CodeWarrior for Windows Discontinued?
jonh...@mac.com
machines just a couple of weeks ago, so I know that it was just
recently supported.
However, when I went to Metrowerks' product web site at
www.metrowerks.com/mw/products/default.htm , I see that it has been
removed. When I went to the Metrowerks store to the Buy section, I see
only the Macintosh and other products listed now. When I click on the
Windows link, I get "No error message found. (Error Number: 31016935 -
0)". On some other pages, the Windows link has been removed
altogether. I even went to the Metrowerks Site Map at
http://www.metrowerks.com/MW/siteMap/default.htm and clicked on all the
Windows links and got the error message "No default posting specified
for this channel" for each one of them.
I further went on to the "Metrowerks Discontinued Products" page at
www.metrowerks.com/Discontinued/default.htm but did not see the Windows
compiler there (however, other discontinued products (such as Lattitude
and the Java compiler) was absent as well).
Despite my surprise, I frankly could live with the fact that the
Windows-hosted tools are being discontinued. They were never an
important factor to me, although they were admittedly a very nice
debugging convenience to have. For me what is more important is for
the Windows compiler to live on on the Mac-hosted tools. It is always
very nice to be able to cross-compile to Windows when needs be. If the
Windows compiler disappears off BOTH the Windows and Mac-hosted tools,
one of the biggest advantages CodeWarrior has over Xcode will be lost.
Jonathan Hoyle
jonh...@mac.com
discontinued the Windows-hosted tools.
MW Ron
"jonh...@mac.com" <jonh...@mac.com> wrote:
Metrowerks has discontinued the sale and development of its Intel x86
compilers. This technology is used in Symbian development and was
acquired by Nokia last year.
Metrowerks will continue to provide online support for Windows on our
CodeWarrior Community Forum and USENET newsgroups and will continue to
take bug reports submitted to sup...@metrowerks.com.
If you already have a license to use CodeWarrior for Windows this does
not affect your license to use those tools.
This also affected our Mac Hosted x86 cross compilers and we are not
licensing the x86 tools any more.
We are currently looking at our options but I don't see any great desire
to be in the Windows market. This may be a good deal for our Mac
hosted tools as we no longer have to worry about cross compatibility.
Ron
--
Metrowerks Community Forum is a free online resource for developers
to discuss CodeWarrior topics with other users and Metrowerks' staff
-- http://www.metrowerks.com/community --
Ron Liechty - MW...@metrowerks.com - http://www.metrowerks.com
Bruce Wheaton
> This also affected our Mac Hosted x86 cross compilers and we are not
> licensing the x86 tools any more.
>
> We are currently looking at our options but I don't see any great desire
> to be in the Windows market. This may be a good deal for our Mac
> hosted tools as we no longer have to worry about cross compatibility.
That sounds very wrong. The only reason I use CW is to get Mac and Win
projects from one IDE. If you take that away, why wouldn't I use XCode? The
compiler and target may be a tiny bit slower, but they have lots of features
that CW doesn't as well. If I want Win I can use Visual Studio.
Is that really what you're saying? Future versions of CW for Mac OS will not
be able to make Windows executables?
Bruce Wheaton
James W. Walker
<mw...@metrowerks.com> wrote:
> In article <1113433284.4...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> "jonh...@mac.com" <jonh...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> Metrowerks has discontinued the sale and development of its Intel x86
> compilers. This technology is used in Symbian development and was
> acquired by Nokia last year.
>
> Metrowerks will continue to provide online support for Windows on our
> CodeWarrior Community Forum and USENET newsgroups and will continue to
> take bug reports submitted to sup...@metrowerks.com.
What would be the point of taking bug reports if you're never going to
update the product?
> If you already have a license to use CodeWarrior for Windows this does
> not affect your license to use those tools.
>
> This also affected our Mac Hosted x86 cross compilers and we are not
> licensing the x86 tools any more.
Bummer. This is going to make my life harder.
Paul
use the Mac hosted + the remote debugger on Windows. Aside from being much
pleasanter to use than VC++, I get a better end product and don't have to
port to MS's version of the language.
This is not a good time for this to happen: I've already pretty much dropped
OS9. We get VS for free w/our MS subscription, and XCode is free, even if
it's slow and very painful to use. CW10 had better offer some serious value
(like better intellisense and help integration at least equal to XCode) or I
doubt I'll get to upgrade.
"MW Ron" <mw...@metrowerks.com> wrote in message
news:mwron-0D4426....@news.newsguy.com...
jonh...@mac.com
licensing the x86 tools any more.
