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

OS X Snow Leopard Retail Disc Contains Build 10A432

Bevz said:
Looking forward to Friday :)

I just hope in the future when apple set the 64bit kernel to boot as default they think of all of us with 64bit machines but 32bit EFIs (2006 macpro in my case) and give us a 64bit EFI update so we can run the new kernel...
Click to expand...

I have the same machine and have found out that it's not needed. It doesn't matter if the EFI is 32 or 64 bit cause the machine doesn't run on EFI. It's only for booting and once you get into 64bit mode your good to go. I'm just not sure how the 32bit EFI is going to tell the OS to run in 64bit mode. For that, will probably need some kind small application to initiate it.
 
this really won't launch in the 64 bit kernel on my 24" 2.8GHz Core 2 Duo iMac? That's a huge letdown if so..
 
jaw04005 said:
It's not really an obsession. It started off as the codename for Mac OS X 10.1 and developed into a marketing scheme after Jobs revealed 10.2 Jaguar (or jagwire as he pronounced it). They've stuck with it ever since as a differentiator.

Would you prefer ME (for Millennium Edition), XP (for eXPerience), Longhorn or Vista?

Out of the cat trademarks left, Apple has yet to use Lynx and Cougar. However, both trademarks have lapsed (although I would imagine you could get them back easily enough). There's also Lion, which I don't believe is trademarked.

Let's just hope 10.7 is feature packed at not "Clouded Leopard."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_cat

Funny Mac OS X codename keynote moment:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QM-1y9ouqec#t=01m43s
Click to expand...

What about Cheetah? Actually, Apple should have used that name instead of Snow Leopard because they could have marketed it as The Cat That Runs Faster. Instead, they went with Snow Leopard which probably should have been marketed as Snow Job. ;)
 
TripHop said:
Should do. Why do you think not?
Click to expand...

On page 4 user "khurrram" said:


My two disappoints are related to 64 bit kernel, OpenCL along with Quicktime X h.264 hardware acceleration. First of all, my 24" Aluminium iMac Model 7.1 (Late 2007) doesn't run 64 bit kernel at all. All the processes are running in 64 bit apart from the kernel. And holding down 6 and 4 doesn't load up 64 bit kernel either.

And my iMac has ATI Radeon 2600HD, clearly there is no mention of any kind of support for OpenCL along with Quicktime X h.264 hardware acceleration. With these two things, I do feel a bit left out on the Snow Leopard party on my top of the range iMac which I bought about a year and 9 months ago.

At the same time, my MacBook Pro Model 4.1 (Early 2008) 2.4 which loads 64 bit kernel just fine as it should, which I bought four months later. Although I have nVidia Geforce 8600M GT, which loses out on the hardware acceleration for h.264, although has support for OpenCL.
 
Your iMac Is Early 2008 45nm Fully 64-bit Penryn

idyll said:
On page 4 user "khurrram" said:


My two disappoints are related to 64 bit kernel, OpenCL along with Quicktime X h.264 hardware acceleration. First of all, my 24" Aluminium iMac Model 7.1 (Late 2007) doesn't run 64 bit kernel at all. All the processes are running in 64 bit apart from the kernel. And holding down 6 and 4 doesn't load up 64 bit kernel either.

And my iMac has ATI Radeon 2600HD, clearly there is no mention of any kind of support for OpenCL along with Quicktime X h.264 hardware acceleration. With these two things, I do feel a bit left out on the Snow Leopard party on my top of the range iMac which I bought about a year and 9 months ago.

At the same time, my MacBook Pro Model 4.1 (Early 2008) 2.4 which loads 64 bit kernel just fine as it should, which I bought four months later. Although I have nVidia Geforce 8600M GT, which loses out on the hardware acceleration for h.264, although has support for OpenCL.
Click to expand...
Last paragraph is YOU. You don't own a 2007 iMac. You own the first fully 64-bit Early 2008 45nm Penryn model so no problem. :)
 
TripHop said:
Last paragraph is YOU. You don't own a 2007 iMac. You own the first fully 64-bit model so no problem. :)
Click to expand...

