Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 11:25:32 +0100 From: =?utf-8?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=C3=B8rgrav?= <des@des.no> To: Wes Morgan <morganw@chemikals.org> Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Can FreeBSD benefit from MacOS X ZFS? Message-ID: <86fxwwn3z7.fsf@ds4.des.no> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.1.00.0801161743070.17832@ibyngvyr.purzvxnyf.bet> (Wes Morgan's message of "Wed\, 16 Jan 2008 17\:44\:24 -0600 \(CST\)") References: <alpine.BSF.1.00.0801141829370.10868@ibyngvyr.purzvxnyf.bet> <86sl0xibpz.fsf@ds4.des.no> <alpine.BSF.1.00.0801161743070.17832@ibyngvyr.purzvxnyf.bet>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Wes Morgan <morganw@chemikals.org> writes: > Dag-Erling Sm=C3=B8rgrav <des@des.no> writes: > > Did you miss the part where Apple no longer sell 32-bit computers? > Possibly! I looked briefly but didn't see anything explicitly saying > that later versions of OS X were 64-bit only. But, that's only half of > the question. There are still memory issues on amd64. Later versions of OS X support both 32-bit and 64-bit Intel and PowerPC machines, but they're starting to set lower bounds on what it will run on - it won't install on my 2003 model G4 eMac, for instance. I expect that by the time OS X gets write support for ZFS, PowerPC will be history. I also suspect that Apple see ZFS as a mostly server-side feature, which reduces the importance of 32-bit machines even further. (Going off on a tangent, I was very amused by the self-styled pundits' amazement at the Intel Mac announcement. "Gee, we never saw that one coming!" I mean, Darwin had only had i386 and "fat binary" support for five years at that point.) DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=C3=B8rgrav - des@des.no
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?86fxwwn3z7.fsf>