More ways to boot 64-bit Snow Leopard

More ways to boot 64-bit Snow Leopard

Summary: Previously I posted two ways to boot "capable" Macs (other than the Xserve) into 64-bit Snow Leopard: either a) hold down the 6 and 4 keys at boot or, b) edit the Kernel Flag string in the com.apple.

SHARE:

Previously I posted two ways to boot "capable" Macs (other than the Xserve) into 64-bit Snow Leopard: either a) hold down the 6 and 4 keys at boot or, b) edit the Kernel Flag string in the com.apple.Boot.plist file.

Apple Core reader Robert Nicholson notes that there's another way to boot into the 64-bit version of Snow Leopard -- by setting the nvram paramters (similar to verbose booting) as noted on My Grotto:

Print nvram settings

# nvram -p

Set boot-args to use 64 bit kernel

# nvram boot-args="arch=x86_64"

Topics: Networking, Hardware, Processors

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

Talkback

22 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Re: More ways to boot 64-bit Snow Leopard

    Hey...I have a great idea...how about just having the f---ing OS figure out that it is installed on a 64-bit platform, AND BOOT IN 64-bit MODE AUTOMATIICALLY!

    I have 64-bit Windows installed on a 64-bit box, and you know how I boot it? I PRESS THE POWER BUTTON...and just like magic...the computers starts right up. What a concept!
    IT_Guy_z
    • Cupertino, start your photocopiers!

      That's okay. The Aces at Apple will eventually make the change, say they invented it, and claim that it will revolutionize computing.

      Mark my words...
      M.R. Kennedy
    • are you really that lost?

      are you really that lost with the story and this posting that you think
      that even remotely has to do with any of this what-so-ever?

      I'll try to clear up some things, even though I'm doubt it will help
      those that still have such a lack of understanding...

      MS never put out a single OS install that was both 32 bit and 64 bit,
      one install that can boot multiple versions, they kept it all entirely
      separate, so of course nothing like this ever happened with Windows,
      as MS avoided it entirely by making the Windows versions even more
      separated, and wanted double payment, and force people to set up
      dual boots to run both 64 and 32 bit.... and XP 64 bit had all kinds of
      bad and major problems when it came out that it was next to useless
      for most people.

      when you got a 64 bit version of windows and ran it.. it was intended
      that you'd run 64 bit Windows...

      When you get Snow Leopard and run it, it is NOT intended for the
      moment to default to a 64 bit kernel. Apple has been smart enough
      to find other ways around issues than requiring a fully 64 bit version to
      do anything 64 bit. Being able to go ahead and boot a 64 bit kernel
      ahead of time is an option put in, and is not intended to be the
      default, yet... this is to make a transition easier for its customers and
      not requiring all of them to become techs or pay for tech support
      themselves just because of changing technology.

      Saying stuff about how Apple is stupid because they design things in a
      way different than you would like is just as bad as people yelling that
      they don't let you install it on any brand hardware you want either... if
      you do not like what they design their software to do, then don't use
      it... but it doesn't serve any purpose to anyone to just go around
      saying Apple should have different intentions in their design than they
      have, simply because you like someone else's approach better.
      doh123
      • wisdom

        New code has more bugs than well used code. Make 64 bit available to
        everyone but not the default until it has been used for a while. Better for
        users. Better for Apple. So clever. I love it.
        ttrtilley1
    • Exactly what it does

      "Hey...I have a great idea...how about just having the f---ing OS figure
      out that it is installed on a 64-bit platform, AND BOOT IN 64-bit MODE
      AUTOMATIICALLY!"

      The article is about forcing a 64-bit kernel on systems not yet approved
      for running a 64-bit kernel. Userland apps can be 64-bit.
      Richard Flude
    • SUSE...

      I liked the way that SUSE dealt with that back in 2003... When you installed the 32-bit version, it would say "cool hardware, are you sure you don't want to use the 64-bit version?" Or words to that effect.

      I'm hoping, by the time the final release comes around, there will be a preferences applet which allows the user to toggle. There are legitimate reasons to stick with 32-bits and not automatically boot in 64-bit - or to swap between the two.
      wright_is
  • RE: More ways to boot 64-bit Snow Leopard

    My question arises from another column I read on 32 vs 64
    bit. I own a Macbook Pro 13 inch. Is it designed to boot 64
    natively? Or, is it really just 32 bit compatible?

