MacBookPro3,1 + Snow Leopard = 32 bits.

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?

I don't know about the texans and their english... but "up to 32 GB" means that the limit is 32 GB
It doesn't state anything about that not all the macs wouldn't be able to do so.. but it is quite clear to me, that a notebook won't be able to hold 32GB of physical memory...

kaosdroid wrote:
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…

It's the part where the context is the Snow Leopard OS & not any particular Mac.

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…

They are also clearly talking about the future. The OS is indeed ready for computing enhancements of the future. But that doesn't mean all the Macs of today are. I think that if you keep in mind that the OS (software) & the Mac (hardware) are two distinctly different things, the rest of it falls into place.

R C-R wrote:

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.

No, my friend. Apple didn't mention anything about the new 64 bits OSX running a 32 bits kernel only. I asked you already where Apple mentioned it. What I showed you clearly means that any Mac SL ready must be able to address a massive amount of RAM. This is only possible with a 64 bits kernel.

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.

Well, since we are so many "mistaken", Apple marketing did a TERRIBLE job.

R C-R wrote:

kaosdroid wrote:
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…

It's the part where the context is the Snow Leopard OS & not any particular Mac.

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…

They are also clearly talking about the future. The OS is indeed ready for computing enhancements of the future. But that doesn't mean all the Macs of today are. I think that if you keep in mind that the OS (software) & the Mac (hardware) are two distinctly different things, the rest of it falls into place.

Yeah you're right! But that is the point, you will have to do a search and after clicking through some links and hopefully understanding technical specifications you will understand that even if you're on a computer with 64 bit CPU and your EFI IS 64 bit, you still wont be able to run SL with the 64 bit kernel and those theoretical amounts of RAM do not apply to you..
Why don't they just say that the Mac servers and the mac pros will be able to take full advantage of SL and SL server.. but the rest simply doesn't?
I don't wanna get emotional with the "I always trusted mac" thing.. because I never did.. 😉 But it would be nice if they were clearer in those adds about the 64 bit computing and the meaning of running this kernel or not and the limitations (like which of the macs really will run this kernel and which won't)

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

I think people are saying that all 64 bits CPU can run a 64 bit kernel. And our CPU do it indeed. The problem with device driver is not a kernel problem, is a lack of support from the vendors.

The sad truth is that our MacBooks can run Windows 7 64 bits, why SL limits the kernel to 32 bits. I thought Unix was much better on handling this kind of things than the counterpart product. But I was probably mistaken (as usual in this thread, it seems).

kaosdroid wrote:
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.

It probably isn't impossible. But the question is, is it worth it to do so? Answer that & you'll probably get the answer for why Apple wouldn't do so as well.

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?

I have no idea what specifically is the "problem" but I doubt all the timing issues could easily be solved -- either at all or without significantly reducing overall performance. It isn't just bus speed that is an issue but everything that contributes to the abilities of the entire system to deliver data to various parts of the hardware when the OS expects it to. It is a lot like overclocking: what works for one machine may be totally unworkable on another of the same model made with exactly the same part numbers. The only way to determine if it will work is by trial & error, machine by machine.

Maybe you are familiar with the phenomenon some users see with RAM working with one OS version but not the next. This is the same thing, but on a system wide basis. Modern computers don't have just one main bus acting as a common highway for all data flow & one speed limit for all of it. They have many different busses & many different data paths, each with its own timing requirements. The OS will function correctly only when everything is perfectly synchronized so that data appears at the right place at the right time. The synchronization while running one OS might be fine but that doesn't mean it will be with another.

In fact, not everyone is aware that Apple doesn't just use off-the-shelf Intel CPU's & other parts. Just as it was with the AIM Alliance in the PPC days, Macs are built with custom-designed variants optimized for OS X.

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

Yep. "Theoretical" & "future" should make it clear enough what Apple was & still is talking about.

I think anybody that has to do a search to figure out that software & hardware are two different things is going to be confused by just about anything Apple or any other computer maker publishes.

I also think that you should have to do more than read promotional material pitched at the general public if you are interested in learning about 64 bit kernel capability & similar highly technical topics. Most users would just find that unnecessarily confusing.

Ads are not textbooks.

In Texas (& pretty much every other place I've been to) people normally don't assume that because a road is marked with a 55 mph speed limit, a person riding a bicycle on that road can do 55 mph.

Is it different where you live?

In fact, not everyone is aware that Apple doesn't just use off-the-shelf Intel CPU's & other parts. Just as it was with the AIM Alliance in the PPC days, Macs are built with custom-designed variants optimized for OS X.

Oh yeah! The switch to Intel made this necessary to protect the OS of being installed on any assembled PC and apple even assured us that it will therefor not be possible to install their OS on those PCs. Some of those special designs just live to answer the kernels questions (sort of: are you a mac?)
But as we found out soon, everything's possible.. difficult or not 😉

R C-R wrote:
In Texas (& pretty much every other place I've been to) people normally don't assume that because a road is marked with a 55 mph speed limit, a person riding a bicycle on that road can do 55 mph.