I would think that continuing to license the x86 cross-compiler (even
if it were for an extra cost) would help sell more of the Mac version.
As long as the licensing fees you pay are passed along, what harm is
there? I'm confident that the majority of the Windows tools users are
on the Mac anyway, so this decision will affect the Mac market more
than the Windows market.
I don't think Metrowerks has thought a lot of this through, since many
of the people who have chosen to stay with CodeWarrior are doing so
because they know they can cross-compile. Dropping this ability makes
the switch to Xcode much more compelling.
Here's hoping that someone at Metrowerks does some actual customer
analysis before going ahead with this decision. It sounds like
FreeScale is just knee-jerking "We don't do well in the Windows market,
so we'll drop the x86 compiler on every platform" without taking into
account the value of the x86 compiler in the Mac market.
Jonathan Hoyle
Gregory Weston
Bruce Wheaton <br...@spearmorgan.com> wrote:
> > This also affected our Mac Hosted x86 cross compilers and we are not
> > licensing the x86 tools any more.
> >
> > We are currently looking at our options but I don't see any great desire
> > to be in the Windows market. This may be a good deal for our Mac
> > hosted tools as we no longer have to worry about cross compatibility.
>
> That sounds very wrong. The only reason I use CW is to get Mac and Win
> projects from one IDE. If you take that away, why wouldn't I use XCode?
XCode's off the table immediately if you're creating or even supporting
CFM deliverables.
> The compiler and target may be a tiny bit slower, but they have lots
> of features that CW doesn't as well. If I want Win I can use Visual Studio.
Hideously expensive. And the EULA is aggressively enforced, so you can't
really avoid the expense even if you're willing to violate your licenses.
G
--
There's nothing quite like the joy of first hearing an Alvin & the Chipmunks
cover of Pink Floyd's "The Final Cut." "Not Now John" is especially sublime.
Bruce Wheaton
uce-0F1986.1...@comcast.dca.giganews.com, "Gregory Weston"
<u...@splook.com> wrote:
>>> We are currently looking at our options but I don't see any great desire
>>> to be in the Windows market. This may be a good deal for our Mac
>>> hosted tools as we no longer have to worry about cross compatibility.
>>
>> That sounds very wrong. The only reason I use CW is to get Mac and Win
>> projects from one IDE. If you take that away, why wouldn't I use XCode?
>
> XCode's off the table immediately if you're creating or even supporting
> CFM deliverables.
I already have to keep CW 8 around for some projects. I have no problem
doing the same with CW 9. But why I would pass up on Xcode and Obj-C without
the multi platform targets I enjoy now is tougher.
>
>> The compiler and target may be a tiny bit slower, but they have lots
>> of features that CW doesn't as well. If I want Win I can use Visual Studio.
>
> Hideously expensive. And the EULA is aggressively enforced, so you can't
> really avoid the expense even if you're willing to violate your licenses.
Single man shop, so I only need one license. I picked up VS C# for $150, and
I bet C++ is the same. Considerably cheaper than CW.
Bruce
Not Important
<1113506862....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"jonh...@mac.com" <jonh...@mac.com> wrote:
I really don't think you guys want to make the threat of dropping
CodeWarrior and going with Xcode because it's free. Because if
that happens, and Metrowerks goes the embedded tools only route,
we'll have no alternative to Apples Xcode.
If you haven't noticed, the trend with Apple is that, they get
people dependant upon something that was bundled and then turn it
into a separate unbundled, revenue generating product.
Looking at 10.4 it no longer comes the with applications iMovie or
iPhoto. They are now sold as part of a separate software bundle.
I really believe this is what will be happening with Apples
developer tools.
Sure the GNU compiler and tool chain will be available as part of
the free developer tools. But I'll bet the higher level tools
Xcode, Interface Builder, CHUD, Shark and etc. will become a
separate extra charge software bundle.
Thorrsten Froehlich
> "jonh...@mac.com" <jonh...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> Metrowerks has discontinued the sale and development of its Intel x86
> compilers. This technology is used in Symbian development and was
> acquired by Nokia last year.
>
> Metrowerks will continue to provide online support for Windows on our
> CodeWarrior Community Forum and USENET newsgroups and will continue to
> take bug reports submitted to sup...@metrowerks.com.
>
> If you already have a license to use CodeWarrior for Windows this does
> not affect your license to use those tools.
>
> This also affected our Mac Hosted x86 cross compilers and we are not
> licensing the x86 tools any more.
