The Apple Core

Jason D. O'Grady & David Morgenstern

Hold 6 and 4 keys at boot to enable 64-bit Snow Leopard (Updated)

By | August 19, 2009, 9:00am PDT

Summary: As I mentioned in a post last night, the latest developer release of Snow Leopard, a.k.a. Mac OS 10.6 (build 10A432, presumed to be GM) doesn’t automatically boot into the 64-bit kernel except on an Xserve. To boot into 64-bit on any other Mac you must hold down the “6″ and “4″ keys at boot. Update: [...]

As I mentioned in a post last night, the latest developer release of Snow Leopard, a.k.a. Mac OS 10.6 (build 10A432, presumed to be GM) doesn’t automatically boot into the 64-bit kernel except on an Xserve. To boot into 64-bit on any other Mac you must hold down the “6″ and “4″ keys at boot.

Update: There’s a solution to the “64 finger salute” at the end of this post…

Here’s how to tell if you’ve successfully loaded the 64-bit kernel in Snow Leopard:

  1. Launch System Profiler (Applications > Utilities > System Profiler or About This Mac > More Info…)
  2. Click on the “Software” heading in the left pane
  3. Check the “64-bit Kernel and Extensions” line for a Yes or a No.

This is what it looks like in 32-bit:

This is what it looks like when the 64-bit kernel and extensions are loaded:

As I posted yesterday, you can check to see if your Mac has the 64-bit EFI (required to load the 64-bit kernel) by entering the following command in Terminal:

ioreg -l -p IODeviceTree | grep firmware-abi

It will return either “EFI32″ or “EFI64.”

According to Apple all system applications except DVD Player, Front Row, Grapher, and iTunes have been rewritten in 64-bit. All we need now is for third-party developers like Mozilla, Microsoft and Adobe (hint, hint!) to start releasing 64-bit apps :)

What applications do you want to go 64-bit first?

Update: If you’re not a fan of having to remember to hold down the “6″ and “4″ keys each time you re-boot, there’s a fix courtesy of Netkas.org:

Edit this file:

/Library/Preferences/SystemConfiguration/com.apple.Boot.plist

Change this:

<key>Kernel Flags</key>
<string></string>

To this:

<key>Kernel Flags</key>
<string>arch=x86_64</string>

Boots into the 64-bit kernel like a charm every time on my MBP.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Jason O'Grady is a journalist and author specializing in mobile technology. He has published six books on Apple and mobile gadgets and his PowerPage blog has been publishing for over 15 years.

Disclosure

Jason D. O'Grady

Jason D. O'Grady is the creator and editor of O'Grady's PowerPage, which has been publishing mobile technology news since 1995. He maintains an advertising relationship with the following legacy advertisers on the PowerPage:

  • Amazon Associates
  • Google Adsense
  • Tekserve
  • Advertising on the PowerPage is brokered by a third-party agency (BackBeat Media) and he recuses himself from these negotiations.

Biography

Jason D. O'Grady

Jason D. O'Grady developed an affinity for Apple computers after using the original Lisa, and this affinity turned into a bona-fide obsession when he got the original 128 KB Macintosh in 1984.

He started writing one of the first Web sites about Apple (O'Grady's PowerPage) in 1995 and is considered to be one of the fathers of blogging. He has been a frequent speaker at the Macworld Expo conference and a member of the conference faculty. He also co-founded the first dedicated PowerBook User Group (PPUG) in the United States.

After winning a major legal battle with Apple in 2006, he set the precedent that independent journalists are entitled to the same protections under the First Amendment as members of the mainstream media.

O'Grady is the author of The Nexus One Pocket Guide, The Droid Pocket Guide, The Google Phone Pocket Guide, and The Garmin nuvi Pocket Guide (Peachpit Press), the author of Corporations That Changed the World: Apple Inc. (Greenwood Press), and a contributor to The Mac Bible (Peachpit Press). In addition, he has contributed to numerous Mac publications over the years, including MacWEEK, Macworld, and MacPower (Japan).

When he's not writing about Apple for ZDNet at The Apple Core, he enjoys spending time with his family in New Jersey.

