Don't be too technical. We all refer to it as Intel/PPC code, and that's how people understand it.
I'm willing to bet that 99% of the people here don't care about that explanation, and would just like to have a simpler usage for it.
Once the PPC OS is gone, no one will be referring to 32/64 Intel code as a universal binary.
The universal binary mechanism is used to provide 32-bit and 64-bit versions of both PowerPC and x86 code. Intel-only applications still use it for 32-bit and 64-bit versions.
It's nothing special. Even a single-architecture binary is still a universal binary (marketing bumf for a fat binary) that only has one architecture included.
At least two people in this thread of <100 messages so far disagree with you, so how much did you bet again?
It's nothing special. Even a single-architecture binary is still a universal binary (marketing bumf for a fat binary) that only has one architecture included.
Nope. Sorry. At least 3 people in this thread are wrong...including you. You can't call it a UB unless it can run on x86 *AND* PPC. Apple rules, not mine.
If there was a bet going on with melgross, all 3 of you lost the bet.
Unfortunately, you assumed that UB is a marketing term for fat binary. This is only true in the sense that it contains more than one binary. But Apple clearly markets the Universal symbol as a guarantee that an app will run on PPC and x86. Changing the definition at this point would be total nonsense. You can't have UB term mean different things at this point. UB would lose all meaning to the customer because they would still have to inquire if the UB means that the app will work on their PPC machine or if it means that it's a 32/64 x86 fat binary.
With all the arguments in favor of dropping PPC support with Snow Leopard (disregarding the fact that the G5's were/are 64bit and dual processor equipped), why bother with the 32bit version at all? Seems like a lot of effort just to support some old Mac minis. Why not just do a clean break with the past and go 64bit only? Seems odd to support one kind of legacy hardware and not some others. Or is Snow Leopard more marketing based than technology based?
Baby steps, young Padawan, baby steps. Let us review and then make a prediction.
Tiger (two builds, four architectures, one kernel)
PowerPC - 32-bit with "Classic" environment
PowerPC - 64-bit with "Classic" environment
Intel - 32-bit, no "Classic" environment
Intel - 64-bit, no "Classic" environment
32-bit kernel
Leopard (one build, four architectures, one kernel)
PowerPC - 32-bit
PowerPC - 64-bit
Intel - 32-bit
Intel - 64-bit
32-bit kernel
"Classic" environment dropped
Snow Leopard (one build, two architectures, two kernels)
Intel - 32-bit
Intel - 64-bit
64-bit kernel (default)
32-bit kernel if hardware doesn't have 64-bit kernel extensions (based on my understanding)
OS X 10.7 (one build, one architecture, one kernel)
Intel - 64-bit
64-bit kernel
Apple has enough on their plate to not worry about dropping 32-bit Intel support. This will actually be better for the user because not all hardware will have 64-bit drivers when Snow Leopard is released. Current hardware will most likely have 64-bit drivers, but drivers for "old" hardware might take awhile or might not get written at all because the manufacturers might use this as a way to get people to buy new equipment.
It's also because when you're talking about Apple's upcoming Apple products at an Apple news website, you don't end up having the word "Apple" every other word. Apple.
Trust me, Apple as a survivor Apple of Writing 101 Appleclasses (if not Apple Journalism 101 Apple classes), Apple synonyms Apple are Apple a Apple Apple good Apple thing.
That's why God invented pronouns and common sense synonyms like "the company", etc. Trust me as an avid reader and writer on things Macintosh, this is the only place I see "Cupertino based _____" unless it's in a general newspaper or something else outside the industry.
I'm gonna have to side with melgross here. Calling 32/64 binaries Universal Binaries would bring too much confusion.
People will download the Universal Binary thinking they can run it on their PPC Mac.
Sorry but m2002brian and shadow but calling 32/64 binaries UB simply won't work unless it also contains the PPC binary considering people have grown to associate the UB meaning to a PPC/x86 fat binary. You guys can keep calling 32/64 binaries UB but you'd be doing yourself and everyone around you a great disfavor. And if developed apps and called your 32/64 app a Universal Binary, you'd be getting sued by customers still on PPC Macs that bought the app on the premise that it would work on their PPC Mac.
