There was a discussion about when/if we’d change to Arm builds only for Mac, rather than the Intel we use now. I’m curious if we have a lot of people using Intel-based Macs still.
If you’re on a Mac, please let us know what you use.
My Intel Macbooks are the old machines I use for CNC, however, Autodesk just stopped supporting the version of OSX they run so sooner or later I’m going to have to upgrade anyway. It’s only Carbide Motion I’m running on them from Carbide and if I have to stay on an older version then that would be OK.
One of each at the moment. New M2 macbook pro that I do design work on, ancient intel mac in the shop that drives the CNC.
I use a 2023 MacBook Pro M3 for design and a 2012 MacBook Pro with Intel Core i5 for my shop.
The 2012 does not have vent slots for cooling, that is why I use it in the shop.
Got rid of my 2009 iMacs for the new M1 Macs.
However, I don’t use C3D software.
I use my desktop M-series Mac for Carbide Create, and then transfer my files to an older, used Intel MacBook that’s in my workshop for Carbide Motion. I’ll bet that situation is fairly common among Mac users, so I hope you continue to support Intel Macs for Carbide Motion even after you port Carbide Create to M-series Macs.
What Karl said. I also expect that’s a common situation.
4.2 GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7 ~ Radeon Pro 575 4 GB ~ 48 GB 2400 MHz DDR4 ~ 1TB NVMe drive ~ Ventura 13.7.6 using RDP across a mesh network to talk to a Win 11 Pro box dedicated to only driving my standard SO3 via Carveco Plus and gSender.
I voted M-series because that is my new Mac on my desk. However, I was thinking to take my 2018 Intel Mac out to the shop. However, I suspect the current OS (Sequoia) is the last so it may slowly become less useful. Apple typically releases compatble OSes for about 7 years after end of sale of a device. We are about there for the last Intel Mini. But they did continue to sell the Mac Pro up to 2023, which means they could support Intel until 2030.
It has been 30+ years since I developed for Mac so my experience with dual-architecture binaries is purely as a consumer. How hard is it to make a “Universal” app? I would think that creating an app for the latest OS on Apple Silicon and also supporting trailing edge MacOS releases like Monteray could be problematic. Is it hard to just have two separate executables? People would need to choose when downloading.
The multiple architecture binary thing is something Apple inherited from NeXT, which back in the day, worked perfectly in my experience.
For Mac OS (X), it’s quite simple if using Xcode (née Interface/Project Builder.app), but for cross-platform QT apps, this is sufficiently complex that I didn’t find a satisfactory answer with a quick search, so I suspect “it depends”.