Building in PEF format or Mach-O format for Intel Macs?

Building in PEF format or Mach-O format for Intel Macs?

Post by Pasca » Sun, 09 Jul 2006 16:34:58


Hello,

We all know that RB does not build Universal Binaries applications yet
for Intel Macs.
So our applications run under Rosetta on Intel Macs.
My question is:
Is it better to build PEF applications or Mach-O applications for the
Intel Macs (to be run under Rosetta)?
Which one works the best? Wihch one is the most efficient? Which one is
the most compatible? Which format to choose...?

Thanks in advance,
Pascal.
REALbasic 2006r3
Mac OS X 10.4.7
 
 
 

Building in PEF format or Mach-O format for Intel Macs?

Post by Pasca » Sun, 09 Jul 2006 17:55:35

PS: In case it's important for the answer, I precise that I build my
applications with multi-language dynamic string constants.

 
 
 

Building in PEF format or Mach-O format for Intel Macs?

Post by latitude6 » Sun, 09 Jul 2006 23:46:46


I can't speak for the speed or efficiency of one over the other as I
have not compared them. I can say that you need to be able to compile
as a Mach-O binary when UB capability finally comes to RB. Whichever
format you choose, you should make sure that you can compile as Mach-O.
 
 
 

Building in PEF format or Mach-O format for Intel Macs?

Post by Pasca » Mon, 10 Jul 2006 02:50:15

What do you mean? Can you be more specific?

Thanks,
Pascal.
 
 
 

Building in PEF format or Mach-O format for Intel Macs?

Post by suppor » Mon, 10 Jul 2006 03:01:22


When RB is Universal, you will use Mach-O for Mac OS X in general.
If you want to support Mac OS 9, you can continue with PEF.

As long as RB is not Universal, it doesn't matter.
Both formats are more or less equal from a RB user view.

Gru? Christian

--
Around eleven thousand functions in one REALbasic plug-in.
The Monkeybread Software Realbasic Plugin v6.2.
< http://www.yqcomputer.com/ ;
 
 
 

Building in PEF format or Mach-O format for Intel Macs?

Post by Auric_ » Mon, 10 Jul 2006 14:37:21


What if a customer requests a Classic version? I may not be one of your
customers, but none of my Macs can run anything newer than 8.something
(except for my one-and-only PPC machine, which tops out at 9.something).
Even if they could, I don't own anything newer than 8.5.

--
auric dot auric at gmail dot com
*****
Hawking! I checked the math! 2 + 2 isn't 5, it's 6! 6!!!

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.yqcomputer.com/
 
 
 

Building in PEF format or Mach-O format for Intel Macs?

Post by Jonathan H » Mon, 10 Jul 2006 15:13:16

> We all know that RB does not build Universal Binaries applications yet

Asking which is "better" is like asking which is the "better" political
party, or what is the "best" religion.

For me, building PEF has the advantage of allowing my users to run the
application on Classic systems. Granted, Classic is a vanishing
marketshare, but for the effort of a checkbox, it can be had. Also,
PEF executables are much, much smaller than their Mach-O equivalents.
As far as Intel-based Mac users, REALbasic built applications will run
under Rosetta emulation regardless of whether it is PEF or Mach-O.

Once REALbasic comes out with a version which builds Universal
Binaries, then I will switch to Mach-O, since it allows my app to run
natively on Intel-based Mac. I will, of course, loose Classic
customers at that point, but the number of the vanishing Classic users
are overwhelmed by the growing number of Macintel users.

Just my opinion. i'm sure that there are others with differing ones.

Jonathan Hoyle
macCompanion
 
 
 

Building in PEF format or Mach-O format for Intel Macs?

Post by Auric_ » Mon, 10 Jul 2006 15:30:05


Of course.


None. I'm not very Mac-literate. (I mostly split my computing between
Windows and Linux, with occasional forays into lesser-known x86 OS's.
It's been a few weeks since even powered a Mac up.) The only thing I can
recall doing to this machine is adding memory and an extra hard drive. (I
can't actually use 8.5 - it's an iMac-specific CD.)


You are correct, sir.


I decided against FutureBasic - and a few others - in favor of RB some
time ago (about the time 5.2 was released). Of course, when I made that
decision, I was also planning on buying a brand-spanking-new Mac, once I
had the money to do so. (Ha, ha, joke's on me.) Lately I've started to
look into FreeBasic, but it doesn't have Mac support yet (maybe never)
and almost certainly wouldn't compile on my machines.

As for the whole "single executable" thing, I've never been a big fan of
doing things that way. I prefer to release a separate binary for each
supported system.

--
auric dot auric at gmail dot com
*****
That's the problem these days. Everyone needs reasons.
Whatever happened to blind hatred?

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.yqcomputer.com/
 
 
 

Building in PEF format or Mach-O format for Intel Macs?

Post by Jonathan H » Mon, 10 Jul 2006 15:54:31

> What if a customer requests a Classic version? I may not be one of your

That is of course a fair question. You would get the last version of
the Carbon/PEF release. Although it may not be the newest version in
general, old software ontinues to work fine on old computers.

By the way, this is exactly the situation we handle with our 68K
customers (however many are left). With CodeWarrior 7 and REALbasic 4,
68K support was dropped. So we made a final stab with those tools and
moved on.

If we find a sizeable cry from our Classic customers, we would revisit
the question and perhaps not be so hasty in changing tools. But I
think Classic represents a very smaall user base today.

I am curious as to how much upgrading you do on your 8.5 machine. Even
Carbon/PEF apps require 8.6 as a minimum, and using the CarbonLib 1.6
library pushes requirements into Mac OS 9. Would I be wrong in
assuming that you continue to use old non-upgraded software on these
8.5 and earlier machines.

Regards,

Jonathan Hoyle
macCompanion

PS: As an aside, FutureBasic from Staz Software supports old System 6
68K machines up through Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger running on G5's, and even
Macintel's in Rosetta emulation. Staz says they will be supporting
Universal Binaries as well. Of course, these cannot be supported by a
single executable, but FutureBasic does give you compilation options to
build what you need.