UB means PPC/x86 fat binary. Period. Any other definition given to UBs would be misleading.
10.6 betas see to be coming so often, yet, 10.5.7 has taken over a month of betas... must have tons of issues... and Apple released Safari 4 Beta 1 over a month ago. Come on Apple, start focusing on these two current platforms. It seems they are rushing out 10.6 to run head to head with Microsoft Windows 7. Windows 7 is fierce. Probably Microsoft's best OS to date. I love it and can't wait for release.
Apple has a lot to do to win customers over or to keep afloat.
This made my day, absolutely hilarious. Apple isn't the one rushing out an OS...
I'm with ya. That's one thing I love about Vista, resolution independence for higher density monitors. I don't have to squint as much or pull the monitor closer to my aging eyeballs in Vista. \
Everyone will be referring to 32/64 Intel code as a universal binary. That's what it is: a binary which contains executable code for more than one architecture.
I doubt that very much. People already have it set in their minds as to what it is.
For all the time we've been discussing the 32/64 bit question this is the FIRST time anyone ever referred to it as a Universal Binary.
I'm not talking about what's technically correct about the term, just what people expectations have been in using it.
Because you think something means something to you, that's what it should mean to everyone? Right! I had a girlfriend who liked to make her own definitions of real words. Kind of frustrating when somebody says "that's not what it means to me" and then you go read the word right out the dictionary to her. So whatever you think Universal Binary means is probably wrong. Don't tell somebody they're wrong because "people here don't care." In fact I do care, and was happy to know I had learned something I didn't know earlier. I will forever remember now, that, Universal Binary is exactly what the name implies. I'm sure with a little work you'll someday learn to enjoy others ways of thinking instead of wanting them to think like you.
Let's see here, you've posted a few dozen times, and have been here for about a year. How many times you lurked during that time, I don't know.
I've been here a lot longer, and as you can see, by my number of posts, I've been a bit more involved in discussions.
I'm going by that strong involvement to say what I've seen over the time that Apple had invented the term "Universal Binary". I've seen the way it's been used, and the way it's not been used.
I'm going by that.
It's not been used before to distinguish between 32 and 64 bit binaries for Intel.
It's been used to distinguish between binaries for PPC and Intel.
That's the way people, except for a small few obviously, think about it.
Even developers here have discussed it that way.
All I'm saying now, is that to change this is going to confuse a lot of people.
The universal binary mechanism is used to provide 32-bit and 64-bit versions of both PowerPC and x86 code. Intel-only applications still use it for 32-bit and 64-bit versions.
It's nothing special. Even a single-architecture binary is still a universal binary (marketing bumf for a fat binary) that only has one architecture included.
At least two people in this thread of <100 messages so far disagree with you, so how much did you bet again?
Well, this is the very first time anyone EVER called 32/64 bit Intel code a Universal Binary.
Like it or not, its nonsensical. It WILL confuse a lot of people.
And if you go to the page Kim linked to, you will see why.
Wow! Two whole people disagree with me on this. Impressive!
Much like we call our current broadband equipment "modems" despite the fact that they do not Modulate demodulate anything it's easier for consumers to understand.
Stay way from Universal Binary for 32-64-bit situation and the confusion can probably be ameliorated somewhat.
Much like we call our current broadband equipment "modems" despite the fact that they do not Modulate demodulate anything it's easier for consumers to understand.
Stay way from Universal Binary for 32-64-bit situation and the confusion can probably be ameliorated somewhat.
That's all I'm saying.
I also don't like calling our gateways modems, but the name has stuck, incorrectly.
At least here, we're NOT trying to get people to say something improperly, just the opposite.
Let's see here, you've posted a few dozen times, and have been here for about a year. How many times you lurked during that time, I don't know.
I've been here a lot longer, and as you can see, by my number of posts, I've been a bit more involved in discussions.
I'm going by that strong involvement to say what I've seen over the time that Apple had invented the term "Universal Binary". I've seen the way it's been used, and the way it's not been used.
I'm going by that.
