Macbook pro Unibody with 64bit full support?

[googlemac]

hello guys.

I own a Macbook pro 2.4 Silver 2008 lately. And I am about to buy the new 13 inch Mac book pro (is there a different between unibody and the Aluminum?)

But Before ordering it I have a Q about the 64bit kernal.

Does all the new mac book pros models/sizes enable to run a full 64 bit kernal/softwares

Or there is still a new updates or ??

I am going to order this model Apple MacBook Pro MB991LL/A 13.3-Inch Laptop


Waiting for your replies.

 

[n0d3]

hello guys.

I own a Macbook pro 2.4 Silver 2008 lately. And I am about to buy the new 13 inch Mac book pro (is there a different between unibody and the Aluminum?)

But Before ordering it I have a Q about the 64bit kernal.

Does all the new mac book pros models/sizes enable to run a full 64 bit kernal/softwares

Or there is still a new updates or ??

I am going to order this model Apple MacBook Pro MB991LL/A 13.3-Inch Laptop


Waiting for your replies.

It's kernel btw, and why would you want to run it on a 64-bit kernel anyway?

Try reading this FAQ:

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/783948/

 

[mac2x]

As far as hardware capability, if your computer has a Core Duo processor you are out of luck. If you have a Core 2 Duo, you're in business.

 

[maflynn]

Does all the new mac book pros models/sizes enable to run a full 64 bit kernal/softwares

Yes, but does it matter? I mean even with the 32bit kernel you can still run 64bit apps. What advantage are you looking for with K64?

 

[nullx86]

64bit kernel can utilize more memory. 32bit is limited. AFAIK, the Silver MBPs before unibody came in both Core Duo (when Apple switched from PPC to Intel) and Core 2 Duo (the generation after the PPC/Intel Switch). Core Duo cant do 64bit, Core 2 Duo can. All the MBP models since the unibosy design can support full 64 bit (both kernel/OS and apps). As long as it can do 4GB + of memory and has a "Core 2 Duo" Intel Processor, your in business. But if your buying that 13" MBP, it will defenitley support it.

 

[maflynn]

64bit kernel can utilize more memory. 32bit is limited

Given the fact that most people have 4gig or less, means that there's very little reason to run K64. Even then, Macs have had > 4gig of ram anyways, so I'm still not seeing the benefit of the 64bit kernel. Yes, with k64, you get access to the 64it registers that may improve performance in some apps, but also running 64bit also means that the system uses more resources as well.

 

[nullx86]

Given the fact that most people have 4gig or less, means that there's very little reason to run K64. Even then, Macs have had > 4gig of ram anyways, so I'm still not seeing the benefit of the 64bit kernel. Yes, with k64, you get access to the 64it registers that may improve performance in some apps, but also running 64bit also means that the system uses more resources as well.

yeah, i dont see the point in running full 64bit either, hell ive never gone 64bit with linux or windows, but im just stating the fact for the OP. Personally I want to keep things as simple and as easy as possible, both for me and the computer.

 

[santos79]

yeah, i dont see the point in running full 64bit either, hell ive never gone 64bit with linux or windows, but im just stating the fact for the OP. Personally I want to keep things as simple and as easy as possible, both for me and the computer.

Yes, because the 64-bit kernel is dangerous and extremely complicated.

I've been using the 64-Bit kernel since installing Leopard has been available and I have the impression that the system is a bit snappier as a result.
At any rate, for those who don't run any applications that need the 32-Bit kernel, the 64-Bit kernel is a viable option. I have not noticed that the system needs more resources. I have the impression that it uses just as much as when using the 32-Bit kernel.

There might be no obvious immediate benefit of using it, but to convey the impression that the 64-Bit kernel makes things more "complicated" is ridiculous. The 64-Bit kernel is likely to be the default of 10.7 and there is absolutely no risk in using it now.

Test it by pressing 6 and 4 simultaneously when booting. If an application doesn't work, then fine: restart your computer and you're back to 32-Bit. It's as simple as that.

 

[nullx86]

Yes, because the 64-bit kernel is dangerous and extremely complicated.

I've been using the 64-Bit kernel since installing Leopard has been available and I have the impression that the system is a bit snappier as a result.
At any rate, for those who don't run any applications that need the 32-Bit kernel, the 64-Bit kernel is a viable option. I have not noticed that the system needs more resources. I have the impression that it uses just as much as when using the 32-Bit kernel.

There might be no obvious immediate benefit of using it, but to convey the impression that the 64-Bit kernel makes things more "complicated" is ridiculous. The 64-Bit kernel is likely to be the default of 10.7 and there is absolutely no risk in using it now.

Test it by pressing 6 and 4 simultaneously when booting. If an application doesn't work, then fine: restart your computer and you're back to 32-Bit. It's as simple as that.

is that only in SL? I just got my iMac and it came with 10.5.6 installed, but came with the SL disks, so I am debating to upgrade or not... Ive never had problems with Leopard, and heard SL is a little buggy still...

 

[Peace]

To answer the OP's question. Yes the new 13" Macbook
Pro can run the 64-bit kernel by holding down the 6+4 keys on boot. And the kernel extensions are supported.