“According to proponents of the Red Box Myth, Mac OS X will supposedly soon run Windows software natively, perhaps as soon as Leopard 10.5. They’re wrong; here’s why,” Daniel Eran writes for RoughlyDrafted. “The Red Box Myth is based entirely on speculation circulated by rumor sites; Apple has never mentioned the Red Box as even a possibility, nor have they ever suggested even casual interest in natively running Windows software as part of the core feature set in Mac OS X. Where did the idea come from, why is it repeated so often, and how can it be disproved?”
“The Red Box Myth began nearly ten years ago, when Apple started drawing pictures of colored boxes to convey a simplified view of Mac OS X development. The point of the diagrams was to show how the new OS would be able to run both programs designed for Cocoa/OpenStep, referred to as the ‘Yellow Box’, and Carbon/Classic Mac software, called the ‘Blue Box.’ Other boxes were drawn to represent conceptual API functions of the Core OS, the Java VM, QuickTime media layer, the BSD subsystem, and so on, but none of these were assigned a specific color,” Eran writes. “People with no engineering background suddenly jumped to the conclusion that adding the capability to run new software in Mac OS X would merely require… adding another colored box to the diagram. The most obvious opportunity for a new colored box would be one to run Windows software, and thus began the myth of the Red Box… I think it’s clear that Apple will only offer support for dual boot, leaving third parties to improve upon running Windows within Mac OS X, or emulating the Windows APIs necessary to run some Windows apps.”
Full article here.
Advertisements:
• Get the new iMac with Intel Core Duo for as low as $31 A MONTH with Free shipping!
• Get the MacBook Pro with Intel Core Duo for as low as $47 A MONTH with Free Shipping!
• Apple’s new Mac mini. Intel Core, up to 4 times faster. Starting at just $599. Free shipping.
• Apple’s brand new iPod Hi-Fi speaker system. Home stereo. Reinvented. Available now for $349 with free shipping.
• iPod. 15,000 songs. 25,000 photos. 150 hours of video. The new iPod. 30GB and 60GB models start at just $299. Free shipping.
• Connect iPod to your television set with the iPod AV Cable. Just $19.
• iPod Radio Remote. Listen to FM radio on your iPod and control everything with a convenient wired remote. Just $49.
Related MacDailyNews articles:
Now, you no longer have to choose – just buy a Macintosh – May 11, 2006
Dude, you got a Dell? What are you, stupid? Only Apple Macs run both Mac OS X and Windows! – April 05, 2006
Why buy a Dell when Apple’s Intel-based computers will run both Mac OS X and Windows? – June 08, 2005
I won’t be surprised either way. Hell, these days I wouldn’t be surprised to see Apple partner with Dell.
:shrug:
Apple will offer virtualization in Leopard in addition to dual-boot.
Moving right along…
Bill,
Yes!
me,
Yes, as well. You presented the idea very well.
Whether this guy believes it or not, the “Red Box” was something that Apple mentioned at meetings with companies that would have been hired to add the functionality. Apple eventually decided to take another road; a good idea given the complete and utter mess that Windows has become.
But just because this guy doesn’t have first-hand knowledge of these meetings (and I do) doesn’t mean that they didn’t take place.
I hope windows running natively on a Mac never see the light of day. For all the window bashing that goes on here, it is strange to see the support for this ridiculous idea. I buy a mac for OSX, not for windows, I don’t care for windows, so Apple no windows running on my OSX please
hm, so we should trust a dead squirrel over some guy’s opinion column?
what IS the world coming to???!!@#@##one!!!11
Maybe yes, maybe no, maybe maybe. Hypothetical discussions of nonexistent products by irrelevant persons seem a waste of time for those who work in the real world.
Just like certain peoples’ unrestrained fascination with Apple’s patents (i.e. noncommercial products or vaporware), we have the other spectrum of rabid irrationalists who believe that the current absence of a commercial product is evidence of its inherent constraint from future development.
@ me…
You are a short-sighted fool. How can anyone honestly believe that making either OSX native apps run in Windows or making a Windows compatibility layer in OSX would be anything but the death of OSX?
Does no one here remember what happened when OS/2 added a Windows compatibility layer? Are we all so blind to mistakes of the past that we cannot learn from them?
C’mon people… the point here is not to make WIndows users feel comfortable staying with their weak little OS, the point is to lure them into trying OSX, so they can see it’s true superiority. Apple wants to take share AWAY from M$, not hand it to them.
