Nt quite.
This is what you said:
““64-bit: Not copied, inevitable. Either that or they're all copying DEC Tru64 UNIX from the early 90s”
And this is what I said:
“ will show you how 64 bit computing had been done, and done excellently on DEC Tru64 UNIX, other versions of Unix, and on Windows, long, long, before Apple did in OS X Leopard.”
That post was to bolster my earlier post that:
“There is not even a single thing on any OSX version, that hasn't appeared in some other operating system before, or been pioneered by someone else before”
You are the one that claimed that :
“Apple is often the first one to do it right”
Well 64 bit had been doe right in almost every desktop operating system and done VERY RIGHT, long before Apple did, yet here was Steve Jobs, cheerfully hollering :”Redmond, start your photocopiers” when he finally got 64 bit into OSX Leopard, even though Apple was one of the last to do bring out a 64 bit OS.
It's a hoot!
Only Steve Jobs can get away with such sheer chutzpah, lies and arrogance, thanks to his army of mindless Applebot Kool Aide drinkers on the internet. It's much worse than the 0bama worshipers. At least the guys at DU seriously question 0bama wining the Nobel Prize when he didn't deserve to win it. As far as the idiotic Applebots are concerned, Steve Jobs can do no wrong, especially when he tells blatant lies.
Notice the word "often" not "always." Back to the point, 64-bit was not touted as a new innovation, just new to OS X. Microsoft touted its 64-bit products, too, and for good reason -- Windows was finally 64-bit.
Apple did do its 64-bit differently from others. Microsoft provided massive headaches for its users going 64-bit on Intel, but they did it all at once. Good from a technical standpoint, but bad from a migration standpoint.
Apple started by changing only the performance-sensitive portions of the OS that would benefit from 64-bit, then over later versions crept that into the rest of the OS. This transition made it easier on the users without penalizing them on anything but a bit of disk space (an executable would contain both 32- and 64-bit versions, and the proper one would automatically run depending on the hardware and software environment).
Who did it better, I can't say. I like the purist approach for Microsoft, except for the dumb hacks it required ("Program Files" and "Program Files (x86)" -- what the hell?). Apple's wasn't as purist, resulting in no true 64-bit for years, but the transition went practically unnoticed by users.
yet here was Steve Jobs, cheerfully hollering :”Redmond, start your photocopiers” when he finally got 64 bit into OSX Leopard,
"Redmond, start your photocopiers" was for the release of Tiger, not Leopard, taunting Microsoft about possible features in the yet-to-be-released Vista. You really need to learn your computer history.