Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Programming Businesses Operating Systems Software Windows IT Technology Apple

Codeweavers to Support Mac OS X on Intel 118

Posted by timothy from the new-opportunities dept.
An anonymous reader submits "It's official. CodeWeavers is planning to support Mac OS X on Intel chips. Many say this could stifle Windows to OS X ports of apps, but nonetheless this may make it a lot easier for people to switch to OS X from Windows."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Codeweavers to Support Mac OS X on Intel More

Codeweavers to Support Mac OS X on Intel

Comments Filter:

  • I'm somewhat confused (Score:3, Insightful)

    by xenocide2 ( 231786 ) on Wednesday June 22, 2005 @01:14PM (#12882802) Homepage
    How does the existance of another IDE stifle people from porting Windows apps to OSX? If anything, it should encourage more OSX software than less...

    • Re:I'm somewhat confused (Score:4, Insightful)

      by amichalo ( 132545 ) on Wednesday June 22, 2005 @01:21PM (#12882884)
      It appears the natural progression for a swoftware company would be:

      (1) Allow windows app to run via emulation to gain new market at zero cost
      (2) Evaluate cost of porting to new platform
      (3) Port if the market for a ported app exists

      This is why Mac's only get the best selling games ported over.

    • Re:I'm somewhat confused (Score:4, Informative)

      by wowbagger ( 69688 ) on Wednesday June 22, 2005 @01:22PM (#12882893) Homepage Journal
      Yes, you are confused.

      Codeweavers is the commercial company behind much of the work on Wine, which is a Windows compatability layer that allows (some) Windows applications to run under *nix operating systems without Windows being installed.

      Which, had you read the linked story, you would have learned.
      • What does CrossOver actually offer that Wine doesn't? I'm finding it hard to find some cold data. FWIW, the Darwine [opendarwin.org] guys have been working on Wine for MacOS X for quite some time now, and the whole intel chip thing will undoubtably make their job easier.
        • The CodeWeavers corporation makes propriatery DLLs that are compatible with propriatery that come with Microsoft Windows but contain no windows code.

          The wine groups themselves haven't reimplemented every DLL that comes with any particular copy of windows. Some of the more interesting ones that they have done have the same interface as Microsoft's but a different implementation. For example, GDI32.dll, in Wine it needs to convert GDI calls to Xlib calls, but in Windows they interact with the video driver di

          • Re:I'm somewhat confused (Score:4, Informative)

            by jeremy_white ( 598942 ) * on Thursday June 23, 2005 @10:14AM (#12889606) Homepage
            For the record, we do not have any proprietary DLLs; all Wine work we do goes back into the public Wine tree and is also published on our web site.

            Further, we work hard to make sure that the applications we support do not need any DLLs from Windows. There are certain applications, like IE, which require you to have a licensed product from Microsoft, but that is the reality of their license, and not a technical limitation of CrossOver and Wine.

            Finally, yes, the Plugin functionality did get merged into the Office product about a year back.

            Cheers,
            Jeremy

    • Codeweavers isnt an IDE, its a Wine based win32 port with a lot of polish and extra bits such as Crossover Plugin. This would allow running of most major software packages for Windows under OSX for Intel, which would open up a lot of software for OSX. I dont see how it would stiffle development on OSX tho, it hasnt had that effect on Linux at all.
      • You are right, Sir. In fact, all games are released for Linux. Macromedia and Adobe release all their design / graphics stuff for Linux. And every productivity package is available for Linux, except for MS Office.
        • I hear sarcasm. The problem is that none of those companies have based their lack of a Linux product on the existance of Wine and Wine hasnt decreased the number of companies or individuals producing portable products for both platforms. Name me one project that has said 'We will continue developing our windows version, because Linux has Wine we can discontinue the Linux version'.

