Talk:Universal binary

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Universal binary article.
Article policies
This article is part of WikiProject Macintosh. This means that the WikiProject has identified it as an article pertaining to the Macintosh, but is not currently working to improve it. WikiProject Macintosh itself is an attempt to improve, grow, standardize, and attain featured status for Wikipedia's articles related to Macintosh and Apple Inc. We need all your help, so join in today!
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article is on a subject of mid-importance within Macs for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.

Contents

[edit] No title

This should be merged with Fat binary. The term "universal binary" appears to be an Apple-ism. Dysprosia 06:10, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I disagree; this is to give information on a specific type of fat binary; the terms are not synonyms. Eg the line "Apple's Xcode 2.1 supports the creation of these files" refers only to Intel/PPC Fat Binaries for Mac OSX, it could not for instance create an Intel/Alpha Fat Binary for Windows NT. Therefore I think this page still has relevence. MrWeeble Talk Brit tv 12:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Universal Applications?

Do we really need this section? I dont think anyone is interested in maintaining this information or reading it. At best it is just advertizing though I suppose it can be added into a List of Universal Applications. What would be more appropriate for this article is maybe a history of the term, when it was first used, which OSX version first supported this feature, etc. I am removing it but feel free to add it back in if you have a good reason.69.121.109.152 05:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I am interested in reading it and I'm sure others are as well. —Tokek 11:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to this section I could write material for my University thesis. Removing? Why? --MG55 18:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Please, get rid of this section. XML-RPC Client? Who cares? What about Metro, Reason, Mathematica, MySQL, Finale? There are thousands of Universal binaries available; Intel is the future of the Mac, so pretty much every piece of software that hasn't been discontinued/abandoned should either have a Universal version available or be "in development". A few more links to Apple's website [1][2] would serve readers much better. — Miles←☎ 07:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Who cares? I thought I already answered that question. I think the original intent may have been to show the progress or lack of progress of softwares switching to Universal. Also, albeit shocking, apparently some people use Wikipedia as a source for writing their thesis. If you don't want to read the section...—Tokek
You missed my point: I was asking "who cares" about XML-RPC Client, an obscure application from a minor freeware developer, when hundreds of more-used applications are missing from the table. — Miles←☎ 20:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the above remark ; this list should be removed. There is no rationality in the selection and it sorely lacks content. The emptiness of the "development" section makes the two existing entries look like adverts. In comparison, the Apple-maintained page has more than 2500 entries... Orphu of Io 18:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Could you provide a direct link to this page of more than 2500 entries? —Tokek 12:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
The start page is here : [3], and the full list can be obtained here : [4]Orphu of Io 12:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalization of Universal in Universal binary: Apple's convention

From looking at Apple's website, it is clear Universal in the sense of a Universal binary (or the Universal version of an application) is supposed to be capitalized. See Apple - Universal - Applications and Intel-based Mac: How to tell if an application is Universal for examples. —204.42.20.215 22:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shared code?

"If they are compiled and optimized for platforms as different as x86 and PowerPC, what binary code could they be sharing?"

applications do not consist only of compiled code, but generally include a number of non-executable resources such as bitmaps, audio files, text and data files, and in the case of games, huge amounts of texture, map, and model data. the claim you're responding to -- that multi-platform applications will usually share a significant amount of dependent data among platforms -- is completely reasonable. --G0zer 18:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Microsoft's Office 2004 applications often hang or quit under Rosetta

What is the justification for this statement, accounts seem to contradict it. "Our one and only crash during the entire Office testing set was during a find and replace in Word. A quick re-launch, and everything proceeded as expected." http://www.mactech.com/articles/mactech/Vol.22/22.05/Office2004Benchmark/ Removing remark.


[edit] Compiler Stuff

It would be good if this page had more information about how stuff is compiled as a Universal Binary and what compilers support it.

What do you mean, what compilers support it? I believe it uses gcc to compile both ends, and uses a tool to join the Intel-only and the PowerPC-only code into one binary. As for what languages, XCode only come with C, C++, and Objective C. There is a third-party addon for Fortran, but I don't know if it makes Universal Binaries. Madd the sane 05:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reducing size of univeral binaries

Some applications like Xslimmer can reduce the size of universal binaries by stripping either PPC or Intel code from the binary. Do you think it is relevant to include a section/paragraph/sentence to this article?

Jonathan2007 20:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a small section would probably be a good idea. Madd the sane 05:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mach-O

Shouldn't this mention Mach-O since that's technically the executable format that the Universal Binary is in?

Yes. You know you can add stuff, right? Madd the sane 05:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)