MacIntel

[jjmckenzie51]

Ok folks, the 'Cat is out of the Bag'. Jobs made the announcement this morning.

What now? Are we going to work on Universal Binaries or will we introduce an Intel version of NeoOffice?

Also, I plan on upgrading my Intel based system when/if MacIntel becomes available for platforms other than those produced by Apple.

James

[ovvldc]

[pluby]

[jjmckenzie51]

[OPENSTEP]

If anything, all that it would do is to perhaps force my hand into whether I target 2.0 or 1.2 with x86 gcc3.3. The fact that the machines are shipping by the end of the week doesn't exactly leave the lead time I had hoped for :/

The whole universal binary argument vs. not has been gone over elsewhere and doesn't make sense for a download that's already this large and already gets so many complaints about being "bloated" on the hard drive.

Good thing it's easy to run lipo on installed universal binaries and strip out that unnecessary x86 part (or ppc as the case may be). For most all users, universal binaries are not needed unless they're making an external startup disk that they want to dual-boot ppc and x86 machines. How many people with a new x86 iMac are going to run iChat in the Rosetta emulator? And, why?

ed

[fabrizio venerandi]

btw I do not remember the old macintel thread: is now neooffice working via rosetta on macintel computer? the next goal of neooffice's staff is the x86 version of Oo 1.0 or 2.0?

thank you

f.

[pluby]

[fabrizio venerandi]

thank you.

[jjmckenzie51]

[sardisson]

[OPENSTEP]

FWIW, Neo has a potential short term solution by doing a 1.2 variant off of a hacked gcc3.3...but...

gcc3 is not supported by Apple for x86 based macs, only gcc4. OOo 1.x/Neo 1.x won't function with gcc4...I spent quite a bit of time trying to make that happen (2 months), so...OOo 1.x/Neo 1.x can't function with gcc 4.x.

For better or for worse, if it can't compile with gcc4, as far as Mac on Intel is concerned the application is up shit creek, and Apple has been cozy with this restriction since last July, so it ain't gonna be changing.

It might be possible to build Neo 1.x on an unsupported gcc3 x86 build, but right now it's just not worth my time. It's a much better payoff to invest the resources of Patrick & myself in 2.0 rather than the large effort of a stopgap measure that may only last half a year at most.

ed

[OPENSTEP]

Please also be aware that when I say "worth my time" it's taking into account that the number of users who are absolutely dependent on Mac on Intel compatibility right now can be counted on one hand (or two, depending on how quickly Apple ships).

I highly doubt that Mac on Intel platforms will constitute a major installed user base for some time. Unfortunately, I suspect Apple will direct all criticism for lack of support for such users onto application developers rather than Apple itself, as will the majority of end users.

My stock response for anyone who dares to level such criticism at free software, or even a commercial entity,...I give you this...

You are a "first adopter" of an unproven technology. Just like the first PowerPC Macintosh customers, you should fully expect to endure the birthing pains of a new platform, and you should fully expect to pay money for the privilege of being one of the first on a new architecture. The Apple Computer, Inc. marketing drones make you think it costs developers nothing to support the new iMacs and MacBooks...but it doesn't. For a lot of us it requires lots of re-engineering, lots of investment, and (especially for marketing departments) a strong solid rethink of why we continue to offer Mac support at all given the large overhead. In some cases, that overhead is too large to overcome.

I spent 4-6 hrs. per day for two months of my life (without pay) trying to get Neo 1.x working on Mac on Intel given the restrictions from Apple. It didn't work since Apple doesn't make the tools we require available for Mac on Intel computers. You got a problem? Don't complain to me. Go b**ch to Apple. They certainly didn't listen to me, so don't be surprised if they dont' listen to you.

You will have no FrameMaker that can run on Mac on Intel systems. You will have no PageMaker. All Classic apps are gone. How long will it be until all your XTensions are Intel native. Please, ignore the marketing hype. Don't underestimate how much it costs developers to support Mac on Intel, and please don't be upset if companies charge you to get an Intel/Universal version of their applications.

Be even more patient with those of us who work for nothing.

Even Apple themselves could not deliver their own Pro applications on time. Final Cut et. al won't ship Universal until March. Even when they ship, Apple's going to charge $50 for each customer to get the upgraded versions that can run on Mac on Intel machines.

I ask that before you come here and regurgitate the Apple marketing hype, take the time to carefully examine what it is your'e smoking and consider if it's laced.

ed <-- avoids the brown acid

[pluby]

I absolutely agree with every point that Ed made. One very big dependency that many of the previous posts have forgotten about is funding. Just because Apple released a new product does not change that fact that Ed and I must continue to beg for enough money to do the development. While I sense that many people think any Apple announcement is happy news, the extra work to produce a Mactel version of NeoOffice and then support it (Mactel doubles the number of OS versions that we will be supporting) made me seriously think of throwing in the towel last summer.

Don't ever forget that if the donations stop, so does most of the development.

Patrick

[Guest]

That's ok. I'm sure the Aqua version of OOo 2.0 will be out in a few weeks with Mactel support.

[jakeOSX]

Patrick and Ed have done a good job at releasing stable software at a good pace. Asking them to stop, change direction because there is a shiny thing out from Apple is not reasonable.

Besides, i am a PPC Mac guy for now, and I'm selfish =)