    • Re:I'm somewhat confused (Score:5, Informative)

      by Curtman ( 556920 ) on Wednesday June 22, 2005 @01:30PM (#12882981)
      Were you thinking of Codewarrior [metrowerks.com] maybe?
      • Yea, that's probably what I was thinking of. Silly me. Ironically, I don't use their Linux CrossOver stuff (or other offerings) because its just simpler and cheaper to dual boot Linux. But I don't really think software companies are about to think "Sure, its reasonable to think that mac users are willing to spend extra money just to use our software."
        • "But I don't really think software companies are about to think "Sure, its reasonable to think that mac users are willing to spend extra money just to use our software.""

          That's what I thought about Crossover, and WineX on Linux. Wine is free (and $0) and works just as well 99% of the time. Aparrently some people are interested in them though. Codeweavers does contribute a lot back to Wine. If Wine gets a native port to OS X, that should mean more developers helping to implementing the MS API. That ca
    • Codeweavers, not CodeWarrior.
    • Are you thinking of CodeWarrior [codewarrior.com]?

  • I've been expecting... (Score:3, Informative)

    by wolf31o2 ( 778801 ) on Wednesday June 22, 2005 @01:14PM (#12882803)
    ...to hear this one of these days. When I had lunch with Steven Edwards of Codeweavers a couple weeks back, he mentioned how this idea was being thrown around. I wish them the best of luck and hope this helps them get some more capital and market share. I only hope that it does not come at the expense of native ports.
  • This is the company that built a GUI on top of WINE, and it only works with certain programs? I was running Fedora Core 3, and a Trouble Ticketing client that I used to use (Remedy) worked quite well on Codeweavers, however, Microsoft Office's Access didn't. Now, I know there are all kinds of problems with Access's operation on Linux.

    I think that this will be a step in the right direction to enable personnel to be able to run Windows programs on Mac OS X, in turn greatly improving it's user base.

    Game

    • Correction (Score:5, Informative)

      by bluGill ( 862 ) on Wednesday June 22, 2005 @01:27PM (#12882945)

      This is not a company making a GUI on top of Wine. This is a company that hired the most active WINE developers and told them to focus on getting programing like Microsoft Office and iTunes working in Wine. They provide support for anyone who wants to use Wine but needs help. This includes those looking for an easy port to of their Windows Application to Linux, and those who just want to see more applications work on Linux that are now Windows only.

      True it only works with certain programs. However there are more are more all the time.

  • From the folks who make MS Office, Photoshop, Visio, Quicken, and Lotus Notes run on Linux, I see this as a sweet move for both them and the Apple community!

    Mac Users Also Benefit
    The impending architectural changes for Mac computers also bodes well for legions of Macintosh users who wish to run Windows applications even when no Mac version is available. By installing CrossOver Office on Intel-based Macs, many Windows-only applications, including Windows-based games, utilities, and business applicat
    • many Windows-only applications, including Windows-based games, utilities, and business applications, will operate seamlessly and reliably

      That would be a great incentive for people to switch, because in my experience many Windows-only applications do not operate seamlessly and reliably under Windows.

      This is not a joke.

  • half life 2 on a mac (Score:4, Insightful)

    by OmniVector ( 569062 ) <se e m y h o mepage> on Wednesday June 22, 2005 @01:17PM (#12882832) Homepage
    the day i launch half life 2 on my mac, i'll weep a tear of joy. but to anyone in the know, this news is entirely obvious (and expected). codeweaver and transgaming will instantly have double the market. and not only is this new market bigger than linux, it's more standardized. no need to support 5 distros, 5 package formats, 10 different library versions of dependencies and no need to statically link things. they even can pick a single gui frontend (cocoa) and not worry about the huge amount of complaints. (omg you didn't use qt! you didn't use gtk!).
    • Just a correction... Cocoa isn't a gui front end. Cocoa is apple's brand name for a programming language (objective c). Carbon is sometimes referred to with Cocoa. The carbon API of Mac OS X made it easier to transition from OS 9 to OS X. Aqua is the name for Apple's GUI.
    • Not to mention this is a new market of people who are used to and willing to spend money on software. Will easily sell lots.
      • Please mod this little fucker as Troll. Mac piracy is rampant, just as in the Windows world. OTOH, people running Linux care much more about respecting software licensing. Not that I'm saying that no Linux users ever pirate software, just that it's completely unjustified to claim that Mac users are better in that area.

