Authors CurseForge

Well yes, but it's been proven, time and time again, that it's possible to support both, even with the exact same application.. I can copy any universal binary installed on my ibook g4, to my buddys intel iMac, and it works just the same..

I stress this point one last time.. The developers -chose- to use an intel-assembly compression/encryption algorithm, instead of one of many freely-available cross-architecture algorithms out there. They -DO- exist....

break19

Quote from break19

Well yes, but it's been proven, time and time again, that it's possible to support both, even with the exact same application.. I can copy any universal binary installed on my ibook g4, to my buddys intel iMac, and it works just the same..

I stress this point one last time.. The developers -chose- to use an intel-assembly compression/encryption algorithm, instead of one of many freely-available cross-architecture algorithms out there. They -DO- exist....

I can understand, that you would want a Mac binary. But we do not know which kind of application development environment was chosen to develop the curse client. Maybe it is not possible / easy / too expensive to add a cross-compiler (or the appropriate part) into the compilation chain. Maybe the libraries used are not available on a PPC.

Quote from essmene

I can understand, that you would want a Mac binary. But we do not know which kind of application development environment was chosen to develop the curse client. Maybe it is not possible / easy / too expensive to add a cross-compiler (or the appropriate part) into the compilation chain. Maybe the libraries used are not available on a PPC.

When the new client was announced, they mentioned what they were building it with... can't remember what it is atm... it's there though.

Quote from break19

I'd laugh, but it's not exactly funny.. Anyone with any Mac experience can speak to this truth: Macs outlast their PC counterparts, and I mean that in regards to "obsolesence" - a 2 year old PC is considered obsolete by most of the entire industry. Macs are not.

10.5 Supports G4s, G5s, and all Intel macs (and hackintoshs, but thats another story entirely)

10.6 will support the Intel Macs, but 10.5 will continue to be supported. G5s are still pretty damn fast machines.. not to mention the video cards that shipped with a majority of those suckers are 100 times what wow needs to run well..

Why would a cheap-ass, piece of shit intel mac mini with 512M ram and a friggin integrated intel 950gma video card, that couldn't run wow well at its LOWEST SETTINGS be more supported than a G5 tower with 8GB ram and a 512Meg video card, just because it's a year and a half older than the mini??

If you're going to start that line of discussion: Apple tends to break backwards compatibility with their OS and hardware much more frequently than Windows and other PC software and hardware do.

Also, Macs and PCs are using the same hardware platform these days, so there's no way that one can be considered obsolete and not the other except in terms of software support. PCs naturally have more of a cutting-edge focus because they have a much more open architecture and hardware market that makes them more user-upgradable.

Honestly, Mac vs. PC holy wars are pretty irrelevant on a forum devoted to a Blizzard game though, because Blizzard is a mass-appeal dual platform (PC/Mac) focused company that realizes the advantages of making games that will run with equal stability and performance on a large percentage of PCs and Macs.

When did I put down any PC? Far from it, actually.. I use an Athlon 2000.

However, the developer -did- state they would be supporting Macs, which in my opinion meant "Universal Binary"

It's kinda like a developer saying "Our stuff runs on Linux!" and forgetting to mention that it only runs in Wine..

break19

PS: btw, I also have a iBook G4 laptop.. Macs are simply a superior design.. Beta was superior to VHS as well..

As far as "backwards compatibility" goes, that's been the major problem with Windows for nearly as long as it's been around.. People think they can install the new version of Windows, on a 4 yr old PC and never have any problems.. and then, when they do, they get mad a MS for "making crap!" when.. HELLO.. IT'S YOUR FAULT! You HAVE A PIECE OF SHIT COMPUTER!

It's not the OS thats the problem.. It the fact that a majority of PC customers are using "brand name" computers, which.. is junk usually.. c'mon anyone not blinded by "zomg pcs are better" syndrome can see that.

I don't -care- what the name is on the side of the box. I -CARE- whats INSIDE IT.

PoS integrated video cards?
"" "" sound cards?
1 or 2 slots for expansion?
barely enough power supply?
^ Recipe for your standard dell/hp/whatever PC... and sadly, now the case for Apple as well..

Quote from break19

When did I put down any PC? Far from it, actually.. I use an Athlon 2000.

However, the developer -did- state they would be supporting Macs, which in my opinion meant "Universal Binary"

It's kinda like a developer saying "Our stuff runs on Linux!" and forgetting to mention that it only runs in Wine..

break19

PS: btw, I also have a iBook G4 laptop.. Macs are simply a superior design.. Beta was superior to VHS as well..

As far as "backwards compatibility" goes, that's been the major problem with Windows for nearly as long as it's been around.. People think they can install the new version of Windows, on a 4 yr old PC and never have any problems.. and then, when they do, they get mad a MS for "making crap!" when.. HELLO.. IT'S YOUR FAULT! You HAVE A PIECE OF SHIT COMPUTER!

It's not the OS thats the problem.. It the fact that a majority of PC customers are using "brand name" computers, which.. is junk usually.. c'mon anyone not blinded by "zomg pcs are better" syndrome can see that.

I don't -care- what the name is on the side of the box. I -CARE- whats INSIDE IT.

PoS integrated video cards?
"" "" sound cards?
1 or 2 slots for expansion?
barely enough power supply?
^ Recipe for your standard dell/hp/whatever PC... and sadly, now the case for Apple as well..

Wasn't the move to intel to allow better customization/ to make keeping up with developing technologies easier?

In any case 'name brand' PCs are really for convenience. My fiance and I just had to order a catalogue laptop "shudder" because it was the only thing even remotely worth it's money, that she could afford... and all she wants is something that works, and that'll run WoW.

But that's a snapshot of a large percentage of the PC using market. People want something that they can be reasonably assured will work. Eh... I'm probably repeating, in a poor manner, what most of us already know.


PS - 'Backwards Compatibility' imo is, unfortunately, doing more harm to windows than good.
Just build an effin' Emulator into the system, and move on. xD

I love the conversation, but I think it should get back on track to how the Curse Client sucks.

Quote from Torhal

The release, perhaps. Beta is coming along nicely.

Is there a new Mac beta link that I and others have missed?

Quote from sayntavarice

I love the conversation, but I think it should get back on track to how the Curse Client sucks.

You win the thread.

Using CC 2.1.1.5 Beta 1. It's nice that it shows unknown addons on a different tab, but could it be possible to manually associate a website or note with that addon.

That way it would be easier to remember where you got that addon from.

I tried quickly the latest beta (2.1.1.7) it's better that the old 2.0.0.14 but I have some questions:
Is it possible to install alpha release?
Is it possible to install no-lib version of the addons?

if the reponse to those two questions is no, are those features planned?

If they are not planned I'll stick to my current method: manual dailly update of all my wowace, wowinterface, curseforge addons

nolib doesn't quite work right...... one of my addons has "libstub" as a "lib" and therefore the client tries to download it.. and downloads the latest "nolib" version of it.. which is nearly a year old, and doesnt work.... and breaks my entire ui..

Thats just 1 example. There's more :p

But it works -great- with "standard embedded addons" and it downloads and installs alphas just fine as well.

ok cool will try this tonight :)

Latest betas have finally seem to have fixed the nolib problems for me, at least.

break19.

As a side note, the beta client runs great under wine. it even places itself in my gnome panel's notification area :)

hmm, maybe its time to make some backups and give it a try again.

No.. and 2.1.1.10b1 doesnt work under wine, either.. and I havent booted into windows in a while (still futzin with tryin to get my custom kernel + nvidia driver to work)

break19