What is Digg?124 Comments
- nxusername, on 11/03/2007, -14/+98Finally, I could run all those Windows viruses I always hear about.
Someone had to say it. - atdigg, on 11/03/2007, -6/+19WINE is exactly that, an Windows API implementation. To make a better one they need info from Microsoft, will Microsoft fully document its API and give it to Apple?
Is that likely or is Cringely a Dvorak II? - sphogan, on 11/03/2007, -4/+17The problem with implementing the Windows API for Mac OS X is that, all of a sudden, there is no reason to develop an application for Mac OS X. You can just develop the app for Windows and sell it to Mac or Win users. The number of native Mac applications drops to almost nill.
Would Apple be able to make Windows applications work better on OS X than they do on Windows? Probably not and so they'd be left with a platform with few native applications and a bunch of Windows applications that ran OK on it, but ran better under Windows. - muddo, on 11/03/2007, -3/+13Didn't you read the article?
"This will be accomplished not by using compatibility middleware like Wine, but rather by Apple implementing the Windows API directly in OS X 10.5."
Directly in OSX. They are going to use direct technology to surpass the accomplishment of the small understaffed wine group.
And they are going to rewrite the kernel by the next release.
crack must be a fun drug. - jholdaway, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Gates thinks to himself "Help Apple provide the Windows API implementation on all machines, or release VPC8 with a Windows API implementation and make a boat load of money...."
I wonder which he will choose. I know I would become a VPC customer if it was native and did not require a copy of windows. - renelicious, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9I think implementing .NET seems a little more realistic. Most applications on the Windows platform are moving that way (or being forced to move that way anyway) and Microsoft "says" its an open platform.
Apple could implement the .NET CLR and make it simple for developers to make their applications portable.
Just a guess - Ireland, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12While your comment is funny, lol. If this is true, and apple could implement it correctly. We could see apple's market share leap tall buildings.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8or.. "lets get windows running on here to draw a crowd and then hit them with something new"
- springfield, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9cakefart, what are you talking about? WINE *is* an implimentation of the Win32 API, where do you think the Windows apps that run on WINE are making their system calls to?
- nigeltufnel, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Cringely has just as long a record of being wrong as Dvorak. And that's saying a lot.
- borbzz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7I like Cringely's articles. He always seems to go a bit off the deep end (he once speculated that Apple would buy Blockbuster... link: http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20060216.html ), but it's always interesting to speculate.
Re-implementing the ENTIRE Windows API (and everything that goes with it) is a HUGE undertaking. To make something that is truly compatible seamlessly with Windows apps would take many many years (definately longer than the 5 year window they had a patent cross-license). This would be amazing if true, but I'll believe it when I see it. My bet is that they will use some incarnation of WINE. Anyone else have any ideas? - rvalles, on 10/12/2007, -9/+14I hope they don't just duplicate the effort of the WINE project.
http://www.winehq.org - Castaa, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7The stategy of cross-platform Windows app support worked so well with IBM's OS/2 Warp... When's the next version of OS/2 coming out? Oh ya, never.
- ColdAtlantis, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Believe it or not, this could make sense for Apple.
Think about it, most of the people who would love to make the switch from Windows to Mac hesitate because their favourite software doesnt have a Mac version.
If Apple really are doing this, then that takes that particular worry out of the equation.
Concluson? More people actually go through with making the switch to Mac.
Good idea if you ask me. - turbofan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6@geekee
No they wouldn't. Why would I pay to be locked into Apple hardware?
The same reason people pay $400 for an xbox360 (or other console); You like the software (games) they produce for that platform. - corser, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6My biggest holdback is Windows games
- geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4The fact remains that the technology that Cringley is talking about /is/ Wine, and that Apple might make a few enhancements to Wine so that a Win32->Cocoa/Carbon interface would be affected. The beauty of this is that it doesn't really change Wine all that much at all, but it allows for any program Wine runs to run on Mac OS X and look like a native Mac OS X application.
I've posted about it quite a few times here on digg, actually, and the rumor stems back to something NeXT was developing theoretically called "Red Box" (with NeXT's old naming system, each GUI API had a "Box" associated to it, with "Yellow Box" now being called "Cocoa" due to some trademark snaffus, "Red Box" being a Win32 layer for the NeXT GUI, and "Blue Box" being an API which allowed older Mac applications to run on NeXT and we now call it "Carbon" [though Blue Box was actually more of a virtual machine and better known to us as "Classic" in its full implementation]).