It's not been used before to distinguish between 32 and 64 bit binaries for Intel.
It's been used to distinguish between binaries for PPC and Intel.
That's the way people, except for a small few obviously, think about it.
Even developers here have discussed it that way.
All I'm saying now, is that to change this is going to confuse a lot of people.
It's ok, we'll keep it your way, wouldn't want anyone to get confused. God forbid any consumer would ever educate themselves on what they're spending they're money on. You know, instead of just assuming, because "that's how it was. Or you know the kind that buy things based solely on the emotions it sparks. Like those people still buying American cars cause they're American. Really though you're right UB does mean what I thought it didn't. For someone who says so much, you should read the thread. I said I was WRONG, and I was thinking of fat binary. Is that hard to understand. Sorry DUDE
Actually I'm on here everyday. Hate Tecfud, ok not hate, but do be so blind to one's own ignorance must be nice. Love almost all the conversation. Lots of smart, loyal fans.
Baby steps, young Padawan, baby steps. Let us review and then make a prediction.
Tiger (two builds, four architectures, one kernel)
PowerPC - 32-bit with "Classic" environment
PowerPC - 64-bit with "Classic" environment
Intel - 32-bit, no "Classic" environment
Intel - 64-bit, no "Classic" environment
32-bit kernel
Leopard (one build, four architectures, one kernel)
PowerPC - 32-bit
PowerPC - 64-bit
Intel - 32-bit
Intel - 64-bit
32-bit kernel
"Classic" environment dropped
Snow Leopard (one build, two architectures, two kernels)
Intel - 32-bit
Intel - 64-bit
64-bit kernel (default)
32-bit kernel if hardware doesn't have 64-bit kernel extensions (based on my understanding)
OS X 10.7 (one build, one architecture, one kernel)
Intel - 64-bit
64-bit kernel
Apple has enough on their plate to not worry about dropping 32-bit Intel support. This will actually be better for the user because not all hardware will have 64-bit drivers when Snow Leopard is released. Current hardware will most likely have 64-bit drivers, but drivers for "old" hardware might take awhile or might not get written at all because the manufacturers might use this as a way to get people to buy new equipment.
x86 is a single Architecture with 32 bit and 64 bit instruction sets.
This is one architecture. Now if OS X were on IA-64 then yes, IA-32 and IA-64 would be two unique architectures.
Quote:
Extensions of word size
The instruction set architecture has twice been extended to a larger word size. In 1985, Intel released the 32-bit 80386 (or i386) which gradually replaced the earlier 16-bit chips in computers (although typically not in embedded systems) during the following years; this extended programming model was originally referred to as the i386 architecture (like its first implementation) but Intel later dubbed it IA-32 when introducing its (unrelated) IA-64 architecture.
In 1999-2003, AMD extended this 32-bit architecture to 64 bits and referred to it as x86-64 in early documents and later as AMD64. Intel soon adopted AMD's architectural extensions under the name IA-32e which was later renamed EM64T and finally Intel 64. Among these five names, x86-64 is probably the most commonly used, although Microsoft and Sun Microsystems also use the (perhaps even more vendor-neutral) term x64.
x86-64 is a superset of the x86 instruction set architecture. x86-64 processors can run existing 32-bit or 16-bit x86 programs at full speed, but also support new programs written with a 64-bit address space and other additional capabilities.
PPC, Sparc and HP PA-RISC were three separate Architectures. With x86 NeXTSTEP/Openstep was Quad Fat.
It's ok, we'll keep it your way, wouldn't want anyone to get confused. God forbid any consumer would ever educate themselves on what they're spending they're money on. You know, instead of just assuming, because "that's how it was. Or you know the kind that buy things based solely on the emotions it sparks. Like those people still buying American cars cause they're American. Really though you're right UB does mean what I thought it didn't. For someone who says so much, you should read the thread. I said I was WRONG, and I was thinking of fat binary. Is that hard to understand. Sorry DUDE
Actually I'm on here everyday. Hate Tecfud, ok not hate, but do be so blind to one's own ignorance must be nice. Love almost all the conversation. Lots of smart, loyal fans.
