Slashdot Log In
Run Windows Applications Natively in OS X?
Posted by
Zonk
on Fri Apr 21, 2006 12:45 PM
from the predictiontastic dept.
from the predictiontastic dept.
mcho writes "Unlike other speculators, who get no spam, Robert X. Cringely offers an intriguing reason behind Apple's recent strategy of Boot Camp. From the article: 'I believe that Apple will offer Windows Vista as an option for those big customers who demand it, but I also believe that Apple will offer in OS X 10.5 the ability to run native Windows XP applications with no copy of XP installed on the machine at all. This will be accomplished not by using compatibility middleware like Wine, but rather by Apple implementing the Windows API directly in OS X 10.5.'
Related Stories
[+]
News: Cringely on P2P vs Streaming Data Centers 179 comments
Anonymous Coward writes "Robert X Cringely is postulating today that as bandwidth applications grow, the data centers will never be ready to serve 30 million concurrent streams of data. Akamai, with its tens of thousands of servers spread in an intelligent topology, still can't serve more than 150,000 concurrent streams, which is never going to impress the TV network exec used to audiences in the millions. Cringely choruses that secure P2P is the solution to delivering not only high quality video but also to audiences that scale in the millions. BitTorrent seems
to have worn out it's welcome with the MPAA recently, so maybe the future holds P2P networks owned and managed by Hollywood?"
[+]
Cringely Predicts Apple to Ship OS X for Any PC 789 comments
boosman writes "In his current column, and in a similar op-ed piece in The New York Times, Robert X. Cringely predicts that Apple 'will announce a product similar to Boot Camp to allow OS X to run on bog-standard 32-bit PC hardware.' I dissect why this is unthinkable and challenge Cringely to a public bet on the subject."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
tap, tap, tap, .. there's no place like OS X... (Score:3, Interesting)
He points out one of the difficulties WINE has had keeping applications healthy:
I wonder that his assumption Microsoft can't break its own API in Windows is correct, and suspect (or fear) it isn't. Or, at best, writing to Microsoft's API is only a half truth and is at the core of one of the EU's complaints against Microsoft -- complete API documentation!
Cringely does confirm third party reports of this suite of software working at Apple, but I wonder for how long? And for what versions? A complete, robust, and current maintenance of what is available for a Windows API is a minefield, and in my opinion, likely to somehow "break" rather quickly.
I can imagine if Apple somehow has pulled this off and is ready to roll it out publicly they must be bracing for the Microsoft blitzkrieg, because they're going to get it.
As to whether or not this really is a realistic scenario (Microsoft and Windows Apps running transparently in OS X), please, please, please let it be true! (We can all hope, right?)
Re:tap, tap, tap, .. there's no place like OS X... (Score:4, Insightful)
I think it will come true, except for the part about "not requiring an installed copy of WinXP". What Cringely is proposing is just silly: he thinks that Apple can essentially write its own implementation of WINE, but somehow won't suffer from all the problems that WINE has. If you think that strategy works well, look at what happened when OS/2 tried it.
On the other hand, adding a spiffed-out VMWare-style layer would be much easier for Apple to do, would leave most of the maintenance/compatibility problems for Microsoft to deal with, and would be less likely to piss off Microsoft's legions of winged monkeys (since they would still get money from Mac users buying WinXP sales).
Trying to implement Microsoft's APIs natively is foolish: even if Apple somehow got them to work reliably in a foreign OS (fat chance considering the trouble Microsoft has getting them to work reliably in the native OS), things would break every time Microsoft released another service pack. Apple would spend the rest of their lives chasing Windows compatibility bugs.
Parent
Re:tap, tap, tap, .. there's no place like OS X... (Score:5, Funny)
Give me a load of All-Bran or other fibre-rich foodstuffs to work on, and I'm sure I could produce a feature-complete copy of Microsoft Windows in 24 hours or so. Even less, if laxatives are involved.
Parent
Re:tap, tap, tap, .. there's no place like OS X... (Score:5, Interesting)
According to Cringely, Apple has had access to XP APIs under an tech sharing agreement between Apple and MS that was forged in 1997. (This was part of the agreement that let MS off the hook for appropriating quicktime technology into their own media products.)
Parent
Uhhh... hello. (Score:5, Informative)
"This will be accomplished not by using compatibility middleware like Wine, but rather by Apple implementing the Windows API directly in OS X 10.5."
Wine *is* an implementation of the Windows API.
Cringeworthy is more like it
Re:Uhhh... hello. (Score:3, Informative)
Sleeping with Dvorak (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:WINE is an OS component (Score:5, Interesting)
So apache an OS component, because all of the distribution vendors bundle it with linux?
