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
I see Mac users on the forum, settling down, and encouraging each other by saying that thye "don't need 64bit". And that is fair. The question is why buy an expensive 64bit Computer to run 32bit MacOSX and apps? I personally think that it is not worth it, plus Apple is using the consumer to transition much later to a more powerful OS. This again was done with the 68K Macs and PowerPC migration. Its fine, as long as Apple is up front about it. But they are not [not surprising since many corp aren't forward either]. Instead Apple flashes the hardware specs [high profile, keynote and all] but falls back to eye candy on the 32bit MacOSX.
I think Apple figure its users are not that sharp, they meainly want eye candy, an Apple will always trade power and efficiency and performance, for usability and eye candy. And for some people that's ok.
Now, if you are a regular user, DON"T buy a G5, is hardware that you can't fully utilize with 32bit MacOSX, in other words, overpriced over kill.
Now, if you are a power use, then do what I am planing to do, to buy a G5 asnd put either Linux or AIX on it, I would love to buy a 64bit PPC box backed by IBM! :-)