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
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…
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”mad” style=”border:0;” />
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
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” /> back to Apple Mac
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”mad” style=”border:0;” />
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.___
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.
Today I ran ___Windows_syn.___ on my Mac with Intel’s chip and
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” /> back to Apple Mac
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”mad” style=”border:0;” />
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.___
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.
Today I ran ___Windows_syn.___ on my Mac with Intel’s chip and
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” /> back to Apple Mac
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”mad” style=”border:0;” />
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.___
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!