The thread that was up until recently called the Seanachai is Challenged OS X thread

[aka_tom_w]

This thread was retitled yet again to clear the air.

I am not sure Why but I left his name in the thread title anyway.

Forgive me for I have made a new thread for this because this it the first time I have seen a anything that looks like a real commitmant to release a Mac OS X native version of CM:SF!

System specs should be on the main CMSF website. If not, then they are not yet announced formally. A Mac version is planned but with no firm schedule at the moment.

Moon Says OS X version is planned in Paradox thread

entire quote worth repeating:

(buy early (online) and buy often in store retail verion says Moon:)

zwobot... you can of course simply download from our digital delivery portal, that avoids any shipping cost. If you want to have a hardcopy by mail, that's between $8 and $14 per shipment (not per item) I think (though I am going from memory, you can look up the current S&H on the purchase page).

grunt_GI - yes, you can have the game installed and "active" on up to two computers, for example laptop and desktop. If you get a new computer, you would have to un-license from one of those two first and could then re-license on a third computer. The copy you un-licensed can remain installed but would not launch anymore.

System specs should be on the main CMSF website. If not, then they are not yet announced formally. A Mac version is planned but with no firm schedule at the moment.

Juardis, Paradox will be our partner to bring the game to retail shops worldwide. It's not really a big change because most of our previous games are (or have been) available in stores worldwide. To be honest, it's not even new that we announce this kind of cooperation before the game is released by us - we did the same with CMBB and CMAK (released by CDV in Europe and North America).

Of course we will still be releasing the game from here, and obviously we're hoping that many local fans will continue to buy from us direct. The money you spend at your local software store remains to a large % in that store, and most of the rest is scooped up by wholesalers and distributors before a tiny part arrives with us. Good direct sales are a must for small independent developers like us to survive.

Of course the best thing is if you buy a copy from us as soon as it's out and a second copy from retail, too, so you have the nice shiny box to look at

Martin

[ February 26, 2007, 08:19 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Sixxkiller]

Why do you keep making new threads to say whats already been said in other threads?

[MikeyD]

Still looks to me like its going to be Linux [Ooops! In meant Intel ] mac only, per previous posts, not older powerpc OSX, or am i wrong?

[ February 16, 2007, 09:56 AM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]

[Fly Pusher]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

Still looks to me like its going to be Linux mac only, per previous posts, not older powerpc OSX, or am i wrong?

Mikey

Do you mean Intel Macs maybe ?

Although I fear you are right, I certainly hope not.

This would cut out a very large proportion of the installed base (all be it a decreasing proportion). Remember that Macs tend to have much longer lives than is normal in the WINTEL world and there are a lot of not that old G5 based systems out there which really ought to be up to the job.

Sorry, but I'm just not going to go out and buy [and install :eek: ] a copy of XP and a new Intel Mac just to run one game. No matter how good the game is, I just dont think I could justify the expense (or trauma ).

Fingers crossed....

[Sedak]

I remember it was said clearly before that possible Mac version will be for Intel Macs only. So no Windows needed, "only" a new Mac. We can hope it happens soon after the Win release. Not the usual half a year. At that time, there will be nothing left from Syria

Maybe BF rewards us with a Mac only vehicle, weapon system, soldier face skin or at least with a new bush type for this extra wait.

[Pzman]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

Still looks to me like its going to be Linux mac only, per previous posts, not older powerpc OSX, or am i wrong?

Even if it was PPC compatible you would most likely need a dual G5 or better to play. Any old G3 or G4 system would not cut it, if any of the newer games like COD2 and Civ 4 are any indication.

[Battlefront.com]

Our plans are still up in the air regarding the Mac. The reason is because by the time we're ready to do one it might be that the bulk of our Mac customers will either be outside of specs (G3 or earlier G4s) or will have Intel based Macs. This begs the question of why we would want to put in a significant amount of effort to make a native MacOS X version for the few people that fit in between (i.e. the higher end G4s and all G5s)?

The two things we need answers to before we make a decision are:

1. How well does it run on an Intel Mac using the various options out there?

2. How many of our Mac Intel customers would have an option to run the Windows version?

If the game runs perfectly fine under Boot Camp, for example, but few of our customers have a copy of Windows... well, then it doesn't really matter how well it runs. Vice versa, if technically it runs poorly as a Windows app it doesn't matter how many people have Windows options on their Intel Macs.

If all goes well we'll have the answer to the technical aspect this weekend. Well, at least Boot Camp anyway.

