An opinion article at APCMag: “The focus of Snow Leopard is on core upgrades, not shiny new features. A bedrock focused update that delivers a streamlined, enhanced OS X. Stability. Efficiency. A “new generation of core technologies.” All this is about raising the floor on the entire system. Multi-core optimization, support for 16TB RAM (yes, Terabytes), and a language to allow developers to tap the power of the graphics processor are just a few of the key upgrades. But you can’t lift the floor and let people walk around where the floor used to be all at the same time. Not without leaving holes for a potential rising damp problem further down the track.”
Why OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard Should Leave PowerPC in the Cold
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
My most powerful Mac is a 1.25 GHz eMac, which would indeed be left behind by 10.6. However, I run 10.4 “Tiger”, which is the most efficient balance of speed and features for this machine (Tiger even runs reasonably well on my fiancee’s G3 PowerBook). I tried Leopard on the eMac and while the new features are nice, it is too sluggish even with nearly 1GB of RAM. I would assume that a G5 tower is better with Leopard, but still not what it was really designed for.
PPC Macs will have a place in this world long after 10.6 and future versions leave them behind. Just as there are Mac devotees out there still wringing use out of 68k and 603e vintage hardware with OS 8 and earlier, so will there be a G3/G4/G5 generation that lives on for many years to come.
So, I think it’s a fine idea for Apple to focus on the future.
people used to complain about the microsoft tax – every few years you were expected to buy new versions of windows or word to be able to stay compatible.
Well it seems to me that apple must have co-opted their tax department and turboed it. Microsoft seem positively generous now in the way they support old hardware.
I don’t mind apple moving on, but I’ve installed linux so that I don’t have to put up with the paying the apple tax every couple of years.
Actually, if you have an intel Mac rather than a PPC Mac, Snow Leopard will run *faster* on it and use less space. So one wouldn’t have to get new hardware in that case.
That having been said, it would be nice if they did have some sort of Snow Leopard for PPC. (Though the only difference really would be that it wouldn’t have the larger binaries – the speed improvements are all for taking advantage of multicore processors and modern GPUs, a good idea IMHO.) Definitely nobody’s making you buy Snow Leopard, there’s no real new features, so there’s no “Apple tax” this time around.
Until Leopard, every major release of Mac OS X ran faster than its predecessor, for me at least.
I really believe that they should continue to support the PowerPC G5 processors simply because they’re a good fit. It’s not as though anyone (other than fanatics) were expecting PowerPC G4 support to continue past Leopard.
Of course, it seems obvious since Tiger that Apple have struggled with getting an operating system to run efficiently on two different hardware platforms. They’d be wise in their development efforts to drop PowerPC for optimisations or split the work toward the end into two teams.
Well, unfortunately, Apple is a public corporation. Would you want to explain to shareholders why OS X development needed to be divided into two teams, the one that makes money (sells current hardware), and the one that doesn’t (sells no hardware)? As much as it would be nice of Apple to make OS X for PPC, it isn’t going to happen. Luckily, there are no major hardware incompatibilities that are going to exist for mainstream software made for Snow Leopard to run on Leopard or, unless they use CoreAnimation and the like, Tiger as well. I’ve noticed that most Mac software runs on older versions of the OS, so there’s no real “Apple tax” for OS upgrades for at least two to three version cycles nowadays.
Yes, this probably means eventually PPC hardware will be obsolete, but Apple has eased the transition fairly well it appears. By the time one *needs* to abandon Tiger or Leopard because one is running a PPC in order to run the latest software, that hardware will be pretty old in computer terms. Too old to run a lot of the latest software anyway, if it were a PC, too.
Really, if you want to run Vista, you have to get new hardware too, at a comparable level of age to that of the upcoming Snow Leopard. Although due to Microsoft having to drop all the features except the ones you don’t need to get it out the door after it being four years behind schedule, people only need XP. I’m not sure if that’s really a better product cycle for an OS, is it?
Edited 2008-07-04 08:18 UTC
Windows versions (the last ones) have lasted way longer than OS X versions, and very few applications REQUIRE Vista, so you can still run 2k/XP with no problems.
Also you don’t have to trash your whole computer if Microsoft decides that you need something a little better than you currently have.
And even if they did a Windows machine doesn’t cost as much.
