What is Digg?266 Comments
- gazzigger, on 11/30/2007, -15/+120Great, here come all the spyware, viruses and other malware to the Mac.
- tnoy, on 11/30/2007, -14/+78"Why should I buy a Mac?"
"Because you can run Windows apps!!" - Popsgg, on 11/30/2007, -12/+58Think about this from a software creators angle. Why spend time writing any applications at all for OS X if it can also run windows applications. Fast-forward 5 years. All applications are written for windows, and Microsoft takes legal action to prevent Apple from running its code. Instantly, Macs with no software. This may kill Apple, or it may force them to become strictly a hardware company.
- inactive, on 11/30/2007, -45/+80If there's one thing worse than a Microsoft Monopoly, it's an Apple monopoly.
- inactive, on 11/30/2007, -4/+33Finally, mac users will get to enjoy Space Cadets Pinball 3D.
- bethlagarrison, on 11/30/2007, -5/+32You guys really have to make up your mind on this one..
Is Apple a tiny, insignificant market share? Or is it a dangerous monopoly? - bimtott, on 11/30/2007, -2/+25I don't know about running windows apps...
...but if games can load, that's definitely a warm fuzzy. - supermanred, on 11/30/2007, -8/+29I would love it if I could run Microsoft Streets And Trips without having to install vista on my macbook again. I'm done with VIsta and XP, but there are a few peices of software I bought for windows that I'd love to run in OS X.
- flipmeat, on 11/30/2007, -2/+16The item being pointed to is probably code from Intel for the EFI system. The DLL loader would likely get used in Boot Camp mode, but not in Mac OS X. Most likely nothing going on here. Plus, Cringely is third in nuttiness next to Rob Enderle and John Dvorak, the Brazil nut and coconut of punditry.
- funkydude101, on 11/30/2007, -3/+15Was that a joke? Or were you being serious?
- dinostabOMG, on 11/30/2007, -0/+11Like a kind of bizzarro-Sega.
- tempusrob, on 11/30/2007, -0/+11Stats or it didn't happen.
- rebotfc, on 11/30/2007, -1/+12It will never happen, Apple is a hardware company they tried this in the nineties and it nearly bankrupted them.
- moo083, on 11/30/2007, -0/+10Well, you might be able to do that now. Just download Crossover for Mac. It lets you run Windows apps without Windows installed. Its about $50-$60 and its not perfect, but its pretty good. Worth a shot given the free trial period.
- MacTyler, on 11/30/2007, -13/+22god these comments are making no sense. Apparently none of yall have ever used a mac. While I am sitting here typing on a MBP there are plenty of things I would like to do, such as run portal without rebooting into my Vista boot camp partition. And no this isn't the same thing as vmware or parallels. I saw one comment on here "Why should I buy a Mac? Because you can run Windows apps!!" that is stupid. If it already runs mac os and its apps, why not add in capability for windows apps too.It has nothing to do with buying a mac TO run windows apps, just an added feature. But I am sure I will get dugg down in the rest of the anti-mac ant-windows moron crowd. oh well.
- inactive, on 11/30/2007, -6/+14I don't know why Mac users allow the Microsoft clones to say we don't have programs. Here's a quick list of Mac programs you can't get for your PC.
Final Cut Pro, DVD Studio Pro, Shake, Motion, Soundtrack Pro, Cinema Tools, Compressor, Logic Pro, Main Stage, Studio Instruments, Studio Effects, Aperture, Garage Band, Pages, Keynote, Numbers, NeoOffice, iPhoto, iChat, iWeb, iCal, iMovie, iDVD, EyeTV, WireTap Pro, QuickSilver, Stickies, Photo Booth, Front Row, Expose, Spaces, Dashboard, Time Machine.
