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.
Snow Leopard (10A432) Golden Master ?
- Thread starter mooon
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That seems especially tricky to me though.
If they let people install the 32-bit Kernel and then apps install their 32-bit KEXTs (quite logically) the user will be put in a situation where their apps/hardware expect a 32-bit system.
For a firmware update to come along and change that would obviously cause issues.
That's why I think doing it with a new OS is the best way forward.
Following your logic it would not be possible to boot into 64-bit by holding down the '6' and the '4' keys - since it is possible then no hardware update is needed, it's all in software (and there is a software edit that can be done to permanently allow a 64-bit boot)
No, while this is true in the generic case, x86-64 (the Intel 64-bit architecture) adds additional registers so some 64-bit apps will see a decent speedup.No point in running 64bit if you have less than 4Gb of RAM, 32bit runs just as fine.
Not a al lot of 3rd party apps in 64bit for now so it doesnt matter, but they are comming because of SL.
No point in running 64bit if you have less than 4Gb of RAM, 32bit runs just as fine.
Not a al lot of 3rd party apps in 64bit for now so it doesnt matter, but they are comming because of SL.
I'll be upgrading to 8GB as soon as more 64bit 3rd party apps show up...
Hopefully handbrake comes out in 64bit soon
According to the Handbreak developer, there is no real benefit from a 64bit version of Handbreak, which is a shame.
Link: http://forum.handbrake.fr/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=10916&p=57114&hilit=64bit
Not at all.
Apple has been "lazy" and decided that certain types of computer that are perfectly capable of running 64-bit software are unable to boot into a fully 64-bit Mac OS X environment.
These tend to be earlier variants of the consumer product lines (like iMac and MacBook).
well the encoder needs to be 64bit, not the app handbrake. on linux x264 is faster using the 64 bit version (obviously not by much, but 5-10%)
the '64 bit handbrake' versions that people have tried to compile for osx have been horrid.
While the only Mac computer to automatically boot into 64-bit kernel mode is the Xserve, most of the other computers are able to boot into it with the key combination on boot (or edited preference file). That includes the Mac Pro, recent iMacs and MacBook Pros.
Some computers have been deliberately restricted (such as the Mac Mini and MacBook, as well as earlier iMac models) so that they can't/wont boot into the 64-bit kernel mode.
Most put this down to Apple not putting in the effort to make it work properly on these computers.
Other operating systems don't use similar methods to restrict 64-bit which is ironic given that Apple has total control over their hardware.
This is exactly why 10A432 is NOT the GM. Apple would never put out an O/S where a person had to hold down certain keys to boot into 64-bit mode.
Most people are going with the assumption that Apple simply isn't going to enable the 64-bit Kernel on every computer.
If you look carefully at the things Apple has stated, they haven't actually mentioned the Kernel being 64-bit, only things like Finder.
A lot of this is actually in line with Apple's Boot Camp support policies. They deliberately code their Windows Driver installer to not work on consumer-level products when running a 64-bit OS when there is no technical reason for doing so.
If you've read all the white papers for developers you would know that the kernel is 64-bit. I've read all of them and I know.
I don't think you know what you're on about!
Snow Leopard features 2 Kernels:
A 32-bit and 64-bit kernel.
Some early Intel Macs (those with Core Solo and Duo processors) don't support 64-bit (and not due to an artificial limitation either, their design simply can't support it), so Apple MUST include a 32-bit kernel with Snow Leopard.
Newer Macs (Core 2 Duo, Xeon etc.) have processors that support 64-bit software. As such, they can run the 64-bit kernel, but so far Apple hasn't made it work by default on anything other than the Xserve.
The most logical assumption so far has been that Apple doesn't intend for most users to have the 64-bit kernel enabled, due to the potential compatibility issues vs. limited benefits.
my 2 cents worth
or will Apple add the required boot-args="arch=x86_64" to the nvram at version 10.6.1 when the app vendors have had time to sort there act's out
I don't think 10A432 is the GM. It still has glitches, stuff not even 10.5.0 had.
About 64 bit kernel, I think the shipping version won't support 64 bit kernel by default either. Both my computers, mac pro and umbp support 64 bit kernel but I'm using the builds at K32 since none of the 3rd party kexts are 64 bit yet. People will be frustrated if the OS boots K64 by default and nothing works. It'll take some time until everyone updates their drivers. So I'm assuming we'll all be using K32 for the first couple months.
About 64 bit kernel, I think the shipping version won't support 64 bit kernel by default either. Both my computers, mac pro and umbp support 64 bit kernel but I'm using the builds at K32 since none of the 3rd party kexts are 64 bit yet. People will be frustrated if the OS boots K64 by default and nothing works. It'll take some time until everyone updates their drivers. So I'm assuming we'll all be using K32 for the first couple months.
If 10A432 isn't the GM, then wouldn't the developers by now have a newer version for testing that would roll into the GM?
Since nothing is in the pipe and every day is 1 day closer to the release of SN, I still think 10A432 is the GM.
Of course I could be dead wrong, because I know nothing about Apple's testing procedures leading up to GM releases.
Unlike Windows and Linux, Mac OS X binaries can hold code for multiple arch. If a software supports both 32-bit and 64-bit, they simply install a single set of binary files. The OS will decide which binary to load depend on running kernel mode. This actually greatly simplified the deployment.
I have been working on Windows, Linux and Mac. We need different installers for 32-bit and 64-bit for Windows and Linux. But for Mac, we just need one installer.
The video is still the same, makes me think that 10A432 isn't the final build.
an update can eventually change this. for now it makes no sense to boot into 64 bit and cause problems for users. maybe a year from now when more 64bit apps are available it would make sense
How does Snow Leopard work with Microsoft Exchange? I had lots of trouble with the older OS Entourage and Exchange 2007.
I heard that exchange works much better with Snow Leopard. Any experiences?
I heard that exchange works much better with Snow Leopard. Any experiences?
64 bit apps have nothing to do with 64 bit kernel. You can run 64 bit apps under Leopard at the moment as well. 64 bit kernel enables people to use 64 bit system extensions.
So it shouldn't be default when you boot SL even when they finally release it. Almost none of the 3rd party kexts are 64 bit ready yet. So people wouldn't be able to use their PCI cards if they boot into 64 bit kernel. (Other stuff won't work as well).
Developers need some time to port their kexts to 64 bit.
I wouldn't say dead wrong but Apple didn't release their GM for Leopard to developers until they actually shipped the retail discs. (They released Leopard Friday at 10:00 AM and seeded the GM to developers around afternoon the same day)
Considering Apple still has at most 1.5 months to release SL, they can easily seed couple more builds before they go GM. Not to mention it's possible that they already have the GM but they won't seed it until it ships. If the GM is not any different than 10A432 apart from some bugfixes there's no reason that a developer can't test their app on 10A432 and be 100% sure that it'll run on the GM.