digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.

Apple's Mac Os X 10.5 Leopard Will Probably Run Windows!

gearlog.com — Rumors have been brewing that Jobs and co. are taking steps toward allowing Windows apps to run on Macs. Now evidence has surfaced that Apple has begun the process toward doing just that! Is this the beginning of the end for Microsoft's juggernaut 95% market share?

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • joshwehatetech, on 10/12/2007, -3/+30It says virtualization, which will still require some kind of Microsoft license to run. How exactly does this hurt their market share?

    --Josh
    • stealthboy, on 10/12/2007, -6/+40Market share.... If there are 100 computers, let's say 50 are now macs and 50 are PCs, but something like 45 of the macs run windows apps, what's the marketshare? You certainly could look at the numbers and say 95% of the computers have windows apps. But also, 50% of the machines have OS X..... so even though it may not "hurt" windows market share, it seriously helps OS X marketshare.
    • joshwehatetech, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21Good point. The ultimate point is that it helps both companies really. Microsoft is getting an in on a system it wouldn't normally be on and Apple is getting people who might not normally run a Mac. When it comes down to $$ both win (as mentioned it helps Apple more though based on a higher influx of Windows users wanting to run Apple not vice versa)

      --Josh
    • Olle, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15Why should Adobe bother having a native Mac OS X Photoshop application, if the windows version runs on Mac OS X just as well? Well, Adobe will probably not think like that, but others might.

      Apple has undoubtedly reviewed these things and decided that it will be beneficial. But i'm sure they talked about it long and hard.

      It will almost certainly help improve the Mac OS X market share, but it might erode the number of native applications.
    • longman2g, on 10/12/2007, -24/+9exactly josh. There is absolutely no reason that macs won't run windows except for jobs's pride and stubborness. Same thing with the ipod; he thinks it shouldn't have to work with other music services, but in that instance he has actually got the marketshare to make that decision. Apples will NOT make it anywhere unless they can either a) convince everyone of how much better they are than pcs and show everyone that every program which pc users use is avalible on mac or b) allow windows apps to work on their machines.
    • nerdler, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Virtualization is a general term for running for software that allows one machine to run many instances of an OS or OSs. It's not something Microsoft invented or even does that well. It's been around on mainframes for ages. Linux has it with the Xen project. This article is sheer ridiculous speculation.
    • cheesy_1, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6The thing about having Windows virtualization in Mac OS X is it completely gets rid of most Windows user's main argument for using Windows over Macs, which is usually something along the lines of "Well all the applications are for Windows not Mac". This is a lot less true now than 10 years ago, but still seems to be a major argument I hear.

      If this is indeed true then as a rebuttal Mac OS X can simply say "Well Mac OS X can run every Windows program in addition to all the really cool Mac OS X programs, all in a single very nice operating system."

      Additionally, now that Apple is switching to Intel processors these Windows apps will be able to run at nearly full speed as there is no processor instruction translation needed. PLUS if Apple uses Wine or something equivalent you won't even need a Windows license since it the code will just be a reverse engineered version of Windows, no Microsoft code at all.
    • nigeltufnel, on 10/12/2007, -8/+22*sigh*

      What this REALLY means is that Apple wants to benchmark its hardware against PCs, to demonstrate that their hardware beats PCs on their own terms.

      Duh.
    • yaphi, on 02/20/2008, -1/+4I'm with Olle. I don't want Windows apps running *within* the Mac OS. The main reason I switched to the mac was that I liked mac software better (TextMate, Adium, etc). I wouldn't want to lose out to Windows software replacing that.

      Dual-booting Windows is great...giving software companies a chance to develop one app for both platforms sounds good on paper, but say goodbye to usability, and MacOS specific libraries such as CoreImage, etc.
    • passion, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9Just think of it like the Matrix. This allows users to take the blue pill, and break out of the software prison they've been living in to see what a truly elegant desktop user experience can be like. Then, they can tap back into the Matrix whenever they crave their virtual steak. Eventually, they'll start tapping into the Matrix less and less and just rely on the Mac exclusively - look what virtualization did for Classic... :)

      Another analogy would be to think of this like the nicotine patch. It allows someone to stop doing a bad thing all the time, and yet they can still get their fix anytime they need it.
    • sabster, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1well people would be more inclined to buy apple products. thats the only reason microsoft always has people choose microsoft boxes.. because everything has support for it. hell if this happened, i would consider making an apple my next computer. but along with the software will come with all the viruses and trojans. whoop ee.
    • panique, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7You guys are all missing the point. Think "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish". We're already past "Embrace" as all versions of OS X have embraced Windows technologies.

      Extend will be running Windows applications either under Wine, some other API compatibility layer, or by using Virtualization to actually run Windows. I think virtualization will be Apple's choice, just to keep Microsoft from going bonkers while this phase plays out. The strong motivation to do this will be the ability to surf the web and use email safely by running those functions under OS X, and you can keep your legacy and in-house Windows apps running on the same box. The reduced support costs alone will motivate many enterprise customers to purchase Macs as their next platform.