In Addition to the Mac only apps, we have PC apps like Quark Xpress, Avid, Adobe Illustrator, Photoshop, InDesign, After Effects, DreamWeaver, Flash, Acrobat, Word for Mac, Excel for Mac, Powerpoint for Mac, Entourage, Pro Tools, Cubase, Maya, Blender, ArchiCAD, Cinema4D, Lightwave, LightRoom, SketchUp, VectorWorks, Safari, Firefox, iTunes, Quicktime, VLC, Toast, Handbrake, Adium, Google Earth, Skype... the list goes on and on.
And if by some crazy chance, there is a program or game I can't get for Mac, I can create a partition using Boot Camp and run Windows or Linux natively (that's right, natively. Boot Camp is a partitioner, not a virtual machine). I play CounterStrike on my new iMac 24" and that thing blows away any setup I had when I was a PC user.
So as you can see, Macs have more programs than PCs, if you take in account that we can run Mac only apps as well as anything on Windows or Linux. - spectre_25gt, on 11/30/2007, -0/+8Ok, so how do you think Windows apps would work if the APIs weren't supported?
- inactive, on 11/30/2007, -6/+14OSx86
- yourfavweapn, on 11/30/2007, -0/+7am i the only one that has heard of using unity mode in vmware fusion? Aside from not playing games, you can run absolutely any windows application side by side with mac os x and have it appear as a window in OSX without having to flip between operating systems or dual boot. As a web developer being able to run Internet Exploder for testing and have it's window in OSX is very very convenient. Plus, you can transfer files back and forth between the two operating systems which kicks massive ass.
- inactive, on 11/30/2007, -2/+9So why do you need Parallels or Bootcamp if you don't want to run .exe's?
- ramenite, on 11/30/2007, -0/+7Ok, this is a non story...let's go over some OSX history.....
Back in the mid-90's when Apple first got NextStep to be the new OS, they had this really ambitious roadmap that looked something like this. OSX was going to be released on PPC and x86 and sold to anyone that wanted it(no lock to Apple machines). What was the NS API was called Yellowbox, which most people now know as Cocoa. They also had this idea they were going to port Cocoa to everything under the sun, so Cocoa could be an API that was portable. You can still see hints of this in various parts of the API, but it was canned.
On the PPC side, they also had something called "Bluebox", This was a way to run OS9 applications inside the new OS. OSX/PPC know this as "Classic". They dumped it when they moved to Intel, and as early as 10.3 it wasn't even installed by default anymore.
On the x86 side, they had a similar thing called "Redbox". This was basically a "Classic for Windows". Idea was current PPC users would use Bluebox to run all their old applications(that were OS9 based), and x86 users would use Redbox to run all their old Windows applications.
Well, when OSX/x86 got canned, Redbox went with it. Now they were still developing all this stuff in the meantime, but I'm sure getting Redbox to work with anything above Win98 wasn't a big priority. RB probably didn't even work all that well to begin with, being stopped before it really started.
But there are probably still pieces of RB still in OSX/x86, and that's what you're seeing here with the loading of the executables. If Apple is going to bring back a "Classic for Windows" in maybe 10.6, that's always up for debate. Technically it's possible, and work has already been done on it. This story is a non-starter. It's pieces of old code coming back up to the surface with the release of the x86 version of OSX. - Protoss, on 11/30/2007, -0/+6How is the DLL Loader used in 'Boot Camp Mode'? Boot Camp is just a boot loader, and was in Tiger too, but there was no DLL Loader.
- inactive, on 11/30/2007, -0/+6Have to?
- krische, on 11/30/2007, -0/+6It is possible to make it seem like you are running windows programs inside of macs, but that is using virtualization software like Parallels Desktop or VMWare Fusion. This are actually running full-fleged windows though, not just the programs.
- TheLaughingImp, on 11/30/2007, -0/+6A lot of people have been saying the same thing about Parallels and VMWare, but we haven't seen that happen. None of the companies I am aware of wants the headache of adding virtual machines to their tech support so they either just don't support the Mac or they have a Mac version of their app. Having built-in Windows inside OS X will fall under the same tech support shadow.
