Re: Rev 2.7.4 standalone versions
What else are you going to run the 'Journeyman Project' on? Cheers, Luis. On 3 Oct 2006, at 20:10, Robert Brenstein wrote: Precisely why marketers would have a keen interest in quantifying this. It would be invaluable to know the percentages of those likely to buy products for OS X and those who haven't bought a new computer in more than half a decade. If the number of people using OS 9 is anything close to as large as it was two years ago, all projections for all OS X-based vendors will produce a deficit for these companies unless they're able to know and correct for this dormant submarket. For this reason it would seem very useful for a professional marketing firm or major vendor to have put out the relatively minor cost to quantify this submarket. -- Richard Gaskin Managing Editor, revJournal I doubt that reliable stats are readily available. Anyway, I doubt them being that useful for marketing anyway. IMHO, OS9 is pretty much dead for general software releases. I believe that OS9 users pretty much already have what they need in terms of production and utility sofware and since there are no new OS releases for them, whatever they have will function forever. If they needed newer software, they have bought a newer computer. Having said that, I also believe that there is still enough sale opportunities for specific vertical apps that target or include support for OS9. Robert ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Rev 2.7.4 standalone versions
Precisely why marketers would have a keen interest in quantifying this. It would be invaluable to know the percentages of those likely to buy products for OS X and those who haven't bought a new computer in more than half a decade. If the number of people using OS 9 is anything close to as large as it was two years ago, all projections for all OS X-based vendors will produce a deficit for these companies unless they're able to know and correct for this dormant submarket. For this reason it would seem very useful for a professional marketing firm or major vendor to have put out the relatively minor cost to quantify this submarket. -- Richard Gaskin Managing Editor, revJournal I doubt that reliable stats are readily available. Anyway, I doubt them being that useful for marketing anyway. IMHO, OS9 is pretty much dead for general software releases. I believe that OS9 users pretty much already have what they need in terms of production and utility sofware and since there are no new OS releases for them, whatever they have will function forever. If they needed newer software, they have bought a newer computer. Having said that, I also believe that there is still enough sale opportunities for specific vertical apps that target or include support for OS9. Robert ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Rev 2.7.4 standalone versions
I have tested an universal app made with Rev on an old iMac G3 with 10.2.8 and it does work. Thierry On 2006, Oct 3, at 05:56, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps someone can clarify whether the Universal Binary version of Rev standalones will work on all versions of OS X or only on OS 10.3.9 and above. There seems to be a difference of opinion in the forum. If Universal Binary will work on all versions of OS X, then Universal Binary would appear to be the only standalone for OS X and Intel that one needs to include in distributing a built program.I tried researching it but could not find specific reference to requiring as high as OS 10.3.9. I'll try to test it on an older computer. Steve Goldberg ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Rev 2.7.4 standalone versions
Perhaps someone can clarify whether the Universal Binary version of Rev standalones will work on all versions of OS X or only on OS 10.3.9 and above. There seems to be a difference of opinion in the forum. If Universal Binary will work on all versions of OS X, then Universal Binary would appear to be the only standalone for OS X and Intel that one needs to include in distributing a built program.I tried researching it but could not find specific reference to requiring as high as OS 10.3.9. I'll try to test it on an older computer. Steve Goldberg ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Re: UB sizes (was: Rev 2.7.4 standalone versions)
Apologies if that was the case! I've just seen too many people saying that UB apps are twice as big and assumed it was the same this time... No need to apologize Ian, I should have worded it clearer. Ken is right though. I meant to say it carries 2 engines. I am glad you cleared this up.:-) All the best, Malte ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: UB sizes (was: Rev 2.7.4 standalone versions)