>
> We are currently looking at our options but I don't see any great desire
> to be in the Windows market.
Oh, really? Last year the official lie for not shipping an academic
version of CW 9 for many month was that having both Windows and Mac
tools was most important for your academic users. So I see how
important it was as it either backfired and you lost the last academic
Windows users with that policy, or Metrowerks simply does not care
about the academic users on the Mac at all and you never had many
academic users who cared for the Windows version, which would make the
imaginary Windows users just a poor excuse for treating Mac academic
users badly. I wonder what the excuse will be when CW 10 comes out
(if it ever does) for not having an academic version instantly. Maybe
it will be rain in Texas or something else holding up the academic
version trucks.
If I had to bet US$1000 on Metrowerks (or Freescale or whoever owns
you right now) dropping the Mac tools from one day to the next within
the next two years versus Metrowerks continuing development of them, I
would bet on the former. A good way to treat customers, really. Just
silently drop products from one day to the next, that certainly makes
everybody confident in your company!
I know you are just the messenger, but if I were you, I would start
looking for a new job ... looks like next week Metrowerks could just
close down - your head management's decisions have been so random in
the past two years, for me this would hardly be a surprise!
Thorsten
do...@tiac.net
> This also affected our Mac Hosted x86 cross compilers and we are not
> licensing the x86 tools any more.
This is really bad for us. We have several pieces of our application
suite which are compiled on the Mac for Windows.
We have been wrestling with the thought of converting to XCode but have
resisted because of cross compiling. At the same time we need to
convert our PowerPlant code and like others are weighting the option of
a conversion to PowerPlantX or to Cocoa.
Well, one reason to stay with Metrowerks is gone and the state of
PowerPlantX doesn't leave me with a warm feeling.
-doug
Gregory Weston
Bruce Wheaton <br...@spearmorgan.com> wrote:
> On 4/14/05 2:27 PM, in article
> uce-0F1986.1...@comcast.dca.giganews.com, "Gregory Weston"
> <u...@splook.com> wrote:
>
> >>> We are currently looking at our options but I don't see any great desire
> >>> to be in the Windows market. This may be a good deal for our Mac
> >>> hosted tools as we no longer have to worry about cross compatibility.
> >>
> >> That sounds very wrong. The only reason I use CW is to get Mac and Win
> >> projects from one IDE. If you take that away, why wouldn't I use XCode?
> >
> > XCode's off the table immediately if you're creating or even supporting
> > CFM deliverables.
>
> I already have to keep CW 8 around for some projects. I have no problem
> doing the same with CW 9. But why I would pass up on Xcode and Obj-C without
> the multi platform targets I enjoy now is tougher.
I was just offering legacy platform support as a reason one wouldn't
move (wholely) to XCode.
> >> The compiler and target may be a tiny bit slower, but they have lots
> >> of features that CW doesn't as well. If I want Win I can use Visual Studio.
> >
> > Hideously expensive. And the EULA is aggressively enforced, so you can't
> > really avoid the expense even if you're willing to violate your licenses.
>
> Single man shop, so I only need one license. I picked up VS C# for $150, and
> I bet C++ is the same. Considerably cheaper than CW.
Hmm.
1) I wasn't talking about the number of licenses to any given product. I
was talking about the terms of the product license. Microsoft is quite
vigorous about enforcing the terms of their development tool licenses,
and some of those terms are deal-breakers for some people.
2) When you said "Visual Studio" I read it as the product rather than
the environment. Visual Studio the product is substantially more
expensive than VC# alone. It also does a lot more, as does CW. If VC# is
sufficient for your needs, that's okay but it's not really a fair
comparison on price. Just value.
Gregory Weston
Not Important <NotImp...@invalid.com> wrote:
> If you haven't noticed, the trend with Apple is that, they get
> people dependant upon something that was bundled and then turn it
> into a separate unbundled, revenue generating product.
>
> Looking at 10.4 it no longer comes the with applications iMovie or
> iPhoto. They are now sold as part of a separate software bundle.
That's not new with Tiger; 10.3 didn't come with the iLife apps either.
Apple walks a fine line as an applications vendor, actually. Customers
want value, but developers don't want to compete with the big dog.
G
Alwyn
>
> I really don't think you guys want to make the threat of dropping
> CodeWarrior and going with Xcode because it's free.
I found no such threat in the posting you quoted. In any case, it would
surprise me if Freescale executives based their decisions on what people
write in this forum.
> Because if
> that happens, and Metrowerks goes the embedded tools only route,
> we'll have no alternative to Apples Xcode.