Related Discussions on TechRepublic

Did you know you can take part in these discussions with your ZDNet membership?
72
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: Hold 6 and 4 keys at boot to enable 64-bit Snow Leopard
gdbrock@... 9th Sep 2009
This worked well for me. My MacBook Pro 2.4GHz
Unibody now boot into 64 bit automatically.
0 Votes
+ -
Can you clarify this for me?
NonZealot Updated - 20th Aug 2009
I'm running 64 bit Windows 7 on my MacBook Pro, or at least I thought I was. Now I'm not so sure since I don't hold the 6 or the 4 key when I boot up. Since there is no way that Windows is ever easier than OS X, I can't imagine that you would need to hold the 6 and the 4 key to run 64 bit OS X but you don't need to do that to run 64 bit Windows so now I'm worried that Apple is ignoring my 64 bit Windows 7 install and has instead downgraded me to 32 bit Windows 7.

Can you confirm for me: do I need to hold the 6 and the 4 keys on bootup to run 64 bit Windows 7 on my MacBook Pro?
and more to do with app compatibility. From the companies you know
and trust, like Quark (which was very late to OS X) and Adobe (which
lagged with Intel support).

What would have made more sense would have been to put 32-bit apps
in a container, much like what happened back in the good old days of
Classic environment, and relatively similar to what WOWexec does with
16 bit apps in 32 bit Windows, or 32 bit apps in 64 bit Windows. Oh well.
0 Votes
+ -
Wowexec is just for 16-bit...
Spiritusindomit@... Updated - 19th Aug 2009
And no, it's not similar. Classic is a virtual machine, wowexec and syswow64 are native apis. They aren't just wrapper classes either (which can be good and bad).

Anyways, the senior dev on the visual studio project recently wrote an article about the bigger issues with 64-bit.

It really doesn't matter if companies support it, the problem is hardware limitations presently, and the obscene lack of parallelism implemented in non-server code.

The thinking here is that when you build a 64-bit application, you start out in a hole due to current L cache limitations. You increase the memory allocation by orders but magnitude, but the L1-3 caches stay the same. You then use excess memory and processor speed to dig yourself out of that hole. This is irrelevant under nehalem architecture and to a lesser degree AMD processors, but it's still a factor. Most macs (and indeed pcs) don't run that platform yet, and it's not entirely out of the woods because a 64-bit floating point is HUGE. In fact, it's for all intents and purposes infinite. Running 32-bit apps in 64-bit mode allows you to gain the advantage of the memory address increase without taking the performance hit of 64-bit -> L1/2.

SSE instructions can help offset this, but only on hardware that supports it. Apple was an early SSE adopter, but you still run into the fact that at present, it's generally better to run applications in 32-bit emulation mode rather than 64-bit.

That is not to say, however, that they should default to 32 in the name of compatability. In the end though, it's really the devs decision.
0 Votes
+ -
This is a developer release
lostarchitect 19th Aug 2009
This is a developer release, not a retail one. Probably in the final you won't need to do this. But that's an assumption.
0 Votes
+ -
That's a good point
NonZealot Updated - 20th Aug 2009
I'm assuming the final version will be perfect.
0 Votes
+ -
me too! [n/t]
lostarchitect 19th Aug 2009
.
0 Votes
+ -
Yet Window 7RC should be perfect
bobiroc 19th Aug 2009
Even though it was not a final release. I am not saying that you personally made comments like that but many many people did. I just love how Apple gets instantly defended for its flaws and questionable business practices and Microsoft does not and the ones that do defend Microsoft and use/like/prefer Microsoft products are called shills, fanboys, and other derogatory terms. Forgive me as this is not directed at you personally, but at what appears to be a failure on Apple's part that is being justified.
0 Votes
+ -
Pardon My Slowness
DannyO_0x98 19th Aug 2009
But doesn't Windows get around the problem by having separate 32 and 64 bit SKUs?

I haven't really seen the correlation between Apple advocates and those who are seem to think that a Windows RC should be perfect. In my general experience, an RC should be pretty close to the final release, but nothing is perfect.

