Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Apple Systems and Services > Programming > Mac Programming

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old May 14, 2013, 03:28 AM   #1
printz
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Should I distribute executables as universal i386+x86_64?

Is there still a demand for executables supporting i386? Or can I just build for x86_64 only? OSX 10.8 Xcode defaults to x86_64 only, but all versions before that I've had defaulted to universal. I'm concerned of occupying disk space just for this compatibility. Since many Macs use SSDs, I think it matters.

Are there many Intel 32-bit Macs with Snow Leopard support?
printz is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 14, 2013, 04:22 AM   #2
Tander
macrumors 6502a
 
Tander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
Personally I think stick with the x86_64 route. Every new MacBook or iMac that comes out supports 64 bit. No point hanging around in the past - move with the present.
__________________
I don't list my Apple devices as no one cares.
"Do what you love (no excuses!)" - Gary Vaynerchuk
Tander is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 14, 2013, 05:57 AM   #3
spyguy10709
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: One Infinite Loop, Cupertino CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by printz View Post
Is there still a demand for executables supporting i386? Or can I just build for x86_64 only? OSX 10.8 Xcode defaults to x86_64 only, but all versions before that I've had defaulted to universal. I'm concerned of occupying disk space just for this compatibility. Since many Macs use SSDs, I think it matters.

Are there many Intel 32-bit Macs with Snow Leopard support?



LOL jk

actually, I'd go i386 and x64, just because it's only a few megabytes more, you'll support people that may not be on the latest system. It's a good developer practice.
__________________
Last edited by spyguy10709; Tomorrow at 07:10 AM.
spyguy10709 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 14, 2013, 07:20 AM   #4
ArtOfWarfare
macrumors 603
 
ArtOfWarfare's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Send a message via Skype™ to ArtOfWarfare
Depends. If users are going to want your app installed on all of their computers, then support i386. If your users only need one or two copies of your app, then I think you'll be safe with x86_64 only.

(IE, Battery Status is supposed to let you monitor all of your wireless devices associated with all of your Macs... So I support i386 for people like me who still have Dino macs that get used maybe weekly, but need their batteries changed every few months.)
ArtOfWarfare is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 14, 2013, 08:48 AM   #5
printz
Thread Starter
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
In my case it is an open-source port based on a very old game, so it runs smoothly even on decade-old computers (it's also cross-platform). Thus I believe that not only I had better support i386, but also try to make it work on old OSX. And if I have the means, also support PowerPC (but probably on another executable :P)
printz is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 14, 2013, 09:15 AM   #6
gnasher729
macrumors G5
 
gnasher729's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by printz View Post
In my case it is an open-source port based on a very old game, so it runs smoothly even on decade-old computers (it's also cross-platform). Thus I believe that not only I had better support i386, but also try to make it work on old OSX. And if I have the means, also support PowerPC (but probably on another executable :P)
The biggest problem with x86 support is that you can't use many modern Objective-C features, you can't use the 10.8 SDKs, so at some point it holds you back. If size is the only consideration, I wouldn't worry about that. But as an example, you can't use ARC on x86, so if you want to use that, x86 is out. Personally, you are removing machines built in 2006, and the owners are _not_ going to pay any money for new software. And experience shows that the tightest people who will _never_ part with a penny will be the most vocal ones demanding things from you, for free.
gnasher729 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old May 26, 2013, 02:38 PM   #7
Madd the Sane
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Utah
I myself have a header that will make code both ARC and MRC compatible. This may be complicating things, but it is possible. You have to set the 64-bit build option only for it to work, though. And GC and ARC don't like each other.

To my knowledge, the only x86_64-only framework is GLKit. But GLKit also only runs with OpenGL 3.
Madd the Sane is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > Apple Systems and Services > Programming > Mac Programming

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
gfortran Undefined symbols for architecture x86_64 Darren.Long Mac Programming 2 Jun 12, 2014 02:10 PM
using .dmg to distribute folders jimalton OS X Mavericks (10.9) 1 Dec 28, 2013 10:51 AM
i386 and Dictionary Subscripting? ArtOfWarfare Mac Programming 19 Oct 26, 2013 09:41 AM
Undefined symbols for architecture x86_64: niharrocks OS X 0 Aug 30, 2012 02:45 AM
keep getting error when trying to make cmus from source: file was built for i386 whic mandorle OS X 1 Jul 1, 2012 11:30 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:41 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC