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
No it would be worse for MS and wintel than for Apple. The aim would be for different markets - the corporate market that isn't buying Apple.
The people who buy Apple because it just works and because OS X has the smoothest desktop environment aren't going to buy a copy of OS X and put it on an IBM box (even if it is cheaper which it may not necessarily be) because it won't be guaranteed to just work - driver problems etc. A few Unix cross platform geeks may well try it for fun but thats not going to be significant for the market.
It might whowever hit Sun's remaining workstation market quite hard though.