MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

So does it mean we can all run windoze applications under OS X?
Good news or bad news? Can we smell virus?

Meanwhile back at Redmond...the circles are getting smaller and smaller...

Heartlifting will be the day that Redmond waves the white flag in the direction of Cupertino!

Great theory, holds water - except for one thing. Longhorn will be coming out at the same time as Leopard. I wonder if the "Red Box" can be made Longhorn compatible. I know people will say it doesn't matter in the short-term, as everything is still written to run under Windows XP APIs, but it won't look great if Windows XP apps run natively, but Longhorn apps don't. Perception is everything remember - and "word on the street" will be that "Yeah Macs run Windows, but nothing written to take advantage of Longhorn."
Otherwise I think this could be 100% spot on. Given that there are 18 months before Longhorn is due, it may not pose any problems for Apple to adapt their Red Box environment to incorportate Longhorn changes/APIs though, so pehaps this is a moot point.
I think they'll include Linux compatibility too, so what you'll have is a MacIntel that can run Mac apps, Linux apps, and Windows apps, all natively, all under OS X. Now THAT would be the Holy Grail of computing, surely!

If people think Steve Jobs and NeXt pulled off an impressive coup d'etat of Apple, it'll be nothing compared to what Apple could potentially do to Microsoft if the playing field were level in terms of not only the processor, but also software.

It is fun to imagine, even if farfetched, that the superior OS can ultimately 'win' in terms of marketshare.... and mindshare.

Yay, now I can run the $2000 of free software I got with my Dell POS.

Hang on, I don't need all that software, I've got Creative Suite and iLife... maybe I can run Norton???

MW: ready - you just can't make this up.

would the Windows software that would run in OS X include viruses and spyware ?

Tommo_UK,

What makes you think Micro$oft will have any Longhorn enabled apps when it's released? They can't even get the OS out on time, never mind Adobe releasing a 'Longhorn Ready' version of ANY of their apps.

Solitaire might be Longwait compatible, but then that crappy time-waster has been in Windows since 3.1.

Apple could really cash in - 'why buy Longhorn and break all your apps when you can have OS X 10.5 & Windows XP running at once.'

Re: Simply,

Yes, probably.

"Longhorn will be coming out at the same time as Leopard. I wonder if the "Red Box" can be made Longhorn compatible. I know people will say it doesn't matter in the short-term, as everything is still written to run under Windows XP APIs, but it won't look great if Windows XP apps run natively, but Longhorn apps don't. Perception is everything remember - and "word on the street" will be that "Yeah Macs run Windows, but nothing written to take advantage of Longhorn.""

1. This assumes Longhorn will make it out on their current schedule. They haven't managed to keep any of their schedules yet, so why should they now?

2. This assumes that Apple lacks the ability to upgrade their "Red Box" capacity after Longhorn does, finally, appear. Most of the Windows software will still be XP API ... and even after they do start having Longhorn specific Apps, it won't be long after that that Apple releases OS X.5.4 ... with the RedBox updates for running Longhorn Apps.

3. What is there going to be in Longhorn that Apple would want to "take advantage of?" If an IntelMac is running OS X.5 with a Redbox running (seamlessly and in the background through the OS X.5 interface!) any Windows apps they like, why worry about Longhorn features? The features WE want are the Mac OS features.

Next shocking news for the world:

MS will adapt IBM powerchips and abandon intel: The whole world will have to make a major switch again

Highly doubtful.

This is one of the things that killed OS2. It ran Windows apps perfectly, so people stopped developing for OS2 natively and just built windows applications.

The Intel Macs will run Windows, but you will have to boot into it. Apple really needs to be careful here and not let greedy app developers a few years from now stop making OSX native apps since Mac users can use Windows apps easily

But all this means is that manufacturer´s need no longer make software for Apple computers. Since Apple will run Windows software.

So why should Adobe, et al, make 2 different types ofsoftware when 1 windows version will do....


MDN is going to keep milking this storyline for the next year....

Although WINE will be available, there is no way Apple will build this into the OS. After a couple of years, developers would no longer bother with Mac versions, leaving the Mac as nothing more than an Windows emulator for everything not released directly by Apple.

