Mac Pro Classic, Snow Leopard, and 64-bit kernel

[bozz2006]

Hello, and thanks in advance for your thoughts and your help. A question was brought up on the macrumors forums about the shortcomings of the 2006 mac pro. Basically someone said that he would not get a used 2006 mac pro because "it can't boot into Leopard in 64-bit." I asked him what he meant and he said that he didn't think it was "true" 64 bit because in his system info it says "64 bit kernel and extensions - no". I poked around a little bit and found a good article:

RIGHT HERE (http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/08/10/28/road_to_mac_os_x_snow_leopard_64_bit_to_the_kernel.html)

detailing that Leopard runs on a 32 bit kernel, mainly because every extension must be 64 bit in order to run on a 64 bit kernel, and that Leopard can run 64 bit applications even though it runs on a 32 bit kernel. The article states that Snow Leopard will be the first operating system on a 64 bit kernel.

Now, my question. Since my Mac Pro runs on 32 bit EFI instead of the new EFI 64, will I be able to have a similar 64 bit Snow Leopard experience? Will my EFI on my antique mac pro really limit the 64 bit Snow Leopard experience? Will my aluminum macbook be able to "do" more with snow leopard than my mac pro? and lastly, I am currently running the Radeon 4870 in my mac pro, since the guys at ATI snuck the 32 bit EFI onto the card as well as the 64 bit EFI, somehow. I wonder what's going to happen with all this when Snow Leopard drops. This question was brought up in a thread a few days ago and it got me thinking. I asked this question at the apple boards but have gotten no feedback. So, all of you smart folks, I look forward to your sage words on the matter.

[gugucom]

I would not be too concerned. EFI and BIOS are fairly basic pieces of software that have no other purpose than getting a operating system started. Once the OS runs the EFI has done its job and isn't needed any more. You can compare it with the boost stage of an intercontinental rocket. The booster doesn't care if a single payload or a multiple payload sits on top of it. Currently EFI32 can start Vista 64-Bit which is a full 64-Bit system in every regard. Why should it not be capable of doing this with Snow Leopard?

[netkas]

try the trick to force efi bootloader to boot 64-bit kernel

install xcode to get lipo app

open terminal and run this commands:

sudo -s
<type your password>
cd /
mv mach_kernel mach_kernel.old
lipo -thin x86_64 mach_kernel.old -o mach_kernel


of course you can do it only in snow leopard

good luck, and report plz if it works


I am currently running the Radeon 4870 in my mac pro, since the guys at ATI snuck the 32 bit EFI onto the card as well as the 64 bit EFI, somehow.


4870 rom is nor 32-bit neither 64-bit, it's Efi ByteCode (EBC), architecture independent.

[bozz2006]

Thanks guys for the clarification!

[AdvocateUK]

try the trick to force efi bootloader to boot 64-bit kernel

install xcode to get lipo app

open terminal and run this commands:

sudo -s
<type your password>
cd /
mv mach_kernel mach_kernel.old
lipo -thin x86_64 mach_kernel.old -o mach_kernel


of course you can do it only in snow leopard

good luck, and report plz if it works



4870 rom is nor 32-bit neither 64-bit, it's Efi ByteCode (EBC), architecture independent.


If I do this and it doesn't work, what will my MP boot into? Will it even boot?

[JPamplin]

Thanks, guys, I was wondering why the SL beta wouldn't load the 64-bit kernel - now I know, the beta isn't 100% 64-bit clean yet, with drivers and everything. A-ha.

I really do hope the SL ATI driver will be 64-bit capable. It would be a shame to drop in a 3870/4870 and have that one thing hold you back.

When is that %^&**(( ATI driver upgrade for 10.5.7 going to be corrected? My VMWare is hobbled in 3D until it does. Drat!

Anyone heard anything?

JP

[bozz2006]

But since the 2006 Mac Pro runs 32-bit EFI, I'm not confident that it will load 64-bit kernel... I just don't know. And I'm not clear on what that would mean as far as how the machine performs.

[gugucom]

Thanks, guys, I was wondering why the SL beta wouldn't load the 64-bit kernel - now I know, the beta isn't 100% 64-bit clean yet, with drivers and everything. A-ha.

I really do hope the SL ATI driver will be 64-bit capable. It would be a shame to drop in a 3870/4870 and have that one thing hold you back....

You are probably aware that Apple have said only the 4870 is fully SL compatible. I also have the 3870 (with Akasa cooler though) and I hope that ATI will issue a driver update for SL.

[JPamplin]

Eek. That's not good - I thought the boot code didn't determine what kernel is loaded (I thought it was the CPU), but I have no idea what determines it.

lowendmac.com even stated that the 2006 Mac Pro was the first 64-bit Intel Mac (http://www.lowendmac.com/macpro/mac-pro-2006.html).

Here's a question: Are the 2008/2009 Mac Pros loading the 64-bit kernel with 10.6 build 402? Anyone care to report?

JP

But since the 2006 Mac Pro runs 32-bit EFI, I'm not confident that it will load 64-bit kernel... I just don't know. And I'm not clear on what that would mean as far as how the machine performs.

[hyram]

From the article Bozz points to... does the 10.6 case (picture on the right revrt to the 10.5 case (picture in the middle if 64 bit drivers aren't (or can't be) loaded because EFI32 hampers the process in some way???

hyram

[bozz2006]

I'm not understanding your question. That picture doesn't seem to point to evidence about EFI32 preventing the 64-bit kernel from loading. I'm not saying that EFI32 does or does prevent loading 64-bit kernel, but rather that the picture you linked doesn't seem to indicate one or the other. To be clear, I don't know whether or no EFI32 will prevent loading 64-bit kernel, and that is precisely what I want to know.