That would be unfortunate, I agree.
> If you haven't noticed, the trend with Apple is that, they get
> people dependant upon something that was bundled and then turn it
> into a separate unbundled, revenue generating product.
This certainly happened when the free iTools morphed into the paid-for
.Mac.
> Looking at 10.4 it no longer comes the with applications iMovie or
> iPhoto. They are now sold as part of a separate software bundle.
I think the separation happened earlier than 10.4, and it wouldn't
surprise me if this was what was intended from the start.
> I really believe this is what will be happening with Apples developer
> tools.
>
> Sure the GNU compiler and tool chain will be available as part of the
> free developer tools. But I'll bet the higher level tools Xcode,
> Interface Builder, CHUD, Shark and etc. will become a separate extra
> charge software bundle.
I can't say this will never happen, but remember that Apple are already
'milking' their developers through charging for ADC membership and WWDC
attendance, so they already have a substantial revenue stream from this
community. Another factor to bear in mind is that they have already had
the chance to start charging for the product when ProjectBuilder became
Xcode and again with the imminent introduction of the greatly enhanced
Xcode 2.0. I think it is significant that they have not done so.
Should Interface Builder and the other programs you mention cease to be
free, many CodeWarrior users will be affected alongside Xcode users;
Metrowerks do not offer any products that compete with them.
My guess, for what it's worth, is that Apple will start charging for
development tools if and when they abandon GCC and offer their own
compiler. Given their present rather ambitious commitment to help make GCC
the best compiler for PowerPC, I find it hard to see this happening in the
foreseeable future.
Alwyn
MW Ron
I don't want to respond to individual comments at this time but do want
everyone to know that I am closely following this thread.
Ron
jonh...@mac.com
Thanks for keeping an eye on this. I have perhaps a compromise
suggestion, and maybe the power that be would be willing to consider
it...
Perhaps making CodeWarrior 10 compatible with the CodeWarrior 9 x86
compiler plugin is sufficient enough. That way, those of us who
already own CW 9 (and thus a legitimate license to the old Win32
compiler) could drag and drop the x86 compiler plugin and preferences
into CW10 and thus continue to be able to use it. I think something
similar happened with the old Pascal compiler that allowed it to
continue working for a version or so afterwards.
I know you are not in any position to say or grant such wishes, but if
you know of a way to pass this suggestion up the line, or a place I can
email the suggestion, I think it would go a long way to solving this
problem.
Thanks,
Jonathan Hoyle
jean-yves hervé
fro...@charlie.iit.edu (Thorrsten Froehlich) wrote:
> If I had to bet US$1000 on Metrowerks (or Freescale or whoever owns
> you right now) dropping the Mac tools from one day to the next within
> the next two years versus Metrowerks continuing development of them, I
> would bet on the former. A good way to treat customers, really. Just
> silently drop products from one day to the next, that certainly makes
> everybody confident in your company!
I don't think that it is as much a case of MW not caring about customer
as one of business people making a series of short-sighted decisions
based on perceived profitability of elements of the whole CW package.
"Too much effort in Java for too little profit", so Java is chopped off.
"Not making a dent in the Windows market" and now the Windows tools are
gone. Metrowerks cut off a "useless" arm and a "useless" leg and now
they have nowehere to go and only a working hand left with wich to slash
their throat when the game is over, in a year or two at the most (I
agree with you on time estimate). It's really sad.
--
=====================================================================
jean-yves herve' /\
Department of Computer Science \/ e-mail --> j...@cs.uri.edu
and Statistics /\
University of Rhode Island \/ Tel. --> (401) 874-4400
Kingston, RI 02881-0816 /\ Fax. --> (401) 874-4617
USA \/
=====================================================================
Thomas Engelmeier
> This also affected our Mac Hosted x86 cross compilers and we are not
> licensing the x86 tools any more.
>
> We are currently looking at our options but I don't see any great desire
> to be in the Windows market. This may be a good deal for our Mac
> hosted tools as we no longer have to worry about cross compatibility.
*Sigh* They were one of the reasons for me to stay with CW - the
possibility to do all my Plug-In development on the same laptop.
Regards,
Tom_E
ed woods
I am one of the few Windows CW users. We have bought over 30 licenses over
the last year. I find CW a zillion times better than MS .net : drag and
dropping files into the project, much simpler preferences and not having to
have every file share a single window make CW my favorite IDE.
Is anybody going to support the CW IDE on windows after you guys abandon me?