So this is actually a prediction based on previous facts of NeXT Computer, which makes it all of the more likely. - ckohler, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4If this were true (which I highly doubt) does that mean they'd have to integrate the horrid Windows System Registry system into OSX? One thing I love about OSX is that there is no unprotected registry for apps to hide their settings or muck around with your system.
- Eccles, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Cringely has the strategy wrong. Apple wants to make it easier to run Windows apps while still in Mac OS, yes, but not by writing their own version of the Windows API. Instead, Boot Camp was the first stage, not a separate effort.
Rather than trying to duplicate the Windows API -- a huge effort -- I think Apple plans to leverage Windows itself to run those Windows apps. Their next step after Boot Camp is to have Windows XP run as a windowed app (or like a distinct user, with rotating cube effect for the transition) under Mac OS, rather than on a reboot. Users would still have to have a Windows partition and a copy of XP, and Apple may even make that a build-to-order option.
If Apple was developing this API, why would they have put so much effort into Boot Camp? - corser, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5From what I've heard OSX's APIs are much cleaner to program for. So the exact opposite may occur. More developers, seeing that OSX use is increasing, will target those API's since they provide an easier and thus quicker path to getting their product out the door.
- socket, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@muddo
Not really.
So they're going to add kernel support for directly running Windows binaries? Big deal. The rest of the API support is going to be exactly like WINE regardless of how they word it. The underlying problems I mentioned above are still the same. Porting the Windows API is not a small task or one to be taken lightly. Regardless of how it's implemented... that's just semantics.
Pass the pipe buddy. - ToadX, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4First of all, I don't really agree with most of the articles Cringely has written regarding Mac OS X. However, to tell you the truth, I hope Apple does do something like this. I hope they greatly improve WINE though. In my opinion, it's not too great right now. If they start implementing it from scratch, that'd be a lot of work.
- fu_fish, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4This is very similar to what I've been expecting out of apple. I suspect that they will offer support for windows apps in a way very similar to the way they supported X apps initially. I expect that users will still have to install a licensed copy of windows, but rather than dual-booting or booting a virtual machine in a separate window, the OS will be able to access the needed dlls from the XP sandbox to load the application pseudo-natively. This is similar to how captive-ntfs works. It grabs the needed drivers from a working windows installation and uses them without actually having to boot windows. I see this as the best solution Apple can deliver. They will be safe from actions by microsoft, since a licensed copy of windows is still required, but users will not be required to ever actually boot windows.
- muddo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@socket,
nonono, you misunderstood me:
"So they're going to add kernel support for directly running Windows binaries?"
Cringley suggested that apple is going to dump their kernel implementation for a "monolithic" kernel to speed up performance. Redesigning and implementing a new kernel is a much more ambitious project than supporting the windows binary formats.
"The rest of the API support is going to be exactly like WINE regardless of how they word it."
Agreed, I believe Apple would have to go this route to get the job done. I was making light of cringley's description of this effort. It makes no sense. He obviously does not have the technical knowledge necessary to even guesstimate on how long it would take apple to get this done, let alone predict that it will be in their next release.
BTW, I added you as a friend. - socket, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5That must be some good ***** you're smoking Cringely, pass it here. I seriously doubt Apple has the man power to devote to such a huge undertaking. Hell they could just try to hire the WINE developers and have most of the work already done. But just take a cue from the WINE project and look at how long it took them to get to the point WINE is, which is still very lacking in some places.
Cringely is a fool to think this could be done in a year or less. Even a huge company like apple would need a HUGE team of coders and more then a year to get it done.
**added note: WINE as it currently stands is NOT something Apple would put into it's OS. - deesine, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5There's a lot of good info about this in the comments section of /.
http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/04/21/1636205 - h4lofourt33n, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Truly my biggest holdback, just like the guy above is games. Otherwise I'd probably run a mac. However, this would be amazing.
- ejstacey, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4The closest they could come so quickly would be stealing/using WINE's code, I believe. It'd be interesting to see what would happen if they did..
- corser, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Who's to say that they haven't been working on an implementation of the Win32 API. We now know that they have been compiling OSX for x86 for quite some time.
- muddo, on 10/12/2007, -9/+11Sounds like wild dvorak conjecture. I want whatever they're smokin. It must be the good *****.
- corser, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5You're thinking Dvorak
- katsanes, on 01/30/2008, -1/+3Apple is developing something more like Xen than WINE.