On 2 Oct 2006, at 15:06, Ken Ray wrote: On 10/2/06 4:16 AM, "Ian Wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 1 Oct 2006, at 15:52, Malte Brill wrote: One reason might be filesize. Universal apps are twice as big. Some thought and tests show that that's simply not true... ;-) Actually I think what Malte was trying to say is that Universal apps use two full engines, and their size is additive. Ken Ray Apologies if that was the case! I've just seen too many people saying that UB apps are twice as big and assumed it was the same this time... Ian ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Rev 2.7.4 standalone versions
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 version. Does this logic make sense? Steve Goldberg In a message dated 10/1/06 2:45:37 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution Peter T. Evensen http://www.PetersRoadToHealth.com 314-629-5248 or 888-682-4588 ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: UB sizes (was: Rev 2.7.4 standalone versions)
Ken Ray wrote: On 10/2/06 4:16 AM, "Ian Wood" wrote: On 1 Oct 2006, at 15:52, Malte Brill wrote: One reason might be filesize. Universal apps are twice as big. Some thought and tests show that that's simply not true... ;-) Actually I think what Malte was trying to say is that Universal apps use two full engines, and their size is additive. Looking at the raw engine size, you have this (latest Rev 2.7.4): Intel Engine: 1.7 MB PPC Engine: 1.9 MB Universal Engine: 3.7 MB Even a UB Rev app is much smaller than many Mac apps for a single platform: Adobe Reader 7: 84MB iCal: 12.3MB iPhoto: 36MB Even Apple's Calculator, which was about 32k in Classic, is 2.1MB in OS X for PPC. The difference is often the collection of non-code elements in these apps, with things that used to be efficiently stored resources now each a separate file within the bundle, bloating the total size according to the FAT minimums. Thankfully Rev keeps such resources to a minimum, giving is a relatively tiny standalone by contemporary standards. -- Richard Gaskin Managing Editor, revJournal ___ Rev tips, tutorials and more: http://www.revJournal.com ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: UB sizes (was: Rev 2.7.4 standalone versions)
On 10/2/06 4:16 AM, "Ian Wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 1 Oct 2006, at 15:52, Malte Brill wrote: >> One reason might be filesize. Universal apps are twice as big. > > Some thought and tests show that that's simply not true... ;-) Actually I think what Malte was trying to say is that Universal apps use two full engines, and their size is additive. Looking at the raw engine size, you have this (latest Rev 2.7.4): Intel Engine: 1.7 MB PPC Engine: 1.9 MB Universal Engine: 3.7 MB Just FYI, Ken Ray Sons of Thunder Software Web site: http://www.sonsothunder.com/ Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
UB sizes (was: Rev 2.7.4 standalone versions)
On 1 Oct 2006, at 15:52, Malte Brill wrote: One reason might be filesize. Universal apps are twice as big. Some thought and tests show that that's simply not true... ;-) I've seen this idea floating around plenty of times on Mac forums, but was a bit surprised to see it mentioned on a developer list. The *binary* would be roughly twice as large, the *application* is not. This becomes obvious when looking inside the package of applications not made with Revolution - typically you will find all the interface elements, help files etc. outside the binary application file so obviously these files are not duplicated. A good example is iMovie HD - the application package is around 80MB, but the binary file is a *mere* 6MB for the UB version. A quick test with Rev shows that although all included images etc. are embedded into the binary, it IS doing some sensible stuff - dropping a load of images onto a test stack then building leads to: Intel package 6.4MB PPC package 6.7MB UB package 8.4MB You are basically looking at a couple of extra megabytes for the addition of the extra engine. This appears to be consistent even when the stack is drastically different in size, as an empty stack and a full-blown working stack+sub-stacks with loads of externals both gave results within 2MB between PPC and UB builds. So I really can't see file size as an issue. Being limited to 10.3 and above is likely to be much more of an issue... Ian ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Rev 2.7.4 standalone versions