        BTW I have bought a CrossOver Office license from Codeweavers. If I was a pirate, I probably wouldn't run Linux.
    • Why don't you then?
      1. Switch on Mac
      2. Install chosen ppc Linux distro
      3. Update graphics card driver
      4. Install Cedega
      5. Install Half Life 2 with Cedega
      6. Play Half Life 2 on your Mac
      7. Shed tear

  • To save you reading slashdot... (Score:5, Funny)

    by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) ( 613870 ) on Wednesday June 22, 2005 @01:17PM (#12882838) Journal
    ...I'm listing some of the upcoming stories in advance here:
    1. Microsoft will be developing Office for Mac on Intel
    2. Blizzard will be developing games for Mac on Intel
    3. Intel will start developing compilers for Mac on Intel
    4. gcc will continue to be developed for Mac on Intel
    5. Some current game developers who don't develop Mac games will now develop games for Mac on Intel
    6. Some current application developers who don't develop Mac games will now develop application for Mac on Intel
    7. Some PowerPC based software will no longer be developed for Mac on Intel
    8. Virtual machines allowing you to run Windows will be developed for Mac on Intel
    9. Some companies who currently don't develop device drivers for Macs will now develop them for Mac on Intel
    10. Some open source projects will now be developed for Mac on Intel
    11. Some open source projects currently being developed for Mac on PowerPC will no longer be developed for Mac on Intel
    12. Some company, probably in the Far East, will develop hard drives that store more data than current hard drives.

    I'm thinking of maybe getting a job as a pundit so I can get paid for this and have people respect me as an expert. Any suggestions where I should send my resume?

  • I'll be looking forward to that--if Garmin's MapSource program runs under it. (It isn't currently listed.)

    While I'd much prefer a native application, I'd far rather run MapSource in an emulator or API port than have to have a second machine around. It runs well enough under VirtualPC (I hear), but that would have cost more than buying a low-end barebones PC and an OEM copy of Windows.

    But something portable would be best; so being able to run a few needed Windows-only apps on an iBook will be a big

  • Good Apps (Score:5, Interesting)

    by NardofDoom ( 821951 ) on Wednesday June 22, 2005 @01:28PM (#12882963)
    One of the things I've loved about being a Mac user is the really great applications from small developers. Delicious Library, Adium, Transmit, Burning Monkey Solitaire, OmniGraffle; all great apps.

    While I'm sure that these great apps won't go away once we switch to Intel, I'm afraid they'll get lost in the dreck that's out there for PCs as things get ported over.

    • Good point, but I think that as long as there's a Mac "community" and sites such as versiontracker.com, the good apps will get the most word-of-mouth.

      If the Mac platform were somehow to become as popular as Windows, then I could see a real danger here because the Mac's quirky uniqueness inspires so many Mac fans, developers among them. I think the removal of perhaps the most distinguishing hardware feature, the PowerPC CPU, was so upsetting to so many for this reason.

    • Re:Good Apps (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Absentminded-Artist ( 560582 ) on Wednesday June 22, 2005 @02:20PM (#12883536) Homepage
      I respectfully disagree. How did you hear about Delicious Library? It created buzz. Even though there had been how many countless "categorize your comics/videos/games/books into a searchable database" apps out there Delicious Library still turned heads. Same with the other apps. Word of mouth and positive reviews push certain apps to the top. The only thing that I think gigabytes of dreck will do for the Mac software community is make it harder for the cream to rise to the top, but the cream will still rise.

      A lot of people are bemoaning the fact that with apps being able to run natively in Windows mode on the Macintels that nobody will bother porting their apps over to OSX. Although there will be some lazy/cheap idiot developers out there who will take this approach native OSX apps will get the buzz and the recommendations and ultimately the sales.

      Although I am very excited about running my favorite PC fractal apps in Windows mode on Macintels (http://www.cootey.com/fractals/ [cootey.com]) I still look forward to the day that a Mac developer brings a fractal app to OS X that outperforms UltraFractal (and my UI favorite Fractal eXtreme) by taking advantage of Quartz Extreme, etc. (Yeah, I envision something called iFrac - Photoshop crossed with iMovie). If a better OS X fractal app appeared, I would switch to it even though I've been using the PC ones for years.

