb 16, 2011, 01:44 PM
i wonder if it would be possible for apple to remove the limitation of 32-bit efi machines not booting a 64-bit kernel

8CoreWhore
Feb 18, 2011, 08:26 PM
http://www.ahatfullofsky.comuv.com/English/Programs/SMS/SMS.html


<<<So what is the commotion about?

Itís a bit of a storm in a tea cup. The perceived problem is two-fold.

For one a limitation set by Apple is that Snow Leopardís 64-bit kernel works only on Macs with 64-bit EFI. Technically a 64-bit kernel can be launched by a 32-bit EFI just fine.

The other is that Apple also disabled 64-bit kernel support for any Macbook, even those with a 64-bit EFI.


This limitation only affects the kernel!
64-bit applications (like Finder, Mail, Safari, iCal, and iChat) will run just fine (including benefits) on a 32-bit kernel in Mac OS X!


Snow Leopard is 64-bit for all users with a 64-bit CPU. The applications are, the memory space is. The ONLY THING that doesn't load into 64-bit - ON PURPOSE - is the kernel!


Why would Apple do that?

The problem is compatibility with third-party drivers. Some programs are so deeply intertwined with the OS that they reach deeply into its bowels and modify its core, the kernel - these drivers are called kernel extensions (or kext).


Rule

A 32-bit processor can only run 32-bit stuff.
A 64-bit processor can run 32-bit and 64-bit stuff.
(stuff can be system, kernel, applications, drivers, etc)

So you need a 64-bit processor to run 64-bit anything

On a 64-bit processor:
A 32-bit Kernel can run both 32 and 64 bit applications.
A 64-bit Kernel can run both 32 and 64 bit applications.

A 32-bit Kernel can load only 32-bit kexts (kernel extensions).
A 64-bit Kernel can load only 64-bit kexts (kernel extensions).>>>

Androidpwns
Feb 22, 2011, 03:21 PM
actually people are suggesting dropping support for any machine with a 32-bit EFI regardless of its processor being 64 or 32-bit. i.e. the original macbook air and the original mac pro

Wait for it...

;)

DerfBWH
Feb 24, 2011, 10:02 AM
Did this omen come to pass? :X Lion Dev Preview is here.

Morris
Feb 24, 2011, 10:56 AM
Did this omen come to pass? :X Lion Dev Preview is here.

Macstories reports (http://www.macstories.net/news/apple-to-preview-lion-os-x-lion-server-features-airdrop-new-mail/) that the announcement mentions:

"Mac Developer Program members can download Lion from the Mac App Store using a redemption code obtained from the Mac Dev Center. Be sure you are using an Intel-based, 64-bit Mac running Mac OS X v10.6.6 Snow Leopard before redeeming your code."

# Lion requires a Core 2 Duo processor or better.
# The late 2006 iMac is not supported for the first developer seed



As was to be expected, essentially any Mac using a Core2Duo or newer. I assume the late 2006 iMac will be supported in later seeds. Perhaps a driver issue.

karsten
Feb 24, 2011, 11:00 AM
Macstories reports (http://www.macstories.net/news/apple-to-preview-lion-os-x-lion-server-features-airdrop-new-mail/) that the announcement mentions:

"Mac Developer Program members can download Lion from the Mac App Store using a redemption code obtained from the Mac Dev Center. Be sure you are using an Intel-based, 64-bit Mac running Mac OS X v10.6.6 Snow Leopard before redeeming your code."

I interpret that as any Mac using a Core2Duo or newer.

i guess mac pro 1,1 users can rejoice. for now at least

gatortpk
Feb 28, 2011, 03:30 AM
Actually, the benefits are huge. Instead of having to code, debug, test and deploy for both 32bit and 64bit systems Apple only needs to focus on 64bit systems. Easier and faster development, ~50% smaller binaries and likely higher quality code awaits...

Apple stopped selling non-64bit systems many years ago and currently only a few percent of all Macs out there do not have a 64bit CPU. The Adium stats (http://adium.im/sparkle/#detailedcputype) suggest >95% is now 64bit capable. And no, what type of EFI you have has nothing at all to do with this. If CPU is equal or better to Core2Duo there is no need for 32bit support. 64bit CPUs and OSs will happily run 32bit apps of course.

Therefore, Core2Duo is a likely to be the minimal CPU for OS X Lion. Apple has a lot to gain, very little to lose from that decision.

I'm with you on the last statement. I still have an old MacBook Pro 2,1 (2.16 GHz Core2Duo "Merom" pre-"Santa Rosa") that has only 32-bit EFI. I cannot, no matter what hacking I've done, I can't boot it into 64-bit kernel in Snow Leopard! Will Lion somehow be different, and run in 64-bit mode even if the EFI is 32-bit. Or is there a possibility, that the EFI can undergo a radical firmware update to make it 64-bit EFI?

I'd like to know! I really don't know much about the structure of EFI (I pretty much only remember it standing for "Extensible Firmware Interface", or something like that and that it replaced the old '90's BIOS) Ok, well I just saw "Firmware" in there...?