[bozz2006]

Eek. That's not good - I thought the boot code didn't determine what kernel is loaded (I thought it was the CPU), but I have no idea what determines it.

lowendmac.com even stated that the 2006 Mac Pro was the first 64-bit Intel Mac (http://www.lowendmac.com/macpro/mac-pro-2006.html).

Here's a question: Are the 2008/2009 Mac Pros loading the 64-bit kernel with 10.6 build 402? Anyone care to report?

JP

From what I understand, the releases of Snow Leopard to this point are not based on 64-bit kernel.

[netkas]

ATI and NVidia drivers already 32/64-bit in snow leopard

32-bit EFI should be able to run 64-bit kernel jsut fine

64-bit kernel has own code to switch from 32-bit to 64-bit mode

stop being so afraid to try the trick, your mac will not die, in worse case boot from dvd, mount your sl partition, then remove mach_kernel from SL partition, and rename mach_kernel.old to mach_kernel.

hell, even my 32-bit bootloader on pc loads 64-bit kernel just fine.

[hyram]

I'm not understanding your question. That picture doesn't seem to point to evidence about EFI32 preventing the 64-bit kernel from loading. I'm not saying that EFI32 does or does prevent loading 64-bit kernel, but rather that the picture you linked doesn't seem to indicate one or the other. To be clear, I don't know whether or no EFI32 will prevent loading 64-bit kernel, and that is precisely what I want to know.

Sorry... a little toio vague I guess. I'm not suggesting that the EFI32 in the mp1,1's will prevent the loading of 64 bit drivers. Like you, I don't know. I'm just wondering IF 64 bit drivers can be loaded via the EFI32. In the sturcture on the right, (10.6), the driver and kext layer shows these as 64 bits along with the 64 bit kernel. And I've seen a few reports that the 64 bit kernel won't load if the drivers aren't 64 bits as well.... I don't see any provision for mixin'-and matchin' 32 and 64 bit kernels, kext's, and drivers; and if can't your stuck with the 10.5 structure; 32 bit kernel, kexts, and drivers.

I for one won't be a very happy camper if this occurs. I know, I've read it a hundred times here already... "it won't matter, it's the future 64 bit apps that matter". Yeah, right. If that is the case, then why is apple even offering a 64 bit kernel??? A 32 bit kerel should be good enough for everyone right???

I agree with gugucom that the EFI32 boot shouldn't mater. But what if it does??? Color me paranoid.

hyram

[netkas]

Sorry... a little toio vague I guess. I'm not suggesting that the EFI32 in the mp1,1's will prevent the loading of 64 bit drivers. Like you, I don't know. I'm just wondering IF 64 bit drivers can be loaded via the EFI32. In the sturcture on the right, (10.6), the driver and kext layer shows these as 64 bits along with the 64 bit kernel. And I've seen a few reports that the 64 bit kernel won't load if the drivers aren't 64 bits as well.... I don't see any provision for mixin'-and matchin' 32 and 64 bit kernels, kext's, and drivers; and if can't your stuck with the 10.5 structure; 32 bit kernel, kexts, and drivers.

I for one won't be a very happy camper if this occurs. I know, I've read it a hundred times here already... "it won't matter, it's the future 64 bit apps that matter". Yeah, right. If that is the case, then why is apple even offering a 64 bit kernel??? A 32 bit kerel should be good enough for everyone right???

I agree with gugucom that the EFI32 boot shouldn't mater. But what if it does??? Color me paranoid.

hyram

well, you are completly wrong.

[hyram]

well, you are completly wrong.

I'll be that gladly. But can you please elaborate???

hyram

[netkas]

I'll be that gladly. But can you please elaborate???

hyram

when you see spinning wheel at boot, there is no more efi, kernel controls all.

drivers doesnt care what efi you have.

bootloader(boot.efi) is responsible for loading kexts/mkext for startup, and it perfectly knows about 32/64-bit kexts/mkext and kernel

[hyram]

Ok, but by the time you get to that point aren’t the drivers… specifically, the video drivers already loaded from the video card??? So don’t you have to have the driver match the version of the EFI??? I’ve seen many a thread where some of the newer video card’s can’t be used in the mp1,1 because the drivers are 64 bit. The GTX285 comes to mind. If the EFI version doesn’t matter then someone running SL on a mp1,1 should be able to get one of these new cards to work. If not, what am I missing here???

hyram

[netkas]

you have no idea what you a talking about.

efi rom needed for efi, osx drivers never use it

[Peace]

you have no idea what you a talking about.

With all due respect. Neither do you. Had you been a paid member of ADC you would know the Mac Pro 1,1 64-bit kernel isn't supported on the current iteration of Snow Leopard. Pre-release software is not something you want to go messing around with..Please don't tell a person who obviously doesn't know what he's doing to do something that is not advised by Apple.

[netkas]

With all due respect. Neither do you. Had you been a paid member of ADC you would know the Mac Pro 1,1 64-bit kernel isn't supported on the current iteration of Snow Leopard. Pre-release software is not something you want to go messing around with..Please don't tell a person who obviously doesn't know what he's doing to do something that is not advised by Apple.

why do u think it will not run ?

because Apple told you ?

well, apple said iphone2g cant support mms. and bah. it supports it.

stop believing marketing ********

I many times inspected snow leo kernel in ida, and i can tell that 64-bit kernel support 32-bit efi and can be run by it, the only possible problem is pointer to efi runtime-services, so need to check it by doing what i already wrote

[gugucom]

So to make a long story short. There is no technical reason why EFI32 should not be able to boot SL 64-Bit kernel. It may not do it at the current iteration but the capability is there. And even if Apple castrate SL it would not be a huge act to overcome that limitation. Is that what Netkas is telling us?

[Tesselator]

Please don't tell a person who obviously doesn't know what he's doing to do something...