Are you positive? In his post he later states "And what's with not being able to run 64 bit kernal on my iMac Model 7.1 with 2.8Ghz Core 2 Duo Extreme?"

- that's the same exact computer I have.. :confused:
 
chasemac said:
SL should better deliver in some way with 64 bit. I feel that I been sold on it since the G5 and it ain't supported. For $29 I don't expect much.
Click to expand...

It does and they do. The issue is not the OS, it's the third party applications that don't have 64bit support (yet). If all you do is use Apple system apps, then you're golden. The trouble is MOST people use their machines for other work and that's where the short comings are. Mail and Safari is 64bit, but Final Cut Studio is not. Out of these three applications, only one is begging for 64bit and it's a long way off.
 
idyll said:
Are you positive? In his post he later states "And what's with not being able to run 64 bit kernal on my iMac Model 7.1 with 2.8Ghz Core 2 Duo Extreme?"

- that's the same exact computer I have.. :confused:
Click to expand...

Why does it matter that you can't run the 64bit kernel? you can run 64bit applications, those applications can address more than 4GB of memory, the 32bit kernel can address more than 4GB of memory, the operating system loads into Long mode with the kernel running in compatibility mode so that 64bit applications can take advantage of more registers, and other enhancements.

Again, why are you whining? do some reading for christ sake, these issues have been addressed over and over and over and over and over and over again.
 
64-bit Expert Please Confirm or Refute My Understanding

idyll said:
Are you positive? In his post he later states "And what's with not being able to run 64 bit kernal on my iMac Model 7.1 with 2.8Ghz Core 2 Duo Extreme?"

- that's the same exact computer I have.. :confused:
Click to expand...
Well I'm not positive because I'm not an engineer but my understanding is that everything beginning with 45nm Penryn processors in Early 2008 is fully 64-bit on the motherboard and in the processor. Will someone else please confirm or refute my understanding?
 
macintoshtoffy said:
Why does it matter that you can't run the 64bit kernel? you can run 64bit applications, those applications can address more than 4GB of memory, the 32bit kernel can address more than 4GB of memory, the operating system loads into Long mode with the kernel running in compatibility mode so that 64bit applications can take advantage of more registers, and other enhancements.

Again, why are you whining? do some reading for christ sake, these issues have been addressed over and over and over and over and over and over again.
Click to expand...
So why are we buying Snow Leopard again? :D

Better off waiting until next year and get a new machine without all this bizzaro world what hardware configuration supports what game.
 
Bevz said:
Yeah i'm guessing the same about the EFI :(

I take your point about the kexts... I guess It'll be a while before apple are confident about defaulting to a 64bit kernel anyway.

I feel your pain with graphics card... I've got the ATI X1900XT and I've resigned myself to the fact that will never be used by OpenCL or used for video decoding... Seems such a shame though... All that power... :(

Anyway, I don't want to sound too negative.... Snow Leopard sounds a good leap forward so roll on Friday... :)
Click to expand...

You should spend some time doing research to upgrade your Mac. There are still a lot of options in video cards and booting to 64bit. You just have to hit up google and do some reading. Even so, by the time 3rd party 64bit software for Mac becomes mainstream, the original MacPro is going to be really outdated for heavy duty processing.
 
Eidorian said:
So why are we buying Snow Leopard again? :D

Better off waiting until next year and get a new machine without all this bizzaro world what hardware configuration supports what game.
Click to expand...

For 64bit capability - something that it allows you to do - to run 64bit applications on it. Up until that point, 64bit applications were limited to command line. There was no 64bit Cocoa, no 64bit QTX, no 64bit anything outside the bare basic.

Christ all bloody mighty - the kernel is but one aspect of the damn operating system; stop jerking your kernel gherkin and look at the bigger picture.
 
macintoshtoffy said:
For 64bit capability - something that it allows you to do - to run 64bit applications on it. Up until that point, 64bit applications were limited to command line. There was no 64bit Cocoa, no 64bit QTX, no 64bit anything outside the bare basic.
Click to expand...
Welcome to Leopard. Where we are today.
 
johata3 said:
Currently I installed the 10A432 on my umbp (2.8GHz). I looked at system preferences and it says that it is under 32 bits. Is everyone else have that on their macs?
Click to expand...

