Kevin,
You can't make any judgements about what will or will not be supported based on a beta release. Features may come and go as deadlines and requirements dictate. My only suggestion is to wait for the final retail release.
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.
How to force 64-bit kernel on Snow Leopard build 10A380 (WWDC'09) ?
- Thread starter Yarrow
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You can't make any judgements about what will or will not be supported based on a beta release. Features may come and go as deadlines and requirements dictate. My only suggestion is to wait for the final retail release.
I'm not being rude. and I'm a lot more knowledgeable than you think.
I pay for a developers license for legitimate reasons. It is illegal to download pirated software. It's also illegal to install it on any platform other than a Mac. No Mac user using a Mac would name their Mac a "Playstation"
If you have a problem with that then you do indeed need to go to a different forum. M'K ?
Since your a paid developer, you should therefore know the rules on the NDA. So you are theoretically breaking your NDA by stating the fact you are a paid developer.
Breaking your NDA is no worse than somebody downloading it off a torrent. both are wrong. And i can think of various reasons why somebody would call their machine "Playstation" just because it's called Playstation does not mean he's running it on a PS3.
Saying I'm a paid developer does not break my NDA.
You should read one sometime. It's only $500.
But this discussion isn't about me. I couldn't care less what people think of me.
I'll leave you script kiddies to your fun.
Saying I'm a paid developer does not break my NDA.
You should read one sometime. It's only $500.
You should really read into it sometime, or perhaps ask a lawyer. And yes I used to pay for their ADC services, and have read their disclosure agreements.
But I'll stop feeding the trolls now, however I would also like to know if there is a way to activate the 64bit kernel on a MacPro 1:1 as the Op asked.
You can try to force the 64 bit mode by holding down the 6 and 4 keys as the computer reboots; you can let go when you see the apple.
My iMac 7,1 is an AL iMac I got in Sept before the Oct release of Leopard. Sadly it may not support 64bit mode. I am hopeful for one more beta before SL is let out of its cage. So SL needs intel chips to run but not all of those will be in full 64 bit glory.
My iMac 7,1 is an AL iMac I got in Sept before the Oct release of Leopard. Sadly it may not support 64bit mode. I am hopeful for one more beta before SL is let out of its cage. So SL needs intel chips to run but not all of those will be in full 64 bit glory.
I've passed through Snow Leopard's license agreement. And i see that:
1) It doesn't restrict me from getting my instance of that software.
2) It doesn't require me to participate in any kind of special preview program.
3) It doesn't claim that Snow Leopard pre release software should be paid.
4) It doesn't require me to agree any other license from Apple.
According to that license i can't:
1) Make more than one copy.
2) Distribute copies.
3) Install it into more than one Apple computer at a time.
4) Install it into non-Apple computer.
5) Disclose confidential information.
I haven't broken any point of the license. I don't seed it via torrents, i have only one Apple computer, i even don't install it into PS3.
Why not?Peace said:
Are you really thinking somebody have installed MacOS into PS3
Even rumors about such possibility are disappeared already.
I hope so
What about us folks with a 64-bit Core2Duo Macbook (NON pro, white)? If even *that* isn't supported in 64-bit mode for SL, I won't be bothering to upgrade to Snow Leopard, even for $29 or whatever. I would find it offensive if Apple thought they could hardcode their 64bit OS to refuse to run 64-bit on a *64bit processor* unless I go buy a newer box from them. After all, I could run Windows 64-bit on this thing...
You don't know what you're talking about. See some of the (many) other threads on this forum about this topic for more information. Basically "64 bit mode" and "64 bit kernel" are not the same thing, and the latter doesn't necessarily have the implications that might be expected.
I'm not sure how I've misunderstood. The threads (this included) show people noting that their own Macs are NOT using Snow Leopard's 64-bit kernel. Yes, I'm aware that even Regular Leopard runs 64-bit *apps*. But if I'm going to upgrade to SL when it comes, I'm going to expect it to run a 64-bit kernel on my white Macbook with its full 64-bit Core2Duo. If the current dev build is refusing folks to run 64-bit kernel on such a box, will it also do so when released to the public?
That's what I was complaining about. There's no reason for Apple to refuse to let a full 64-bit OS (it's kernel as well) to run on a legitimately 64-bit system.
Or maybe I'm just confused.
I think what Catfish_Man is saying is that you don't need the 64-bit kernel. Even I was (still kinda am) confused about needing a 64-bit kernel (Catfish_Man has helped ease that a bit).
I wouldn't worry about it if I were you....especially for your machine (I have the white MacBook as well). First that machine is limited to 4GB of RAM, that's plenty on even a 32-bit system. It has integrated graphics....so no benefits there.
I think Apple is laying the foundation for the future of OS X with this update. Trust me....even people with high end machines aren't going to see the benefits of GCD or OpenCL right away. These aren't magic technologies that just make programs run better/faster. Developers need to code for them....it's going to take a little bit.