Time to split your company away from Motorola or FreeScale or whom ever owns
you. It's been done before.
Ed Woods
Christopher J. Henrich
<nospam-...@comcast.net> wrote:
The damage is done, I'm afraid. .
The Metrowerks web page
<http://www.metrowerks.com/Discontinued/default.htm>
announces that they have sold the Intel x86 compiler and debugger
technology to a "third party". Can anyone tell us who that third party
is?
Yipes. I hope it's not MIcrosoft, who would be willing to buy a
competing product just in order to suppress it.
Even if the third party does make a product from this technology, it
will probably not have the CW IDE. And the IDE is important.
Was important.
--
Chris Henrich
http://www.mathinteract.com
God just doesn't fit inside a single religion.
Scott Wyatt
> I don't want to respond to individual comments at this time but do want
> everyone to know that I am closely following this thread.
>
> Ron
>
Pascal support. I want something easier than C++ and more powerful than
REALbasic. I know some people would argue the case... but Apple sure
isn't giving anyone a middle-route.
Otherwise, I suppose I'm stuck learning Obj-C.
- Scott
Isaac Wankerl
"Christopher J. Henrich" <chen...@monmouth.com> wrote:
> The Metrowerks web page
> <http://www.metrowerks.com/Discontinued/default.htm>
> announces that they have sold the Intel x86 compiler and debugger
> technology to a "third party". Can anyone tell us who that third party
> is?
Nokia
http://www.metrowerks.com/mw/news/default.asp?PR=516
--
Isaac Wankerl
Metrowerks
mathieu...@gmail.com
What is the relation between Symbian and x86 technologies ?
Andy Bettis
enquiring about buying a copy of CW for Windows and were told that
Metrowerks are being taken over. Don't know if this is very old news
being recycled or an insider's loose talk.
Rev. Andy
Gregory Weston
Scott Wyatt <tam...@comcast.net> wrote:
Which is, in fact, easier than C++ and more powerful than RB. In fact,
having been a Mac programmer for about 17 years, I'd say Cocoa is far
easier to work with for most (not all) tasks than Carbon or the legacy
Toolbox. Objective-C the language should take less than a day to get
comfortable with. Cocoa's big but quite accessible IMO.
jonh...@mac.com
>>enquiring about buying a copy of CW for Windows and were told
>>that Metrowerks are being taken over.
Well, if true, it can't be much worse than current stewardship. :-/
It is likely that they were referring to either Metrowerks' spinoff to
FreeScale or that the x86 tools were sold to Nokia. If Metrowerks is
indeed being taken over by yet some other entity, either they will turn
things around completely, or (more likely I'm afraid) they will cease
to be a player at all in the industry.
MW Ron
Andy Bettis <an...@dance.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Totally wrong. Motorola purchased Metrowerks in 1998 and Freescale
kept Metrowerks when Freescale split off. There are organizational
changes that are coming in the next few months (that are good for the
Mac customers) but Metrowerks is not being taken over.
bols...@hotmail.com
>Totally wrong. Motorola purchased Metrowerks in 1998 and Freescale
>kept Metrowerks when Freescale split off. There are organizational
>changes that are coming in the next few months (that are good for the
>Mac customers) but Metrowerks is not being taken over.
Actually it was in 1999. I left MW in 2000, and Motorola hadn't owned MW for long.
Best of luck to the Mac team!
-Greg
Andy Dent
> I want something easier than C++ and more powerful than
> REALbasic.
erm, what's so weak about REALbasic (comments only valid since the new
compiler in 5.5)?
> Otherwise, I suppose I'm stuck learning Obj-C.
one of the things I love about doing cross-platform work with REALbasic
is that it has the same ability to add methods to existing classes that
Objective-C has. This removes the need for subclassing and using factory
classes in most circumstances.
--
Andy Dent BSc MACS ttp://www.oofile.com.au/
OOFILE - Database, Reports, Graphs, GUI for c++ on Mac, Unix & Windows
PP2MFC - PowerPlant->MFC portability
MW Ron
bols...@hotmail.com wrote:
You are right, darn it is hard to be old when your years and decades
seem to move the same speed.
>Best of luck to the Mac team!
Thanks, I've exited about the future for the first time in many months.
Arthur Langereis
> Thanks, I've exited about the future for the first time in many months.
I hope that wasn't a Freudian slip... :)
Seriously, Ron, I wish MW all the best and I hope the outward
communications channels upon up a bit more as CW Pro 10 development
continues.
