Rev 2.7.4 standalone versions

Peter T. Evensen pevensen at
Mon Oct 2 11:20:08 EDT 2006

I don't see that anyone has pointed out the fact that a Universal Binary IS 
a PowerPC version and an Intel version merged together (so your option c IS 
a UB).  I believe Universal Binaries will run on version of OS X prior to 
3.9.  It will just use the PowerPC verson.  The whole point of a UB is that 
it is UNIVERSAL.  Everyone can use it.

The only reason to provide just a PowerPC-only version is to offer a 
slightly smaller version (without the Intel run-time, which is only a 
couple meg, not a huge saving in this day and age).

At 03:10 PM 10/1/2006, you 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?
>Steve Goldberg
>In a message dated 10/1/06 2:45:37 PM,
>use-revolution-request at 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.
> >
> >
>use-revolution mailing list
>use-revolution at
>Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your 
>subscription preferences:

Peter T. Evensen
314-629-5248 or 888-682-4588 

More information about the Use-livecode mailing list