The trouble is with the term "Universal", implying "this runs on any possible Mac". (Of course, if we're going to be dipshits, we're going to point out that it doesn't run on 68k Macs, but that's another matter entirely.)
If a new-architecture Mac is to come again at some point, they would have to change the definition of "Universal", and all of a sudden you'd be stuck with "Universal, err, only not quite" and "Universal, this time fo' real, dawg" binaries. Many of the first type will eventually be updated, but some won't, and will be stuck not actually being universal any more.
The trouble is with the term "Universal", implying "this runs on any possible Mac". (Of course, if we're going to be dipshits, we're going to point out that it doesn't run on 68k Macs, but that's another matter entirely.)
If a new-architecture Mac is to come again at some point, they would have to change the definition of "Universal", and all of a sudden you'd be stuck with "Universal, err, only not quite" and "Universal, this time fo' real, dawg" binaries. Many of the first type will eventually be updated, but some won't, and will be stuck not actually being universal any more.
RAWR! KICK SMASH!!!
*thwap thwap thwap thwap*
Universal Binary refers to the technologies that have been put into place to ensure platform agnostic apps moving forward, it does not in any way denote an existential nor philosophical absolute truism regarding the semantic value of the word 'universal'.
Universal Binary refers to the technologies that have been put into place to ensure platform agnostic apps moving forward, it does not in any way denote an existential nor philosophical absolute truism regarding the semantic value of the word 'universal'.
And dat's da fact, Jack.
:P
And your point is? It doesn't remove the confusion in any way.
You're going to have binaries advertised as Universal that won't run on the new native platform, and you're going to have binaries advertised as Universal that will.
There's a problem. And the term "Fat" binaries didn't have it, because it wasn't as confusing.
And your point is? It doesn't remove the confusion in any way.
....
Who's confused? Univeral Binaries support all Macintoshes that were introduced less than five years ago. Some Macintosh computers that were introduced in 1999 are supported. This universe is sufficiently well-defined to avoid confusion for all but those who insist on being confused. Apple never claimed to support all Macintoshes ever sold. Apple never promised to support any computers other than its own.
And your point is? It doesn't remove the confusion in any way.
You're going to have binaries advertised as Universal that won't run on the new native platform, and you're going to have binaries advertised as Universal that will.
There's a problem. And the term "Fat" binaries didn't have it, because it wasn't as confusing.
And dat's da fact, Jack.
:P
Fat binaries is more confusing, because you didn't know what the heck it meant, and regular people don't relate to it in any way. I sure as heck didn't know what they were.
There is nothing confusing about universal, and I'll go out on a limb here and say no problems will ever come of it.
Who's confused? Univeral Binaries support all Macintoshes that were introduced less than five years ago. Some Macintosh computers that were introduced in 1999 are supported. This universe is sufficiently well-defined to avoid confusion for all but those who insist on being confused. Apple never claimed to support all Macintoshes ever sold. Apple never promised to support any computers other than its own.
I suppose you missed the bit where I was quite clearly not talking about the current situation with PowerPCs and Intels, but about a future hypothetical and unlikely situation with PowerPCs, Intels and $NEW_ARCHITECTURE (e.g. Itanium).
I find that particularly odd since you were the one who brought up Itanium.
Fat binaries is more confusing, because you didn't know what the heck it meant, and regular people don't relate to it in any way. I sure as heck didn't know what they were.
There is nothing confusing about universal, and I'll go out on a limb here and say no problems will ever come of it.
And I fully agree that in the current situation, Universal Binary is the far superior, clearer, more marketable term.
I was exclusively discussing a hypothetical situation. I'm saddened to see that that is so hard to comprehend.
If Apple is to move to another architecture, this entire game begins again. Again, software will need to be ported, and again, Apple will need/want to provide an emulator.
I don't think so... Once developers are using XCode, and are able to compile their apps as universal binaries, adding a third platform won't require a rewrite, but a re-compile with a new version of XCode that supports the extra platform(s).