- freeboarder1402, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2i think this is a great idea... because nobody will really tell you that they run windows for its "charming good" looks, its "wonderful" security, or its well designed boxes... people run windows because the developer base is huge, and many free programs on the Internet are written for windows. People run OS X because it is in fact well designed, secure, and has wonderful hardware... if you can integrate the "functionality" of running certain windows apps i think you'll see more people throwing down their beige boxes and buying macs
- corser, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Cause partitioning a hard drive, burning a driver CD and installing a boot loader probably didn't require a gigantic amount of effort.
I'm not claiming I could do it with no effort, but I'm sure Apple has many skilled employees that all could have whipped something up quickly. They were just providing something that the users were asking for and some had already accomplished. - diggMacs, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Exactly what I was thinking--the registry is the worst part of Windows, and I don't see how OS X could handle Windows programs without creating a registry clone.
- kazkernel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Rumor was that this was to be part of OS X from the start it was called "Red Box". "Yellow Box" being OpenStep and "Blue Box" being classic. Never saw any confirmation that this really existed.
Try these
http://www.mackido.com/Software/rhapsody.html
http://www.lowendmac.com/musings/boxes.shtml - booc0mtaco, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@corser
Apple is by-and-large a hardware company. They make large amounts of their money on physical components, be it their computers, or other not-to-be-named devices. Sure, they believe in their software as well. In fact, they think it's amazing, I'm sure. However, when it comes to sales, and strategy, it's simple ... "push more units".
Whatever gets those PCs moving is what Jobs, and the shareholders, want. They get a foothold for the shareholders, and then with that, $$$. The next part is *hopefully* getting the developers. - booc0mtaco, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Too late, says everyone on this thread time 10
- booc0mtaco, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Talk about innovative...
I heard there were games for the mac laptops that used the gyroscopes in there as controls...
Try that on a dell :-) - artanis, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3From the article:
"I'm told Apple has long had this running in the Cupertino lab -- Intel Macs running OS X while mixing Apple and XP applications. This is not a guess or a rumor, this something that has been demonstrated and observed by people who have since reported to me.
Think of the implications. A souped-up OS X kernel with native Windows API support and the prospect of mixing and matching Windows and Mac applications would be, for many users, the best of both worlds. There would be no copy of Windows XP to buy, no large overhead of emulation or compatibility middleware, no chance for Microsoft to accidentally screw things up, substantially better security, and no need to even take a chance on Windows Vista."
Its not really speculation... as long as he's not lying. If people have seen it, then it exists in some form already. - kyriakos, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2sounds more reasonable
- cyberghost232, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2that would give anyone a huge reason to use OS X.
- coolbru, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I can see this working just like Classic (or "red box" as someone mentioned). It would require booting up an XP OS using virtualization, but then run the apps (or at least their GUIs) within the OS X interface. That way Apple would avoid all the potential compatibility problems and development overhead of not running a 'real' Windows OS or API. It might also mean that XP apps might stand a chance of looking nice ;^)
- DCstewieG, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7Did anyone besides msaleem RTFA? He's talking about the fact that Apple got access to MS technologies through 2002, and XP came out in 2001. They could've gathered info from MS back then under their agreement, then wait for the right time to use it (now).
Not saying this happened, just trying to clarify. Also ideally it would be at the OS level, unlike WINE (though I don't know what performance difference that would make) - captaindan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Nope, he's right. The Cringe has an established record of being ***** crazy.
- JohnnySoftware, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yeah, right. And I believe that I will be able to watch live television shows broadcast from anywhere on earth using no camera and no playback equipment.
Honestly, why do people even pay attention to these pundits anymore? - shaddow, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2They would give it to MS because there was a cross-licensing deal that apparently was in effect through the release of XP.
- Lynn, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Might, Could, Maybe, could be, imaginably, might be, perchance, perhaps.
- mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2hasn't this already been confirmed many times before?
this is what everyone has been excited about.. - judgeFire, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I'm not a big advocate of easy virtualization.
This current, easy dual booting keeps the two environments neatly separate. I'll probably run some virtual solution myself, but for the larger audience having Windows apps co-exist with Mac apps only dilutes the Mac consistence, which is pretty much the point of using a Mac: things work together, in predictable ways.
It's pretty much the same problem with Java and X11 apps as is. They run inside OS X, but as second class citizens. Their behaviour doesn't match the conventions of OS X, which can be really confusing. It's ok when you're a seasoned user aware of what's going on, but for Joe Schmoe it might be ... unfriendly.
If I was Apple, I'd be cautious. Allow virtualization for those who want it through third party software, sure, but keep things clear and concise by keeping Windows separate by default.
Consistency is the biggest asset of Mac OS X as a platform. Windows doesn't have it, Linux doesn't have it yet.
J -
Show 51 - 100 of 119 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is