Max 4.6 Mac OS 10.3.9 and UB

Mar 26, 2007 at 12:01pm

Max 4.6 Mac OS 10.3.9 and UB

Hi List,

I build a standalone from Max 4.6 running on Mac 10.3.9, on a PPC.
It doesn’t appear as a Universal Binary on Macintels.

Do I need Mac OS 10.3.4 to build real UB, or do I need a Macintel?

Thanks a lot for your answers,

Eric L.

#31025
Mar 26, 2007 at 12:13pm

On 26 mars 07, at 14:01, Eric L. wrote:

> Hi List,
>
> I build a standalone from Max 4.6 running on Mac 10.3.9, on a PPC.
> It doesn’t appear as a Universal Binary on Macintels.
>
> Do I need Mac OS 10.3.4 to build real UB, or do I need a Macintel?

What do you mean by “it doesn’t appear as UB” ? In order to create an
Universal binary you need 4.6 or higher. You shouldn’t have to do
anything special (just make sure, the third party objects you may use
are UB too). The resulting application will be compatible with 10.3.9
(10.4 is recommended though).

Best,
ej

#100205
Mar 26, 2007 at 1:14pm

#100206
Mar 26, 2007 at 1:40pm

On 26 mars 07, at 15:14, Eric L. wrote:

> Hi Emmanuel and thanks for your quick answer.
> I can’t test this precisely because I haven’t any Intel based
> computer. This has been reported to me (2 reports on Intel based
> engines).
> My standalone works well on 10.3.9. But it appears to be extremely
> slow on intel based engines, and to be launched with Rosetta.
> I didn’t use any third party objects except ‘shell’, UB version.
>
> Is it possible to imagine that building standalone from Max 4.6, OS
> 10.3.9, produces unrecognized UB?

Your application does not contain any mac tel code. So the
application is loaded with rosetta. When you build a standalone
application, it build something based on Max Runtime. If you look at
its info in the Finder, does it says it’s Universal binary (I can’t
remember if you can have access to that information on Mac 10.3.9
though). Is that possible that you used one of those software which
clean your OS by removing all mac tel code to save some space?

ej

#100207
Mar 26, 2007 at 2:09pm

#100208
Mar 26, 2007 at 2:23pm

#100209
Mar 26, 2007 at 2:24pm

#100210
Mar 26, 2007 at 2:53pm

#100211
Mar 26, 2007 at 3:01pm

#100212
Mar 26, 2007 at 4:24pm

#100213
Mar 26, 2007 at 5:54pm

#100214
Mar 26, 2007 at 8:04pm

#100215
Mar 26, 2007 at 9:25pm

#100216
Mar 26, 2007 at 10:04pm

#100217
Mar 27, 2007 at 1:40am

#100218
Mar 31, 2007 at 10:50am

#100219
Apr 4, 2007 at 2:47pm

#100220
Apr 5, 2007 at 7:04pm

#100221

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.