The reason most software now requires the developer to make changes to the code is because these apps are not using the correct API calls, using legacy code, etc.
I'm pretty sure that if you have an app that is 100% cocoa, that it will compile as a universal binary without any changes at all. Once this rewrite is done, apple can add support for any platform they like.
If Intel wants to move on from x86, this is their number one chance. Apple will use X86 as long as it's viable and then they have the option of slowly migrating to the next big-architecture that Intel develop to replace X86 with. I don't see MS having the same option, so it should be very interesting in a few years time.
At this rate WinTel will still be waiting for Vista to be released, and it'll be "just around the corner"
I don't think so... Once developers are using XCode, and are able to compile their apps as universal binaries, adding a third platform won't require a rewrite, but a re-compile with a new version of XCode that supports the extra platform(s).
So what happens to legacy software of the time? To obscure hardware drivers? To companies that are too dumb, once again, to realize that Apple won't be "bankrupt any time soon anyway"?
Quote:
I'm pretty sure that if you have an app that is 100% cocoa, that it will compile as a universal binary without any changes at all.
Erm.
I really thought we put this myth of "Carbon is but a transitional API" behind.
And I fully agree that in the current situation, Universal Binary is the far superior, clearer, more marketable term.
I was exclusively discussing a hypothetical situation. I'm saddened to see that that is so hard to comprehend.
I understood you perfectley well. I'm saying I find it very unlikely that, should your hypothetical situation come to fruition, that there would be any confusion.
I'm saddened that this is so hard to comprehend as well
Comments
If a new-architecture Mac is to come again at some point, they would have to change the definition of "Universal", and all of a sudden you'd be stuck with "Universal, err, only not quite" and "Universal, this time fo' real, dawg" binaries. Many of the first type will eventually be updated, but some won't, and will be stuck not actually being universal any more.
Originally posted by Chucker
The trouble is with the term "Universal", implying "this runs on any possible Mac". (Of course, if we're going to be dipshits, we're going to point out that it doesn't run on 68k Macs, but that's another matter entirely.)
If a new-architecture Mac is to come again at some point, they would have to change the definition of "Universal", and all of a sudden you'd be stuck with "Universal, err, only not quite" and "Universal, this time fo' real, dawg" binaries. Many of the first type will eventually be updated, but some won't, and will be stuck not actually being universal any more.
RAWR! KICK SMASH!!!
*thwap thwap thwap thwap*
Universal Binary refers to the technologies that have been put into place to ensure platform agnostic apps moving forward, it does not in any way denote an existential nor philosophical absolute truism regarding the semantic value of the word 'universal'.
And dat's da fact, Jack.
:P
Originally posted by Kickaha
RAWR! KICK SMASH!!!
*thwap thwap thwap thwap*
Universal Binary refers to the technologies that have been put into place to ensure platform agnostic apps moving forward, it does not in any way denote an existential nor philosophical absolute truism regarding the semantic value of the word 'universal'.
And dat's da fact, Jack.
:P
And your point is? It doesn't remove the confusion in any way.
You're going to have binaries advertised as Universal that won't run on the new native platform, and you're going to have binaries advertised as Universal that will.
There's a problem. And the term "Fat" binaries didn't have it, because it wasn't as confusing.
And dat's da fact, Jack.
:P
Originally posted by Chucker
And your point is? It doesn't remove the confusion in any way.
....
Who's confused? Univeral Binaries support all Macintoshes that were introduced less than five years ago. Some Macintosh computers that were introduced in 1999 are supported. This universe is sufficiently well-defined to avoid confusion for all but those who insist on being confused. Apple never claimed to support all Macintoshes ever sold. Apple never promised to support any computers other than its own.
Originally posted by Chucker
And your point is? It doesn't remove the confusion in any way.
You're going to have binaries advertised as Universal that won't run on the new native platform, and you're going to have binaries advertised as Universal that will.