No reason to get upset! This is a technical discussion, not an emotional one.
If you confused one thing for another, that's fine. We all do it one time or another.
I'm just pointing out that when a term is used one way by almost all people, and the term is correct, to apply it to something that's different, even if it might technically correct, will confuse a lot of those people. We've already had other people agree on that. Since Apple always refers to it as PPC/Intel code, I don't see why we shouldn't continue to limit it to that, and refer 32/64 bit code that way.
Even Wikipedia refers to it that way, though the 32/64 bit code has been done for a while.
In Apple developer docs you could see references to a 2-way universal binary or a 4-way universal binary. These corresponds to the number of architectures used. If the binary is described as 2-way, you would expect 32 bit Intel/PPC, but I am not sure the PPC part is a requirement.
Tthere is a simple shell tool which reports what the binary is. I tested a small 32/64 bit intel binary and that's what it says:
Code:
user$ file /testbinary
/testbinary: Mach-O universal binary with 2 architectures
Apparently, Apple's utility refers to the 32/64 bit intel binary as a Universal binary. I agree that this might be confusing for the end user, though, so Apple may choose to market this feature using different name, just as they did not reuse the "Fat binary" term.
In Apple developer docs you could see references to a 2-way universal binary or a 4-way universal binary. These corresponds to the number of architectures used. If the binary is described as 2-way, you would expect 32 bit Intel/PPC, but I am not sure the PPC part is a requirement.
Tthere is a simple shell tool which reports what the binary is. I tested a small 32/64 bit intel binary and that's what it says:
Code:
user$ file /testbinary
/testbinary: Mach-O universal binary with 2 architectures
Apparently, Apple's utility refers to the 32/64 bit intel binary as a Universal binary. I agree that this might be confusing for the end user, though, so Apple may choose to market this feature using different name, just as they did not reuse the "Fat binary" term.
I agree. Apple understands about user confusion very well. I'm just asking that we maintain their long time public use of the term.
Comments
Don't be too technical. We all refer to it as Intel/PPC code, and that's how people understand it.
I'm willing to bet that 99% of the people here don't care about that explanation, and would just like to have a simpler usage for it.
Once the PPC OS is gone, no one will be referring to 32/64 Intel code as a universal binary.
The universal binary mechanism is used to provide 32-bit and 64-bit versions of both PowerPC and x86 code. Intel-only applications still use it for 32-bit and 64-bit versions.
It's nothing special. Even a single-architecture binary is still a universal binary (marketing bumf for a fat binary) that only has one architecture included.
At least two people in this thread of <100 messages so far disagree with you, so how much did you bet again?
It's nothing special. Even a single-architecture binary is still a universal binary (marketing bumf for a fat binary) that only has one architecture included.
Nope. Sorry. At least 3 people in this thread are wrong...including you. You can't call it a UB unless it can run on x86 *AND* PPC. Apple rules, not mine.
If there was a bet going on with melgross, all 3 of you lost the bet.
Unfortunately, you assumed that UB is a marketing term for fat binary. This is only true in the sense that it contains more than one binary. But Apple clearly markets the Universal symbol as a guarantee that an app will run on PPC and x86. Changing the definition at this point would be total nonsense. You can't have UB term mean different things at this point. UB would lose all meaning to the customer because they would still have to inquire if the UB means that the app will work on their PPC machine or if it means that it's a 32/64 x86 fat binary.
With all the arguments in favor of dropping PPC support with Snow Leopard (disregarding the fact that the G5's were/are 64bit and dual processor equipped), why bother with the 32bit version at all? Seems like a lot of effort just to support some old Mac minis. Why not just do a clean break with the past and go 64bit only? Seems odd to support one kind of legacy hardware and not some others. Or is Snow Leopard more marketing based than technology based?
Baby steps, young Padawan, baby steps. Let us review and then make a prediction.