      Extinguish comes next, and goes something a little like this: "Well, now you guys have been using OS X for some time. You have already switched to Office:Mac and you're now using Mac versions of several other apps. Hou about having a look at porting all your in-house software to run under Cocoa? You could then stop paying for all those pesky Windows licenses you barely use any more." Such an undertaking will of course sound a lot better than it is, but that hasn't stopped many many similar projects in the past. A lot of companies, especially in financial services or those who are essentially directed by financial services companies (think publicly-traded companies) will spend vast sums of money if it can be demonstrated that their ongoing operating costs will be reduced by a significant factor larger than the investment. People will easily make the case for porting such apps, especially given NeXTStep's previous success on Wall Street.
    • stoops, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4April 1st BABY!
    • CannedCorn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Also, wouldn't this imply that as Mac OS X gains market share, presumably even if it is running windows that developers will start developing more things for OS X eventually making Windows the optional toy component as the majority, or what would be considered enough of good software, would be written for the Mac? Holla! SJ = JESUS!
    • mentor972, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Like I said in my article last week!!!!!!

      http://digg.com/apple/Why_Macs_will_run_Windows_programs_by_the_end_of_the_year
    • Salvo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This is the wrong way to go about it.
      A better way would be to create Cocoa > Win32 Toolkit, so Cocoa Apps can be easily ported to Windows.

      Would Adobe or @Last be likely to develop Native Cocoa Versions of Photoshop or SketchUp if they could drop Cocoa and let their Mac Users use a Virtualised Win32 Version? Yes.

      If there was a Cocoa>Win32 toolkit, and maybe eventually XCode for Windows, wouldn't that make it easier to encourage Cocoa Development?

      In the Dying throws of BeOS Development a small group attempted this task, in competition to the BeWine group, They managed to get a few simple apps running in Windows, but then BeOS Died, followed by the project.
    • bsander, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0@stealthboy:

      Wow, that's the most flawed reasoning I've ever seen. First you assume 50% of computers in some mede-up situation are macs, and then you conclude the 50% you just assumed is a giant boost for Apple..

      But the worst thing is that at some point you get 33 diggs for it..
    • stalky14, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Hmmm. I hope Apple doesn't end up with a "Commodore 128" -style situation. The C128 had the much more powerful 128 mode, but had a 100% compatible C64 mode too. Hardly anybody ended up developing for the 128 mode because despite being inferior, the 64 mode offered a much bigger market share (all 128's plus all 64's).

  • FrostyFire, on 10/12/2007, -27/+11http://dvorak.org/blog/ is all I can say.
    • cheesy_1, on 10/12/2007, -9/+37Dvorak is a moron is all I can say: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1923151,00.asp
    • cheesy_1, on 10/12/2007, -9/+5oops duplicate...why do some comments show up immediately and some don't...there needs to be a way to delete comments within the editable time.
    • sapolion, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1Hey FrostyFire. dvorak.org/blog is all dvorak can say, too! We won't have visible OS's for computers in five years, so no one will even know what they're running.
    • MrCobaltBlue, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Dvorak is a tool.
  • FrostyFire, on 10/12/2007, -32/+1http://dvorak.org/blog/ is all I can say.
    • FrostyFire, on 10/12/2007, -35/+2Errr duplicate comment post. Please bury me :) .
  • lane.montgomery, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9One can only hope, but probably not. It sounds more like they are going to support windows on mac hardware by developing the drivers for it.
    • shinynew, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4god it must be nice to have the hackers do you job for you...
  • firefoxguy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4If this is the case and they can keep it secure, I think that it might get pretty close on percentage of computers with OSX and Vista
    • joshwehatetech, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I guess I should add it used the words "speculation" on these 2 points so like most things that go as news these days, it is pure speculation.

      --Josh
  • stealthboy, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5Ok, I'll admit, after all the "I put winders on my imac!" idiots have had their day, THIS story actually makes sense. This could actually be the final slam dunk.... Vista delayed, new OS X, Intel chips.... It's all coming together.

    No way they will support the dual-boot option, but absolutely I could see Apple wanting you to run windows apps in a window in OS X.
    • joshwehatetech, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5Did you read the article? Only thing it mentioned was 1. Apple is developing drivers for Windows. 2. Apple might have virtualization support for Microsoft. Both of which would require a license for Windows and doesn't exactly hurt Windows.

      --Josh
    • superalamar, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9It hurts dell, and HP and other hardware venders. If the mac can run windows but non apple PCs can't run osX it will make apples hardware much more likely to be purchased as the machien has more functionality. In fact, apple boxes with the option to boot into windows osx and the other various linux distros would be able to run just about any software thrown at them. It is a move that makes sense, and is long over due. They are on the intel chips, the box might as well make the most of them. This would bring me back to apple.
    • jonom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@Josh...

      Did you read the article? It does not say that Apple is developing drivers for Windows. It says: "We speculate that Apple will now develop Windows drivers for Intel Macs..."
  • jbrjake, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21You guys are all paying too much attention to the journalist's fantasies and too little to the only FACT in the whole item: Apple is joining a benchmarking group, BAPCO. That's it. They could quite possibly be doing this to get some tests optimized for OS X, now that it runs on Intel boards. Seems a lot more likely than them committing to the current Windows-optimized benchmarks. But who knows? All this talk of virtualizations and native Windows support is still pure rumor as far as I know...though it would be awfully cool.
    • cgseller, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I agree totally. This piece of journalism is pure conjecture at best. How can you conclude that they will be writing drivers for Windows because they joined the group. This article is a fantasy at best. "Apple is committed to windows based performance testing". That is not an absolute conclusion. They could be joining to just be involved. They could be joining to learn more about the other side or to provide valuable counterpoints to their methodologies.