Arthur Langereis
xfinitegames.com
Conrad Weyns
I have been with MW since "Bronze 5" long before the Pro versions and long
before I became a Windoze developper. I have kept both platforms upgraded and
intented to continue doing so (well untill now).
I read here that Ed Wood has some 30 lisenses, that makes mine no. 31.
I fear to ask it but how many CodeWarrior Windoze lisences are out there?
Anyway, the CodeWarrior compiler has over a number of years helped me produce
better code.
So, thanks and good luck for the future. I will continue to lissen to the cw
newgroups regularly.
Cheers,
Conrad Weyns.
<jonh...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:1113433284.4...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> We just upgraded to CodeWarrior 9.4 on both our Mac and Windows
> machines just a couple of weeks ago, so I know that it was just
> recently supported.
>
> However, when I went to Metrowerks' product web site at
> www.metrowerks.com/mw/products/default.htm , I see that it has been
> removed. When I went to the Metrowerks store to the Buy section, I see
> only the Macintosh and other products listed now. When I click on the
> Windows link, I get "No error message found. (Error Number: 31016935 -
> 0)". On some other pages, the Windows link has been removed
> altogether. I even went to the Metrowerks Site Map at
> http://www.metrowerks.com/MW/siteMap/default.htm and clicked on all the
> Windows links and got the error message "No default posting specified
> for this channel" for each one of them.
>
> I further went on to the "Metrowerks Discontinued Products" page at
> www.metrowerks.com/Discontinued/default.htm but did not see the Windows
> compiler there (however, other discontinued products (such as Lattitude
> and the Java compiler) was absent as well).
>
> Despite my surprise, I frankly could live with the fact that the
> Windows-hosted tools are being discontinued. They were never an
> important factor to me, although they were admittedly a very nice
> debugging convenience to have. For me what is more important is for
> the Windows compiler to live on on the Mac-hosted tools. It is always
> very nice to be able to cross-compile to Windows when needs be. If the
> Windows compiler disappears off BOTH the Windows and Mac-hosted tools,
> one of the biggest advantages CodeWarrior has over Xcode will be lost.
>
> Jonathan Hoyle
>
MW Ron
Arthur Langereis <arthur_e...@xfinitegames.com.tld> wrote:
>MW Ron wrote:
>> Thanks, I've exited about the future for the first time in many months.
>
>I hope that wasn't a Freudian slip... :)
>
>Seriously, Ron, I wish MW all the best and I hope the outward
>communications channels upon up a bit more as CW Pro 10 development
>continues.
I'll forgive your typo if you forgive mine. "I'm excited about the
future" not that I exited (I had to read that 3 times to see the second
typo)
Yes the channels shall OPEN up more
Scott Wyatt
> In article <z-2dnR7vtdS...@comcast.com>,
> Scott Wyatt <tam...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>>I want something easier than C++ and more powerful than
>>REALbasic.
>
>
> erm, what's so weak about REALbasic (comments only valid since the new
> compiler in 5.5)?
I have posted to the RB mailing list quite a few things that aren't up
to snuff in RB... from the lack of an RTF (or HTML) edit field, to
problems with fonts in the EditFied (which is more a text field, than an
edit field). Grids are weak -- very weak -- when compared to VB or
Delphi. (Even the Einhugur grids are weak.)
We have learned that part of the issue with "listbox" grids is the way
they are populated. They first convert (slowly) contents of the grid to
strings. One trick you can code is to do any conversions yourself before
populating rows. Another trick is to count records, create the rows,
then populate the data... but what a pain when MySQL's record count
isn't working properly in RB. Oh, and RB doesn't support the new MySQL
4.1/5.0 passwords -- which I do have to use on the server for other apps.
RB is not as powerful as it should be for a 5.5 or 6.0 release. That's
my view -- and one reason for migrating to Cocoa in the coming months.
It's decent place to prototype. It is good for small apps. You could
never create an "Office" level application in RB, and certainly not
something like Photoshop. I can get that detailed in CW or Cocoa.
Porting a large enterprise application from PC to Mac, we had to lose
features to use RB. I want those features in my next revision of the Mac
product. It was the price we paid for moving from Delphi on the PC to RB
on the Mac... I miss the huge number of controls I used. If you look
through the RB list, you'll see what I think the issues are.
I've used CW 8.x, but not the 9.x release. One reason was pondering a
move to Cocoa and trying to decide if the Mac Dev tools were enough or
if CW adds value. CW might add something as of 10, but I don't know yet.
CW was always interesting, mainly because of the idea I could use C++
and target both platforms. Bummer...