Some of us Apple users have made noise that the Win7 upgrades are too expensive, but you should consider that good news, because that means we have some interest in running (and do run) Windows OSes and would like to upgrade to the latest and greatest.
0 Votes
+ -
Slowness Pardoned
bobiroc 19th Aug 2009
The separate SKUS are because there are still some 32bit only processors out there on the PC side. You know those People that bought Pentium 4's before the 64bit era that are 2.0 - 3.0Ghz and capable of running Windows 7 but not 64bit.

Like I said before I could be misreading the blog and to be honest it is worded to imply that there is huge potential for 32bit Apps not to work at all when booted into 64bit.
0 Votes
+ -
Remember DOS 4? It didn't work. People who upgraded from DOS 3
were really left out in the cold, because Microsoft's response to the
complaints was, "Buy the upgrade (DOS 5)."
On the other hand, remember the Atari ST? After the one week
learning curve, you just did things with your computer, and it tended
(and I did say "tended") to do things the way you would expect.
I have an MCSE, and the knowledge that comes with it really doesn't
answer the questions I need resolved. I had totally forgotten the
feeling of Atari ST computing until I got my family an iMac. Wow, the
feeling returns. I can do stuff with my computer again, and if it
doesn't work out right away, I can figure it out without having to go
online and read TechNet.
Now, with OS-X, I have to ask: would you rather have a toy operating
system like Windoze, or a really robust, military tough solution like
Unix?
"They're in a room with a penguin? Mr. Gates, your men are already
dead..."
=H^)
  • Flagged
0 Votes
+ -
Am I reading this right?
bobiroc Updated - 19th Aug 2009
Or is this implying that when you boot Snow Leopard into 64bit by pressing the 6 and 4 keys down at the same time it means you cannot run 32bit apps? So essentially Snow Leopard is 64bit or 32bit and when in 64bit there is no 32bit support? So unlike Windows when you install their 64bit OSes you can run 32bit software natively and really only have to worry about Drivers and some programs such as Antivirus software. Please somebody verify this because it just cannot be true because it would put a wrench in Apple's usability claims. Also what does it say about their OS development team if they cannot make an OS boot in 64bit and run both 64bit and 32bit software. Forgive me if I interpreted this blog but I would think that if Snow Leopard could boot in 64bit and run both 64 and 32bit software there would be no need for this extra step to remember to boot into the OS.
0 Votes
+ -
32-bit compatible.
RationalGuy 19th Aug 2009
From http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/:

To ensure simplicity and flexibility, Mac OS X still comes in one version that runs both 64-bit and 32-bit applications. So you don?t need to update everything on your system just to run a single 64-bit program. And new 64-bit applications work just fine with your existing printers, storage devices, and PCI cards.
0 Votes
+ -
Key word being: applications
NonZealot Updated - 20th Aug 2009
Everything that isn't an application (drivers, kernel, etc.) has been 32 bit. In essence, OS X is a 32 bit OS with just enough 64 bit compatibility (but none of the advantages) thrown in so that Apple could add the marketing point you linked to above. OS X is not a 64 bit OS and it still won't be even in Snow Leopard unless you press the 6 and the 4 keys while you boot. How intuitive.
0 Votes
+ -
what part of ...
someitguy79 19th Aug 2009
Developer release don't you get?

How many problems did they have w/ 64-bit XP and Vista with compatibility?

Huh???
0 Votes
+ -
As far as applications go
bobiroc 19th Aug 2009
Virtually none. There were some driver support here and there but essentially if it was a 32bit application it ran fine on Vista 64.

How many Apple Fanatics or Linux Fanatics came in bashing Windows 7 RC because a few minor issues. I guess only time will tell how much trouble this causes but if the FINAL release is going to have its users hold down the 6 and 4 key to get into 64bit then it seems like Apple needs to get their act together don't ya think?
As far as applications go Virtually none.

That's a good one. You had me there for a moment wink

I'm certainly no fanboy of any of the camps, I've been on a Windows or Dos desktop for more than 20 years and even written some desktop apps for MS Windows but come on... Virtually none... Really?

In my experience, MS has never rolled out an OS upgrade without application troubles. Except maybe Win95 -> Win98.
0 Votes
+ -
odd
Badgered 19th Aug 2009
To ensure simplicity and flexibility, Mac OS X still comes in one version that runs both 64-bit and 32-bit applications. So you don?t need to update everything on your system just to run a single 64-bit program. And new 64-bit applications work just fine with your existing printers, storage devices, and PCI cards.

