This was posted in another thread:
You might want to check the specs when looking to make sure you're getting the 'bit' and processors you're expecting.
Which Intel Macs have 64-bit processors? Which have a 64-bit EFI? Which are capable of booting MacOS X 10.6 "Snow Leopard" in 64-bit mode? @ EveryMac.com (http://www.everymac.com/articles/q&a/snow-leopard-mac-os-x-faq/mac-os-x-snow-leopard-64-bit-macs-64-bit-efi-boot-in-64-bit-mode.html)
I looked at this when SnoLeo first appeared, but my attention wandered.

When I read the above quote I got to thinking about it again in regards to my late 09 MB.......

I'm not sure I don't feel a bit ripped off by Apple...

I pay them for a machine with a 64 bit core. I pay them for a 64bit OS. And what I get is a 32bit machine!!

Has anyone else played around with getting the 64bit kernel running?

what do you do on your macbook that you think would benefit from running the 64 bit kernel?

what do you do on your macbook that you think would benefit from running the 64 bit kernel?

While I get your point, I'm not sure you get mine. Basically I want to run 64bit because I have (paid hard earned money to Apple for) the hardware and software to do so.

Apple built in the limitation.

I don't see the purpose for them doing that! :mad:

Ok, so you hack your MacBook to run in 64 bit mode.. What advantage are you going to get from it? It isn't like you can add 6 gb of ram to take advantage of it.. What software do you have that's 64 bit aware?

I'm just trying to figure out what the advantage is for this, especially on a MacBook?

Ok, so you hack your MacBook to run in 64 bit mode.. What advantage are you going to get from it? It isn't like you can add 6 gb of ram to take advantage of it..
As a matter of fact, I CAN add 6 gig of RAM.
What software do you have that's 64 bit aware?

everything built in
handbrake
vlc
among others
Besides a 64bit kernel can run 32bit apps, KEXTs are the issue.

I am not saying I NEED a 64bit kernel, I'm saying I'd like the option to run my machine at peak performance as a matter of MY choice (not Apple's).
On a 64-bit processor:
A 32-bit Kernel can run both 32 and 64 bit applications.
A 64-bit Kernel can run both 32 and 64 bit applications.

A 32-bit Kernel can load only 32-bit kexts (kernel extensions).
A 64-bit Kernel can load only 64-bit kexts (kernel extensions).
This page is an interesting read - Startup Mode Selector (http://ahatfullofsky.comuv.com/English/Programs/SMS/SMS.html)

Here's a link to a web page with the answer you're looking for. It's one simple edit to a config file.

MPG - Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard - Booting into 64-bit mode (Snow Leopard) (http://macperformanceguide.com/SnowLeopard-64bit.html)

Your welcome in advance.

[deleted]

My apologies rgray if my quoted post to another thread has provoked your consternation and a feeling that Apple somehow cheated you, but read and head the replies here and also check out the * comments at that site if your Mac model is so marked.

Personally I would doubt that you actually got "ripped off by Apple" at all, but then again I'm not sure what you're wanting or actually trying to do that you can't do with a normal 32 bit boot.

Seriously when 10.6 was released how many new macs could accept more than 4gb of ram? Mac Pros? I think that's it.

I don't think there was even a 4GB ddr2 sodimm even available...
Not to mention that you lose a huge chunk of that memory due to DMA...

And 10.6 was an interim release.

10.7 will be released and this will be a non-issue.

Proof once again -- if any be needed -- that when someone is LOOKING to feel cheated by big evil Apple, they will succeed -- regardless of, you know, facts or reality.

Proof once again -- if any be needed -- that when someone is LOOKING to feel cheated by big evil Apple, they will succeed -- regardless of, you know, facts or reality.

+1

some people see and enjoy a nice blue sky, other are perpetually looking for the one small cloud that will never cast a shadow on them.

I understand the underlying complaint but am apathetic only because Apple's no better or worse than any other hardware manufacturer out there right now. But the reality is that the transition to 64bit is not an easy thing and Apple's muddling threw it like everyone else out there. Would be nice if all of this information was a bit easier to navigate, and you'd think Apple would have a "magic bullet" solution because they are hardware and software but really they have other priorities because they don't have complete control over all of the bottlenecks in the system anyways.

Would be nice if all of this information was a bit easier to navigate, and you'd think Apple would have a "magic bullet" solution because they are hardware and software but really they have other priorities because they don't have complete control over all of the bottlenecks in the system anyways.


Actually there is. And it couldn't be easier. If you have any MAC OS right now you don't have true 64-bit. Once Lion is release then if your mac can install it then you have native 64-bit. Done.

---

This is nothing like the PC side where Windows 7 comes in several flavours (Starter, Basic, Home Premium, Professional, Ultimate, Enterprise) and every one of those comes in either 32-bit or 64-bit!! Can you upgrade your Windows 7 32-bit to 64-bit? Not without reinstalling your programs!

Can you upgrade windows xp 64-bit to windows 7 64-bit, no!

I'm not sure why people are piling on to criticize the OP. I'm not familiar with the technical intracacies of the issue, but it seems to me like it's a legitimate point of discussion.

Especially because Apple goes out of its way to market 64 bit computing (http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/#sixtyfourbit) as a distinct advantage of OS X.

Especially because Apple goes out of its way to market 64 bit computing (http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/#sixtyfourbit) as a distinct advantage of OS X.

I don't see anything on that page about 64-bit computing.

Besides I don't think there are too many people that know what 64-bit is. It used be a joke when you're talking about 64-bit what exactly you were talking about because the early processors were actually a mixture of various bit technology. The address bus may have been 64-bit, but the data bus was only 32-bit, then you got Intel's SSE and PowerPC's AltiVec which is a set of 128-bit registers.

I imagine Intel's chips still have the SSE, so really part of the chip is 128-bit. SO your getting a 64-bit chip with a 128-bit bonus in my view and you likely use the 128-bit unit more than you'll ever use the 64-bit part, if MacOS X is still coded to use the SSE as much as it used AltiVec.

I don't see anything on that page about 64-bit computing

Wouldn't you know it? Apple changed all of its OS X pages after today's announcements. It was a full page with a large 64 Bit graphic extolling the virtues of Apple's superior technology, etc., etc. Someone could easily finish reading that page believing that Snow Leopard was a fully 64-bit OS full of native 64 bit apps.
http://www.64bits.net/images/64bit_highway_3.png

Yup, it's gone, yet it was sure there earlier today as I was reading it to see if it actually gave any real info on its use - and I sure didn't learn much.