Yeah, I know. Pretty funny. I think it's 8.5 and the 9's are 9.2, but I can't remember off the top of my head. The amazing thing is that the thing keeps chugging along, and for a terminal it still functions... slwwwly. No one is doing any work on it. Mark On Oct 1, 2006, at 6:13 PM, Andre Garzia wrote: System 8 :-O this is like seeing BeOS BeBox or Acord Risc Pcs... last time I used system 8 (and it was 8.5) was in my old university where we had some old macs for DTP classes... by the way, shouldn't the release of runrev engine for classic be near? Andre On Oct 1, 2006, at 9:41 PM, Mark Swindell wrote: In my classroom I have 6 machines. Systems: 8 (1 machine), 9 (3 machines), 10.3 (Emac) and 10.4 (iBook). All are on our LAN. Both the latter machines access Classic mode from time to time. Schools still run OS 9 in many cases. Quantifiable stats I don't have, but I know it's true. Many of the older machines are on their last legs, but until they literally keel over, they will be in some state of use. Mark On Oct 1, 2006, at 5:12 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote: Mark Schonewille wrote: >> Mark Schonewille wrote: >>> I still know very many people, schools, firms etc. who still haven't >>> spend the resources on replacing their ancient hardware... >>> >> Does Apple or any authoritative EDU body publish market stats >> quantifying this? >> >> It would be help ROI projections to have some idea in advance of >> how many people would be affected. > > Problem is, people who are on a tight budget are not very interesting > to marketeers. Precisely why marketers would have a keen interest in quantifying this. It would be invaluable to know the percentages of those likely to buy products for OS X and those who haven't bought a new computer in more than half a decade. If the number of people using OS 9 is anything close to as large as it was two years ago, all projections for all OS X-based vendors will produce a deficit for these companies unless they're able to know and correct for this dormant submarket. For this reason it would seem very useful for a professional marketing firm or major vendor to have put out the relatively minor cost to quantify this submarket. -- Richard Gaskin Managing Editor, revJournal ___ Rev tips, tutorials and more: http://www.revJournal.com ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Rev 2.7.4 standalone versions
Andre wrote: >>>by the way, shouldn't the release of runrev engine for classic be near? I certainly hope so! Been looking out for it... Marian ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Rev 2.7.4 standalone versions
System 8 :-O this is like seeing BeOS BeBox or Acord Risc Pcs... last time I used system 8 (and it was 8.5) was in my old university where we had some old macs for DTP classes... by the way, shouldn't the release of runrev engine for classic be near? Andre On Oct 1, 2006, at 9:41 PM, Mark Swindell wrote: In my classroom I have 6 machines. Systems: 8 (1 machine), 9 (3 machines), 10.3 (Emac) and 10.4 (iBook). All are on our LAN. Both the latter machines access Classic mode from time to time. Schools still run OS 9 in many cases. Quantifiable stats I don't have, but I know it's true. Many of the older machines are on their last legs, but until they literally keel over, they will be in some state of use. Mark On Oct 1, 2006, at 5:12 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote: Mark Schonewille wrote: >> Mark Schonewille wrote: >>> I still know very many people, schools, firms etc. who still haven't >>> spend the resources on replacing their ancient hardware... >>> >> Does Apple or any authoritative EDU body publish market stats >> quantifying this? >> >> It would be help ROI projections to have some idea in advance of >> how many people would be affected. > > Problem is, people who are on a tight budget are not very interesting > to marketeers. Precisely why marketers would have a keen interest in quantifying this. It would be invaluable to know the percentages of those likely to buy products for OS X and those who haven't bought a new computer in more than half a decade. If the number of people using OS 9 is anything close to as large as it was two years ago, all projections for all OS X-based vendors will produce a deficit for these companies unless they're able to know and correct for this dormant submarket. For this reason it would seem very useful for a professional marketing firm or major vendor to have put out the relatively minor cost to quantify this submarket. -- Richard Gaskin Managing Editor, revJournal ___ Rev tips, tutorials and more: http://www.revJournal.com ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Rev 2.7.4 standalone versions