Steve

[aka_tom_w]

Thanks Steve!

Good Luck with the testing this weekend!

(I wish I could help out)

-tom w

[Pzman]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Our plans are still up in the air regarding the Mac. The reason is because by the time we're ready to do one it might be that the bulk of our Mac customers will either be outside of specs (G3 or earlier G4s) or will have Intel based Macs. This begs the question of why we would want to put in a significant amount of effort to make a native MacOS X version for the few people that fit in between (i.e. the higher end G4s and all G5s)?

The two things we need answers to before we make a decision are:

1. How well does it run on an Intel Mac using the various options out there?

2. How many of our Mac Intel customers would have an option to run the Windows version?

If the game runs perfectly fine under Boot Camp, for example, but few of our customers have a copy of Windows... well, then it doesn't really matter how well it runs. Vice versa, if technically it runs poorly as a Windows app it doesn't matter how many people have Windows options on their Intel Macs.

If all goes well we'll have the answer to the technical aspect this weekend. Well, at least Boot Camp anyway.

Steve

Boot camp runs just like a native PC, so short of any strange driver issues it should work fine. I run the original CM games under boot camp with XP Pro, no problem. Another thing to keep in mind, each type of Intel Mac has specific boot camp drivers (meaning Macbook, Macbook Pro, Mac Mini etc).

[ February 16, 2007, 12:44 PM: Message edited by: Pzman ]

[Fly Pusher]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

This begs the question of why we would want to put in a significant amount of effort to make a native MacOS X version for the few people that fit in between (i.e. the higher end G4s and all G5s)?

While I am sure you are right that the G3s and G4s out there are probably not really up to the task, I wouldn't say that the people in between represent only a 'few'. Although not having any hard numbers to hand doesnt exactly make this argument particularly convincing....

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

The two things we need answers to before we make a decision are:

1. How well does it run on an Intel Mac using the various options out there?

2. How many of our Mac Intel customers would have an option to run the Windows version?

Steve

Personally, I would be hesitant to embark on installing Windows on an Intel Mac under boot camp. Although its probably not THAT bad, I use Macs precisely so that I DONT have to deal with Windows issues. (eg viruses, trojans, mall ware, key loggers, having to install device drivers, inane dialogue boxes etc)

And with the outrageous gouging that Microsoft is inflicting for Vista in Europe (apparently up to $400 more than the same thing sold in the US) I'm not sure its even financially a viable alternative. Especially in a few years when XP has passed into history.

Obviously others will have their own views. But I somehow doubt that that many Mac people will dabble with Windows under boot camp. After all, if they really wanted to dabble with Windows, they would probably have bought a PC.

Just my $0.04 worth....

[flamingknives]

Did anyone see this?

[Wicky]

"What is VMware's virtualization product for Mac?

The new VMware desktop product for the Mac, codenamed Fusion, allows Intel-based Macs to run x86 operating system"

Not for G5s :-(

[aka_tom_w]

VMware Fusion vs. Parallels review

web page Tale of Two Beta's at Lowendmac.com

In the spring, Apple released the first betas of its Boot Camp, allowing Intel Mac users to relatively easily set up their system to dual-boot to Windows XP SP2. And at about the same time, newcomer Parallels released preview versions of Parallels Desktop, allowing Intel Mac owners to run their choice of Windows, Linux, and other PC operating systems in virtual sessions without needing to reboot their Macs.

(I wrote about the early Parallels beta on Low End Mac in Running Windows in Parallel on Your Intel Mac [April 2006] and then returned with a look at their release version in Parallels Revisited: Release Version far More Polished than Beta [Nov.].)

Parallels Desktop works well, running Windows and other PC operating systems at nearly full speed. Released by a small company at a time when Microsoft (with versions of Virtual PC for PowerPC Macs and for Windows) and VMware seemed to be merely making excuses why they didn't have a product for the new Intel Macs, it quickly won favour with reviewers and Mac users.

The New Game in Town

As of this winter, however, Parallels is no longer the only game in town. VMware, developer of the most polished virtualization software for Windows and Linux, released a public beta of a product for Intel Macs: VMware Fusion.

For now, Fusion is available for free download. Would-be downloaders have to register with VMware and receive an installation code. Once installed, like Parallels Desktop, Fusion can be used to create new virtual machines running any of a wide range of PC operating systems.