Mmm I think it's not too bad in this case but there are kinda a lot of folks here who may not know what this:
mv mach_kernel mach_kernel.old
lipo -thin x86_64 mach_kernel.old -o mach_kernel
is nor what it does - but who are silly enough to try it anyway. I don't want to discourage netkas from giving great tips nor others from the same but how about some short notes so they will at least be able to figure out how to undo it.

Maybe like:
sudo -s
<type your password>
cd /
.This will give you sudo-root privledges

mv mach_kernel mach_kernel.old
.moves/renames your kernel file for safety

lipo -thin x86_64 mach_kernel.old -o mach_kernel
.strips out all but the 64-bit architecture and saves it as the new kernel
.If you can't boot at that point then do ______________ (I dunno I guess
.log-in single user and do a "mv mach_kernel.old mach_kernel" or something?)
That way we learn and no one is bringing their machine to Apple to be "fixed". LOL

You might be surprised at how many people don't know the behavior of even mv. ;)

[hyram]

you have no idea what you a talking about./QUOTE]
That's why I'm here... to learn.

[QUOTE=netkas;8088186]efi rom needed for efi, osx drivers never use it
So the drivers that are pulled from a pci card are only used during boot??? Once the kernal is loaded, new and perhaps different drivers may be loaded??? Obviously this is what you do via your injector. But how how about for actual supported card??? Are the drivers pulled from somewhere else???

Please don't tell a person who obviously doesn't know what he's doing...

I get that a lot lately. :) But I don't see where netkas was telling me to do anything. I'm just trying to understand the process and what impact all this new 64 bit foundation might have on my system. netkas might be a little gruff, but I've seen from other threads that he has a wealth of information that I wish I had.

Thanks all,

hyram

[netkas]

efi rom runs in efi enviroment, sets some keys for gfx device and initializes card, boot.efi passes these keys to kernel, where they parsed by AppleACPIPlatform.kext and injected into ioreg,
then according to this keys systemchooses what driver to use with vga card.

my injector does initializing and injecting keys to ioreg, two things that needed for card to work in osx (third thing is drivers itself)

[hyram]

Got it!

But then where's the driver coming from??? I thought this was pulled from the video card ROM for supported cards, and loaded as part of the injector process for those that are not.

[netkas]

drivers for 285 was downlaoded from vga site :P

[bozz2006]

awesome discussion guys. Lot of info since last night! I see it's getting into discussion about netkas' injector. Can we keep the focus on the 2006 mac pro + snow leopard + 64-bit kernel? Thanks for all the info to you all, especially netkas. As I'm one who doesn't have much knowledge on how this stuff works, I appreciate you coming and spelling it out for me.

[Peace]

why do u think it will not run ?

because Apple told you ?

well, apple said iphone2g cant support mms. and bah. it supports it.

stop believing marketing ********

I many times inspected snow leo kernel in ida, and i can tell that 64-bit kernel support 32-bit efi and can be run by it, the only possible problem is pointer to efi runtime-services, so need to check it by doing what i already wrote

I don't listen to marketing "********". I listen to Apple engineers.

With that do what you want but don't come back in here later asking why your computer is acting up.


Make sure you strip out all the old PPC stuff from that driver you downloaded too because it's designed for 10.5 not 10.6

[bozz2006]

I listen to Apple too, to an extent. I mean, they swore up and down that their Radeon 4870 upgrade wouldn't work in my 2006 mac pro. So...

[Tesselator]

I listen to Apple too, to an extent. I mean, they swore up and down that their Radeon 4870 upgrade wouldn't work in my 2006 mac pro. So...

Yeah, there's a lot of stuff like that from ADC. RAM limits on 2006 MP is another one. And a whole host of silly stuff about iMac and Mini that I read about too. O-Well. :p

[gnasher729]

Now, my question. Since my Mac Pro runs on 32 bit EFI instead of the new EFI 64, will I be able to have a similar 64 bit Snow Leopard experience? Will my EFI on my antique mac pro really limit the 64 bit Snow Leopard experience? Will my aluminum macbook be able to "do" more with snow leopard than my mac pro?

With your Mac there would likely be very little difference between 32 bit and 64 bit Kernel. 64 bit kernel is _needed_ for machines with enormous amounts of memory, like 64 GB or more (for every page of RAM, some small amount of kernel memory is used. No problem for a 32 bit kernel if you have 16 GB, but with 64 GB it is a problem). And since we are getting there, Apple _must_ produce a 64 bit kernel for future machines that will need it. But if your machine doesn't have that kind of RAM, it won't make a difference.

[hyram]

With your Mac there would likely be very little difference between 32 bit and 64 bit Kernel. 64 bit kernel is _needed_ for machines with enormous amounts of memory, like 64 GB or more (for every page of RAM, some small amount of kernel memory is used. No problem for a 32 bit kernel if you have 16 GB, but with 64 GB it is a problem). And since we are getting there, Apple _must_ produce a 64 bit kernel for future machines that will need it. But if your machine doesn't have that kind of RAM, it won't make a difference.

I hope you are wrong. I run mostly protools... mostly for video, some audio. I hoping to see huge improvements in rendering and effects once FCS has been rewritten. Most of this might actually come from openCL rather than a 64 bit kernel, but I'm betting you can't have the openCL without the new kernel. But then I've been know to be wrong before.

hyram

[JPamplin]

Hey guys - interesting if not heated discussion. ;-)

Here I am on my Pro and am looking at SL build 411 (very nice by the way, it is incredibly snappy). I'm not even using my RAID 0 volume to boot from, and apps launch in half the time or less, it's incredible.

Of course, the 64-bit kernel is NOT loaded in this release either. Did any other Pro owners (2008/2009 models) see if this was the case on your machines?

However, it's good to see every OTHER part of the OS is loading in 64-bit. ITunes and other apps aren't yet, but I would imagine that's a matter of time.

So will it even matter? According to the screenshot, just about every part of the OS is running in 64-bit, so will we even notice when the kernel goes 64?

