MacBookPro3,1 + Snow Leopard = 32 bits.

1. Enabling the Mac to address massive amounts of memory does not make Macs that lack +hardware support+ for addressing massive amounts of memory magically able to do so. Existing iMacs, MacBooks, Mini's, etc. will never be able to access terabytes of RAM, no matter what OS they run, period.

2. Nowhere on the page does Apple imply that Snow Leopard will "fully run in 64 bits mode," whatever that is supposed to mean. It even explicitly states that nearly all system applications have been rewritten in 64 bit code. This is mentioned twice on the page. So how can you possibly interpret "nearly" as meaning "all" or implying that everything runs in 64 bit mode?

3. The passage you quote about memory support is in the section titled "*Ready for the future*." Othr sections are titled "*The 64-bit transition*" & "*32-bit compatible*." Is it really that hard to figure out what this means?

4. Regarding other people computing knowledge, I don't expect everyone to know that software cannot overcome fundamental hardware limitations, but neither do I expect them to argue that a lack of that knowledge is a justifiable basis for feeling cheated because Snow Leopard can't do that, or that Apple is somehow responsible for their lacking that knowledge.

I don't know any way to sugarcoat this or say it more politely. The best I can do is say there are a number of technically dubious assumptions in this thread, & some statements that border on being ludicrous, as well as some solid technical info that should help interested users understand what Snow Leopard can & can't do.

The only thing left to say is that if you still feel cheated, remove Snow Leopard from your Mac & take it back to an Apple Store & ask for a refund.

R C-R wrote:

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?

yeah could you please explain to me why a statement about the philosophy of apple (making older machines obsolete with their own new software to sell new hardware... ) is ludicrous?
because that is the very point.. isn't it?
i mean lets wait for a 10.7 and we'll see if we can run apples OS on fully capable machines, like the macbook pro 3.1 in this case, without hacking it... i guess not..
so please explain to me the real meaning of making older machines obsolete...

kaosdroid wrote:

R C-R wrote:

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

obviously it is Leopard I am talking about...

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….

mmh running linux gentoo on a partition of this book with a 64bit kernel will do me now what harm?
or it runs but actually it doesn't why again?

"....enabling the Mac..." is it not lying by not writing which one ?
that's also what I read, and I have a Mac.....Book,
it's a Mac.....hiavellian Ads

kadoudal wrote:
"....enabling the Mac..." is it not lying by not writing which one ?

No, it is not lying by not specifying which Macs can access massive amounts of RAM. "The Mac" is a generic term, & the context makes that clear. I cannot imagine anyone who reads the "Ready for the future" section not understanding that.

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.

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

The 64-bit transition.

The entire computing industry is moving from 32-bit to 64-bit technology, and it’s easy to see why. Today’s Mac computers can hold up to 32GB of physical memory, but the 32-bit applications that run on them can address only 4GB of RAM at a time. *64-bit computing shatters that barrier by enabling applications to address a theoretical 16 billion gigabytes of memory, or 16 exabytes*. It can also enable computers to crunch twice the data per clock cycle, which can dramatically speed up numeric calculations and other tasks. *Earlier versions of Mac OS X have offered a range of 64-bit capabilities*. *Now Snow Leopard takes the next step in the transition from 32-bit to 64-bit*.

kaosdroid wrote:
so please explain to me the real meaning of making older machines obsolete…

A new OS does not make a Mac that can't run it obsolete. It can still do everything it could do when you bought it.

However, as I keep saying, software cannot overcome hardware limitations. It cannot give a memory controller capabilities it does not already have or make a fan run faster than full speed. It cannot make a CPU use less power to execute an instruction or reorganize its internal architecture. It can't make a bus run faster than its design permits or force high speed hardware to operate with narrower timing margins than an OS requires.

I don't think it is a secret that computing hardware is constantly improving, that the latest hardware is more capable than the older stuff. If that is what you mean by making older machines obsolete, then you are right, but unless you have slept through the last 20 years or so, it would be hard not to notice that, whatever kind of computer you used.

Basically, you either take advantage of this & periodically upgrade your hardware or you don't. But nobody is forcing you to, or trying to trick you into believing older computers are the equal of newer ones.

So are you saying that you think all 64 bit kernels are the same?

R C-R wrote:

kadoudal wrote:
"....enabling the Mac..." is it not lying by not writing which one ?

No, it is not lying by not specifying which Macs can access massive amounts of RAM. "The Mac" is a generic term, & the context makes that clear. I cannot imagine anyone who reads the "Ready for the future" section not understanding that.

Too bad that that note 2. says:

2. Testing conducted by Apple in August 2009 comparing prerelease Mac OS X v10.6 Snow Leopard with shipping Mac OS X v10.5.8 Leopard. Testing was conducted on a shipping *2.0GHz MacBook* system and a shipping 2.66GHz iMac system, both configured with 2GB of RAM.

When I saw it I was relieved, because I was afraid that my 2.0GHz MacBook was already out of the 64 bits business. Then I discovered there was that infamous 32/64 bits trick. It's not a compete lie, because the ads never mentioned straight the kernel. But it's a cheat because Apple made us believing so.