      That's my optimistic outtake on it anyway. I think apps will be rewarded with positive press if they come out native and Mac users will push those apps over PC ones. But we'll still have access to the PC ones if they don't have correlations on the Mac side. I see it as win-win.

      • Re:Good Apps (Score:4, Informative)

        by Oniros ( 53181 ) on Wednesday June 22, 2005 @04:30PM (#12884887)
        A lot of people are bemoaning the fact that with apps being able to run natively in Windows mode on the Macintels that nobody will bother porting their apps over to OSX. Although there will be some lazy/cheap idiot developers out there who will take this approach native OSX apps will get the buzz and the recommendations and ultimately the sales.

        Actually, straight port from Windows to System 7/Mac OS 8/9 was tried (via some cross-platform frameworks), the ports looked like Windows apps and behaved oddly. No one cared for them.

        Most Mac users like their apps to be Mac-like and behave in a fashion consistent with the Mac user interface guidelines. Straight ports won't cut it. So I don't think a flood of oddly behaving apps (by Mac OS X standards) will have any effects on the Mac software developers.
        • I couldn't agree more. One of the main reason I enjoy using my Mac is that it looks nice (and yes, I do a lot of Unix hacking as well).

          I've consistently found that I try programs that were written for Windows (or even Mac only programs), but I keep coming back to truly user-friendly programs (i.e. I still use Fetch instead of Fugu because Fetch just works better interface-wise).
        • This is why X11 apps don't fare well on the Mac either... They're painful to use. Simple as that.
    • Well Mac OS on Intel probably wont run windows programs. Like Linux doesn't run windows programs. So all those small developers still will probably have their way. And I dont see an Influx of PC Developers going We will do Mac now. If they havent done so for Linux and they are not doing Mac now they probably wont do it for OS X86. Unless the Mac OS X86 becomes very popular. And everyone hase them and they are as common as Dells are today, there wont be a major change in developmnet.

    • One of the things I've loved about being a Mac user is the really great applications from small developers. Delicious Library, Adium, Transmit, Burning Monkey Solitaire, OmniGraffle; all great apps.
      While I'm sure that these great apps won't go away once we switch to Intel, I'm afraid they'll get lost in the dreck that's out there for PCs as things get ported over.

      I don't think that'll happen, because the newer apps from small developers are the ones most likely to be Cocoa'd and "clean" - and easy to comp

  • This is shaping up to be a big deal. Bigger than I thought it would.

    I'm hoping this will bridge the gap in the users of macs and PCs. Bring mac users closer to not being second class citizens in the software market.

  • Should help *bsd as well. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by bluGill ( 862 ) on Wednesday June 22, 2005 @01:48PM (#12883147)

    Right now Wine support on *bsd is hit and miss. 90+% of the Wine developers only run Linux. They are not opposed to any other Unix, but they do nothing to help. Someone trying to get Wine running on *BSD will send a patch in, which will be accepted, but hours latter (sometimes before) some other patch is accepted in a different area that breaks Wine again.

    Supporting OSX should clean a lot of this up. Just running on two platforms officially will force them to keep the code cleaner. This will make Wine useful to the other BSDs. Should also help Solaris support, which I understand works less often than *BSD.

  • Mac Users are not impressed by ports. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 22, 2005 @02:08PM (#12883405)
    "Many say this could stifle Windows to OS X ports of app"

    I just downloaded NeoOffice/J for the Mac and man is it ugly.

    Mac users won't tolerate bad ports of useful apps. They might tolerate using an occasional windows port, but the Mac software creators don't have anything to worry about.
  • Since its not much different underneath, perhaps they will now support FreeBSD as well..

    While stock wine is ok, CW's stuff improves things greatly...

  • The real issue here (Score:1, Interesting)

    by rob123 ( 889566 )
    The real issue with this is that WINE on OS X may run 'essential' windows apps 'good enough'. That's the problem.

