As I said before 99% of windows or mac users don't know and/or don't care about 32 vs 64 bit. I'd wager most mac users if confronted with the choice of the two won't know which to choose or why to choose which one.
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 4:30 AM, Snyder, Mark - IdM (IS) < [email protected]> wrote: > 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/ ** > ************************************************************************* > ************************************************************************* ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *************************************************************************
