Re: Apple and 64 bit apps - the latest in this series
Steve Carroll
news:C4E7F436.D4B9B%use...@gallopinginsanity.com
> "Daniel Johnson" <danielj...@verizon.net> stated in post
> vuSdnQJdTLR4PF_V...@supernews.com on 9/6/08 8:29 AM:
>
>>> Make up your mind which compatibility you want, 16 bit, 32 bit or 64
>>> bit.
>>
>> I want it *all*!
>>
>> But regardless of what I want, it appears that the broader market
>> wants 64-bit rather more than it wants 16-bit; hence the pickup in
>> 64-bit Windows sales. I had not expected this.
>>
>> But I welcome it, because now I get to back OS X's poor 64-bit
>> support the more vigorously. It turns out 64-bit computing isn't
>> something on the distant horizon after all. It's what high-end
>> consumer boxes do today. As long as they aren't Macs, of course. :D
>
> <http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/64bit.html>
> -----
> Leopard delivers 64-bit power in one universal operating
> system. Now the Cocoa application frameworks, as well as
> graphics, scripting, and the UNIX foundations of the Mac, are
> all 64-bit. And since you get full performance and
> compatibility for your 32-bit applications and drivers, you
> donšt need to update everything on your system just to run a
> single 64-bit application.
> -----
>
> 64 bit computing is here *now* for all users of OS X Leopard... and
> Snow Leopard will push 64 bit computing even further.
>
> Will be interesting to see what trade-offs are made for Snow Leopard
> - what will no longer be supported?
Why do you always settle for tradeoffs, Snit? Why not just use something
that works as advertised?
Prepare for the crickets to churp on that one. You will never answer.
Coward.
--
"Apple is pushing how green this is - but it [Macbook Air] is
clearly disposable... when the battery dies you can pretty much
just throw it away". - Snit
John Q Public
Duh, Macs had the 1st 64 bit processors before intel put them in
desktops it was called
the G5 processor, thus macs for all practical purposes had a 1-2 year
jump on the
market for 64 bit processors on commercial desktops so I fail to see
what you are
arguing about?
Also OSX has always been UNIX based and Windows Vista tried but failed to
include many of the innovations in OSX even after being years behind schedule
in its release!
Steve Carroll
Tim Murray <no-...@thankyou.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Sep 2008 17:24:49 -0400, Steve Carroll wrote:
> > doesn't matter....
>
> Why did you add those other newsgroups? Anxiety-panic? Politics?
>
> Dreamweaver?
You answered a forgery. Notice the path of this post (the server in
Germany)...
then look at Snit's path. Snit is obviously trying to play the victim again.
Steve Carroll
news:2008090618201950073-interjecting@2centscom
Are you willing to settle for tradeoffs and prove you are a sockpuppet/shill
of Snit?
Steve Carroll
news:SRCwk.23971$XB4....@bignews9.bellsouth.net
> On Sat, 6 Sep 2008 17:24:49 -0400, Steve Carroll wrote:
>> doesn't matter....
>
> Why did you add those other newsgroups? Anxiety-panic? Politics?
>
> Dreamweaver?
I did not. That is Snit who is forging my posts and trying to play victim.
He does not care who he hurts as he plays his drug induced games.
Steve Carroll
> On Sat, 6 Sep 2008 17:24:49 -0400, Steve Carroll wrote:
>
>> something that works as advertised?
>>
>
I did not add them originally so I have put them back now.
> Guess why you can't run your 2008 app on a 1994 operating system on a
> 1982 machine? Products move on. Support for things gets jettisoned
> ... that's called a tradeoff. Changes in one of the big three --
> applications, operating system, and hardware -- oftentimes force
> changes in another.
>
> If you want to minimize but not eliminate tradeoffs, by all means,
> stick with Windows, and all the bloat the comes with making sure no
> one is pained by a tradeoff.
Snit said he is willing to settle for tradeoffs and not use what is best.
He even said all engineering is tradeoffs. Are you saying you are stupid
enough to side with him?