Just wondering out loud,

JP

[Winni]

But since the 2006 Mac Pro runs 32-bit EFI, I'm not confident that it will load 64-bit kernel... I just don't know. And I'm not clear on what that would mean as far as how the machine performs.

The only things that I can tell you for sure is that it will run 64-Bit Windows and 64-Bit Linux perfectly, and those use pure 64-bit kernels.

[netkas]

Hey guys - interesting if not heated discussion. ;-)

Here I am on my Pro and am looking at SL build 411 (very nice by the way, it is incredibly snappy). I'm not even using my RAID 0 volume to boot from, and apps launch in half the time or less, it's incredible.

Of course, the 64-bit kernel is NOT loaded in this release either. Did any other Pro owners (2008/2009 models) see if this was the case on your machines?

However, it's good to see every OTHER part of the OS is loading in 64-bit. ITunes and other apps aren't yet, but I would imagine that's a matter of time.

So will it even matter? According to the screenshot, just about every part of the OS is running in 64-bit, so will we even notice when the kernel goes 64?

Just wondering out loud,

JP

your screenshot is pretty useless

make it to show all processes and make a screenhot where we can see process named kernel_task

[dr. shdw]

your screenshot is pretty useless

make it to show all processes and make a screenhot where we can see process named kernel_task

kernel_task is 32bit while kextd is 64bit.

[netkas]

Bleh, its better to have own bootloader which can do whatever I (not apple) wants

http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/1479/20090716223445.th.png (http://img248.imageshack.us/i/20090716223445.png/)

[hyram]

You're on a hac, you can use whatever bootloader you can get running. For those of us on the real thing, we're preaty much stuck with the apple bootloader. That is unless you have a solution to that as well.

hyram

[netkas]

You're on a hac, you can use whatever bootloader you can get running. For those of us on the real thing, we're preaty much stuck with the apple bootloader. That is unless you have a solution to that as well.

hyram

well....

i have some ideas, if mac can boot from usb sticks( it can afaik), we can try to boot any mac to x64 with hackintosh bootloader :D

need to try the trick with lipo first.

[LcTrKiD]

i tried lipo thing and now I can't get access to my SL os. Is this meaning that Mac Pro Rev.A can not do 64bit kernel?

[Infrared]

Of course, the 64-bit kernel is NOT loaded in this release either.

Will it be loaded by default when Snow Leopard ships, do you think?

[netkas]

after some tests with macbook4,1(efi32) got those conclusions:

even if u lipo kernel, snow leo usualy uses prelinked kernel from another location.

removed prelinked kernel and lipoed kernel to x86_64, booter doesnt want to boot it, ****** apple disabled such ability.

Idea - install osx86 bootlloader to usb stick, boot from usb stick (with bootcamp help), and boot your snowleopard to x64 with osx86 booter :D

will report later if it worked.

P.S. this doesnt applies to machines with core duo/core solo

[LcTrKiD]

Apple says in the web:

64-bit support

requires a Mac with a 64-bit processor.
(http://www.apple.com/macosx/specs.html)

Mac Pro Rev.A has a 64-bit processor so We will have a 64-bit kernel...

[gugucom]

64-bit support by apple can mean anything that makes your 64-bit apps run. I would not be surprised if they fudge it again somehow.

I mean which self and customer respecting computer company would leave customers with known faulty or seriously defective firmware like Apple does. EFI32 is unable to boot multiple OD images like those for Vista anytime upgrade DVDs. They fixed it with EFI64 but never cared about millions of MBPs and MP which are really designed for 64-bit Windows that comes mostly in multiple image DVDs. All this Windows bragging and then you find out they cannot even boot the most interesting (64-bit) versions.

The most humble and minor garage manufacturer of graphic cards or mother bords in China would have released a BIOS update by now. It is standard policy of Apple to never make any firmware improvements unless they are pushed into it by a public blame and shame campaign.

[goMac]

You're on a hac, you can use whatever bootloader you can get running. For those of us on the real thing, we're preaty much stuck with the apple bootloader. That is unless you have a solution to that as well.

hyram

I'm pretty sure this isn't true. You can load whatever bootloader you want into EFI on a Mac. rEFIt is an example.

If you're in ADC, Apple gives you directions on how to force a Mac to boot into x64. I'm not going to detail them here, for obvious reasons, but there is no need to write a boot loader, and I'd stop speculating until 10.6 is released.

[TheSpaz]

Apple says in the web:

64-bit support

requires a Mac with a 64-bit processor.
(http://www.apple.com/macosx/specs.html)

Mac Pro Rev.A has a 64-bit processor so We will have a 64-bit kernel...

Good one! I found this information a while back too. As far as I know, the first gen Mac Pro is 64-bit as you said.

I'm pretty sure this isn't true. You can load whatever bootloader you want into EFI on a Mac. rEFIt is an example.

If you're in ADC, Apple gives you directions on how to force a Mac to boot into x64. I'm not going to detail them here, for obvious reasons, but there is no need to write a boot loader, and I'd stop speculating until 10.6 is released.

You mean by starting up holding down the 6 and 4 keys at the same time?... or are you talking about a different method?

[goMac]

You mean by starting up holding down the 6 and 4 keys at the same time?... or are you talking about a different method?

There is a firmware independent way to force it to boot 64 bit. I don't know if this means it will still work on the 32 bit EFI Mac Pro, but you can force it to boot 64 bit without modifying any EFI boot configs.

Edit: Why is this an issue anyway? You can still run 64 bit apps without the 64 bit kernel, and you can still access the full amount of memory. Seems kind of like a non issue to me...

[TheSpaz]

There is a firmware independent way to force it to boot 64 bit. I don't know if this means it will still work on the 32 bit EFI Mac Pro, but you can force it to boot 64 bit without modifying any EFI boot configs.

