Keith Combs gives me one more Reason to hate Microsoft…

Posted by on August 30, 2009 Leave a comment (8) Go to comments

Since I doubt my response to Keith will make it through his filters (though maybe he’ll allow it) I’m posting it here.

It is in response to this ridiculous article about his first 24 hours on Snow Leopard:

http://blogs.technet.com/keithcombs/archive/2009/08/30/apple-os-x-snow-leopard-the-first-24-hours.aspx

And My response:

Keith…Some fast notes and your “solution”:

I have been running 12GB of ram in my Mac Pro happily for quite some time now on a 32-bit kernel. VMWare’s happy to tap into it, almost as happy as Windows 7 is to gobble up whatever i give it.

OS X in general has been running 64-bit applications side by side with 32 bit applications, seamlessly, since Tiger.

2 minutes on google shows me that your machine (MacbookPro3,1) isn’t in the table of capable machines for a 64-bit kernel:

http://www.osnews.com/story/22009

Also, why can’t you run 8GB of RAM? Because the hardware doesn’t support it, regardless of the kernel. Its even in the Technote YOU link to in the article. The max RAM of that particular series of MBP’s is 4GB. I believe that is the line of machines you can do some tricks to bypass that, but the official party line is they have a 4GB cap. And even IF you get it enabled, and use a supported set of SO-DIMMs, you STILL don’t need the 64-bit kernel to utilize it, the 32-bit kernel works just peachy.

And as to why they boot to a 32-bit Kernel by default, for the same reason that Windows 7 still has legacy code in it dating back to Windows 3.1. 64-bit kernels break stuff. VMWare refuses to start under a 64-bit kernel. Mouse drivers that use kernel extensions, etc, ALL of which break under a 64-bit kernel, UNTIL the ISV’s recompile them for 64-bit (which they should have been doing since Tiger anyway, but whatever).

But, much like Apple does with EVERY major change like this, they stabilize the feature, and put it out there for the geeks and the tweakers under the assumption that anybody who knows enough to CARE to run in 64-bit mode will know how to enable it. Everybody else will be happy cooking along with their already bad ass operating system.

Please, before you knock something, do your homework. I’m running 64-bit kernels just peachy on my Pro and my 13″ Macbook Pro. I have been compiling and running 64-bit software for 3 years now.

And lets face it, NOBODY out there expects you to find 10.6 to be the most advanced operating system. Especially when the one time i’ve seen you not tow the party line on this blog, the post was removed within the week. Google can forget, but my NetNewsWire cache is forever.

Screen shot 2009-08-30 at 21.25.44 .jpg

And in the interest of backing up my threats, a screen cap from NetNewsWire of one of Keith’s posts responding to the “Laptop Hunter” ads where he doesn’t tow Microsoft’s party line and support them blindly. He actually calls them out on bending the truth, and says he expects them to have more integrity.

After that post was removed, I stopping Following Keith. THAT kind of censoring is ridiculous, especially when there’s nothing in there that isn’t true. I just stumbled across this latest mess and had to respond.

apple, geek, mac, Random, Rants, sysadmin, , , ,
  • Ray

    You troll a Microsoft site looking for Mac love (or anything else resembling accurate info on a competitor)?!?! That’s just ludacrous!!!

  • Ray

    You troll a Microsoft site looking for Mac love (or anything else resembling accurate info on a competitor)?!?! That’s just ludacrous!!!

  • http://www.peelman.us peelman

    Naw, I follow a few Technet blogs to keep pace with things at work. NetNewsWire’s recent merging with Google Reader has turned my News Feeds on their head, so in the mess of it Keith’s blog made it back into my blogroll. I saw that and couldn’t help myself…

  • http://www.peelman.us peelman

    Naw, I follow a few Technet blogs to keep pace with things at work. NetNewsWire’s recent merging with Google Reader has turned my News Feeds on their head, so in the mess of it Keith’s blog made it back into my blogroll. I saw that and couldn’t help myself…

  • http://blogs.technet.com/keithcombs Keith Combs

    My comments are inline to yours at my blog. I’m not particularly sure why you read my blog and get so upset. But I guess we’re all entitled to our own thoughts and opinions.

  • http://blogs.technet.com/keithcombs Keith Combs

    My comments are inline to yours at my blog. I’m not particularly sure why you read my blog and get so upset. But I guess we’re all entitled to our own thoughts and opinions.

