The Register: Mac OS X 10.3 Panther will not be a 64-bit OS

[PastAmigaOwner]

And what's the commonality between all these OS's?  They are primarily used in servers, where 64 bit computing makes a bigger difference.  Aside from Linux which has a small desktop following and a smattering of BSD (on which MAC OS X is based), none of these OS's really serve the desktop.  In that regard, it looks as though Apple is ahead and not behind.  Until 64-bit desktop software arrives (or is deemed necessary), you're unlikely to see much progression.  I doubt that Apple sees the immediate need to make Panter fully 64-bit when there are so few 64-bit applications thus far.  Seeing as Apple is routinely releasing a major version of OS X roughlly every year, I'll be surprised if Panther's successor isn't "more" 64-bit, when some time will have passed and there will be more to talk about.

[PastAmigaOwner]

Actually it's not quite that simple.  If the OS is 32 bit, then the apps that run in it will be 32 bit as well, although because of the architecture of the PPC 970, the apps themselves can take advantage of some of the 64 bit features such as memory addressing.  The PPC 970 can only run in one of two modes - 32 bit or 64 bit - and it cannot do both at the same time, as stated in the IBM tech specs regarding the chip architecture.  So long as the OS is 32 bit, then the processor will be running in 32 bit mode, as will any applications therein.  The AMD Opteron 32/64 bit chip faces a similar delima.  Only when the OS goes fully 64-bit and the applications are ported as well can the processor run in true 64-bit mode as well.  When the OS becomes full 64-bit, there will truely have to be two separate versions of OS X to provide backwards support for older 32-bit hardware.  That's a big reason why Apple isn't moving that direction in earnest any time soon, but I do agree with you that subsequent versions of the OS will gain more 64-bit like features while Apple ports the full OS.