MacBookPro3,1 + Snow Leopard = 32 bits.

Why are we arguing about that here? If you want help running Mac OS X or problems with the hardware, then ask away. I thought we were trying to explain why it doesn't work.

Why you think you've been cheated really doesn't belong on this forum. Set up you own blog and you can whine about it all you want.

kaosdroid wrote:

Michelasso wrote:

It is reported to work in most MacBook Pro. It can't work on MacBooks for the reasons explained in other posts (lack of GMA 950 64 bit kext).

It doesn't work on the macbook pro 3.1
you would need some hex editor to make it work...

My fault, I misread it. Actually I was wrong as well. MacBook w/o GPU kext can still boot in 64 bit. The boot.efi modification is made indeed for the MacBook with 64 bit EFI (and GPU X3000 in this case). According to the original article here it's how it works:

http://www.osxbook.com/blog/2009/08/31/is-your-machine-good-enough-for-snow-leop ard-k64/

boot.efi is the kernel loader
boot.efi has a list of Macs that are allowed or not to run the 64 bits kernel
the graphic card is managed by the 64 bit kernel, but if missing the 64 bits kext, it won't use any special feature (like 2nd monitor, opengl, graphics acceleration and so on)
Macs with 32 bit EFI have the 64 bit kernel disabled by default
Macs with 32 bit EFI and the right boot.efi should boot into 64 bit mode, but they won't have access to the EFI anymore (like nvram access). That should not be really needed, but chances that any application may make the OS unstable are there.

So, theoretically, any Mac with a 64 bits CPU should be able to boot in 64 bits given the right (modified) boot.efi. Useless in some cases because the graphics would lose most performances and functionalities.

Now, like with you, my problem is to understand how to hexedit boot.efi. If anyone has any documentation I'll try it myself (backing up my MacBook now).

In the meantime RCR could try this trick on his MacBook (I think it's the right one) and tell us if it works!! 😉

kaosdroid wrote:
Yeah you probably thought, the only people to develop something already are contracted by apple…

No, I thought anybody could understand what the following passage from the original source is saying:

"As an end user, you really +should not+ worry about the bitness of the kernel. If your Apple computer is not booting into K64 by default, you don’t need it—unless, of course, you know that you need it. (Say, because you are a kernel developer or an otherwise system-level developer and want to test something against a 64-bit kernel.)"

IOW, if you actually are developing kernel or other system level software, you may need to test it on a Mac that otherwise does not support the 64-bit kernel. For instance, that would apply to writing a 64 bit kext to support some hardware device or a kernel for another OS.

Somehow, I don't think that is what the folks complaining about their MBP's & such not booting up with the 64-bit kernel are contemplating doing.

Are you saying I'm wrong about that?

In the meantime RCR could try this trick on his MacBook (I think it's the right one) and tell us if it works!!

It could be a while before I get to that. It's pretty low on my list of pointless ways to reduce my MacBook's functionality.

R C-R wrote:

In the meantime RCR could try this trick on his MacBook (I think it's the right one) and tell us if it works!!

It could be a while before I get to that. It's pretty low on my list of pointless ways to reduce my MacBook's functionality.

Well, I'm a person that likes to experiment things. Obviously I won't keep the kernel at 64 bits.Don't worry, I'm not looking for troubles either. It just that I'd like to see if that works. Simple knowledge.

Experimentation can be fun, but keep in mind that it can be dangerous or just produce puzzling results. Because of this, it is a good idea to gather as much relevant info as you can before you start. (Knowledge builds on knowledge & there is no need to reinvent the wheel unless you are a masochist.) For instance, earlier you wrote:

So, theoretically, any Mac with a 64 bits CPU should be able to boot in 64 bits given the right (modified) boot.efi.

That could be true, but "booting" in this context could mean no more than successfully loading the kernel, or not even that. To see why, it is helpful to know something about the boot process. rEFIt - The Intel Mac boot process may be useful for this (as well as for understanding how to troubleshoot other startup problems).

There is also some good info at Intel's Extensible Firmware Interface (EFI) that explains the role of EFI in the boot process. (Basically, hardware is the lowest level; firmware is just above that, with EFI as the layer between firmware & the OS loader.)

With the rEFIt article & at least the graphic from the Intel page in mind, you can dig a little deeper with Apple's Dev Center article, The Boot Process, which gives you details of the various ways the kernel & all device drivers that are involved in the boot process might be loaded.

Hopefully, this will give some idea of the different ways the pieces of the puzzle can fit together, & what to do if just getting the 64-bit kernel to load doesn't boot the computer all the way into the OS itself. It may also give you some idea of what I meant about it not being as simple as you might think. (Remember that for OS X, the kernel is not the only fundamental building block; the I/O Kit is as well.)

