Brad Cavanagh wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Sep 2005, Norman Gray wrote:
>
>>> So Tiger does support 64bit from the marketting stand point but not from
>>> the usability standpoint.
>>
>>
>> Hrumph. It might be the sort of thing that'll be fixed in some
>> SoftwareUpdate or other.
>
>
> I believe that full 64-bitness is supposed to be held off until 10.5,
> whenever that comes out, although that's just rumours.
>
> For interesting read on Apple and x86 that just so happens to include a
> good bit about OS X's 64-bitness, check out
> http://www.drunkenblog.com/drunkenblog-archives/000555.html
>
> Choice quote: "Here's a dirty little secret that surprises more people
> than it should: Mac OS X is already fairly warped when it comes to
> 64-bit computing. It works, and it's there if you're willing to jump
> through a bunch of hoops, but you'd have to be remarkable in your
> definition of what a 64-bit OS was to give the moniker to OS X as it
> currently stands."
>
> Brad.
All,
Just out of curiosity, could you not build X11 etc for 64bit and then
link against that? Or is there some other problem with that? OK it would
not the the OS X supplied X etc but who is counting.
Steve.
|