Tiger (two builds, four architectures, one kernel)
- PowerPC - 32-bit with "Classic" environment
- PowerPC - 64-bit with "Classic" environment
- Intel - 32-bit, no "Classic" environment
- Intel - 64-bit, no "Classic" environment
- 32-bit kernel
Leopard (one build, four architectures, one kernel)- PowerPC - 32-bit
- PowerPC - 64-bit
- Intel - 32-bit
- Intel - 64-bit
- 32-bit kernel
- "Classic" environment dropped
Snow Leopard (one build, two architectures, two kernels)- Intel - 32-bit
- Intel - 64-bit
- 64-bit kernel (default)
- 32-bit kernel if hardware doesn't have 64-bit kernel extensions (based on my understanding)
OS X 10.7 (one build, one architecture, one kernel)- Intel - 64-bit
- 64-bit kernel
Apple has enough on their plate to not worry about dropping 32-bit Intel support. This will actually be better for the user because not all hardware will have 64-bit drivers when Snow Leopard is released. Current hardware will most likely have 64-bit drivers, but drivers for "old" hardware might take awhile or might not get written at all because the manufacturers might use this as a way to get people to buy new equipment.It's also because when you're talking about Apple's upcoming Apple products at an Apple news website, you don't end up having the word "Apple" every other word. Apple.
Trust me, Apple as a survivor Apple of Writing 101 Appleclasses (if not Apple Journalism 101 Apple classes), Apple synonyms Apple are Apple a Apple Apple good Apple thing.
That's why God invented pronouns and common sense synonyms like "the company", etc. Trust me as an avid reader and writer on things Macintosh, this is the only place I see "Cupertino based _____" unless it's in a general newspaper or something else outside the industry.
I'm gonna have to side with melgross here. Calling 32/64 binaries Universal Binaries would bring too much confusion.
People will download the Universal Binary thinking they can run it on their PPC Mac.
Sorry but m2002brian and shadow but calling 32/64 binaries UB simply won't work unless it also contains the PPC binary considering people have grown to associate the UB meaning to a PPC/x86 fat binary. You guys can keep calling 32/64 binaries UB but you'd be doing yourself and everyone around you a great disfavor. And if developed apps and called your 32/64 app a Universal Binary, you'd be getting sued by customers still on PPC Macs that bought the app on the premise that it would work on their PPC Mac.
UB means PPC/x86 fat binary. Period. Any other definition given to UBs would be misleading.
http://www.apple.com/universal/
Of course, this doesn't mean you can't have UBs that contain 32/64 x86 support...but it must also contain the PPC binary for it to be called a UB.
i was WRONG, was thinking of fat binary. Sorry dude
10.6 betas see to be coming so often, yet, 10.5.7 has taken over a month of betas... must have tons of issues... and Apple released Safari 4 Beta 1 over a month ago. Come on Apple, start focusing on these two current platforms. It seems they are rushing out 10.6 to run head to head with Microsoft Windows 7. Windows 7 is fierce. Probably Microsoft's best OS to date. I love it and can't wait for release.
Apple has a lot to do to win customers over or to keep afloat.
This made my day, absolutely hilarious. Apple isn't the one rushing out an OS...
I just want Resolution Independence.
I'm with ya. That's one thing I love about Vista, resolution independence for higher density monitors. I don't have to squint as much or pull the monitor closer to my aging eyeballs in Vista.
Everyone will be referring to 32/64 Intel code as a universal binary. That's what it is: a binary which contains executable code for more than one architecture.
I doubt that very much. People already have it set in their minds as to what it is.
For all the time we've been discussing the 32/64 bit question this is the FIRST time anyone ever referred to it as a Universal Binary.
I'm not talking about what's technically correct about the term, just what people expectations have been in using it.
Because you think something means something to you, that's what it should mean to everyone? Right! I had a girlfriend who liked to make her own definitions of real words. Kind of frustrating when somebody says "that's not what it means to me" and then you go read the word right out the dictionary to her. So whatever you think Universal Binary means is probably wrong. Don't tell somebody they're wrong because "people here don't care." In fact I do care, and was happy to know I had learned something I didn't know earlier. I will forever remember now, that, Universal Binary is exactly what the name implies. I'm sure with a little work you'll someday learn to enjoy others ways of thinking instead of wanting them to think like you.
Let's see here, you've posted a few dozen times, and have been here for about a year. How many times you lurked during that time, I don't know.