    Now, if it's going to cost you quite a bit of money to do a native port to OS X of your app, why bother? I mean your app runs 'good enough'.

    This is a massive negative for mac users who (unlike most linux and windows users) are used to a consistent user interface and extremely high quality, innovative software.

    These apps that will run 'good enough' in Wine will not deliver this experience, but
    • the corporations are concerned they do not need to do a mac port now their product is usable on the mac platform

      Those corporations, I suspect, are the ones which currently don't offer Mac ports of their applications at all, or they do, offer only poorly-thought-out versions that look like their Windows counterparts. The people who put effort into developing good Mac apps will have no reason not to continue doing so.
    • Developers who settle for good enough won't sell their software to mac users.

    • Grammar Nazi attack (Score:3, Informative)

      by bursch-X ( 458146 )
      Well maybe the application is good enough, but if it runs, it cannot possibly run good enough.

      I might run well enough, though.
    • I suspect people will use this as a migration tool. Move to Mac, but keep the odd Windows program you still need around, and then gradually replace them with OS X native apps. If you've tried using Winelib or X11 apps in OS X, you will know how painful they are (none of the shortcuts that work everywhere else work, so the lost productivity is huge). If the company produces a native port (with a proper native GUI, not just Aqua buttons on the same Windows GUI) then they will probably be able to persuade p

  • What's the point? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Kevin Burtch ( 13372 ) on Wednesday June 22, 2005 @02:25PM (#12883579)
    Don't get me wrong, I love Codeweavers... I'm not only a customer, but I've recommended their products to some people who were very satisfied with the results.

    I just don't see the point of Crossover Office for a platform on which MS-Office is already available.
    Granted, the current MacOS version of MS-Office is compiled for ppc, but since it is a current product, is obvious they'd recompile it under x86 to sell it for MacOS on the new intel Macs.

    (before you flame me or mod this a troll, make sure you know what Crossover Office really _is_ - it is NOT an Office suite, it lets you run MS-Office via a modified WINE)
    • It's not just an MS-Office compatibility layer, it lets you run any Windows app you want (well, most, with varying degrees of success), just like regular WINE does - only it adds a nice GUI frontend so people aren't unnerved by the 'complexities' of stock WINE.

      Please don't be confused by the name and think CrossOver Office is just an MS-Office thing - try some of your other Windows apps that *DONT* have an OS X equivalent and see how you get on.

    • Not Just Office... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by gabe ( 6734 ) on Wednesday June 22, 2005 @03:09PM (#12884093) Homepage Journal
      Yes, Office already exists on Mac OS X (for now), but there is a plethora of other software that exists only on Windows. Well, with CodeWeavers working on WINE for Mac OS X on Intel, we'll have all that other software running in Mac OS X.

      (Half-Life in Mac OS X?)
    • Because there's no crossgrade price?

      This is GREAT for Mac, absolutely wonderful and fantabulous, because it means you don't have to buy a Mac copy of Office if you already have the Windows version. Or Photoshop, or whatever. Software inertia is a major factor in switching. Eliminate that and a lot of people, who suddenly don't have to cut their losses on their software investment, will See the Light. And more users means more developers -- both commercial and F/OSS -- that want to make stuff for us.

      This f
    • MS Access is not available for OS X. Yes it is a crappy database application. The Mac is ruled by the great Filemaker.

      But some people depend on Access, because their company uses it a lot.
      Sometimes whole special apps have been made with Access.

      This is what hinders some people from switching to a Mac. You can run it only in Virtual PC at snail-speed if you have to.
    • I just don't see the point of Crossover Office for a platform on which MS-Office is already available.

      The difference is that Mac Office isn't quite the same product as Windows Office. Mac Office consists of Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and Entourage. Want Access or Project or Visio? Sorry, not going to happen (though there are comparable non-MS applications, such as FileMaker Pro for Access, or OmniGraffle for Visio). So I could see reasons that a Mac user might want to run Windows Office.

