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.
OS X Snow Leopard Retail Disc Contains Build 10A432
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Rot'nApple
macrumors 65816
ok then click on about this mac,then more info, go down to software click that,
if you have 64 bit kernal loaded it will say 64 bit extensions YES if it says no then you have 32 bit kernal loaded
not the apps will say 64bit whichever one is loaded
Am i the only one with higher upload speed than download speed?
Attachments
aznguyen316
macrumors 68010
If you are not a beta tester, you will be able to very, very shortly 😎; and the most recent public release of VirtualBox is stable in 64-bit (host and guest) mode. I think virtualization is, for the average user, where 64-bit mode becomes useful. While my personal opinion is that the 64-bit issue is a red herring for a large number if users (if not most) it is not inconsequential, and while I live and die by my 17" UMBP and believe that the media's 64-bit hyperbole has unfairly been characterized as Apple's own hype, I also believe that it might be good for Apple to provide some clarity on the issue (as a courtesy to its customers).
To be honest, I run in 64-bit mode exclusively and miss only two third-party kexts -- Logitech Control Center and Sonnet's drivers for the Tempo Sata Pro Expresscard/34. Their lack of 64-bit drivers cannot be attributed to Apple. And, if I did not have the option to run in 32-bit mode I could potentially be in quite bad shape because my Home folder is on an external raid array which I connected via the Tempo Sata Pro. I now use a single Caviar Black and a generic JMicron esata E/34 (the JMicron 64-bit drivers are "native" like the JMicron 32-bit drivers).
aidricksdad
macrumors regular
rhpenguin
macrumors 6502a
Some of us aren't douchebags and pay for our software. Yes, I've downloaded 10.6 but I have a pre-order in and when it does come in it'll go in the closet beside my 10.4 and 10.5 discs. I Hacintosh because Apple doesn't sell hardware I feel compelling enough to buy, however I like their OS a lot. This solution works for me.
taybo20
macrumors regular
There are two problems with your approach to things:
1) If we keep saying "not everything is ready yet" then you'll never reach a point where we are using 64-bit. Companies have no incentive to release the software unless they are effectively forced to. Microsoft's approach has a lot of problems, but it works for the most part and they've got three pretty good 64-bit OSes out there now.
2) The issue isn't that the 64-bit kernel is disabled by default, it's that it has been COMPLETELY disabled on certain models of computer when there is NO valid technical reason for doing so. My MacBook can run 64-bit software just as well as any other 64-bit Mac, yet due to Apple's marketing crap it's intentionally crippled.
To suggest that a software update will correct this is laughable, purely for the reasons you've outlined. People don't expect an update to remove compatibility with their hardware and software. An OS Upgrade is different to an update. I expect fewer things to work with a new OS, but I don't expect anything to stop working after a simple point update Like (like 10.6.1).
When you can upgrade for $29 and get a full install with iLife and iWork for $130 or so, it really cuts down on the piracy. Microsoft would do well to take note of this fact.
slackpacker
macrumors 6502a
Not correct - The serial number is the S/N of your MAC HARDWARE
NOT Snow Leopard ........ This is nothing new... been that way since Tiger or before....
And most of these whiners are simply walking walking into that marketing trap.
Take it from a developer (with many years of Assembler coding): Until the apps you're using are written for 64-bit, you're loosing out while running the 64-bit kernel. All your apps are emulated to run 64-bit, therefore slower. In addition, all your CPU registers are now twice as big as actually needed (again slows things down), so your 32-bit running under the 64-bit kernel are also using more memory than it would under a 32-bit kernel ... therefore creating the need for more RAM.
64-bit addressing is like a self-fulfilling prophecy ... if you go there, you will need the extra memory 😉
lannister80
macrumors 6502
Unless we're talking black-body radiation, in which case it looks a bit hotter. Lots of red in the regular version. 🙂
cult hero
macrumors 65816
Whine, whine, whine...
Is it TCP/IP, HTTP or HTML that induces so much whining on the Web, seriously?
64-bit kernel? Seriously? How many of you people are running with a metric ton of RAM here on your iMac? Oh, no one? SL is another transitional step toward 64-bit since it takes more than just the OS to make the migration complete. 99.999% of the people using OS X won't notice, care or even understand the difference. And, if you do actually understand, you still won't care since the 64-bit kernel offers you nothing tangible other than, "MY MACHINE IZ RUNN' DA FASTA KERNEL! I IZ 64! I IZ BETTER!"
The big 64-bit push in SL isn't so much about the kernel as it is about the APIs and underlying frameworks as well as the availability of 64-bit kernels giving third party developers a pretty decent amount of time to migrate their software.
I do want to note that the thing I find the most amusing here is that most of the programs that would actually have ANY benefit from being 64-bit aren't even going to be available in 64-bit. (Adobe's bloatsuite and most Pro apps.) I don't follow most of the Pro apps, but I do follow Adobe. Why isn't Adobe 64-bit on OS X like it is on Windows? Because a certain Steven Jobs blew a lot of smoke up people's rears when OS X hit the scene.
