Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Dark Helmet · Apr 21, 2006, 02:57 PM

"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."

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20060420.html

God I hope it is true. This is what I was praying for ever since I heard of redbox.

Goldfinger · Apr 21, 2006, 03:03 PM

hmm

Chuckit · Apr 21, 2006, 03:07 PM

Considering the Mac API isn't placed in the kernel, that would be quite surprising.

SpaceMonkey · Apr 21, 2006, 03:07 PM

I'm writing entirely out of ignorance, but wouldn't this involve using some of Microsoft's intellectual property?

rickey939 · Apr 21, 2006, 03:11 PM

Haxxors rulez.®

screamingFit · Apr 21, 2006, 03:12 PM

It's probably coming but I don't think the support will be there with 10.5 - at least from Apple.

But, wow, if it did happen. Could you imagine what it would do for Apple's marketshare?

Dark Helmet · Apr 21, 2006, 03:13 PM

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

I'm writing entirely out of ignorance, but wouldn't this involve using some of Microsoft's intellectual property?

Read the whole story and ask that again.

Big Mac · 03:29 PM

SWG, that's the stupidest friggin rumor in town. Apple does not possess the copious amounts of intimate knowledge of Windows and its APIs to be able to pull such a thing off; even if it did it definitely would be a violation of M$ intellectual property rights unless they got a license from M$ to do so. And Apple's going to abandon 95% of its installed base to pull this crazy scheme off? Cringely's obviously flipped his lid, or else he's a bigger moron than Dvorak.

SpaceMonkey · Apr 21, 2006, 03:17 PM

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

Read the whole story and ask that again.

Whoops. Yeah. I definitely skimmed past that part.

production_coordinator · Apr 21, 2006, 03:23 PM

I have mixed feelings about XP/Vista applications running on my Mac.

Why would I port something to the OS X APIs?

SpaceMonkey · Apr 21, 2006, 03:24 PM

Whether or not it's feasible, I'm not sure it would really serve Apple's interests in the same way that dual-booting Windows XP does. Apple is a hardware company, but its operating system is really how it distinguishes itself from the rest of the hardware companies. Boot camp is great because it allows someone to natively run Win XP applications, but rebooting is enough of a hassle that it probably encourages people to look for Mac OS alternatives. And while the Win XP applications would be running IN Mac OS, it wouldn't be seamless and it would probably disrupt the brand identity of OS X if someone was using Windows applications all the time.

mduell · Apr 21, 2006, 03:29 PM

Originally Posted by Big Mac

SWG, that's the stupidest friggin rumor in town. Apple does not have the intimate knowledge of Windows and its APIs to be able to pull such a thing off; even if it did it definitely would be a violation of M$ intellectual property rights unless they got a license from M$ to do so. And Apple's going to abandon 95% of its installed base to pull this crazy scheme off? Cringely's obviously flipped his lid, or else he's a bigger moron than Dvorak.

From the article:

Remember Steve Jobs' first days back at Apple in 1997 as Interim-CEO-for-Life? Trying to save the company, Steve got Bill Gates to invest $150 million in Apple and promise to keep Mac Office going for a few more years in exchange for a five-year patent cross-licensing agreement? The idea in everyone's mind, of course, was that Microsoft would grab lots of Apple technology, which they probably did, and it quite specifically ended an Apple patent infringement suit against Microsoft. But I'm told that the exchange wasn't totally one-way, that Apple, in turn, got some legal right to the Windows API.

That agreement ran for five years, from August, 1997 to August 2002. Even though it has since expired, the rights it conferred at the time still lie with the respective companies. Whatever Microsoft grabbed from Apple they can still use, they just aren't able to grab anything developed since August 2002. Same for Apple using Microsoft technology like that in Office X. But Windows XP shipped October 25, 2001: 10 months before the agreement expired.

Personally, I doubt the Windows APIs are documented well enough to reimplement.

goMac · Apr 21, 2006, 03:31 PM

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

"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."

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20060420.html

God I hope it is true. This is what I was praying for ever since I heard of redbox.

