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

Snow Leopard (10A432) Golden Master ?

Kahnyl said:
Thanks wase4711.

DownburstX, run iTunes and check it in Activity Monitor.
Click to expand...

Yur Welcome!

Just remember, if you boot to 64 bit all the time, you may have some peripherals that may not work properly, since they might now be running with 64 bit drivers...I use Steermouse with a Logitech MX mouse, and the advanced functions do NOT work when I boot to 64 bit, but do when I boot to 32 bit...
 
wase4711 said:
Here ya go...


If you want to force the 64-bit kernel (which means it will run in 64bit mode all the time - without pressing any keys) then go to Library/Preferences/SystemConfiguration/com.apple.Boot.plist. Make sure you have a backup of that file. Now open it (with TextEdit) and add "arch=x86_64" under "Kernel Flags" to make it look like this:


<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE plist PUBLIC "-//Apple Computer//DTD PLIST 1.0//EN" "http://www.apple.com/DTDs/PropertyList-1.0.dtd">
<plist version="1.0">
<dict>
<key>Kernel</key>
<string>mach_kernel</string>
<key>Kernel Flags</key>
<string>arch=x86_64</string>
</dict>
</plist>


Restart. Open System Profiler and look under Software. See if it says "64-bit Kernel and Extensions: Yes.
Click to expand...

tried this still having "NO" on 64-bit Kernel and Extensions. btw im using mac mini 2009
 
kaging said:
tried this still having "NO" on 64-bit Kernel and Extensions. btw im using mac mini 2009
Click to expand...
I think the 2009 Mac Mini still uses a 32-bit EFI, which for now, is still not able to boot the 64-bit kernel. To find out for sure, run this from a Terminal window:

Code: 
ioreg -p IODeviceTree -w0 -l | grep firmware-abi

It will return one of the following:

Code: 
"firmware-abi" = <"EFI32">

or

Code: 
"firmware-abi" = <"EFI64">

Seems that, for now, a 64 bit EFI is a prerequisite for the 64-bit kernel.
 
just to be clear, i want to add... just because a machine has EFI32 doesn't preclude the ability to run K64. Apple has disabled EFI32 machines from running K64. I don't know why. They could conceivably remove this barrier in the future.
 
15" Santa Rose Macbook Pro doesn't seem to want to run the 64-bit kernel either. It has the 64-bit EFI too.
 
I've noticed you need to hold the 6 and 4 keys down almost as soon as you hit "restart"..
try holding them down sooner, and hold them down until the machine is completely booted and see if that helps..
 
bozz2006 said:
just to be clear, i want to add... just because a machine has EFI32 doesn't preclude the ability to run K64. Apple has disabled EFI32 machines from running K64. I don't know why. They could conceivably remove this barrier in the future.
Click to expand...
Exactly, which is why I added the qualifier "for now". There's technically no reason why the 32-bit EFI shouldn't be able to boot he 64-bit kernel.
 
pmasters said:
so how does the upgrade actually work for registered Leopard users? Do we just pop the disc in and install or will SL come with an actual serial number we have to input? Its kind of confusing.
Click to expand...

No serial number. Just pop the disk in, it'll recognise that you're on Leopard and it'll upgrade it. If you were running Tiger or earlier it just wouldn't install using the $29 disk, I guess.
 
Kahnyl said:
Thanks wase4711.

DownburstX, run iTunes and check it in Activity Monitor.
Click to expand...

iTunes (even on Snow Leopard) is still 32-bit, as it is written in Carbon which doesn't support 64-bit apps. My hope is that iTunes 9 will be a complete re-write in Cocoa with full 64-bit support. That would be nice. :)
 
I installed the SL GM build today.. and of course the first thing I check was Safari:D Its a little snappier.. j/k

It appears Apple has fixed the issue with Safari having trouble with website that use GIFS. Can anyone else confirm?
 
its the Golden Master hey? :p

Over to the torrent sites! :D

(only joking I can't be bothered to download it, I'll just buy it when it comes out and get a proper copy, only the best os for my mac... apps on the other hand XD )
 
MTShipp said:
I have a 2009 mini and I get a response of EFI64 running 10.5.8
Click to expand...
ye same here, mac mini 2009 have efi64. maybe this isnt the GM yet?

from boot message says 64bit mode enabled but its loading the 32bit kernel :(

npvhash=4095
PAE enabled
64 bit mode enabled
Darwin Kernel Version 10.0.0: Fri Jul 31 22:47:34 PDT 2009; root:xnu-1456.1.25~1/RELEASE_I386
 
After an 'upgrade install' my iPhone was not recognised by iTunes - I had to reinstall iTunes and then iPhone would appear in Devices

Anyone else?