"We have Carbon and Cocoa. Use which fits your needs best. They'll both eventually make it to 64-bit. We plan to support both... yes, yes." Except... Carbon, which is what Adobe used for development, didn't make the 64-bit cut. Check this out. (And also read it for why most of you don't need or really care about 32-bit. Your iPhoto collections and Facebook photos aren't in the 3.375 gigapixel range.)
(And this kind of crap, like Carbon being dropped, is typical Apple. The only reason a lot of you get annoyed or feel like you've been lied to or cheated is that you seem to think Apple is morally superior to other companies. Anyone who thinks that is annoyingly naive or hasn't been a Mac user for very long.)
Oh... and the people whining about the packing... please just shut up. I wouldn't care if it came in a brown cardboard sleeve with no artwork on a CD-R because once I install it, it's going in a CD wallet with the rest of my stuff. Am I missing something here? Do a lot of you frame this stuff?
Is it TCP/IP, HTTP or HTML that induces so much whining on the Web, seriously?
64-bit kernel? Seriously? How many of you people are running with a metric ton of RAM here on your iMac? Oh, no one? SL is another transitional step toward 64-bit since it takes more than just the OS to make the migration complete. 99.999% of the people using OS X won't notice, care or even understand the difference. And, if you do actually understand, you still won't care since the 64-bit kernel offers you nothing tangible other than, "MY MACHINE IZ RUNN' DA FASTA KERNEL! I IZ 64! I IZ BETTER!"
The big 64-bit push in SL isn't so much about the kernel as it is about the APIs and underlying frameworks as well as the availability of 64-bit kernels giving third party developers a pretty decent amount of time to migrate their software.
I do want to note that the thing I find the most amusing here is that most of the programs that would actually have ANY benefit from being 64-bit aren't even going to be available in 64-bit. (Adobe's bloatsuite and most Pro apps.) I don't follow most of the Pro apps, but I do follow Adobe. Why isn't Adobe 64-bit on OS X like it is on Windows? Because a certain Steven Jobs blew a lot of smoke up people's rears when OS X hit the scene.
"We have Carbon and Cocoa. Use which fits your needs best. They'll both eventually make it to 64-bit. We plan to support both... yes, yes." Except... Carbon, which is what Adobe used for development, didn't make the 64-bit cut. Check this out. (And also read it for why most of you don't need or really care about 32-bit. Your iPhoto collections and Facebook photos aren't in the 3.375 gigapixel range.)
(And this kind of crap, like Carbon being dropped, is typical Apple. The only reason a lot of you get annoyed or feel like you've been lied to or cheated is that you seem to think Apple is morally superior to other companies. Anyone who thinks that is annoyingly naive or hasn't been a Mac user for very long.)
Oh... and the people whining about the packing... please just shut up. I wouldn't care if it came in a brown cardboard sleeve with no artwork on a CD-R because once I install it, it's going in a CD wallet with the rest of my stuff. Am I missing something here? Do a lot of you frame this stuff?
10A432 == FAIL
September had 30 days for Apple to polish.
I thought Apple took first impressions seriously.
There was no reason to rush.
People who think "its ok, they'll release patch" make me sad and sick.
Apple, this was not what I imagined when I switched.
This empror is as naked as the last.
September had 30 days for Apple to polish.
I thought Apple took first impressions seriously.
There was no reason to rush.
People who think "its ok, they'll release patch" make me sad and sick.
Apple, this was not what I imagined when I switched.
This empror is as naked as the last.
lannister80
macrumors 6502
This is 100% confirmed, OEM and flashed as well. Go flash an XFX 1GB model and save yourself a ton of $ and get double the video memory!
charlituna
macrumors G3
yes. it is an extension of the trick you can do with apps that have various open windows. I believe Bertrand mentioned it in the WWDC keynote as part of the expose changes.
that video was lame. really poorly shot, especially for a guy that claims he is a video editor
RE the folks asking why they 'rushed' this out. Because it was ready. Why hold back a ready to release product (which even if there are one or two small issues that need a .1 within the week is still way better than Vista's first release version) to be torrented by itchy computer users when they can get it out there and many of those folks would pony up the money instead of grabbing it free thinking they will go be honest and buy it and then never do.
and they never said that September was an ironclad date. they haven't broken any promises going out a few days earlier so that folks can take a sicky and then have two days over the weekend to have fun
oh and to all the folks asking about backups etc. if you ever install/reinstall an OS without a full backup of your system just in case, you are plain stupid. that is asking for something to go back. and be sure your less computer savvy friends know that as well. All computers break down, get dropped, something spilled on them etc. not backing up period is idiotic. double when you are messing with the OS.