If everything would work just fine, why not make the default boot to support 64bit apps?

Doesn't really matter, as I'm sure 64bit app support will be the default when SL ships. It just seems like an odd thing to me.
0 Votes
+ -
Just wondering if you are exempt somehow. I know I'm not!
Your information my not even be relevant to the final release.

Not GM...some stuff still not finished
0 Votes
+ -
Haha, what crap.
Spiritusindomit@... 19th Aug 2009
I mean, I can understand improving performance by limiting the amount of hardware you support, but selling 64-bit procs on a 32-bit EFI? That's laughable.
0 Votes
+ -
yeah...
doh123 20th Aug 2009
yeah.. its almost as bad as selling 64 bit processors running on an old
BIOS set up...
0 Votes
+ -
So what are the disadvantages...
ShadowGIATL Updated - 20th Aug 2009
of running 64bit OS and processors on BIOS? What are the advantages of running them on EFI?
0 Votes
+ -
Can't think of any huh? (nt)
ShadowGIATL 21st Aug 2009
nt
Sounds to me that Apple wants to keep users' computers running.
If the slew of non-Apple drivers are all 32 bit and will not work
with the OS running 64, what good does it do if you boot 64 and
lose drivers because they're not 64? Nah, better to have J.
Clueless still run 32 with power users running 64 until the drivers
are all available (which could/should happen before 10.7 comes
out)
Why?

As was stated elsewhere, you can boot a 64b OS with a 32b EFI.
The hackintosh community already has a solution, too. I fully
expect Apple to release a firmware update to bring 64b EFI to 64b
proc computers. If not, I fully expect lawsuits beginning with
mine.
0 Votes
+ -
But... but... but... OS X was already 64 bit
NonZealot Updated - 20th Aug 2009
We've been told for ages that OS X was already 64 bit in every way that counts and the fact that it had a 32 bit kernel was really not a big deal at all. So why would you sue Apple over something that isn't a big deal? Keep running your 64 bit apps on a 32 bit kernel like you have been for years and its no big deal, right?
0 Votes
+ -
Not entirely correct
Joe_Raby 19th Aug 2009
"you can boot a 64b OS with a 32b EFI"

That's not really true actually. You can boot an operating system with a 32-bit EFI so long as it has a BIOS emulation mode. You see, 64-bit versions of Windows can run on this little classic thing called a BIOS, and it doesn't need to be "32-bit" or "64-bit". The kernel and drivers still run in native 64-bit mode with the CPU though. The only downside (if it really is one) is that the hard drive must be set for an MBT partitioning style instead of GPT. That's all.

Now if you want the OS to run on EFI hardware, you have to make sure the EFI is fully 64-bit for the kernel to be 64-bit, and booting requires a GPT disk. On PC's, you would use something called UEFI, or EFI 2.0. Mac's run a proprietary version of EFI 1.1 which isn't compatible with UEFI. That's why you need an EFI hack to install OS X on a PC, but it's also the reason why you can't install Windows Vista SP1 64-bit natively on a Mac. Instead, the BIOS emulation mode takes over and hides a lot of hardware access from Windows because the BIOS emulation mode is far from perfect in the Mac EFI firmware.
For $100/hour, I will work on your computer to change its default boot.
0 Votes
+ -
But yet
bobiroc 19th Aug 2009
If this was the case even with XP 64bit edition back when it was released the outlash that Microsoft would have to endure even if the Windows OS was still in "testing" phases. Yet however it seems it is OK for Apple to do so. Maybe things will be different with the final release and let me say that I do hope so. Having to hold down keys or making no reasonable guarantee that someone's older 32bit software will not work on a 64bit OS then why should that not be unacceptable. I know they cannot guarantee everything just as Microsoft cannot guarantee everything is compatible in a new release but since Apple has such a smaller support base when it comes to hardware and software don't you think it would be easier for them. After All some feel Apple is vastly superior than Microsoft.
0 Votes
+ -
Didn't you hear?
Joe_Raby 19th Aug 2009
That's what's different in Mac OS X 10.7: Sahara Leopard!
Probably 80% percent wouldn't understand what this was if you told them.

