It will be a purebasic 4.0 version for mac os x??

[LESTROSO]

It will be a purebasic 4.0 version for mac os x?? as soon as possible?


Thank you fred!!!!!!

[DarkDragon]

- Windows
- Linux
- Mac
[- Amiga]

Is the order to do the purebasic versions.

[Fred]

What's the point of so much sad smileys ? Did you read somewhere something which leads to that ?

[Trond]

It will be a purebasic 4.0 version for mac os x?? as soon as possible?

Surely not sooner.

[Dare2]

LOL.

[USCode]

IMHO, based on the potential to gain additional users, the order should be:
1. Windows
2. Mac OS X
3. Linux
Mac OS X users are used to paying for software and that is the platform for the most potential growth but based on the *existing* user base I understand how Fred would want to work on the Linux version first.

[benny]

Mac OS X users are used to paying for software and that is the platform for
the most potential growth but based on the *existing* user base I understand
how Fred would want work on the Linux version first.

Although I am not quite sure about this, but at least it is an interesting
(marketing) thought ... Any facts, data which can underline this statement

[Trond]

Well, most Mac OS software costs money while most Linux software is free.

[benny]

Well, most Mac OS software costs money while most Linux software is free.

Well Trond, that's clear. What I mean if there are any statictics about a pos-
sible kind of ratio of of people willing to buy or not to buy a certain product.

Let's say, the demoversion of a similar product was downloaded by 100
Mac OS-users and 90 of them acutally purchased it for example whereas 1000
linux users downloaded that software and just 200 bought it

IMHO such statistics would be nice to know ... even it is clear that there are
more points which influence a user to buy or not to buy a software.

[USCode]

Per this press release:
http://www.realbasic.com/news/pr/2006/tenth/

RealBasic has 100,000 users. Certainly of that 100K we could convince *some* to come over to PureBasic? My personal experiences with RealBasic weren't that great:
-lots of bugs
-the executables it creates are huge
-missing manadatory (IMO) widgets such as toolbar and splitter
-expensive, compared to PB
Of course it has it's strengths over PB as well but I think many of that 100K could be talked into moving over to PB with the appropriate information.
But the big question is ... how???

[nco2k]

1. Windows
2. Mac OS X
3. Linux

agree

c ya,
nco2k

[Phoenix]

Per this press release:
http://www.realbasic.com/news/pr/2006/tenth/

RealBasic has 100,000 users. Certainly of that 100K we could convince *some* to come over to PureBasic? My personal experiences with RealBasic weren't that great:
-lots of bugs
-the executables it creates are huge
-missing manadatory (IMO) widgets such as toolbar and splitter
-expensive, compared to PB
Of course it has it's strengths over PB as well but I think many of that 100K could be talked into moving over to PB with the appropriate information.
But the big question is ... how???

Flood their forums???

[Num3]

Well all go register there and take our mighty anti-pixel sigs

[Nik]

I think it would be a very good idea to do Purebasic For Mac OS X first for the following reasons:
-It's very difficult to do binaryy software which runs on many distributions see Purebasic IDE (scintilla Gadget)
- Most software is written in c and the need for basic isn't that big I think
mostly because binarys are very very uncommon, and so everyone needs to have the compiler since he obtains software either as source or pepackaged for his distribution (prepackaging is also very hard when there are only binaries available)
- As said most Linux users don't pay for software
- There is no way to really do software which looks good in both, kde and gnome

I'm a Linux user though and like the Linux version of Purebasic however I think because of the binary problem it is only good for personal stuff, and maybe for litlle commandline apps.

In my opinion it would be cool to get Mac OS X first (I will be buying an Intel Mac in july),

[SEO]

Per this press release:
http://www.realbasic.com/news/pr/2006/tenth/

RealBasic has 100,000 users. Certainly of that 100K we could convince *some* to come over to PureBasic? My personal experiences with RealBasic weren't that great:
-lots of bugs
-the executables it creates are huge
-missing manadatory (IMO) widgets such as toolbar and splitter
-expensive, compared to PB
Of course it has it's strengths over PB as well but I think many of that 100K could be talked into moving over to PB with the appropriate information.
But the big question is ... how???

1 - The big question is Why?
2 - If we not talk about the price, then what is left?
3 - What do a Mac Developer expect of the tool?

If (Mac) REALbasic user should emigrate to PB then they want

1 - Cocoa classes, Carbon classes
2 - Intel
3 - All standard functions: strings, text encoding, convert encoding and so on


A missing splitter do not beat on a (Mac) REALbasic user to emigrate to PB, not today and I think not year 2006 or 2007

- But there is some upcomming interesting tool; CodeLine that is like 'Cocoa Basic' ... and then we have Apple XCode that is nearly a 'must' if you want to develop real Mac apps today.

- Today PB Mac is not usable to create Mac apps, there is no encoding, you can't read a text file that have Mac line endings (only Linux) and so on.. The mostly widgets have not the Mac look.. So to be an alternative to REALbasic, I think we have to look at the end of 2007 or beginning of 2008. But to write games....

- If a (Mac) REALbasic emigrate today, it is to XCode or if he wanted Cross Platform features there is Qt: http://www.trolltech.com/

Regards,
Sven E