Again, Microsoft had intended to release Vista four years earlier, with new features that would mean there would be applications that would require Vista. Vista, however, was late, and had most of it’s original features during its early development planing dropped, so unlike XP vs Windows 9x, it did not have any applications being written for it with backwards compatibility problems. Microsoft’s lack of new features, and hence improved OS longevity for their OS, is not because Microsoft wanted to be kinder to consumers than Apple. It’s because Vista was a lot less than Microsoft had planned.
“Also you don’t have to trash your whole computer if Microsoft decides that you need something a little better than you currently have.”
Who said anything about trashing your machine? You can still run regular Leopard on it. What’s the big deal?
Thats my whole thing. There haven’t been any major abi changes since tiger, so if a developer is paying attention they should be able to support their software from tiger on and for the most part that is what I’ve been seeing. So you can’t run Snow Leopard, so f’ing what. If you still have tiger that will run without issues, if you could install Leopard that will also run fine. You don’t need the latest and greatest, Apple supports older versions of their OS for quite some time. People are still willing to run XP even though vista is out, why because it works well for them, runs great on their hardware and they are still receiving updates from MS. People use the LTS version of Ubuntu because they want to be able to use their OS without worrying about upgrading every six months, so what if they will be outdated 3 years from now, they will still be able to run whatever they need to run.
Snow Leopard may be great but that doesn’t make it necessary for you to have it. Apple is taking out a new iPhone, I have the current one does that mean I’m going to go buy another one jsut be have the latest and greatest? Hell no, my iPhone works great now and I’ve only had it for less than a year, but I’m still geting support from apple, my firmware is going to be updated so I get all the good stuff. So I don’t get certain features that doesn’t change the fact that my iphone is a great device and that I’m extremely happy with it (though not with AT&T service).
There are multi core PPC processors, and multi processor PPC systems are pretty common too…
Also it’s quite possible to fit a modern GPU to a PPC system.
Except for later PPC Mac Pros that were already very high-end workstation systems to begin with (and thus are replaced rather than run without upgrades for over 6 years by the companies and professionals that need such expensive bleeding edge type systems) it’s my understanding that Apple did not sell multiprocessor or multicore (correct me if I’m wrong, I think they didn’t sell any multicore PPCs) PPC computers. Thus the argument is essentially correct.
They did, the last G5 systems were dual core (and dual processor, so 4 cores total)…
Also optimizations for dual core systems will also benefit dual processor systems, which are far more common among PPC users… I have an old dual processor G4 somewhere.
Those were *Mac Pro* PPCs though, if your computational performance needs were that great back then, computer upgrades are certainly not out of the picture half a decade later.
Mac Pros are Intel machines. Power Mac G4s and G5s are PPC.
Apple were selling multi-processor G4 systems as far back as 2001. They continued that with the G5 systems, which ended with multi-processor and multi-core systems just before the switch to Xeons in late 2005.
Weren’t those Mac Pros? Read my message carefully. Note “Mac Pro” and “over 6 years”.
I don’t think so. Intel quad core is faster then PPC.
Your old hardware will continue to run just as well with the OS you now have on it. Nothing from new versions of Mac OS X causes your current version you have it to run any differently.
The only thing that may have changed is “your perception” of how well your computer runs. This is only because you now see newer computers that run faster and can take advantage of new versions of OS X.
Again, your current computer does not run any differently than it has for as long as you have that same version of the OS running on it. The only pressure for you to upgrade comes from inside yourself and your feelings of “needing” to have the latest OS.
Apple tax? It isn’t like the IRS where you HAVE to pay it. Don’t want it? Don’t buy it. Apple still support security updates for OS X 10.4 which still runs just fine on my 800mhz G4 Powerbook (which I’m writing this with) and my 800mhz G4 iMac 15″ “lamp”. Neither of those suddenly have problems. Sure my Nov ’06 white 24″ Intel Core2Duo computer is taking advantage of Leopard features and will be able to take advantage of Snow Leopard features and I’m pretty sure that I will be upgrading to the latter when it comes out.
In case you don’t know, Apple is a hardware company. The profit they make on software barely makes a bump in net profits. They only create and support software so that people will buy their hardware. And when new hardware comes out, you want it to run the best it possibly can, right? So you do want them to continue to make improvements in OS X, right? When you do buy that new Apple computer you will be able to take advantage of the version of OS X that came with it and can happily run it for it for over 10 years without upgrading the OS. That’s a lot better than I’ve ever done with any of my cars.