Does that mean AOL is a component of windows, because dell bundles a 6 month trial on most of their machines?
Parent
As usual.... (Score:5, Insightful)
1) There is no way in hell Microsoft would document their API to the level necessary to allow Apple to duplicate it.
2) It's blatantly obvious he doesn't understand precisely what Wine is. Remember: Wine Is Not an Emulator. It's a built-from-scratch implementation of the Windows API.
Idiot.
Cue European Commision (Score:3, Insightful)
And because of that, they're losing 2 million euros a-day...
Re:As usual.... (Score:4, Funny)
1) Nobody could duplicate the Windows API.
2) Wine duplicates the Windows API.
???
Parent
Re:As usual.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally I think it's doubtful for that reason.
Parent
Moderation (Score:5, Funny)
Unlikely... (Score:3, Insightful)
True (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
It's a nice idea... (Score:4, Interesting)
It's a stroke of genius, actually.
Re:It's a nice idea... (Score:3, Insightful)
Well they'll need it to boot Linux actually [onmac.net]...
Something like that... (Score:3, Interesting)
YHBT! (Score:5, Insightful)
It's understandable because Apple has made some radical moves lately (Intel, Windows), so the Mac Zealot's universe must seem like it's in total flux. No longer can they confidently predict Apple's next move using their supposed expertise in everything-apple. If Apple will put Windows on Macs, pretty much anything goes!
Obviously these columnists sense the uncertainly and are having fun stirring things up a bit. Anyway, before you fire off your 1000 word point-by-point response denouncing Cringely, keep in mind he probably wrote this column in 15 minutes while high on cough medicine.
Re:YHBT! (Score:5, Funny)
keep in mind he probably wrote this column in 15 minutes while high on cough medicine.
Actually, he was only able to put down on paper the fantastic visions conjured by his drugged out mind for fifteen minutes before he was interrupted by a person from Porlock [wikipedia.org]. When he was finally able to get back to writing his article, he found that the vivid images had left him, and he was left with only a few fragmentary notes.
[1] Clearly a reference to Steve Jobs
[2] Jobs announces expansion of Apple campus [nbc11.com]
[3] River Alph = 1 Infinite Loop(?)
[4]Undocumented Windows APIs
[5]Apparently where WinFS is hiding
Parent
Classic but for Windows. (Score:4, Interesting)
Could it be... (Score:3, Interesting)
Really the most shocking part of this whole article is the fact the Cringely said something that actually kinda makes sense. I guess a stopped clock really can be right once in a while.
Maybe (Score:3, Interesting)
First, there is more than one API used in Windows. Second, WINE is an implementation of the Windows APIs. It is entirely possible Apple will reuse a lot of the WINE project and DarWINE in order to allow Windows Apps to run in OS X (hopefully sandboxed), but it is also entirely possible they won't. I rather suspect the latter for a number of reasons. First, Apple doesn't have to do this, there are a half dozen third parties clamoring to offer the same functionality. Second, by making it too easy to run Windows programs within OS X, they can reduce the incentive for developers to write programs to the current APIs. Third, since Windows is slowly strangling OpenGL on their platform and MS owns DirectX, Apple may have difficulty keeping graphics intensive applications behaving well if they go this route. Fourth, Windows APIs do not have all the functionality of OS X APIs and some of the most useful and advantageous features of OS X would be killed.
Only time will tell for sure.
Virtualization, Not This (Score:3, Interesting)
Frankly, it's probably better not to go down Cringley's road, since Microsoft's flavor of application design and integration is so very, very different from the OS X model; running Windows Word "native" in OS X would be a constant headache for users used to the drag-and-drop-just-works world of Apple's flagship apps...
Can some one tell me... (Score:3, Funny)
2. What Cringly has been smoking?
3. Most importantly, where can I get some of what Cringly been smoking?
Windows in a VM (Score:3, Interesting)
Read the &*^%$*&%$ Article (Score:5, Informative)
did you forgot darwine?? (Score:4, Interesting)
Don't naysay too loudly... (Score:4, Insightful)
"The Windows API" (Score:5, Insightful)
There have been at least three projects that I know of (Wine, OS/2 Warp 4, and ReactOS) that have tried to do implementations of the Win32 API. OS/2s implementation never truly got off the ground (and was neither able to run native Win32 code, nor was it even reasonably complete). Wine and ReactOS have both been fighting a Sisyphean battle with Microsoft throughout the life of their projects.
