Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

off/lang · Jun 20, 2005, 09:11 PM

Hi All, I've recently started a new blog. It is a news blog that tracks applications that have been successfully compiled for Intel-based macs. If you're interested, it is at http://unibin.blogspot.com.

Severed Hand of Skywalker · Jun 20, 2005, 09:18 PM

About a year before anyone needs it but what the hell.

off/lang · Jun 20, 2005, 10:03 PM

I guess, but I was interested and there were a fair amount of developers writing about their successes, so I thought it would be a good idea to collect them.

- - e r i k - - · Jun 21, 2005, 08:20 AM

From a "this is how easy it was for me to compile universal binaries" point and to encourage developers, this is brilliant.

For everyone else though...

mitchell_pgh · Jun 21, 2005, 08:33 AM

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - -

From a "this is how easy it was for me to compile universal binaries" point and to encourage developers, this is brilliant.

For everyone else though...

I think it is also good for the "see, even the common users expect you, the developer, to come out with universal binaries ASAP and not wait two years after I've purchased a x86 Mac."

mitchell_pgh · Jun 21, 2005, 08:35 AM

http://unibin.blogspot.com/2005/06/d...s-library.html

Interesting... naturally this isn't going to happen to everyone, or even many, but it does seem cool. Obviously they are using Xcode... and it's a new program... but still.

:XI: · Jun 21, 2005, 09:04 AM

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

About a year before anyone needs it but what the hell.

You have to admit, it's got to be easier to start it now and update over the next year or two, than to catch up in a years time.

Personally, I think this is a fantastic idea. Not just for developers but for the rest of us. We can see what apps we don't have to worry about losing and which we should be looking for replacements for *cough*StuffIt*cough*.

MallyMal · Jun 21, 2005, 03:45 PM

Thanks, off/lang, I mentioned that I wanted a sticky about this for MacNN in the feedback forum but no one seemed to like the idea. So, I'll just bookmark your blog.

Earth Mk. II · Jun 21, 2005, 04:20 PM

Subscribed to in NetNewsWire

Chuckit · Jun 21, 2005, 04:44 PM

Of course, I don't suppose this means the apps will necessarily work right on x86.

Apple Pro Underwear · Jun 21, 2005, 04:45 PM

if this blog gets hits or is found to be useful to the dev community...

it might serve as "advertising" for your program. that might serve as motivation to change your apps.

Goldfinger · Jun 21, 2005, 05:02 PM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Of course, I don't suppose this means the apps will necessarily work right on x86.

In theory there is no difference, apps should behave exactly the same.

off/lang · Jun 21, 2005, 05:59 PM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Of course, I don't suppose this means the apps will necessarily work right on x86.

I would say that it if it compiles chances are it works at least well enough. I'm sure many of the developers will be putting more Intel-based optimizations and such. Especially the game devs.

off/lang · Jun 21, 2005, 06:10 PM

Originally Posted by Apple Pro Underwear

if this blog gets hits or is found to be useful to the dev community...

it might serve as "advertising" for your program. that might serve as motivation to change your apps.

That's what I'm hoping.

OwlBoy · Jun 21, 2005, 06:10 PM

Lets call em Phat Binaries!

-Owl

CharlesS · Jun 21, 2005, 10:22 PM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Of course, I don't suppose this means the apps will necessarily work right on x86.

Exactly.

I was able to get the latest internal build of Pacifist to compile to x86 without too much trouble, but given that I don't have an x86 machine to test it on (and, since I just bought an iMac right before the Intel announcement, I won't have the $$$ to do so for many years), I have no way to tell if it actually works or not.

Chuckit · Jun 21, 2005, 11:00 PM

Originally Posted by Goldfinger

In theory there is no difference, apps should behave exactly the same.

As the great Yogi Berra said, "In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is."

Goldfinger · Jun 22, 2005, 01:52 AM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

As the great Yogi Berra said, "In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is."

What problems will arise then ? All the frameworks are the same, the code stays the same only the cpu changes.

TETENAL · Jun 22, 2005, 02:11 AM

Originally Posted by Goldfinger

What problems will arise then ? All the frameworks are the same, the code stays the same only the cpu changes.

And with the CPU changes endianness, to name the largest problem.

Chuckit · Jun 22, 2005, 02:53 AM

Originally Posted by Goldfinger

What problems will arise then ? All the frameworks are the same, the code stays the same only the cpu changes.