Okay... here we go. I think I'm going to avoid MacRumors after Friday cause there's going to be a lot of silly questions from people who are too lazy to read or find out exactly what they are installing.

And another thing... why are people downloading torrents and then coming on here to ask questions about it? Seriously, if you don't know what you are doing, then wait until Friday, BUY the software, and RTFM! :mad:
 
This Will Explain The Confusion of 32 & 64 Kernel's

Taken Directly From Macworld:
Posted on Aug 19, 2009 6:37 pm by Jason Snell, Macworld.com

LINK:
http://www.macworld.com/article/142379/2009/08/snow_leopard_64_bit.html?t=

There’s a little bit of confusion out there on the Web about what parts of Snow Leopard are running in 64-bit mode and what parts are running in 32-bit mode. A report by Thom Holwerda of OS News says that under Snow Leopard, most Macs will boot using a 32-bit kernel and drivers, not a 64-bit kernel and drivers. And Holwerda points out that many Mac models don’t have 64-bit EFI, either.

These statements, based on a pre-release copy of Snow Leopard, seem accurate to me. But the implication that the story leaves readers with—that you can’t “go 64 bit” or “boot into the 64-bit version of Snow Leopard” if your Mac isn’t booting into a 64-bit kernel—is completely wrong.

When Apple talks about Snow Leopard being thoroughly 64-bit savvy, what the company means is that almost every application included in Snow Leopard has been recompiled to run in 64-bit mode. There are two reasons this is a good thing. The first is simple: 64-bit computing is necessary if you want one of the programs on your computer to have access to more than 4GB of RAM.

Second, there are some speed boosts associated with running in 64-bit mode. The Intel processors that power Macs have built-in math routines that operate more efficiently in 64-bit mode, processing tasks in fewer steps. That means that certain math-intensive tasks will see a speed boost under Snow Leopard’s 64-bit applications.

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.

Applications running in Snow Leopard will have access to a full 16 exabyte virtual address space, just the same as if they were running in a 64-bit kernel. As a result, there’s very little difference between booting into the 64-bit kernel and the 32-bit kernel in current Mac systems.

(This is not to say that there won't be a bigger difference in the future, as RAM sizes continue to grow. But presumably new high-end Mac systems will boot into the 64-bit kernel when the need arises.)

So, bottom line: If you’ve got a Core 2 Duo or Xeon based Mac — any Intel Mac not running a Core Duo or Core Solo processor — you’ll be able to run applications in 64-bit mode, which will in turn be able to take advantage of faster 64-bit registers and math routines as well as access massive amounts of memory.


Yes it is Confusing, But The Macworld Article is the Best i have Found that helps People Understand the Differences, I have also had the same Questions asked By my Clients and instead of trying to Explain, i gave them a Link to this Well Written Article by Macworld.:)


Notice: All information in this Post is property of Macworld, I have Reproduced the Article in Full, with only the Removal of the Last Line.

Link Added to Article for Authentication.
http://www.macworld.com/article/142379/2009/08/snow_leopard_64_bit.html?t=
 
Quote: Originally Posted by pika2000
"Okay, can we at least get a confirmation whether one can fresh install SL on an empty hard-drive (without Leopard installed)? I mean come on, this is the biggest question right now. Who cares about the packaging/pictures."

"$9.95 Snow Leopard Up-to-Date Program disc will permit an erase and install per Apple customer service yesterday."

So, I'm running 10.5.8 on my MacBook... if I buy the $29.95 Snow Leopard Upgrade disc, can I do a clean install directly off of that?
Or will I have to hunt down my old Leopard disc, install that, then throw in the the Snow Leopard disc to upgrade from Leopard to Snow Leopard?
 
idyll said:
Although I have nVidia Geforce 8600M GT, which loses out on the hardware acceleration for h.264, although has support for OpenCL.[/I]
Click to expand...

Why wouldn't the 8600GT let you decode h.264?
This card is fully capable of performing hardware decoding for h264, mpeg2 and vc1: its does so on both Windows and Linux (with VDPAU)
 
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