Linked by Jeremy T. Fox on Fri 11th Jul 2003 16:55 UTC
A recent article by Tony Smith from The Register titled "Mac OS X 10.3 Panther will not be a 64-bit OS" caused a good deal of confusion with many people, including me. It is also caused a heated argument here on OSNews. The basic point of the article is that Mac OS 10.2.7 and 10.3 are not "true" 64-bit OSes, but the article does not clearly explain what a "true" 64-bit OS is. This had led to a lot of claims that the article is false or misinformed, rather than just unclear, which is certainly is.
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Right now, in HP/UX 11i, it is a jumble of 32/64-bit APIs, some are 32-bit data vs. 64-bit data, others are 32-bit addressing vs. 64-bit addressing, others use large files (>2G), etc. Every single combination of "bit-ness" requires a separate library and corresponding set of compiler switches. Once you roll in 3rd-party libraries, the mish-mash of ABI's is a pain in the ass. Because of this, an HP/UX programmer using 3rd-party libraries is safer using 32/32-bit versions.
Does it really freaking matter if every single program used on the Mac is bound to a 4G barrier that no one approaches, as opposed to breaking every application, increasing the development and QA cycle, just for a single Fortran programmer?
Give me a break.