Apple Windows apps?

[Robert Marini]

Easy.  The download size.  If it were true that Apple had written it  
in Cocoa and ported the necessary libraries and APIs over it would be  
a MUCH larger file.

rob

On Jun 16, 2007, at 7:43 AM, Ashley Aitken wrote:

>
> On 16/06/2007, at 10:25 PM, Finlay Dobbie wrote:
>
>> On 16/06/07, Ashley Aitken <mrhatken at mac.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 16/06/2007, at 9:53 PM, Finlay Dobbie wrote:
>>>
>>> > On 16/06/07, Ashley Aitken <mrhatken at mac.com> wrote:
>>> >> If the right Core* bits have been ported then Cocoa (and/or  
>>> Carbon ?)
>>> >> should work.  Shouldn't it/they?
>>> >
>>> > In a word, no.
>>>
>>> Please elaborate.  What am I missing?
>>>
>>> I thought Apple has been factoring out all the core stuff and then
>>> Cocoa and Carbon were modified to work on top of them.
>>> CoreFoundation, Core* ... (the necessary graphics and other parts of
>>> the layer below the Application Frameworks).
>>
>> That's a gross oversimplification.
>
> And that's not an elaboration.
>
>> Also, it's patently obvious if you
>> go look at Safari for Windows that it's not a Cocoa application.
>
> I haven't run Safari on Windows but I have seen the screenshots on  
> apple.com.
>
> How can you tell it's not a Cocoa app?
>
> I don't think the obvious things (like the menu bar in the window)  
> preclude it from being a "Cocoa on Windows" app.
>
> Remember, that's the whole idea of using layers - things underneath  
> can be implemented differently (i.e. using Windows libraries below).
>
> So again, why are you so sure its not a Cocoa application?  I'm not  
> sure it is, but I would like to know why you are so sure it isn't.
>
> Cheers,
> Ashley.
>
>
> --
> Ashley Aitken
> Perth, Western Australia
> mrhatken at mac dot com
> Skype Name: MrHatken (GMT + 8 Hours!)
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> MacOSX-talk mailing list
> MacOSX-talk at omnigroup.com
> http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-talk