    I thought it was designed for 64 bit operation. So why
    should Snow Leopard run in 32 bit? Because it can? What
    are the advantages and disadvantages of both modes for my
    particular computer? Thanks if you can help end my
    confusion on this.
    czarembo1
    • Some answers

      Firstly we need to differentiate between kernel and userspace
      application. Whilst you may be running a 32-bit kernel, userspace
      applications can be 64-bit on Mac OS X.

      "I own a Macbook Pro 13 inch. Is it designed to boot 64
      natively? Or, is it really just 32 bit compatible?"

      Currently (as of latest seed notes) only the XServes will run a 64-bit
      kernel by default for Snow Leopard. So your MBP will run 32-bit
      kernel, 64-bit applications.

      "So why should Snow Leopard run in 32 bit?"

      Apple supports 64-bit applications on a 32-bit kernel whilst
      transitioning to a 64-bit kernel. 32-bit kernel have the best driver
      support today.

      "What are the advantages and disadvantages of both modes for my
      particular computer?"

      Most of the benefits of x86_64 including larger physical & virtual
      memory address space, wider register, additional registers, additional
      XMM registers, NX are available to 64-bit applications whilst running
      the 32-bit kernel. In many cases these benefits are exposed to 32-bit
      applications (set appropriate compiler settings).

      The negative is mode switches to support the two modes.

      Some applications can run slower in 64-bit due to increase memory
      usage / cache pressure.

      Mac OS X 32-bit kernel restricts usable RAM to 32GB.
      Richard Flude
  • RE: More ways to boot 64-bit Snow Leopard

    http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/170478/wh
    ats_64bit_on_snow_leopard.html
    sonofsquidward
  • RE: More ways to boot 64-bit Snow Leopard

    Oh yeah MORE ways -- because they were ALL listed in the
    seed notes... right, SEED notes. Oh well, whatever, it must
    be the OCD to flip every switch, turn every dial, and boot
    into 64-bit kernel mode just because you need to. Some
    even wasting time with EFI hacks for 32bit EFI to boot into
    64, instead of spending time with girls... and then the
    trolls come out and say "This is as bad as Microsoft - wah
    wah!" "Apple is so mean, they are artificially keeping us
    from 64bit awesomeness :(" "I might as well get Windows 7
    then if they make us hold down keys and stuff!"

    <BARF>

    Get a grip. Stick your 64 bit boot gripes where the sun
    don't shine until the actual Snow Leopard ships. Anything
    before is hot air, b*tchin' and moaning about nothing.
    brunerd
    • why do you bother, if you whant us to not bother?

      why do you bother, if you whant us to not bother? I can't follow any sense in that.

      And moaning now could lead to Apple changing the behaviour, befor the product ships - waiting for the product to ship with such behaviours makes it more difficult to make Apple taking care of customer requests, than it even ist now.
      pard
  • who would really need a 64b Kernel?

    I don't believe that it would make sense for Apple to make 64b kernel the default, just because I would expect many peripheral hardware to not having 64b drivers right now. The hardware industry was unable to use nearly a year of stable driver API in Vista devolopment before release of Vista to have drivers out on Vista release. So why should they do it better with support for Macs? In the time of release of 10.0 cheetah we saw that Apple does not retain better treatment by the hardware industry, than Microsoft did get with Vista. Some Customers complaining "Woohoo, my old Canon scanner doesn't work under 64b SnowLeopard" could be harmful to apple, so it's better to give everybody that, which just works fine for most purposes, including videoapps with dozens of GiB RAM in use - 32b Kernel/KEXTs plus 32b [b]and 64b[/b] userland on top of the 32b Kernel. ;-)
    pard
    • Whaaa?

      [i]The hardware industry was unable to use nearly a year of stable driver API in Vista devolopment before release of Vista to have drivers out on Vista release.

      ...

      In the time of release of 10.0 cheetah we saw that Apple does not retain better treatment by the hardware industry, than Microsoft did get with Vista.[/]

      Uh... wow. Translation, anyone?
      Hallowed are the Ori
  • O'grady needs to run a clarification

    There is no point for most people in running a 64-bit kernel.
    64-bit apps run in 64-bit mode just fine (and just as quick)
    under the 32-bit kernel, just as they did on Leopard. Don't
    waste your time.
    ZDnet Reader 43
  • Get The Real Story Here!

