Rev 2.7.4 standalone versions

Mark Schonewille m.schonewille at
Sun Oct 1 16:47:39 EDT 2006


I still know very many people, schools, firms etc. who still haven't  
spend the resources on replacing their ancient hardware, their  
philosophy being, if it aint broke, don't fix it (plus the fact that  
especially schools are on a tight budget). If you can release  
software for Mac OS 9, please do.

It is mere speculation, I admit, but I think that Mac OS 10.3 is  
considered the first really reliable version of Mac OS X. If you can,  
you probably will run this version instead of 10.2. I also expect  
owners of 10.3 to update to the latest version, 10.3.9. I also know  
that many people can't or can't afford to update to 10.4. So, as far  
as Mac OS X is concerned, my theory implies you can safely aim at  
10.3 and 10.4.

Malte already wrote why it is smart to include UB versions of your  
software: it is a buzz word. I'm definitely going to release UB  
versions of all my software.




Consultancy and Software Engineering

Get your store on-line within minutes with Salery Web Store software.  
Download at

Op 1-okt-2006, om 22:10 heeft Stgoldberg at het volgende  

> 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 writes:

More information about the use-livecode mailing list