That no support for old hardware doesn’t matter is a common idea and message from mac fanatics, however developers for the mac platform are very eager to take advantage of whatever new the latest OS version offer, and Apple try to get them to support it aswell. So usually the latest version of this and that application doesn’t run on older OS X versions, which indeed are an issue for people who are stuck with the old OS versions.
Next.
Who said that Snow Leopard and Leopard are incompatible? Except OpenCL / multi core stuff, wich is targetted at high perfomance applications, I don’t see any indication that Snow Leopard adds new APIs. That means that common desktop applications should run well under PPC Leopard.
there is no further argument in the article answering the “why”. why should it be any easier to compile osx only for intel instead of intel & ppc? does anybody really think osx contains any assembler code? why can linux & bsd run on dozens of platforms but not osx? a good os should be largely processor agnostic.
No, you are not getting it. You see, what you say is true about ordinary operating systems. But we are talking here about a very special one, which is much more integrated with its hardware than linux or windows.
Now you can see why linux can easily be compiled for PPC but OSX cannot. Its because Linux is not integrated with the processor it runs on. OSX is. So that means it works so much better and never crashes. But it also means its lots of work to make it work in this integrated way on all these other processors.
And the last thing any of us would want is for Apple to start shipping an OS that wasn’t properly integrated, surely? Why, then it would be no different from Windows or Linux, and that would never do.
PS. I know some will deny that this integration really exists. They are all wrong. Head down to Starbucks any day, and you can see it happening before your eyes on a laptop near you.
Edited 2008-07-04 07:38 UTC
What a load of BS.
Step out of your reality distortion field ..
Can you name any facts and not rely on fanboi speek?
MacOS runs well on Apple hardware .. I’ll give you that, but if you inform yourself you can buy hardware that runs Windows and Linux just as well.
And in the case of Linux you can even compile the whole OS+Apps, _everything_ for your CPU. So Linux can be much better integrated with any CPU architecture than MacOS will ever be.
Edited 2008-07-04 07:59 UTC
Recompiling won’t mean everything are really optimized for a specific platform. Recompiling a game for SDL on X11 with OpenGL support for your PC won’t make it as resource and hardware effecient as on a gaming console. There are more to optimization than what the compiler does.
Apple do have a benefit where they can for instance be sure that all machines which runs this and that version of the OS will have say support for shaders or T&L so they can make use of that in their gui functions and ignore using the processor instead. On a more generic OS you can’t make such decisions because you don’t have enough control of the hardware (unless you put on a system requirement for it, which is what Vista does for instance.)
But he’s still talking bullshit when it comes to how it have to be for Intel processors. I doubt Apple do any huge optimization specifically for Intel, and I doubt it couldn’t be made using some macros / generic functions which does different things for PPC or Intel. If anything it’s “we could get rid of this code if we went Intel only”, but I doubt they remove PPC support in the source tree anyway just in case … They probably just compile for Intel to get smaller binaries and so on.
You clearly have no understanding of how Linux is structured. Platform-agnostic code is shared, and code that depends on the platform is not. There is an entire directory in the Linux source tree for x86 and it is quite hefty. There are similar directories for other platforms. In drivers and more generic code, macros take care of putting in the most efficient code depending on the platform. Believe me, the kernel is absolutely optimized for whatever platform it is compiled on.
Bullshit.
Mach can support many processors, also Apple probably have some libaries to make use of both Altivec and MMX/SSE when appropriate.
OS X doesn’t run better than Linux, and it does crash, Safari sucks donkey arse. Apple are no master coders, personally I rather think the performance of my apps and machine are rather sucky, though interfaces are good.
“Different”, yeah, very technical description.
And as if Linux and Windows isn’t “different” enough compared to eachother.
We just ignore the fanatism, not facts.
starbucks sucks i prefer real coffee instead of hot milk.
and i’m already sitting in front of a macbook and have been using macs since 1992, so i think i can say with some confidence that yes, macs do crash. even osx crashes. and osx isn’t faster than other operating systems. but it still is by far the best desktop os. but certainly not because of tight integration with the hardware it runs on.