    This link will help clarify things:

    http://www.macworld.com/article/142379/2009/08/snow_le
    opard_64_bit.html?lsrc=nl_mwweek_h_crawl
    yobtaf
  • RE: More ways to boot 64-bit Snow Leopard

    Yes, I have friends with 64 bit Windows. None of their programs work! Wow, what a bunch of crapware!
    czarembo1
  • RE: More ways to boot 64-bit Snow Leopard

    I run 64 bit Windows and all my applications work with no problems. Microsoft knows how to do the change, the same way they did it when moving from 16 bit computers to 32 bit computers. The 32 bit app is run in a virtual space called WOW (Windows on Windows). Oh for the bright person who claimed you can run a 64 bit app on a 32 bit OS - there you are asking for trouble, it will not work. 64 bit applications are starting to show up, I run 64 bit Office and it is much faster and nimble than the 32 bit version. Programs like Firefox, Open Office are also coming out with the 64 bit versions of their software.

    I have 6 computers in front of me operating different versions of Windows. I haven't seen a blue screen since XP SP1. Have never had a Vista crash and Windows 7 is just more of the same. These computers are running a variety of applications for clients that couldn't be run in a Linux or Apple OS environment. I am sick of the MS haters all claiming that their OS is better, no it isn't it is just the fact that 90% of the worlds PC's run Windows, that make it a target. Often a weakness is introduced by another piece of software (eg. Firefox twice having made registry changes that allowed malicious attacks). The other OS's have more holes in them as demonstrated by the recent spate of fixes being sent out (Apple some 94 fixes in two downloads in one month) If Apple had the scale that MS enjoys, we would be listening to a new attack every day for a year, especially since Apple tells its users that they don't need AV software or malicious software protection.
    Rndmacts
    • MS Haters

      Clearly, Rmdmacts does not do much with his Vista machines. I [i]regularly[/i] see freeze ups and spontaneous reboots about 2/5 of the time when I try to do video rendering or conversion, or just happen to leave media center active and the system goes into suspend mode.

      This is a quad core machine from HP, 6GB RAM, etc., etc.

      Also, running 32 bit apps in a 64 bit environment pre-dates MS's ability to do so. VMS had something similar (and much better than the 16 bit code compatibility in WinNT/2k/XP) called an Application Migration Executive that allowed PDP-11 code to run on the VAX-11 under VMS, and that was before M$ even had any operating system at all.

      OS/2, which pre-date NT/Win32 did 16/32 bit better than NT.

      Microsoft screwed up 16 bits under 32 bits, and [i]never[/i] got it right. They may have learned their lesson and now support 32 bit software in a 64 bit environment properly, but they [i]don't[/i] have a good track record in the past in this regard.

      And before you lump me in with the MS haters, in a past life, I made my living programming for Windows and though my experience in that area ended in 2004, I know a lot about that platform pre-Vista. Don't get me wrong; I don't like MS, think they produce mostly inferior software, and have predatory and unethical (if technically legal most of the time) business practices. I am not blindly anti-MS, however. I do use Linux and Unix (I have been a Unix user since the early 1980s and have had v7, SysIII, SysVr3.2, SysVr4, OSF-1, SunOS, BSD-2.x, BSD-4.x, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, Solaris, HP/UX, and Ultrix (plus Venix, Coherent, and a few others along the way) and prefer it as a working environment.

      I also own an old Mac Mini (PPC G4, not Intel Core). MacOS-X is decent, and I expect that Apple will get it right.

      Am I claiming any one OS is better? I have my preferences, but I also have perspective from having been in this industry at one level or another since 1978, and full time since 1981.
      Filker0_z
      • You base you Vista experience on a HP machine??

        Currently trying not to wet myself laughing!

        Work as an IT and Digital Arts teacher, and often get lumped trouble-shooting colleagues' machines. Of all the real "I hate Vista" type issues, [b]95%[/b] of those probs come form HP users!

        Get a real machine and then provide feedback!
        kaninelupus
        • Typical MS shill type response

          Try to deflect any criticism of Windows on to something else. It is
          always the drivers, the hardware, the user - anything but the fault of
          MS. Or, if that doesn't work, change the issue.

          Please get real, if MS can't write something that runs on machines that
          are certified for it, then we can clearly see where the problem lies.

          The fact that 95% of Vista complaints come from HP users, in your
          experience, simply reflects that 95% of your acquaintances bought HP.
          (HP hardware isn't as good as it was pre-Compaq, but it is still good
          quality if you stay away from the cheap stuff.)

          Funnily enough, 100% of complaints I hear about Windows come from
          Windows users. Coincidence? I think not!
          rahbm