I've been here a lot longer, and as you can see, by my number of posts, I've been a bit more involved in discussions.
I'm going by that strong involvement to say what I've seen over the time that Apple had invented the term "Universal Binary". I've seen the way it's been used, and the way it's not been used.
I'm going by that.
It's not been used before to distinguish between 32 and 64 bit binaries for Intel.
It's been used to distinguish between binaries for PPC and Intel.
That's the way people, except for a small few obviously, think about it.
Even developers here have discussed it that way.
All I'm saying now, is that to change this is going to confuse a lot of people.
The universal binary mechanism is used to provide 32-bit and 64-bit versions of both PowerPC and x86 code. Intel-only applications still use it for 32-bit and 64-bit versions.
It's nothing special. Even a single-architecture binary is still a universal binary (marketing bumf for a fat binary) that only has one architecture included.
At least two people in this thread of <100 messages so far disagree with you, so how much did you bet again?
Well, this is the very first time anyone EVER called 32/64 bit Intel code a Universal Binary.
Like it or not, its nonsensical. It WILL confuse a lot of people.
And if you go to the page Kim linked to, you will see why.
Wow! Two whole people disagree with me on this. Impressive!
Stay way from Universal Binary for 32-64-bit situation and the confusion can probably be ameliorated somewhat.
Much like we call our current broadband equipment "modems" despite the fact that they do not Modulate demodulate anything it's easier for consumers to understand.
Stay way from Universal Binary for 32-64-bit situation and the confusion can probably be ameliorated somewhat.
That's all I'm saying.
I also don't like calling our gateways modems, but the name has stuck, incorrectly.
At least here, we're NOT trying to get people to say something improperly, just the opposite.
And why do we call goods transported by land a "shipment", yet goods transported by sea "cargo"?
That's actually funny!
Let's see here, you've posted a few dozen times, and have been here for about a year. How many times you lurked during that time, I don't know.
I've been here a lot longer, and as you can see, by my number of posts, I've been a bit more involved in discussions.
I'm going by that strong involvement to say what I've seen over the time that Apple had invented the term "Universal Binary". I've seen the way it's been used, and the way it's not been used.
I'm going by that.
It's not been used before to distinguish between 32 and 64 bit binaries for Intel.
It's been used to distinguish between binaries for PPC and Intel.
That's the way people, except for a small few obviously, think about it.
Even developers here have discussed it that way.
All I'm saying now, is that to change this is going to confuse a lot of people.
It's ok, we'll keep it your way, wouldn't want anyone to get confused. God forbid any consumer would ever educate themselves on what they're spending they're money on. You know, instead of just assuming, because "that's how it was. Or you know the kind that buy things based solely on the emotions it sparks. Like those people still buying American cars cause they're American. Really though you're right UB does mean what I thought it didn't. For someone who says so much, you should read the thread. I said I was WRONG, and I was thinking of fat binary. Is that hard to understand. Sorry DUDE
Actually I'm on here everyday. Hate Tecfud, ok not hate, but do be so blind to one's own ignorance must be nice. Love almost all the conversation. Lots of smart, loyal fans.
Baby steps, young Padawan, baby steps. Let us review and then make a prediction.
Tiger (two builds, four architectures, one kernel)
- PowerPC - 32-bit with "Classic" environment
- PowerPC - 64-bit with "Classic" environment
- Intel - 32-bit, no "Classic" environment
- Intel - 64-bit, no "Classic" environment
- 32-bit kernel
Leopard (one build, four architectures, one kernel)- PowerPC - 32-bit
- PowerPC - 64-bit
- Intel - 32-bit
- Intel - 64-bit
- 32-bit kernel
- "Classic" environment dropped
Snow Leopard (one build, two architectures, two kernels)- Intel - 32-bit
- Intel - 64-bit
- 64-bit kernel (default)
- 32-bit kernel if hardware doesn't have 64-bit kernel extensions (based on my understanding)
OS X 10.7 (one build, one architecture, one kernel)- Intel - 64-bit
- 64-bit kernel
Apple has enough on their plate to not worry about dropping 32-bit Intel support. This will actually be better for the user because not all hardware will have 64-bit drivers when Snow Leopard is released. Current hardware will most likely have 64-bit drivers, but drivers for "old" hardware might take awhile or might not get written at all because the manufacturers might use this as a way to get people to buy new equipment.x86 is a single Architecture with 32 bit and 64 bit instruction sets.
