Distribute app as "SIT", "ZIP", "DMG", "SEA", etc???
David
carbonized application. It runs on Mac OSX, and old Mac OS's back to OS
8.6 as long as the user has the CarbonLib extension active. My app, by
the way, is VERY simple...just one file, the application...no other
files, just the app. For years and years, I've been distributing this
application as a simple SIT file. That was pretty standard, at least a
while ago it was.
But, now, every now and then, I get a comment from someone who has no
idea what ".SIT" means, and apparently Apple no longer even installs
StuffIt Expander on new OSX installs. So, what to do?
I know Mac OSX now has it's own "Archive" capability and creates ZIPs,
but I'm not sure old Mac's would know what to do with such a file. Does
the same go for DMG's?? I have a very old version of StuffIT Deluxe, so
I suppose I could make a "SEA", self-extracting application from
it...that would presumably work on Mac OS 8.6 on up to OSX? How about
using DiskUtil to create a DMG? Are DMG's created in OSX recognized
back in the land of OS 8.6 or 9?
Any comments or suggestions would be appreciated. THANKS!
Reinder Verlinde
David <da...@skjopasoao.com> wrote:
> Hi. I have a Mac application. It's NOT a universal binary, but it IS a
> carbonized application. It runs on Mac OSX, and old Mac OS's back to OS
> 8.6 as long as the user has the CarbonLib extension active. My app, by
> the way, is VERY simple...just one file, the application...no other
> files, just the app. For years and years, I've been distributing this
> application as a simple SIT file. That was pretty standard, at least a
> while ago it was.
>
> But, now, every now and then, I get a comment from someone who has no
> idea what ".SIT" means, and apparently Apple no longer even installs
> StuffIt Expander on new OSX installs. So, what to do?
>
> I know Mac OSX now has it's own "Archive" capability and creates ZIPs,
> but I'm not sure old Mac's would know what to do with such a file.
AFAIK, they do not know about the way the Mac encodes resource forks
there. Also, you can not count on Mac OS 8/9 users having an unzip
application, at all.
> Doesthe same go for DMG's?? I have a very old version of StuffIT Deluxe, so
> I suppose I could make a "SEA", self-extracting application from
> it...that would presumably work on Mac OS 8.6 on up to OSX?
The SEA would have to be carbonized to run on intel Macs. I do not think
it will be
> How about
> using DiskUtil to create a DMG? Are DMG's created in OSX recognized
> back in the land of OS 8.6 or 9?
>
> Any comments or suggestions would be appreciated. THANKS!
If you are willing to forget about Mac OS 8 and 9 users, I suggest using
an Internet-Enabled Disk Image. See
<http://developer.apple.com/documentation/UserExperience/Conceptual/OSXHI
Guidelines/XHIGInstallationsUpdates/chapter_9_section_3.html>
Alternatively, provide two separate downloads, one for Mac OS 8 and 9
and a .dmg for Mac OS X.
A third alternative might be described in
<http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=106161>. Apparently, Mac
OS X can still open Mac OS 9 self-mounting disk images.
Reinder
Tom Harrington
Reinder Verlinde <rei...@verlinde.invalid> wrote:
> In article <031020061207108808%da...@skjopasoao.com>,
> David <da...@skjopasoao.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi. I have a Mac application. It's NOT a universal binary, but it IS a
> > carbonized application. It runs on Mac OSX, and old Mac OS's back to OS
> > 8.6 as long as the user has the CarbonLib extension active. My app, by
> > the way, is VERY simple...just one file, the application...no other
> > files, just the app. For years and years, I've been distributing this
> > application as a simple SIT file. That was pretty standard, at least a
> > while ago it was.
> >
> > But, now, every now and then, I get a comment from someone who has no
> > idea what ".SIT" means, and apparently Apple no longer even installs
> > StuffIt Expander on new OSX installs. So, what to do?
> >
> > I know Mac OSX now has it's own "Archive" capability and creates ZIPs,
> > but I'm not sure old Mac's would know what to do with such a file.
>
> AFAIK, they do not know about the way the Mac encodes resource forks
> there. Also, you can not count on Mac OS 8/9 users having an unzip
> application, at all.
If you use the Finder or the "ditto" command-line tool to create a zip
archive, resource fork information will be included (don't use the "zip"
command line tool, it'll miss the resource forks). I couldn't say
whether this information would be unpacked correctly on Mac OS 8 and 9.
Stuffit Expander can handle zip archives, so anyone who can open .sit
can open .zip. It's probably worth investigating whether the resource
forks survive the trip intact, because a zip file would be a usable
option in that case.
> > Doesthe same go for DMG's?? I have a very old version of StuffIT Deluxe, so
> > I suppose I could make a "SEA", self-extracting application from
> > it...that would presumably work on Mac OS 8.6 on up to OSX?
>
> The SEA would have to be carbonized to run on intel Macs. I do not think
> it will be
It would also have to be Carbonized to run on PPC Macs without starting
up Classic, so even there it's a usability nightmare without
Carbonization.
> > How about
> > using DiskUtil to create a DMG? Are DMG's created in OSX recognized
> > back in the land of OS 8.6 or 9?
> >
> > Any comments or suggestions would be appreciated. THANKS!
"DMG" style disk images won't be usable on 8.6, and probably not on 9.
> A third alternative might be described in
> <http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=106161>. Apparently, Mac
> OS X can still open Mac OS 9 self-mounting disk images.
This is probably the best idea-- "IMG" style disk images should work on
all the platforms you're targeting.
