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.
Which goes RIGHT BACK to a post I made earlier that Apple should have licensed AIX core off IBM and worked their GUI magic on it. Too bad they had to go what they have now. Having run it several times (I was actually keen at one stage to buying one), I really see no advantage to Windows XP, 2000 or what ever mainstream operating system you can point out.
As for Windows 2000/XP stability, as a desktop I have been running it for a good 5 months with out a BSOD. The only reboot I did make was because of SP4 installation.
I can now actually see what Gil Bates was going on about previously, which I agresively flamed. Btw, sorry about that Gil. The fact remains, where is the justification for paying extra for Mac hardware and software? I've looked at it form both a Holistic point of view and individual components and I still can't see an advantage.
Holistically, yes, there is greater chance of system stability because all the parts are chosen and the operating system is tweaked so that the hardware and software work well together. However, on closer inspection, how is that any different to the programmes that run between IBM and Microsoft? or infact, any vendor and Microsoft.
I then looked at the individual components. The operating system in itself is nice, however, it lacks a sufficient based of applications to select off for it to become more mainstream. Hardware wise, no matter how you slice it, they are way behind in terms of speed. The G5 has matched it, however, they're focused on the high end. What is happening with the consumer end of the market.
If Apple is leaving the consumer market, why not just say so? IMHO, Apple would be alot better of focusing on the processional market where the premiums are better, the clients are willing to pay those premiums and that benchmarks are not always the deciding factor for purchasing something.