Edited 2008-07-04 08:42 UTC
That’s just nuts. The only thing hardware specific would be drivers, the rest would be pretty much an upgrade of the fat version of leopard, just like the Intel version is built.
That argument is just rationalization.
So… magic it is, then? Gotcha.
PPC OS X more integrated with it’s processor than PPC linux?
Please, do not post unless you know the slightest bit about the programming you’re talking about.
If it WERE more integrated, logic would say it should be running better, not worse than PPC linux.
Yeah, and it have already supported PPC and x86 for the whole time earlier and that may or may not have slowed down the development so much, so why would PPC support do now?
I’d say it’s not much about “omg we need to do this” as “it would be easier to just support this and ignore the old stuff” + “we need to move people over to Intel now” / “how can we get our users to upgrade their machines more often?”
It’s a move motivated by politics, not technical merit. See 64 bit Carbon.
Its just the opposite. If this was a move motivated by politics you would see the support for the ppc stay on forever. The amount of time that goes into developing, maintaining and testing for two platforms should make it quite obvious this is a move motivated by technical reasons.
Despite what you apparently think. Apple is NOT a software company. Yes they make software including an OS but that is not their focus. Their focus is selling the hardware that they make. In order to get your to buy it instead of Dell or some other hardware at the highest profit margin they can, is to have something different and compelling enough for you to buy it.
Their difference just happens to be the OS and software that you run on their hardware. And why do they make new versions of their software? To make compelling reasons for you to buy new versions of their hardware.
As noted in my other reply to another person, your “old” Apple hardware does not suddenly run less well if you do not buy a newer version of Apple’s OS or other software. It runs just as well as the day that you started running those versions. The newness may have worn off but that doesn’t mean it runs any different.
Since now we know that Apple’s main purpose is to compel you to buy their new hardware, I think you would be very upset if they didn’t write new versions of software that could take advantage of changes in their hardware. So … Apple does make changes and does support “old” computers for awhile that can take advantage of the changes.
The guts of Apple computers has changed a lot more rapidly in the last few years than in the five years before it. Before that it was mostly just speed changes and then 32 to 32/64 bit goodness.
Now Apple has changed processors and with that they are writing quite a bit of software for new technologies they didn’t have time for before. Why? Because Apple was trying to get to the point where OS X was NextStep with a new GUI on it. That for the most part has been accomplished including while changing CPU and many other technologies inside the computers.
By the way. Have you noticed how Microsoft, which only makes software and not hardware for PCs (Xbox series doesn’t count and neither do keyboards or mice). Despite this their transition from 32 bit to 64 bit it a LOT rougher than Apple’s despite them changing CPU architectures at the same time.
Now that Apple is ready to release the iPhone and get most of the engineers back from that group, Apple is ready to take advantage of new technologies and possibly drastically increase the performance of newly released and not yet released Apple computers.
My guess is that even if Apple wanted to, their software engineering teams just aren’t large enough to handle Intel and PPC for this new technologies at the same time.
Don’t forget that quite a few of Apple’s major apps aren’t all Cocoaized yet. There is still a lot of Carbon in them and all those apps need to have major parts rewritten to remove as much of Carbon from them as currently possible while also taking advantage of what Snow Leopard is bringing.
While Linux can run on multiple CPU architectures it doesn’t yet take advantage of technologies in the same way that OS X has. Argue all you want about it but look at MAIN STREAM computer buyers. They are not flocking to Linux yet. Yes computer nerds are but that market is not as big as main stream. Linux will get there and then John and Jane Doe will have to be able to go into Best Buy or go onto Dell and HP’s website and be able to choose what OS they want for EVERY computer they look at. Only then will Linux truly start to be main stream.
I would say Apple’s 32->64 transition was rather rough actually…
The G5 was 64bit, then replaced by the first Intel based Macs which were 32bit, later to be replaced by 64bit Intel macs, but there was that brief 32bit backwards step in there…
I think they should have gone direct to 64bit x86, using AMD if necessary, rather than saddling themselves with 32bit x86 compatibility.
“By the way. Have you noticed how Microsoft, which only makes software and not hardware for PCs (Xbox series doesn’t count and neither do keyboards or mice). Despite this their transition from 32 bit to 64 bit it a LOT rougher than Apple’s despite them changing CPU architectures at the same time.”
