MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

I don't like the source - Cringley, but I like the idea. Getting all excited about Boot Camp was something that I was definitely NOT. If Apple wants to start punching Windows OS in the face, then running Windows Apps in OS X definitely is a front line offensive move. Since I've got a martial spin on this thing let me say that Boot Camp just rings of being a defensive move - clearly not offensive.

So if there's anything real to this idea of using Windows APIs in OS X then lets get to it. Lets suck the wind out of MS Windows (please dear lord), then lets gradually with increasing momentum pull developers and consumers to OS X native.

Now there's a plan. And MDN, again, I really really really hope your right, because the truth is that today MS, (even with all of their out right bull shit), is still clearly in the throws of market domination.

Windoze apps without windoze would be a lot better than dual-boot or virtualization. I just don't know how it would be possible or feasible. Mac OS X would have to translate so much GUI stuff on the fly.

Also, Apple would have to put windoze apps in a protective layer to avoid the security problems. So your windoze apps would be like a red-headed jewish retarded stepchild in a bubble with a mullet and a taco. Or like a gun-toting democrat in a camouflage tux singing Freebird on Shawn Hannity's lawn.

It's all so clear to me now.

As Triumph might say...

Yehh-hh-hheesss! If Apple makes it possible to run Windows programs without having to buy Windows?

People will run away from the Windows product faster than a Chris Farley Health & Diet book!

I keed, I keed, I know you shouldn't make fun of dead people. Hey, why is Steve Ballmer's picture in an ad to the right of my box here? Oh, wait, it's the Michelin Man. Sorry, Ballmer, I had you two confused! Maybe you've been using Windows and the Chris Farley advice!

Seriously, though, run Windows programs without Windows? Man, that's like getting to eat hot dogs without having to ingest pig lips and nutsacks! I mean, you know they're not good for your health, you know they are disgusting and greasy, but every now and then a Windows program just calls out to you...

But why is anyone surprised that Windows looks like it was designed by a color-blind dork whose idea of "style" is a tupperware bowl haircut? Oh, wait.. it was!

Seriously, I've seen diarrhea that had a more pleasant color scheme and odor than Windows XP. And at least it's flushable - unfortunately my Dell tower keeps getting stuck in the bowl!

But seriously, I keed about Bill being a nerdy color-blind geek. He knows I love him. Bill, go take a money bath, you'll feel better. He loves it when he gets to play "where's Ben Franklin hiding" in the tub!

Ok, I stop now. I'll be here all week filling in until Triumph returns from licking his balls.

MW: Slowly - as in he's licking them slowly. How do it know?

I forgot to mention that the bubble boy is gay.

Random Observer wrote: "Yes, and anyway I think Jobs announced at wwdc that leopard will definitely be universal, as with all the mac apps in the coming years."

Of course, he wants to keep selling G5 computers. You said :"Apple is to this very day selling G5 PowerMacs ". If G5 potential buyers saw that they couldn't upgrade to 10.5 will they become G5 owners? The question, however, is did Steve lie? Time, as usual, will be the supreme judge. Lets see...

"Red Box, although not confirmed by Apple, would be how you run Windows applications under Rhapsody for Intel - and possibly under Rhapsody for PowerPC as well. Like the Blue Box on a Power Macintosh, the Red Box will give Rhapsody users a way to run Windows applications."

Read more: Red Box, Blue Box, Yellow Box

Many years ago, Apple touted Rhapsody's ability to run Windows applications. Rhapsody, which eventually became OS X, was to run Windows applications under it's Red Box compatibility layer.

If Apple successfully kept everyone in the dark about running Mac OS X on an Intel processor for five years, it is certainly plausible Apple has been working on this Red Box technology for quite some time and may surprise us all again!

If a relaxing moment turns into the right moment, will you be ready?

http://www.cialis.com

I've been thinking about the issue of Windows malware. What keeps it from running if the Windows API is implemented in OS X? Let's see...

Two big entry points for malware would still be closed off. You wouldn't be browsing the web with IE, so no drive-by downloads or other web-based exploits. There would be no Windows network holes to exploit either, so no "remote ownage" through your internet connection.

That leaves trojans, which can still run. But could those trojans do all the evil they want to do? First off, a trojan shouldn't be able to "root" itself as it does on Windows. It will bury itself in the registry, but in this case, it would be a "psuedo"-registry, not a critical file to the operating system. The trojan wouldn't be able change any Windows system settings, either, because there wouldn't be any Windows to change. I'm guessing that trojans would be able to do the bare minimum, but they wouldn't be able to hide and would be trivial to kill and delete.

Rhapsody did not become OS X. NeXT became OS X. If you've ever watch the vid of Jobs demonstrating NeXT 3.0, it was damned near OS X as we know it today.

Justified, Rhapsody was the first cut toward Mac OS X based on NeXT's OS.

So yes, Rhapsody led to OS X.

Read more about Rhapsody to Mac OS X progression (with diagram):

Towards Mac OS X

LordRobin,

What makes you think that people won't be surfing the web with IE?

If you can run any Windows app. that would include IE. Now you and I, or any long time Mac user won’t use it, but the vast majority of “new” switchers may.

I think it is very dangerous thinking to just assume everyone will switch and leave all vestiges of their Windows past behind them. These people may have used IE for years and don’t feel comfortable with anything else. Or have years worth of bookmarks or must work with sites that only allow IE etc.

The rest of your argument holds water though.

In your dreams, MDN. Even if Apple could reverse-engineer the whole Windows API (fat chance of that), what software vendor would support an application that is COMPILED for Windows XP if it us run on a different OS? And if the vendor doesn't support it, do you think a company would use it? That's why you Mac guys are so pathetic. You don't have a clue as to how things work in the real world. Keep on dreaming, bubble boys...

MadMac is MacDude

Everyone is MacDude.

Especially MacDude.

Man, this game gets old fast.

OK, if they do it...big if...and you don't need Windows anymore, how could Apple not win, with let's say the biggest worldwide ad campaign ever?

"Apple. OS X, iLife, and oh yeah, we can run all your Windows software...without Windows."

50% Marketshare here we come.

loganson - I believe it's Sean Hannity, not Shawn. oh, and there is nothing gay about being in a bubble.

Cringely should replace Jobs as Apple's CEO. He is one smart dude and I think really understands end-use computing --- more than Jobs does.

The thing I like best about this whole scenario is that M$ spent so much money just a few short years ago buying out Virtual PC, and at least the part of this investment would be rendered completely worthless.

I've always suspected that Apple secretly tipped off Connectix to sell their prized product, as it made no sense at the time. Also, e.veryone was saying how it would ruin Apple in the long run, but Apple didn't seem to give a damn. How interesting if it was Connectix and Apple duping M$ before it was too late and the secret got out.

We'll never know.

John Gruber of Daring Fireball writes a well thought out counter argument called Cringely’s Machinations which details why this is unlikely.

R writes: “There are five year agreements for these major programs. In five years, so much can happen!”

At Apple yes… but not at M$!