Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Mac Pro Classic, Snow Leopard, and 64-bit kernel
- Thread starter bozz2006
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I don't think this is correct. rEFIt is not a boot loader, it's a more of a GUI for the bootloader already on your mac (UEFI 1.1).
Ummm... I don't think you get it.
Kernel 32 is not the memory manager. Kernel 32 is what powers Leopard and Tiger, and both of those can handle more than 4 gigs of memory, actually a lot more.
The only reason you'd need kernel 64 is if you plan on running more than 4 gigs of kernel extensions.
Snow Leopard will continue running with the same kernel 32 that powers both Leopard and Tiger on the Rev A Mac Pro, which means you will not be capped at 4 gigs of memory.
Again, there are very limited reasons why you'd need to actually run kernel 64.
Saladinos
macrumors 68000
MacBook4,1 has 64-bit EFI:
Code:
MacBook:~ k$ ioreg -l -p IODeviceTree | grep firmware
| | "firmware-revision" = <0a000100>
| | "firmware-abi" = <"EFI64">
| | "firmware-vendor" = <4100700070006c0065000000>
MacBook:~ k$ ioreg -l -p IODeviceTree | grep product
| "product-name" = <"MacBook4,1">
MacBook:~ k$Running SL, I would guess that the only thing holding back my machine from being able to run a 64-bit kernel is the lack of 64-bit drivers for the Intel X3100, despite those drivers being available for Windows.
No doubt Apple could make these machines run the 64-bit kernel. I think some sort of petition or false advertising complaint would be a good idea, or these devices will be put in to forced retirement in a few years when Apple drops the 32-bit kernel (just like PPC machines have been dropped earlier than a comparable product would have been). My BlackBook is just over a year old, and I'm nowhere near thinking about replacing it.
seclusion
macrumors 6502
My 1,1 MacPro has SL 10A432, I use my MP mainly for Audio recording and mixing. My main issue is I have 9 gigs of ram in the machine and I get error messages once I get up to around 2 gigs of ram loaded for Logic 9.
I see Logic 9 isn't showing up as 64 bit, so even if I had a 64 bit SL boot, Logic isn't going to be able to load more then approx 2.5 gigs of ram (without work arounds).
I would like to be able to continue adding plugins and leave some of my large sample libraries loaded in my template, in my case probably roughly 3.5 gigs of ram for my use. Some of the orchestral guys would like all 16 gigs or 32 gigs of ram accessible.
SL upgrade worked flawless, all my songs load just the same as in Leopard, no crashing. I don't see any gains in any way so far.
Guess we'll see what the next couple of months brings...
I see Logic 9 isn't showing up as 64 bit, so even if I had a 64 bit SL boot, Logic isn't going to be able to load more then approx 2.5 gigs of ram (without work arounds).
I would like to be able to continue adding plugins and leave some of my large sample libraries loaded in my template, in my case probably roughly 3.5 gigs of ram for my use. Some of the orchestral guys would like all 16 gigs or 32 gigs of ram accessible.
SL upgrade worked flawless, all my songs load just the same as in Leopard, no crashing. I don't see any gains in any way so far.
Guess we'll see what the next couple of months brings...
Apple's not going to be dropping K32 any time soon, you can untwist your panties...
And, for reference, I was one of the guys who told people that PowerPC was going to be dropped quick.
Besides, both K32 and K64 are open source.
Saladinos
macrumors 68000
Oh, well, if you pointed out something that was blatantly obvious at some point in the past, of course everything you say from here on out will be correct.
It is not obvious that Apple will continue to develop the 32-bit kernel for very long.
Well... K64 is open source, so even if you have a 32 bit machine, it's not like the K64 booting is going to be some sort of mystery... If Apple does release a version of OS X that is 64 bit only the kernel source will be available and netkas or whoever can hack away on it.
Apple might drop 32 bit machines soon. But the 32 bit kernel? A lot of device drivers only work under K32, I just don't see that happening.
The hackintosh people have a solution for the 32 bit boot loaders even if Apple blocks 64 bit support in the os on those machines (Link)
"Full 64-bit support means programs will no longer be limited to 4 GB of RAM; the new maximum (16 exabytes) is meaningless, as no computer in the foreseeable future will be able to hold billions of gigabytes of memory. Both the OS and almost all "system applications" (Finder, Safari, Mail, iChat, iCal, etc.) that come with Snow Leopard are ready for 64-bit operation."
Again, this has been the case since Leopard. I wish people would stop posting information confusing the 64 bit kernel for 64 bit software support.
I wrote 64 bit applications that used 10 gigs of RAM under Leopard.