How do you think Microsoft would respond? They would release security updates for their software that break the compatibility, whilst announcing the vulnerability the update fixes. Even if the MacOS itself protected the users against exploit code, the fact that the program couldn't be patched on the Mac would stick in people's minds.

Red Box takes away flexibility in the long term. It's not a good idea.

The quality of a software application is heavily dependent on the quality of the OS, so why would anybody like to run any Windows app on a Mac?

It all smells like trouble.

So why should Adobe, et al, make 2 different types ofsoftware when 1 windows version will do....

-------


The only reason it works is because Apple hopes people would rather use OS X than Windows.. so this Red Box emulation shit will be slower than a Native app...

Furthermore, Apple is developing core image etc. technologies as well as plug in style technologies (widgets, spotlight) which are intended to ultimately make OS X a great platform to develop for (marketshare aside)

Why make a Mac version? Because a Mac user won't want to run Windows software on their Mac, if a Native option is available.

The whole thing hinges on.."I can run Mac or Windows.. i'll stick with OS X" that's the crux of the strategy... those are the people that will require software makers maintain/increase OS X development

But somebody will, and then everybody wins!

Nobody wants to run Windows apps, but when you have to, you can.

I bet a lot of switchers find out they don't even bother anymore. OS X all the way!

I believe the Intel boxes were colored brown, hence the term P4 shi*box.

Oh wait..

I think this is true! It will happen and just about the time longhorn ships....

Why won't a developer just develop for both, since OSX will be more popular and well known than it is now. And once out there, the OSX version of the app will give the developer fewer customer complaint headaches to deal with.

It seems that some of you believe deep down that Windows is actually better and that OSX will not be able to compete in the marketplace for attention. Some of you must like playing the victim.

You need to think.

Call the Red Box what it is.

It's the Games Layer.
Cause that's the only thing the majority of Mac users are going to use it for.
Windows is for games. It's a games OS. Let's not delude ourselves.

I don't see how the benifits out weight the risks. Apple would be in real trouble of companies not developing native OS X apps. Of course, maybe Apple doesn't care about that. Maybe WIndows apps could be run even BETTER on OS X than on Windows. Certainly OS X is a lot more efficient and would have extra horsepower over Windows on equal hardware. In that senario the only loser is Microsoft. The would be the only ones not selling product. Developers could chose to not develope on Mac, but they would have a competative disadvantage to those who do because their software would be missing all the OS X features to tie into like Automator Actions, Spotlight compatability, and so on. Clearly given two like apps with equal performance you'd have to pick the version developed for OS X. If it was only to get the better use of screen real estate, I'd ask for an OS X version.

Finally people are beginning to get it!

There NEVER will be any Apple acknowledgement of Windows within Macs - they are deadly enemies - it's like suggesting Pepsi put Coke in their cans.

With Red Box what we move towards is:
A Single third party software Application
A choice of operating systems to run it on.

There will be no argument about Software Houses deciding not to write Applications for Mac because the single Application they make (give or take a tweak or two) will run on everything.

Red Box will open old Windows Apps directly and use its own nice OS X 'skin' to replace all that ugly Windows stuff.

"It's the Games Layer.
Cause that's the only thing the majority of Mac users are going to use it for.
Windows is for games. It's a games OS. Let's not delude ourselves."

Funny thing is, and I've said this for years, this is the conversation I have with Windows users.

Me: So what will you not consider a Mac?

Windows drone: It's not a "serious" computer, it's a toy. There aren't any games for it.

I really hope Apple doesn't go down this dangerous path. If I want to run a Windows app under OS X, let me use a 3rd party product like VMware. OS X doesn't need a Windows compatibility layer in it. Like others have said, users might want to run a native OS X app, but the software mfr's may not want to develop both a Windows version and an OS X version if the Windows version runs on OS X right out of the box.

Tommo_UK,

An honest question - what Linux apps would you want to run on OS X (besides server apps)?

Linux is a redux of UNIX (ask Bill Joy). So much of what is available for Linux is a recompile away from running on other flavors of UNIX.

"The quality of a software application is heavily dependent on the quality of the OS, so why would anybody like to run any Windows app on a Mac?"

Wrong question. The qestion isn't what the user wants, its what the developers are willing to do to satisfy what the users wants.

If I'm a big time developer, why do I need to have 2x the overhead for software for only 15% of the market?

