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

Snow Leopard has a 32-bit kernel! as the default

M

mmoran27

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Oct 23, 2006
298
0
Currently the only Macs to use the 64-bit kernel are the Xserves!

Why can't apple fix this? They don't care to fix it.

They dont want to bother writing drivers for all thier hardware (WTF -it is not that much hardware).

Yes you read that right. Your brand spanking new MBP will use a 32-bit kernel as default.

You can force 64-bit kernel but some of your hardware will not be working (Nice -WTF).

So all that marketing crap about the benefits of 64-bit etc are all B.S.

I don't want a million threads about how this will not effect the running of 64 bit apps, etc. because it will. Your 64-bit app will run but it will not be able to address more than 4Gb of RAM.

There are also many more advantages to having a 64-bit kernel.
 
what are you talking about....

im running the GM of snow leopard... IT IS 64BIT...by default

stop lying and find somthing else to do
 
mmoran27 said:
Currently the only Macs to use the 64-bit kernel are the Xserves!

Why can't apple fix this? They don't care to fix it.

They dont want to bother writing drivers for all thier hardware (WTF -it is not that much hardware).

Yes you read that right. Your brand spanking new MBP will use a 32-bit kernel as default.

You can force 64-bit kernel but some of your hardware will not be working (Nice -WTF).

So all that marketing crap about the benefits of 64-bit etc are all B.S.

I don't want a million threads about how this will not effect the running of 64 bit apps, etc. because it will. Your 64-bit app will run but it will not be able to address more than 4Gb of RAM.

There are also many more advantages to having a 64-bit kernel.
Click to expand...

Lies Why are you even here if you are not an apple fanboy and WHERES YOUR PROVE HUH PUNK!
 
Yea you are running 64-bit with a MBA.

The release notes state clearly that the only default installs are the Xserves.
 
mmoran27 said:
Yea you are running 64-bit with a MBA.

The release notes state clearly that the only default installs are the Xserves.
Click to expand...

huh.....im using it on a brand new 17" macbook pro...would you like a screen shot ?

just so you know...the macbook air is 64bit.
 
Of course the kernel will be able to address more than 4GB of RAM where did you get that from? The rest of the OS is true 64 bit btw, doesn't matter if the kernel isn't. I can boot 64 bit fine on my MBP and there's 0 difference. Apps are still 64 bit in 32 bit mode.

To the above guy with the MBA, it is not 64 bit by default then you changed nvram or the boot plist. Not that it matters.
 
Whatever

Wait for the Release and wait until people start complaining about this.

For those that say they are running 64-bit. You can force it to run.

Hows your power usage when running that 64-bit kernel.

Everything working like leopard?

Yea right.
 
Tallest Skil said:
I'd rather defend the behavior of telling people that we're doing something and then doing it (Apple and Snow Leopard) rather than defend the behavior of making crap up and not having any proof whatsoever (you).
Click to expand...

Hmmm, interesting phrase for you to use...
 
The MBA may be 64-bit but the gen 1 has GMA and those drivers are 32-bit

So even Core 2 Dou macbooks, Mac Minis, etc with Intel GMA will use 32-bit kernel.

If you think otherwise you are full of crap.

Even some of the MacPros from last year still run 32-bit EFI and will use a 32-bit kernel.

Your Mac can easily use all of that additional RAM, but any single process can only use 4 GB of RAM

Here are more benefits to having the kernel 64-bit

one aspect of moving to a full 64-bit OS is an increase in system security. How does a 64-bit OS affect security? It should eliminate one of the most common forms of security threats, or at least nullify it until malware developers come up with something new. Snow Leopard, and any application that runs under Snow Leopard, will set all writeable memory as non-executable.

With ASLR, the location of an application’s memory is randomly selected from available memory each time the application is run. But since the available memory space in Leopard was limited to 4 GB, Apple ended up having to retain certain dynamic loaders that were responsible for loading and unloading frameworks, and the libraries applications need, in the same memory space all the time, which made their location easy to find and attack. With the larger 64-bit memory space available, Apple will use a better ASLR that will include randomized locations for those dynamic loaders as well.
 
trondah said:
Of course the kernel will be able to address more than 4GB of RAM where did you get that from? The rest of the OS is true 64 bit btw, doesn't matter if the kernel isn't. I can boot 64 bit fine on my MBP and there's 0 difference. Apps are still 64 bit in 32 bit mode.