Edit: Why is this an issue anyway? You can still run 64 bit apps without the 64 bit kernel, and you can still access the full amount of memory. Seems kind of like a non issue to me...

I agree. It's really not a big deal. Does anyone even have enough RAM to make a difference?

It's kind of funny that my 3 year old Mac Pro only runs two 64bit apps so far... Chess and XCode. Hah!

I think most of the speed is going to come from Grand Central, OS optimizations and the rewritten Cocoa Finder.

If I see a speed increase in Snow Leopard like the speed increase I saw from Tiger to Leopard, I'll be happy.

[goMac]

I agree. It's really not a big deal. Does anyone even have enough RAM to make a difference?

It's kind of funny that my 3 year old Mac Pro only runs two 64bit apps so far... Chess and XCode. Hah!

I think most of the speed is going to come from Grand Central, OS optimizations and the rewritten Cocoa Finder.

If I see a speed increase in Snow Leopard like the speed increase I saw from Tiger to Leopard, I'll be happy.

You can't put enough RAM in a Rev. A Mac Pro to require the 64 bit kernel.

Most of the reason Apple is moving to a 64 bit kernel now is to get developers to do 64 bit kernel extensions before 10.8 or 10.9 shows up...

[Eidorian]

You can't put enough RAM in a Rev. A Mac Pro to require the 64 bit kernel.

Most of the reason Apple is moving to a 64 bit kernel now is to get developers to do 64 bit kernel extensions before 10.8 or 10.9 shows up...Eh?

Memory

* 667MHz DDR2 ECC fully buffered DIMM (FB-DIMM) memory
* Eight FB-DIMM slots on two memory riser cards (four slots per card) supporting up to 16GB of main memory
* 256-bit-wide memory architecture
http://support.apple.com/kb/SP30

[hyram]

I'm pretty sure this isn't true. You can load whatever bootloader you want into EFI on a Mac. rEFIt is an example.


I don't think this is correct. rEFIt is not a boot loader, it's a more of a GUI for the bootloader already on your mac (UEFI 1.1).

[goMac]

Eh?


http://support.apple.com/kb/SP30

Ummm... I don't think you get it.

Kernel 32 is not the memory manager. Kernel 32 is what powers Leopard and Tiger, and both of those can handle more than 4 gigs of memory, actually a lot more.

The only reason you'd need kernel 64 is if you plan on running more than 4 gigs of kernel extensions.

Snow Leopard will continue running with the same kernel 32 that powers both Leopard and Tiger on the Rev A Mac Pro, which means you will not be capped at 4 gigs of memory.

Again, there are very limited reasons why you'd need to actually run kernel 64.

[Saladinos]

after some tests with macbook4,1(efi32) got those conclusions:

even if u lipo kernel, snow leo usualy uses prelinked kernel from another location.

removed prelinked kernel and lipoed kernel to x86_64, booter doesnt want to boot it, ****** apple disabled such ability.

Idea - install osx86 bootlloader to usb stick, boot from usb stick (with bootcamp help), and boot your snowleopard to x64 with osx86 booter :D

will report later if it worked.

P.S. this doesnt applies to machines with core duo/core solo

MacBook4,1 has 64-bit EFI:
MacBook:~ k$ ioreg -l -p IODeviceTree | grep firmware
| | "firmware-revision" = <0a000100>
| | "firmware-abi" = <"EFI64">
| | "firmware-vendor" = <4100700070006c0065000000>
MacBook:~ k$ ioreg -l -p IODeviceTree | grep product
| "product-name" = <"MacBook4,1">
MacBook:~ k$


Running SL, I would guess that the only thing holding back my machine from being able to run a 64-bit kernel is the lack of 64-bit drivers for the Intel X3100, despite those drivers being available for Windows.

No doubt Apple could make these machines run the 64-bit kernel. I think some sort of petition or false advertising complaint would be a good idea, or these devices will be put in to forced retirement in a few years when Apple drops the 32-bit kernel (just like PPC machines have been dropped earlier than a comparable product would have been). My BlackBook is just over a year old, and I'm nowhere near thinking about replacing it.

[seclusion]

My 1,1 MacPro has SL 10A432, I use my MP mainly for Audio recording and mixing. My main issue is I have 9 gigs of ram in the machine and I get error messages once I get up to around 2 gigs of ram loaded for Logic 9.
I see Logic 9 isn't showing up as 64 bit, so even if I had a 64 bit SL boot, Logic isn't going to be able to load more then approx 2.5 gigs of ram (without work arounds).
I would like to be able to continue adding plugins and leave some of my large sample libraries loaded in my template, in my case probably roughly 3.5 gigs of ram for my use. Some of the orchestral guys would like all 16 gigs or 32 gigs of ram accessible.
SL upgrade worked flawless, all my songs load just the same as in Leopard, no crashing. I don't see any gains in any way so far.
Guess we'll see what the next couple of months brings...

[wpc33]

I'm glad to learn so many facts as to why a 64-bit kernel is irrelevant, but I am seriously cheesed inside, regardless.
False advertising!

[goMac]

MacBook4,1 has 64-bit EFI:
MacBook:~ k$ ioreg -l -p IODeviceTree | grep firmware
| | "firmware-revision" = <0a000100>
| | "firmware-abi" = <"EFI64">
| | "firmware-vendor" = <4100700070006c0065000000>
MacBook:~ k$ ioreg -l -p IODeviceTree | grep product
| "product-name" = <"MacBook4,1">
MacBook:~ k$


Running SL, I would guess that the only thing holding back my machine from being able to run a 64-bit kernel is the lack of 64-bit drivers for the Intel X3100, despite those drivers being available for Windows.