Barney-15E wrote:
Why are we arguing about that here? If you want help running Mac OS X or problems with the hardware, then ask away. *I thought we were trying to explain why it doesn't work*.

Why you think you've been cheated really doesn't belong on this forum. Set up you own blog and you can whine about it all you want.

yeah so the explanation on why it doesn't work from your friend rcr was:

*I have no idea what specifically is the "problem" ...*

Do you have any better explanation? I would love to here that...

When I wrote "boot in 64 bit mode" I obviously meant boot and load the 64 bit kernel. Once the kernel is loaded, the EFI should be discarded. The major thing is that with an EFI32 OSX 64 bit shouldn't be able to access the NVRAM so commands like "nvram" (indeed) and the boot disk selection in system preferences probably won't work anymore.

Where I was mistaken before, is that I didn't think that SL should come with the 64 bit kext for standard VGA adapters. At least that's what the author of the article made me thinking. So even a Mac with Intel GMA 950 should be able to run the 64 bit kernel, obviously after hacking of the boot.efi. Maybe on 640x480 mode, or maybe not. For sure the graphics will be much slower.

Anyway, your links are nothing new for anyone that knows about Unix internals. That's why I kept telling you that a MacBook can run a 64 bit kernel, and that guy made an hack that proves it. Here is why I asked you to give it a try, since that hack should be exactly for your MacBook. It would take no longer than 10 minutes and the chances to mess up are low. Still, if one copies the original boot.efi in let's say boot32.efi and then messes up to restore the previous boot.efi would be just a matter of booting from the DVD, start a terminal and revert the copy process.

I am not sure that's really needed either, because the original boot.efi is stored in

/usr/standalone/i386/boot.efi

So I believe that if the loader pointed by "bless" is corrupted OSX should be smart enough to use the one above. Not sure, tho. In any case messing with this wouldn't fry a Mac, that's for sure!!!

I think the explanation now is pretty clear: Apple put in the loader, boot.efi, a list of Macs that can run the kernel at 64 bits and the ones that can not. Also, if I have understood correctly, it first checks if the EFI is 64 bits. If not, it mandatory boots the 32 bits kernel.

Michelasso wrote:
I think the explanation now is pretty clear: Apple put in the loader, boot.efi, a list of Macs that can run the kernel at 64 bits and the ones that can not. Also, if I have understood correctly, it first checks if the EFI is 64 bits. If not, it mandatory boots the 32 bits kernel.

I know that =) but there were a lot of unprofessional speculations and statements about the non 64 bit capability of a 64 bit hardware and some really kindergarten like statements about speed limits on highways and using motorbikes and bicycles..

and not a single word on that it is the boot.efi file that simply doesn't have the macbook pro 3.1 listed...

If I am not mistaken, this was not the case in the WWDC release of SL so if you happen to have a copy of this release you should be able to use the boot.efi file from that release replace it or copy it to your retail installation and do the whole blessing stuff... i should have the WWDC release somewhere around here and I'm gonna tell you if it worked... (you than wouldn't need to find out which hex valor to replace and stuff to get the boot64.efi you can download via netkas to boot your 64 bit kernel)

I've got releases back six builds, and none of them will boot my Mac in 64-bit. And, I don't care.

Oh, and metaphors and similes are certainly well beyond kindergarten. I wouldn't expect you to understand. You've already demonstrated you cannot comprehend the simple concepts presented in all the quoted Apple statements. I wouldn't expect you could handle any more.

Barney-15E wrote:
I've got releases back six builds, and none of them will boot my Mac in 64-bit. And, I don't care.

Oh, and metaphors and similes are certainly well beyond kindergarten. I wouldn't expect you to understand. You've already demonstrated you cannot comprehend the simple concepts presented in all the quoted Apple statements. I wouldn't expect you could handle any more.

This is really getting worse... how about talking to your mom about this? i guess she'd help you out..
and maybe you wanna talk also to your kindergarten teacher about the unwillingness of certain people to put poor stevie boy even more money down his throat... (like really not wanting to buy a so called "nice motorbike".. i guess you know how ridiculous you sound there, right?

and on the WWDC release i could do a lipo to remove the i386 structure from the kernel and it would boot into 64 bit... so i guess if it wouldn't boot in your case, is because you haven't tried yet...
so please stop waisting our time with your senseless statements...

Can't talk to my Mom. She died several years ago. It's unfortunate you cannot read for comprehension. The statements on Apple's website are very clear. It's really not possible to help you as you continue to blame Apple for your own failings. You bought a product that cannot do what you hoped it could do. Apple never promised you anything, but it is somehow their fault in your mind.

kaosdroid wrote:
and on the WWDC release i could do a lipo to remove the i386 structure from the kernel and it would boot into 64 bit.

Ok. How does that work? Not that I would keep it. But I spent so much time investigating this thing that I really would like to see it working once.