MacBookPro3,1 + Snow Leopard = 32 bits.

I just know that the only thing that goes noticeably faster after upgrading to SL is... the FAN!!! 😀

Still, I want to be able to run in the future the 64 bits kernel in my early 2007 Intel White MacBook.

Why? Because it has much more computing power than many multiprocessor Unix servers I was running 15 years ago, and for no reason I want to discover soon that my MacBook has been... obsoleted. The only thing that uses 100% of CPU is when I compile stuff with Mac Port. A better Internet connection, a larger HDD and maybe upgrade from 2,5GB (never used all of them) to 4GB of RAM and it can go on for at least another 5 years.

Michelasso wrote:
Why? Because it has much more computing power than many multiprocessor Unix servers I was running 15 years ago, and for no reason I want to discover soon that my MacBook has been… obsoleted.

This doesn't make any sense. Your MacBook won't be obsoleted just because it won't start up with the 64-bit kernel anymore than my white MacBook (Early 2008) will be. Both will still run Snow Leopard just fine with the 32-bit kernel, including running all the new, more efficient 64 bit core applications bundled with it, using Grand Central Dispatch technology to better utilize the dual cores of the CPU's in these models, & so on. And you still get all the SL refinements, including the few mentioned by Apple & the many others that users are discovering it did not, like much faster permissions repairs & more preference options.

What these MacBooks won't do is be able to take advantage of a few SL technologies like OpenCL or use the huge amounts of memory 64 bit addressing makes possible. These are hardware limitations, & there is no hardware upgrade you can make that will get around that -- unless you know some way to solder in more address lines or a high performance graphics processor!

BTW, both our MacBooks have relatively anemic graphics processors, yours probably the Intel GMA 950 & mine the slightly better GMA X3100. Both used shared main memory instead of large amounts of dedicated high speed video memory on its own bus. The performance bottleneck these graphics processors imposes is significant, no matter how powerful the CPU is. For one thing, the Intel drivers are 32 bit; for another, sharing the main memory means the CPU or GPU will have to wait for each other to release the bus before the other can use it. In fact, I'm not even sure these MacBooks would be able to finish booting up with the 64-bit kernel because of this.

In short, it is as I've said elsewhere: it takes more to make a 64 bit system than just a 64 bit CPU.

What you write is correct, R C-R. But I think you missed my point. What I'm afraid is that soon (1 or 2 years?) there will be a 64 bits only OSX and that will not run in our MacBooks, obsoleting them de facto.

As I wrote I didn't see much improvement moving into 64 bits apps, what I'm really concerned is about the possibility to lose the support for my Mac and not the potential loss of performances I won't get keeping a 32 bit kernel.

About those stupid Intel GMA graphics chips I'm curious to know if they've got 64 bits drivers for Windows 7. Actually I may give it a look. Just out of curiosity. 😉

Michelasso wrote:
What I'm afraid is that soon (1 or 2 years?) there will be a 64 bits only OSX and that will not run in our MacBooks, obsoleting them de facto.

1. Should that happen, unless & until Apple only supports that new OS version, our MacBooks (& millions of Mac Mini's) won't be obsolete in any meaningful sense of the word.

2. Even if it does, they won't be obsolete in any meaningful way until app makers stop supporting the OS's these Macs will run.

3. Even after that happens, & it eventually will, these Macs will continue to be useful, just as are millions of PPC Macs that can't run Snow Leopard now.

This is strange...
Maybe because I'm a computer science student, I "like" programming and I see computer in a different way... maybe because you are graphic designer or I don't know.. you only care "It's should work"...
I know that a computer won't become obsolete just because can't boot a 64bit kernel.
I'm still using a 1999 PowerMac (even if it needs a replacement now..).

But...

It seems that a 64bit CPU, a 64bit capable EFI and a full 64bit capable hardware can't make a 64bit machine... that's right. We need 64 bit software too... But.. SL is 64bit.
It needs only 64bit drivers. But Apple do not use strange components.. they are the same of other pc.. And they can run in 64bit mode.

I think that the mean of this discussion is to remember to Apple that we still exists.. And that we want (in the future... some months) a full 64bit kernel, because WE CAN HAVE IT (and we must have it)

FWIW, I'm not a graphics designer. I have been (although not recently) a designer & builder of electronic systems, & that influences how I see things, including what "fully capable" means in hardware terms. There is much more to this than some apparently think.

You can't just assemble a bunch of hardware components (especially high performance ones) & expect to end up with a working product. Everything interacts with everything else in the final design. Serious problems that never arise on a breadboard or prototype have to be carefully considered for production runs because individual electronic components are not identical & when you combine lots of them in one product, you multiply the variations of every characteristic of the design you get in the production run. If you don't allow for that by operating everything well within cumulative tolerance variations, you will end up with very high failure rates.

Software won't fix this -- it runs on the hardware & if the hardware behaves unpredictably, so will it.

IOW, don't be so sure that the average MBP (or whatever other Mac won't boot with the 64 bit kernel) actually can run with it, with or without software changes.

BTW, if this discussion is meant to remind Apple of anything, it will fail to do that. This is a user-to-user forum. It is like going to your supermarket & reminding other customers that your favorite brands should continue to be stocked.