No doubt Apple could make these machines run the 64-bit kernel. I think some sort of petition or false advertising complaint would be a good idea, or these devices will be put in to forced retirement in a few years when Apple drops the 32-bit kernel (just like PPC machines have been dropped earlier than a comparable product would have been). My BlackBook is just over a year old, and I'm nowhere near thinking about replacing it.

Apple's not going to be dropping K32 any time soon, you can untwist your panties...

And, for reference, I was one of the guys who told people that PowerPC was going to be dropped quick.

Besides, both K32 and K64 are open source.

[Saladinos]

Apple's not going to be dropping K32 any time soon, you can untwist your panties...

And, for reference, I was one of the guys who told people that PowerPC was going to be dropped quick.

Besides, both K32 and K64 are open source.

Oh, well, if you pointed out something that was blatantly obvious at some point in the past, of course everything you say from here on out will be correct.

It is not obvious that Apple will continue to develop the 32-bit kernel for very long.

[cluthz]

Even the MacbookPro3,1 (first nvidia 8600MGT laptops) has the EFI64 and that machine is soon 2.5 years old..

[goMac]

It is not obvious that Apple will continue to develop the 32-bit kernel for very long.

Well... K64 is open source, so even if you have a 32 bit machine, it's not like the K64 booting is going to be some sort of mystery... If Apple does release a version of OS X that is 64 bit only the kernel source will be available and netkas or whoever can hack away on it.

Apple might drop 32 bit machines soon. But the 32 bit kernel? A lot of device drivers only work under K32, I just don't see that happening.

[dmmcintyre3]

I thought you held down 6 and 4 on boot and it booted 64 bit.

[bozz2006]

Well... K64 is open source, so even if you have a 32 bit machine, it's not like the K64 booting is going to be some sort of mystery... If Apple does release a version of OS X that is 64 bit only the kernel source will be available and netkas or whoever can hack away on it.

Apple might drop 32 bit machines soon. But the 32 bit kernel? A lot of device drivers only work under K32, I just don't see that happening.

until 10.7

[dmmcintyre3]

You're on a hac, you can use whatever bootloader you can get running. For those of us on the real thing, we're preaty much stuck with the apple bootloader. That is unless you have a solution to that as well.

hyram
The hackintosh people have a solution for the 32 bit boot loaders even if Apple blocks 64 bit support in the os on those machines (Link (http://lowendmac.com/musings/09mm/64-bit-snow-leopard.html))

[goMac]

The hackintosh people have a solution for the 32 bit boot loaders even if Apple blocks 64 bit support in the os on those machines (Link (http://lowendmac.com/musings/09mm/64-bit-snow-leopard.html))

"Full 64-bit support means programs will no longer be limited to 4 GB of RAM; the new maximum (16 exabytes) is meaningless, as no computer in the foreseeable future will be able to hold billions of gigabytes of memory. Both the OS and almost all "system applications" (Finder, Safari, Mail, iChat, iCal, etc.) that come with Snow Leopard are ready for 64-bit operation."

Again, this has been the case since Leopard. I wish people would stop posting information confusing the 64 bit kernel for 64 bit software support.

I wrote 64 bit applications that used 10 gigs of RAM under Leopard.

Edit:
Here, this is a much better summary of 64 bit under Snow Leopard:
http://www.macworld.com/article/142379/2009/08/snow_leopard_64_bit.html

[Gadget-Man]

I have a MacPro 2006, 2 x 2.66 GHz Dual-Core Xeon - 7GB of RAM - ATI X1900

I found no speed increase, I actually found a slow down and more beach balls.

I would prefer a fresh complete install of SL, wonder if you get the Mac-Box set for Tiger if it will include a full install of SL????

Also as far as version 10A432, it's a myth that holding the 6 and 4 down at boot time works, I tried it and it didn't work!!!


(off topic - sorry - I also hate that with mail every new piece of mail is flagged, I like the unread bolding (which was in every version), but I hate that I have to unflag ever single email that comes in. I looked for an option to change this, but unless I am blind I didn't see it.)



Thanks,


GadgetMan

[bozz2006]

maybe your computer is so slow because you only have 7MB of RAM?:p

holding down 6 & 4 to boot into 64 bit kernel only works if your hardware and firmware, etc. are up to the task. Your (and my) 2006 model mac pro is not.

[Gadget-Man]

maybe your computer is so slow because you only have 7MB of RAM?:p

holding down 6 & 4 to boot into 64 bit kernel only works if your hardware and firmware, etc. are up to the task. Your (and my) 2006 model mac pro is not.




Sorry about that, it was late and my fingers were just going way to fast!!!

[JPamplin]

32/64-bit selector app:

http://www.ahatfullofsky.comuv.com/English/Programs/SMS/SMS.html

It'll also show you whether your mac is supported to boot with a 64-bit kernel or not.

JP

[nightfly13]

Eh?


http://support.apple.com/kb/SP30

Hmm the quote didn't work like I hoped. But the point I was going to make was that the 'upto 16GB main memory' advertised in 2006 for the 1,1 Mac Pro was only limited to 16GB because that's the size of chip (2GB max) available at the time, right? OWC and others sell 2x4GB kits for the 2006 Mac Pro, so I've assumed for several years that 32GB is possible, right?

[gugucom]

I understand the main issue against loading a 64 bit kernel is the need for full 64bit kexts. Does anybody know how much work is involved to bring the MacPro1,1 up to the task? Going from previous experience I would think that Apple will never go back and provide those kexts. Unless someone hacks something for the MP1,1 we will probably never see a K64 on the machine. The EFI issue is probably a very minor issue. I think it is an arbitrary selection on behalf of Apple.

[bozz2006]

yes

[ungraphic]

A simple question:

I have a 1,1 Mac Pro, its a 2006 model with 2x2.66ghz processors. I have 2gb of ram but am about to buy 4gb of ram extra for it. I'm mainly concerned about having Photoshop CS4 use as much available ram as possible, which to my understanding is approx. 4gb being a 32bit application.

