Mac OS X Snow Leopard Discussion

[Vice]

I can't believe how much discussion is being devoted to the Box. It's just a box.

[thertrain]

Maybe the release really is just around the corner... hmmm :wacko:

MacRumors

[Unrealistic]

So what was the point of touting 64bit if they are defaulting everything but XServes to 32 bit?

[the evn show]

So what was the point of touting 64bit if they are defaulting everything but XServes to 32 bit?

There's more to an os than a single task.

[Unrealistic]

Obviously. Thanks for the answer. My mind is now blown. :rolleyes:

I just want to know, because if there are actual reasons (drivers, applications/hardware not functioning correctly) then I currently have no real reason to buy Snow Leopard. I was going to buy it for 64bit.

Currently, the only thing I really want is the new BootCamp drivers and 64-Bit.

[thefarewellnote]

Apple's UK online store is now listing a shipping date for the OS X Snow Leopard "Up-to-Date" program of "by August 28th". The listing comes on the heels of reports from several sources in recent days that Snow Leopard would see an August 28th launch, ahead of Apple's previously-announced September launch window.

A brief survey of the equivalent page at Apple's online stores for a number of other countries currently shows all of them still listing an estimated shipping date of September.

The page appears to only be an informational listing, as users are unable to order Up-to-Date discs directly via the product page in Apple's online store. Customers must first verify that they are eligible for the program through the main Up-to-Date program page, which restricts participation to users who purchased a Mac on or after June 8th, 2009.

Site:MacRumors.com

[the evn show]

I just want to know, because if there are actual reasons (drivers, applications/hardware not functioning correctly) then I currently have no real reason to buy Snow Leopard.

32-bit and 64-bit extensions can be loaded against 32-bit ELF format binaries, the same is not true of 64-bit ELF binaries on Mac OS X.

All of the things you think 64-bit operating systems do will still happen with the OS running a 32-bit kernel_task.

I was going to buy it for 64bit.

64-bit support, like 'security', is scalar not boolean. 10.3 was (for example) +3 on the way to 64-bittyness. 10.4 was +6, 10.5 is +7 and 10.6 is +11. The next version might be +17.

[thertrain]

Apple's UK online store is now listing a shipping date for the OS X Snow Leopard "Up-to-Date" program of "by August 28th". The listing comes on the heels of reports from several sources in recent days that Snow Leopard would see an August 28th launch, ahead of Apple's previously-announced September launch window.

A brief survey of the equivalent page at Apple's online stores for a number of other countries currently shows all of them still listing an estimated shipping date of September.

The page appears to only be an informational listing, as users are unable to order Up-to-Date discs directly via the product page in Apple's online store. Customers must first verify that they are eligible for the program through the main Up-to-Date program page, which restricts participation to users who purchased a Mac on or after June 8th, 2009.

Site:MacRumors.com

The US Store has also updated their Ship Date for the Up-to-Date Program to August 28 :woot:

Up-to-Date

[Quillz]

The US Store has also updated their Ship Date for the Up-to-Date Program to August 28 :woot:

Considering that's a week from tomorrow, it pretty much confirms that 10A432 is in fact the RTM build.

[Unrealistic]

32-bit and 64-bit extensions can be loaded against 32-bit ELF format binaries, the same is not true of 64-bit ELF binaries on Mac OS X.

All of the things you think 64-bit operating systems do will still happen with the OS running a 32-bit kernel_task.

64-bit support, like 'security', is scalar not boolean. 10.3 was (for example) +3 on the way to 64-bittyness. 10.4 was +6, 10.5 is +7 and 10.6 is +11. The next version might be +17.

I understand that the same limitations against a 32bit Windows have absolutely no bearing inside of UNIX. Now, If I am understanding your first statement, then drivers will be okay, but applications that utilize 32 bit drivers (audio recording applications) will not be unless they are updated to support 64 bit, which is exactly what I worry about. There are many applications I use that haven't been updated in a while and the last thing I want to do is break them. I'm assuming this was another reason to only be able to optionally boot into 64 bit. I could upgrade to Snow Leopard, but even running in 32-bit mode, some applications based on customization will no longer function properly.

