Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 28th Jan 2010 20:21 UTC
Permalink for comment 406895
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/25/13 0:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 23:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Howard Fosdick on 05/24/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 14:44 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2007-02-17
They also mean only binaries from Apple, as I'm pretty sure that only Apple bothered with it. Possibly even less "universal" than at first glance.
Huh?
Apple has shipped Mac OS X computers using various PPC and Intel chips. They have not yet shipped one running on ARM. Why would their universal binaries contain ARM executables? "
That is exactly the point ... Apple's "universal" binaries support, as you say, only "Mac OS X computers using various PPC and Intel chips". Therefore, Apples so-called "universal" binaries won't actually support ARM.
The Apple iPad uses an ARM CPU.
So ... no OSX applications for the iPad. The iPad is just a big smartphone that isn't even a phone.
Should Apple decide to ship ARM-based Macs creating native apps would mostly just be a case of rebuilding them (so you'd end up with an ARM executable in addition to the existing ones). The toolchain already supports this. Of course should this happen Apple would most likely also include a Rosetta layer to let those ARM-based Macs run existing Intel/PPC Mac binaries as they did with the PPC to Intel transition.
Huh?
Who said anything about "ARM-based Macs"? This thread is about the iPad.
Edited 2010-01-30 14:08 UTC