26th post!! yea!!

mw "left"...i have nothing left

Cats don't have trophy cases. This Red box that's
mentioned as part of Mac OS X Leopard's code sounds
like Leopard had a place for Windows. It's a hot spot!




CT ========]----------- Did anyone say Cougar?

Ok, I get the fact that some people would like to run certain windows only apps (games, specialised business apps, etc) on their future Apple systems. but the big question is how these programs will interact with native OS X applications.

For example: Lets say, you are running a windows version of Photoshop, and an OS X version of InDesign. Will you have the same Drag 'n Drop capabilities as you have if you were running both applications in their native state?

Most applications today create a symbiotic experience for the user, and I would not want to give this up.

This post is not rhetorical, and I ask the super-geeks out there if they would be so kind as to answer my questions.

cougar? what about cougar?? i wish leopard was cougar....way better name.....

Apple will most likely angle the software companies to just label their software as "Mac & Windows Compatible". And then the system requirements for Mac would be 10.5. This would be better for the software vendor as they need not make two different versions of the software.

I really see no need to make Mac specific apps if Apple is truly committed to the x86 and having universal applications.

Remember.... MS says "developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers... (however long monkey boy goes on for)." So if the developers say they ARE going to continue to build their applications in the same manner to make it so both syste (Windows/Mac) can use the app, then there is no problem with MS trying to change how apps need to be made. if your developers get pissed at you... then you are in trouble.

Virus.... I guess if this comes to fruition with 10.5 we will see how much more secure OS X is really. No more security through obscurity crap. And if the viruses hit OS X as well, 10.5 will fail big time. I think that many people will not jump on 10.5 quickly if it runs windows programs natively until the early adopters have a crack at it and signal the all clear (after about 2 months or so).

Just my .02.

The Dude abides.

It wouldn't need to be Longhorn comp. I doubt very highly most users will upgrade very quickly to Longhorn, instead continuing to use XP and lower.

Do we really have to look at Windows? Hope not.

Occasionally...maybe just to come back home to Mac OS X...
no trail of bread crumbs required.

Yeah...Cougar is more staccato but Leopard rolls pretty
good off my tounge...they can't all start with hard
consonants.


CT ========]----------- Never a dull moment...Raahow!ˇ

If Microsoft does not know what Longhorn will be, and it appears that they don't, it is hard for me to understand why we should be so deathly afraid of how we can compete against it.

Sounds like the boogy man under the bed to me.

Smart developers will develop of OSX. It is starting to reach critical mass, I think.

The computer users and developers who are not smart.......... well, what about them? If Longhorn works, they will have to buy all new hardware and software, and if things go the way they seem to be going, Apple, by that time, may have already "switched" a fair number of them.

Hard to see what the down side for this is, unless you are one of those who, when they hear hoofbeats, look for zebras (or some other unspecified boogycreature, instead of horses.

Too many unknowns exist yet to be able to predict with a high likelihood of being right. Steve has changed the rules of the game again and everybody is scrambling to figure out what it all means. Meanwhile, Steve moves steadfastly and with sureness through the maelstrom of speculation towards his objective.

So I don't know yet how this will all play out. All I know it that it promises to be interesting and taking into account Steve's track record, most probably will be brilliant.

Today I ran ___Windows_syn.___ on my Mac with Intel's chip and
spent all of 10 minutes ___verb____ with the archaic
and ___adj.___ nature of the beast ___verb___ by ____Bill_Gates_syn____
and Company. I returned ___adv.___ back to Apple Mac
terretory. I ___verb___ how some __noun___ can let the ___Windows_syn.___
OS occupy so much __noun__ in anyone's intellect. I then
remember that, yes...it's true. There are two __noun__ to
every ___noun___...and __noun___...and ___noun___...all in a two
dimensional world.


CT =====]------------ My money's where my mouth is.

I agree with those who worry that, if this is true, developers would eventually just make one version of their app. A change like this could be great for Apple, but very bad for Mac users.

Apple would benefit because their market share would surely grow if people could buy a Mac and use literally any software on it.

It would be bad for Apple because most Windows software seems to be designed by people who don't even know what UI stands for, let alone how to design it well. Having all (OK, most) Mac apps look good is essential to the Mac experience.