If some app they use or some peripheral they use doesn't work, that would be a big problem.

Apple probably has a list, and once it's satisfied they'll software-update a change and presto.
0 Votes
+ -
If that's the case
Joe_Raby 19th Aug 2009
Apple should stop advertising 64-bit capabilities altogether.
0 Votes
+ -
To Apple's credit
NonZealot Updated - 20th Aug 2009
Nowhere on their website do they claim that OS X is a 64 bit OS. They closest they come is to claim that OS X is "64 bit ready". They rely on the stupidity of their customers to fill in the blank and start spreading the FUD that OS X is a 64 bit OS. From reading the talkbacks, Apple has plenty of reason to believe their strategy will work just fine. happy
0 Votes
+ -
You really aren't educated...
mattmuir 21st Aug 2009
Spread propaganda, and you'll end up nothing but bitter, twisted & uninformed.

Enjoy this article, and stop being such a smarty pants

http://www.apple.com/server/macosx/technology/sixtyfour-bit.html
0 Votes
+ -
FUD? Do you know what that means?
Metronome49 24th Aug 2009
FUD = fear, uncertainty, doubt

It is a business/marketing tactic that relies on spreading those nouns mentioned above about your competitor to make customers not use them.

The way you just used it made no sense whatsoever... it is not a blanket term for spreading misleading information...

Maybe you were thinking RDF? Reality Distortion Field?
0 Votes
+ -
Ah the uninformed
Richard Flude 19th Aug 2009
"According to Apple all system applications except DVD
Player, Front Row, Grapher, and iTunes have been rewritten
in 64-bit. All we need now is for third-party developers
like Mozilla, Microsoft and Adobe (hint, hint!) to start
releasing 64-bit apps :)"

Why? This has nothing to do with the ability to run 64-bit
kernels.

Apple's 32-bit kernel can run 32 AND 64-bit userland
applications. 64-bit applications can address 64-bit virtual
memory when running a 32-bit kernel.

The 64-bit barrier was a big deal on another OS because
of the memory restrictions (system 3.5GB, application
2GB). This isn't an issue on Macs.
0 Votes
+ -
The 64-bit barrier was a big deal on another OS because of the memory restrictions (system 3.5GB, application 2GB). This isn't an issue on Macs.

Actually, the memory issue was true for all 32bit OS until Intel created PAE. Also of note, Windows XP was able to use PAE to address more then 4GB of RAM up until SP2. However upgrading a desktop to more then 4GB of RAM at that time was not cheap, and really not needed for the average user. Which is why not to many even noticed this.

The PAE extentions were disabled because very few OEMs created PAE compatible drivers are the time for Windows. There were driver issues, and considering few systems were running even 2GB at the time it was easist to disable it.

This is why Apple doesn't want to open up their platform. If they degin to have driver problems from OEM vendors, people blame Apple and not the OEM. Just like they do MSFT. Apple's biggest fear is having people blame them. (my opinion)

Here is some of my source:
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/08/09/03/road_to_mac_os_x_snow_leopard_64_bits_santa_rosa_and_the_great_pc_swindle.html
0 Votes
+ -
By uninformed you mean correct?
Richard Flude 20th Aug 2009
"Actually, the memory issue was true for all 32bit OS until Intel
created PAE."

And Tiger introduced 64-bit userland applications using PAE.

"Also of note, Windows XP was able to use PAE to address more then
4GB of RAM up until SP2."

Actually SP2 enabled PAE by default for NX. The OS was restricted to
using 4GB for compatibility reasons, not an issue with Mac OS X
different approach.

"However upgrading a desktop to more then 4GB of RAM at that time
was not cheap, and really not needed for the average user."

32-bit XP or Vista users couldn't have benefited from more than 4 GB
RAM (or less per process)? You know these systems are still sold
today?

"This is why Apple doesn't want to open up their platform. "

Sure this is the reason;-) Mac OS X run 64-bit applications whilst
using a 32-bit kernel. Nothing to do with opening up the platform,
which Apple is far more open than windows.