- Scott
jonh...@mac.com
upgraded to CodeWarrior 9 on both Mac & Windows, 8 licenses each I
think in total.
jonh...@mac.com
Michael Forster
> In article <1113433284.4...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> "jonh...@mac.com" <jonh...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> Metrowerks has discontinued the sale and development of its Intel x86
> compilers. This technology is used in Symbian development and was
> acquired by Nokia last year.
>
> Metrowerks will continue to provide online support for Windows on our
> CodeWarrior Community Forum and USENET newsgroups and will continue to
> take bug reports submitted to sup...@metrowerks.com.
>
> If you already have a license to use CodeWarrior for Windows this does
> not affect your license to use those tools.
>
> This also affected our Mac Hosted x86 cross compilers and we are not
> licensing the x86 tools any more.
>
> We are currently looking at our options but I don't see any great desire
> to be in the Windows market. This may be a good deal for our Mac
> hosted tools as we no longer have to worry about cross compatibility.
>
I converted over to CodeWarrior when CW was at DR2. I converted from
the Symantec product because of service (Symantec's service did not
exist), even though Symatec's Think C product was quite incredible at
the time. However, there are several simularities between Symantec then
and Metrowerks now. Gradually sell of products to other companies,
delay releases, introduce products and then discontinue them.
Metrowerks was great because they were expanding, they were innovative,
created things we were hard pressed to find anywhere else and above all,
they had the best service and responsiveness around.
Now they are contracting from markets. The handwriting is on the wall.
This is a dying company. They have ceased to innovate and create new
products. They are no longer hungry. The board of directors and
financial people, most likely, guide the ship the way lawyers guide
doctors. They have gone down the road of so many companies before and
have traded a target of success for a target of no risk and abandon the
very people that they used to serve so well.
RIP
-Michael Forster
MW Ron
Michael Forster <mfor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>I converted over to CodeWarrior when CW was at DR2. I converted from
>the Symantec product because of service (Symantec's service did not
>exist), even though Symatec's Think C product was quite incredible at
>the time. However, there are several simularities between Symantec then
>and Metrowerks now. Gradually sell of products to other companies,
>delay releases, introduce products and then discontinue them.
>Metrowerks was great because they were expanding, they were innovative,
>created things we were hard pressed to find anywhere else and above all,
>they had the best service and responsiveness around.
>
>Now they are contracting from markets. The handwriting is on the wall.
> This is a dying company. They have ceased to innovate and create new
>products. They are no longer hungry. The board of directors and
>financial people, most likely, guide the ship the way lawyers guide
>doctors. They have gone down the road of so many companies before and
>have traded a target of success for a target of no risk and abandon the
>very people that they used to serve so well.
This is not about greed. We are owned by a Semiconductor company that
isn't Intel, you are missing that part of the equation. We sold our
Intel x86 technology, we make compilers for Freescale chips now.
Miro Jurisic
MW Ron <mw...@metrowerks.com> wrote:
> This is not about greed. We are owned by a Semiconductor company that
> isn't Intel, you are missing that part of the equation. We sold our
> Intel x86 technology, we make compilers for Freescale chips now.
What percentage of your revenues comes from sales of chips to Apple?
meeroh
--
If this message helped you, consider buying an item
from my wish list: <http://web.meeroh.org/wishlist>
Sean McBride
> This is not about greed. We are owned by a Semiconductor company that
> isn't Intel, you are missing that part of the equation. We sold our
> Intel x86 technology, we make compilers for Freescale chips now.
A good point, which I don't believe anyone pointed out until now. :)
And a candid remark, as you are their employee.
So I guess it's good that Freescale/Motorola is part of the 'PowerPC
alliance'... then again, Freescale doesn't make G5's, and I note that CW
does not produce G5 optimised code...
I do hope MW will give the Mac community some detailed info by WWDC at
the latest.
Thorrsten Froehlich
> This is not about greed. We are owned by a Semiconductor company that
> isn't Intel, you are missing that part of the equation. We sold our
> Intel x86 technology, we make compilers for Freescale chips now.
Remind me, does Freescale deliver any processors to Sony for their
PSP?
<http://www.metrowerks.com/MW/Develop/Games/PSP.htm>
And when is Freescale going to aquire Texas Instruments, NEC and
Infineon?
<http://www.metrowerks.com/MW/Develop/Embedded/OSEK.htm>
And I suppose STMicroelectronics is also on the list of companies
soon belonging to the Freescale family?
