Mark, where exactly did I "slam" $now Leopard? I don't have any problem with either approach. I just think it's amusing that TP manages to find that defaulting to a 32-bit kernel in a 64-bit OS is superior engineering. If MS did that, he'd be dripping with contempt and sarcasm, and saying "Why am I not surprised?", and we all know it.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Computer Guys Discussion List [mailto:computerguy...@listserv.aol.com] > On Behalf Of Snyder, Mark > - IdM (IS) > Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 7:31 AM > To: COMPUTERGUYS-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM > Subject: Re: [CGUYS] Mac Transition to 64-Bit > > Not sure why you're flailing on this. Mac OS 10.6, Snow Leopard, can be > set to load 64-bit, every time, if desired, or left to the default, to > load the 32-bit kernel. Windows users must install one or the other. > This is not a huge difference. Why split hairs? I like Apple's > approach; if I need to use 32-bit kernel to work with older software, I > can, and can switch when 32-bit is no longer needed. M$ does provide > 32-bit or 64-bit. This is at installation, but I don't slam them for > that. Why the nit-picking? > > Thank you, > > Mark Snyder > -----Original Message----- > No matter how you slice and dice it, the fact remains that Vista and > Win7 are fully 64-bit out of the box, including the kernel. I don't have > any problem with Macs, but I do love how you manage to claim that > defaulting to the 32-bit version of a critical component is somehow a > big advantage over 64-bit Windows, and a sign of superior engineering. ************************************************************************* ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *************************************************************************
