broadband2go using 64bit OS X kernel?

My VirginMobile Broadband2Go USB 3G modem works great using the 32 bit OS X kernel (10.6.5), but if I boot into the 64 bit kernel (by holding down the 6 & 4 keys when booting) it fails to function. It shows up under Network Preferences but the Connect button is grayed out.

If I physically unplug it and then plug it back in, it opens the installation windows as if this was the first time I was connecting it. I can then run the installer, and it seems to complete normally, but the Broadband2Go app is not installed, and the modem (still showing up in Network Preferences) doesn't allow me to connect.

This isn't the end of the world, as it does work under the 32 bit kernel, but I was wondering if anyone has had success with this using the 64 bit kernel.

Noobishly yours,:Blushing:

Ed

You may want to contact Virgin and see if they support the 64-bit OS..if not..not much you can do about it short of running 32-bit..

Regards

Raz0rEdge said:

You may want to contact Virgin and see if they support the 64-bit OS..if not..not much you can do about it short of running 32-bit..

Regards

Click to expand...

Thanks for responding, I'll contact Virgin just to encourage them to "fully" support OS X in all it's flavors.

That would be ideal..but the influx of 64-bit processor and OS' that use them is a recent enough thing that not a lot of vendors have fully embraced it. It'll change in time though..

What is strange, however, is that when you are running the 64-bit OS, it should allow 32-bit applications to continue to function..

Regards

Reminds me of the old story. A man goes to his doctor and says, "Doctor, it hurts when I raise my arm." Doctor says, "Don't raise your arm."

There's a reason why Apple doesn't set MacBooks to boot into 64-bit mode by default: 32-bit mode has better driver compatibility.

There is no advantage to using a 64-bit kernel; why do it?

There is no advantage to using a 64-bit kernel; why do it?

Click to expand...

Well, 64 bit is twice as fast as 32 bit isn't it? How many times have I heard that one.....?

chscag said:

Well, 64 bit is twice as fast as 32 bit isn't it? How many times have I heard that one.....?

Click to expand...

Like totally..I mean it's 32 extra bits..they HAVE to do something good right..why have those bits if they aren't making me browse the Internet faster or make my word processing fly!

Regards

chscag said:

Well, 64 bit is twice as fast as 32 bit isn't it? How many times have I heard that one.....?

Click to expand...

So many times, I have given up trying to explain it. It falls on deaf ears.

I know a lot of us grew up in a generation that started with 8-bit Ataris and Nintendos, and then were dumbfounded by the 16-bit Sega Genesis, and then later, the 32-bit Playstation, each of which were an order of magnitude more powerful and immersive. So, I think we subconsciously think that 64-bit means the same kind of evolution.

There is no advantage to using a 64-bit kernel; why do it?

Click to expand...

A 5-10% speed boost for certain tasks seems reason enough for me:

MPG - Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard - Snow Leopard Performance

Benchmark results for Snow Leopard: 32- versus 64-bit kernel | Jonathan Birge

northrnchimp said:

A 5-10% speed boost for certain tasks seems reason enough for me:

Click to expand...

Really? You'd take a tiny speed increase on a handful of tasks even if that meant you couldn't get on the Internet?

Priorities, I guess.

Really? You'd take a tiny speed increase on a handful of tasks even if that meant you couldn't get on the Internet?

Click to expand...

I think you confused me with the thread starter, I'm not having any connection problems, or any problems at all in six months of the 64-bit kernel.