Mac OS X 10.5.8 - Leopard update

Check “Software Update.” It’s out.

…and Scrivener would seem to work with it.

Good point. I plan to update OSX on imac and workbook when it’s available (Sept 09) but only if I’m sure it won’t be to the detriment of Scrivener.

Can you reassure me please?

Many thanks

Scrivener will indeed work on 10.6. I’ve already tested it and there is only one crasher that I’m aware of, which will be fixed in an update before September so that it is Snow Leopard-ready. Scrivener 2.0, out later this year or early next, will go further and be optimised for Snow Leopard (but will still run on Tiger or above).
All the best,
Keith

Keith,

Many thanks

KB,

Will 2.0 be intel only or universal?

Hi Jaysen,

Scrivener 2.0 will be universal.

All the best,
David

Thank you Mr. Shadow. I can now seriously consider an old G for the kiddies.

By Universal do you mean Scrivener with work only on the Mac/Intell computer or will it work on Windows too?

Universal is a catch phrase to mean an application will run on older Macintosh hardware (PowerPC based) as well as newer Intel machinery. Running Macintosh programs in Windows is, practically speaking, impossible, just as you cannot run Windows programs on a Mac. You have to use special virtual machines that run entire operating systems in the background (like VmWare or Parallels) to do this.

Cheeeeeky!!! :smiley:

Amber, what about Boot Camp? Doesn’t it allow you to run Windows apps on a Mac partition???

I hesitated a LONG time before posting this. It’s a test, isn’t it? :unamused:

When a computer is running Windows as its boot operating system, it ceases to be a Mac. :slight_smile:

When a system is running windows it ceases to be.

I really dislike M$ products, windows most of all. But this is not the place for that flame war.

For those that don’t know, the original Macs (back in the '80s) used a microprocessor made by Motorola (68000/68030/68040 were the primaries). The last generation used a chip manufactured by IBM called the PowerPC (PPC). These morphed into what was called the G series, much as the x86 architecture was renamed Pentium.

The big point here is that you can not execute binary code for one chip architecture on a different chip with out an “interpreter”. If you picture a hick like me dropped in the middle of Greece, trying to “get a job done”, you will get the idea.

When apple moved to the intel (x86) platform they were smart enough to build the required interpreter into OSX for Mac OS. But they left the ability to optimize for specific architectures in as well. When you see an app that is “Intel” or “PPC” you are looking at a files that is optimized for that chipset. A universal will work on either.

Anyone who read that whole thing now knows more about Mac and chip/architecture than the last three candidates I interviewed. They had BS in IT, IM and CS respectively. Apparently BS means just what I thought it did, and not Bachelor of Science.

Hang on a minute…

I have a BS in CS as well, and I didn’t know any of that, nor do I think any of it is relevant to my degree, or my job. And to be honest, I don’t think it is particularly important to my job programming Aeon Timeline either. The history of chipsets, and even how they work in general, are just not relevant to the sort of higher level programming I do.

Of course, that may be different if I was applying for a job where it was relevant to know that. But the fact that a University course doesn’t cover a particular subject doesn’t say anything about the applicant’s ability or intelligence - just a gap in their knowledge that a fast learner can very quickly fill (in my university course, Mac computers were never mentioned, let alone used at any point).

Matt,

Sorry about that. A tad frustrated at the moment. I guess I am a tad old school when it comes to the CS being about the science and underlying technology. It is almost as if the “engineering” side of CS has been lost. So when I ask for resumes for engineers and I get a pile with CS degrees I expect them to know something about chipsets. Especially since we work on Sparc, x86, PPC ad a few RS, which was mentioned right next to “porting cross architecture advice to program teams”.

There was a time when chipset spec would have been life for death for someone building Aeon (which I am still trying to use). I guess I never moved past that time.

On the flip side… I would never apply for a job that mentioned 15 different chipsets I had never heard of, and if I did, I would expect to get grilled heavily and marched out the door :mrgreen:

I understand what you are saying. I actually tutored and even lectured on Assembly coding for the old Motorola 68K. But by then, of course, we were running simulators. We couldn’t possibly have used the real thing.

I agree there is value in understanding the underlying nature of things. But these days, is it more important than learning databases? various HTTP architectures? threading, and all of the various race conditions and deadlocks?

Unless you are after a job working directly with lower level processing - and comparatively, there are very few around - there are a lot more important areas that are already heavily neglected. Threading doesn’t get the attention it deserves, neither does memory management since we have Java and .NET… even basic debugging skills are never really taught in any meaningful way.

In my defense, in my line of work, it is increasingly lack of “low level” understanding that is causing us issues. Consider my recent comments on 2Gb file size limits on 32b systems. Last count was $2M in losses due to someone not understanding that a 32b system has 2GB limits on addressable space. While not dealing with chipsets, I think the example is valid.

For the record I don’t hire programers. We are all system engineers. The rules for us are probably a bit different.

Which leads to the question: why are programmers (i.e. CS students, not Comp Eng) applying for your jobs in the first place?

That alone may make them idiots. Although it has nothing to do with their degrees :slight_smile:

I think it has to do with the fact that there are few to no programming jobs here. The attitude seems to be “I can write software and those guys are not as smart as us programmers, they don’t even use Windows!”. One guy who I am considering actually said “I don’t think I qualify, but it seems to me that there are more programmers than systems guys. I can learn.” I give him points for testicular fortitude.

Many Java applications have serious memory leaks. A fool with a tool is still a fool.