To the above guy with the MBA, it is not 64 bit by default then you changed nvram or the boot plist. Not that it matters.
Click to expand...

The Kernel, when running 32-bit is actually running with PAE so its truly 36-bit.

However, applications runs ON TOP of the OS kernel, so in theory, the 64-bit would make a difference if we have apps using more than 64GB of ram at once.

Furthermore, the MBA hasn't been able to use the 64-bit kernel even on the 10A421a build. I haven't tested the 10A432 build yet, its taking a while to download.
 
So all that marketing crap about the benefits of 64-bit etc are all B.S.
Click to expand...

This is completely incorrect. You can measure the benefits yourself on Leopard if you care to, using completely free tools.

Step 1: download an existing project that builds 64 bit clean and has a performance test tool (I suggest AutoHyperlinks).
Step 2: build it in release mode as a 32 bit executable
Step 3: run the performance tests
Step 4: build it in release mode as a 64 bit executable
Step 5: run the performance tests

If, after doing that, you still insist that the performance difference is marketing BS, then I really can't help you. Seriously though, the facts are easily available; go get them before exposing your near-total ignorance of the situation.

Additionally, once Snow Leopard comes out, I suggest rerunning the test with the 32 bit and 64 bit kernels. Perhaps the results will not be what you apparently expect...
 
ayeying said:
However, applications runs ON TOP of the OS kernel, so in theory, the 64-bit would make a difference if we have apps using more than 64GB of ram at once.
Click to expand...

So, how many apps do you have using more than 64GB RAM again? And how much can you actually put in a Mac?
 
here you are

if you want more screenshots of the 64bit apps all installed i can show you
 

Attachments

  • Screen shot 2009-08-13 at 5.30.58 PM.png
    Screen shot 2009-08-13 at 5.30.58 PM.png
    426.7 KB · Views: 1,347
You miss the point of the post.

I wasn't saying that there aren't benefits to the kernel being 64-bit.

I was saying that when everyone is running the 32-bit kernel, all that 64-bit kernel talk is B.S.

Because you're on 32 kernel. No need to get hostile and call names. We're all adults here.

I am merely trying to spread the information so that people can make informed decisions on what they are getting with Snow Leopard.

If you have a macbook with GMA only a year old. You are not getting a 64-bit kernel. That is a true statement.
 
mmoran27 said:
I wasn't saying that there aren't benefits to the kernel being 64-bit.

I was saying that when everyone is running the 32-bit kernel, all that 64-bit kernel talk is B.S.

Because you're on 32 kernel. No need to get hostile and call names. We're all adults here.

I am merely trying to spread the information so that people can make informed decisions on what they are getting with Snow Leopard.

If you have a macbook with GMA only a year old. You are not getting a 64-bit kernel. That is a true statement.
Click to expand...

Currently the only Macs to use the 64-bit kernel are the Xserves!

but this is not true
 
If that is true than I stand corrected there

Everything else I posted about the Intel GMA macs is 100% accurate though.

I also read posts online about people with new 13" MBP stuck running 32-bit kernel.
 
I did not make it up.

I got that information from the seed notes.

I also got that information researching online what others have experienced.
 
mmoran27 said:
Everything else I posted about the Intel GMA macs is 100% accurate though.

I also read posts online about people with new 13" MBP stuck running 32-bit kernel.
Click to expand...

You're not "stuck" with it, feel free to boot into 64 bit kernel on the supported machines as described in the documentation. It's merely a compatibility decision as lots of devs don't provide 64 bit versions of their kexts yet. It does not matter though why this obsession with the 64 bit kernel? U absolutely don't need it!
 
If the kernel is running in 32-bit mode, apps can still running in 64-bit mode. That's the case in Leopard. The problem with this method is the expensive TLB flushing. Switching from user mode (apps) to kernel mode requires a TLB flush, and switching back requires another. It will make things slower.

The good thing about SL is that it has a 64-bit kernel plus an old-school 32-bit one. If run in pure 64-bit mode, all the TLB flushing penalty will be gone and that's a big performance boost.

In a word, if running kernel in 32-bit mode, we won't see significant performance gain in SL than in Leopard.

Here are some very nice articles from AppleInsider for reference.
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/08/08/26/road_to_mac_os_x_10_6_snow_leopard_64_bits.html
 
You're right.

You don't need Snow Leopard or 64-bit windows or 64-bit Linux.

Let's just stay with 32-bit. How about DOS?
 
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