Based on my system specifications, applications running under Leopard can already utilize upwards of 4GB of RAM, which is the current amount of I have installed and supported on my 1st-gen unibody, again defeating the purpose of going to 64-bit in Snow Leopard. As Apple says themselves, their own 64 bit applications are upwards of 1.5x's faster than their 32 bit counterparts. Am I right in assuming that this is based on 64-bit CPU being able to handle multi-threaded mathematical operations quicker than 32 bit?

The 32-bit Kernel has been updated to support 64-bit, so truly, the only reason to use the "true" 64 bit kernel is because you need more than 32GB of RAM?

Correct me if I am wrong in my assumptions. If I am right, I could live with some of the problems I will face for improvements in overall speed within the OS.

[thertrain]

They changed all the dates back. Why would Apple change the dates to August 28, then change them back overnight?

[Guest]

They changed all the dates back. Why would Apple change the dates to August 28, then change them back overnight?

Clearly they didn't want to let slip that it'll be shipping as of next Friday.

[thertrain]

Clearly they didn't want to let slip that it'll be shipping as of next Friday.

That was the odd part, its one thing if the UK store accidentally listed it as August 28, but then to have the US store change it from September to August, then back to September. I get the feeling that the people at Apple are well aware of us salivating animals and are toying with us.

[mrt2]

So what was the point of touting 64bit if they are defaulting everything but XServes to 32 bit?

If you hold down the 6 and the 4 during boot you will boot into full (including the kernel) 64bit. There is also a simple command to force this at boot but I don't remember it off the top of my head, you can google it pretty easily though. I'm not sure what if any added bonus you'll get from booting full 64-Bit mode... everyone wants it because it sounds better and suppose to be better but does anyone actually know what about booting to full 64-Bit would/will be different or better? That's not a rhetorical, I really want to know.

[the evn show]

ow, If I am understanding your first statement, then drivers will be okay, but applications that utilize 32 bit drivers…will not be unless they are updated to support 64 bit

The number of bits of kernel_task has nothing to do with what sort of applications you can run.

It's almost certain applications will break - but it's not because kernel_task "hasn't got enough bits". kexts must be appropriate to the kernel they're running on: as of now they're all 32-bit. There's no reason a kernel extension can't expose a 64-bit compatible interface to user land applications

, some applications based on customization will no longer function properly.

That has nothing to do with the compile options and everything to do with changing memory locations, file layout, and closing loop-holes that people used to write those programs.

kernel_task is so far removed from things like shapeshifter (or whatever people use now) that you may as well blame it on the "blackness" of the keys on your keyboard changing.

As Apple says themselves, their own 64 bit applications are upwards of 1.5x's faster than their 32 bit counterparts.

That's all fine and well - but it again has nothing to do with kernel_task being 64-bit or not.

[DrCheese]

everyone wants it because it sounds better and suppose to be better but does anyone actually know what about booting to full 64-Bit would/will be different or better? That's not a rhetorical, I really want to know.

aye your right, although I don't get how Apple can sit around advertising it as 64bit when it doesn't use it by default. My guess is that they'll eventually change that in one of the point releases.

[Unrealistic]

The number of bits of kernel_task has nothing to do with what sort of applications you can run.

It's almost certain applications will break - but it's not because kernel_task "hasn't got enough bits". kexts must be appropriate to the kernel they're running on: as of now they're all 32-bit. There's no reason a kernel extension can't expose a 64-bit compatible interface to user land applications

That has nothing to do with the compile options and everything to do with changing memory locations, file layout, and closing loop-holes that people used to write those programs.

kernel_task is so far removed from things like shapeshifter (or whatever people use now) that you may as well blame it on the "blackness" of the keys on your keyboard changing.

That's all fine and well - but it again has nothing to do with kernel_task being 64-bit or not.

I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to do here. I asked you a question and rather than actually answer it, you broke apart my quotes and used them against me out of context. Where did I say applications are going to break because of bits? I said they wouldn't run because of their dependencies. If you are not going to answer my questions, then please don't pick apart my sentences to argue your points. Your condescending attitude with me is pretty ridiculous, considering you are a MVC.

[BoDEAN]

Interesting.........

Restored DVD Image to Firewire HD, Installed from there fine on MacBook2,1.

Build: 10A432

[Phantom Helix]

Your condescending attitude with me is pretty ridiculous, considering you are a MVC.

at least im not the only one that noticed that.

Anyone got 10a435 can compare to 10a421a? didn't seem to be much changes on 10a432

[the evn show]

I'm not sure how to say this without upsetting your sensibilities so I'll try to be as plain as possible.

You asked:

So what was the point of touting 64bit if they are defaulting everything but XServes to 32 bit?

The most direct response is Mac OS X 10.6 is 64-bit capable on 64-bit systems by any reasonable measure, even with kernel_task running as a 32-bit process.

Your concerns about compatibility of old applications would be a concern under 64-bit or 32-bit kernel task.

Your concerns about application performance are not impacted by the type of kernel_task running.

The amount of memory addressable by application isn't impacted by the type of kernel task.

etc, etc, etc.

The assertions you've made so far only hold true if 64-bit support is a binary property (like pregnancy: it is or it isn't) and if that property is determined by the 'bittedness' of kernel_task. 64-bit support is a scalar property (like obesity: ranging from Michael Phelps to Rosie O'Donnell).

So to answer your original question: "Why does Apple make the following claims, in spite of kernel_task being a 32-bit process on most hardware:

• Snow Leopard takes the next big step by rewriting nearly all system applications in 64-bit code?
  
• ?Crunch twice the data per clock cycle, which can dramatically speed up numeric calculations and other tasks
  
• Nearly all system applications?are now built with 64-bit code.
  
• Snow Leopard is ready to support up to 16 terabytes of RAM
  
• 64-bit applications can keep their data out of harm's way thanks to a more secure function argument
  
• ?memory on the system heap is marked using strengthened checksums?
  
• 64-bit applications in Snow Leopard deliver faster performance at common operations
  

They make those claims because they're all true no matter what sort of kernel_task your mac is running.

[Unrealistic]

You still haven't answered some of my questions, but okay. You have repeated yourself three times now (all answering my original question, but not the new questions), which I understood after your first post. I have said in a round about way that there is no real reason to use the 64-bit kernel, because as you originally stated, the 32-bit kernel handles 64 bit . I'm not sure why you are continuing to argue that point when I have tried to get passed my original statement.

Don't worry about it anymore. We are wasting each others time at this point.

[Rudy]

So I guess 10a432 might not be the final uh? http://www.tuaw.com/2009/08/22/apples-addr...getting-social/

[giga Veteran]

That's a clear fake. Barring the fonts, just look at the window borders to the left sidebar. Applications don't have a solid black window border like that.

[Vice]

I'm not sure how to say this without upsetting your sensibilities so I'll try to be as plain as possible.

You asked:

The most direct response is Mac OS X 10.6 is 64-bit capable on 64-bit systems by any reasonable measure, even with kernel_task running as a 32-bit process.

Your concerns about compatibility of old applications would be a concern under 64-bit or 32-bit kernel task.

Your concerns about application performance are not impacted by the type of kernel_task running.

The amount of memory addressable by application isn't impacted by the type of kernel task.

etc, etc, etc.

The assertions you've made so far only hold true if 64-bit support is a binary property (like pregnancy: it is or it isn't) and if that property is determined by the 'bittedness' of kernel_task. 64-bit support is a scalar property (like obesity: ranging from Michael Phelps to Rosie O'Donnell).

So to answer your original question: "Why does Apple make the following claims, in spite of kernel_task being a 32-bit process on most hardware:

• Snow Leopard takes the next big step by rewriting nearly all system applications in 64-bit code?
  
• ?Crunch twice the data per clock cycle, which can dramatically speed up numeric calculations and other tasks
  
• Nearly all system applications?are now built with 64-bit code.
  
• Snow Leopard is ready to support up to 16 terabytes of RAM
  
• 64-bit applications can keep their data out of harm's way thanks to a more secure function argument
  
• ?memory on the system heap is marked using strengthened checksums?
  
• 64-bit applications in Snow Leopard deliver faster performance at common operations
  

They make those claims because they're all true no matter what sort of kernel_task your mac is running.

Posts like this make me wonder what the point of the MVC badges are. You aren't answering his questions you are just being very condescending without actually saying anything of su;)tance. ;) just going around and around.

[ccuk]

Posts like this make me wonder what the point of the MVC badges are. You aren't answering his questions you are just being very condescending without actually saying anything of substance. ;) just going around and around.

+1

Things can be explained without the technical speak... Overusing it just seeks to make one look like he/she is trying to prove something. Simple answers offer the best solution.