3 ms·
macOS (nee OS X) has supported PPC (32-bit and 64-bit), x86-32, and x86-64 over the years. Furthermore there are plenty of applications that require 10.6+, 10.8
by ac29 10y ago
macOS (nee OS X) has supported PPC (32-bit and 64-bit), x86-32, and x86-64 over the years. Furthermore there are plenty of applications that require 10.6+, 10.8+, etc. I get your point, but macOS is at least at fragmented as Windows in terms of needing multiple binaries.
- nikanj 10y agomacOS can support all three of the platforms above with a single fat binary.
- ac29 10y agoYou are mostly right, I had forgotten about fat binaries. However, 10.6+ only supports x86{-32,-64}, and and 10.8+ only supports x86-64 [0]. Having Windows 10 (?) support 4 architectures is a feature, in my opinion. But, I'd still agree fat/universal binaries would be a usability enhancement. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_binary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_binary
- millstone 10y agoAside from universal binaries, Apple's approach to 64 bit also provided a better user experience. Microsoft required you to choose either a 32 bit or 64 bit version of Windows, with the 64 bit version breaking driver compatibility. Apple enabled 64 bit apps to run atop a 32 bit kernel, enabling driver compatibility, at a slight perf cost. Probably these new ARM machines won't support legacy hardware, though that may not be relevant nowadays.
- SyneRyder 10y ago10.6 could also run PPC binaries if Rosetta was installed. (It wasn't installed by default, but was an optional install from the installer disc.)