Is my early 2006 iMac 32-bit or 64-bit?

William Lloyd wrote:
Snow Leopard boots a 32-bit kernel on all machines. Period.

I see. You are in a small minority if that is what you believe. A small minority could be right of course. So, if I hold down 6-4 when I boot, then I am going to boot into 32-bit mode, right? That's quite a revelation if so. Show me where Apple or some credible publication says so.

William Lloyd wrote:
You can see if you are running 64 bit applications by launching Activity Monitor. 64 bit applications get the "benefits" of 64 bit and you are getting the advantages of 64-bit.

Personally, I would rather see that I am running the 64-bit kernel, after starting up holding 6-4 down and looking at About this Mac > More Info > Highlight software. When I proceed as indicated, my machine shows: "64-bit Kernel and Extensions: Yes." Otherwise it says "64-bit Kernel and Extensions: No."

Note, again, that no versions of Mac OS X boot with a 64 bit kernel. Only Mac OS X Server on the latest two models of Xserve boot the 64 bit kernel by default.

No one is talking about "default." We all know, and the discussion assumes, that the boot into the 64-bit kernel is made by holding down 6-4 when starting up a machine, for example, like mine. See sig. And, there are other ways for us to boot into the 64-bit kernel.

donv (The Ghost) wrote:
Nevermind. I didn't recognize the thread from page 2. What happened? 🙂

Please understand that there are several different ways to view topics in Discussions. This means some of us see every thread in one page, or in a different number of pages from other users; & in flat, threaded, or tree view. Thus, references to "page 2" or to posts "above" or "below" others doesn't mean much.

I was looking at the thread as I always do. Having gone to page 2 when returning, I was surprised at what I saw.

Message was edited by: donv (The Ghost)

Since I don't have a page 2, I have no idea what you mean by what you saw.

Does it matter? You can change the way you are viewing, right?

1. I don't particularly want to change the way I'm viewing Discussions threads. I've developed workflows that suit the view options I use. (That's why Discussions offers more than one view option.)

2. I have no idea what way you view them, so I still would have no idea what you mean when you reference something like "page 2" or "the post above this one" in your posts.

The point I'm trying to make is that this kind of view-specific reference will always be indeterminate & confusing, & is best avoided when a reference to a specific post or set of posts is needed.

Whatever. Please quit nitpicking. Your comments of this type often are way off topic, don't pose a question for the OP, and don't provide a possible fix for the OP.

Not nitpicking, just trying to explain why this type of reference is not helpful, whatever the topic.

Hi donv;

Your original comment made absolute no sense to me either, since I have never used that feature. I agree with R C-R on this one.

Allan

Hi Jonathan Mortimer;

If you mark it as answered that should put a stop to it.

Allan

You are very welcome. ** on board.

Guys, fine I will refer to the nth post in a thread. Can you figure that out given the view of the forum you use? If not, then how do you suggest that I make things clear for all viewers?