Ok, I've been away for awhile. But now I'm back.

The screen on my PowerBook failed. Not yet sure if it's the screen itself, or something that connects to the screen. The former costs $800-$1000 to repair (so, not worth it) The later, costs ??? (maybe worth it)

I've been using my old G4 400 Mhz Tower the last couple monts, and it still chugs away.

Regardless, it was a good four years old so it was time to get a new computer anyway.
So, April 4th (hopefully), a brand spanking new MacBook Pro will be arriving at my door.

Since classic apps will NOT run on the Intel Core Duo, and I know of no EVN related files that are universal binaries, will I be able to build plugs completely in OS X?

Most older OS X programs will run fine under Rosetta.
Will MissionComputer run under Rosetta?
Anything else I need to know?

Or will I just have to do my EVN related stuff on older machines?

This post has been edited by Desprez : 11 March 2006 - 05:11 PM

You'll need to do EVO stuff on older machines, unless you want to screw about with Basilisk.

For OS X native apps for EVN, you could take a look at this.

Desprez said:

Will MissionComputer run under Rosetta?

I haven't heard from anyone about this yet. When you get your MacBook, I'd be interested to know whether you can get it to work or not.

I can tell you that MissionComputer will not ever be Intel-native; its architecture is too old for a port to be practical.

Anaxagoras, on Mar 11 2006, 08:52 PM, said:

You'll need to do EVO stuff on older machines, unless you want to screw about with Basilisk.

For OS X native apps for EVN, you could take a look at this.
View Post

Oops. I meant EVN not EVO. Fixed.

@David Arthur,
Can do.

This post has been edited by Desprez : 11 March 2006 - 05:11 PM

MC on Intel seems okay so far :). I haven't used it much but I did open it and stuff just to see that it worked.

Desprez, on Mar 11 2006, 09:12 PM, said:

Most older OS X programs will run fine under Rosetta.
Will MissionComputer run under Rosetta?
Anything else I need to know?

Or will I just have to do my EVN related stuff on older machines?
View Post

Come one man, I've been pondering the question ever since the 6th of june, and outlined my plans for quite some time already. To sum it up, everything (MC, EVONE, all w00tWare utils: ConText/ResStore, EnRle/DeRle, etc...) should work fine under emulation, except ResEdit, and therefore NovaTools, so I'm working to replace them. So far, my plans have given birth to this, as Anaxagoras pointed out. So, yes, you will be able to make plugs on your Intel Mac.

This post has been edited by Zacha Pedro : 11 March 2006 - 05:49 PM

Okay, here's a quick look at Nova on Intel:
- Main menu animations are very slow.
- Opening/closing dialogs is slow.
- Don't seem to have the font "Charcoal" anymore. All I have is "Charcoal CY" and the buttons default to Helvetica or something.
- In-flight appears to be fine, even during big battles.

What frame rate do you get?

What frame rate do you get when you have a raven and six raven escorts and are fighting a Nil'kemorya defense fleet with all graphics options on?

And you replace the spin for stars with jupiter?

And you take the processor out of your Mac and replace it with a peanut butter sandwich?

Okay, playing rEV with the large sprites, a fleet of Confed Cruisers then demanding tribute from both Earth and Alpha I saw it drop to 10 at one point. Typically it's around 40 though.

From what I understand these Intel machines have socketed processors so while I could easily take it out I don't think I have any peanut butter sandwiches that would fit. Besides, I'd rather eat them.

Mazca, on Mar 13 2006, 07:35 PM, said:

And you take the processor out of your Mac and replace it with a peanut butter sandwich?
View Post

It gets faster.

Quote

And you take the processor out of your Mac and replace it with a peanut butter sandwich?

I'll get back to you on that one...

Guy, on Mar 14 2006, 09:19 AM, said:

Besides, I'd rather eat them.
View Post

I'm not eating mine, I could mail it to you.
Did you want chunky or smooth?

64-bit chunky is way more efficient.

Ooh yes, chunky please