      This is nothing more than speculation and is presented as overzealous sensationalism....
  • aristan, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8They've seen rumors. So... the guys at ZiffDavis read Dvorak, who works for PC Magazine... which is published by ZiffDavis. Amazing! Glad to know that someone reads that magazine.

    Seriously, I doubt we'll see XP/Vista running like OS9 in OSX. It makes much more sense for Apple to develop a way to run windows programs as OS X apps. That way they cut Microsoft out of the equation.
  • Lynn, on 10/12/2007, -7/+7How does this help Apple? I have always been told by the Mac guys that they have all the apps they need. What apps are they missing?
    • oneMadRssn, on 10/12/2007, -7/+12AutoCAD
      Solidworks
      Pro/E
      Visual Studio
      MatLab
      DCplusplus
      MS Paint (kidding)
    • zonk3r, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5and sadly microsoft publisher too. i work at a printing press and unfortunately we get a bunch of files made in publisher (which btw is NOT designed for publishing, printing or about anything else, ie, it's a piece of ***** program). no mac verson exists so we have to send it out to get a PDF made. it also knows nothing about color matching, screening, separations or just about anything else that relates to *real* printing.

      it would also be helpful to run adobe pagemaker 7 for windows as sometimes pagemaker 7 for mac (a classic app) doesn't like the ttf fonts folks use in their documents. either that or force folks to use indesign which ain't gonna happen as folks pick up an old copy of pm7 for *much* cheaper than indesign and indesign seems daunting for many newbie designers...

      but i digress... ;p
    • brentz0r, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2use shakespeer for dc++
    • superalamar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8minesweeper
    • 8086ed, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3You forgot Adobe CS 2... Doesn't the Mactel crowd have to wait until CS3?
    • carl123, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0^^forgot games, i kno a lot of gamers that would love to go to apple but games hold them bak, ya theres dual boot and i kno in time all drivers will b there, but i for one,, all i would do on windows is play games, so if i was playing a game (dual boot) and i was talking to some1(i said id keep windows free of every thing, including aim,but say i have it in this case) with and something brought up like sending a picture i could.as opposed to loging off and closing my game and all that mess
      ... to summerize,, this would be convience to gamers and every1 else - but if its virtualization it wouldnt work
    • chriszma666, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Uh...you can run Matlab on Mac. This isn't going to happen anyway, it's just one of the hundreds of rumors that become so popular thanks to sites like digg.
    • stmiller, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If only mac had MS Paint...

      /sarcasm
    • oneMadRssn, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1i am 99% sure you cannot run matlab on mac without virtual pc.
    • the_snitch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1 onemadrssn, i have matlab on my mac. Its one of the ugliest interfaces ive had to use though. It doesnt require virtual PC, but it requires X11 as its a linux port.
    • seanasy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1i am 99% sure you cannot run matlab on mac without virtual pc.
      Not quite, though you do need X11:
      http://www.mathworks.com/support/sysreq/current_release/macintosh.html

    • oneMadRssn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1got it. i guess i was wrong. so scratch matlab off that list. and dc++. but add minesweeper, and half life 2.
  • siglesias, on 10/12/2007, -11/+7Guys, this is the beginning of a transition for the consumer away from Windows, kind of like OS9 to OSX. Soon all needs will be fulfilled on the superior system, without Windows. Hence the market share for Microsoft will steadily decrease in the long term.
    • tejaycar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Which is what apple fan boys have been saying since the the beggining of time. 5 years ago it was OS X that was going to destroy the MS market share. Folks, nothing apple does will give them 50% market share this decade. However, I think they'll be getting a small bite more, and eventually things might even out. To be honest, I think MS has more controll of thier own future than apple does. Unless they continue to make dumb mistakes (which history suggests they might) they will never loose the majority share.

      This even if they are an inferior OS
  • mooninite, on 10/12/2007, -16/+11Rumors are lame. 20 front page apple diggs a day are lame. Digg reported as lame.
  • geekee, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11"Is this the beginning of the end for Microsoft's juggernaut 95% market share?"

    Not as long as Apple refuses to support non-Apple hardware. There's no way people are going to let one company become a hardware monopoly.
    • carl123, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1i see your point but but thats part of the appeal of apple the seamlessness of hardware and software with apple,,, also .. i think apple laptops look great... but would we really want to see hundreds of apple laptops, i mean it would get tiering, i mean as ugly as they are at least ther is variety with windows laptops and desktops, with apple it would just b clones every where
  • MrDiaz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3That'll be really cool, having both powerful OS into one, what else could be better? Combining the stability of MacOS and the compatibility and usage of Windows software together will be indeed an amazing feature. Let's see how this ends up.
  • pete10203, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4So wait, I run a mac and my apps are sweet, I don't need any nonsense windows apps. But say I were to run windows apps on my machine, would I be subject to the security holes that some windows apps have now? Cause if so, screw that.
    • anagami, on 07/02/2008, -2/+5if you use virutalization: no
      if you use dual boot: yes
    • jerwood, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Virtualization doesn't necessarily protect you from security problems. For the virtual machine to be useful, it would need some degree of access to the rest of the system. That access could allow the virtual machine to do naughty things. That said, I would think a properly sandboxed virtual machine would only be able to mess itself and any files you had specifically allowed it to access. Which of course could be ALL your files if you let it touch your whole drive (well, at least those that belong to you).
  • Splitt3rxx, on 10/12/2007, -15/+6mac hardware sucks, why would you want to run just windows on a mac when you can get a more powerful PC for half the price?
    • superalamar, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3b cuz you can't do the opposite.
    • HackWithRamzi, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Simple, to run Mac OSX. Noone besides the rich should buy a Mac to run Windows primarily. This is to make it possible to run those win32 apps that you need, not to replace the Mac operating system (which kicks Windows' fat arse).
  • RedGiant, on 10/12/2007, -14/+5Why would anyone who is lucky enough to have a Mac want WINDOWS on their computer?
    • superalamar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Comments like that do the platform more harm than good in my opinion. The commercial windows emmulators that have existed for years for the platform didn't write themselves....