[aka_tom_w]

1. How well does it run on an Intel Mac using the various options out there?

2. How many of our Mac Intel customers would have an option to run the Windows version?

If the game runs perfectly fine under Boot Camp, for example, but few of our customers have a copy of Windows... well, then it doesn't really matter how well it runs. Vice versa, if technically it runs poorly as a Windows app it doesn't matter how many people have Windows options on their Intel Macs.

I would like to suggest that I would guess that #1 is not likely an issue, it "should" be no problem to make the windoze CM:SF play with no issues at all on an intel Mac in boot camp, as other folks here have mentioned that CMx1 games now play with no problems on intel macs. (this does not surprise me)

However, that said, the real issue lies with statement #2

" How many of our Mac Intel customers would have an option to run the Windows version?"

Why aren't we asking: "How many of your Mac customers have an Intel Mac that "could" run windoze AND how many of our mac customers have G4 and G5 computers that CANNOT run windoze?" Hard stats from Jan 2007 NON intel Mac OS %4.34 and Intel Macs are %1.88 slightly less then half of all non Intel Macs on the internet. Source here:

OS market share web page

Anyone with an Intel Mac can "theorectically" (or at least its technically possible) run XP in Boot Camp. However we then need to ask how many potential CM:SF customers are willing to purchase a WHOLE new operating system just to be able to play the windoze version of the game on their Intel Mac? (Also how many potential CM:SF Mac customers don't have Intel Macs and therefore don't have a choice? = %4.34 or bascially about 2/3 of all mac users on the internet.

All in all, I would like to suggest only a minority of potential Mac CM:SF players have:

i) an Intel Mac (%1.88)

AND

ii) the desire or willingness to purchase or acquire windoze to install with Boot Camp on their Intel Mac (% unknown ?)

That leaves all the rest, the majority of Mac users either don't have an Intel Mac (still runnning G4s or G5s) or they don't have any desire to run XP or Vista on their Intel Mac.

The other reality here is that Mac users make up less then %10 or all computer users and only BFC knows what percentage of Mac CMx1 units they shipped as opposed to Windoze units. My guess would be that that the number was higher then %10 (not much higher?) :confused: but I would be guessing. (Steve notes below in his latest post, that direct sales of Mac OS 9 CMBO (online vis BFC) acounted for about %20 of direct sales.

Hey! 1/5 of all sales to Mac users back in OS 9 days is NOT bad at alk ! )

Its never been easy being a Mac user, but now that there are some users with Intel Mac's who are more then willing to run XP in Boot Camp, it has become even more difficult to find OS X only games and/or software for non Intel Macs. Less then 1 year ago the the Quad processor G5 Mac Desktop was a fast machine, as no intel processor was available. (I believe the Desktop Intel Mac only started shipping last August 2006).

(I have a Quad G5 Desktop and G4 Mac Powerbook (3 years old), neither of which can run XP or Vista.)

oh well

-tom w

[ February 16, 2007, 09:19 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Wicky]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

According to my website OS visitor stats, mac users consitute only 3.4% of the visitor total, so 10% seems very optimistic. Plus mac CMx1 users are restricted to mail order while PC users can obtain their CM by mailorder and retail. My guess would be less than 1% CMx1 sales were mac.

There seems little economic reason for BFC to specifically develop a G5 PPC specific app for such a narrow legacy range of potentially capable hardware when currently all the new Macs are now intel. At best charitably all we seem to hope for is a Universal Binary depending how easy it would be to compile only after the PC version is shipping and making revenue. That could still eat into time that BFC could more profitably spend making new modules and the WW2 CMx2 version for the overwelming majority of PC windows users. Leaving the onus on the less than significant gaming mac user to make the leap from PPC to intel.

G5 dual 2Ghz ATI X800 :-( G4 1.4Ghz ATI 7500

[aka_tom_w]

Here are some VERY current (last Month) actual stats:

MacNN

Mac OS X internet usage rises to 6.22%

Apple's Mac OS X operating system has seized 6.22 percent of internet usage share for January 2007. The company's Mac OS share climbed to 6.22 percent, up from 5.67 percent in December of 2006 and 4.21 percent in January of last year. Apple's Intel-based Mac OS X internet share rose one-tenth of a percent to 1.88 percent from 1.77 percent in December of last year, while its PowerPC-based Mac share rose .19-percent to 4.35 percent from 4.15 percent in December. Apple's expanding internet share is credited to several factors, including the disputed iPod 'halo' effect -- where customers purchase iPods, exposing them to Mac systems as an alternative to Windows PCs -- as well as the company's Boot Camp software enabling Intel Mac users to reboot into a Microsoft Windows installation on a separate portion of the hard drive. Windows XP holds just over 85 percent of the operating system market, followed by Windows 2000 at 4.93 percent. Windows Vista, which just recently began shipping, gathered 0.18 percent share.

