[Implemented] Support for Intel Mac

Sebe · Post by **Sebe** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 6:42 pm

It's soon 2 years since the first Intel Macs were released and still no support for them.

Fluid Byte · Post by **Fluid Byte** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 6:43 pm

Agreed.

aaron · Post by **aaron** » Wed Sep 19, 2007 12:03 am

My poor macbook is sad without Purebasic on it.

Fluid Byte · Post by **Fluid Byte** » Wed Sep 19, 2007 8:53 am

I got a MacBook Pro, that's even more sad. Running PureBasic with Rosetta is *BEEP*.

Post by **Berikco** » Wed Sep 19, 2007 12:18 pm

3 PureBasic team members invested in a powerpc mac +/- 3 years ago
The first PureBasic version for powerpc was released
2 months later, Apple announced the x86 macs.....
So if somebody has 3 spare x86 macs....it will go a lot quicker i guess

I can not buy a new mac....i dont have the cash

Any donations maybe so Fred can buy one?

Brice Manuel · Post by **Brice Manuel** » Wed Sep 19, 2007 3:59 pm

The first PureBasic version for powerpc was released
2 months later, Apple announced the x86 macs.....

It was a strong industry rumor two years before it happened and it was officially announced a year before it happened. There was no surprise and everybody knew it was coming and going to happen.

Any donations maybe so Fred can buy one?

For somebody in Fred's position, all Fred should need to do is contact Apple directly, explain who he is and what he does, explain the situation, and Apple would make arrangements for giving or loaning an Intel-based Mac to Fred.

That said, if there are not people using the existing Mac version, why bother improving it? The time could be better spent on the Windows and Linux versions.

Post by **Berikco** » Wed Sep 19, 2007 8:36 pm

Brice Manuel wrote:
The first PureBasic version for powerpc was released
2 months later, Apple announced the x86 macs.....
It was a strong industry rumor two years before it happened and it was officially announced a year before it happened. There was no surprise and everybody knew it was coming and going to happen.

Any donations maybe so Fred can buy one?
For somebody in Fred's position, all Fred should need to do is contact Apple directly, explain who he is and what he does, explain the situation, and Apple would make arrangements for giving or loaning an Intel-based Mac to Fred.

That said, if there are not people using the existing Mac version, why bother improving it? The time could be better spent on the Windows and Linux versions.

As i said, the announcement from apple came a couple of months after the first PB version for powerpc.
I did not know of any industry rumor coz i don't follow apple news..

Post by **Fred** » Wed Sep 19, 2007 8:41 pm

Apple advertised about it "so powerful" G5 until the very end. The PowerPC version of PB took much more time than only one year to develop and even, the x86 macs had some time ahead before being the standard. So we had to support the PowerPC.

As explained in another thread, we need an OS X version of fasm before starting the port (which shouldn't be long once it is available).

Post by **freak** » Wed Sep 19, 2007 8:56 pm

The best thing to do for now is to help support the PPC version by testing and
reporting bugs, even if it is slow for you on an Intel Mac.

Every library related bug that is fixed in the PPC version now will benefit a future Intel version as well.

CSAUER · Post by **CSAUER** » Thu Sep 27, 2007 4:30 pm

Dear Fred,

what is the kind of file, BlitzMax is using for Intel/PPC which is called: fasm2as
This should be here: /Applications/BlitzMax/bin/fasm2as

I read at wikipedia that BlitzMax is based on FASM as backend and I know that it supports universal binaries and compiling on intel macs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FASM

So this looks to me, that there is a fasm for Mac OS X.
Maybe this is an individual compiled fasm version from Mark Sibly?

Post by **Fred** » Thu Sep 27, 2007 4:57 pm

Seems to be a blitzmax only binary, but thanks for the information !

jack · Post by **jack** » Thu Sep 27, 2007 7:51 pm

the name suggest that it translates fasm to as

CSAUER · Post by **CSAUER** » Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:42 pm

as = apple script ??
fasm to apple script ?? omg

jack · Post by **jack** » Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:20 pm

CSAUER wrote:as = apple script ??
fasm to apple script ?? omg

of course not, fasm to gnu as.

Godai · Post by **Godai** » Mon Oct 15, 2007 9:23 pm

Ahh yes. Converting the assembler from fasm to something else should be doable for a here and now solution