Ok, now I looked, here's an article about it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensible_Firmware_Interface

gatortpk
Feb 28, 2011, 03:46 AM
Macstories reports (http://www.macstories.net/news/apple-to-preview-lion-os-x-lion-server-features-airdrop-new-mail/) that the announcement mentions:

" "Mac Developer Program members can download Lion from the Mac App Store using a redemption code obtained from the Mac Dev Center. Be sure you are using an Intel-based, 64-bit Mac running Mac OS X v10.6.6 Snow Leopard before redeeming your code."

# Lion requires a Core 2 Duo processor or better.
# The late 2006 iMac is not supported for the first developer seed"

As was to be expected, essentially any Mac using a Core2Duo or newer. I assume the late 2006 iMac will be supported in later seeds. Perhaps a driver issue.

Ok, well, I just did a little research, the late 2006 iMacs, all 17", 20", and the new 24" (incredible at the time) iMac 5.1, iMac 5,1, and iMac 6,1 respectively were all white and had 32-bit EFI. The next revisions, the iMac 7,1 and up were all aluminum and had 64-bit EFI!

So, does this mean that all Core 2 Duo Macs (like an old MacBook Pro 2,1, I still use occasionally) that have 32-bit EFI will not be supported under "Lion"? Or, as I asked in my previous post, can 32-bit EFI "Firmware" be updated to 64-bit, or will "Lion" run in 64-bit mode with a 32-bit EFI?

I'd really like to know!

Thanks in advance!

msjones
Mar 1, 2011, 03:43 AM
Installed Lion on my MacBook 5,2 and its in 64 bit mode default.

I couldn't even get it to install on my girlfriends Black MacBook 1,1 which I believe is core duo 32bit.

Morris
Mar 1, 2011, 05:26 AM
Ok, well, I just did a little research, the late 2006 iMacs, all 17", 20", and the new 24" (incredible at the time) iMac 5.1, iMac 5,1, and iMac 6,1 respectively were all white and had 32-bit EFI. The next revisions, the iMac 7,1 and up were all aluminum and had 64-bit EFI!

So, does this mean that all Core 2 Duo Macs (like an old MacBook Pro 2,1, I still use occasionally) that have 32-bit EFI will not be supported under "Lion"? Or, as I asked in my previous post, can 32-bit EFI "Firmware" be updated to 64-bit, or will "Lion" run in 64-bit mode with a 32-bit EFI?

I'd really like to know!

Thanks in advance!

What makes you think that? That whole EFI nonsense is a hoax. Have you ever heard Apple say anything about EFI? No, because it is irrelevant. Whether you can run 64bit code or not has absolutely nothing to do with the type of EFI you have, it is about the CPU.

You need a 64bit machine. Every Mac that has a Core2Duo or newer is a 64bit machine, capable of running 64bit code, independent of what type of EFI they have.

Apple states that Lion needs a Core2Duo or newer. If your machine has a Core2Duo or newer it will run Lion, as simple as that.

gatortpk
Mar 2, 2011, 02:10 AM
What makes you think that? That whole EFI nonsense is a hoax. Have you ever heard Apple say anything about EFI? No, because it is irrelevant. Whether you can run 64bit code or not has absolutely nothing to do with the type of EFI you have, it is about the CPU.

You need a 64bit machine. Every Mac that has a Core2Duo or newer is a 64bit machine, capable of running 64bit code, independent of what type of EFI they have.

Apple states that Lion needs a Core2Duo or newer. If your machine has a Core2Duo or newer it will run Lion, as simple as that.

I would have agreed and thought everything you just said, however, the 64-bit Snow Leopard Kernel will not run on Macs with 32-bit EFI, and a developer release of Lion will not run on an iMac with 32-bit EFI but will run on an iMac with 64-bit EFI.

All this evidence seems to point to the importance of the interface's word length. I understand that any process (32-bit/64-bit) can run on a 64-bit CPU (at least with Darwin on "x86-64 ISA" (x64), and likely most other OSes), and obviously only 32-bit processes run on a 32-bit CPUs–
Such as the 68020 (cleaner 32-bit with integrated MMU in the '030),
386 to P6 (Core Duo was one version of P6?) with the x86 ISA Intel CPUs,
and the ARM and PPC (up to G4) RISC CPUs.
(to name some of the more successful 32-bit CPUs)

Though it just does seem odd that any process except the 64-bit Snow Leopard Kernel will run on a x64 CPU with 32-bit EFI. Why is that?

(I'm referring to Darwin version 10.0+ and not the 64-bit kexts without 64-bit kernel (obviously!), although many 64-bit processes will run on Darwin version 8.4 with the 64-bit BSD layer included with Tiger 10.4.4 back in Jan, 2006)

AndyK
Mar 2, 2011, 03:48 AM
- Mac OS X Lion requires a minimum of an Intel Core 2 Duo, leaving out compatibility for Apple's earliest Intel-based machines offering Core Solo or Core Duo processors.

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1103213

Thus, 64 bit only. Snow Leopard runs 32 bit EFI by default. You have too enable it running as 64 bit. If your machine is a core 2 duo, it will run Lion.

This would indicate a move too totally phase 32 bit out completely.