When you say uninformed you mean correct. More apologising for MS.
0 Votes
+ -
No... you're less correct now then before.
ShadowGIATL 20th Aug 2009
I was pointing out a slight misinformation in your previous post, but then you decided to defend your pro Mac stance by assuming I'm pro MSFT.

Read the link, and you can clearly see how wrong you are.

And Tiger introduced 64-bit userland applications using PAE.

But Macs couldn't address PAE until after Intel released the Santa Rosa platform and later chipsets, so it was limited to 4GB of RAM to. Granted they did take take advantage of it afterwards, but so did Windows through 64bit versions. Kinda moot when both are capable of addressing PAE albiet going about it two different ways.

Actually SP2 enabled PAE by default for NX. The OS was restricted to
using 4GB for compatibility reasons, not an issue with Mac OS X
different approach.


I explained the compatibility was with drivers not being written for the 64bit OS correctly. This is outside of Microsoft's control. Yes, Windows and OSX do take a different approach, as Windows offers a true 64bit OS that offers 32bit compatibility, and Mac offers a 32bit OS that offers 64bit compatibility. The question of which is better is besides the point, as both do their job. But comparing 64bit capable OSX to 32bit only versions of Windows is like comparing a car V8 to a briggs and stratton.

32-bit XP or Vista users couldn't have benefited from more than 4 GB
RAM (or less per process)? You know these systems are still sold
today?


They COULD have, but Microsoft refused to rewrite MMIO addressing to avoid cutting off the lazy hardware OEMs that wouldn't rewrite their drivers. Mac controls most of their own hardware so this was less of an issue. You need more understanding of the underlying infrastructure to avoid making misleading claims. Surely you didn't mean to be misleading.... right?

Sure this is the reason;-) Mac OS X run 64-bit applications whilst using a 32-bit kernel. Nothing to do with opening up the platform,
which Apple is far more open than windows.


How is Apple far more open? I'm curious.
They control the hardware, OS, and drivers. I never said this was a bad thing, as obviously it causes less conflict. Just stated that Apple likes to maintain full control of their systems from one end to the other.

Not everyone likes this though, and they prefer the freedom to control their own system, upgrades, software, drivers, etc. and they choose either Windows or Linux. Obviously, most choose Windows.

I make no appologies for Microsoft deciding to hang on to 32bit for so long, but I do point out that others in the industry as well as consumers were laregly to blame in fear of backwards compatibility. But now that their IS a 64bit Windows OS, stop comparing OSX to a 32bit only OS. It makes no sense. Unless your scared that OSX isn't 64bit enough to compare to 64bit Windows?

Personally, I have always felt that comparing OS was stupid anyway, as they are just different approaches to the same idea. I think the choice in OS and/or hardware is more about personal choice and needs. Use what you want, it's your money.



0 Votes
+ -
A Joke
Richard Flude 20th Aug 2009
"I was pointing out a slight misinformation in your previous post"

Where?

"Read the link, and you can clearly see how wrong you are."

Where?

"I explained the compatibility was with drivers not being written for
the 64bit OS correctly. This is outside of Microsoft's control."

So Apple's continuing with 32-bit kernel, 64-bit OS wasn't an option?

"Mac offers a 32bit OS that offers 64bit compatibility."

By OS you mean kernel?

"But comparing 64bit capable OSX to 32bit only versions of Windows
is like comparing a car V8 to a briggs and stratton."

Why?

"They COULD have, but Microsoft refused to rewrite MMIO addressing
to avoid cutting off the lazy hardware OEMs that wouldn't rewrite their
drivers"

Or like Apple run 64-bit userland apps on 32-bit or 64-bit kernel.

"You need more understanding of the underlying infrastructure to
avoid making misleading claims."

Yet you fail to identify a single point where I mislead! I've been writing
64-bit apps for these platforms. I'm a member of most developer
programs.

"How is Apple far more open? I'm curious."

The kernel is open source. The IO Kit is open source. Most of the lower
OS layer is open source.

"I make no appologies for Microsoft deciding to hang on to 32bit for
so long, but I do point out that others in the industry as well as
consumers were laregly to blame in fear of backwards compatibility."