      Apple is a hardware company, it makes sense for them to therefore produce the most functional box possible. Have no fear, they will never close down software development

      this move will have apple taking back some marketshare, (if it is for real) by bringing home a good contengent of customers who left the platform, or have been forced to spend money on a windows box for various mundane but nessisary niche tasks.
  • Fly1m1, on 10/12/2007, -12/+4Needs to be the other way around. Mac apps on Windows.
    • romulcah, on 10/12/2007, -7/+8why? Windows is a terrible OS in comparison to OSX or Linux. And in fairness there are only a few apps that are available for Macs and not for Windows and these are mostly Apple Software like iLife or Logic, etc.
    • Kazbaeden, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Just to let you know, you're very hard to take seriously with an apple logo as your avatar.
    • superalamar, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3OSX and Win XP are more and more comprable all the time. The Windows UI got better (its still not great), but the main thing that makes them comparable now is that OSX in a lot of ways took steps sideways or backwards from os9. The OS is a billion times more powerful than os9 was, but with that comes a huge amount of complications and apple has had some really weird ways hiding/fixing them. This is kind of off topic I know, but when I read factless fan post for MS or Apple OS I often wonder if the guy at the other end has even been on the platform in the last 9 f!!!cking years.

      OSX and its shipping apps constantly break apples OWN human interface rules, it ridiculious. Bury me if you must.
  • jdelamater, on 10/12/2007, -12/+2This is a dupe story. Get it off the front page.
    http://digg.com/apple/Mac_OS_X_10.5_to_have_VM_software_built_in_Run_XP_Vista_
    http://digg.com/apple/Run_Windows_and_OS_X_at_the_same_time_with_OS_X_10.5_Leopard

  • mikeazorin, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5I told you guys soooo long ago! Remember that WINE was going to be released in a version with OS X 10.5? Okay honestly I made that story up, but it would've been really cool if some Apple developer saw my story on digg and said, "I bet I can make Mac run windows apps better than whoever else is working on it now." And now, we have this. Haha.
  • blinkcowz182, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3This tackles a huge obstacle I've encountered while switching...finding Mac OS equivalents of Windows apps. This has potential to not necessarily knock Windows off of its pedestal, but at least chip a chunk away from it.

    I'm the juggernaut bitch!
  • KenLin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Digged this story as inaccurate.

    Market share is defined as # of PC shipped (with installed OS). Even if all Macs shipped today on are capable of running Windows, this alone by itself does not change the market share as they are OS X machines. Apple enthusiasts have long claimed that "market share" figures are inaccurate Macs have longer useful life i.e. one that is capable of running, say OS X 10.1 may still be very usable running OS X 10.4 but that is not true for PC with Windows Me to Windows XP. Still, that does not affect the shipping figures.
  • alex007, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Windows application run on top of the windows platform. If Apple wants to allow it users to run Windows programs natively they have to replace the platform (Win32) with their own clone. They are going to run into legal issues very quickly. I addition there are other libraries like MFC, ATL, that will need to be replaced. This is necessary because there is no one to one mapping between Win32 platform and the one that Apple provides.

    I addition, Apple has a different standard for user experience. In otherwords, Apple's platform (coco), on top of which applications are built, provides a different set of services that Windows based application are not going to be able to use. A sharp example: windows application include a titlebar along with the window, while Apple has one menu bar that is shared between all applications.

    Windows software will never be natively suppored by Apple. It would be a waste of resources on their part. Indeed, it would be easier for Apple to go the other way around... to take existing Windows codebase and customize it allow Apple platform and shell to run on top of the kernel.
    • manfesto, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Apple wouldn't run into legal problems if they were to allow Windows apps to run, so long as they aren't actually using any Windows code. Look at the WINE/DarWINE projects - under the DMCA, reverse engineering is allowed to facilitate interoperability, so they wrote a compatibility layer to let Windows executables run and call libraries as they would in Windows. Now, for WINE to run worth a damn, you need access to Windows DLLs - so if Apple were to brand their own version of WINE but require you to buy a copy of Windows XP for it to work properly, they're in the legal clear (and make a bunch of end users happy).

      As far as your second argument goes, many Linux apps run on OS X just fine in X11 - as do apps running thru darWINE. It'd be nice if they were to use Cocoa, but you can't win 'em all, can ya?

