On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 1:03 PM, Paul Watson <email@hidden> wrote:
> Java is available in all versions and bits on Windows and Linux. Apple
> is the one who is failing to conform here. Don't push their bad
> decisions on us. Java 6 should be available on Tiger and Leopard, for
> 32 and 64 bit, and it should have been so long before now. Anybody who
> thinks otherwise has their lips placed a bit too close to Apple's
> backside.
I note that all versions and bits available for Windows and Linux have
come from Sun. Nothing has stopped Sun thus far from offering a JDK
for the Mac, if they are not happy with how Apple is choosing to do
it. Nothing stops you from pushing Sun to do so, for that matter, if
you have lost faith in Apple doing so. Claiming that it is Apple's
bad decision to not have a JDK provided by Sun seems a bit, well,
strange.
Sun's track record kind of sucks, though. I recall their JDK 1.0.3
release for MacOS. Not the time of joy. Things may be different now,
and perhaps they would do a reasonable job. Not what I am betting,
but they might surprise me. (And having been involved with Java on
the Mac since that 1.0.3 release, I found Gosling's blog to be
revisionist. Look at what Sun has provided, and what Apple has
provided, and then reread the entries.)
Apple provides JDK releases that advance their own ends, and that are
paid for out of their system software development budget. If you want
to influence the size of that budget, whining on this mailing list
will do you no good at all. Contacting local sales reps, having your
organization contact Apple with sales numbers, or contributing serious
development dollars to Soy Latte, might.
Scott
> -----Original Message-----
> From: java-dev-bounces+pwatson=email@hidden
> [mailto:java-dev-bounces+pwatson=email@hidden] On
> Behalf Of Greg Guerin
> Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 3:55 PM
> To: email@hidden
> Subject: Re: Java SE 6 - 32 Bit Request
>
> Sam Berlin wrote:
>
> >I quite simply cannot tell the average Joe or Jane that wants to use
> >my product, "Oh, Sorry -- Get a new computer first."
> >...
> >Please realize that this is a problem for *users*. Not me. Not You.
>
> It seems to me it's only a problem for users if you make it a problem
> for
> users.
>
> You have to intentionally choose Java 6 as your minimal JRE version
> first.
> If you don't do that, then your users couldn't care less, because
> they'll
> never notice. They will continue to run on Java 5, or whatever your
> current minimum JRE version actually is. At some future time it may be
> worthwhile to require Java 6 as a minimum, but frankly, that time is not
> now.
>
> If you do choose to require Java 6 as a minimum, it then leads to the
> question:
> What capabilities of Java 6 does your software require?
>
> If the answer goes something like "I (the developer) want to use
> features
> X, Y, and Z", then you are placing your wants and desires above the
> needs
> of your customers. That doesn't seem like a good business decision to
> me.
> YMMV.
>
> If the answer includes things like "Java 6 has fixes for X, Y, and Z
> bugs",
> then the question is whether you currently have work-arounds or not. If
> you have work-arounds, then you gain nothing by requiring Java 6. If
> you
> have no work-arounds, and the bug is fatal to your program, then that's
> a
> good reason to require Java 6. Anything else, like minor cosmetic bugs
> with or without workarounds, seems like a bad reason.
>
>
> I also want to point out that you can use (or even require) 64-bits in
> your
> app even without Java 6. You just build your app with only 64-bit
> entries
> in its Info.plist. There is a 64-bit Java 5 JVM pre-installed with
> every
> Leopard. Also, if you have JNI-libs, strip out all but the 64-bit
> versions. You might want to do this and then run the app on both Java 5
> and Java 6, to see what happens. Who knows, you might find a fatal bug
> in
> Java 6 that prevents your particular app from using it. This has
> happened
> before.
>
> Finally, most apps currently run as 32-bit. When even one app runs
> 64-bits, the OS then has to load all the 64-bit system libraries into
> memory, and keep them there for as long as the 64-bit app runs. I
> suggest
> trying this and observing what happens with Activity Monitor. If you
> don't
> have a compelling reason to go 64-bit, Java or not, I recommend against
> doing it.
>
> -- GG
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
> Java-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
> Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
> http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/java-dev/email@hidden
>
> This email sent to email@hidden
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
> Java-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
> Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
> http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/java-dev/email@hidden
>
> This email sent to email@hidden
>
>
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Java-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/java-dev/email@hidden
This email sent to email@hidden
