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
>Longhorn is a 32-bit OS non-the-less (period)
I actually don't care about M$ bloated ware.
>64 bit Operating Systems are not truely defined yet (period)
Nonsense! You are kidding right? Ever heard of Tru64 and the other 64bit gang, including Linux and AIX(when IBM ports it)?
64bit was not invented by Apple, and MacOSwhatever [if it ever gets there] is not going to be the first 64bit OS, live with it!
>What about Mac OS X 10.4 that will have an install base >before Longhorn gets off the ground? Will it be 64 bit >hands down?
Well on that one I don't know, it seems that Apple concentrates or attracts a different market than M$. M$ tends to be more bussiness office oriented and MAcs more Artsyfartsy. Was hoping that Apple would take a different direction but for the most part it hasn't happen yet, though there are exceptions to this on the Mac side.