Maarten

I'm not quite sure how those universals of Apple work.

But are we 'old skool' PowerPC users going to be able to make max apps

which can be run as a universal on an Intel based mac? Running Rosetta

would be bad for our performance quality I believe.

I'm not at all trying to pressure Cycling to switch to the Intel side,

take all the time you need. I've got full confidence in all your

capabilities. I'm just wondering what I should do if I wanted to

change some performance hardware, because I'm building and will be

But are we 'old skool' PowerPC users going to be able to make max apps
which can be run as a universal on an Intel based mac? Running Rosetta
would be bad for our performance quality I believe.

I'm not at all trying to pressure Cycling to switch to the Intel side,
take all the time you need. I've got full confidence in all your
capabilities. I'm just wondering what I should do if I wanted to
change some performance hardware, because I'm building and will be
building for some time of a PowerBook.

binairy-universals

Universal Binaries (sometimes known as Fat Binaries) contain both PPC 

executable code and X86 executable code. This is inherited from 

'Bundles' from NeXT Step, which was able to run on a myriad of 

architectures due to having "Fat" binaries. (Fat binaries were used 

from the 68k -> PPC transition as well). IE: its Native on both, 

because it has both versions of the executable code in 'one' app.

So, a Universal Binary application can have binaries for X86 and PPC, 

Also, if Apple were crazy and decided to say, support MIPS as well 

(hypothetical), Universal Binary apps are able to support 'N' 

architectures, prioviding the developer compiled for each arch.

It was not uncommon for OmniGroup NeXT Fat binaries to run on more 

(It should be noted that universal binaries are not limited to 

"bundled" apps, but can also have entry points for X86 main and PPC 

main, so to speak. This is from what ive read and heard from 

Universal Binaries (sometimes known as Fat Binaries) contain both PPC  
executable code and X86 executable code. This is inherited from  
'Bundles' from NeXT Step, which was able to run on a myriad of  
architectures due to having "Fat" binaries. (Fat binaries were used  
from the 68k -> PPC transition as well). IE: its Native on both,  
because it has both versions of the executable code in 'one' app.

So, a Universal Binary application can have binaries for X86 and PPC,  
all in the same .App folder bundle.

Also, if Apple were crazy and decided to say, support MIPS as well  
(hypothetical), Universal Binary apps are able to support 'N'  
architectures, prioviding the developer compiled for each arch.

It was not uncommon for OmniGroup NeXT Fat binaries to run on more  
than 3 architectures.

(It should be noted that universal binaries are not limited to  
"bundled" apps, but can also have entry points for X86 main and PPC  
main, so to speak. This is from what ive read and heard from  
developers more advanced than I).

You're correct, all of the unix tools bundled with the new iMacs are 

fat. To see this do: file or use the otool command 

You're correct, all of the unix tools bundled with the new iMacs are  
fat.  To see this do: file  or use the otool command  
(which is itself a fat-binary).

Yes, you can use Xcode 2.2 to cross-compile externs for PPC, x86, or 

both on either PPC or Intel. Requires Tiger though.

Xcode is an acquired taste. Unfortunately for us Mac programmers, it's 

Yes, you can use Xcode 2.2 to cross-compile externs for PPC, x86, or 
both on either PPC or Intel. Requires Tiger though.

Xcode is an acquired taste. Unfortunately for us Mac programmers, it's 
also a force-fed acquired taste.

Im rather talking about apps made by MAX not about externals going

I have yet sofar only seen explanations, which I'm very grateful of.

But will cycling support building these fat apps? when I want to make

So if I get this correct, reflecting on the info, it depends on the

standalone part which needs to be fat universal?

Im rather talking about apps made by MAX not about externals going
crossplatform.

I have yet sofar only seen explanations, which I'm very grateful of.
But will cycling support building these fat apps? when I want to make
my tool into an app/standalone?

So if I get this correct, reflecting on the info, it depends on the
standalone part which needs to be fat universal?


Quote: David Zicarelli wrote on Sun, 15 January 2006 16:26

----------------------------------------------------

> Xcode is an acquired taste. Unfortunately for us Mac programmers, it's 

Quote: David Zicarelli wrote on Sun, 15 January 2006 16:26
----------------------------------------------------
> Xcode is an acquired taste. Unfortunately for us Mac programmers, it's 
> also a force-fed acquired taste.
>
> David Z.
>
----------------------------------------------------

Binairy universals