<http://www.metrowerks.com/NR/exeres/EE21708C-87E4-4634-8511-D1121976DD7A.htm>
Or does this imply all these producs will be dropped sooner rather
than later as well?
Hmm...
Thorsten
MW Ron
Miro Jurisic <mac...@meeroh.org> wrote:
>In article <mwron-BA562D....@news.newsguy.com>,
> MW Ron <mw...@metrowerks.com> wrote:
>
>> This is not about greed. We are owned by a Semiconductor company that
>> isn't Intel, you are missing that part of the equation. We sold our
>> Intel x86 technology, we make compilers for Freescale chips now.
>
>What percentage of your revenues comes from sales of chips to Apple?
>
>meeroh
Apple is considered a major customer of Freescale. You'd have to look
at a SEC filing or a Stock Holders report to find out more information.
MW Ron
fro...@charlie.iit.edu (Thorrsten Froehlich) wrote:
This does not imply anything. There are certain companies that
Metrowerks has a long term replationship with or that Freescale has a
partnership with and other factors that are always considered.
Michael Forster
> In article <7q6dnekiBL9...@comcast.com>,
> Michael Forster <mfor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>I converted over to CodeWarrior when CW was at DR2. I converted from
>>the Symantec product because of service (Symantec's service did not
>>exist), even though Symatec's Think C product was quite incredible at
>>the time. However, there are several simularities between Symantec then
>>and Metrowerks now. Gradually sell of products to other companies,
>>delay releases, introduce products and then discontinue them.
>>Metrowerks was great because they were expanding, they were innovative,
>>created things we were hard pressed to find anywhere else and above all,
>>they had the best service and responsiveness around.
>>
>>Now they are contracting from markets. The handwriting is on the wall.
>> This is a dying company. They have ceased to innovate and create new
>>products. They are no longer hungry. The board of directors and
>>financial people, most likely, guide the ship the way lawyers guide
>>doctors. They have gone down the road of so many companies before and
>>have traded a target of success for a target of no risk and abandon the
>>very people that they used to serve so well.
>
>
> This is not about greed. We are owned by a Semiconductor company that
> isn't Intel, you are missing that part of the equation. We sold our
> Intel x86 technology, we make compilers for Freescale chips now.
>
> Ron
>
Regardless of what the reason is, greed, good business, bad economy, it
is definitely a sad day to loose my IDE/toolset of choice for Windoz.
The current batch of tools from MS just don't cut it when working with
the types of projects we have. We will use it in its current
incarnation until the tools no longer properly support the platform.
This means that I must begin the search for a replacement since it is
doubtful that we can continue for much longer without updates and better
support for 64 bit chips as the new 64 bit OS's become more prevalent.
Thanks for all that has gone before. I just wish it could have continued.
Michael Forster
George Warner
MW Ron <mw...@metrowerks.com> wrote:
>
>...This may be a good deal for our Mac
>
> Ron
Will we be seeing StarCore tools running on the Mac?
I would like to see that!
I'm using them on Windows now and hating life.
MW Ron
George Warner <warn...@netscape.net> wrote:
I doubt it will happen, there is no corporate interest in developing
for embedded on Mac (sorry it is a fact of life) and unless we have a
big corporation to cover the R&D then it won't happen (again a fact).
I agree I think the Mac would be an awesome system for developers.... I
think Apple is doing all of their embedded development using Macs (iPods
and such) but it seems like that is all.
Carsten Hansen
>
> I think Apple is doing all of their embedded development using Macs (iPods
and such) but it seems like that is all.
>
> Ron
>
That is simply not true.
Pry open the iPod and see what chip is controlling the scroll wheel. Or look
at the USB chip used for the track-pad on a PowerBook. Same chip
manufacturer. Now go to the web site of that company and you will see that
their tools are Windows only.
Indeed the company does a lot of development for Apple using PCs.
Former employee of the said company,
Carsten Hansen
Fraggle
x86 architecture, how does that affect future plans for CodeWarrior
(including for Windows) - seeing as MW has just abandoned x86?
Bertolt Mildner
> x86 architecture, how does that affect future plans for CodeWarrior
> (including for Windows) - seeing as MW has just abandoned x86?
What future?
How long will it take that noone will be willing to give a penny for a
Mac/PPC compiler?
Except for some rare cases, everyone will move to gcc better sooner than
later to be able to shipp Mac/x86 versions.
After the "Mac on x86 bomb" expolded it is clear that MW was not only
leaving Windows but also the Mac.
So, RIP CW for Win and Mac! Long life CW for Embedded Systems!
Bertolt