Mac OS Version Support

[Richard Gaskin]

Bob Arnold wrote:

> If I build a MacOS (not X) standalone (PPC or FAT) from the OSX Rev, the app
> will not run unless the carbon lib is present. If I build it from the
> "classic" version of Rev, the build is much larger and works without carbon
> lib, and presumably would work on earlier operating systems. I am unable to
> get the OSX version to make a stand alone app that will run without carbon
> support.

The "much larger" engine is a "fat binary", which runs on 68k Macs as well
as PowerPC.  But the engines specific to each architecture are roughly the
same size.

> One would certainly assume that that is indeed what those check boxes are
> for, but for some reason, the apparently aren't. Obviously, it isn't
> supposed to be this way, but it is. The checkbox in the OSX version of Rev
> should be labled "MacOS 9" not "MacOS".

Yes, Apple's terminology for this is confusing.  They commonly use "Mac OS"
when they mean "Classic" specifically, and will probably keep referring to
"OS X" long after version 11 and beyond.  :)

A little extra clarity from developers would help make up for this
transitional nomemnclature thang.

It's ironic that with less control over the motherboard spec Microsoft and
Intel have been able to maintain greater consistency and backward
compatibility than Apple  -- just one Win32 engine is needed for Win95
through XP.  First the switch from 68k to PPC, then from PPC to OS X -- next
thing you know they'll have us all move from Motorola to Intel (see
<http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,496270,00.asp>).

-- 
 Richard Gaskin 
 Fourth World Media Corporation
 Custom Software and Web Development for All Major Platforms
 Developer of WebMerge 2.0: Publish any database on any site
 ___________________________________________________________
 Ambassador at FourthWorld.com       http://www.FourthWorld.com
 Tel: 323-225-3717                       AIM: FourthWorldInc