2006 Mac Pro and 64-Bit Snow Leopard: Not!!

[Rad]

Apparently an Intel Mac will only boot into true 64-bit mode in Snow Leopard if it has the appropriate EFI.

-----------------
According to a post on Gizmodo:

Any Mac with 64-bit EFI will be able to boot with a 64-bit kernel.

To check if your Mac has 64-bit EFI, open up Terminal and enter:

ioreg -l -p IODeviceTree | grep firmware-abi

It will say either EFI32 or EFI64. EFI64 means you can use the 64-bit SL kernel.
---------------------

I have a 2006 Mac Pro bought the day they were released in August 2006.

The response I got was that it is 32-bit, which I knew from issues regarding video card upgrades over the past few years. I did not know that means Snow Leopard is a bust for me.

Can anyone confirm that my very expensive Intel Mac Pro is now officially outdated? Just upgraded to 12 GB ram in preparation for 10.6. 64-bit was a major selling point!!

 

[The General]

That is correct. Your very expensive Mac Pro that says "64-bit" on the freaking box can not run Snow Leopard's 64-bit kernel.

 

[GimmeSlack12]

You are misunderstanding what is going on (as gizmodo said). The 32bit kernel allows 64bit apps to run if you have more than 32gb of RAM. Or hold 6 and 4 down at startup to force boot the 64bit kernel.

 

[Matek]

You are misunderstanding what is going on (as gizmodo said). The 32bit kernel allows 64bit apps to run if you have more than 32gb of RAM. Or hold 6 and 4 down at startup to force boot the 64bit kernel.

You mean 32 gb as in 4 GB? There are still two problems about that.

1. The fact one doesn't have more than 4 GB of ram doesn't mean he cannot benefit from 64-bit support.
2. The kernel itself still isn't 64-bit, which means you don't get performance improvement despite the fact your system has hardware capable of doing it.

 

[MRU]

You are misunderstanding what is going on (as gizmodo said). The 32bit kernel allows 64bit apps to run if you have more than 32gb of RAM. Or hold 6 and 4 down at startup to force boot the 64bit kernel.

6+4 does not force 64 bit kernel on a Mac Pro 1.1
In fact 6+4 does nothing on a Mac Pro 1.1

You just can not run the 64bit kernel SL on it period... I've tried

 

[uaecasher]

my uMBP shows EFI64 when running terminal command, but in system profiler i get "64-bit Kernel and Extensions: No" any thoughts ?

I'm running Snow Leopard 10A421a does the GM has 64bit for uMBPs?

 

[MRU]

my uMBP shows EFI64 when running terminal command, but in system profiler i get "64-bit Kernel and Extensions: No" any thoughts ?

I'm running Snow Leopard 10A421a does the GM has 64bit for uMBPs?

I have a 2.93 Unibody MBP also, running the supposed GM.

It shows as 64-bit Kernel and Extensions: No too, that is unless I force it at boot to load the 64-bit kernel. Not sure why it requires me to force it each time since it's supported......

 

[uaecasher]

I have a 2.93 Unibody MBP also, running the supposed GM.

It shows as 64-bit Kernel and Extensions: No too, that is unless I force it at boot to load the 64-bit kernel. Not sure why it requires me to force it each time since it's supported......

Maybe apple will make default support on public release ?

 

[revs]

Even without a 64Bit Kernel, everything else will be running 64bit, or at leaast capable of it.
The 32bit kernel is actually 64bit in reality, but appears/works like a 32bit one, it does some internal stuff in 64bit.

If Apple made the 64bit kernel default then everyones printer, mouse, kb drivers and scanners and god knows what else would stop working!
Can you imagine that? All these average users installing SL to find half their stuff doesnt work?

Also you probably wont notice any difference with the 32bit kernel unless you have huge amounts of ram and do serious scientific number crunching!

So guys, relax, its not important, the important thing is that all the other apps work in 64bit mode, and they do! Safari 64bit screams!

Maybe in a few months, once third parties have had time to upgrade drivers to 64bit, then we will see a 64bit kernel as default? Or maybe apple can 'scan' the drivers in some way and automatically load the 64bitone if they find there will be no issues.

And remember, not all apps benefit from being 64bit - although you know there will be loads of people here obsessed about making sure everything on their system is 64bit, 'im not installing that its 32 bit!!'

source: people a lot cleverer than me on arstechnica

 

[revs]

I have a 2.93 Unibody MBP also, running the supposed GM.

It shows as 64-bit Kernel and Extensions: No too, that is unless I force it at boot to load the 64-bit kernel. Not sure why it requires me to force it each time since it's supported......

You can modify a config file so that the machine always boots into 64bit mode, without having to hold down 6 and 4.

Form a quick google search:

Edit this file:
/Library/Preferences/SystemConfiguration/com.apple.Boot.plist

Change this:

<key>Kernel Flags</key>
<string></string>

To this:

<key>Kernel Flags</key>
<string>arch=x86_64</string>

 

[Neurorad]

Thanks!

Lots of great responses.

I do a lot of intensive medical imaging and HD video work on my Mac, so it would be have been nice to be able to boot from a 64-bit only startup drive for specialized work.

For better or worse, my now almost exactly three year old Mac Pro still runs very fast with all of the tweaks I have done. Just thought it would was a true 64-bit computer, as advertised.