There's a problem. And the term "Fat" binaries didn't have it, because it wasn't as confusing.
And dat's da fact, Jack.
:P
Fat binaries is more confusing, because you didn't know what the heck it meant, and regular people don't relate to it in any way. I sure as heck didn't know what they were.
There is nothing confusing about universal, and I'll go out on a limb here and say no problems will ever come of it.
Originally posted by Mr. Me
Who's confused? Univeral Binaries support all Macintoshes that were introduced less than five years ago. Some Macintosh computers that were introduced in 1999 are supported. This universe is sufficiently well-defined to avoid confusion for all but those who insist on being confused. Apple never claimed to support all Macintoshes ever sold. Apple never promised to support any computers other than its own.
I suppose you missed the bit where I was quite clearly not talking about the current situation with PowerPCs and Intels, but about a future hypothetical and unlikely situation with PowerPCs, Intels and $NEW_ARCHITECTURE (e.g. Itanium).
I find that particularly odd since you were the one who brought up Itanium.
Originally posted by Flounder
Fat binaries is more confusing, because you didn't know what the heck it meant, and regular people don't relate to it in any way. I sure as heck didn't know what they were.
There is nothing confusing about universal, and I'll go out on a limb here and say no problems will ever come of it.
And I fully agree that in the current situation, Universal Binary is the far superior, clearer, more marketable term.
I was exclusively discussing a hypothetical situation. I'm saddened to see that that is so hard to comprehend.
Originally posted by Chucker
If Apple is to move to another architecture, this entire game begins again. Again, software will need to be ported, and again, Apple will need/want to provide an emulator.
I don't think so... Once developers are using XCode, and are able to compile their apps as universal binaries, adding a third platform won't require a rewrite, but a re-compile with a new version of XCode that supports the extra platform(s).
The reason most software now requires the developer to make changes to the code is because these apps are not using the correct API calls, using legacy code, etc.
I'm pretty sure that if you have an app that is 100% cocoa, that it will compile as a universal binary without any changes at all. Once this rewrite is done, apple can add support for any platform they like.
If Intel wants to move on from x86, this is their number one chance. Apple will use X86 as long as it's viable and then they have the option of slowly migrating to the next big-architecture that Intel develop to replace X86 with. I don't see MS having the same option, so it should be very interesting in a few years time.
At this rate WinTel will still be waiting for Vista to be released, and it'll be "just around the corner"
Originally posted by BoeManE
I don't think so... Once developers are using XCode, and are able to compile their apps as universal binaries, adding a third platform won't require a rewrite, but a re-compile with a new version of XCode that supports the extra platform(s).
So what happens to legacy software of the time? To obscure hardware drivers? To companies that are too dumb, once again, to realize that Apple won't be "bankrupt any time soon anyway"?
I'm pretty sure that if you have an app that is 100% cocoa, that it will compile as a universal binary without any changes at all.
Erm.
I really thought we put this myth of "Carbon is but a transitional API" behind.
Originally posted by Chucker
And I fully agree that in the current situation, Universal Binary is the far superior, clearer, more marketable term.
I was exclusively discussing a hypothetical situation. I'm saddened to see that that is so hard to comprehend.
I understood you perfectley well. I'm saying I find it very unlikely that, should your hypothetical situation come to fruition, that there would be any confusion.
I'm saddened that this is so hard to comprehend as well
Originally posted by Chucker
I really thought we put this myth of "Carbon is but a transitional API" behind.
Well, come on. OS X has a Sekrit API that Cocoa uses to be 100% portable. Just like Java! Write it once - run it anywhere.
Or something like that.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Well, come on. OS X has a Sekrit API that Cocoa uses to be 100% portable. Just like Java! Write it once - run it anywhere.
Or something like that.
Also, compiling in Cocoa sets HIDDEN_FLAG_FLAWLESS_APPLICATION_THAT_NEVER_CRASHE S to true.
Notice that you can only read and set this flag with a debug build.