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.
>You're missing one thing: if the G5 were a 32-bit machine the >new G5 Macs would still be damn fast at a decent price.
Well, I don't want to open that can of worms, but no is overpriced for a 32bitOS runing on it. You can do better with x86 Linux, or even with G4 linux.
It could be cheaper for the user if Apple stops the eye candy factory and Optimizes 32Bit MacOSX to run faster. Apple seems to shift the burden of their slow code onto higher end hardware. IMHO not worth it.
Now, if you buy a G5 with AIX, or to put Linux on it, and you have the computational requirements to do so, then go ahead. But Joe Eye-candy Panther, doesn't need the machine, the price point and the inefficiency on top is brutal, IMO. Then again if someone wants to blow money on Apple, they can certainly do so.
So when do get a snappy, efficient MacOSX when Gn that is 128bit is introduced? No, Apple needs to face the music and fix MacOSX, instead of pumping flowers through people's pupils. Don't get me wrong, that is why I don use M$ either, they play the same game with Windoze, they always claims that you need more Ram and faster processor for their crappy OS to work better, although true for every OS, is still no excuse to shift the burden on hardware for their bad code. Look at BeOS and others, they run way better with less hardware.