Is the new 13 MBP compatible with SL 64-bit kernel

Discussion in 'macOS' started by mmoran27, Aug 13, 2009.

  1. mmoran27 macrumors 6502

    Oct 23, 2006
    The newest MBP is not 64-bit capable?

    Early 2008 Mac Pro MacPro3,1 Capable
    Early 2008 Xserve Xserve2,1 Default
    MacBook Pro 15/17 MacBookPro4,1 Capable
    iMac iMac8,1 Capable
    UniBody MacBook Pro 15 MacBookPro5,1 Capable
    UniBody MacBook Pro 17 MacBookPro5,2 Capable
    Mac Pro MacPro4,1 Capable
    iMac iMac9,1 Capable
    Early 2009 Xserve Xserve3,1 Default
  2. FSMBP macrumors 68020


    Jan 22, 2009
    Where exactly did you get list because last time I checked there are a lot more machines 64-bit capable?

    From what I know, the 13" Pro is 64-Bit capable.
  3. mmoran27 thread starter macrumors 6502

    Oct 23, 2006
    That is from seed notes from rumored golden master

    I don't have ADC so I can't install it.
  4. FSMBP macrumors 68020


    Jan 22, 2009
    From what I'm 99.99% sure of, all unibodies are 64-Bit compatible. Even my MacBook Pro from June 2007 is 64-Bit.

    So, I wouldn't read too much into rumored notes. I'm sure others, who know more about this stuff, can also post their response regarding this.
  5. gnasher729 macrumors P6


    Nov 25, 2005
    You know that "compatible with 64-bit kernel" and "64-bit capable" are not the same thing, I hope.
  6. FSMBP macrumors 68020


    Jan 22, 2009
    Could you elaborate on that please?
  7. bozz2006 macrumors 68030


    Aug 24, 2007
  8. mmoran27 thread starter macrumors 6502

    Oct 23, 2006
    In know the difference

    When I say 64-bit capable I mean that the drivers and kernel all run in 64-bit mode.

    Running 64-bit apps is not good enough. Leopard could do that.

    It sucks that apple can't write drivers for its own hardware. wtf.

    Does the 13 mbp run the 64-bit kernel with all drivers functioning?

    Windows 7 does it just fine. Apple needs to get their **** together especially if they plan on shipping this crap next month.
  9. Apollo33 macrumors regular

    Jun 26, 2007
    It's not that they can't write drivers for their hardware... It's that they don't care about people that have already purchased their hardware. Even some high-end MacBook Pros from a year ago aren't getting the 64-bit kernel, even when they have 64-bit processors (and would, thus, run Windows 7 just fine). This iterates the key difference between Microsoft and Apple. Microsoft is a software company; they're in business to sell you their software and thus want it to be compatible with as many devices as possible. Apple, on the other hand, only produces software specifically for their devices. They're primarily a hardware company, and thus want to sell hardware.

    How does it benefit Apple to provide new features to older computers? (answer: it doesn't really...) Yeah, it'd be nice but let's face it. All the people complaining about not getting 64-bit support are probably not going to stop buying Apple products because of it.

    I guess I'm lucky the 5,1 MBP is compatible with 64-bit.

    One thing I did notice about the list is that it would seem like no 13" MacBook (Pro) is listed. It could just be because Apple still wants to keep the 13" separate from the higher-end MacBook Pros, even though they now gave anything in a unibody aluminum enclosure the "Pro" moniker.

    Honestly, though. How is not having 64-bit going to affect you? Do you have (or need) more than 4GB of RAM? OS X's 32-bit kernel (unlike Windows) can reference all 4GB. If you're doing something that needs more RAM, then perhaps a higher end device (like one with a dedicated graphics card) would have been a better choice.
  10. mmoran27 thread starter macrumors 6502

    Oct 23, 2006
    I can think of many ways 32 bit kernel will effect me.

    1) If you have 8GB of RAM. 32-bit apps can't use more than 4.
    2) 64-bit is more secure for:
    •A more secure function argument-passing mechanism and the use of hardware-based execute disable for heap memory.
    •Memory on the system heap is marked using strengthened checksums, helping to prevent attacks that rely on corrupting memory.
    3) All new drivers will be 64-bit.
    4) The next release will be 64-bit kernel only and you will feel just like all the PPC owners do now.
  11. Apollo33 macrumors regular

    Jun 26, 2007
    Yeah, I realize that you can address more than 4 GB of RAM. I think the theoretical limit for 64-bit is in TB of RAM. Which no one's going to reach any time soon.

    But my point is: How likely is it going to affect a person using a 13" laptop? Apple initially differentiated the entire 13" line from the Pro line. Even now, you can't get anything better than the NVIDIA 9400 in terms of graphics on the 13". It's not meant for the highest-end tasks. It's also significantly cheaper than the 15" and the 17".

    My point being: Why did you get a 13" laptop if you wanted to use applications with more than 4GB of RAM? And you didn't really provide any examples. You just said "If I have 8GB of RAM." Very rarely do I use my full 4GB. And even Adobe's Creative Suite software is currently only 32-bit for Mac. (Granted, you could use a full 4GB for Photoshop and then have another 4GB for other stuff... but still, why would you be doing that kind of editing on a 13" laptop?)

    The main thing is: Apple is a hardware company (like I said.) They want to support people that buy their high-end products (i.e. the Pro line... yeah, the 13" is now called a "MacBook Pro" too but it's still not treated the same as the 15" and 17" which have discrete graphics cards and matte display options). The people buying high-end products pay more than someone buying a 13" MBP. It's not like Apple's obligated to give you anything, since at the time of purchase you knew that you were getting a 32-bit OS.

    If you don't like what Apple's doing, you could always boycott Snow Leopard and not upgrade. But Apple's primary interest is to sell hardware. That's why they don't allow older Pro machines to use the 64-bit kernel. That's also why they haven't said anything about the 13" laptops.

    It's entirely possible it will install on a 13" MBP, but seeing as the most expensive 13" is still $200 cheaper than the least expensive 15"... I wouldn't get your hopes up. Apple's just like any other company: The more money you give them, the more they like you.
  12. TheSpaz macrumors 604


    Jun 20, 2005
    Do you realize that you can run 64 bit apps? Therefore, your point is moot.
  13. mmoran27 thread starter macrumors 6502

    Oct 23, 2006
    The low end 15 MBP has integrated graphics

    The 13 inch MPB has a 64-bit CPU with a 64-bit chipset and EFI64. There is no reason it should not run 64 bit kernel.

Share This Page