Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 18th Aug 2009 18:46 UTC
Mac OS X Even though Apple has been hyping up the 64bit nature of its ucpoming Snow Leopard operating system, stating it will be the first Mac OS X release to be 64bit top-to-bottom, reality turns out to be a little bit different so far. With the current Snow Leopard seed, only Xserve users get the 64bit kernel and drivers - all other Macs default to 32bit. By holding down the '6' and '4' keys during boot, you can to boot into full 64bit mode - that is, if your Mac supports it. As it turns out, some Macs with 64bit processors cannot use the 64bit kernel because the EFI is 32bit. Note: I should have included in the article that 64bit applications will run just fine (including benefits) on a 32bit kernel in Mac OS X. Since this was already possible in Leopard, I assumed people were well aware of that. Turns out some were not, so my apologies for that.
Permalink for comment 379580
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Idiotic article
by Hakime on Thu 20th Aug 2009 06:53 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Idiotic article"
Member since:

I didn't even think for one second to include the info about the 32bit kernel being able to run 64bit applications in Mac OS X, because as a long-time Mac user, this is something I already know, and more or less assumed everybody else did too.

I hardly believe that. If so, why did you you specifically insinuate that Apple is sort of artificially limiting the 64 bits goodies for its users? You clearly poorly understood what it was about. If i am wrong, then your phrasing was so bad that most of people reading you understood that it won't be possible to run 64 bits apps on Leopard or Snow Leopard on machines which don't boot a 64 bits kernel. And again you intentionally insinuate it, from your article:

On top of that, even if your MacBook has a 64bit EFI, you will only be able to boot the 32bit version of Snow Leopard - again because of an artificial limitation by Apple for MacBooks.


So, even if you have a 64bit processor, and you thought you were in the clear, Apple might not give you the option to go 64bit.

Not only those statement are wrong, they do mislead the reader unfamiliar on the matter. I mean what this statement

Apple might not give you the option to go 64bit.

is supposed to mean then?

Am i am wrong? Prove it, rewrite your article.

Also knowing that you can run 64 bits apps with a 32 bits kernel on OS X, by definition this knowledge won't bring you to such statement:

This means that while both Linux and Microsoft have more or less completed the 64bit transition because they started early on, Apple is trailing behind and still needs to wait for its driver base to update their drivers - something which has already happened on competing platforms.

Because saying that poorly fits to the reality of 64 bits computing on OS X.

This article is specifically about the kernel and drivers though, so it's all still correct

Is is not correct because again you intentionally insinuate that booting a 32 bits kernel has some drawbacks for the user, which again it is far to be the case. As i explained, a 64 bits kernel brings little to most mac users. Most mac users don't run on any sort of limitation of the address space that the kernel can map, and i doubt that a lot of them will run more than 2500 processes at the same time. Even faster system calls is not a big deal for the typical workload of the average user. On the other hand, for a machine like the Xserve, it makes much more sense to load a 64 bits kernel.

But in your article you say clearly that Apple is limiting its users with artificial limitations by not loading the 64 bits kernel on all configurations and doing so do not allow to go for 64 bits. This is plain wrong.

Prove your honesty, correct the article. Write an informative article not a trolling one.

And i am doing you a favor calling it an article.

Edited 2009-08-20 07:02 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3