I didn't read all of theses posts, but didn't Apple state that they would not support running Windoze, hey just wouldn't prevent it.

I guess something like Red Box would be a work around of that statement. We're running Windoze compatible software, we're not running Windoze type thing.

I have the same question -- Wouldn't that open my computer up to all of the Windoze viruses et. al.? I guess Apple would have a fix for that in all of their wisdom. I'm sure they could start from scratch 6 months from now and build a better Longwait than MS all while releasing it sooner. I'm sure Apple would have all of the security issues in place.

I'm still not sure I want to desecrate my Mac by running Windoze junk on it. There are those few programs that I have eyeballed that just aren't ported for the Mac, though.

I'll have to contemplate this some more.

I don't think Apple is seeing any dilema with developers not writing software for their platform. They've got commitments from Adobe (which covers Macromedia as well), Microsoft, and FileMaker, I'm sure. Plus, they have their own healthy, fresh line of software from the iLife and iWork suites (which will all improve with each revision) to Pro apps like Final Cut Pro, Motion, Logic, and more. I can't imagine they're that interested AutoCad or specialized, obscure industry-specific apps, and I'm sure they couldn't care less about the thousands of obscure developers that churn out all those different financial and presentation pieces of poop on the shelves at Office Max.

This is how I see it--

Apple will continue to develop their own applications. If they see a market for an application that is not available, they will either develop the application, or buy out a competitor who does.

Powerhouses like Adobe will continue to develop for the Mac, because no matter what anyone says, native is better, and they will get that.

Independent Mac developers will continue building applications for the Mac because it's what they enjoy doing.

The difference between Mac OS X and OS/2 is that there is already a large installed user-base. It is not a newcomer trying to build a new niche.

MW: and--And then?

"This is one of the things that killed OS2. It ran Windows apps perfectly, so people stopped developing for OS2 natively and just built windows applications."

yes, but macs still (and mostly likely will) always cost a little more than pc's, and people aren't going to pay this premium to run windows apps. People (like Adobe) who sell a lot of mac software know this, and their mac divisions are profitable now, they'll certainly be profitable if apple keeps selling "macs"

iPod doesnt play WMA, even though the player can in theory decode it. New macs wont include or support windows, event though the hardware can run it.

Macs and iPods will rule.

End of story.

Maybe there is another way? Maybe Apple wants to make OSX run on PC's! Maybe they want to kick MS in the butt and take some % off their OS marketshare. That would be so nice to run OSX on PC with a Windows on it. Maybe thats the future of OSX. Bill would be furious about that.

"This is one of the things that killed OS2. It ran Windows apps perfectly, so people stopped developing for OS2 naively and just built windows applications."

This is a bit of a different case now. The article clip below describes the history of that OS/2 downfall, and why it is different with Apple now. Please read the following from OsViews.com
------------------
In the early days of IBM's OS/2 operating system, part of the strategic benefits that Big Blue touted was that its OS had full compatibility with Windows. As a result, few developers wrote software specific to OS/2, but chose to write code specific for Microsoft's Windows API instead. This is often regarded as the primary reason for OS/2's downfall.

Because of this, allowing Windows compatibility, (and the potential ramifications that go along with it), is risk Apple would face in adopting this strategy. Had IBM had more time, lets say... a year or so, and managed to get the most important software developers to write code using its developer tools (rather than Microsoft's), IBM would have garnered the necessary momentum to build upon. This begs the question, "How can Apple learn from IBM's mistake?"

During Apple's most recent world wide developer's conference, the company stressed the importance of utilizing Apple's XCode development software and sold developers on the plan by reinforcing the fact that XCode would make the transition much easier and faster as compared to competing development packages. Apple is also giving developers a full year and a half to make the transition. Unlike IBM, Apple will have native apps coded for its OS allowing OS X-specific technologies to be utilized thus giving Apple the momentum to build upon. It's this momentum that IBM lacked when adopting the same strategy.

One of the primary factors causing Microsoft's Longhorn to be delayed, and its most significant features dropped is the company's insistence that it retain full compatibility with previous Windows applications. It was the same insistence that compatibility be retained, which caused Apple to languish for so many years with its earlier attempt at creating a next generation operating system known as Copland.