Mostly because the range of hardware that Windows runs on is nearly infinite, while OS X only runs on a very small subset. Makes it a lot harder to test compatibility and drivers.
Also, because Apple has no real business market penetration, they can afford to change thing more radically (like 64bit carbon), which if MS did, their customers would be screaming for blood.
You completely overlooked what someone previously replied about this argument. If this is the case, explain to me why I need at least 10.4 to run something as simple as Adium. What does 10.3 miss that requires the latest version of Adium to be in 10.4 only? Many people still use 10.3.9 on their still-useful Macs. This is the problem not so much with Apple (although Apple is to blame for not putting out security patches for older OS X versions and leaving them vulnerable) but Apple developers (even the open source ones)! XCode does have the support to compile for older versions of OS X, so why don’t the developers make the same software available for older versions of OS X? Sticking with an older version of OS X wouldn’t be a problem if the developers would just keep the software available
Did we forget the 68K-to-PPC transition? Even then, Apple developers did their best to support even the last 68K Macs using the 68040 processor and running Mac OS 8.1 for quite a while. Even developers on Windows support their software on at least Windows 2000 (which is MUCH older than OS X altogether). This doesn’t seem to be the case with the new Apple and current Apple developers.
And while the last G5 models might be slower to the now-lowly Core Duo, is it really incapable of running the latest technologies? As it is, 10.4 runs quite well on a lowly Power Macintosh G4 that’s been upgraded to the hilt over the years of ownership. With something that’s still as capable as the G5, why would Apple need to obsolete it so quickly? The answer is obvious that financially it’s not in their best interest, but in the long-term is just seems like a short-sighted view just to reach the low-hanging fruit of consumers.
This has nothing to do with the disconnect from the hardware. This has more to do with Microsoft trying to make Vista backwards compatible to REALLY old software that is only used in niche environments. Had they not had to do this, they would have made the transition much quicker. Even still, the benefit of 64-bits is only seen in applications that make use of the extra addressing and memory support.
I don’t see Apple moving people from iPhone development over to the Mac once the new iPhone is released. They didn’t do it when the first one was release so why would they with this one? As it stands now, Jobs is more concerned with iPods, iPhones, and iTunes. He has forgotten his core audience from many years and unless that changes, there will be defections in the future. Impossible, you say? Well, the same was said of Microsoft years ago…
This is utterly false. As a matter of fact, AnandTech did a comparison of OS X Server and GNU/Linux on a G5 and found GNU/Linux to actually perform better than Mac OS X on the same hardware.
http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2520&p=1
And considering that GNU/Linux has been on x86 since the i386, I find OS X having the upper hand here quite hard to believe. If anything, OS X benefits from the fact that Darwin is based on collaborative works with free and open source developers along with the GNU and BSD programs that come with it.
With regards to the mainstream, Apple WAS made available to many people many years ago and it STILL wasn’t considered mainstream. It took Apple a LONG time (along with some help from the iPod/iTunes halo effect) to get to where it is now. I don’t see it being any different for any other operating system, even desktop-oriented GNU/Linux distributions.
For the record, I’ve been an Apple user since my Apple IIc in the mid-80s and a Mac user for 15 years now. I still have a love for Macs but not for this new Apple, which is starting to resemble what Microsoft was in the 90s IMO. They need to remember that without the support of their loyal Macintosh users, they would not have been around long enough to receive that much-needed financial boost from Microsoft.
Edited 2008-07-04 15:23 UTC
Apple computers are not iPods. You do not throw them away when a new faster more brightly colored one appears on the web site.
A longer support cycle is what we expect from Apple.
I am not ready to landfill my G5 yet.
The fact that a new Intel Mac Mini is several times faster is irrelevant to me; my Mac still works fine.
Remember that there is always a faster computer.
First apple is no longer purely a hardware of software company. An apple employee asked Steve what the company was. His answer is that they provide both software, hardware and services so they can no longer think of themselves as one or the other, his answer was that apple is now a technology company.
As for PPC support, we are not really talking about low level support of the hardware in Snow Leopard. We are talking about some new features which improve the performance of Mac OSX. Multicore (Grand Central) and other optimisations. These are pretty much redundant on a lot of the PPC’s out there as most of these are single core, and in some cases dual core. Grand Central, OpenCL take advantage of dual core, quad and octo core processors, they take advantage of the cutting edge nVidia and Ati graphics card processing power.