      Anyhoo, regardless of whether or not Apple will support Win32 apps on OS X (which the given article really gives NO viable proof for - I'm thinking that Apple is hoping for the benchmarks to be optomized for OS X, and that's why they joined), third parties will have it going soon enough (VMWare, Xen, darWINE, take your pick).
    • manfesto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Too late to edit (I was busy looking for this thread), but here's a thread showing just how much progress WINE on OS X86 has made : http://forum.osx86project.org/index.php?showtopic=8699/
    • alex007, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I know about Wine. lol. Either way I believe Microsoft is not going to be too happy to see one of their minor competitors grow quickly.
  • Zzone, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4stupid people believe stupid rumors
  • archer75, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4Until apple is going to release OSX for any old PC it's not going to do anything to hurt Microsoft's marketshare. I'm not buying an overpriced mac, no matter how much I love OSX. I want 100% control over my hardware.
  • DannySpace, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Ok everyone calm down. Let's get to the real issue here. Will Macintosh finally join the GAMING brotherhood? And don't give me that pathetic ***** like "Oh you can play games on a mac"... Forget that! I want to go buy any game off the shelf; bring it home and play it on my mac!!! It's about damn time for it!!!
  • deadbaby, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Lame speculation. -----DIG
  • drag, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Linux is already doing this. Pretty much.

    If you get one of those newer Intel or AMD proccessors coming out you can use Linux running on top of Xen to run Windows in a virtual enviroment. And unlike Vmware or other such things Xen is; A. about 95+% as fast as native code, B. aviable at absolutely no cost and is supported by default on newer versions of Fedora Core, Suse, Redhat and others.

    You start up Xen, boot up Linux and use that as your desktop. For the odd application you can't get working in Wine or native versions of Linux then you just fire up Windows XP Pro, log in through Linux's (very nice) Rdesktop support over the virtual (and very high speed in-memory network) and Viola! 100% compatability with all those windows applications you wish you had in Linux. Photoshop, IE for the odd website that-is-run-by-morons, Microsoft Office etc etc etc.

    This technology is completely open to anybody who cares to use it... including OS X.

    It's officially supported by Intel and AMD who both put time, effort, code, and money into Xen. Initially Microsoft even supported Xen and had Windows booting off of it on older hardware... until MS figured out that virtualization would be very very bad for business since it would allow people to easily migrate to other operating systems.

    If Apple doesn't support this after a fasion, then they are morons. Remote desktop support for Windows in Linux is very good and newer versions of the remote desktop protocol from Microsoft even supports things like file transfers and drag-n-drop. Although I don't think that the rdesktop stuff supports that yet. Apple could integrate this fairly nicely into their desktop.

    It would be about the same thing as 'classic mode' for OS 9 on OS X.

    And it doesn't even have to be Xen if apple doesn't like it. It could just as easily be Vmware stuff.

    If Apple doesn't take advantage of this then they are stupid, I figure. Apple specialises in making difficult things seem easy and if they get it looking nice then it would be a coup. It would be 'obvious' to lay people that Apple has the much superior technology to Windows and this thing would allow them to easily upgrade to OS X.
    • manfesto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4There is one problem with Xen - Windows XP doesn't "officially" run. There are some hacked kernels out there, but Microsoft's license agreements are holding back a public release of XP for Xen.

      //biggest problem with the "XP on Mac" solution thus far is that NO business will support a system based on a hack

      Anyhoo, I don't personally see Apple officially supporting Xen (but I can dream, can't I?), but VMWare for OS X86 is on the way - and I'm sure a few illustrious hackers will get Xen running anyway unofficially.
    • drag, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Intel and AMD have added extensions to their 'next generation' of proccessors in order specificly enable support for unported software on Xen.. such as Windows XP.

      No hacks, no licensing violations or questionable drivers. It will 'just work'.

      On the next gen cpus you WILL be able to get Windows to run on Xen.

      It's nice when you have AMD and Intel both competiting to support virtualization features. Right now this Xen and Vmware is stuff is the 'in thing' for new enterprise deployments. Easy virtualization of x86 should prove to be fairly popular, if not a bit revolutionary, on how servers and such are handled.

      For instance one of the major 'neat' features of Xen is the ability to actually migrate running operating systems from one machine to another machine with NO DOWNTIME. That is if your facing a hardware failure you can migrate off of the hardware without ever shutting down! This works transparently and quickly. The unaviability of services is measured in milliseconds and it's much quicker then it would take for even tcp packets to time out.

      :)
  • geekee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2It would be interesting if Apple started selling Macs running Windows only, or dual boot Macs. After all, they're ultimate goal is to sell hardware, and some Winodws users might like to own Apple hardware. However, since Jobs likes to control every aspect of your experience, I doubt he's interested in Windows Macs. Emulating Windows API to support Windows apps is a much more difficult process.
  • evlcookie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1The gaming brotherhood?
    I think this is what the article is really about. But not what u suggested.

    With the rumors going around that 10.4.6 will be updated to lure game developers over due to the "opengl performace" then apple would need benchmark software that can be used on both a windows platform and an apple platform so they can "really" compare the two systems.

    Clearly they just want to be able to use the same benchmarking tools as a windows box so they can say "hey look, we used the same uber elite benchmarking tool on both systems and guess what .. we are faster" type of deal.
    • Kazbaeden, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1I can't Apple becoming the favorite of gamers unless they want to give up their hardware control. Do you really think gamers would be complacent with a choice between 1 mobo, 2 processors, and 3 videocards?

