Rev 2.7.4 standalone versions

[Stgoldberg at aol.com]

Regarding which of the standalone versions to include in distributing one's 
built applications, please correct me if my logic is wrong here:
a. I assume that very few Mac users have operating systems that are earlier 
than OS X, so one does not have to be so concerned about distributing for OS 9 
(or Classic).
b. Many people, though, may have OSX versions less than 3.9, so distributing 
an application in Universal Binary would not help these users, if Universal 
Binary requires OS X.3.9 or higher.   One would then have to also include 
PowerPC-only (for all versions of OSX) and Intel-only (for optimal performance on 
Intel) versions to reach most users.
c.   Perhaps the ideal way of distributing might be a combination of   
PowerPC-only and Intel-only versions.   That should cover all PowerPC versions as 
well as Intel.   It would not be necessary to include the Universal Binary 
version.
Does this logic make sense?
Steve Goldberg

In a message dated 10/1/06 2:45:37 PM, 
use-revolution-request at lists.runrev.com writes:


> > If the Universal version will work both on Intel Mac
> > computers as well as non-Intel Mac OS X computers, what would be 
> > the advantage
> > of including the "Power PC only" or "Intel only" versions when 
> > distributing
> > one's application, since the Universal version would seem to work 
> > on both kinds
> > of computers?
> 
> One reason might be filesize. Universal apps are twice as big. The 
> other is, running universal apps requires Os X.3.9 or higher, so if 
> you want to support X.2 or smaller you need a power PC only compile. 
> I am happy to have all options, as "Universal Binary" is the buzzword 
> du jour when releasing new Mac apps at the moment. Many people over 
> here think, if it is no universal binary, it is not a good app. 
> Therefore Intel only is out of the game for me for a while, but might 
> be reasonable if I want to release an app. that is very resource 
> hungry and requires a modern computer to work reliably.
> 
>