# Macs to run on Intel- CONFIRMED! **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 6, 2005, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/macs-to-run-on-intel-confirmed/307164 "2005-06-06T17:51:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![squeegee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/squeegee/32/14537_2.png) [@squeegee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/squeegee)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2005, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/macs-to-run-on-intel-confirmed/307164/81 "2005-06-13T22:05:56Z")
> [@spectrum](#): > > I’m only responding to this because it kind of bugs me – **in your opinion** the vast majority of applications are not using Xcode… huh? How can you have an opinion about a fact. It’s either true or it’s not. Because nobody knows the answer. Hence the opinion. Let me refine my statement: of large, shipping commercial Mac application software, I’d bet the majority were not developed & shipped using XCode. I hadn’t intended to include _every_ app, large & small, in that statement. Apologies for any confustion. > [@](#): > > According to Jobs’s presentation (not necessarily the most reliable source of information) Yep. 🙂 > [@](#): > > the vast majority of developers were either moving to Xcode or already there. “moving to” is a pretty darned loosed standard, don’t you think? Since the alternative to “moving to” XCode is to run emulated on MacIntel, or abandon the Mac platform altogether, I’d guess pretty much _all_ Mac developers are “moving to” XCode, don’t you think? ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2005, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/macs-to-run-on-intel-confirmed/307164/82 "2005-06-14T00:17:23Z")
Note that “moving to XCode” is not a real big deal – it’s just Apple’s IDE wrapped around gcc, for the most part, and you can certainly use XCode to write generic non-Apple non-Cocoa non-whatever software. It’s certainly not as if there are some uber-elite APIs that only XCode is privvy to, but primarily a case of folks being familiar with the CodeWarrior environment. ---
**Author:** ![squeegee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/squeegee/32/14537_2.png) [@squeegee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/squeegee)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2005, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/macs-to-run-on-intel-confirmed/307164/83 "2005-06-14T03:18:55Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > Note that “moving to XCode” is not a real big deal – it’s just Apple’s IDE wrapped around gcc, for the most part, and you can certainly use XCode to write generic non-Apple non-Cocoa non-whatever software. It’s certainly not as if there are some uber-elite APIs that only XCode is privvy to, but primarily a case of folks being familiar with the CodeWarrior environment. Agreed. For smaller apps this isn’t a big deal. For huger codebases, you get to deal with what always happens when moving to a new dev system: the compiler is subtly pickier in different ways than your old one. Not a big deal for smaller apps, but a real pain when you have to reconcile, say, 5 million lines of code. This can take a bit of time, and cause subtle bugs that take time to catch. There are also myriad other details with switching dev environments for big apps, such as multiple targets/dependancies. Suffice it to say, it’s not just a recompile for a big app, it can be somewhat painful. And when you’re done, your QE gets to test it twice, once for Mac-PPC, once for Mac-Intel. ---
**Author:** ![spectrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9fc29f/32.png) [@spectrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spectrum)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2005, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/macs-to-run-on-intel-confirmed/307164/84 "2005-06-14T15:23:04Z")
> [@Nonsuch](#): > > To be fair, Jobs’ slide indicated only the percentage of Apple’s **top 100 developers** that had migrated to XCode. True. But I’d think that those top 100 developers would include most of the big software. Also, in my experience, most of the small applications I run today on my Mac – ie, not Top 100 developer applications – are written in Cocoa. I don’t make any particular effort to avoid Carbon software, but still most of the icons in my Dock are Cocoa. In fact, all of them are except for the Finder and iTunes. > [@](#): > > Given that XCode is only a few years old, I’m sure that the majority of extant Mac software — not necessarily the apps people rely on day-to-day, but all the oddball apps lurking in the dark corners of Version Tracker — was built in Metroworks (or RealBASIC, or Hypercard, etc.). XCode is really almost six years old. It’s just a renamed version of the developers tools that came with Mac OS X from the beginning. Though you do raise an interesting question – what happens to RealBASIC programs? Will it be possible for RealBASIC to produce a version that can compile to the Intel Mac OS? Unlike Metrowerks, they have no reason NOT to. They’re a Carbon environment coding program, IIRC – I wonder if they produce Mach-O Carbon programs. > [@](#): > > It’s likely that quite a few older apps won’t make the transition to x86, but most likely wouldn’t be missed, and would survive well enough in Rosetta anyway. Are we sure? Will CFM Carbon apps run in Rosetta? I was under the impression that they had to be Mach-O. ---