Then, you need to add in the fact that Apple has historically been very jealous of their user experience. I don't expect that Apple would ever release something like this unless and until it was impossible to distinguish a Win32 application from a native app.
Don't get me wrong: I'd love to see it (it would provide justification that I could use on the spouse for upgrading our G4 MiniMac). I just think that Cringely needs to put down crack pipe and slowly back away.
Re:"The Windows API" (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Wine vs Windows API (Score:5, Insightful)
I imagine Apple could pull a better OS2 than IBM. Security, stability plus consumer appeal plus Windows compatibility.
Even if all this is speculation, it probably gives Messrs Dell and Gates nightmares.
Win APIs not sufficiently documented.... (Score:4, Informative)
The EU is treathening to fine Microsoft $2,7 mill a day for the inability to produce said documentation.
How this would work (Score:5, Interesting)
But with a recompile and some refactoring, I bet most windows programs could run quite will under this compatibity layer. What those would do is open up the Mac platform as a viable target for Windows software developers. Recompile under OS X, fix the few quirks, or work around the APIs that aren't present, and bingo, you've got a mac app. With a few IFDEFs you might even be able to support both Mac and Windows versions with the same code base. Software makers like Quicken might find this a very attractive option.
Noooo! (Score:4, Insightful)
That would suck. Apple has pretty good interface guidlines. "Preferences" is 3rd option in App menu. It's not Tools->Prefs, View->Options, File->Properties, View->Customize, Edit->Configuration, etc.
DarWINE is fine, but I don't want Windows app and their (un)usability officialy made "native" for OS X.
Re:What's the incentive to write a program for OS (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:What's the incentive to write a program for OS (Score:5, Interesting)
Ideally this would be in a sandbox, similar to a virtual machine. That way all you have to do is kill the VM, and all that crud is gone. Since it's a VM, you can easily make backup copies of the file system -- similar to a restore partition on OEM machines. Set it up the way you want, and when ActiveX rips a hole in Windows or malware slows it to a crawl, it's easy. Kill the VM process, copy the backup partition over.
Of course some of us can run Windows without malware, viruses, and all that stereotypical garbage. Some of us do have a clue how to administer a Windows computer. I've worked with many operating systems -- DOS, DOS/Windows, Windows NT, Linux, FreeBSD, Solaris, HPUX, and even little Vax. In my experience, none are easier or more difficult to secure with the exception of DOS or DOS-based Windows (96/98/ME), which suck. All it takes is a little training on the security issues and the ability to be proactive with security.
Parent
Safe Browsing (Score:5, Funny)
- Switch browsers from IE to Firefox
- Switch Operating Systems from Windows to Mac
- Switch Preferences from Women to Men
That leaves you in one of the smallest possible target audiences for... well... just about anythingParent
Re:Safe Browsing (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:What's the incentive to write a program for OS (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, only if I can plug in any PCIE gfx card and be able to get the OSX drivers for them, I'll be all set....
Parent
Re:What's the incentive to write a program for OS (Score:4, Insightful)
People credit Apple for how apps are consistently Mac-like and interoperate with each other, but the users are the ultimate enforcers. Any developer who steps out of line is crucified.
Parent
What's the incentive to write a program for OS X (Score:5, Interesting)
The answer? Because X11 apps (and likely Windows apps, if they did implement Windows compatibility) look and behave like crap next to Cocoa and Carbon apps. They don't use the menu bar, all the shortcuts use control instead of the command key, etc. There's nothing wrong with those on an X11 system, but switching back and forth between Cocoa and X11 apps can be jarring.
I doubt Windows compatibility would cause existing Mac developers to drop support. And who knows, Windows-only developers might start considering a Mac port more seriously if a significant portion of their user base started running their apps on a Mac.
Parent
Re:What's the incentive to write a program for OS (Score:4, Interesting)
You can do most of that right now, if your model classes (assuming MVC design) are in C++. Just use controllers written in Objective-C++ to talk to your C++ models and Objective-C views. The only thing missing from what you're describing is importing VC projects, but that's just an inconvenience, not a show-stopper - it's not exactly rocket surgery to create a new project and add your model files to it.
Parent
Re:CarbTime (Score:4, Informative)
Fast-forward some years. When Apple needed an updated and portable version of the classic Toolbox, they started with the portable Toolbox subset that they'd already ported to Windows to support QT.
Parent
That would actually be the major reason not to (Score:5, Interesting)
I think Apple would face a similar problem. Not all apps would stop porting, of course, apps that have a healthy market like Photoshop would keep porting, but I think many would. You'd never see another game port, and any app that wasn't really core-market kind of app for Apple would likely stop porting. You have to figure you aren't really going to lose any sales since it does run, and there are few people using it in the first place, so why bother?