This will benefit power users and geeks, so I see your second point being more on target. - SmokeMeAKipper, on 11/30/2007, -4/+10John Dvorak was right, Apple will run windows. Who'd a thought.
- TheUngod, on 11/30/2007, -5/+11Until a year down the road when you want to upgrade your video card for newer games...
- krische, on 11/30/2007, -0/+6From my understanding now, Wine isn't running windows on a virtual machine or emulator. Instead it is imitating the windows API and DLLs without actually running the OS.
- rubbers0ul, on 11/30/2007, -2/+7Have you seen Vista's lately?
- ScrumFritter, on 11/30/2007, -2/+7Although, this would only mean more choice for the user. Right now we have a restriction of choice as to what software to use.
Want to run Windows apps but you're on a mac? Tough, you're going to have to buy Windows. Want to run Mac apps (because yes, there ARE a lot of great mac only apps, let's all grow up and be reasonable here) but you're on Windows? Sorry, you're going to have to switch.
It is absolutely ridiculous that we have to put up with this. You mean we can't run any software we want on any machine we want? Shouldn't we have standards that PREVENT this? But we all just put up with it (probably because the majority of PC users don't see an issue, most of the apps are made for Windows - but that doesn't mean it isn't a real issue). I hope this isn't just wishful thinking on our part, here. Running any app natively on any OS should be the goal of the software industry, but apparently not. - inactive, on 11/30/2007, -7/+12Oh, let's see, Macs have Final Cut Pro, DVD Studio Pro, Shake, Motion, Soundtrack Pro, Cinema Tools, Compressor, Logic Pro, Main Stage, Studio Instruments, Studio Effects, Aperture, Garage Band, Pages, Keynote, Numbers, NeoOffice, iPhoto, iChat, iWeb, iMovie, iDVD, EyeTV, WireTap Pro, QuickSilver, Stickies, Photo Booth, Front Row, Expose, Spaces, Dashboard, Time Machine. You can't get any of those programs on your PC.
In Addition to the Mac only apps, we have PC apps like Quark Xpress, Adobe Illustrator, Photoshop, InDesign, After Effects, DreamWeaver, Flash, Acrobat, Word for Mac, Excel for Mac, Powerpoint for Mac, Entourage, Pro Tools, Cubase, Maya, Blender, ArchiCAD, Cinema4D, Lightwave, LightRoom, SketchUp, VectorWorks, Safari, Firefox, iTunes, Quicktime, VLC, Toast, Handbrake, Adium, Google Earth, Skype... the list goes on and on. Most of those programs are in the Applications folder of my Mac by the way and many of them are designed to work better on a Mac.
So as you can see, we have no programs. /sarcasm - sirhomer, on 11/30/2007, -0/+5You have no clue what you are talking about.
- Stevo23, on 11/30/2007, -1/+6Compiling? When was the last time you used Linux, 1997? Almost any program I would ever need to install I can do from the package manager with two clicks. It's even easier than drag-and-drop, I don't even need to go find the file to download, and every piece of software on my computer is updated automatically from one centralized location. Package manager FTW.
- inactive, on 11/30/2007, -2/+7Apple is also a hardware maker. Enjoy buying all your hardware from Apple.
- BlackStrain, on 11/30/2007, -2/+7Say wha? I have yet to have any problems with malware on either of my macs. There has been a lot of COVERAGE of mac malware lately but not much actual malware. The ones that I've been reading about are idiot tests more than malware because you have to install them yourself AND provide your password.
- inactive, on 11/30/2007, -2/+7Ok, I'll bite. Someone with bootcamp and the latest greatest Mac Pro please run out and get a copy of splinter cell double agent (one year old) and tell us what the frame rate is. Mmmm kay?
- inactive, on 11/30/2007, -0/+5Dude are you high? Corel? Are you serious? I guess you've never heard of Indesign or Quark which is what the majority of professional design studios and print shops use.
- canthraxp, on 11/30/2007, -2/+7You failed economy 101, didn't you?