Is it different where you live?

hehehe... nice statement.. but lets assume that I am not riding a bicycle if not actually a nice motorbike. So why would somebody want me to use it as a bicycle.. ?

R C-R wrote:

In fact, not everyone is aware that Apple doesn't just use off-the-shelf Intel CPU's & other parts. Just as it was with the AIM Alliance in the PPC days, Macs are built with custom-designed variants optimized for OS X.

Link, please.

I think people are saying that all 64 bits CPU can run a 64 bit kernel.

So, are we back to the 'all 64 bit kernels are the same' thing again?

I've tried to answer the "whys" as best I can but, no disrespect intended to anyone, this kind of 'if one, why not another?' argument is just too simplistic to spend any more time on than I already have.

It really isn't that simple. You can take that on faith, do enough research on your own to see if it is true or not, or just choose not to believe it for whatever reason you want. But please remember that "people are saying" is not by itself a good reason to believe anything.

R C-R wrote:

I think people are saying that all 64 bits CPU can run a 64 bit kernel.

So, are we back to the 'all 64 bit kernels are the same' thing again?

That has nothing to do with the fact that I stated above. The first difference between a 32 kernel and a 64 bit one is that the 2nd is compiled using the 64 bits instruction codes. Then if there are zillions of different kernels is not relevant.

As you well know the first duties of a kernel are to manage the CPU, the processes, the memory, the I/O devices.

So, can the old MacBooks (theoretically) running a 64 bit kernel manage:

*The T7200 CPU*? Yes, because it is a 64 bit CPU!
*64 bit processes*? Absolutely. Even the 32 bit kernel does so.
*Larger amount of Memory*? Virtually I say yes. I don't see what should be the limitation. The address space is well handled by the T7200
*I/O devices*? It depends. On what? On the fact that the extensions for them on the 64 bit kernel must actually be available.

Since the MacBooks are missing the 64 bit kext for the GMA chip, it is not possible for OSX to run a 64 bit kernel, but it IS for Windows 7 and Linux. As soon as Intel will make a 64 bit kext for them the MacBook will be able to run the 64 bit kernel.

This is how the kernel works. Talking about buses, collisions, whatever is just misleading, and first of all wrong.

Message was edited by: Michelasso

R C-R wrote:
I think anybody that has to do a search to figure out that software & hardware are two different things is going to be confused by just about anything Apple or any other computer maker publishes.

I also think that you should have to do more than read promotional material pitched at the general public if you are interested in learning about 64 bit kernel capability & similar highly technical topics. Most users would just find that unnecessarily confusing.

Ads are not textbooks.

Yeah so.. you seriously think that when you have to do a search about that your 64 bit capable computer won't run a 64 bit Snow Leopard because apple doesn't want you to (for what ever reasons.. ) than this means I actually didn't know that software and hardware are two different things.. come on.. this is a ridiculous and aggressive thing to say..
And actually I think promotional material shouldn't be irritating.. I never have read anything comparable on the HP of Ubuntu (for example)..
I don't think it is the case that I would need to learn about 64 bit capability =)
In fact capability is given.. I said it before I am running gentoo with 64 bit kernel on this notebook.
And maybe you're thinking that people who are questioning why we won't be to run mac os x.6 like other OS with a 64 bit kernel, are stupid. But then you should just stop answering in this thread..

One mention of this is from PC magazine at http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2326436,00.asp.

Note: I'll quote the relevant part below because that page has enough mouse-over popups to drive the average person insane (don't say I didn't warn you):

+The upgraded iMac comes with what Apple lists as a "3.06-GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor." Booting the system in Windows Vista OS tell us that it's a Core 2 Duo E8435. That seems to be another "Apple-exclusive" part, like the E8235 in the 2.8-GHz iMac. The E8435 also has 6MB of L2 cache and a 1,066-MHz front-side bus, so it's really just a minor speed boost from the processor in the lower-priced iMac.+

As this loosely implies, it has long been pretty common knowledge among those who followed such things that Intel agreed to "tweak" the Intel chips with Apple's input as part of the deal to switch to Intel from the PPC architecture. (It did not hurt that Apple had considerable experience in OS-optimized CPU design from the AIM days or that AMD was nibbling at Intel's dominance in the PC market.) It is also pretty obvious that Apple's published CPU specs don't quite line up with any of Intel's off-the-shelf products -- or for that matter, with the motherboard-based graphics processors Apple uses from NVIDIA.

There are actually quite a few references to Apple-exclusive parts in the more geeky web sites with an interest in hardware. There is a lot of debate about just how different they are from standard parts. Sometimes differences are obvious, like with the custom-built processor for the MacBook Air, but nobody not covered by NDA's knows for certain what internal differences there might be.