AltecXP Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 (edited) I didn't know holding 6 and 4 during boot was a hack?Also, in Snow Leopard the 32 bit kernel runs 64 bit apps, so what's the issue? Yeah maybe if that WORKED on my MacBook that would be all I have to do, but I'm one of the "non-pro" macBooks so that doesn't even work for me because I didn't pay enough to the Apple gods. I have to hex edit a boot file just to enable 6 & 4 to work. This was my first MacBook, and it will be my last. I'm tired of them placing false limitations on stuff and somehow fan boys just accepting it because they don't know any better. I bought it because Vista just didn't feel right (never had any problems, just felt odd) and I wanted to try something new, now after a year although I like OS X itself, I just can't stand the company. Edited November 2, 2009 by ZX2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elliott Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 Yeah maybe if that WORKED on my MacBook that would be all I have to do, but I'm one of the "non-pro" macBooks so that doesn't even work for me because I didn't pay enough to the Apple gods. I have to hex edit a boot file just to enable 6 & 4 to work.This was my first MacBook, and it will be my last. I'm tired of them placing false limitations on stuff and somehow fan boys just accepting it because they don't know any better. I bought it because Vista just didn't feel right (never had any problems, just felt odd) and I wanted to try something new, now after a year although I like OS X itself, I just can't stand the company. Yea, because it's so bad that you can't run a 64-bit kernel. You really want your kernel to be using more than 4 GBs of RAM. "Not supported" just means they won't help you if you come crying to them because something doesn't work, like how My Mac is listed as not supported yet runs Windows 7 32-bit fine, just as it did, XP, and Vista.By not supported, they probably mean 'fully' seeing as a lot of those models aren't full 64-bit, or not 64-bit at all. "Not supported" just means they're not going to help you fix something in your install if it doesn't work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AltecXP Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 Yea, because it's so bad that you can't run a 64-bit kernel. You really want your kernel to be using more than 4 GBs of RAM."Not supported" just means they won't help you if you come crying to them because something doesn't work, like how Thats utter BS, they already include all the x64 drivers for it because its the same hardware as the 13in Pro. and it is BOOTCAMP that tells me it won't install because x64 is NOT SUPPORTED on my MacBook, it then closes itself. Your first comment makes somewhere from 0 to -10 sense. Why have 4GB or more of memory if I'm not given access to use it? Do you know what your talking about? or just spewing blind fanboy BS? I'm leaning to the 2nd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elliott Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 Thats utter BS, they already include all the x64 drivers for it because its the same hardware as the 13in Pro. and it is BOOTCAMP that tells me it won't install because x64 is NOT SUPPORTED on my MacBook, it then closes itself.Your first comment makes somewhere from 0 to -10 sense. Why have 4GB or more of memory if I'm not given access to use it? Do you know what your talking about? or just spewing blind fanboy BS? I'm leaning to the 2nd. Just because Bootcamp tells you that doesn't meant it won't work. I'm pretty sure a few drivers are missing on the systems they don't specify as supported under 64-bit. However, that doesn't stop people from getting things to work anyway. Apple would just rather try and stop a person rather than have to deal with a support call at all. As for my comment, it makes perfect sense. The kernel is not a limiting factor for other applications. 64-bit applications can continue to use over 4GB of RAM even if the kernel is running in 32-bit. Having the kernel itself use 4GB of RAM would be ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xtreme $niper Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 So my Macbook 1,1 isn't listed on the list of "incompatible" models.. Is that because it's too old? Or because it works fine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AltecXP Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 (edited) Just because Bootcamp tells you that doesn't meant it won't work. I'm pretty sure a few drivers are missing on the systems they don't specify as supported under 64-bit. However, that doesn't stop people from getting things to work anyway. Apple would just rather try and stop a person rather than have to deal with a support call at all.As for my comment, it makes perfect sense. The kernel is not a limiting factor for other applications. 64-bit applications can continue to use over 4GB of RAM even if the kernel is running in 32-bit. Having the kernel itself use 4GB of RAM would be ridiculous. 1. ALL the drivers are included like I said it's only disabled because I didn't pay for the word "Pro". AKA Apple is falsely disabling it, it's the SAME hardware as the 13in Pro that IS supported with bootcamp 3.0. 2. WTF are you talking about having the kernel take up 4GB of ram? Do you actually think that's how it works? I don't know about others but SL beach balls a LOT less for me(or at pauses last for less time) when booted in 64bit then 32bit. I also have no applications that break under 64-bit, so why SHOULDN'T I use it? Edited November 4, 2009 by ZX2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
