Mac OS X Snow Leopard Discussion

[ObiWanToby]

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.

Sadly, I have to agree.

[the evn show]

The following is every sentence ending in a question-mark made by Unrealistic in the last 3 days.

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

My response remains: Mac OS X 10.6 is a 64-bit capable operating system on any 64-bit capable system by any reasonable measure. If Mac OS X offers a reasonable level of 64-bit support then it is valid for Apple to make such claims.

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?

This statement is correct-enough to accept without further discussion. I'm not sure how/if it applies to his first question.

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?

No. The primary reason you'd want to run kernel_task as a 64-bit process is to allow the loading of 64-bit kernel extensions.

Does any of the above require further explanation?

Do you have any other questions?

[Unrealistic]

That about covers it. The only thing I could say though is, when I asked other questions, I was hoping you would at least direct me in the right direction, which you now have. Originally, it felt like you just wanted to keep telling me I was wrong, which in the end was more confusing. I wasn't sure what I had right or what I had wrong.

Cheers for the clear up. Now let's move on. :)

And yes, the other questions had nothing to do with my original question, but more to do with clarification of OS X in general. I have only used the OS since November of 2008. I may know a lot of things now, but I do not consider myself an expert. My forte is Windows.

[KeR]

I have a feeling that 10A432 is not the GM as it stands older Intel based Notebooks don't automatically boot in 64-bit mode.

[cabron]

I have a feeling that 10A432 is not the GM as it stands older Intel based Notebooks don't automatically boot in 64-bit mode.

I think it is because in the Mac Rumors site, there is an article about someone that bought a Mac Mini in Japan and came with the 10.6 restore DVD disc. Now the build number of the disk as not been mentioned.

[Phantom Helix]

I have a feeling that 10A432 is not the GM as it stands older Intel based Notebooks don't automatically boot in 64-bit mode.

is that your reason for thinking its not the GM? If your Processor is a Core 2 Duo it will run apps in 64bit regardless if the kernel is in 64bit mode

10a432 won't boot anything other than 64bit EFI Xserves into 64-bit-kernel-mode by default, the reason given for that is there are not yet enough working 64bit Kext's for the consumer level systems, kext's are essentially drivers

Remember, OS X is not like windows i.e. windows is either x86 or x64 architecture, OS X on the other hand is x86_64

Edited August 23, 2009 by Phantom Helix

[Quillz]

That's on a late 2008 iMac. But, naturally, Snow Leopard is still a 64-bit OS that runs 64-bit applications just fine. So the whole issue of Apple computers not having a 64-bit kernel by default really doesn't seem to be an issue at all. I doubt most end users will even notice they're (technically) on a 32-bit kernel.

[Julius Caro]

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

The following is every sentence ending in a question-mark made by Unrealistic in the last 3 days.

My response remains: Mac OS X 10.6 is a 64-bit capable operating system on any 64-bit capable system by any reasonable measure. If Mac OS X offers a reasonable level of 64-bit support then it is valid for Apple to make such claims.

This statement is correct-enough to accept without further discussion. I'm not sure how/if it applies to his first question.

No. The primary reason you'd want to run kernel_task as a 64-bit process is to allow the loading of 64-bit kernel extensions.

Does any of the above require further explanation?

Do you have any other questions?

What are you referring to by "any reasonable measure"? By "reasonable level of 64-bit support" you mean that it actually is NOT fully 64-bit capable? Then why not say that directly.

[Phantom Helix]

+1

What are you referring to by "any reasonable measure"? By "reasonable level of 64-bit support" you mean that it actually is NOT fully 64-bit capable? Then why not say that directly.

Im gonna have to back up +evn on this point, he may have a tendency to over explain things,

However I think he meant that to the end user it is a reasonable level because in general they will never notice that the kernel is not 64-bit, meaning they will get all the benefits of running apps in 64-bit either way.

to the end user having the kernel and kext's 64-bit will only slightly increase system level performance on the same machine, with all the other things in SL that make it faster I doubt it will even be noticeable

[cabron]

That's on a late 2008 iMac. But, naturally, Snow Leopard is still a 64-bit OS that runs 64-bit applications just fine. So the whole issue of Apple computers not having a 64-bit kernel by default really doesn't seem to be an issue at all. I doubt most end users will even notice they're (technically) on a 32-bit kernel.

That's the thing that I hate about it. If SL will not be 64-bit at all, what will be the difference in term of what Leopard currently offer and SL in term of the 64-bit feature? I didn't see not difference at all.

[Phantom Helix]

it will be 64-bit for apps on 64-bit capable processors wether the kernel is 64 or not

I have an early 2009 imac and 10a432 runs all the new system apps in 64-bit mode without the kernel itself being in 64-bit,

i can easily force the kernel into 64bit mode by either holding both the "6" and "4" keys during boot or changing com.apple.Boot.plist from

This:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<!DOCTYPE plist PUBLIC "-//Apple//DTD PLIST 1.0//EN" "http://www.apple.com/DTDs/PropertyList-1.0.dtd">

<plist version="1.0">

<string></string>

</plist>

To This::

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<!DOCTYPE plist PUBLIC "-//Apple//DTD PLIST 1.0//EN" "http://www.apple.com/DTDs/PropertyList-1.0.dtd">

<plist version="1.0">

<string>arch=x86_64</string>

</plist>

And if installed on older Systems without 64 capable processors the other things like openCL, Grand central dispatch and quicktime X will increase performance

[giga Veteran]

That's the thing that I hate about it. If SL will not be 64-bit at all, what will be the difference in term of what Leopard currently offer and SL in term of the 64-bit feature? I didn't see not difference at all.