Mac intel is JUST %1.88 of the market:

marketshare web site

here's the pie chart for January 2007:

(looks like Mac users are screwed )

[ February 17, 2007, 05:56 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Battlefront.com]

Mac customers of CMBO direct were about 20%. It fell off steeply after that because we didn't support MacOS X natively. So any look at CMBB and CMAK numbers doesn't accurately reflect how many we could have sold. However, when one factors in all the PC sales we've done in retail, I'd say that number is probably more like 4% or less. Believe it or not, we don't care about that. We care more about the direct number because retail wouldn't sell a Mac version anyway. 20% for us is very significant.

The problem with the Mac base is that it is, unfortunately, quite small. Large enough for us to care about, but not if a significant portion can't run the game. If we go ahead with a native MacOS version we know the G3 and most of the G4 people are going to be out of luck. G5 people will likely be OK, as will Intel Mac folks. But in 5-6 months (the soonest we could have a MacOS X version available) are the G5 people and Windowsphobe Mac Intel people enough to drop stop all forward motion and basically duplicate (on a smaller scale) what we have already done?

That's a tough question to answer, but man... even an answer in favor of a MacOS version would probably be just over that line. Which gets us back to the question about it being worth doing. Meaning, that 20% is probably reduced to 10% being hardware capable. If we could get 5% without doing any work (i.e. Intel Mac cross over) vs. 10% with a lot of work (at the cost of other projects), it's not all that tough a call to make.

There is a big difference between running a Windows PC and running Windows on a Mac to run games. If my copy of Windows gets corrupt and virus ridden... who cares? Clean install and bingo... all set. No disruption of my workflow, no massive amounts of things to reinstall, no significant data lost. Plus, using it just for games means not using it much. The chances of Windows becoming unstable increases with use, so not using it helps. In fact, not using Windows is the best way to use Windows Seeing as my Windows counterparts at Battlefront have to reinstall Windows every couple of months, sometimes without warning, I'm glad I have a Mac

Steve

[jeffsmith]

Having made the switch to an Intel Mac

and dual booting with BootCamp/WinXP to play games

(Most importantly CMAK)

I still would like to see an OSX/Intel native version of CMSF

Not knowing the real breakdown I see the options as this

regarding a Mac Version of CMSF (and later releases)

PC/Intel only no extra work (BootCamp)

Mac/Intel OSX Native (?)% extra work

Mac/PPC&Intel prohibitive amount of extra work

Please enlighten me further

[Seanachai]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Mac customers of CMBO direct were about 20%. It fell off steeply after that because we didn't support MacOS X natively. So any look at CMBB and CMAK numbers doesn't accurately reflect how many we could have sold. However, when one factors in all the PC sales we've done in retail, I'd say that number is probably more like 4% or less. Believe it or not, we don't care about that. We care more about the direct number because retail wouldn't sell a Mac version anyway. 20% for us is very significant.

The problem with the Mac base is that it is, unfortunately, quite small. Large enough for us to care about, but not if a significant portion can't run the game. If we go ahead with a native MacOS version we know the G3 and most of the G4 people are going to be out of luck. G5 people will likely be OK, as will Intel Mac folks. But in 5-6 months (the soonest we could have a MacOS X version available) are the G5 people and Windowsphobe Mac Intel people enough to drop stop all forward motion and basically duplicate (on a smaller scale) what we have already done?

That's a tough question to answer, but man... even an answer in favor of a MacOS version would probably be just over that line. Which gets us back to the question about it being worth doing. Meaning, that 20% is probably reduced to 10% being hardware capable. If we could get 5% without doing any work (i.e. Intel Mac cross over) vs. 10% with a lot of work (at the cost of other projects), it's not all that tough a call to make.

There is a big difference between running a Windows PC and running Windows on a Mac to run games. If my copy of Windows gets corrupt and virus ridden... who cares? Clean install and bingo... all set. No disruption of my workflow, no massive amounts of things to reinstall, no significant data lost. Plus, using it just for games means not using it much. The chances of Windows becoming unstable increases with use, so not using it helps. In fact, not using Windows is the best way to use Windows Seeing as my Windows counterparts at Battlefront have to reinstall Windows every couple of months, sometimes without warning, I'm glad I have a Mac

Steve

You'll do what makes sense for you financially, of course, and I approve of that.

But I just want to throw a thought into all the debate.

