To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
I am sorry to tell you that this actually happened to me, albeit on an old rev.b iMac G3 233 MHz with Mac OS X 10.3.9, 256 MB RAM and iTunes 7.02 ...
It wouldn't load unless I stripped off the Intel bits (after which it has just kept running though the library keeps growing + the RAM usage went down dramatically even on my PB G4 1.5 GHz with 1.25 GB RAM ...
I know it's not supposed to make a difference, but in my case it did, and quite dramatically I might say!
There was never an intel version of 10.3.9. You are running entirely PPC code on a PPC machine. Anyway, if you WERE running a universal binary, the intel code would be ignored by the PPC processor. It wouldn't even look at it, as there is no "forwards" compatibility with intel executables.
I don't disbelieve that you made your computer run faster somehow, but I seriously doubt that it was by stripping out all the intel code, which doesn't even exist in 10.3.9.
Even more than that: take a look at anything in /System on Tiger/ppc, you'll find that nothing in there is a Universal binary; it's all PPC-only. Do the same on Tiger/x86 (assuming you haven't run Monolingual on it), and you'll find it's not Intel-only, but all dual-architecture fat binaries.
Quite an odd choice, really.
To those wondering about the stability of Mac OS X on Intel, be aware that Darwin has been available for x86 for as long as it's been available on PPC: it didn't run on very many hardware configurations, but those it does run on work just fine (and really, limited hardware configurations isn't exactly a concern for Mac OS X)






Member since:
2005-07-22
um, no. You will not save RAM or CPU by removing the Intel code, since the Intel code is not loaded on a PPC system. The only increase is in the size of the application on disk since it contains 2 binaries.