OSNews > Thread > "RE[2]: MacOS X: kernel 32bit, userland 64bit?" by gousiosg

Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 21st Jan 2009 11:30 UTC

We've been able to drop the world of 32bit for a while now, with 64bit processors and support for them being prevalent in all popular, modern operating systems. However, where Mac OS X and Linux seem to make the move to 64bit rather effortlessly, Windows has more problems. Even though 32bit applications should run fine on 64bit Windows, some don't; and to make matters worse, drivers need to be 64bit, as there's no support for 32bit drivers in 64bit versions of Windows. Still, Gizmodo claims that with Windows 7, the time is right to take the plunge. But really, is it so? And why do Linux and Mac OS X seem to handle the transition so much easier?

1 · Read More · 120 Comment(s)

http://osne.ws/g29

Thread beginning with comment 344705
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.

RE[2]: MacOS X: kernel 32bit, userland 64bit?

by gousiosg on Wed 21st Jan 2009 12:51 UTC in reply to "RE: MacOS X: kernel 32bit, userland 64bit?"

Member since:
2006-03-02

On my Core 2 MacbookPro the kernel seems to run in 32bit mode.

MacBook:/ gousiosg$ file /mach_kernel
/mach_kernel: Mach-O universal binary with 2 architectures
/mach_kernel (for architecture i386): Mach-O executable i386
/mach_kernel (for architecture ppc): Mach-O executable ppc

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 1

RE[3]: MacOS X: kernel 32bit, userland 64bit?

by kaiwai on Wed 21st Jan 2009 18:01 in reply to "RE[2]: MacOS X: kernel 32bit, userland 64bit?"

Member since:
2005-07-06

On Mac OS X right now it uses PAE to access/detect memory above 4GB, however, there is a performance penalty associated with it.

Snow leopard will be the first 'pure' 64bit version of MacOS X - it'll be interesting to see how many vendors jump onboard and start compiling their stuff to take advantage of the new features.

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 2