  • http://www.peelman.us peelman

    I wouldn’t call it upset Keith. But a LOT of people are going to read that. and YOU can’t post dissent (as has been proven). I do not mean that as a knock against you, but lets call a spade a spade here. Somebody has to correct that, you weren’t TECHNICALLY accurate in every case there, again, Its not a slam, its a fact. Macs running 32-bit kernels use > 4GB every day, including my own. The fact that YOURS does not isn’t of any more relevance to the issue of 64-bit support OR 4GB memory caps, specifically because Apple’s documentation clearly states that the limit is 4GB of RAM.

    If Apple was saying the machines supported 8GB of RAM, and you saw the issues you have seen, then by all means, tear into them. You would not be the only one, i guarantee it. But they don’t say that. And while i’m sure you’re not the only one who’s tried and failed to run 8GB of RAM in a MacbookPro3,1, you’re the only one on a competitors website, on a relatively popular blog, saying that its Snow Leopard’s fault, Apple’s fault, WHEN ITS NOT.

    And I’d like to point out that Keith is correct, that underlying hardware Apple uses is fully capable in other systems (his ThinkPad that he references several times). But the BLACK AND WHITE basis of my argument is: APPLE SAYS NO.

    This is the problem with a Microsoft Blog, taking a crack at an Apple paradigm. Microsoft will support hardware that doesn’t even exist any more. They TOUT that Win7 runs GREAT on older machines. Apple’s approach is more akin to Toasters or Cell phones. when your old model no longer does what you want it to do, or breaks down, or isn’t supported any more, you buy a new one. I’m really sorry that Keith’s machine won’t run Snow Leopard’s 64-bit kernel, but it didn’t make the cut. My fiancee’s iBook won’t run snow leopard at all. In time, she’ll get upgraded to something newer, but for now the iBook serve’s its purpose as an email-checker, a web browser, and occasionally a paper-writer. Keith’s is still an awesome, powerful machine, that is somewhat handicapped by a limit Apple imposes for whatever reason. That limit is well published, and he KNEW it when he bought it. If Keith wanted a machine that would run 8GB of RAM, he should have found one that runs 8GB of RAM, and if not, then exercise this ‘Freedom of choice’ Microsoft is so big on lately and *not* bought the Macbook.

    Keith, man, it ain’t personal, and its not me getting angry or attacking your thoughts or opinions (I leave that to the guys @ AngryMacBastards). Its about the truth, and its the same reason I was pissed off about the Laptop Hunter ads.

  • http://www.peelman.us peelman

    I wouldn’t call it upset Keith. But a LOT of people are going to read that. and YOU can’t post dissent (as has been proven). I do not mean that as a knock against you, but lets call a spade a spade here. Somebody has to correct that, you weren’t TECHNICALLY accurate in every case there, again, Its not a slam, its a fact. Macs running 32-bit kernels use > 4GB every day, including my own. The fact that YOURS does not isn’t of any more relevance to the issue of 64-bit support OR 4GB memory caps, specifically because Apple’s documentation clearly states that the limit is 4GB of RAM.

    If Apple was saying the machines supported 8GB of RAM, and you saw the issues you have seen, then by all means, tear into them. You would not be the only one, i guarantee it. But they don’t say that. And while i’m sure you’re not the only one who’s tried and failed to run 8GB of RAM in a MacbookPro3,1, you’re the only one on a competitors website, on a relatively popular blog, saying that its Snow Leopard’s fault, Apple’s fault, WHEN ITS NOT.

    And I’d like to point out that Keith is correct, that underlying hardware Apple uses is fully capable in other systems (his ThinkPad that he references several times). But the BLACK AND WHITE basis of my argument is: APPLE SAYS NO.

    This is the problem with a Microsoft Blog, taking a crack at an Apple paradigm. Microsoft will support hardware that doesn’t even exist any more. They TOUT that Win7 runs GREAT on older machines. Apple’s approach is more akin to Toasters or Cell phones. when your old model no longer does what you want it to do, or breaks down, or isn’t supported any more, you buy a new one. I’m really sorry that Keith’s machine won’t run Snow Leopard’s 64-bit kernel, but it didn’t make the cut. My fiancee’s iBook won’t run snow leopard at all. In time, she’ll get upgraded to something newer, but for now the iBook serve’s its purpose as an email-checker, a web browser, and occasionally a paper-writer. Keith’s is still an awesome, powerful machine, that is somewhat handicapped by a limit Apple imposes for whatever reason. That limit is well published, and he KNEW it when he bought it. If Keith wanted a machine that would run 8GB of RAM, he should have found one that runs 8GB of RAM, and if not, then exercise this ‘Freedom of choice’ Microsoft is so big on lately and *not* bought the Macbook.

    Keith, man, it ain’t personal, and its not me getting angry or attacking your thoughts or opinions (I leave that to the guys @ AngryMacBastards). Its about the truth, and its the same reason I was pissed off about the Laptop Hunter ads.