Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Curious, how many of you use Snow Leopard 64-bit kernel?

J

jjahshik32

macrumors 603
Original poster
Sep 4, 2006
5,366
52
I know by default that Snow Leopard starts up in 32-bit kernel but anyone here boot into the 64-bit kernel? I think to do this you'd have to hold down 6 and 4 keys while booting.

By now almost all 3rd party apps are running 64-bit and all this time I've totally forgot about the 64-bit kernel!

I've just booted up to 64-bit kernel and all apps load instantaneously!
 
*looks*

Seems I'm running K32 at the moment. Frankly, back when I did run it, I found no difference either way. I didn't even have a broken driver to tell me which one I was in. Really, the rest of you aren't missing much.
 
This the default setting on my desktop and I can't even choose the 32-bit for some reason; the issue I have it for a lot of hardware, I can't get the drivers I need. That has improved a bit now, but is still a problem; I have to look at the compatibility before I buy.
 
I can feel quite a big difference by using the 64-bit kernel as to the 32-bit. Everything feels 2x snappier!
 
There is more to it but

If you’re running a Mac powered by an Intel Core 2 Duo processor or an Intel Xeon processor, your Mac is 64-bit capable. And Snow Leopard runs 64-bit-capable applications in 64-bit mode regardless of whether it’s booting into a 64-bit or 32-bit kernel. In fact, the only big advantage of booting into a 64-bit kernel would be the ability to use more than 32 gigabytes of RAM. There aren't any Macs that can do that now, anyway, due to hardware limitations.
 
I certainly do. It doesn't make a huge difference, but I have found intensive tasks like converting large video files is a little quicker.

I timed the same video conversion and it saved me a few minutes. That's good because I do a huge amount of video conversion.
 
jjahshik32 said:
I can feel quite a big difference by using the 64-bit kernel as to the 32-bit. Everything feels 2x snappier!
Click to expand...

I think its more due to a physiological effect more then anything. I could let it boot into 32 bit mode, but tell someone I did it in 64. People believe that 64 bit is much better, then tend to over exaggerate on how incredibly fast it is...lol.
 
Always been using 64bits SL since I got a Macbook. Does not feel particularly slow or fast or anything special, works just fine.
 
hamlinspahn said:
If you’re running a Mac powered by an Intel Core 2 Duo processor or an Intel Xeon processor, your Mac is 64-bit capable. And Snow Leopard runs 64-bit-capable applications in 64-bit mode regardless of whether it’s booting into a 64-bit or 32-bit kernel. In fact, the only big advantage of booting into a 64-bit kernel would be the ability to use more than 32 gigabytes of RAM. There aren't any Macs that can do that now, anyway, due to hardware limitations.
Click to expand...

+1

any speed increases you guys think you experience are psychological.
 
I boot always in 64 bit I have a little program that I can switch to 64bit without the need for the 6 and 4 keys. I do find the Apple programs a little snappier, mail, safari, Ical and such from 32 bit. It's not huge but I can see it.
 
hamlinspahn said:
If you’re running a Mac powered by an Intel Core 2 Duo processor or an Intel Xeon processor, your Mac is 64-bit capable. And Snow Leopard runs 64-bit-capable applications in 64-bit mode regardless of whether it’s booting into a 64-bit or 32-bit kernel. In fact, the only big advantage of booting into a 64-bit kernel would be the ability to use more than 32 gigabytes of RAM. There aren't any Macs that can do that now, anyway, due to hardware limitations.
Click to expand...

Actually, the 8-core Nehalem Mac Pro supports 64GB of DDR3

http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/memory/Mac-Pro-Memory
 
Curious, how many of you use Snow Leopard 64-bit kernel?
Click to expand...

Since I have this new 27" i5 machine, I boot into the 64-Bit kernel and do not have any compatibility problems.

However, I installed another new iMac for somebody yesterday, and there I had to revert to the 32-Bit kernel because of an incompatibility with an external storage system; it's drivers only supported Snow Leopard's 32-Bit kernel - it just wouldn't work in pure 64-Bit mode. So I'm afraid that there really are still valid reasons to leave the system in its default configuration.
 
hamlinspahn said:
Not my words just quoting from Apple. But if you check and see what Apple actually supports they say the max for the Mac Pro Nehalem is 32GB. Maybe Apple is wrong twice.
http://www.apple.com/macpro/specs.html

And I might add the post is about 32bit vs 64bit not ram.
Click to expand...

32GB is the official limit. OWC has tested 64GB and it works fine.

I was replying hamlinspahn's post where he said there is no Mac that supports +32GB of RAM
 
hamlinspahn said:
Maybe Apple is wrong twice.
http://www.apple.com/macpro/specs.html
Click to expand...

Yes Apple is wrong twice; they are often wrong for that matter.

They are wrong for instance when they tell people that the 9400M is comparable in performance to the older 8600M GT… evident why the fact that people are getting the integrated graphics only computers as replacements for their broken older 15" MacBook Pro notebooks.
 
I've tried but my Blue-Link USB Wireless adaptor or my HSDPA Modem were not detected. No internet connection is no life :D

Since then, I stick to 32 bit mode :(.
 
Besides holding 6+4 every time you boot, is there a setting you can alter so that it'll automatically boot into 64bit by itself every time? Thanks.
 
OWC Testing

Hellhammer said:
32GB is the official limit. OWC has tested 64GB and it works fine.

I was replying hamlinspahn's post where he said there is no Mac that supports +32GB of RAM
Click to expand...

Maybe you should read more about OWC's testing. In their testing the System recognized the 64GB of ram, but due to a couple of technical issues such as the intel chipset which cannot utilize more than 32GB, and by their own results the system never used andy ram beyond 32GB, and OS X will cannot access ram beyond 32GB also. So sure they crammed it in there and yes the firmware counted it and reported that number to OS X, but is it useable no. So I guess you guys are right Apple doesn't know what they are talking about and you guys do. So you might check out Intel's, OWC's, and Apple's technical documentation in the future. And you are right it does work just fine just as fine as 32BG.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back