Make no apologies by offering one;-)

"But now that their IS a 64bit Windows OS, stop comparing OSX to a
32bit only OS."

Mac OS X isn't 32-bit only. Snow leopard largely completes the
transition. For particular hardware snow leopard will run a 32-bit
kernel, for the driver reasons you apologies for MS. There is very little
downside to this (performance wise), with significant benefit.

Snow Leopard is not a 32-bit OS, even if running a 32-bit kernel.
0 Votes
+ -
So now you're joking?
ShadowGIATL 20th Aug 2009
Or like Apple run 64-bit userland apps on 32-bit or 64-bit kernel.

Wow... your a developer and you don't know that doing this requires moving the MMIO addressing and that causes compatibility issues? Unlike Mac, Windows tends to try to keep everyone happy. I think they try to hard at this and it causes problems. At anyrate, you fail to understand the lower level concepts at play here. Where? Look it up. I'm not here to hold your hand.

The kernel is open source. The IO Kit is open source. Most of the lower
OS layer is open source.


None of it is fully open source. The kernel is based on an open source kernel, but Apple does modify it, and no, it is not open source. But if you claim that releasing some code and not all of the code, then by that measure Windows is open source as well. It is not, and neither is OSX.

Make no apologies by offering one;-)

I didn't offer one. It's the nature of the business outside of a closed platform. Stick your head out the Mac door once and a while and you might learn something.

Mac OS X isn't 32-bit only. Snow leopard largely completes the transition. For particular hardware snow leopard will run a 32-bit kernel, for the driver reasons you apologies for MS. There is very little
downside to this (performance wise), with significant benefit.


Seems there was a misread there. I never said OSX was 32bit only.

"But now that there IS a 64bit Windows OS, stop comparing OSX to a
32bit only OS." - I said stop comparing OSX to a 32bit only OS. See the difference?


Snow Leopard is not a 32-bit OS, even if running a 32-bit kernel. I never said it wasn't, however, it is not a TRUE 64bit OS unless it does run a 64bit kernel.

And I never argued which was better, just pointed out some misunderstandings you seem to have.
0 Votes
+ -
Yet I develop on systems where it works
Richard Flude Updated - 20th Aug 2009
"Wow... your a developer and you don't know that doing this requires
moving the MMIO addressing and that causes compatibility issues? "

Actually it doesn't have to cause compatibility issues. ABMers use
these OSes all the time.

"Unlike Mac, Windows tends to try to keep everyone happy."

How, by restricting users to under 4GB of memory? Mac users aren't
happy running memory intensive applications on a 32-bit kernel?

"At anyrate, you fail to understand the lower level concepts at play
here. Where? Look it up. I'm not here to hold your hand."

Windows is the only major OS that has the problem you're compelled
to apologise for.

"None of it is fully open source. The kernel is based on an open source
kernel, but Apple does modify it, and no, it is not open source."

The components I mentioned are open source see opensource.apple.com.

"But if you claim that releasing some code and not all of the code,
then by that measure Windows is open source as well. "

Are you claiming MS releases as much code as Apple?

"Stick your head out the Mac door once and a while and you might
learn something."

Most of my time is developing on Unix, particularly Linux. Oh linux
supports addressing beyond 4GB on 32-bit kernel as well (surprise).

"Seems there was a misread there. I never said OSX was 32bit only."

Fair call.

"it is not a TRUE 64bit OS unless it does run a 64bit kernel."

And it doesn't matter. Having access to 64-bit userland apps is
significant with today's systems and RAM prices. The non-windows
approach offers the best of both worlds for systems waiting on the
transition to a 64-bit kernel (irony, for driver compatibility reason you
claim only impact windows).

"And I never argued which was better, just pointed out some
misunderstandings you seem to have."

What misunderstandings? Your post only apologies for MS 64-bit
transition decisions.
0 Votes
+ -
@Richard...
ShadowGIATL 21st Aug 2009
I apologize for no one. I'm sorry you lack the level of comprehension required to grasp that concept.

If your biggest argument is going to be that anyone that doesn't repeat your words are apologizing for MSFT, then there isn't much point in talking to you.
0 Votes
+ -
I apologise
Richard Flude Updated - 21st Aug 2009
A search for ShadowGIATL reveals every post a MS apology.