How many 64-bit applications does Apple ship with Leopard? Chess and Xcode?

[Phantom Helix]

How many 64-bit applications does Apple ship with Leopard? Chess and Xcode?

chess YES, Xcode YES, i have not seen any others

[giga Veteran]

chess YES, Xcode YES, i have not seen any others

Right, and now compare it with all the 64-bit applications and frameworks in 10.6. "No difference at all" is completely off base.

[cabron]

The only thing that is 64bit is the applications, but the kernel its still 32bit, you get a little boost but not convincing at all. I will wait until 10.6.5, I will not be updating to a new system with bugs.

[Stetson]

Here are Apple's actual claims:

http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/#sixtyfourbit

It doesn't say anything about a 64-bit kernel by default or being able to load 64-bit kernel extensions by default.

[Phantom Helix]

The only thing that is 64bit is the applications, but the kernel its still 32bit, you get a little boost but not convincing at all. I will wait until 10.6.5, I will not be updating to a new system with bugs.

how any apps do you use that require the kernel to be 64bit? im betting none considering until SL 64bit hasn't been a main feature even tho leopard could run apps in 64bit

you seem to think that 64bit is the only thing that is going to make it better or faster, all software has buggs wether they have been found or not

Here are Apple's actual claims:

http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/#sixtyfourbit

It doesn't say anything about a 64-bit kernel by default or being able to load 64-bit kernel extensions by default.

LOL the information about SL being in 64 or 32bit kernel mode is not coming from the public website it is coming from those of us that are running it,

#########################################

The 64-bit kernel can be tested on the following configurations:

Machine_________________Model name_____K64 status

Early 2008 Mac Pro________ MacPro3,1_______Capable

Early 2008 Xserve_________Xserve2,1________Default

MacBook Pro 15/17________MacBookPro4,1____Capable

iMac___________________iMac8,1__________Capable

UniBody MacBook Pro 15____MacBookPro5,1____Capable

UniBody MacBook Pro 17____MacBookPro5,2____Capable

Mac Pro_________________MacPro4,1_______Capable

iMac___________________iMac9,1__________Capable

Early 2009 Xserve_________Xserve3,1________Default

########################################

Edited August 24, 2009 by Phantom Helix

[the evn show]

What are you referring to by "any reasonable measure"?

What sort of things do you think I should be able to do with a 64-bit Application? Does it include any of the following:

• Address values stored at trillions of different memory locations uniquely? Check.
  
• Use a single register or memory location to store 64-bit values? Check.
  
• Perform mathematic operations on 64-bit values in a single cycle (both in SIMD units and in registers)? Check.
  
• Use the additional registers available to x86-64 processors? Check.
  

Of course all of that is possible on 10.5 too. 10.6 allows all of the above from within the frameworks I already know, using design patterns I'm already familiar with. In previous versions of Mac OS X if I wanted to do the above I'd have to jump through hoops that I normally wouldn't. I could use Cocoa to bang out my UI but rather than using standard message passing MVC stuff I'd have to architect the program as a client-server application and communicate over sockets or something. It was/is cumbersome and a little awkward and (to me) feels a lot like using RubyCocoa.

In 10.6 I write my 64-bit applications the same way I'd write a 32-bit application: same frameworks, same languages, same design patterns.

By "reasonable level of 64-bit support" you mean that it actually is NOT fully 64-bit capable?

No, I don't.

"Fully 64-bit" is such a nebulous claim that I'm not even really sure what you're trying to say by that.

Would, for example, if I check this box:

Would 10.6 no longer count as a 64-bit operating system?

The only difference is that the application is mach_kernel rather than preview.app.

Running preview as a 32-bit process has almost exactly the same impact on other applications as a 32-bit kernel_task.

[giga Veteran]

The only thing that is 64bit is the applications, but the kernel its still 32bit, you get a little boost but not convincing at all. I will wait until 10.6.5, I will not be updating to a new system with bugs.

Myth #2: http://developer.apple.com/documentation/D...inkElementID_21

For kicks, 64-bit Geekbench doesn't reflect any performance differences when tested under either kernels.

[Stetson]

LOL the information about SL being in 64 or 32bit kernel mode is not coming from the public website it is coming from those of us that are running it,

I know that, I was just pointing out for those saying that Apple was claiming that SL was going to be 100% completely end to end 64-bit and that they were lying/breaking their promise by keeping the kernel running in 32 bit for compatibility.

[PyX]

I remember all this fuss about 64-bit back with Leopard... I'm pretty sure Steve Jobs said "it's 64-bit from top to bottom", but I never understood that. Now I see a lot of confusion again but with Snow Leopard, 2 years after...

If it means faster and the ability to put more memory, fine with me.

I'm pretty sure I've seen all the applications in 64-bit mode when I tested Snow Leopard, except maybe a FEW ones.

[PyX]

<snip>

Damn mouse. No, it isn't a Mighty Mouse before anyone asks !

[CoolBits]

On SL you have both kernels 64bit and 32bit... if you run 64bit kernel you loose 32bit kexts but the difference isnt worth it unless you have 32Gb of ram or more.

For now there are a lot 3rd party kext in 32 bit only, so you loose all that, no point. (little snitch for example doesnt work with 64bit kernel)

Apple knows verry well which kernel should you run for optimal performance, dont worry.

[Lilrich]

The Online Store is currently closed, is snow leopard coming today?

[what]

The Online Store is currently closed, is snow leopard coming today?

If they want to get it to people by Friday then I'd expect so.