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
If you don't really *use* 64 bit addressing, extending all core OS functions to 64 bits only makes *everything* slower. If the upper 32bits of the registers can survive context switching under 10.3 and if you don't need to address >2GB memory, you have best of both worlds.
BTW, all *BSDs are already 64 bit clean. I wonder why OS-X need more than a recompilation to be a 64bit OS - at least for kernel stuff.