comp.sys.mac.advocacy

"Sandman" wrote in message
news:mr-247A86.17214004042008@News.Individual.NET...
> In article ,
> "Daniel Johnson" wrote:
>
>> You did. And you seem to have said so by accident, but we'll let that
>> pass.
>>
>> Still, even with Adobe behaving in this incomprehensibly pro-Apple
>> manner,
>> *still* Mac users lose because of Apple's poor 64-bit efforts. You may
>> get
>> 64-bit Photoshop someday, but Windows users are going to get it first.
>
> What Windows users didn't get first was a modern operating system,

Sure they did. Windows NT, in 1993.

> or a system that can 32bit and 64bit at the same time,

Windows can run 64-bit and 32-bit apps at the same time. It can't have a
kernel that goes both ways, but neither can OS X.

The subject of this thread is, of course, how OS X can't even have 64-bit
apps, in practice. :D

> or a secure system. They're still playing catchup to Apple on those, and a
> multitude of other parameters. :)

It amazes me less that Macolytes believe Apple's marketing about security.
It's comforting, and Apple actually does pretend to be secure.

> What legacy APIs in Windows are 64 bit by the way? Just for
> information, not saying there aren't any.

I can't tell what you mean by this. Win64 is the 64-bit version of the
Windows API, just as Win32 was the 32-bit version and Win16 the 16-bit
version. The continuity between Win32 and Win64 is very strong- much
stronger than with Win16- so that it's quite straightforward to write code
that compiles against both.