No we need 64 bit SL and we're getting it. What a troll you are.
Interesting about the TLB flush to the guy above. Is it really that expensive? I don't notice anything, but I didn't do any benchmarks though.
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 has a 32-bit kernel! as the default
- Thread starter mmoran27
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No we need 64 bit SL and we're getting it. What a troll you are.
Interesting about the TLB flush to the guy above. Is it really that expensive? I don't notice anything, but I didn't do any benchmarks though.
Gee like maybe Apple has a clue about what they are doing? Maybe it's running a 32 bit kernel because many apps that use kext extensions like you know Fusion or Parallels are still 32 bit? And if you made it 64 bit by default all those apps stop working? Think this could be a reason?
But unlike Windows, you have one OS that run either, and running the kernel as 32 bit doesn't stop everything else from running 64 bit. The only limitation is that the kernel has to get it's memory from the first 4GB or memory (and since it boots first that seem pretty likely). If you have a kernel needing more than 4GB than you have a big problem or are Microsoft. Maybe both.
Geez, what a thread. I'm beginning to think every topic here is either a panic or a flame fest.
But unlike Windows, you have one OS that run either, and running the kernel as 32 bit doesn't stop everything else from running 64 bit. The only limitation is that the kernel has to get it's memory from the first 4GB or memory (and since it boots first that seem pretty likely). If you have a kernel needing more than 4GB than you have a big problem or are Microsoft. Maybe both.
Geez, what a thread. I'm beginning to think every topic here is either a panic or a flame fest.
Basically it comes down to how many userspace/kernelspace transitions an app does. Most apps don't need to touch the kernel often, so it's pretty irrelevant. The few that do (certain microbenchmarks, maybe 'make') run into this issue. Mapping the kernel into each app's address space is definitely a clever trick though.
If you want to test it once SL comes out, the lock contention subbenchmark in xbench might show it depending on what type of lock they use. posix semaphores use a syscall, and iirc mutexes do as well. I don't think any of its other subbenchmarks will be particularly impacted by system call speed though.
Something like Google Chrome that does a ton of interprocess communication might also show it, although it'd be harder to test. You'd need to minimize the % of your test spent actually rendering the page, and maximize IPC traffic... I guess scripting it to open and close very simple pages (say, a big red square) as fast as possible might work.
Preemptively clarifying: "Uses a lot of CPU" or "is a 'Professional' app" or "does a lot of work" does not imply a lot of kernel transitions. In fact, quite the opposite is true. These apps tend to spend most of their time running their own code to get work done.
OP said:
OP said:
OP said:
Am I the first one to notice this rather big contradiction? First you go whine about brand spanking new MBP's, and then you bring up your old and outdatedGMA MB? I fail to see your point.
Also, GPU requirements are only based on the new OpenCL. And yes, your GMA isn't supported.
How about we first wait and see what SL brings and what Kernel we'll run. It's not even out yet and you're already ranting about something you can't possibly know for sure.
that's not untrue. it's just... incomplete. all intel macs with 64 bit processors (the whole mac pro line, and all macs with core 2 duo chips) are capable of running 64 bit applications. This is true for snow leopard, just like it is for leopard, just like it was for tiger. however, to run kernel 64, all extensions must be written 64 bit, drivers, firmware, etc. many many core 2 computers, which have 64 bit processors, are capable of running 64 bit applications, but because of certain drivers, for example, that are written 32 bit, these machines will be unable to run kernel 64. I have a 2006 mac pro, and because of the 32 bit EFI, I will be unable to use snow leopard with kernel 64.
edit: it would be possible for the many many macs that will be forced to run kernel 64 to be upgraded into a machine that is kernel 64 capable. It would take new drivers, re-written by Apple, to allow them to run kernel 64. However, and here's the rub, Apple basically never offers updated drivers for anything. so folks like me, who have "outdated" computers (some less than a year old!) are not given the opportunity to apply the OS in the manner that Apple intends it because people at Apple won't offer updated drivers.
Certifiably false. You do not need the 64 bit kernel to allow 64 bit apps to use more than 4 gigs of RAM. Leopard and Tiger use the 32 bit kernel as well, and 64 bit apps can use more than 4 gigs of RAM under those OS's.
Do some research before you post threads like this. The only reason you'd need the 64 bit kernel is if you want to run more than 4 gigs of kernel extensions.
Completely true. Running the 32 bit kernel has no effect on running 64 bit apps. They will run fine and address more than 4GB of memory.
Screen shot or it didn't happen.
Wow, just wow. I hope you are kidding. He posted one on the first page. Please read before posting.
Second that. Although the Mac hardware may have physical limitation to the addressable memory, the 64-bit apps could access more than 4G, and have an enormous virtual address space.
He's right. Apparently only the Xserve will boot into the 64-bit kernel by default. You can force boot it to 64 by editing the plist, but does anyone know why all macs (besides the xserve) boot into 32 -bit kernel by default?
Simply speaking, This guy has an old MacBook which has a 32-bit CPU and he is not happy with it.
A few posts prior...
errrrrrrrrrrrrrr...Yep...I agree...I think. Maximise IPC traffic, was just about to say that.
AppleMatt
No, I'm sure a small set of apps will show some difference. That benchmark will just likely highlight it (I haven't checked, but if my logic is right it should).
Some actual apps that might improve (again, haven't tested this. If I had, my NDAs would cover it
):make/xcodebuild (fork()/exec() a lot)
dtrace (runs half in the kernel)
parallels/vmware (according to someone on the arstechnica forums who seemed clueful, virtualization makes a lot of syscalls)
chrome (lots of IPC)
If I can find some free time on my work machine to test this stuff out once SL ships I'll see what I can do. Not expecting anything particularly meaningful, but I'd love to be proved wrong
Well there is a Mac OS X section on the forums so Mac OS X discussion should go in that section. That's kind of the point of having sections. You want to read/post about Mac OS X you go to the Mac OS X section you want to talk about MacBook Pros you go to the MacBook Pro, PowerBook section, you want to talk about pink bunnies you go to Community Discussion and so on ...
oh thanks for explaining....
i think its fine where it is...
....ps...have you really seen pink bunnies?....??
Pink bunnies!? Sure they're all over the place! Here is a big one :
http://thechive.com/2009/02/giant-pink-bunny-in-italy-5-photos/