Linked by Jeremy T. Fox on Fri 11th Jul 2003 16:55 UTC
Mac OS X 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.
RE: Mistik jogelour (IP: 209.11.79.---)
by CooCooCaChoo on Fri 11th Jul 2003 16:29 UTC

Regarding the eye candy vs. speed argument. What they (Mac proponents) are pointing out is the fact that there is no noticable slow down in responsiveness which is due to all the eye candy being shifted off to the GPU, and with the 8x AGP slot on the G5, it should be very interesting.

As for the over performance, the question I want to know is this. Apple has just updated/upgraded their PowerMac line, when will the unwashed masses see a speed increase in the consumer line of Apple desktops? is Apple quietly giving up and instead focusing on the professional line of workstations?

I've just had a look at IBM's new (well, new to me) ThinkCentre series, and after having a look at the price, how can Apple justify charging $1899 for an eMac when I can pick up a ThinkCentre A Desktop for $1550 then add $400 or so for the screen. For an extra $50 one gets a 2.6Ghz P4 + 256MB + 17inch screen + 64MB DDR graphics card.

If Apple was selling the low end eMac with a 1.25Mhz PowerPC G4 + 64 DDR Graphics Card + 256MB memory, then the idea of purchasing one would be very tempting, however, I can't see why one would purchase something of that lack luster performance?

Sure, their pro workstations are a bargin, but their desktop range is a bit of a ripoff in comparison to what is available.