CS5 is coming out eventually, and apparently will be 64bit code. Will photoshop be able to use 5, or 6, or 10gb of ram with my 1,1 Mac Pro once I upgrade to Snow Leopard? I dont care what the kernel is, I just want it to be able to use as much ram as possible. All this 32/64 bit kernel talk is sort of scaring me.

[bozz2006]

snow leopard will not allow CS3 to utilize any more RAM than it already is. However, more RAM is better. if you buy more RAM, you'll notice a performance boost, most likely, because the system can cache more to RAM and not have to utilize virtual memory. But, since CS3 is 32-bit software, it can only utilize, what is it, 3GB, of RAM, same as in Leopard. no worries, it will work fine.

[goMac]

A simple question:

I have a 1,1 Mac Pro, its a 2006 model with 2x2.66ghz processors. I have 2gb of ram but am about to buy 4gb of ram extra for it. I'm mainly concerned about having Photoshop CS4 use as much available ram as possible, which to my understanding is approx. 4gb being a 32bit application.

CS5 is coming out eventually, and apparently will be 64bit code. Will photoshop be able to use 5, or 6, or 10gb of ram with my 1,1 Mac Pro once I upgrade to Snow Leopard? I dont care what the kernel is, I just want it to be able to use as much ram as possible. All this 32/64 bit kernel talk is sort of scaring me.

If CS5 is 64 bit than it will allow you to use more than 4 gigs of RAM no matter what kernel you are running in.

Just ignore the kernel talk. It really doesn't matter.

[nightfly13]

If CS5 is 64 bit than it will allow you to use more than 4 gigs of RAM no matter what kernel you are running in.

Just ignore the kernel talk. It really doesn't matter.

So then we think the only issue will start at 10.7 when the 64-bit Kernel becomes a requirement?

[goMac]

So then we think the only issue will start at 10.7 when the 64-bit Kernel becomes a requirement?

Why would Apple make the 64 bit kernel a requirement? The XNU source doesn't look like it's been released yet for 10.6, but I wouldn't be surprised to see a PowerPC version of the kernel still hanging around.

[nightfly13]

Why would Apple make the 64 bit kernel a requirement? The XNU source doesn't look like it's been released yet for 10.6, but I wouldn't be surprised to see a PowerPC version of the kernel still hanging around.

I can accept that through some brilliant code trickery that everything will run smoothly at 64-bit speeds despite the Kernel, but there must be some performance gains from a 64-bit Kernel, or, conversely, some sacrifices they're making in the name of backward compatibility, and I'd think at some point (ie. maybe 10.7) they're going to want to cut ties with the past to move fully forward to exclusively 64-bit computing - and make us buy new workstations :)

Hope I'm wrong! Not much point worrying about an OS that's 18-24 months away :)

[kevink2]

I can accept that through some brilliant code trickery that everything will run smoothly at 64-bit speeds despite the Kernel, but there must be some performance gains from a 64-bit Kernel, or, conversely, some sacrifices they're making in the name of backward compatibility, and I'd think at some point (ie. maybe 10.7) they're going to want to cut ties with the past to move fully forward to exclusively 64-bit computing - and make us buy new workstations :)

Hope I'm wrong! Not much point worrying about an OS that's 18-24 months away :)

Most likely the benefit of a 64 bit clean kernel is better management of accessing real memory in the system. It can map the memory clean, and not have to remap page tables, etc, to get access to the full memory. As is, it probably has to do some workarounds to handle a 64 bit application using, say, 8gb of physical RAM.

[seano11]

Here is some speculation posted on Macintouch at http://www.macintouch.com/readerreports/snowleopard/topic4883.html#d29aug2009

David Empson
Regarding [64-bit kernel support]:
There are some models which have 64-bit EFI but are not able to use the 64-bit kernel. My mid-2007 MacBook Pro (model identifier "MacBookPro3,1") is one such model. If I try to boot into 64-bit kernel, it ends up still being in 32-bit mode. The mid-2007 iMac ("iMac7,1") may fall into the same camp but I haven't confirmed its EFI type.
From other evidence it appears Apple has limited 64-bit kernel support to models introduced in 2008 and later, and so far it is only supported on the iMac, 15"/17" MacBook Pro, Mac Pro and Xserve.
This appears to be tied to the "Penryn" generation of processors, which introduced SSE4 vector instructions. A restriction of this nature allows Apple to make use of SSE4 in the 64-bit kernel.
The precise list of models which can run the 64-bit kernel is on the web page for Markus Winter's Startup Mode Selector, already referenced from this question in the FAQ.

Some future OS may drop support for macs with out SSE4, but Snow Leopard runs the 32 bit kernel by default in everything except the Xserves which run the server version of the OS anyway. It's a public beta at this point.

[Saladinos]

Here is some speculation posted on Macintouch at http://www.macintouch.com/readerreports/snowleopard/topic4883.html#d29aug2009



Some future OS may drop support for macs with out SSE4, but Snow Leopard runs the 32 bit kernel by default in everything except the Xserves which run the server version of the OS anyway. It's a public beta at this point.

Whilst Apple may have limited the 64-bit kernel to SSE4, not all SSE4 Macs can load that kernel. For example, my Santa Rosa MacBook has a Penryn and CPU-X confirms that it has SSE4. That said, the SR MacBook has the Intel X3100, for which there are no 64-bit drivers.

Perhaps it would be possible to load the 64-bit kernel on this machine by disabling the Intel drivers and using the generic VGA fallback.

[juanito]

Eh?


http://support.apple.com/kb/SP30

the Efi32bit is able to use longmode wich is a 36 bit addressing mode. That means up to 64GB.

However using longmode will have a latency hit by 1-5%

[juanito]

Ummm... I don't think you get it.