This is one architecture. Now if OS X were on IA-64 then yes, IA-32 and IA-64 would be two unique architectures.
Extensions of word size
The instruction set architecture has twice been extended to a larger word size. In 1985, Intel released the 32-bit 80386 (or i386) which gradually replaced the earlier 16-bit chips in computers (although typically not in embedded systems) during the following years; this extended programming model was originally referred to as the i386 architecture (like its first implementation) but Intel later dubbed it IA-32 when introducing its (unrelated) IA-64 architecture.
In 1999-2003, AMD extended this 32-bit architecture to 64 bits and referred to it as x86-64 in early documents and later as AMD64. Intel soon adopted AMD's architectural extensions under the name IA-32e which was later renamed EM64T and finally Intel 64. Among these five names, x86-64 is probably the most commonly used, although Microsoft and Sun Microsystems also use the (perhaps even more vendor-neutral) term x64.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64
x86-64 is a superset of the x86 instruction set architecture. x86-64 processors can run existing 32-bit or 16-bit x86 programs at full speed, but also support new programs written with a 64-bit address space and other additional capabilities.
PPC, Sparc and HP PA-RISC were three separate Architectures. With x86 NeXTSTEP/Openstep was Quad Fat.
It's ok, we'll keep it your way, wouldn't want anyone to get confused. God forbid any consumer would ever educate themselves on what they're spending they're money on. You know, instead of just assuming, because "that's how it was. Or you know the kind that buy things based solely on the emotions it sparks. Like those people still buying American cars cause they're American. Really though you're right UB does mean what I thought it didn't. For someone who says so much, you should read the thread. I said I was WRONG, and I was thinking of fat binary. Is that hard to understand. Sorry DUDE
Actually I'm on here everyday. Hate Tecfud, ok not hate, but do be so blind to one's own ignorance must be nice. Love almost all the conversation. Lots of smart, loyal fans.
No reason to get upset! This is a technical discussion, not an emotional one.
If you confused one thing for another, that's fine. We all do it one time or another.
I'm just pointing out that when a term is used one way by almost all people, and the term is correct, to apply it to something that's different, even if it might technically correct, will confuse a lot of those people. We've already had other people agree on that. Since Apple always refers to it as PPC/Intel code, I don't see why we shouldn't continue to limit it to that, and refer 32/64 bit code that way.
Even Wikipedia refers to it that way, though the 32/64 bit code has been done for a while.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_binary
I just like to keep things consistent.
Tthere is a simple shell tool which reports what the binary is. I tested a small 32/64 bit intel binary and that's what it says:
user$ file /testbinary
/testbinary: Mach-O universal binary with 2 architectures
/testbinary (for architecture i386)
/testbinary (for architecture x86_64)
Apparently, Apple's utility refers to the 32/64 bit intel binary as a Universal binary. I agree that this might be confusing for the end user, though, so Apple may choose to market this feature using different name, just as they did not reuse the "Fat binary" term.
In Apple developer docs you could see references to a 2-way universal binary or a 4-way universal binary. These corresponds to the number of architectures used. If the binary is described as 2-way, you would expect 32 bit Intel/PPC, but I am not sure the PPC part is a requirement.
Tthere is a simple shell tool which reports what the binary is. I tested a small 32/64 bit intel binary and that's what it says:
user$ file /testbinary
/testbinary: Mach-O universal binary with 2 architectures
/testbinary (for architecture i386)
/testbinary (for architecture x86_64)
Apparently, Apple's utility refers to the 32/64 bit intel binary as a Universal binary. I agree that this might be confusing for the end user, though, so Apple may choose to market this feature using different name, just as they did not reuse the "Fat binary" term.
I agree. Apple understands about user confusion very well. I'm just asking that we maintain their long time public use of the term.