Capitalism = Choice => more than one company =/= Monopoly. So in the end the consumer is screwed. - aldenhg, on 11/30/2007, -0/+5Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
- McoreD, on 11/30/2007, -1/+6OR: Users think why buy Windows when Mac OS can run both Windows and Mac apps. Fast-forward 5 years. All the users are running Mac OS. Windows have a far less user base.
- bethlagarrison, on 11/30/2007, -3/+7Fail
- GreenAlien, on 12/01/2007, -0/+4"If it runs windows apps, it runs windows malware"
Not if it relies on a bug that doesn't exist in Apple's version of the Windows API.
Plus nothing stopping Apple from making it with better security like those built-in to the Mac OS. Or from sandboxing individual apps. - Breepee, on 11/30/2007, -0/+4I find that Crossover actually works. Plays GTA:SA fine on my MacBook.
- aldenhg, on 11/30/2007, -0/+4Nope. If Apple were to release OSX as a beige box install-on-whatever-you-want OS they'd lose their biggest source of income: hardware margins. they'd have to charge Vista-esqe prices to turn the kind of profit they're used to and they'd lose all control over what their OS was used on, making it harder to make sure that it "Just Works" (TM). The only reason they're able to guarantee that it'll work perfectly is because they know what every single computer it's going to be installed on has under the hood and they can test literally every possible combination.
There's nothing to be gained in releasing OSX into the beige box market. - Wahoo06, on 11/30/2007, -7/+11Wow, talk about an old, tired insult. When's the last time you used a Mac?
- inactive, on 11/30/2007, -10/+14I was talking about "ifs". If you think MS is bad, you don't want Apple in their place. MS is like the lesser evil.
- moo083, on 11/30/2007, -3/+7Try Crossover for Mac. It uses Wine. Just like Linux. Try again. And don't call using Linux common sense. I stand by my statement that one day Linux might be ready for the everyday Joe, but thats not today. Its too hard dealing with compiling apps. Non-computer folk need drag and drop installs or double clicks, no "./configure; make; sudo make install". Or theres the installers that install all the prereqs and then your app, but they don't have everything or the latest software. Linux is awesome for geeks, but its not ready for regular people. Sorry to break the illusion.
- duke, on 11/30/2007, -2/+6If I could buy a Mac for a reasonable price and know that I could run Windows apps reliably if I needed to (not that I would prefer to, necessarily - just have the option), I would buy a Mac in a heartbeat.
Failing that, if I knew that I could have the option of running Windows apps reliably in a Linux box, I would run Linux in a heartbeat.
Please do not talk to me about Wine. Wine = Fail.
XP is the only OS I know of that runs Windows apps reliably, so I run XP. - bigsteve, on 11/30/2007, -0/+4I'm going to say most likely no on this one, but with a caveat. As OS X is built on Unix, it inherits the Unix security model. The loader / translation layer / whatever will be used to bring Windows APIs to the OS X desktop will most likely be running at the same security level as the user attempting to run Windows binaries.
The caveat being, unfortunately, is that no OS, open or proprietary, is safe from silly humans who press OK or enter passwords at any prompt without reading or understanding what they're doing. Now, I've run the same Windows XP build on my desktop for going on 4 years, don't use any anti-virus or anti-spyware solution, yet have never been infected with anything. Common sense and a good firewall are your friends.
In the end, it's most likely that Windows malware, if executed in the environment, wouldn't be able to cause any damage, as there simply wouldn't be Windows system files there to infect. Unless of course Apple requires you to BYO Windows disk so it can build a system root.
Time will tell. Definitely interesting, though. - bigsteve, on 11/30/2007, -0/+4Well, Wine really hasn't stopped people from making apps that work on Linux or other free OSes. Apple may end up just reducing Windows software's functionality slightly, or disabling it in some other way that's still well within the bounds of usability.
Same story with Parallels and Bootcamp. I'd heard the same argument that it could spell trouble for Apple (though it still may with games, hard to say.) Interesting point nonetheless. -
Show 51 - 100 of 266 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is