Could Apple’s decision to move to Intel processors be motivated by something more than IBM’s inability to meet the company’s processor demands? Now that Apple has chosen to go x86, is the rumored Red Box project back on?
“Though the marketing terms later changed, back when Apple took over NeXT… (or the other way around depending on your perspective), the company utilized colored box naming conventions to describe the OS’s various means of compatibility,” Kelly McNeill writes for osOpinion/osViews. “‘Blue Box’ (for example) was the name given for what would become the pre OS X (OS 9 and before) compatibility layer and ‘Yellow Box’ was the name given to describe the native operating environment. At the time, there were rumors suggesting that Apple was also creating another compatibility layer for Apple’s next generation OS.”
“This secretive compatibility layer (often referred to as Red Box) was said to give OS X, (then referred to as Rhapsody), full compatibility with Windows, whether it be the Intel version of Rhapsody or the one specific to PowerPC. (Some of you may remember that Apple originally planned on releasing a version of their operating system for both PowerPC as well as x86.) It wasn’t until later that Apple chose to abandon the x86 strategy and keep their next generation OS exclusive to PowerPC. Part of the reason for that is said to be because making Mac apps run on x86 was a major, (yet very doable) challenge. (This is now being shown with Apple’s Rosetta software.) Emulating Windows for PPC on the other hand, would cause too much of a performance hit. In the end, Apple opted to retain its PPC strategy to avoid complications,” McNeill writes.
“Now that Apple’s OS plans are more mature, with the announcement that Apple plans to adopt Intel processors, one can’t help but consider the likelihood that part of the decision may be motivated by the company’s former (rumored) Red Box strategy,” McNeill writes.
Full article here.
Related MacDailyNews articles:
Is Apple morphing Mac into the ultimate PC capable of running Mac OS X, Windows, Linux? – June 20, 2005
The Washington Post: ‘In a year or two, the best Windows PC may come from Apple’ – June 19, 2005
Intel’s built-in virtualization tech could be one way to run Windows on Intel-based Apple Macs – June 16, 2005
If Intel-based Macs can run Mac OS X and Windows, buying a Mac will be a no-brainer – June 15, 2005
Apple could use Trusted Platform Module chip to keep Mac OS X off non-Macs – June 14, 2005
Intel-based Macs running both Mac OS X and Windows will be good for Apple – June 10, 2005
Why buy a Dell when Apple ‘Macintel’ computers will run both Mac OS X and Windows? – June 08, 2005
Microsoft and Dell must have a lot of bricks lying around today – June 07, 2005
Apple to use Intel microprocessors beginning in 2006, all Macs to be Intel-based by end of 2007 – June 06, 2005
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.