...and keep in mind that - at Leopard release time - the installed
base of PowerPC-based Macs is likely still going to be larger than
that of Intel-based Macs. So it makes good financial sense for Apple
to have Leopard support both architectures.
On Apr 15, 2006, at 8:44 PM, Kafka's Daytime wrote:
I should say "natively" compatible with both PowerPC and Intel
(i.e. PowerPC folks are not settling for any kind of inferior
performance with a Universal Binary). For most applications,
creating a Universal Binary is straightforward with Apple's
development tools. As one poster put it (paraphrased): "Developers
have to work pretty hard *not* to create a Universal Binary."
FInally, I'd caution against falling into LAGS - Latest and
Greatest Syndrome. A tool is only obsolete if it doesn't do what
*you* want it to do. So the real questions are: 1. What software do
you really need/want? 2. Will the next version of the software be
available as a Universal Binary? Perhaps the software isn't
available yet as a Universal Binary - in which case you *need* to
retain your PowerPC-based Mac.
Joe
On Apr 15, 2006, at 8:34 PM, Kafka's Daytime wrote:
Running list of 1500+ Universal Applications (applications
compatible with both Intel and PowerPC based Macs) at the
following link:
http://guide.apple.com/universal/
Joe
On Apr 15, 2006, at 8:23 PM, Kafka's Daytime wrote:
On Apr 15, 2006, at 8:12 PM, Richard Wells wrote:
I am getting concerned because software is already being written
that will not run on the older hardware.
Hi Richard,
Which software are you speaking of?
Joe