The issue is a double edged sword for Microsoft because retaining compatibility with Windows vast library of applications is the primary factor which allows Microsoft to retain its stranglehold on the Windows monopoly. The other side of that sword is that the company must break that compatibility to integrate next generation features into Windows in a timely fashion. The old Windows code base is the primary problem that is restricting the timely integration of features originally promised for Longhorn.

So many of Apple's recent advancements in OS X have been able to occur as quickly as they have been because the company has already completed the transition away from its old code base. Even if Microsoft were to finish Longhorn today and then drop the old code base as well, it would still require the same 5-year transition period -- coincidentally which Apple just completed -- to achieve the same level of maturity and software compatibility that Apple now has.
--------------

Apple (Steve) knows what he is doing, and timing is everything! These first round Intel Macs, In my opinion, are for real life testing purposes to get all the kinks out so when the whole line is ready to go all Intel, it is solid. Not to mention it will be then at the eve of 2007 that 10.5 will be already loaded with support for running native windows apps. All this will hit when Vista is out and Apple will already have a handle on Intel and the new software. 10.5 will probably be out by June, so from June till the eve of 2007 Apple will have time to perfect the way OS X runs native windows apps. Again, its all timing. 2007 is going to suck for MS.

What I do with a computer Does apple/ a commited mac partner make it
business iWork/ office mac
audio production Logic/Garageband/Cubase/AbletonLive
web design iWeb/ dreamweaver
photo editing gimp/photoshop/aperture
movies iMovie/finalcut
email mail/thunderbird
chat iChat/AIM mac/ MSN mac
surf the web safari/firefox
media enviorments ForntRow/Media central
organize your self iCal/adressbook
games
WHO CARES ABOUT COMPUTER GAMES, THEY CLOG UP COMPUTERS AND PLAYSTATION IS BETTER FOR GAMING ANYWAY!!!!!!!!!

Steve Jobs, don't take away my digital oasis and throw me in the fiery furnace of viruses, ugly GUI's, slow computing, spyware, and complicated file locations! LET MAC BE MAC!

I just can't wait until Apple starts shipping NVIDIA macintels. Then us cheepskates running OSX86 on our windows boxes with NVIDIA gfx cards can steal the drivers, and have full-fledged macs!

Dual-boot capability, in my opinion, is BY FAR the BEST option. OS X need not be complicated or concerned with trying to run Windows apps. Why should it, when an actual windows install is a keystroke and 2 minutes away? 2 minutes, mind you, spent staring at the XP boot screen. They would never get it integrated well enough to feel like everything is running on the same OS, it would just be accessible during the same session. Not too important to me, since you can read NTFS drives in OS X and HFS+ drives in WinXP. If you can't drag and drop between apps, what's so bad about booting into XP, doing what you need to do, saving the file, and then booting right back into OS X (phew!) and working with said file, no problems?

All I know, is that when I saw that gray-white apple logo and seconds later the OS X desktop on my homebuilt p4 system, I knew the future was here.

ha! no one wil ever boot xp n a mactel with an apple supported method. if apple wanted you to boot into xp (or longwait ...er... vista) why would they make osx? check out q at http://www.kberg.ch/q/. the easiest way to run windows linux and any other x86 on ppc macs.
JOIN THE FIGHT AGAINST MACTEL!! PPC G5 ALL THE WAY!

Will the lep os allow the dual g-5 's to run xp.

Hey! With all this excitement about Windows apps running on Mac OS X, my mind just went into over-imagination! Just imagine if Apple could get access to Windows API (similar to the independent WINE). Now, emulation is no longer an issue because both run on Intel chips. What if, Apple could write a software layer that would translate the Windows API calls to Mac OS X toolbox calls? In addition -I know this is pure imagination- what if Apple could write a UI converter? One that would convert the Windows GUI to the Mac OS X native GUI? -THINK ABOUT IT! Windows developers would have to not even lift a finger to write for the Mac! All (most) software that is natively written for Windows would run on the Mac with a Mac GUI!!) - If this EVER becomes reality it would potentially have the same impact Apple had in the computing world in 1984. It will multiply the Mac OS X market share hundredfold(and more!) overnight!

Any thoughts?!

Kenneth.

yqsfaoxc http://vmjvdrod.com zvibodfd gixmhvkk