  • stifle Windows to OS X ports ? Not many... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by javaxman ( 705658 ) on Wednesday June 22, 2005 @02:43PM (#12883786) Journal
    I don't think this will prevent many ports of Windows to OS X, and here's why : companies which would target multiple operating systems will do so anyway. Companies who won't still won't.

    If you want to provide an application which is seamlessly integrated with the user's OS experience, you probably already do. If you want your product's ability to run on a platform to be dependent on a third-party piece of software, this doesn't change things for you.

    Virtual PC already exists. This just provides competition for it ( though only on Intel-based Macs, I guess ). Is there more here than that ? Why would this prevent ports more than Virtual PC on Intel, which it's probably pretty safe to assume will eventually appear ?

    Companies which don't port to OS X are making the bet that someone can't or won't come along and poach their potential customers with a similar, OS X-native application. It may be a reasonable bet, but it's still a bet...

    • Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Wednesday June 22, 2005 @03:26PM (#12884290)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • It depends entirely on the game. Many Windows-native games run without a noticeable performance loss under WINE. Heck, in World of Warcraft (on my machine, at least), I consistently get higher FPS values under WINE using the same graphics settings.

        As for buying the Windows version over the Mac version, I'd probably do that regardless, as long as a compatibility layer existed. The reason being, the Windows version will have much more resale value than the Macintel-native version. It will also run on any
      • The other important difference between games and office/home/utility apps is the user interface. Many Mac users would consider it appalling to run, say, Eudora or Word under WINE, because the Mac look and feel would be so obviously lacking. However, most commercial games run full-screen and create their own independent GUI. A game under WINE would be 90+% indistinguishable from the equivalent Mac game.

        I have great respect for the Mac porting houses, but I need to be honest. If, for example, the NWN2 Toolse

  • Good - for competition (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dark Paladin ( 116525 ) * <jhummel&johnhummel,net> on Wednesday June 22, 2005 @03:38PM (#12884418) Homepage
    I think this is a great thing. I know I have two major applications - Groove and Visio, both owned by Microsoft - that have no OS X support. Entourage supports Exchange, but not nearly as well as the original Windows MS Outlook.

    This announcement means that Virtual PC has some real competition - rather than wasting my time booting up a virtual computer, I can just run the apps I need. Could this hurt OS X with Windows developers saying "Eh - just run Codeweaver and leave us alone?". Sure - but I think more people running OS X, even if they are running Wine-enabled applications, will still be better in the long run, since the "average user" won't understand why they're being told to spend another $50 to get a program to run on their Mac - they'll either go with a PC, or, if they've grown to love OS X, they'll tell the developer to convert.

    We'll just have to see. Here's hoping Transgaming announces a similiar announcement, just for competitions sake. Like another poster, I'm also looking forward to Half Life 2 on my shiny Mactel box ;).
    • Microsoft did announce at WWDC that there was an upcoming update of Entourage that would offer more Outlook like features. Also Novell has a Mac port of Evolution which is an Outlook clone that runs under X11.
    • I don't know how much you use Visio, but you might like to take a look at OmniGraffle [omnigroup.com]. Omni Group have been developing for OS X since before it became OS X (back in the NeXT days), and they are really good at it now. They are one of the few software developers that really concentrates on producing a good and consistent UI.

      I believe that OmniGraffle lacks some of the features of Visio, but if all you need is a good diagramming package then it's worth a look.

      Disclaimer: I haven't used Visio since Micr

      • OmniGraffle is becoming a plausible alternative now that it's getting Visio import/export (XML only though). But Mac users still have very little choice when it comes to DWG/DWF/DXF. It's hard enough to find a cheap viewer, much less an editor.
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Entourage supports Exchange

      So does Tiger's Mail.app [apple.com] - quite nicely, I gather from ex-Windoze users.

  • It's more than getting the code to run... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Chief Typist ( 110285 ) on Wednesday June 22, 2005 @03:57PM (#12884618) Homepage
    Providing developers with a toolkit to port their apps to the Mac is nice, but I don't think it will have much impact on the Mac software ecosystem.

