Comments on: Silverlight 1.1 for OS X is Intel only http://www.lazycoder.com/weblog/2007/05/01/silverlight-11-for-os-x-is-intel-only/ Fri, 07 Oct 2011 15:08:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Geoff Wilson http://www.lazycoder.com/weblog/2007/05/01/silverlight-11-for-os-x-is-intel-only/comment-page-1/#comment-64973 Geoff Wilson Mon, 07 May 2007 07:25:37 +0000 http://www.lazycoder.com/weblog/index.php/archives/2007/05/01/silverlight-11-for-os-x-is-intel-only/#comment-64973 Agree. It would be awesome for Microsoft to clarify this. There are no error messages or anything at all that indicates why this doesn't work. After install on my 12" PB, it just keeps asking to install the 1.1 runtime. Even the installer permits installation on PowerPC ... Agree. It would be awesome for Microsoft to clarify this.

There are no error messages or anything at all that indicates why this doesn’t work. After install on my 12″ PB, it just keeps asking to install the 1.1 runtime. Even the installer permits installation on PowerPC …

]]> By: Scott http://www.lazycoder.com/weblog/2007/05/01/silverlight-11-for-os-x-is-intel-only/comment-page-1/#comment-64361 Scott Wed, 02 May 2007 05:50:38 +0000 http://www.lazycoder.com/weblog/index.php/archives/2007/05/01/silverlight-11-for-os-x-is-intel-only/#comment-64361 Well, I don't mean intentional in a malicious sense. I mean it as "Microsoft is aware that it only works on Intel processors and that's why the requirements for the two versions are listed differently". My guess is that it has a LOT to do with the dynamic CLR included with 1.1 since the agcore.dll is seemingly identical between the two versions. It's got to be hard enough to port the CLR over to a new OS w/o having to worry about porting it to a new CPU architecture. My guess is that the compile the clr dll's outside of the Xcode environment and just mark the plugin as a Universal package. Or it could be a simple bug in the framework loader that only shows up on PPC machines. Well, I don’t mean intentional in a malicious sense. I mean it as “Microsoft is aware that it only works on Intel processors and that’s why the requirements for the two versions are listed differently”.

My guess is that it has a LOT to do with the dynamic CLR included with 1.1 since the agcore.dll is seemingly identical between the two versions. It’s got to be hard enough to port the CLR over to a new OS w/o having to worry about porting it to a new CPU architecture.

My guess is that the compile the clr dll’s outside of the Xcode environment and just mark the plugin as a Universal package. Or it could be a simple bug in the framework loader that only shows up on PPC machines.

]]> By: Steve http://www.lazycoder.com/weblog/2007/05/01/silverlight-11-for-os-x-is-intel-only/comment-page-1/#comment-64354 Steve Wed, 02 May 2007 04:37:45 +0000 http://www.lazycoder.com/weblog/index.php/archives/2007/05/01/silverlight-11-for-os-x-is-intel-only/#comment-64354 That's wierd. If you look at the 1.1 plugin (/Library/Internet Plugins/Silverlight.pkg), it seems to be a Universal binary. But I highly doubt it was "intentional". That’s wierd. If you look at the 1.1 plugin (/Library/Internet Plugins/Silverlight.pkg), it seems to be a Universal binary. But I highly doubt it was “intentional”.

]]>