comp.sys.mac.advocacy

In article <8Zadnd7R1K_o-WvanZ2dnUVZ_vmlnZ2d@supernews.com>,
"Daniel Johnson" wrote:

> "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.

A/UX, 1988.

In the end, Windows gained a modern operating system with Windows
Vista, and ironically no one seems to want it. Go figure.

> > 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

Making stuff up always seems to be your practice, yes.

> > 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.

Apples marketing? One has only to live in the real world to see how
the sad state of Windows security is.

> > 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.

So, what Legacy API is 64 bit now again?



--
Sandman[.net]