Steve,
I still know very many people, schools, firms etc. who still haven't
spend the resources on replacing their ancient hardware, their
philosophy being, if it aint broke, don't fix it (plus the fact that
especially schools are on a tight budget). If you can release
software for Mac OS 9, please do.
It is mere speculation, I admit, but I think that Mac OS 10.3 is
considered the first really reliable version of Mac OS X. If you can,
you probably will run this version instead of 10.2. I also expect
owners of 10.3 to update to the latest version, 10.3.9. I also know
that many people can't or can't afford to update to 10.4. So, as far
as Mac OS X is concerned, my theory implies you can safely aim at
10.3 and 10.4.
Malte already wrote why it is smart to include UB versions of your
software: it is a buzz word. I'm definitely going to release UB
versions of all my software.
Best,
Mark
--
Economy-x-Talk
Consultancy and Software Engineering
http://economy-x-talk.com
http://www.salery.biz
Get your store on-line within minutes with Salery Web Store software.
Download at http://www.salery.biz
Op 1-okt-2006, om 22:10 heeft [EMAIL PROTECTED] het volgende
geschreven:
Regarding which of the standalone versions to include in
distributing one's
built applications, please correct me if my logic is wrong here:
a. I assume that very few Mac users have operating systems that are
earlier
than OS X, so one does not have to be so concerned about
distributing for OS 9
(or Classic).
b. Many people, though, may have OSX versions less than 3.9, so
distributing
an application in Universal Binary would not help these users, if
Universal
Binary requires OS X.3.9 or higher. One would then have to also
include
PowerPC-only (for all versions of OSX) and Intel-only (for optimal
performance on
Intel) versions to reach most users.
c. Perhaps the ideal way of distributing might be a combination of
PowerPC-only and Intel-only versions. That should cover all
PowerPC versions as
well as Intel. It would not be necessary to include the Universal
Binary
version.
Does this logic make sense?
Steve Goldberg
In a message dated 10/1/06 2:45:37 PM,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
[email protected]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