      Seriously, people need to get rid of the idea that Apple is for everyone.
    • jeffbax, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3People also need to get with the deal that gamers can be happy on a Mac, I know I am on my x86 iMac :)

      Sure, not every game makes it, but to me the PC upgrade game is becoming so expensive I just can't really keep up anymore so I'm going to have to settle for say a 360 and hope that games like Spore hit Mac (which being such a big game, I bet it will)

      Anything that helps game developers is a good thing, even if the Mac never becomes the primary uber gaming platform.
  • drag, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1oh. I don't think that Intel or AMD have started shipping these things yet though.

    Although both companies say that the proccessors shipping by the end of this year will support these virtualization extensions to make Xen work transparently. (allow you to boot up windows)
    • drn666, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1My MacBook Pro has a core duo processor. 'sysctl' is quite clear tha it supports VMX, which is the virtualization technology.
  • thelastknowngod, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2i heard this a while ago... a rumor saying that apple would ship leopard with Wine.
  • Iceduck, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Would be cool, but the notion that it would change Windows' marketshare drastically is way off IMHO. However, it could help Apple get the marketshare they deserve.
  • sam10685, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1i don't see this. microsoft and apple are copetitors. it'd be like blockbuster video allowing you to use your hollywood video card at their store.
  • EtherGnat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4If OSX runs Windows applications well, the developers will have less motivation to write Mac versions of software. If there are few compelling Mac applications there is a real danger there will be less demand for pricier Macintosh computers. The experience of running virtualized applications will never be as good as running native applications.

    I'm not saying it's a sure thing, but it's the way it has happened in the past. Witness the rotting corpse of IBM's OS/2--also a more powerful OS that had native ability to run Windows applications.
    • alex007, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Wow great point from a developer point of view. Imagine if Adobe decided that Photoshop runs good enough without porting to native. Over time you'd see people start migrating aways from OS X. Currently, developing for Windows is way sweeter than for Apple. Not to mention how Apple devs have to put up with architecture changes...
  • Annon, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Misleading topic name, specualtion story, reported as inaccurate.
    • ThinkBox, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1It links to a blog - it isnt for sure, it is just a rumor - rumors are all over digg - some people like them, a lot of people digg them, so just don't bitch. Use the Lame, but not inaccurate. Also, it isnt like Diggs front page is your front lawn, and so dont get all pissed off everytime something hits that you dont agree with!
  • devoinregress, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1so it will run like os9 runs in osX?
  • whiteguysamurai, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Why would they want to do this?
    It's not like i can massivly overhaul these macs to be as past as my pc, afterall they are still macs.
    • drn666, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Well, first off, my quad G5 is probably 'paster' than your PC.

      Second off, my notebook is a dual core Intel system that says "MacBook Pro". It's probably one of the fastest portables you can buy for less than $5000.

      Stop being clueless: google.com
    • whiteguysamurai, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0OOPS, some typos here.

      I do that now and then.
      As for your g5 being "paster" don't count on it.


  • GuineaPig, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Apple would have to overcome so much to seize any significant market-share from Microsoft. Not only is the OS market locked up so is the Office Suite market.

    Ah, but what about Mac Office, you say? I promise you that if Apple were to start taking any serious market-share away from Windows, the Mac Business Unit will suddenly go missing in action, bugs won't get fixed, and Windows Office would (mysteriously) stop being compatible with Mac Office.

    Then there's the little fact that Microsoft has so much cash. Any serious threat will be met with product dumping. Microsoft could coast for quite a while giving their products away. People will gobble it up, too. Chalk it up to human myopia.
    • durandal2005, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Ah, but what if the rumored April Fool's announcement is going to be Steve Jobs getting up on stage and announcing that iWork is now a full-fledged office suite to compete with MS Office? There was a rumor about this a while back: Apple's working on an office suite and is deliberately leaking OS X x86 so the hackers will work out the bugs for them. It has to deny this, naturally, or what you described is sure to happen. Then, in one fell swoop, it releases OS X for generic hardware and announces their office suite.

      But that's just unfounded rumor. Personally, although I'd like to see it happen, it won't: MS Office has become far too standard, and MS will just break any attempt to make Apple's suite compatible.
  • superalamar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2would it be illigle in any way shape or form for MS to just make a damn XP install and boot disk for the new apple boxes? This would be optimal, though it seems that the new crop of emulators might get the job done just fine.
  • Lynxpro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1How plausible would it be to write for Apple to write an application wrapper for specific Windows programs? Maybe I have the wrong terminology here but I'm asking about a wrapper that converts Windows calls over to OS X calls for a very specific program (like PhotoShop, or a game)...thereby cutting out having to run something like Wine that would slow down the system. Wouldn't this just be simply "adapting" what Rosetta already does for microprocessor compatibility and extending it to operating system commands/calls?
  • TinFoil209, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Step 1. Promote your hardware more than your software and have rumors like this fly around.
    Step 2. .....
    Step 3. PROFIT!

    LOL. I think this could be true, a guaranteed 5 years at least of MS Office for Mac. Apple has to do something back now. To have the "ability" to perhaps buy an add-on to make windows exe's run seamless through OS X (perhaps the extra cost will be close or a bit more than XP Home Upgrade?)

