Rev 2.7.4 standalone versions
sarah.reichelt at gmail.com
Sun Oct 1 19:03:44 CDT 2006
On 10/2/06, Stgoldberg at aol.com <Stgoldberg at aol.com> wrote:
> 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
> Does this logic make sense?
My method so far has been to have the default download provide a
Universal Binary, but have an optional PPC only version which is
smaller. I have had similar numbers of both versions downloaded, but
have received positive feedback about providing a separate PPC
version. I haven't tried a separate Intel version.
More information about the use-livecode