As it has been stated before apps will still work on older OS’s Tiger is still being supported, Leopard will be supported for longer still. Dev’s can still develop Universal Binary’s for Tiger or Leopard.
I see these as the foundations for the future tech of Apple and Mac OSX. Perhaps they seem a little over the top now, but in a few years this technology will mature and will be a godsend. I see grand central as the most important. As any dev will know, multithreading/multiple core development is incredibly hard, so to have the OS take this over and do it for you is perfect.
I have a 3 yr old PPC Powerbook 1.67GHZ and will continue to use this until it breaks, it’s still incredibly speedy for what i use it work (Playing videos, email, surfing and recording TV programs) Leopard runs really well on it, and am still amazed that Mac OSX continues to get faster with both major revisions 10.4/10.5 and minor revisions 10.5.x.
Good grief, I thought I’d read some pretty full-on Apple fanboy stuff before, but this article just takes the biscuit.
“Steve Jobs is about to ram an ungreased rough-cut tree-branch up my behind ! And I want him to ! Anything Steve does is right for me !”
I have a 64 bit intel mac. Part of me says, sure, I could use that disk space taken up by useless PPC code in universal binaries.
But the other part says, how would I feel if I had spent $3000 on a powerbook or g5 a month before teh Steve announced that no, x86 wasn’t proletarian crap anymore, CISC didn’t suck, that was last week — this week, x86 macs are going to be awesome!
I think it is truly lame to obsolete a computer that is not obsolete when you are running profit margins of 30%, maybe 50% on high end hardware. To own a mac, you have to accept that you are going to be ripped off, with 500% markups on RAM and so on. The general hope is that it pays off in different ways. But this is too much.
I’m reading through the assortment of posts so far, and I can’t believe the mouth frothing and name calling that is going on.
All these articles are is speculation. People sitting around playing the well known parlour game of “what is Apple going to do next” (which sits next to the ‘if I had a million dollars, what would I spend it on’). I can’t work out, therefore, knowing fully well that these articles are speculation – to then make giant claims over the future of Mac OS X.
Sure, I like speculation as much as the next person – but come on guys; your guess is no better than another persons guess as to the future direction of Apple. Yes, speculate, but realise that its all blind leading the blind – and no one really has the ‘inside scoop’ on what is happening. The only people who know for sure are those who are actually working on the projects themselves – and even those at time don’t know what is happening.
I think it’s the first time such a situation gets so much attention for the release of a new version of OSX. The switch to Intel have cause some headache before but now it seams clear that Apple will drop support for PPC or at least, let it lag behind a bit. It’s not because Apple doesn’t love anymore the PPC. Their PPC machines were good and solid ones, and still give a good run for your money. But, the fact is that nowadays, even the fastest G5 couldn’t keep up in face of a nice Core 2. The Intel processors got so much better during last few years.
The old x86 vs ppc comparison got a new shift. During the good day of the ppc, Intel processors were far from being efficient. They were crawling under the task that a ppc would have accomplished like a breeze and still feel quick and snappy. I guest if new Mac would to be built around newer PPC, they would run nicely, but I don’t think this gonna happen.
So, in resume, Apple will may not release Snow Tiger for PPC, not because it doesn’t want to, but because it would met requirements on most machine out there. Apple don’t want their user to loose the “smooth like a breeze” feeling. Imagine a Mac lagging like an old P3 1Ghz running Vista… I don’t think it ever gonna happen. They prefer to let it die nicely.
If apple are willing to drop powerpc then they are also willing to drop early intel mac versions as well that lack intel’s VT instruction set… Reality: cocoa was always designed to be multiplatform. There is almost no effort required in maintaining it as such. As for macs being so cpu integrated.. yeah right.. I guess that’s why osx never booted on an AMD cpu?.. oh wait.. that works fine.
Until you’ve seen the sourcecode for osx I think some people around here need to stop talking about the insides of an OS they haven’t looked at. On the whole thing of apps like adium. Simply put the ABI changes quite often in osx and developers are often too lazy to compile multiple versions of their apps to support each ABI.
Edited 2008-07-04 15:56 UTC