flacker Posted September 30, 2010 Share Posted September 30, 2010 I was running 64 bit, but after fiddling with my boot loader(s) I now seem to be defaulting into 32 bit! This led to my wondering whether there really is much advantage to running in 64, given that some kexts I might like are only available in 32. Given that my machine has 4 gigs of ram, and is not a "Core Duo", but is dual core, am I taking much of a performance hit in just sticking to 32? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SystemError51 Posted September 30, 2010 Share Posted September 30, 2010 I was running 64 bit, but after fiddling with my boot loader(s) I now seem to be defaulting into 32 bit!This led to my wondering whether there really is much advantage to running in 64, given that some kexts I might like are only available in 32. Given that my machine has 4 gigs of ram, and is not a "Core Duo", but is dual core, am I taking much of a performance hit in just sticking to 32? Pretty much this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XLR Posted September 30, 2010 Share Posted September 30, 2010 If you're talking about OSX, then 64 bit can be an advantage only for those who have more than 32GB of RAM. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Vermelho Posted September 30, 2010 Share Posted September 30, 2010 Yep. XLR is new here, but he's right. lol OS X is not like Windows, it is perfectly capable of running 64-bit software and can address up to 32GB RAM when it's running in 32-bit kernel and drivers mode. It's nothing new, Leopard 10.5.x could do that too. Read this article from the author of the OS X bible: http://www.osxbook.com/blog/2009/08/31/is-...ow-leopard-k64/ Something funny (from a Windows users perspective) - some Macs have 64-bit capable CPUs but cannot run in 64-bit kernel and drivers mode because their EFI firmware is 32-bit. But, if you install Snow Leopard in VMWare on one of those Macs then you can run it in 64-bit mode. Try that on 32-bit Windows and see how far you get. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flacker Posted September 30, 2010 Author Share Posted September 30, 2010 That's kind of along the lines I was thinking. The link referred to above seemed to suggest there is a hardware problem in addressing the 4gigs, although that article IS three years old. Given that my machine IS 64bit, perhaps that h/w limitation is overcome, and the 32bit OS likewise can see all that memory(?) In my 32 bit boot, in any case, Activity Monitor does show 4 gigs available (plus 106 virtual!). If you're talking about OSX, then 64 bit can be an advantage only for those who have more than 32GB of RAM. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Vermelho Posted September 30, 2010 Share Posted September 30, 2010 The link referred to above seemed to suggest there is a hardware problem in addressing the 4gigs, although that article IS three years old. It doesn't matter how old it is, it's about Windows and therefore of no consequence to l33t people like us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flacker Posted October 1, 2010 Author Share Posted October 1, 2010 So, am I correct then in concluding that even though my hardware IS capable of booting the 64 bit kernal, there's really no significant advantage in doing so? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hangten Posted October 1, 2010 Share Posted October 1, 2010 So, am I correct then in concluding that even though my hardware IS capable of booting the 64 bit kernal, there's really no significant advantage in doing so? Yes... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.