When I was looking to upgrade my Mac, I had the choice of buying a new G5, or buying the last possible model G4. I bought the G4, despite the fact that it was 'obsolete', because it was the last Mac that would dual boot into OS X, and System 9, which allowed me to still play Combat Mission, which wouldn't load in OS X. When I wanted to play Combat Mission, I would have to reboot the computer into System 9.

And I did it. But when my brand new G4 arrived, it turned out that Combat Mission couldn't play on it with the ATI video card that came standard, because Apple changed the video driver standard that would work with the G4s, and vendors like Battlefront were left without a fix. Of course, neither Battlefront nor Apple let me know this beforehand.

So I spent more money and bought a new video card. And all of this was a significant financial commitment.

And because my ISP's mail server (fecking MSN) wouldn't support picking up mail in OS 9, I'd have to re-boot into OS X to send email turns, after booting into OS 9 to play the game, then boot back into OS X to get turns again.

And I did it.

I did it because Combat Mission was a great game. Perhaps the greatest. And because of the incredible community of people I'd come to hate and abuse and play email games with.

So, now it looks like the only way I'll be able to play the newest game is to buy an Intel Mac, which is simply NOT in the cards for the next year, at least. And with no guarantee that it will actually 'work'.

But I've got a circle of friends with the earlier versions of the Game. So I can, you know, kind of keep playing.

No company can survive without making economic choices, and Battlefront has, undoubtedly, made the right ones.

But I feel a little bit betrayed. I've made significant economic choices to keep playing Battlefront Games. All the while, with great dismay, watching the re-orientation of the game to the Windows format.

I use both platforms endlessly, and interchangeably. I don't really like Windows. Even with XP, I get hardware freeze-ups, and the usual, endless problems with using MS Office (especially Word), despite the fact that MS Office is so tightly bound to the OS that it's almost incomprehensible that the various components screw up and take the System down so often.

It's going to be a couple of years before I'll be in a position to replace my computing system. I've sunk my (barely) disposable income into outdoor sports, like kayaking. Other than 'cutting edge' gaming, what I have now is more than up to all I need or want it to do.

It's too bad, though. I'd love to play what's coming up. But increasingly, it's becoming a market for those with the newest, most powerful systems.

Which also translates into people who buy systems devoted to gaming, or new buyers,or those who buy the latest system out there.

Which increasingly means younger gamers. Which also, probably, goes a long way to explaining 'Shock Force'.

But, when you get right down to it, the BFC guys have always been more likely to get picked up while clubbing than me.

They probably don't even listen to the Kinks.

[Sedak]

I would be glad for at least some sort of native CMSF game. I know about three fresh Mac converts in my neighbourhood. They all started with BootCamp, they all left this technology soon and after few months, they left Parallels also and are using plain Mac only. I'm going to get Intel Mac this year for sure but have no use for BootCamp at all. All the annoying rebooting and Wndows. You know.

More and more Mac games announced for this year will be Intel only. So other developers already made this choice, although I don't know home much faster it is to make Intel-only game compared to a universal game. But it probably saves a lot of many, even when they sell less copies in the beginning.

I think that the "global" swich for Intel will be quicker than what we saw anytime before. And CMSF won't be out for next several months. There are not many mature games out there for a Mac and certainly none around this genre (not counting C&C). This fact alone can cause CMSF to come into notice and become recognized much more that in the "crowded" PC gaming world.

I do not see Intel-only option as a bad one at all. It is definitelly better option than getting a universal port at the time our PC collegues are playing the British module.

[Fly Pusher]

Although it would be nice to see a game I can play now with my existing G5 based hardware I can certainly appreciate that the effort to make this version of the game would probably be disproportional to the sales it would generate. After all, its a market segment that will only get smaller. And if the G5 native version takes another 6 months, this proportion will be even smaller than it is now.

However I would like to argue that expecting a Bootcamp / XP (or Vista) combination to capture more than a tiny proportion of the Mac community is probably unrealistic.

As Steve said, its one thing having a dedicated games PC with a flaky unstable system. But quite another to expect Mac users to put up with re-installing a partition on my main computer every few months. A computer that, in my case, contains essentially my entire digital life (10k photos, music collection, E-mail, work etc etc)

Therefore I would like to make the heartfelt plea that an Intel native CM:SF version be very seriously considered. The proportion of the Mac community that could run this will only increase over time and they will all have hardware you know is up to the job. Also, it seems that at present Macs are gaining in market share (all be it from a low base) and so the investment of time required for this port could be amortized across a growing user base over a reasonably long term.