Where you will see a benefit is Apple in re-writing all the core apps. Finder is Cocoa now...it will (hopefully) be better performing. Personally, I think $29 bucks for the core re-write of the OS is well worth it.
Heck....my MacPro1,1 probably won't even run the 64-bit kernel and I have 11GB of RAM. Personally, as long as apps run 64-bit (if needed) and the re-writes are worthwhile, I'll be happy.
-Kevin
One more small rant about this and then I'll chill.. Let's nevermind why I would want a 64-bit kernel. I already have Leopard, which of course is 32 bit kernel and can run 64 bit apps. If I upgrade to Snow Leopard, I expect a full 64-bit OS. 64-bit didn't just allow them to address huge RAM, but to do architecturally better things (and more secure things).
SL is 64-bit. My computer is FULL 64-bit (core2duo). I'll be upset if Apple doesn't let my full 64-bit computer run in 64 bit mode. Philosophically that would piss me off. Just sayin'.
Philosophy has little place in engineering
Really though, you're not missing out on much. Your 64 bit apps and libraries will still work fine, and reap the benefits.
Really though, you're not missing out on much. Your 64 bit apps and libraries will still work fine, and reap the benefits.
Join the G5 PPC club!
It is my understanding that if you have ANY 32-bit drivers, you are running the 32-bit kernel. You can't have 64-bit and 32-bit running in the same kernel. And Apple doesn't care about monitoring. They only have two questions to answer: 1) Have we got your money? 2) If so, "Buy something, or get out of here!"henk poley said:
You are confused about Apple. They don't care what you want. As to why it won't work, it's because of drivers. They consider it too much trouble to write 64-bit drivers, therefore you're stuck in 32-bit mode.Schitibbie said:
Join the G5 PPC club!Schitibbie said:
My Mac is also a MacPro1,1, System Profiler shows my CPU is Intel Core Duo, which is a 32-Bit CPU, and System Profiler correctly shows " 64-bit Kernel and Extensions: No" to me.
Hope this helps.
PSK
I sure hope you don't have a Core Duo in your MacPro1,1.....cuz you would have paid an awful lot for some 32-bit CPUs.
From my System Profiler:
Model Name: Mac Pro
Model Identifier: MacPro1,1
Processor Name: Dual-Core Intel Xeon
Processor Speed: 2.66 GHz
Number Of Processors: 2
Total Number Of Cores: 4
L2 Cache (per processor): 4 MB
Memory: 11 GB
Bus Speed: 1.33 GHz
Don't get Dual-Core confused with Core Duo. The MacPro1,1 CPUs are definitely 64-bit capable, however it's looking like other factors might prevent Apple from having the kernel in Snow Leopard run as 64-bit.
-Kevin
Dude, first of all, just wait until the final release comes out. Apple has been pushing 64bit all over their web site, they wouldn't do that if it was only for a very very small amount of Macs. The 10a380 aka WWDC build was built sometime in late May, there is still 3 months worth of development for them to do assuming a release of late Sept.
They may already have all 64bit drivers working for the majority of the Intel Macs, just didn't get it in for the WWDC build. Each seed that came out, had more 64bit support than the previous seeds.
I got my new MacPro Nehalem in SL 64 bit mode by booting up and holding the 6 and 4 key. Here's a pic.
It seems to me that you have to have a newer mac to do this.
It seems to me that you have to have a newer mac to do this.
I sure hope you don't have a Core Duo in your MacPro1,1.....cuz you would have paid an awful lot for some 32-bit CPUs.
From my System Profiler:
Model Name: Mac Pro
Model Identifier: MacPro1,1
Processor Name: Dual-Core Intel Xeon
Processor Speed: 2.66 GHz
Number Of Processors: 2
Total Number Of Cores: 4
L2 Cache (per processor): 4 MB
Memory: 11 GB
Bus Speed: 1.33 GHz
Don't get Dual-Core confused with Core Duo. The MacPro1,1 CPUs are definitely 64-bit capable, however it's looking like other factors might prevent Apple from having the kernel in Snow Leopard run as 64-bit.
-Kevin
Here's mine:
Hardware Overview:
Model Name: MacBook Pro
Model Identifier: MacBookPro1,1
Processor Name: Intel Core Duo
Processor Speed: 2.16 GHz
Number Of Processors: 1
Total Number Of Cores: 2
L2 Cache: 2 MB
Memory: 1 GB
Bus Speed: 667 MHz
Boot ROM Version: MBP11.0055.B08
SMC Version (system): 1.2f10
From the Activity Monitor, the kernel and libraries are all loaded in 32-bit mode.
The latest 10A380 seed notes do not have these information in it. But the 10A354 DOES include a list of 64-kernel default/capable machines. MacPro1,1 is not one of them, ;-(.