The Apple Mac OS X Leopard Windows API Myth

“Some ideas just won’t die. Proponents of the Mac OS X Leopard Windows API Myth are so convinced that Apple desperately needs to wedge Microsoft Windows into Mac OS X that they’ll run with any hint that might suggest a plausible way for this to happen. The latest take on the subject is that Mac OS X Leopard loads PE files and requests Windows DLL files, which more than a few pundits have determined must be a new development because Tiger didn’t do this. Therefore, they’ve decided that the only sensical conclusion to jump to is that Apple is secretly implementing the Windows API so that Macs will be able to run Windows programs natively,” Daniel Eran Dilger writes for RoughlyDrafted. “They’re wrong.”

Dilger explains why in his full article here.


  1. Does the API include the “Blue Screen of Death” procedure? Is it multithreaded? Will it run of both processors?

    Does the API include virus and trojan support? Will I be able to run all of the latest virus protection software applications?

    Does it include the defragmentation tool that defrags most but not all of the disk?

  2. This guy is probably right on after reading the whole article, which makes a lot of sense. Regardless, I’ll repeat what I said earlier – why bother with this? Keep Windows apps in Windows, period. There are just too many potential headaches with this concept.

  3. After dealing with both 10.4, 10.5 and both XP and Vista extensively for years (obviously vista and 10.5 being fairly recent) I have to say that even if Apple is using Windows API’s within leopard I think that this is the wrong plant. Instead we need to develop competitive software similar to that of windows that can deal with popular file types, for example there is little to no justification for quicken for mac 2007 and quicken for windows 2007/2008 to not only use different file types, and be virtually impossible to interchange the types of files without going through rigorous constraints within the exporting of file-types, but also a huge feature gap.

    This would in-turn lead to the statement of “oh, well intuit is just trying screw mac-users and we have other programs like iBank” but programs like iBank are also not up to snuff for even what I need, and I need nothing else than to keep track of personal finances, no investments, etc, in a reasonably clean gui, etc.

    Long-story short, don’t emulate windows, don’t port windows, develop better software.

  4. Man, and I thought MDN finally gave up on posting Roughly Drafted fanboy nonsense on this website.

    Eran is an idiot on the level of Dvorak and Thurrot, he’s just on the other side of the issue. Nothing he says should be given any weight. I’m surprised he can even type so much one-handed while he jerks off to videos of Apple and Steve Jobs.

  5. so on the one hand we have a full article that seems reasonable and well written, and on the other hand a poster calling himself “anti-rd-man” who talks about jerking off.

    gosh, who to believe, who to believe……

  6. Yea, Daniel’s a fanboy. But if you read a lot of his articles, esp not ones talking about current events (like his OS wars series) he’s really damn good at laying out that stuff.

    He may ooze fanboy all throughout the text, but that doesn’t keep him from being right 95% of the time.

    And yea, thats a WAY higher percentage than Dvorak.

    I hate his opinions almost as much as that keyboard layout.

  7. God I hate flatulent mindless Microsoft trolls, because here we go again with them on MDN trying to put Dilger down..

    Well guys, let me tell you, he has a big following, because he talks sense, argues with facts – not spin or FUD – and is right 99% of the time. And he’s prepared to admit when he is shown to be wrong.

    Compare that to the Microsoft spin and FUD machine.

    Oh, and if you want to see how backward Microsft is just read their page on BIOS versus EFI – it just beggars belief:

    You have to laugh…

  8. Hey Dilger is not a fanboy.
    Here’s an excerpt from Wikipedia defining a fanboy:

    “They will readily engage in debates, but will fall back on emotional responses when challenged on facts. For example, a fanboy may go out of his way to point out negative and often untrue statements about their obsession’s rivals”

    Dilger uses research and cold hard facts when challenging people who spout FUD. Surely the people who he challenges (Thurrott, Dvorak etc) are the fanboys for just posting up opinion pieces full of bullsh*t.

    So who are the real fanboys I wonder?


Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.