Fact remains windows 32-bit desktops are the only platform with
problems addressing more than 4GB. No apology to their customers,
apologies on behave of MS.

Nice if ShadowGIATL was to back up a single one of his accusations. Alas
not the MSCE style.
0 Votes
+ -
Maybe your search is broken?
ShadowGIATL 21st Aug 2009
A search for ShadowGIATL reveals every post a MS apology.

Try again. I have defended Linux on here as well. Also, in several posts including the EC decision on the ballot for web browsers I more then once stated I prefer FireFox over IE.

I understand I struck a nerve when I mentioned Mac, but making up lies does not help your position.

Fact remains windows 32-bit desktops are the only platform with problems addressing more than 4GB. No apology to their customers,
apologies on behave of MS.


They have NO 32bit interfacing at all. So of cource not. OSX has had 64bit for longer, yes. But it is not a full 64bit OS. If there was no reason to switch to full 64bit... then why are they? You're making arguments where there never was one. Also, your are comparing 32bit OS to a partially 64bit OS. Makes no sense.

Nice if ShadowGIATL was to back up a single one of his accusations. Alas
not the MSCE style.


All my points were in the article I cited in the original post. Had you looked at the article you would have noticed it was pro-Mac. But instead, you fired back that I was making excuses for MSFT, and bashing Apple.

You should read before you engage in the FUD slinging. I merely pointed out some misinformation you had, and you go off on a rant. If you like Mac so much, then by all means use a Mac. But after talking to people like you on here, I now know that I will never own one. It appears they make buttholes out of you.
0 Votes
+ -
More of the same
Richard Flude 22nd Aug 2009
"If there was no reason to switch to full 64bit... then why are they? "

Many reasons to switch to 64-bit, MEMERY ADDRESSING one of them.
Particularly when an OS can't address more than 4GB (in 2009).
However you can address these issues without using a 64-bit kernel
in transition, particularly when concerned about compatibility.

"All my points were in the article I cited in the original post. Had you
looked at the article you would have noticed it was pro-Mac."

I read the article a longtime ago. Nothing in it goes against my post,
actually supports it (detailing Apple's transition to 64-bit on a 32-bit
kernel).

"But instead, you fired back that I was making excuses for MSFT, and
bashing Apple."

Your post remains nothing but excusing MS (all 32-bit OS have a
problem, driver issues stuck with 4GB) and a bash for Apple (platform
closed).

"You should read before you engage in the FUD slinging. I merely
pointed out some misinformation you had, and you go off on a rant."

Again where is the misinformation? I was right.

"If you like Mac so much, then by all means use a Mac. But after
talking to people like you on here, I now know that I will never own
one. It appears they make buttholes out of you."

You choose a computer based on some users? Funny, but not
surprising.

You should buy one, then you'll know about the platform you purport
to correct others with extensive experience and knowledge of.
0 Votes
+ -
Tell it to someone that cares.
ShadowGIATL 23rd Aug 2009
You should buy one, then you'll know about the platform you purport
to correct others with extensive experience and knowledge of.


No thanks. Between the higher cost for lower spec hardware, lack of user control over hardware selection, and general attitudes coming from the Apple community these days, I will refrain from doing so.

You may make as many comments as you want about this one, but I will no longer be monitoring this thread, and frankly don't care what BS you think anyway.
0 Votes
+ -
And there we have it
Richard Flude Updated - 23rd Aug 2009
Happy with their ignorance, allows them to believe what they write. It
would be nice if they took the time to learn about what they knock, but
clearly this isn't the MSCE style.
Weird it says No in System Profiler but | | "firmware-abi"
= in Terminal.
0 Votes
+ -
That isn't weird
NonZealot Updated - 20th Aug 2009
You obviously didn't hold down the 'i', 'h', 'e', 'a', 'r', 't', 'j', 'o', 'b', 's' keys while you booted the system.
0 Votes
+ -
Brings back memories...
ShadowGIATL 19th Aug 2009
of that useless turbo button. Anyone remember those?
This worked well for me. My MacBook Pro 2.4GHz
Unibody now boot into 64 bit automatically.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix
ie8 fix