--
Tom "Tom" Harrington
MondoMouse makes your mouse mightier
See http://www.atomicbird.com/mondomouse/
James W. Walker
<t...@pcisys.no.spam.dammit.net> wrote:
> > A third alternative might be described in
> > <http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=106161>. Apparently, Mac
> > OS X can still open Mac OS 9 self-mounting disk images.
>
> This is probably the best idea-- "IMG" style disk images should work on
> all the platforms you're targeting.
A catch is that a self-mounting disk image has a resource fork, so if
you're going to post it for download, you must wrap it with MacBinary
or Binhex. I'm not sure about plain .img.
Doc O'Leary
> Hi. I have a Mac application. It's NOT a universal binary, but it IS a
> carbonized application. It runs on Mac OSX, and old Mac OS's back to OS
> 8.6 as long as the user has the CarbonLib extension active. My app, by
> the way, is VERY simple...just one file, the application...no other
> files, just the app. For years and years, I've been distributing this
> application as a simple SIT file. That was pretty standard, at least a
> while ago it was.
>
> But, now, every now and then, I get a comment from someone who has no
> idea what ".SIT" means, and apparently Apple no longer even installs
> StuffIt Expander on new OSX installs. So, what to do?
Know your market. The *actual* market for most OS 9 software is
vanishingly small, and you just piss off the growing number of OS X
users when you cripple software to the lowest common denominator. This
is especially true for users who have come to OS X from other platforms
and have no idea what OS 9 was.
I suggest you do something you should have done years ago: fork the app.
Give the OS X users what they have come to expect in a native app,
including distribution as a disk image (or other supported archive
format). Give the OS 9 users the opportunity to keep supporting the app
(and the old StuffIt way of distribution), but what you'll likely find
is that there are so few users that it just isn't worth your while to
keep supporting that market.
--
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com, googlegroups.com,
heapnode.com, localhost, x-privat.org
Simon Slavin
message
<031020061207108808%da...@skjopasoao.com>:
> Hi. I have a Mac
application. It's NOT a universal binary, but it IS a
> carbonized
application. It runs on Mac OSX, and old Mac OS's back to OS
> 8.6 as long
as the user has the CarbonLib extension active. My app, by
> the way, is
VERY simple...just one file, the application...no other
> files, just the
app. For years and years, I've been distributing this
> application as a
simple SIT file. That was pretty standard, at least a
> while ago it
was.
>
> But, now, every now and then, I get a comment from someone who
has no
> idea what ".SIT" means, and apparently Apple no longer even
installs
> StuffIt Expander on new OSX installs. So, what to do?
>
> I
know Mac OSX now has it's own "Archive" capability and creates ZIPs,
> but I'm not sure old Mac's would know what to do with such a file.
DMGs
> will work only for OS X. The .zip format is well-known on many
> platforms and there are various applications available for OS9 that will
> open .zip archives. Use that.
Simon.
--
http://www.hearsay.demon.co.uk
David Stone
Simon Slavin <slavins.delete....@hearsay.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
> On 03/10/2006, David wrote in
[snip]
> >
> > But, now, every now and then, I get a comment from someone who
> has no
> > idea what ".SIT" means, and apparently Apple no longer even
> installs
> > StuffIt Expander on new OSX installs. So, what to do?
A few months back, Stuffit Expander prompted me that an upgrade
was available. When I went to the parent company's site to get
it, I discovered that (1) you HAD to give a valid e-mail and (2)
you HAD to agree to let them send marketing e-mails. They also
had much greater checking of whatever you put in as an e-mail
address (@privacy.net addresses weren't acceptable, for example.)
The download link is provided in a return e-mail, so even if
succeeded in giving them a dummy address, you wouldn't be able
to download the update. I understand that they are in business
to make money, but this doesn't seem like a good way of persuading
software developers to use your tools to package their products...
> > I
> know Mac OSX now has it's own "Archive" capability and creates ZIPs,
> > but I'm not sure old Mac's would know what to do with such a file.
>
> DMGs
Seconded, just make sure the image file you produce is
compatible with your classic OS target range file system...
Sherm Pendley
> A few months back, Stuffit Expander prompted me that an upgrade
> was available. When I went to the parent company's site to get
> it, I discovered that (1) you HAD to give a valid e-mail and (2)
> you HAD to agree to let them send marketing e-mails. They also
> had much greater checking of whatever you put in as an e-mail
> address (@privacy.net addresses weren't acceptable, for example.)
Register a domain name. It's cheap, and you can make up addresses@
yourdomain on an as-needed basis. Then you can use "stuffit@yourdom"
to register.
If you start getting spam at that address, you'll know exactly who
sold you out. Conversely, if you *don't* start getting spam, you'll
know they *didn't* sell you out.
sherm--
--
Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
Tom Harrington
Sherm Pendley <spam...@dot-app.org> wrote:
> If you start getting spam at that address, you'll know exactly who
> sold you out. Conversely, if you *don't* start getting spam, you'll
> know they *didn't* sell you out.
And if you discover they're selling the address for spam, what then?
Call them up and yell at them? Tell all your friends not to buy their
stuff?
Sherm Pendley
> In article <m2ac49t...@Sherm-Pendleys-Computer.local>,
> Sherm Pendley <spam...@dot-app.org> wrote:
>
>> If you start getting spam at that address, you'll know exactly who
>> sold you out. Conversely, if you *don't* start getting spam, you'll
>> know they *didn't* sell you out.
>
> And if you discover they're selling the address for spam, what then?
I start bouncing that address, and I don't do business with them again.