5 ms·

About time. There was only 1 generation of Intel macs that didn’t have 64-bit and it is not supported by latest OS anyways.

rconti 9y ago
Would that have been MacBook/iMac/Mac Mini type models? I have a first-gen Mac Pro (August 2006) and it's 64-bit.
- lostgame 9y ago
  The lower models in the 2006 line used 32-bit processors, including MacBooks, iMacs and Mac Minis, while more expensive models favoured the 64-bit Core 2 Duo processors.
  - haikuginger 9y ago
    That's not accurate; first generation MacBook Pros used 32-bit Core Duo processors as well, as did almost all the early-2006 models; the exception being the lowest-end Mac Mini, which had a single-core 32-bit Core Solo. 32-vs-64-bit was never used for price differentiation within a lineup; Intel's 64-bit chips just weren't ready in time. Late-2006 models, including the first-generation Mac Pro, moved from the 32-bit Yonah Core Duo/Core Solo architecture to the 64-bit Conroe Core 2 Duo.
- yuhong 9y ago
  Yes, based on Core 1 (Yonah) processors.
- rangibaby 9y ago
  It’s 64bit but unless you installed a modified boot loader it will only boot into 32bit OSX
Aloha 9y ago
Why does it matter? It's not as if there is any real performance penalty of running 32-bit and 64-bit apps concurrently.
- gok 9y ago
  Sure there is. You need an entire second copy of every user space library to be resident in DRAM (and on disk)
  - Aloha 9y ago
    Why would you need every userspace library in memory? - you'd only have the libraries in use by applications in memory.
    - gok 9y ago
      Sure but any Mac app that uses AppKit (that is, ~any GUI app) pulls in about 300 MB of executable dependencies at a minimum. More for apps that uses rarer frameworks.
      - Aloha 9y ago
        I suspect a majority of 32-bit apps are CarbonLib, which has a smaller footprint, how much smaller, I dont know.
- tinus_hn 9y ago
  There are real support costs for making it work. I don’t want to pay so you can run apps that belong in a museum.

rconti 9y ago

Would that have been MacBook/iMac/Mac Mini type models? I have a first-gen Mac Pro (August 2006) and it's 64-bit.

lostgame 9y ago
The lower models in the 2006 line used 32-bit processors, including MacBooks, iMacs and Mac Minis, while more expensive models favoured the 64-bit Core 2 Duo processors.
- haikuginger 9y ago
  That's not accurate; first generation MacBook Pros used 32-bit Core Duo processors as well, as did almost all the early-2006 models; the exception being the lowest-end Mac Mini, which had a single-core 32-bit Core Solo. 32-vs-64-bit was never used for price differentiation within a lineup; Intel's 64-bit chips just weren't ready in time. Late-2006 models, including the first-generation Mac Pro, moved from the 32-bit Yonah Core Duo/Core Solo architecture to the 64-bit Conroe Core 2 Duo.
yuhong 9y ago
Yes, based on Core 1 (Yonah) processors.
rangibaby 9y ago
It’s 64bit but unless you installed a modified boot loader it will only boot into 32bit OSX

Aloha 9y ago

Why does it matter? It's not as if there is any real performance penalty of running 32-bit and 64-bit apps concurrently.

gok 9y ago
Sure there is. You need an entire second copy of every user space library to be resident in DRAM (and on disk)
- Aloha 9y ago
  Why would you need every userspace library in memory? - you'd only have the libraries in use by applications in memory.
  - gok 9y ago
    Sure but any Mac app that uses AppKit (that is, ~any GUI app) pulls in about 300 MB of executable dependencies at a minimum. More for apps that uses rarer frameworks.
    - Aloha 9y ago
      I suspect a majority of 32-bit apps are CarbonLib, which has a smaller footprint, how much smaller, I dont know.
tinus_hn 9y ago
There are real support costs for making it work. I don’t want to pay so you can run apps that belong in a museum.