(MAC PRO early 2008)
 
I'm quite concerned that they haven't made 64-bit kernel support work out of the box on every Mac that can support it (i.e. everything other than early Intel Macs with Core Solo and Duo processors).

They're shooting themselves in the foot for no reason with this one.
 
OSXbugs said:
No they aren't, because I can bet >98% of the users on MR would see no benefit from K64 in their daily use.
Click to expand...

I agree, I bet most people wouldn't notice a difference between K32 and K64 (yet ..)

I did try the SL GM on 3 Macs (2009 MacBook Pro, 2008 iMac and 2009 Mac Mini). I was able to get the 64 bit kernel running on the MacBook Pro and the iMac, but not the Mini ...

I only use this Mini for Plex to stream HDTV to my bedroom, so I'm not overly concerned about it.
 
OSXbugs said:
No they aren't, because I can bet >98% of the users on MR would see no benefit from K64 in their daily use.
Click to expand...

Oh I don't think it's that.

I'm more concerned that they've made some pretty bold claims about their approach to 64-bit which now seems to be looking pretty lame when compared to the competition.

With this new arrangement, people are going to have at least one 64-bit app running permanently (Finder) with everything else in a weird mix of 32/64.
 
Daveoc64 said:
Oh I don't think it's that.

I'm more concerned that they've made some pretty bold claims about their approach to 64-bit which now seems to be looking pretty lame when compared to the competition.

With this new arrangement, people are going to have at least one 64-bit app running permanently (Finder) with everything else in a weird mix of 32/64.
Click to expand...
Why, exactly, is having a mixed 32/64 environment bad? I fail to see your logic, here. The way I see it, Apple's implementation gives the best of both worlds - 100% 64-bit compatibility AND 100% 32-bit compatibility, through the 32-bit interfaces to the 64-bit OS core. Linux does MUCH better than Microsoft in this regard, but even so, it can't claim to be as unified across bit differences as Apple is. The best example of this: Look at any modern, maintained Linux distro. Nobody's made a combined 32-bit/64-bit distro yet, as far as I am aware.
 
wrldwzrd89 said:
Why, exactly, is having a mixed 32/64 environment bad? I fail to see your logic, here. The way I see it, Apple's implementation gives the best of both worlds - 100% 64-bit compatibility AND 100% 32-bit compatibility, through the 32-bit interfaces to the 64-bit OS core. Linux does MUCH better than Microsoft in this regard, but even so, it can't claim to be as unified across bit differences as Apple is. The best example of this: Look at any modern, maintained Linux distro. Nobody's made a combined 32-bit/64-bit distro yet, as far as I am aware.
Click to expand...

I simply don't see any reason why they should go down this route.

There's simply not enough to be gained IMO by dragging out the transition any more than they already have done.

Bite the bullet and make it 100% 64-bit on any Mac that supports it, otherwise they're simply going to be in the same position when 10.7 comes out.

The worst part is that they are intentionally disabling people's ability to choose if they want a 64 bit kernel - which is not something Windows or Linux has done.
 
Daveoc64 said:
I simply don't see any reason why they should go down this route.

There's simply not enough to be gained IMO by dragging out the transition any more than they already have done.

Bite the bullet and make it 100% 64-bit on any Mac that supports it, otherwise they're simply going to be in the same position when 10.7 comes out.

The worst part is that they are intentionally disabling people's ability to choose if they want a 64 bit kernel - which is not something Windows or Linux has done.
Click to expand...
You're right - that Apple's not supporting 64-bit kernels on all 64-bit capable Macs seems like an odd decision. Then again, remember when Boot Camp appeared, and not all Macs were ready to support it out of the box? Apple fixed that with a firmware update. If Apple intends to correct this oversight, they'll do it with a firmware update, not an OS update... that's my line of thought on this matter.
 
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