Edit:
Here, this is a much better summary of 64 bit under Snow Leopard:
http://www.macworld.com/article/142379/2009/08/snow_leopard_64_bit.html
I have a MacPro 2006, 2 x 2.66 GHz Dual-Core Xeon - 7GB of RAM - ATI X1900
I found no speed increase, I actually found a slow down and more beach balls.
I would prefer a fresh complete install of SL, wonder if you get the Mac-Box set for Tiger if it will include a full install of SL????
Also as far as version 10A432, it's a myth that holding the 6 and 4 down at boot time works, I tried it and it didn't work!!!
(off topic - sorry - I also hate that with mail every new piece of mail is flagged, I like the unread bolding (which was in every version), but I hate that I have to unflag ever single email that comes in. I looked for an option to change this, but unless I am blind I didn't see it.)
Thanks,
GadgetMan
I found no speed increase, I actually found a slow down and more beach balls.
I would prefer a fresh complete install of SL, wonder if you get the Mac-Box set for Tiger if it will include a full install of SL????
Also as far as version 10A432, it's a myth that holding the 6 and 4 down at boot time works, I tried it and it didn't work!!!
(off topic - sorry - I also hate that with mail every new piece of mail is flagged, I like the unread bolding (which was in every version), but I hate that I have to unflag ever single email that comes in. I looked for an option to change this, but unless I am blind I didn't see it.)
Thanks,
GadgetMan
JPamplin
macrumors 6502
Did you guys see this app?
32/64-bit selector app:
http://www.ahatfullofsky.comuv.com/English/Programs/SMS/SMS.html
It'll also show you whether your mac is supported to boot with a 64-bit kernel or not.
JP
32/64-bit selector app:
http://www.ahatfullofsky.comuv.com/English/Programs/SMS/SMS.html
It'll also show you whether your mac is supported to boot with a 64-bit kernel or not.
JP
nightfly13
macrumors 6502a
Hmm the quote didn't work like I hoped. But the point I was going to make was that the 'upto 16GB main memory' advertised in 2006 for the 1,1 Mac Pro was only limited to 16GB because that's the size of chip (2GB max) available at the time, right? OWC and others sell 2x4GB kits for the 2006 Mac Pro, so I've assumed for several years that 32GB is possible, right?
gugucom
macrumors 68020
I understand the main issue against loading a 64 bit kernel is the need for full 64bit kexts. Does anybody know how much work is involved to bring the MacPro1,1 up to the task? Going from previous experience I would think that Apple will never go back and provide those kexts. Unless someone hacks something for the MP1,1 we will probably never see a K64 on the machine. The EFI issue is probably a very minor issue. I think it is an arbitrary selection on behalf of Apple.
ungraphic
macrumors 6502a
A simple question:
I have a 1,1 Mac Pro, its a 2006 model with 2x2.66ghz processors. I have 2gb of ram but am about to buy 4gb of ram extra for it. I'm mainly concerned about having Photoshop CS4 use as much available ram as possible, which to my understanding is approx. 4gb being a 32bit application.
CS5 is coming out eventually, and apparently will be 64bit code. Will photoshop be able to use 5, or 6, or 10gb of ram with my 1,1 Mac Pro once I upgrade to Snow Leopard? I dont care what the kernel is, I just want it to be able to use as much ram as possible. All this 32/64 bit kernel talk is sort of scaring me.
I have a 1,1 Mac Pro, its a 2006 model with 2x2.66ghz processors. I have 2gb of ram but am about to buy 4gb of ram extra for it. I'm mainly concerned about having Photoshop CS4 use as much available ram as possible, which to my understanding is approx. 4gb being a 32bit application.
CS5 is coming out eventually, and apparently will be 64bit code. Will photoshop be able to use 5, or 6, or 10gb of ram with my 1,1 Mac Pro once I upgrade to Snow Leopard? I dont care what the kernel is, I just want it to be able to use as much ram as possible. All this 32/64 bit kernel talk is sort of scaring me.
snow leopard will not allow CS3 to utilize any more RAM than it already is. However, more RAM is better. if you buy more RAM, you'll notice a performance boost, most likely, because the system can cache more to RAM and not have to utilize virtual memory. But, since CS3 is 32-bit software, it can only utilize, what is it, 3GB, of RAM, same as in Leopard. no worries, it will work fine.
If CS5 is 64 bit than it will allow you to use more than 4 gigs of RAM no matter what kernel you are running in.
Just ignore the kernel talk. It really doesn't matter.
nightfly13
macrumors 6502a
So then we think the only issue will start at 10.7 when the 64-bit Kernel becomes a requirement?