Now maybe Apple decides they don't care. Maybe they want to implement the Windows APIs and just use those. Maybe they figure the other features of the OS are enough to keep epopel buying. However I gaurentee they are smart enough to know that if they implement the Windows API natively in OS-X, that most apps will just use that and not bother to port.
Parent
Re:That would actually be the major reason not to (Score:5, Insightful)
One could argue that Apple sees only a very small percentage of game and "non-core" ports anyway, so they wouldn't be losing very much.
(There's a wishful-thinking at work in the Mac community that eventually major software houses will come around, but the reality is that most desktop apps are just too tied to Windows for that to happen.)
I always disliked the impression that OS/2 failed because of WinAPI support. To the extent OS/2 succeeded, it was because it was sold as a "Better Windows Than Windows". And OS/2 was reasonably successful with a marketshare about the size of Apple's.
There's many more reasons one can find for OS/2 ultimate destruction. It wasn't a very technically sound design -- IBM spent zillons on a expensive Mach-based rewrite that failed. It was largely mismarketed by IBM first targetting "enterprise" customers, and then oddly "consumers". And the touted features like the object-desktop were ugly and poorly executed.
Parent
Re:That would actually be the major reason not to (Score:5, Interesting)
At this point, Apple has people porting to OS-X. Not a ton, but enough. If they add Win32 support, I think the number porting will fall significantly. The problem is they then become chained to the MS API. If MS releases a changed API, they have to scramble to implement it as well.
It also means that bugs and such come over. Thought your computer was protected against spyware? Sorry, no longer, it can execute Windows programs, and they don't bother to set the Evil Bit to allow you to ignore them, You get the good with the bad.
I think that would take away a major percieved advantage Macs have. The one thing that more people who claim to want to switch, or actually do switch, bitch about than any other in my experience is spyware and viruses. They see them as MS's fault and want them ot stop. They've been promised the Mac does not have those, which is true at this point.
Well, if all of a sudden all the Windows malware runs on a Mac, you are back to where you started. It is again incumbent on the user not to do stupid stuff, rather than having a protection because the bad code just won't execute.
Parent
Re:What's the incentive to write a program for OS (Score:4, Insightful)
- Windows 3.0 - compatible with MSDOS (earlier versions had some compatability too but it wasn't as solid
- Windows 95 - compatible with Windows 3.x and DOS
- Windows XP - compatible with Windows 95, 3.x, and DOS
- Mac OS X - compatible with Mac OS 9. Also able to run many X11/Unix apps with just a recompile
Other people can probably come up with other examples of operating systems that, in their time, were successful, and had substantial back-compatibility with platforms that you generally wanted to obsolete, not support.Anyone thinking "Hey, Windows is Windows right?" should note that Windows 3.x and Windows 95 couldn't have had more different looks and feels, and their APIs were only superficially similar. Win32, 95's base API, was 32-bit, worked with flat, 32 bit, addressing, and provided access to something resembling a sane file system. "Win16", the pseudonym of the Windows 1/2/3.x APIs, by comparison required programs be written to use segmented memory. Filenames were UPPERCASE and had eight characters, a period, and three more after that. The GUIs were marginally similar in terms of widget layout, indeed a Win16 application was grating when you saw it up against native 32 bit applications.
The real question is: Is Apple prepared to get this operating system out to the mass market, should they consider including Red Box in Leopard? If they don't, then with a 3-5% marketshare, there's a serious risk that programmers will rely upon Red Box to get their critical, we're-the-only-people-who-do-this, applications to OS X users, and not care too much about complaints from Mac OS X users about the ugliness of the GUIs. Native Mac programs will still exist, especially if Apple re-releases an updated version of their OpenStep/WebObjects for Windows development tools, incorporating the software into Xcode. But they'll remain the minority, and the divide between Mac apps and Windows apps will, if anything intensify.
Parent
Bonzai Buddy!!! Yea! (Score:3, Funny)
yea!
Why bother? (Score:4, Insightful)
Here is the deal, codeweavers have been working their asses off to get win32 apps to run on linux. Thus far they have barely scratched the surface and can only run like
The only thing Codeweavers brings to the table for Apple is possibly the ability to help devs port apps to OS X X86. My guess is that if most vendors are not making their apps available on OS X it sure as hell isn't due to difficulty in porting but rather has more to do with the limited ROI of making apps for OS X in the firstplace.
Parent