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
> whoopdie do. Apple has a fast chip now. I am happy. I
> don't care if the OS is a "true" 64-bit OS or not.
Well, for that matter neither do I (not much anyway). It'll mean that we won't have to worry about application compatibility woes for some time, at least until apple switches to 64bit fully (which they WILL have to do at some time).
The main plus from all of this is that the processor wars look to be over. The MHz myth is now history and pc-buyers can buy computers based on software merit rather than superiority of hardware. Not to say PPC has ever been inferior technically, only speed wise.
But anyway, those wanting 64bit computational ability can use NetBSD, OpenBSD or Linux. I'm confident that these O.S.S OSses will soon have PPC970 ports available.