**Author:** ![spectrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9fc29f/32.png) [@spectrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spectrum)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2005, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/macs-to-run-on-intel-confirmed/307164/85 "2005-06-14T15:27:13Z")
> [@squeegee](#): > > Let me refine my statement: of large, shipping commercial Mac application software, I’d bet the majority were not developed & shipped using XCode. How do we determine the cut off? All of Apple’s programs are in Xcode. None of Microsoft or Adobe’s programs are, yet. Not sure about FileMaker. Quicken is barely even Carbonized (piece of garbage program). However, most of the way-cool software for Mac OS X certainly is in XCode – it’s almost all Cocoa. All of Omni’s software is Cocoa, for example. > [@](#): > > “moving to” is a pretty darned loosed standard, don’t you think? Since the alternative to “moving to” XCode is to run emulated on MacIntel, or abandon the Mac platform altogether, I’d guess pretty much _all_ Mac developers are “moving to” XCode, don’t you think? Okay, Metrowerks won’t because of processor politics, but what’s to stop other software development environments from making themselves capable of producing Mactel compatible software? Is there any legal or technical reason why only Apple’s tools can create Cocoa software? Surely one can use other tools to create Mach-O Carbon apps. ---
**Author:** ![squeegee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/squeegee/32/14537_2.png) [@squeegee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/squeegee)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2005, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/macs-to-run-on-intel-confirmed/307164/86 "2005-06-14T23:44:47Z")
> [@spectrum](#): > > How do we determine the cut off? All of Apple’s programs are in Xcode. I’m not disputing you – you’re probably correct – but how did you determine that? > [@](#): > > Okay, Metrowerks won’t because of processor politics Actually, Metrowerks has an x86 compiler already for PC. They could fairly easily use that to update Codewarrior for fat fat mac binaries. Last I checked, they hadn’t committed, but I admit I haven’t been paying much attention. Anyone have an update? [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![spectrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9fc29f/32.png) [@spectrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spectrum)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2005, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/macs-to-run-on-intel-confirmed/307164/87 "2005-06-15T04:50:23Z")
> [@squeegee](#): > > I’m not disputing you – you’re probably correct – but how did you determine that? Oh, feel free to dispute me. It’s all just hunches and opinion. 🙂 But the source is this: Apple is very much an “eat your own dog food” company. Beyond that, virtually all Apple programs are Cocoa. IIRC, only XCode can create Cocoa applications. Is that wrong? The one major Apple program that’s Carbon is iTunes. Given how well it was running in the demo, I’d imagine it was already Universal. And the key to becoming Universal, according to Steve? Everyone say it with me: “Get to Xcode.” > [@](#): > > Actually, Metrowerks has an x86 compiler already for PC. They could fairly easily use that to update Codewarrior for fat fat mac binaries. Last I checked, they hadn’t committed, but I admit I haven’t been paying much attention. Anyone have an update? Yeah, but my thought is that being a wing of Freescale, they’re 1) a bit miffed about the move away from PowerPC and 2) more focused on Freescale’s emerging embedded market. ---
**Author:** ![squeegee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/squeegee/32/14537_2.png) [@squeegee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/squeegee)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2005, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/macs-to-run-on-intel-confirmed/307164/88 "2005-06-17T13:21:30Z")
I asked around a bit re: Metrowerks, here’s what I found out: [list=_][li]They were a no-show at WWDC.[_]Apple’s Intel announcment was apparently a complete surprise to them.Most telling: they’d previously sold off thier x86 compiler technology, so they’ve got nothin’ for fat MacIntel binaries.[/list][/li]Codewarrior appears to be dead. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/macs-to-run-on-intel-confirmed/307164.md?page=4)