Things break between point releases of the OS and between the G4 and G5. Do you really think a switch across completely different processor families will be less painful than those relatively minor upgrades?

Goldfinger · Jun 22, 2005, 03:45 AM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Things break between point releases of the OS and between the G4 and G5. Do you really think a switch across completely different processor families will be less painful than those relatively minor upgrades?

Things breaking between OS updates hasn't got anything to do with CPUs, no ? The OS is exactly the same except for maybe the endian thing and compiled for x86 instead of PPC. What broke with the introduction of the G5 ?

And doesn't the endianness get changed during the compiling ?

CharlesS · Jun 22, 2005, 04:14 AM

Originally Posted by Goldfinger

What problems will arise then ?

Who knows? We're not even able to look at the stuff yet.

It's just that what I've generally found is that when you say "oh, this'll probably just work" about something, it often turns out to be famous last words...

goMac · Jun 22, 2005, 04:23 AM

My software compiled fine for Intel processors and ran fine on them. Only one endian issue was present, which was fixed in the said lab with whiteboard, The only piece of software that didn't run was written in x86 assembly. I think that threw the Apple guys in a loop. It was very interesting working with x86 assembly. We went from no documentation on PowerPC, to hundreds upon hundreds of pages of documentation on the Intel side.

Super Mario · Jun 22, 2005, 05:18 AM

Originally Posted by goMac

My software compiled fine for Intel processors and ran fine on them.

You have one of the development machines? Can you tell about it? What software did you make?

goMac · Jun 22, 2005, 05:33 AM

Originally Posted by Super Mario

You have one of the development machines? Can you tell about it? What software did you make?

Not yet, I was on one in the development labs at WWDC. They were scattered about in all the labs. Thats why I mentioned that I was in the room with the white board.

For those who don't know, there was a white board at WWDC in the compatibility lab. Every time a developer got their software working on Intel based Macs, they added the name of their software to the whiteboard.

Yose · Jun 22, 2005, 08:40 AM

I think this is a great idea for developers and also a great promotional tool for those applications. While it probably was not the intent of the site, I've already found an app that I could really see myself purchasing within the next month or so (Merlin, by Projectwizards).

Good job!

off/lang · Jun 22, 2005, 09:29 AM

So goMac, would you like to be specific about which applications are working for the Intel side and I'll do an entry?

Earth Mk. II · Jun 22, 2005, 09:36 AM

Originally Posted by Goldfinger

And doesn't the endianness get changed during the compiling ?

Not if you're using code that directly manipulates memory or pointers.

Goldfinger · Jun 22, 2005, 09:55 AM

Originally Posted by Earth Mk. II

Not if you're using code that directly manipulates memory or pointers.

And is that a common thing ?

(I know almost nothing about programming)

Chuckit · Jun 22, 2005, 01:11 PM

Originally Posted by Goldfinger

Things breaking between OS updates hasn't got anything to do with CPUs, no ? The OS is exactly the same except for maybe the endian thing and compiled for x86 instead of PPC.

Yes, it's the same except for all the things they've changed. Just like all the other updates.

Originally Posted by Goldfinger

What broke with the introduction of the G5 ?

I can't remember all of them. I don't have a G5, so it didn't really affect me personally. I know VPC went belly-up. I think VLC at least stopped working right.

Originally Posted by Goldfinger

And doesn't the endianness get changed during the compiling ?

That depends on what you mean. If you write endian-dependent code (or anything else like that), the compiler isn't going to read your mind and change it for you.

Originally Posted by Goldfinger

And is that a common thing ?

It's not really uncommon in apps of any reasonable complexity.

At any rate, it isn't just about endianness. The point is that software is fragile. If it hasn't been tested, there's a decent chance it won't work right. There are lots of little details you can find yourself depending on that will bite you in the butt when you change to a processor where those no longer hold true. For instance, the size of a long double or the how the sign bit is extended. You might not even realize you're depending on them — it could be completely incidental to what you're actually doing.

goMac · Jun 22, 2005, 01:35 PM

Originally Posted by off/lang

So goMac, would you like to be specific about which applications are working for the Intel side and I'll do an entry?

All the different applications work together, so if one is broken on Intel, the suite does not completely work on Intel. That and they aren't released yet.