Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

ryaxnb · May 9, 2005, 09:14 PM

What are the advantages of choosing one or the other? And can you access Quartz from CFM?

Angus_D · May 10, 2005, 11:24 AM

CFM works on OS 9 as well as OS X. Mach-O is the native binary format on OS X.
Xcode Tools (including gcc, gdb, etc) only work with Mach-O. If you need CFM you'll have to use CodeWarrior, which is non-free (or possibly MPW in Classic, but you're letting yourself in for a world of pain).
You can use Quartz from CFM but it requires jumping through hoops.

Mach-O is recommended for new developments for OS X.

ryaxnb · May 10, 2005, 02:04 PM

I like CFM because it enables both Mac OS 9 and Mac OS X development. Now, usually, you can create your app in Xcode, compile as Mach-O, and compile as Carbon CFM using QuickDraw instead of Quartz, for OS 9 in CodeWarrior or MPW. (X should always use Quartz - QuickDraw is officially deprecated even though everyone uses it.) Because 25% or so of Mac users are still using OS 9.

Angus_D · May 10, 2005, 03:36 PM

Originally Posted by ryaxnb

I like CFM because it enables both Mac OS 9 and Mac OS X development. Now, usually, you can create your app in Xcode, compile as Mach-O, and compile as Carbon CFM using QuickDraw instead of Quartz, for OS 9 in CodeWarrior or MPW. (X should always use Quartz - QuickDraw is officially deprecated even though everyone uses it.) Because 25% or so of Mac users are still using OS 9.

How many of those are willing to pay for new software on their old OS 9 hardware? OS X has been out for 4 years. That's a long time.

Writing drawing code in both QuickDraw and Quartz is a ridiculous duplication of effort. Not "everyone" uses QD - new development certainly shouldn't since it's deprecated, and there are inherent benefits to using Quartz (especially with Apple's obvious investments into performance in this area in Tiger).

If you target OS 9 you won't be able to use any of the exciting new technologies which make OS X so great. The target market is actually probably quite small for OS 9 - if they haven't upgraded their hardware or OS in 4 years, are they really likely to buy your new program?

Developing for OS 9 doesn't make any sense to me in this day and age.

ryaxnb · May 11, 2005, 12:54 PM

I guess you're right. Starting 2005, I officially abandon support of OS 9 development (not that I develop myself.) There are still advantages to CFM though.

Chuckit · May 11, 2005, 01:32 PM

What advantages are there to CFM?

PBG4 User · May 11, 2005, 01:35 PM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

What advantages are there to CFM?

There are fewer characters to type when compared to Mach-O.

insha · May 15, 2005, 10:17 AM

Originally Posted by PBG4 User

There are fewer characters to type when compared to Mach-O.

ryaxnb · 05:18 PM

No Optimizing on install, optimized more for RISC, allows you you to use codewarrior (which could also be negative,) easier to port old OS 9 apps.
I don't program, so these are just guesses.

Angus_D · May 17, 2005, 11:28 AM

Originally Posted by ryaxnb

Easier to port to Windows,

How so? That makes no sense.

faster install, no Optimizing on install,

Firstly, why are you using an installer? Bad. Secondly, I'd rather have a slower install step than a slower runtime for ever. Thirdly, prebinding is going away so this is a non-issue.

optimized more for Windows,

How so? That makes no sense.

allows you you to use codewarrior (which could also be negative,)

CodeWarrior has been able to do Mach-O for years.

easier to port old OS 9 apps.

That doesn't make it better.

Millennium · May 17, 2005, 03:27 PM

How is CFM optimized for Windows? Windows doesn't use CFM or Mach-O binaries; it has its own format. I think it uses PE (not to be confused with PEF, which is sometimes used to refer to CFM).

a2daj · May 17, 2005, 05:24 PM

old article:

http://www.unsanity.org/archives/000044.php