protocol7 Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 What's weird with that list is that the MacBook Pro is on the non-supported list, but the MacBook isn't... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elliott Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 1. ALL the drivers are included like I said it's only disabled because I didn't pay for the word "Pro". AKA Apple is falsely disabling it, it's the SAME hardware as the 13in Pro that IS supported. And, like I said, Apple doesn't support it, so Apple tries to discourage a normal user from installing 64-bit Windows on their non-Pro Macs. If you know what you're doing, you can do it and it's not a hassle, so what's the problem again? 2. WTF are you talking about having the kernel take up 4GB of ram? Do you actually think that's how it works? I don't know about others but SL beach balls a LOT less for me(or at pauses last for less time) when booted in 64bit then 32bit. I also have no applications that break under 64-bit, so why SHOULDN'T I use it? Uh, that is how it works. The kernel does not restrict the memory usage or performance of other apps. That's great for you. Go ahead and use the 64-bit kernel. SL doesn't beachball at all on me when in the 32-bit kernel, and it doesn't potentially break compatibility with any drivers or software, so I'm going to use it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quillz Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 What's weird with that list is that the MacBook Pro is on the non-supported list, but the MacBook isn't... I can use Windows 7 via Boot Camp on my old MacBook just fine. Apple may not *OFFICIALLY* support [Windows 7], but that doesn't mean it won't work. Windows 7 is so architecturally similar to Windows Vista that virtually any Vista support more or less means 7 support, too. I have yet to come across a single driver or application that works on Vista but doesn't work on 7. Even the vast majority of drivers written for XP work just fine on 7. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xtreme $niper Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 I can use Windows 7 via Boot Camp on my old MacBook just fine.Apple may not *OFFICIALLY* support [Windows 7], but that doesn't mean it won't work. Windows 7 is so architecturally similar to Windows Vista that virtually any Vista support more or less means 7 support, too. I have yet to come across a single driver or application that works on Vista but doesn't work on 7. Even the vast majority of drivers written for XP work just fine on 7. Mind if I ask which Macbook model you have? Is it the 1,1? Also, the weird thing about the list was that the Macbook wasn't included in the incompatibility list, which means that it is compatible. Either that, or they just stopped referring to it because it's so "old". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quillz Posted November 5, 2009 Share Posted November 5, 2009 Mind if I ask which Macbook model you have? Is it the 1,1?Also, the weird thing about the list was that the Macbook wasn't included in the incompatibility list, which means that it is compatible. Either that, or they just stopped referring to it because it's so "old". I've used Win7 via Boot Camp on my first white MacBook from summer 2007 (don't know the exact model), the "BlackBook" I got in late 2007 and the short-lived unibody aluminum MacBook. They all work fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xtreme $niper Posted November 5, 2009 Share Posted November 5, 2009 I've used Win7 via Boot Camp on my first white MacBook from summer 2007 (don't know the exact model), the "BlackBook" I got in late 2007 and the short-lived unibody aluminum MacBook. They all work fine. Good to know, thanks. Mine's a BlackBook from end of summer 2006, so it's just a 2.0 Core Duo, but I doubt that would make too much difference (aside from there being no x64). But I doubt the Aero effects would work on it.. Did you ever test that part out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argi Posted November 5, 2009 Share Posted November 5, 2009 I hope they fix their drivers so that the fans work properly in Windows - it's been sooo long already that's it's been broken. I just found an application that forces them to run but it's causing some odd lockup issues because it's a few years old I think. Oh, also the keyboard backlight not properly turning off. And while they're at it, the ability to switch between the 9400 and 9600M GT would be perfect! None of these issues are specifically related to Windows 7 in boot camp but they've kinda been lingering around for a few years now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeeperOfThePizza Posted November 5, 2009 Share Posted November 5, 2009 Thankful? why? Doesn't Apple advertise about Boot camp? Oh i can see that now, Apple will advertise Boot Camp then flame Windows 7. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elliott Posted November 5, 2009 Share Posted November 5, 2009 Oh i can see that now, Apple will advertise Boot Camp then flame Windows 7. Why not? Generate sales by offering your customers a choice, but at the same time generate sales off of flaming your competitor. Pretty smart, IMO. It's not like they have to take a firm stand one way or the other. They're not supposed to be politicians. :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quillz Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 Good to know, thanks. Mine's a BlackBook from end of summer 2006, so it's just a 2.0 Core Duo, but I doubt that would make too much difference (aside from there being no x64). But I doubt the Aero effects would work on it.. Did you ever test that part out? On my late 2007 "BlackBook," Windows 7 "just works." Aero Glass works. The drivers work. It all just works. I didn't do anything special... Just set up a partition, installed Apple's drivers and that was that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts