> Am 21.06.2022 um 15:19 schrieb Mark Waddingham via use-livecode
> :
>
> On 2022-06-21 12:18, matthias rebbe via use-livecode wrote:
>>> Am 21.06.2022 um 11:56 schrieb Mark Waddingham via use-livecode
>>> :
>>> Why?
>> First, it's more convenient for the developer.
>
> I think the end user
On 2022-06-21 12:18, matthias rebbe via use-livecode wrote:
Am 21.06.2022 um 11:56 schrieb Mark Waddingham via use-livecode
:
Why?
First, it's more convenient for the developer.
I think the end user is more important (in this case) ;)
The Intel only and Apple only builds are smaller ins
> Am 21.06.2022 um 11:56 schrieb Mark Waddingham via use-livecode
> :
>
> On 2022-06-20 20:55, matthias rebbe via use-livecode wrote:
>> Anyway, the macOS Apple support is currently experimental, i am pretty
>> sure there will be such an option in future. At least i hope so. ;)
>
> Why?
>
On 2022-06-20 20:55, matthias rebbe via use-livecode wrote:
Anyway, the macOS Apple support is currently experimental, i am pretty
sure there will be such an option in future. At least i hope so. ;)
Why?
The idea of universal binaries is to ensure that a single app/installer
can be shipped
Hm,
here in LC 9.6.8 RC2 and 10DP4 i see only 'macOS Intel' and 'macOS Apple
(experimental)'.
When i select both, then a universal standalone is created.
So to have separate Intel and M1 versions, I have to run the standalone
building 2 times.
Once with only Intel selected and then once
Indeed, but 'both' results in an app package containing 2 'slices', rather
than 2 distinct apps.
On Mon, 20 Jun 2022, 21:56 Niggemann, Bernd via use-livecode, <
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:
> Richmond wrote:
>
> > In the standalone builder you have always separated
> > Linux 32-bit and
Richmond wrote:
> In the standalone builder you have always separated
> Linux 32-bit and 64-bit builds, and the same with
> Windows: could you alter the MacOS standalones so we
> end up with one INTEL 64-bit standalone, and one ARM
> standalone, rather than a awkward sandwich?
In the current
In the standalone builder you have always separated Linux 32-bit and
64-bit builds, and the same with Windows: could you
alter the MacOS standalones so we end up with one INTEL 64-bit
standalone, and one ARM standalone, rather than a awkward sandwich?
Best, Richmond.
On 20.06.22 17:50, Mark
On 2022-06-18 21:27, matthias rebbe via use-livecode wrote:
So, the question now is, is this a macOS problem or is it possible
that a standalone could show the wrong setting due to a wrong
configuration or so when it is created.
It is a macOS (Finder) bug - I think it was the same when they
Thanks Bernd,
the processor...
should have know that. it seems i got to much sun today. ;)
I was also wondering why the check box for rosetta was already unchecked after
installation, but did not had the idea to check.
I just trusted macOS. ;)
So, the question now is, is this a macOS
Hi Matthias,
I should have added that to my previous post:
If you put "put the processor" into the message box it says
Rosetta: x86_64
Native: arm64
Startup time is also noticeably reduced when running native. Also is the
footprint of LC in memory smaller according to activity monitor: about
Bernd,
May be a dumb question, but how did you verify that LC was running in Rosetta
mode although it was not checked.
Regards,
Matthias
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
> Am 18.06.2022 um 19:35 schrieb Niggemann, Bernd via use-livecode
> :
>
> Sorry if this has been discussed before but I
Sorry if this has been discussed before but I could not find it.
Yesterday I played around with LC 9.6.8 RC2 and 10.0.0 RC4 and wanted to see
what difference the new Universal build does for speed.
After some testing I finally read the release notes and it states:
Note: Apple architecture
13 matches
Mail list logo
