FYI, the 13" MBP cannot run the 64-bit kernel either. It is limited to the 15"/17".
Refer to the chart in post #265.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
OS X Snow Leopard Retail Disc Contains Build 10A432
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
FYI, the 13" MBP cannot run the 64-bit kernel either. It is limited to the 15"/17".
Refer to the chart in post #265.
I can't see any reason why it shouldn't... It has a 64bit processor and a 64bit EFI...!?
Not to sidetrack the thread, but any pointers to where this has been confirmed? If so I am ordering one (at least) right now.
Nothing official, just did a bit of googling and found a few people claiming it works fine on an original macpro, even though the apple website only states compatibility with macpros after 2008... I've made a mental note to ring applecare and find out if this is true! Sorry, probably shouldn't have mentioned it in my post without double checking with apple first...
as I've understood modifying kernel flags to boot in 64bit works with 13" MBP but not with 13" uMB
I'm reading some of these posts and scratching my head why anyone would get overly upset that the 64bit mode doesn't boot by default (or at all on some models). The main performance gain from booting in 64bit mode is when you have gobs of RAM, something most consumers do not have.
Clearly Apple is doing this because a machine booted in 64bit mode would require 64bit drivers. As always OS advances precede developer adoption. Apple is primarily a consumer electronics company with a couple pro lines. It would be foolish of them to release an OS with a default booting method that would cause driver conflicts. All Apple is essentially saying is, hey, if you are a pro or power user, you can force boot into 64bit mode, but we have to look out for our less technically saavy customers.
At some point Apple will ship an OS that is pure 64bit. But a transition like this take time and Apple needs to play it safe. Heck, just look at the disaster M$ had when Vista was released b/c so many older drivers were not compatible. That gave M$ a black eye, but the same occurance for Apple would be a killer. It's a lot easier to bounce back when you have 90% of the marketshare vs. 10.
Clearly Apple is doing this because a machine booted in 64bit mode would require 64bit drivers. As always OS advances precede developer adoption. Apple is primarily a consumer electronics company with a couple pro lines. It would be foolish of them to release an OS with a default booting method that would cause driver conflicts. All Apple is essentially saying is, hey, if you are a pro or power user, you can force boot into 64bit mode, but we have to look out for our less technically saavy customers.
At some point Apple will ship an OS that is pure 64bit. But a transition like this take time and Apple needs to play it safe. Heck, just look at the disaster M$ had when Vista was released b/c so many older drivers were not compatible. That gave M$ a black eye, but the same occurance for Apple would be a killer. It's a lot easier to bounce back when you have 90% of the marketshare vs. 10.
LOL just saw your pic... this is mine (below). I use my uni's internet (UQconnect). pretty decent. The closest test server is in Sydney so it's like 900km away
(edit)
It should be better when Ruddy's 100Mbps internet is rolled out Australia-wide
That's phenomenal!! I'm looking forward to Rudd's broadband myself, though I'm very content with my current speed. I'm still amazed by the speed of the internet today. I think the slowest I ever used by 28K in the early/mid 90s, and distinctly remember hearing that one day you'd be able to stream video over the net.
Actually Torrents is the fastest protocol that the internet has today, almost similiar to a stream protocol. If you have slow downloads on it, check if you have port forward correctly configured, use another port number, or check if your ISP (Internet Service Provider) for blocking, some ISP block torrent apps (port)...
Thanks! If they were a tad cheaper I'd be tempted to just try one out
Yeah, i was thinking the same thing... Tempting isn't it!
Just chatted to a guy from the online store using the new messenger style service... He claims the 4870 isn't compatible (but he may just be reading that off the website the same as me) and when i asked him what other cards my macpro is compat with he just keeps telling me the X1900 is the only one...
Wirelessly posted (iPhone: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_0_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7A400 Safari/528.16)
Friday can't come quickly enough.
Friday can't come quickly enough.
Compared to a pure FTP or HTTP connection it drags. I can get line speed on nearly any transfer protocol - except Bittorrent. It's horribly inefficient - most seeds send you data at barely modem rates so you have to have hundreds of them (with all the overhead communicating with hundreds of clients causes), and you're also sending upstream as well which means you're using twice the bandwidth for the single download.