Kernel 32 is not the memory manager. Kernel 32 is what powers Leopard and Tiger, and both of those can handle more than 4 gigs of memory, actually a lot more.

The only reason you'd need kernel 64 is if you plan on running more than 4 gigs of kernel extensions.

Snow Leopard will continue running with the same kernel 32 that powers both Leopard and Tiger on the Rev A Mac Pro, which means you will not be capped at 4 gigs of memory.

Again, there are very limited reasons why you'd need to actually run kernel 64.

yes, but what about graphic cards with rom made for efi64 will they be able to run I doubt it. If apple would patch mp1,1 with efi64 (possible?) would graphicards made for efi32 run, i doubt that too.?

Just ordered a 8800GTS patched with 8800GT rom for EFI 32. For my old MP

[juanito]

I would prefer a fresh complete install of SL, wonder if you get the Mac-Box set for Tiger if it will include a full install of SL????

GadgetMan
you dont need the macbox just install on empty drive.

[TheSpaz]

yes, but what about graphic cards with rom made for efi64 will they be able to run I doubt it. If apple would patch mp1,1 with efi64 (possible?) would graphicards made for efi32 run, i doubt that too.?

Just ordered a 8800GTS patched with 8800GT rom for EFI 32. For my old MP

My ATI Radeon HD 4870 has both EFI64 and EFI32 on it.

[juanito]

My ATI Radeon HD 4870 has both EFI64 and EFI32 on it.

Does that card work unmodded on a MacPro1,1 (aka 2006)?

A friend just bought a new MacPro some months ago and says having troubles in Leopard and in Sno Leopard. Says unusable in Leopard and very annoying in Snow Leopard. Hes ADC member so he has it on GM which should be the same that is distributed today.

[TheSpaz]

Does that card work unmodded on a MacPro1,1 (aka 2006)?

A friend just bought a new MacPro some months ago and says having troubles in Leopard and in Sno Leopard. Says unusable in Leopard and very annoying in Snow Leopard. Hes ADC member so he has it on GM which should be the same that is distributed today.

I bought the 4870 directly from Apple and installed it on my 2006 Mac Pro (original Mac Pro) and it works great. No issues. I didn't modify it at all. It's all stock.

[juanito]

My ATI Radeon HD 4870 has both EFI64 and EFI32 on it.

Not sure but read here that the HD 4870 is nether, possible working on a computer with both EFI standards.

edit: second that working on computer with both standards.
also i haven't dared to get SL yet gona wait some weeks at least to see the reaction. But surly is tempting to oder now.

[goMac]

I can accept that through some brilliant code trickery that everything will run smoothly at 64-bit speeds despite the Kernel, but there must be some performance gains from a 64-bit Kernel, or, conversely, some sacrifices they're making in the name of backward compatibility, and I'd think at some point (ie. maybe 10.7) they're going to want to cut ties with the past to move fully forward to exclusively 64-bit computing - and make us buy new workstations :)

It entirely depends on the program. A lot of things double in size under 64 bit, and take longer to move around.

If you're dealing with programs that deal with large chunks of data anyway, you'll likely see a speed gain. If you're dealing with code that didn't need 64 bit, you've just double the size of portions of the program, with no real benefit, except causing things to take longer to get shuffled around the processor.

The additional registers are nice, but the kernel code is designed to be small anyway...

There could possibly be very small performance gains, but they really aren't worth the trouble right now. I have no doubt Apple will enable the 64 bit kernel by default in 3-4 years, but everybody freakin out about it now needs to calm down... It's totally the new QuartzGL.

[TheSpaz]

Not sure but read here that the HD 4870 is nether, possible working on a computer with both EFI standards.

edit: second that working on computer with both standards.
also i haven't dared to get SL yet gona wait some weeks at least to see the reaction. But surly is tempting to oder now.

The 4870 does indeed work great in Snow Leopard. I've found no issues with it at all. Drivers actually seem to be better in Snow Leopard. Animations are smoother and CoD4 runs a little better in the areas that bogged down in 10.5.8.

[akadmon]

Are you saying that this card (HD 4870) works with MP 1,1? The information page at apple.com indicates that MPs made before 2008 are not supported.

[bozz2006]

it just works. perfectly. yes, that's what we're saying.

[TheSpaz]

Are you saying that this card (HD 4870) works with MP 1,1? The information page at apple.com indicates that MPs made before 2008 are not supported.

it just works. perfectly. yes, that's what we're saying.

For the last time... There are no issues with using the Apple ATI Radeon 4870 in ANY Mac Pro. I've got a Mac Pro 1,1 here with a 4870 installed and it ran perfect in 10.5.7, 10.5.8 and now 10.6. It's actually running smoother in 10.6, but I think that's due to newer and better video drivers bundled with 10.6.

Just buy the card and stop worrying about it. I didn't hack it or anything.

[akadmon]

Does this card do OpenCL? If not, why would I want to upgrage to it, seeing I don't game and do only limited video editing. Honestly, I haven't run into any issues with my lowly 7300 GT. It's plenty fast for what I do and dead quiet to boot.

[juanito]

Does that card work unmodded on a MacPro1,1 (aka 2006)?

A friend just bought a new MacPro some months ago and says having troubles in Leopard and in Sno Leopard. Says unusable in Leopard and very annoying in Snow Leopard. Hes ADC member so he has it on GM which should be the same that is distributed today.

Correction the card does have issues but not with the computer. It's incompatible with certain screens and apple has been aware of this fact for a long period.

[juanito]

Does this card do OpenCL? If not, why would I want to upgrage to it, seeing I don't game and do only limited video editing. Honestly, I haven't run into any issues with my lowly 7300 GT. It's plenty fast for what I do and dead quiet to boot.

From what u say u dont seem to do anything that has anything with graphics to do except some video editing. Well depending on applications you can see huge performance leaps with a good graphic card for such tasks. Also holds true for still picture editing.