I have been running Ubuntu 64-bit without a hitch on this MBP (3,1). I just don't buy it that there is any reason why my machine should suddenly not be capable of running a 64-bit system for whatever reason.

And while 64-bit does not necessarily mean faster, on x86_64 for various reason it is considerably faster to run the 64-bit kernel. I would be very considerably ****** off if Apple won't let me run Snow Leopards kernel in 64-bit mode in the very near future.

Kilian Muster wrote:
I have been running Ubuntu 64-bit without a hitch on this MBP (3,1). I just don't buy it that there is any reason why my machine should suddenly not be capable of running a 64-bit system for whatever reason.

So from this can I assume you think all 64 bit operating systems are the same from a hardware requirement standpoint?

R C-R wrote:

Kilian Muster wrote:
I have been running Ubuntu 64-bit without a hitch on this MBP (3,1). I just don't buy it that there is any reason why my machine should suddenly not be capable of running a 64-bit system for whatever reason.

So from this can I assume you think all 64 bit operating systems are the same from a hardware requirement standpoint?

I think what he is trying to say is, from a hardware requirement standpoint there shouldn't be any problem... if there is any problem it is a wanted problem.. apple aren't the good guys RC-R... they
are as money greedy as any other company (google, microsoft, ...)
I don't agree on your earlier statement, that our 3.1 macbooks wouldn't be able to run the 64bit kernel..
I remember running snow leopard on a g3 after some hacks just fine (still have it on that old machine)

R C-R wrote:

So from this can I assume you think all 64 bit operating systems are the same from a hardware requirement standpoint?

Well, they all just require a 64 bits CPU. So YES, to run the kernel, especially an Unix kernel, it doesn't matter if System V or BSD or whatever, that should be the only requirement. Not even a 64 bit EFI is needed, since it can bootstrap in 32 bits and then switch into 64 bits once the kernel is loaded.

Kext/device drivers? they just need to be reprogrammed. And that can be done. Actually I'm pretty sure it is also possible to make a 64/32 bits interface for the old kext (even this could damage the performances, so it would be a no solution).

The problem here is not technical, but commercial. People that bought the new generation Macs (i.e. Intel) all expected to see Snow Leopard to fully run in 64 bits mode. Why? Because the ads say so. Not having full 64 bits one feels... cheated. As simple as that.

kaosdroid wrote:
I remember running snow leopard on a g3 after some hacks just fine (still have it on that old machine)

Do I really have to explain why I find this statement to be ludicrous?

Michelasso wrote:
The problem here is not technical, but commercial. People that bought the new generation Macs (i.e. Intel) all expected to see Snow Leopard to fully run in 64 bits mode. Why? Because the ads say so. Not having full 64 bits one feels... cheated. As simple as that.

1. How is it possible that people that bought Intel Macs long before Snow Leopard was announced did so with the expectation that all these Macs would "fully run" that as yet unannounced OS in 64 bit mode?

2. Do you really think all those people even knew how many bits their CPU's could process, much less the difference between a 64 bit & 32 bit kernel?

3. Show me one ad that says Snow Leopard will "fully run in 64 bits mode." The info from Apple I see doesn't even claim all the core apps are 64 bit ones.

As I see it, the problem here is that some users who are neither software nor hardware engineers have made some very dubious assumptions based on a highly simplified idea of how hardware & low level software interact, & feel cheated because those assumptions turned out not to be true.

Is there a definitive list of which Macs support the 64-bit kernel and which don't?

I discovered that not only will my MacBook Pro 3,1 not run it, but nor will my iMac 7,1. At the very least, Apple should publish the list of supported machines to keep us from guessing.

R C-R wrote:

3. Show me one ad that says Snow Leopard will "fully run in 64 bits mode." The info from Apple I see doesn't even claim all the core apps are 64 bit ones.

As I see it, the problem here is that some users who are neither software nor hardware engineers have made some very dubious assumptions based on a highly simplified idea of how hardware & low level software interact, & feel cheated because those assumptions turned out not to be true.

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

"Although Mac OS X is already 64-bit capable in many ways, Snow Leopard takes the next big step by rewriting nearly all system applications in 64-bit code¹ and *by enabling the Mac to address massive amounts of memory.* "

Where for "massive amount of memory" it writes:
" Snow Leopard is ready to support up to 16 terabytes of RAM "

Which you well know is only possible with the 64 bit kernel.

Now it's up to you show any hint in that page that warns about the fact that this won't apply to ALL Macs Snow Leopard ready.

I'd like also to add that your considerations about other people computing knowledge were not very appropriate.

Again, keep in mind that Apple only supports using the 64-bit kernel with Snow Leopard Server, so you aren't going to find a list from Apple outside that context. For that context, refer to Mac OS X Server v10.6: Macs that use the 64-bit kernel.

It is a short list, currently consisting of only 6 models.

It might also be worth pondering the <ahem> meaning of the note at the end of that article. Also consider that some Apple links to this article sometimes refer to it as "hardware that supports the 64-bit kernel," as it does here.

With this in mind, it should be pretty obvious that the assumption that a 64 bit CPU by itself implies hardware support for the 64-bit kernel is not a safe assumption….