Mac MFC , same title different thread
-
Makes me wonder why Microsoft didn't continue with "Microsoft Visual C++® Cross-Development Edition for Macintosh (Visual C++ for Mac™)". It sounds like a great way to port code from Windows to Mac, I'm sure there are a lot of software-companies out there who both have a Mac- and Windows version of their software. -- Alex Marbus www.marbus.net But then again, I could be wrong.
-
Makes me wonder why Microsoft didn't continue with "Microsoft Visual C++® Cross-Development Edition for Macintosh (Visual C++ for Mac™)". It sounds like a great way to port code from Windows to Mac, I'm sure there are a lot of software-companies out there who both have a Mac- and Windows version of their software. -- Alex Marbus www.marbus.net But then again, I could be wrong.
Seems simple enough to me. Microsoft would like to keep the Mac as a client for software like Office but doesn't want to provide tools that would help developers move to other operating systems.
-
Makes me wonder why Microsoft didn't continue with "Microsoft Visual C++® Cross-Development Edition for Macintosh (Visual C++ for Mac™)". It sounds like a great way to port code from Windows to Mac, I'm sure there are a lot of software-companies out there who both have a Mac- and Windows version of their software. -- Alex Marbus www.marbus.net But then again, I could be wrong.
At the time Apple seemed to be on their way out so maybe Microsoft didn't want waste money on a dying machine. Especially one they had spent years trying to kill :-) It was a pretty neat idea, but if memory serves we had a hard time setting the thing up to debug - but that could have been our crap hardware/network. You never know, maybe we'll get a Mac .NET CLR. Which would be kinda cool, at least it would give me an excuse to waste some money on one of those pretty Powerbooks :-)
-
Makes me wonder why Microsoft didn't continue with "Microsoft Visual C++® Cross-Development Edition for Macintosh (Visual C++ for Mac™)". It sounds like a great way to port code from Windows to Mac, I'm sure there are a lot of software-companies out there who both have a Mac- and Windows version of their software. -- Alex Marbus www.marbus.net But then again, I could be wrong.
The MFC Mac version was very slow and cumbersome. The executables created were enormous. It relied on something called WPL (Windows Portability Layer) that essentially emulated Widows on the Mac. Obviously this was incomplete, and as Windows continued to add bloat, maintaining this probably became nightmarish.
-
At the time Apple seemed to be on their way out so maybe Microsoft didn't want waste money on a dying machine. Especially one they had spent years trying to kill :-) It was a pretty neat idea, but if memory serves we had a hard time setting the thing up to debug - but that could have been our crap hardware/network. You never know, maybe we'll get a Mac .NET CLR. Which would be kinda cool, at least it would give me an excuse to waste some money on one of those pretty Powerbooks :-)
My guess is, that if Office continues to be available on the Mac, eventually the amount of .NET stuff they will cram into office will make it pretty nasty for them to develop it in parallel without a .NET runtime on the Mac...? Perhaps... Anyway, OS X has just about tempted me enough to buy a Mac this 'upgrade' rather than waste my money on a P4 that will be out of date in no time as WinXP bloats like all the rest and makes 2GHz look paltry ;P ... the (XP) UI is okay, but a bit gaudy and looks like a kid's interface anyway, compared to mmmm... AQUA ... mmm...