Obviously your going to do what you see as best for yourselves. But at least this way I have the chance of playing this game one day after I upgrade my present system.

Thanks.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by jeffsmith:

Not knowing the real breakdown I see the options as this

regarding a Mac Version of CMSF (and later releases)

PC/Intel only no extra work (BootCamp)

Mac/Intel OSX Native (?)% extra work

Mac/PPC&Intel prohibitive amount of extra work

Please enlighten me further

Good point and GREAT post

are these the three options?

i) Windoze/Intel Release (planned) (Mac's use Boot camp to play) ugh (for early adopters and Mac tech geeks this will be the only option upon the windoze only release of CM:SF, but then you may be stuck buying two releases if you want the Mac Intel release IF THERE IS one promised down the road. )

ii) Mac/Intel later release (?)% extra work (Intel Macs don't need to boot into windows to play!) (NOTE Intel Mac are currently %1.88 of users on the internet in Jan 2007 but growing daily)

iii) PPC&INtel Mac Universal Binary CM:SF release, this one looks like it is prohibitively expensive to develop for what appears to be a shrinking market and very little return on investment.)

(the majority of Mac users reading this would REALLY like to see the release of a Universal Binary for PPC&Mac Intel because the pie chat above indicates 2/3's of Mac users are still using NON-Intel Mac computers.

Hey Steve, is possible to at least get a commitment for an Intel-Mac release for OS X so we don't have buy XP and boot into windoze in Boot Camp?

Please..

-tom w

[ February 17, 2007, 11:19 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Battlefront.com]

As a Mac user I can appreciate the desire to have a MacOS native version. Really, I absolutely do. Although I got CM:SF running on my Intel laptop last night (not a real surprise) I still would rather have a MacOS native version EVEN THOUGH I would keep Windows going for other games.

As much as I dislike Windows in general, I do think it has gotten to the stage that it is acceptable as an OS. I've had a PC that I've used strictly for CM:SF and games over the past 2 years and it has never given me problems. Like I said above, the problems come when you try using it as a daily workhorse for a great many things. Therefore, I think Mac user's fears about Windows' engineering problems are overblown. The other concerns, such as cost, hating using Windows, and not having an Intel Mac at all, are of course completely valid. It is why I still use a Mac day in and day out

Seanachai, I think you are a good example of the dilema we face. We don't want to lose you (yes, even YOU!) as a customer. However, if you are to stick with your G4 I don't think you would be playing CM:SF even with a universal binary OSX version. The reason is performance. Then again, since we don't have a universal binary to try out on a G4 it's kinda hard to estimate. At the best, though, it would be the low end of the spectrum. Bottom line, for someone like you there probably is no solution for you until you upgrade your hardware no matter what we do.

If we do a MacOS version it would be Universal Binary for sure. Since it would be coded from scratch I can't think of any reason why we would be forced into limiting ourselves to something that would run only on Intel based Macs.

Lastly, please don't lose hope. As I said, we have made no decision at this point. If it were simply a Dollars and Cents decision to make we likely wouldn't be making a MacOS version. But there is more to it than that, and Seanachai somehow was able to illustrate the other reasons using comprehensible English. Wonders will never cease

Steve

[ February 17, 2007, 10:29 AM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[jeffsmith]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

If we do a MacOS version it would be Universal Binary for sure. Since it would be coded from scratch I can't think of any reason why we would be forced into limiting ourselves to something that would run only on Intel based Macs.

Steve Thanx for responding and not being exasperated with us

I can understand not wanting to freeze out PPC Mac owners

However this is where MY main question lies and its sort of technical (without the details)

If you there WAS the option of a Mac/Intel only version

would THAT version also have to be coded from scratch?

[ February 17, 2007, 10:53 AM: Message edited by: jeffsmith ]

[Fly Pusher]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

If we do a MacOS version it would be Universal Binary for sure. Since it would be coded from scratch I can't think of any reason why we would be forced into limiting ourselves to something that would run only on Intel based Macs.

Steve

Not being technically inclined I find this quite surprising (although very welcome ! ) .

I had assumed that the port from the Windows version to produce a Mac Intel version would be relatively straightforward (given that they use the same processors). I thought it was going from Windows to PPC that was the toughie.

I am also surprised that a Mac version would have to be coded from scratch. I thought that most of the heavy lifting was done by the Mac specific compilers that crunched through your source code and left 'only' the details remaining to be fixed by hand.

Just shows how little I know....