    Take a look how Java applications have been accepted by the Mac masses -- not very well. (Server side, it's a different story, of course.)

    The problem is that these Java apps don't feel like a Mac app. menu bars are in the wrong place, keyboard shortcuts are wrong or missing, control layouts are poorly aligned, fonts that are hard to read, etc.

    To make a good Mac app, it takes more than a recompile against a new toolkit. In many cases, it requires a total re-think of the UI.

    Still, I'm glad to hear about this development. It will make apps that have a marginal market available to Mac users. There are apps that are available on Windows that I'd like to have on the Mac -- and I don't care if the UI sucks.

    -ch

    • Note that you can write a Java app on OS X that uses AppKit and looks, feels and runs like a full-fledged OS X app. There are probably apps you use every day and don't notice that they're written in Java.

      However you are correct about Swing apps. They're ugly as sin.
      • However you are correct about Swing apps. They're ugly as sin.

        Swing apps aren't too bad if they don't use the native `look and feel,' because you then get a visual clue that they are going to behave differently. The problem is with SWT apps, which look native but behave very differently.

        Still, a good Java app has its core logic nicely abstracted from its display code so porting to Java/Cocoa is nice and easy, right?

  • I never switched to a mac because I need to run Act!. It runs great under Crossover Office and linux so should run as well on the mac. Hurry up new mac!

  • It better not stifle anything.... (Score:4, Informative)

    by porcupine8 ( 816071 ) on Wednesday June 22, 2005 @10:11PM (#12886759) Journal
    People keep saying that better ability to run Windows apps in OS X will "stifle development"... What people don't seem to get is that Mac users use Macs because they like the OS. Given the choice between running something on an Windows emulator and running an OS X-native application that is similar but doesn't have quite as many features, I'll take the slightly subpar native app any day. As long as it's not missing something I can't live without, being OS X native will more than make up for it.

    If I had to choose between Office and Appleworks? That'd be a toughie, since Appleworks is a piece of crap. Even then, I'd probably have to run into something I just couldn't do in Appleworks before I'd shell out the money for an emulated Office. Any less of a difference in quality, I'd take the native app in a second.

  • The following post was made by codeweavers onto the Darwine project mailing list:

    Message: 3
    Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 16:12:49 -0500
    From: Jeremy White
    To: Darwine Devel
    Subject: [Darwine] Slightly OT; we've announced a roadmap to the Mac

    I just wanted to let folks know that we've officially
    announced that we'll be providing CrossOver Office for the
    Mac. We will likely be using/supporting/aiding + abetting
    the Darwine project/process as our way of achieving that.

    This is pretty exciting for us; we've done a lot

  • I've been a Mac user for a couple years now; before that I ran Linux for a couple years; and before that Windows for far too long. One of the things I liked about the Wine approach (and therefore Codeweavers) was running apps basically in "rootless mode" - basically the same way "Classic mode" works. While it likely doesn't save you anything in terms of processor or memory usage, it just seems to be more user-friendly (or, perhaps, "less intrusive" is a more accurate phrase). VMware, Win4Lin, and Virtual PC
  • Could there be an equivalent for running Mac apps on Windows?
    • You're right -- this seems more likely.

      With Windows and Mac sharing the same CPU there has got to be a way to do at least basic Mac emulation under Windows.

      It probably won't have all the nice bells and whistles as running the same application on a Mac but, like Wine, it will be "good enough".

      What do Windows users care about Widgets, Exposé, Quartz Extreme, etc.? What they don't have they won't miss. :)

      -Aaron-

      • Won't happen.

        1) As much of a moving target Win32 is, OS X is even more so.

        2) WINE runs apps not available on Linux. What Mac apps are you going to run which aren't available on Win32?

        3) There hasn't even been an open source implementation of the QuickTime API. How the heck are you going to support Mac apps which frequently mix Carbon/Cocoa/QuickTime/CG/HDI code?
    • Its more likely to run Mac apps under Linux. If the programer write it using Objective-C. A linux box using OpenStep, might be able to recompile it. Is there OpenStep for Windows?

Slashdot Top Deals

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell

Close