    If i'm a regular consumer and come to an apple store because I already bought my iPod, I like how Apple makes things "just work", so when I consider a new computer from them but I don't want to loose my $10.00 Cubis 2 Puzzle game, and lets say Microsoft Access or Visio, all this type of stuff comes to my mind. The Apple rep says "We believe that making the transition from Windows to OS X would benefit every consumer in the long run, since people as yourself know that not all programs will be made for our operating system, for an extra $79.99 you get a license for the core operating system from Microsoft and our software made with Microsoft so you can double click your Cubis 2 program and in seconds you can play it just like you would with a PC running windows XP (or Vista). Then when you need to make a family DVD or simple video editing you can use our software that comes free with all Apple computer purchases, something usually costing over $100.00 extra in software to make a Windows PC do. Since your buying a computer as well we have a rebate to bring it down to $49.99 extra, shall I ring this up for you?"

    I would be sold! On a side note, has anyone else been seeing a lot more "Things that can be done on Windows XP" commercials on cable / satellite?
  • xioner, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Interesting to know they joined that group... but the title is innacurate. The article has 2 lines casually mentioning rumors of virtualization.
  • lmlloyd, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1Why is it so hard for macheads to understand that most people don't like OSX? Believe it or not, people have always had the option of choosing a Mac over Windows. At various times, there were even a lot of Mac-only apps to entice people over to the mac, and still most of them choose Windows. People like Windows, that is why it has such a huge market-share. Linux has proven that even if you GIVE the OS away, people will still choose Windows over a free OS!

    Quit making excuses for Apple. They have just failed to compete against MS, and that is all there is to it. Apple isn't going to be the company to "end for Microsoft's juggernaut 95% market share." Apple knows it, and MS knows it. They have been trying for decades now, and have proven time and time again they just don't have what it takes. It isn't about price, it isn't about processing power, it isn't about features, it is quite simply about the fact that Apple gives you what it thinks you need, and tells you you are going to use their product the way they think you should, and Microsoft gives people what they want. You can complain all you want about how buggy and arcane the registry in Windows is, but the fact is that most people prefer it to having to throw away their preferences files every month or so just to keep their software loading. You can pretend that OSX never crashes or has problems, but the pretty much constant one hour wait at the "genius bar" pretty quickly shows that up as a falsehood. You can talk about how it "just works" all you want, but the guy who really wants to run down to Fry's and pick up the latest and greatest video card on his lunch hour isn't going to be inclined to agree with you when he gets home and it won't work with his Apple. Obviously, Apple's strategy is working just fine in the still-niche market of digital audio players, but it just doesn't work in the computer market.

    I am constantly amazed how macheads are so delusional, that they think that MS has the market position they do, simply because everyone else is too stupid to buy the right brand. Here is a reality check Linux has a bigger market-share than OSX! Linux, an OS that is universally criticized for bad usability, and a lack of consumer friendliness is more appealing than OSX to most people. Wake up! You like Apple, you think Steve Jobs is some kind of modern saint, and you would never think of using anything but OSX, good for you! I am glad that one company can so perfectly meet your needs. No one is telling you that you can't use the computer you like. However, quit fooling yourself that there is absolutely no reason that people choose MS over Apple overwhelmingly. Quit lecturing the world as though they were a bunch of unwashed philistines just because they don't care about your favorite designer brand, and for god's sakes quit acting like ever press release from Apple is some sort of gospel handed down from on high!
  • FazzMunkle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Anybody remember the DOS card in Macintosh Performa? Full circle. This isn't just a PC Exchange control panel and the ability to read DOS formatted disks like in Classic.

    "Why is it so hard for macheads to understand..."

    Don't ask that question and act the same way about Windows... *wags finger*
    • panique, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Sorry Fazz, don't let the fact that there is talk about running Windows side-by-side with Mac OS trick you. That was a different circle because you basically had to pay the price for two personal computers, and you were married to running Windows on a PC with anemic performance. There also was no strong motivation NOT to use Windows.

      The current circle is the hardware costs are significantly less to run both operating systems. OS X is a "real" OS whereas Mac OS 7.x was still pretty much a toy and had some pretty significant problems. And the current and continuing security problems in Windows granting root to any drive-by hacker are a strong incentive to use something else. A virtualization layer would be a fine detox tool for your average Windows junkie. Let them taper off, change their habits, and one day when they don't even notice, just remove Windows altogether.

      I can't wait for some of my clients to get ready for new computers. This is exactly where we are going.
    • lmlloyd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Ah, but I'm not making the same mistake. I understand completely why some people run OSX, and love it. I have worked with far too many colleagues who refuse to touch anything but a Mac to ignore that. The point is, that a Mac is always going to be a niche market, because Apple just doesn't understand how to make a product that appeals to a broad userbase. Apple makes certain design choices, and says "to hell with the consequences." For a very few people those choices seem justified, and they have no problem making the sacrifices to adapt to the way Apple wants you to do things. However, that is not how the vast majority of the market feels. I don't begrudge those people who like the way Apple does things, and don't even try to argue with them about it. They like it, good for them. I wish I could say the same for them, but no, I have never once met a single Mac user who didn't feel the need to go on at length about how much better their system was than any "awful windows box."