In my classroom I have 6 machines. Systems: 8 (1 machine), 9 (3 machines), 10.3 (Emac) and 10.4 (iBook). All are on our LAN. Both the latter machines access Classic mode from time to time. Schools still run OS 9 in many cases. Quantifiable stats I don't have, but I know it's true. Many of the older machines are on their last legs, but until they literally keel over, they will be in some state of use. Mark On Oct 1, 2006, at 5:12 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote: Mark Schonewille wrote: >> Mark Schonewille wrote: >>> I still know very many people, schools, firms etc. who still haven't >>> spend the resources on replacing their ancient hardware... >>> >> Does Apple or any authoritative EDU body publish market stats >> quantifying this? >> >> It would be help ROI projections to have some idea in advance of >> how many people would be affected. > > Problem is, people who are on a tight budget are not very interesting > to marketeers. Precisely why marketers would have a keen interest in quantifying this. It would be invaluable to know the percentages of those likely to buy products for OS X and those who haven't bought a new computer in more than half a decade. If the number of people using OS 9 is anything close to as large as it was two years ago, all projections for all OS X-based vendors will produce a deficit for these companies unless they're able to know and correct for this dormant submarket. For this reason it would seem very useful for a professional marketing firm or major vendor to have put out the relatively minor cost to quantify this submarket. -- Richard Gaskin Managing Editor, revJournal ___ Rev tips, tutorials and more: http://www.revJournal.com ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Rev 2.7.4 standalone versions
Mark Schonewille wrote: >> Mark Schonewille wrote: >>> I still know very many people, schools, firms etc. who still haven't >>> spend the resources on replacing their ancient hardware... >>> >> Does Apple or any authoritative EDU body publish market stats >> quantifying this? >> >> It would be help ROI projections to have some idea in advance of >> how many people would be affected. > > Problem is, people who are on a tight budget are not very interesting > to marketeers. Precisely why marketers would have a keen interest in quantifying this. It would be invaluable to know the percentages of those likely to buy products for OS X and those who haven't bought a new computer in more than half a decade. If the number of people using OS 9 is anything close to as large as it was two years ago, all projections for all OS X-based vendors will produce a deficit for these companies unless they're able to know and correct for this dormant submarket. For this reason it would seem very useful for a professional marketing firm or major vendor to have put out the relatively minor cost to quantify this submarket. -- Richard Gaskin Managing Editor, revJournal ___ Rev tips, tutorials and more: http://www.revJournal.com ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Rev 2.7.4 standalone versions
On 10/2/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 version. Does this logic make sense? Hi Steve, 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. Cheers, Sarah ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Rev 2.7.4 standalone versions
Problem is, people who are on a tight budget are not very interesting to marketeers. Mark -- Economy-x-Talk Consultancy and Software Engineering http://economy-x-talk.com http://www.salery.biz Get your store on-line within minutes with Salery Web Store software. Download at http://www.salery.biz Op 2-okt-2006, om 1:23 heeft Richard Gaskin het volgende geschreven: Mark Schonewille wrote: Does Apple or any authoritative EDU body publish market stats quantifying this? It would be help ROI projections to have some idea in advance of how many people would be affected. ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Rev 2.7.4 standalone versions
Mark Schonewille wrote: 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). Does Apple or any authoritative EDU body publish market stats quantifying this? It would be help ROI projections to have some idea in advance of how many people would be affected. -- Richard Gaskin Fourth World Media Corporation ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.FourthWorld.com ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Rev 2.7.4 standalone versions
Steve, 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. Best, Mark -- Economy-x-Talk Consultancy and Software Engineering http://economy-x-talk.com http://www.salery.biz Get your store on-line within minutes with Salery Web Store software. Download at http://www.salery.biz Op 1-okt-2006, om 22:10 heeft [EMAIL PROTECTED] het volgende geschreven: 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, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Rev 2.7.4 standalone versions
On 10/1/06 3:10 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 > version. > Does this logic make sense? Certainly. Of course you could just make all three available with notes on the OS version restrictions... but it's your call! :-) Ken Ray Sons of Thunder Software Web site: http://www.sonsothunder.com/ Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Rev 2.7.4 standalone versions
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, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