Let me put in this way: if people knew already that such was the case, do you think that so many would be complaining all around the Internet?

R C-R wrote:

I don't know any way to sugarcoat this or say it more politely. The best I can do is say there are a number of technically dubious assumptions in this thread, & some statements that border on being ludicrous, as well as some solid technical info that should help interested users understand what Snow Leopard can & can't do.

The point is that we understood very well what its potential had to be in our Macs. Then we discovered that it wasn't exactly true. My MacBook is totally able to run Linux and Windows in 64 bits. There are the 64 bit drivers for the GMA 950 as well:
http://downloadcenter.intel.com/Detail_Desc.aspx?agr=Y&DwnldID=17804&lang=eng

Can Apple give any reason why it shouldn't run the SL 64 bit kernel as well?

The only thing left to say is that if you still feel cheated, remove Snow Leopard from your Mac & take it back to an Apple Store & ask for a refund.

I'm just upset that Apple, a company that I always trusted and supported, didn't say it clear since the beginning that not every Mac Slow Leopard ready will support the 64 bits kernel.

R C-R wrote:
So are you saying that you think all 64 bit kernels are the same?

I am definitely not saying this... but I am saying it is not impossible to write a 64 bit kernel that supports the "common" 64 bit hardware of the mac models.

And, although still quite happy with my current 32 bit kernel as I stated it before (because I don't need more than 4gb of ram and I am running certain programs just fine and fast enough - Actually It runs even nicer than my ubuntu studio machine with a 64 bit AMD CPU - but that's not to compare with Mac OSX and Logic..), I am asking why wouldn't apple do so.

As I am still not so sure about if the kernel is the problem here.. cause the kernel should actually just run fine (i could imagine a problem with the memory bus speed - but that is also an issue that could be solved) Actually I think the problem to get the 64 bit kernel to run on this model is EFI.
Or isn't it?
And yeah, Apple really were talking about a full 64 bit system for all macs with at least an IntelCore 2 duo CPU.. Before SL came out you could read it on their homepage how they would take advantage of the core technology and the 64 bit architecture... And still they would state the same thing on their homepage, talking about the big "theoretical amounts of RAM being able to be addressed" using their "ready for the future" OS on our macs.. now with some links to refer to information about what they really mean...

Michelasso wrote:
When I saw it I was relieved, because I was afraid that my 2.0GHz MacBook was already out of the 64 bits business. Then I discovered there was that infamous 32/64 bits trick. It's not a compete lie, because the ads never mentioned straight the kernel. But it's a cheat because Apple made us believing so.

Apple didn't make you believe anything of the sort. The ads clearly do not mention the 64 bit kernel. And no Apple source mentions the 6 + 4 key trick for anything but *Snow Leopard Server & 6 specific Mac models*. Apple is not responsible for what you "discovered" from non-Apple sources or how you interpreted this.

Let me put in this way: if people knew already that such was the case, do you think that so many would be complaining all around the Internet?

I think the people complaining on the Internet made the same mistake you did.

1. Do you see the phrase, "Today’s Mac computers can hold up to 32GB of physical memory" in this? Do you understand that "up to" means that not every one of today's Macs can do this?

2. Do you see the sentence, "Now Snow Leopard takes the next step in the transition from 32-bit to 64-bit" in this? Do you understand that "next step" & "transition" means that the transition is not complete?

3. Do you see the phrase "fully run in 64 bits mode" anywhere in this or any other Apple literature about Snow Leopard?

You are not only reading things into Apple's literature that are not there but ignoring much of what is there.

R C-R wrote:
1. Do you see the phrase, "Today’s Mac computers can hold up to 32GB of physical memory" in this? Do you understand that "up to" means that not every one of today's Macs can do this?

2. Do you see the sentence, "Now Snow Leopard takes the next step in the transition from 32-bit to 64-bit" in this? Do you understand that "next step" & "transition" means that the transition is not complete?

3. Do you see the phrase "fully run in 64 bits mode" anywhere in this or any other Apple literature about Snow Leopard?

You are not only reading things into Apple's literature that are not there but ignoring much of what is there.

Without the 64 bit kernel the addressing of those big amounts of RAM wouldn't be possible, not even theoretical..
And "fully run in 64 bit mode" wouldn't be quite the term anyway...

So yeah this is what they say on the same page:

*The 64-bit support in Snow Leopard makes Mac OS X completely ready for whatever computing enhancements might arrive in the future. For example, Snow Leopard is ready to support up to 16 terabytes of RAM*

I don't know which part of "*completely ready* for what ever computer enhancements might arrive"
(the OS is ready right?) I maybe understand wrong...
And in this statement we go again with "the 16 terabytes of RAM" which obviously need a 64 bit kernel and extensions... and they aren't talking about SL server... they are talking about Snow Leopard itself...
So please don't get annoyed =) because everyone will understand, reading this statement, that apple is advertising a "full" 64 bit OS