      The majority of the market really cares about things like backwards compatibility, hardware compatibility, and customization. People like knowing that they can go to the store, buy a program, and it will just run. They don't need to worry if they have version 10.2.12 of the OS. It has a Windows logo on it, then it will run, no matter if it is 98, 2000, or XP. You can't say the same of OSX. Fanatic Mac people don't realize it because they are always the first to run out and buy the newest OS, but it is a major problem to widespread adoption that certain apps require you to go out an buy a $100+ OS upgrade just to run on your computer. People don't like that, and MS knows it, which is why they put such a strong focus on compatibility. I mean, we are nearing the end of XP's life, and the vast majority of Windows apps out there will still run on 98! Can you say the same about the Mac? I can go out and buy pretty much an PCI card on the market, and I know it will work in my Windows machine. If I want to spend an obscene amount of money on a professional workstation card, I know Windows will support it. If I want to cheap out and buy some bargain-basement $25 card I know Windows will support it. I understand the Apple appeal of never having to worry about installing drivers, but I can't understand why macheads refuse to grasp that most people are more than willing to install a driver or two for the flexibility to be able add any hardware they want.
  • clintcan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Microsoft bought a little company two years ago named Connectix. Connectix, aside from making one of the best PlayStation emulators without requiring a psx bios(!) in compatibility (I run PlayStation games at full speed on 400MHz computers before!), also created Virtual PC, which makes macs run windows inside a vitalization environment. If apple would run windows, they would probably would license from Microsoft this technology. In doing so both companies will profit from it, Microsoft will still gain market share because now, Intel macs can run windows programs and apple will pay licensing costs, and apple will also gain marketing value and share, because they now can claim they can run windows programs in their OS. Both companies profit.

    What I'm betting in these new environment, they might integrate Virtual PC to be similar to that of qemu with the accelerator installed... having performance gains of 1:1-2 (kqemu accelerator is awesome btw)
    • eddieroger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1VirtualPC doesn't run "vitalization", they run emulation. Virtualization allows the target apps to run semi-natively, which Windows apps can not do on a PowerPC processor. Also, don't compare Apples (sorry for the pun) to oranges. Microsoft sells an OS, Apple sells hardware _and_ an OS. Microsoft's market share can't be compared to Apple's because you can't compare hardware to software. It's like saying RCA sells more TVs than Toyota sells cars. So what? No comparison. Also, fact check aside, at least run spell check.
    • clintcan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Uhm, this is what I'm trying to get at:
      "What I'm betting in these new environment, they might integrate Virtual PC to be similar to that of qemu with the accelerator installed."
      Here's a description of the qemu accelerator (from the qemu site http://fabrice.bellard.free.fr/qemu/qemu-accel.html):
      With the QEMU Accelerator Module, QEMU can be compared to other commercial or free PC Virtualizers.
      If they're going to add some integration to virtualpc for Intel macs, they're likely going to remove the Intel CPU emulation, making it effectively like a virtualizer like what the qemu accelerator does with qemu (it runs the CPU instructions natively).
      By the way, I did the spell check before I posted that parent post.
  • Hercules, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Entertainingly, they will likely get Windows apps to run properly on OS X before Vista can run them properly.

    Ah well... that's the difference between focused management, and unfocused behemoths.
  • WackyT, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1"Is this the beginning of the end for Microsoft's juggernaut 95% market share?"

    Don't think so.

    #1: You can't build a Mac.
    #2: Hardware upgrade choices for Macs are extremely limited.
    #3: Performance enthusiasts do not like plug-and-play computers like Macs.
    • devoinregress, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2With Intel chips it is only a matter of time untill you can do all of these.
  • diggtal, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This is a real simple concept if you think in terms of the Apple way of working with developers. All Apple is doing is allowing for businesses (for instance heavy hard core AutoCAD users) to buy a ton of Macs. Apple can throw a few engineers to some of these huge Windows apps and provide drivers so it can run on a mac. Just as Apple has a production suite available for film production with Final Cut, Motion, etc.., they can now hit other select niche, but large markets by providing a Design Suite with built in AutoCAD without having to develop a whole new software application. Also Apple could work with the 10 top PC game companies to offer a Gaming Suite. This could go on and on, until eventually developers will start to make Universal Binaries that will run on the universal computer, either mac or PC - there will be no distinction anymore. Build an App, It runs on any computer.
    • lmlloyd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Seriously, why would a studio using AutoCAD ever even look at Apple computers? They only have one professional 3D card available for the system, they don't support a lot of the plotters out there, and there aren't many CNC control solutions for the Mac.

      Also, just as a side note, Final Cut is all but unusable for film work, and no one working on a film would ever choose Motion over Shake. Final Cut is entirely for video work. Film is still a market almost entirely dominated by Avid.
  • RedClaw, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Hehe - there must be some koolaide injected into apples lately. :)

    The name of the game is seamless integration. It's beneficial for every user and producer alike. Don't forget that this jihad that both Wintel and Mac Tel zealots want is just mindless teenage drivel.

    The whole purpose is to make the interface the choice of the user and allow data to pass between clients smoothly. This is a win-win for both houses as Windows has the desktop and enterprise market - period - and Apple has comfortable and efficient style and design in their products. And just as an interesting caveat - isn't it funny that Microsoft made more money in 2005 selling Mac Office than Office 2003?

    Both products have their respective markets and both are showing that working hand-in-hand is good for all.

    Truthfully, this entire conversation is moot and is more fuel for the cult of mac and the anti-mac zealots to continue arguing.
  • adiosjefe, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0We don't need anymore articles about Windows apps or Windows running on a Mac. For one I don't understand why you would buy a Mac and want Windows apps on it. If you want a Mac buy a Mac. If you want to run Windows buy a Windows PC. Enough of the Windows on a Mac already.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 76 of 76 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.