I can get reasonable rates of the CoLo with 100Mbps symmetric connection, but on ADSL with 20Mb down 800kbps up the speed is far closer to 800kbs than 20Mb (normally a lot slower than that)... because a lot of trackers seem to be configured to only give you as much data as you're able to upload, which simply doesn't work on asymmetric connections.
Beautiful words of wisdom - I hope EVERYONE on this forum reads your post and then cease whining about the lack of a 64bit kernel. I'm already having compatibility issues between my HP F2280 printer, I'd hate to know what hell would be unleashed if I was running a 64bit kernel.
I'm happy that people much smarter than me at Apple have made a decision, just as I leave it up to engineers at car companies to make decisions about car design or hardware engineers to make decisions about the limitations of computer hardware, or in the case of Apple, software engineers making a decision based on a larger scope.
Thanks! If they were a tad cheaper I'd be tempted to just try one out
There is a guy on this site who says he's bought one and it works fine:
http://www.mac-forums.com/forums/ap...-radeon-hd-4870-first-generation-mac-pro.html
Are the install disks individually serialised?
When you click "about this mac" and click the version/build text eventually a serial number comes up. Surely everyone who has downloaded the "copy" floating around the internet will have the same serial number?
This linked in to those that run things like mobile me will surely ring alarm bells with Apple when they connect and show up the same serial number?
Exactly correct, and this is what's odd. They contain exactly the same hardware, so the restriction for the 13" uMB is probably an artificial one placed in by Apple. Now, my question is why won't Apple let the 13" uMB boot a 64-bit kernel when we know it can since the 13" MBP, with the same hardware, is able to do it?
If there is a technical hardware limitation then I'd love to be informed what it is if anyone knows.
That serial number is the serial # of the Mac it's running on, not of the install disc.
There is no serial number associated with Mac OS X; the serial number you see is related to the hardware itself, not the operating system. Each serial number is unique - and you don't have to register your Mac if you don't want to.
Mac OS does not use a serial number for licensing.
They use the 'honor' system where they expect people to show a bit of moral and buy the appropriate version be it single / family pack.
Hence any serial in 'about this mac' is the serial of the hardware. Not the OS.
Increase Mobile Mac RAM To 6GB or Leave Them at 4GB?
I own a pair of early 2008 45nm Penryn mobile Macs capable of reading 6GB. Each 4GB RAM module that will take them there are less than half the price of newer Unibody 4GB RAM modules and twice the price of two 2GB modules - $140 each. I have 4GB - 2 x 2GB - in each 2.4GHz MacBook & 2.6GHz 17" HD MacBook Pro.
Does anyone have an opinion of how much performance gain I might realize with 6GB of RAM and Snow Leopard vs. leaving them as is with 4GB each?
Using apps like Final Cut Pro and Logic Pro. Also DJ software. Thanks for your opinion in advance.
I own a pair of early 2008 45nm Penryn mobile Macs capable of reading 6GB. Each 4GB RAM module that will take them there are less than half the price of newer Unibody 4GB RAM modules and twice the price of two 2GB modules - $140 each. I have 4GB - 2 x 2GB - in each 2.4GHz MacBook & 2.6GHz 17" HD MacBook Pro.
Does anyone have an opinion of how much performance gain I might realize with 6GB of RAM and Snow Leopard vs. leaving them as is with 4GB each?
Using apps like Final Cut Pro and Logic Pro. Also DJ software. Thanks for your opinion in advance.
Not to sidetrack the thread, but any pointers to where this has been confirmed? If so I am ordering one (at least) right now.
I have just received my HD4870 today and installed it into my 2006 MacPro running 10.5.8. and a 24" Dell with no problems - Works perfectly (so far).
Rip Off Britain!!! $29 for SL is not equal to £25. Come on Apple
I know its not much anyway but lets stick to principles here
The UK is the second most expensive country to do business in - someone has to cover those costs; I sure as hell am not going to subsidise UK sales.