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
"[the G5] overpriced for a 32bitOS runing on it."
Not at all. As a matter of fact, its a sweet bargain.
"You can do better with x86 Linux, or even with G4 linux."
The comparitive tests have shown otherwise.
"It could be cheaper for the user if Apple stops the eye candy factory and Optimizes 32Bit MacOSX to run faster."
OS X has no eye candy, but it certinly has a lot of Aesthetically pleasing qualities all of which take advantage of Quartz extreme which means that there is no speed degridation. As a Matter of fact, Quartz extreme is overkill, so Apple could theoretically afford to add more Aesthetically pleasing qualities that might have otherwise slowed down the OS without it.
"Apple seems to shift the burden of their slow code onto higher end hardware. IMHO not worth it."
This assumption assumes that Apple is not incorporating Quartz extreme which allows their aesthetically pleasing qualities to not happer processor speed in any way.
"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"
Who is joe eye candy and why would he buy OS X? It has no eye candy?
"the price point and the inefficiency on top is brutal, IMO."
OS X is very efficient and the price point is EXCELLENT for those that could use the increased power.
"Then again if someone wants to blow money on Apple, they can certainly do so."
The same is true for any computer. Thankfully, buying an Apple is a wise purchase.
"So when do get a snappy, efficient MacOSX when Gn that is 128bit is introduced?"
Nope. It's sold right now. its called jaguar.
"Apple needs to face the music and fix MacOSX"
Face what music? OS X isn't broken.
"[Apple needs to stop] pumping flowers through people's pupils.",/i>
What flowers are you talking about?
[i]"Don't get me wrong, that is why I don use M$ either"
What flowers does microsoft use?
"[Microsoft] play[s] the same game with Windoze, they always claims that you need more Ram and faster processor for their crappy OS to work better"
Because Microsoft doesn;t not incorporate technology similar to Quartz Extreme, you may have a point there.
it is still no excuse to shift the burden on hardware for their bad code."
What bad code are you talking about?