 

[Julien]

6+4 does not force 64 bit kernel on a Mac Pro 1.1
In fact 6+4 does nothing on a Mac Pro 1.1

You just can not run the 64bit kernel SL on it period... I've tried

How do I identify my Mac Pro version. Under Hardware Overview: It has Model Identifier: MacPro3,1 (a little over a year old). Is this it and will it boot to 64-bit with SL?

 

[GraceMolloy]

dangit, I have a Nov 2006 MBP and it's giving me a 32bit message. What kind of crap is that?

 

[t22design]

It makes no difference. (Unless you have over 32GB of RAM, but you don't have that do you?)

 

[mathcolo]

Yeah, really everyone, this whole "need 64-bit kernel" stuff is completely overrated! It's only relevant if you have over 32GB of memory, which I doubt most people have.

My 2007 MacBook is going to be running the 32-bit kernel. And dangit, I'll like it!

 

[netnothing]

Everyone needs to relax on the whole 64-bit kernel business.

Yes, the latest build will boot ALL desktop and notebook macs into the 32-bit kernel. Only the XServes will auto boot into 64-bit.

Take a look at this article from Gizmodo:
http://gizmodo.com/5343443/snow-leopard-currently-restricts-64+bit-booting-to-newer-macs

The Apple rep they talked to stated:

The 32-bit kernel fully supports 64-bit applications, all system libraries that 64-bit applications use are fully 64-bit, and 64-bit applications have a full 64-bit virtual address space of 16 exabytes available to them on Mac OS X. The primary benefit of a 64-bit kernel is to improve the efficiency of accessing over 32GB of RAM.

I really think that Apple is setting the foundation for future releases and machines. Current hardware will benefit from all the 64-bit apps right now regardless.

-Kevin

 

[Amdahl]

Apparently an Intel Mac will only boot into true 64-bit mode in Snow Leopard if it has the appropriate EFI.

Well, you can't be too angry. There are newer Quad G5s than your Mac Pro, and they don't run SL at all. High-end Macs should never be bought for 'forward-looking' reasons, unless you're looking forward to regretting it.

 

[ayeying]

You can run 64 bit applications on Leopard right now. My VMWare Fusion is running "Intel (64bit)" according to Activity Monitor

 

[mason.kramer]

64 bit mode is faster. 64 bit programs have access to more integer registers and run faster, quite apart from the the address space issue. Moreover, Apple has been representing for years that all Macs with 64 bit intel processors will be able to run in 64 bit mode. So I think people have a right to be cheesed off if the snow leopard ships without 64 bit kernel support for intel processors. However, that hasn't happened yet.

 

[belvdr]

64 bit mode is faster. 64 bit programs have access to more integer registers and run faster...

There's no guarantee of this.

 

[mason.kramer]

There's no guarantee of this.

What does that even mean? The individual words of your post are English words, but the whole is less than the sum of its parts.

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/08/08/26/road_to_mac_os_x_10_6_snow_leopard_64_bits.html
Read this. Don't reply unless you read it.

Apple's progressive expansion of 64-bit support in Snow Leopard will bring performance enhancements across the board for users of new 64-bit Intel Macs. Here's a look at why, along with how it is that every version of Mac OS X since Tiger has advertised "64-bit support" as a key feature.

 

[belvdr]

What does that even mean? The individual words of your post are English words, but the whole is less than the sum of its parts.

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/08/08/26/road_to_mac_os_x_10_6_snow_leopard_64_bits.html
Read this. Don't reply unless you read it.

It's not a difficult statement. There's no guarantee that everything will be faster in 64 bit versus 32 bit. People here and all over the Internet have tested this and in some times it is actually slower. I wouldn't equate marketing with facts.

 

[BobZune]

http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Darwin/Conceptual/64bitPorting/indications/indications.html may also help in the clarification -- 64 bit doesn't automatically mean "faster."

 

[mason.kramer]

http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Darwin/Conceptual/64bitPorting/indications/indications.html may also help in the clarification -- 64 bit doesn't automatically mean "faster."

From the article you linked, which I have read before

On Intel-based Macintosh computers, you may see some performance improvement. The number of registers and the width of registers increases in 64-bit mode. Because of the increased number of registers, function call parameters can be passed in registers instead of on the stack. The increased register width makes certain performance optimizations possible in 64-bit mode that are not possible in 32-bit mode. These improvements will often (but not always) offset the performance impact caused by increased cache pressure.

Although special cases can be contrived in which programs do not run faster, these are exceptions to the rule. Most kernel functions will not be exceptions to this rule. In fact, it will be convenient for the kernel to have a 64 bit word size to represent addresses internally, instead of a long long hack. It's many fewer operations to manipulate a word than a long long in two words. Bottom line, the computer, especially the kernel, runs faster in 64 bit mode. There is no point in equivocating.

 

[janstett]

Yeah, really everyone, this whole "need 64-bit kernel" stuff is completely overrated! It's only relevant if you have over 32GB of memory, which I doubt most people have.

B.S. It's part of a platform shift and if you bought a supposed 64-bit machine like I did, you got shafted. Same way the G5 quad users did.

It also means when the day comes that the latest OSX only supports 64-bit machines this expensive falsely-advertised machine gets left behind when technically it's capable.