*Sheesh*
“Apple will offer virtualization in Leopard in addition to dual-boot.”
I might agree with this–to a certain degree…
I don’t know much about how software like Parallels or Virtual PC work, but I would imagine that there will be issues getting hardware recognized on these virtual operating systems, transferring information via drag and drop, clipboards, etc.
So I could see Apple stepping in here and creating a set of APIs and rules for developers of virtualization products to do so cleanly. But I don’t see Apple actually doing it themselves. This would be “an excellent third-party opportunity” for Microsoft.
Don’t forget NeXT and Jobs did have OpenStep for windows where OpenStep Applications could be run on Windows NT.
It has been done.
BUT
I doubt that Apple will run Windows apps natively. There is no incentive for Apple to run OS X apps on Windows. Apple would suffer if they allowed iLife to run on Windows.
I do hope that Apple has virtualization or simply BUYS Parrallels. I don’t want to see another Connectix fiasco. If Apple does not do it, Microsoft will. They have to completely rewrite Virtual PC to get it to work on Intel computers.
I feel like i’m reading the da vinci code all over again with this article.
Hmmm…. Maybe 10.5 is really OS X <i>LEONARD<i>.
Conspiracies, anyone?
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />
Just my 2¥ –
I have to agree with the author. I don’t see Leopard running Windows “in a box” either. The author pointed out some VERY duanting tasks it would take to do this concerning APIs. I expect to see new OS X features (some surely with a wow factor), improvements on existing features, and underlying OS functionality improved (optimization). Yes, all 3 are extremely obvious. BootCamp MAY be on the install disk as an option and be more polished, but I just don’t see Apple using it’s vast amount of resources to virtualize it. Windows is SO poorly written that the task of Apple running it in a box seems to be an exercise in futility (especially after reading the article). Dual Boot? Yep, Apple’s already got that nailed. Virtualizing Windows? – not worth it.
If bootcamp allows windows to be installed on a Mac, what would prevent OS X from accessing windows to run windows programs from OS X? It’s a challenge, but not impossible…
If Apple applications are so compelling, why has no-one ever bothered writing the equivalent of WINE for Windows or Linux, to run Apple applications under Windows or Linux? And if someone ever did, what would that mean for Apple’s market share?
Why would Apple want to allow native Windows API in OS X? It’s stupid.
If they did it with something like WINE, it will be a miserable experience and tarnish OS X’s reputation. If they did it properly, which is to license the API from Microsoft (assuming M’soft wants to do it) and implement it solidly, that means they are pushing developers to only develop for Windows and leave OS X development all together.
The most Apple will do, officially, is allow dual boot and/or a virtualized environment within OS X, like the old Virtual PC for Mac.
To those who are dissing this guy, he happens to be one of the most informed and insightful Mac writers around. I recommend checking out all his articles (particularly on the history of the OS and browser wars)
The Mac will never run Windows apps natively because it would contaminate Apple’s human interface guidelines and remove the incentive to develop for the Mac. More likely Apple will release its Yellow Box development environment for cross-platform apps, so developers can code for the Mac and easily port to Windows.
Connor, ©, Apple is not the only one involved in this decision. The folk at Parallels have Workstation for Mac close to ready to go. Their product for Windows and Linux allows you to host virtual machines running:
=> the entire Windows family – 3.1, 3.11, 95, 98, Me, 2000, XP and 2003
=> Linux distributions from popular distributors like Red Hat, SuSE, Mandriva, Debian and Fedora Core
=> FreeBSD
=> Solaris
=> “Legacy” operating systems like OS/2, eComStation and MS-DOS.
and the OS X version promises the same. It’s still in Beta, we’ll have to wait and see. I’m sure Xen and VMWare have their own plans – and Apple can only:
=> go along with it, maybe help out a bit
=> ignore it
=> make things difficult for them
One neat thing … this way Apple won’t be stuck supporting any of it! “Sorry, sir, you need to take that up with your vendor.”<click>
Maybe it isn’t a red box, square, or cube – but red concentric circles. A target.
Daniel Eran writes:
“People with no engineering background suddenly jumped to the conclusion that adding the capability to run new software in Mac OS X would merely require… adding another colored box to the diagram.:
Well, I checked his résumé and ther is nothing indicating a degree in engineering. Lots of classes and training, but no college engineering degree.
So, he’s just jumping to conclusions, too, without said background….
“Having” as in both ways?….