Mr. Retrofire
Mar 2, 2011, 07:24 AM
Yes, that is correct. I hadn't checked if the Air has a 64bit EFI.

Check your EFI in the terminal:

ioreg -l -p IODeviceTree | grep firmware-abi

:eek:

Embio
Mar 2, 2011, 05:27 PM
I got 10.7 to boot on my 32bit Core Duo Macbook - I installed it to a USB drive on a C2D Mac Mini and then removed the .plist that checks the Mac against a list of apple motherboards. It worked a charm - sleep doesnt work but that might because I'm on a drive thats in the Optical Disc bay.

slb
Mar 3, 2011, 11:25 AM
Every MacRumors discussion about 64-bit OS X gets terribly confused. The bit-width of the kernel or EFI is irrelevant to whether or not it can run applications in 64-bit mode. Since Leopard, OS X on a 64-bit processor can run 64-bit applications using a 32-bit kernel (and most 64-bit Macs have been running a 32-bit kernel all this time). Leopard did this to retain compatibility with existing 32-bit drivers.

What people are wondering is whether or not 32-bit processors are supported in Lion. That has nothing to do with whether or not a given machine's kernel or EFI are 64-bit. It doesn't matter if they are or not.

bozz2006
Mar 4, 2011, 02:18 PM
What people are wondering is whether or not 32-bit processors are supported in Lion. That has nothing to do with whether or not a given machine's kernel or EFI are 64-bit. It doesn't matter if they are or not.

So you're fully confident that core2duo machines with 32 bit EFI (like my original mac pro) will most definitely be able supported with 10.7? I'm fretting this situation right now.

tsmith
Mar 28, 2011, 02:23 AM
My experience and 2 cents:

While CoreDuo machines may not be supported, there is currently a bypass, as some of you know, for the developer preview that involves removing the PlatformSupport.plist after you install Lion on a external drive. I am not extremely well versed in the deep workings of Macs but I did try look in the Package Contents of the Lion installation package to see if I could modify something to bypass the board checker but to no avail. You really have to use a core 2 duo or i5 to install mac and remove PlatformSupport.plist so be able to boot up on a Core Duo 86x.

This only works if you have a handy core 2 duo or i5 available to install on. This is what I did personally:

-Installed Snow Leopard onto a external 500GB drive that I formatted to support OS X (Mac OS X Journaled)

-Used my brother-in-law's 2010 MacBook Pro with an i5 chip, even though other core 2 duos will work as I have read, to upgrade to Lion Dev Preview.

-When I was in Lion using the 2010 MacBook Pro, I booted from my external 500GB drive, I removed PlatformSupport.plist, AND changed the trackpad to not be inverted.

-I then plugged the drive into my MacBook Pro Core Duo and it booted up and worked fine for the most part. (I say most part because some apps crashed and it was a little slow, but I dont want to blame Lion seeing as I was in need of a fresh reformat, which I did and my machine has been running much better with no issues using Snow Leopard)

Now, as a 86x core duo owner with one of the first intel MBPs I do hope Lion will support 86x and I can still use this trick to get Lion running on my MBP. I do understand how the people with Core 2 Duos or better would want to lose the extra fat by removing 86x support, as I would want the same if i had a 64x machine.

Even though iLife '11 is 86x, 64x will still support it because most 64x machines can support 86x software. From what i read in this post and other places, it does seem as Apple will drop 86x support from the official GM release, but if it does, then my question is why did it support 86x in the developer preview?

Morris
Mar 28, 2011, 04:28 PM
My experience and 2 cents:
[...]
-I then plugged the drive into my MacBook Pro Core Duo and it booted up and worked fine for the most part. (I say most part because some apps crashed and it was a little slow, but I dont want to blame Lion seeing as I was in need of a fresh reformat, which I did and my machine has been running much better with no issues using Snow Leopard)
[...]

Chances are that those apps crashed because they were compiled for 64bit CPUs only. No wonder a Core Duo would have no clue what to do with it and the app crashes. :D

If I were you I wouldn't expect to be able to run Lion on a Core Duo just by removing a simple CPU check. The closer to the release of the Gold Master the more apps and parts of the OS will be compiled for Core 2 Duo or newer...

tsmith
Mar 29, 2011, 01:03 AM
Chances are that those apps crashed because they were compiled for 64bit CPUs only. No wonder a Core Duo would have no clue what to do with it and the app crashes. :D

If I were you I wouldn't expect to be able to run Lion on a Core Duo just by removing a simple CPU check. The closer to the release of the Gold Master the more apps and parts of the OS will be compiled for Core 2 Duo or newer...

That's a solid point, although since I did fresh install of snow leopard, my machine has been flawless where it was shotty before. I do want to re-upgrade to Lion again and see how much the performance improves and if there are still issues.

Some people who have tested Lion on Core Duos said performance was better than SL, even in the Dev Preview.

Also the apps that crashed didn't crash right away but worked for a little while before I got the crash. You still may be right, I just wanted to clarify my machine wasn't even close to tip-top shape when I tested it.

If people are still interested, I'll post a response after I get a chance to re-upgrade to Lion and give it a whirl.