I could see Apple replacing Mach with something like L4, but never something based off of Windows NT. Sorry.

Dark Helmet · Apr 21, 2006, 03:34 PM

Originally Posted by production_coordinator

Why would I port something to the OS X APIs?

The same could be said for:

1) Why re-write your OS9 app to OSX if there is classic?
2) Why port your OSX app to universal if there is rosetta?
3) Why write sofware for Mac when it has 3% marketshare?
4) Why write any OSX app when there is bootcamp?

production_coordinator · Apr 21, 2006, 03:36 PM

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

Whether or not it's feasible, I'm not sure it would really serve Apple's interests in the same way that dual-booting Windows XP does. Apple is a hardware company, but its operating system is really how it distinguishes itself from the rest of the hardware companies. Boot camp is great because it allows someone to natively run Win XP applications, but rebooting is enough of a hassle that it probably encourages people to look for Mac OS alternatives. And while the Win XP applications would be running IN Mac OS, it wouldn't be seamless and it would probably disrupt the brand identity of OS X if someone was using Windows applications all the time.

I completely agree.

With Boot Camp... you still have to buy Apple's hardware.

goMac · Apr 21, 2006, 03:47 PM

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

The same could be said for:

1) Why re-write your OS9 app to OSX if there is classic?
2) Why port your OSX app to universal if there is rosetta?
3) Why write sofware for Mac when it has 3% marketshare?
4) Why write any OSX app when there is bootcamp?

If Win32 was included as part of OS X, Win32 would be considered a native API on Mac OS X, and everyone would write for Win32.

Dark Helmet · Apr 21, 2006, 03:50 PM

Originally Posted by production_coordinator

I completely agree.

With Boot Camp... you still have to buy Apple's hardware.

But windows users have shown they care more about price than features or looks.

Big Mac · Apr 21, 2006, 03:59 PM

Originally Posted by goMac

If Win32 was included as part of OS X, Win32 would be considered a native API on Mac OS X, and everyone would write for Win32.

Of course they would. It most assuredly would be the end of OS X. But what Cringely outlines is completely infeasible anyway, so it's really a pointless discussion to have.

Dark Helmet · Apr 21, 2006, 04:05 PM

All I want is a Classic that runs windows apps. Not in a separate window and withought having to see the XP desktop.

Sourbook · Apr 21, 2006, 04:08 PM

If Apple could pull this off, it would be the biggest industry coups since MS stole the GUI from Apple.

Big Mac · Apr 21, 2006, 04:09 PM

Use your head, SWG, why would that be a desirable thing? If there were no real penalty for running Windows apps, there would be little to no incentive to write Mac apps anymore for the vast majority of developers. Most all developers are far more versed in Win32 than in Carbon or Cocoa, so if it were acceptable to Mactel customers to run Windows applications, they would kill their Mac development efforts in a heartbeat. This should not be a difficult concept to grasp.

goMac · Apr 21, 2006, 04:22 PM

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

All I want is a Classic that runs windows apps. Not in a separate window and withought having to see the XP desktop.

Oh boy... where to start with this one...

1) Windows can't be loaded onto the same partition as OS X.
2) Windows can't read HFS, meaning you couldn't just open documents in a Windows environment off of your HFS partition.
3) Windows Vista renders it's windows entirely in DirectX, meaning these Windows couldn't be rendered easily in OS X's OpenGL environment.
4) How would you launch Windows applications without a start menu?
5) How would you use Windows applications that require taskbar interaction?
6) What would you do about MDI applications? Menu bars?

And the list goes on...

Mithras · Apr 21, 2006, 04:27 PM

Well, it would be interesting if Parallels had a "translucent desktop mode", which would simply run XP fullscreen but with a see- and click-through desktop. You'd have to move your Dock or your Taskbar somewhere else, obviously, and it'd be weird to have all of the Windows apps in one layer, but I imagine it could be done without a great deal of effort.

Tomchu · 05:53 PM

It's possible to do, but difficult. Still, if anyone can pull it off and make it look slick, it's Apple (with the help of the WINE team and the work they've done so far, of course).

Apple has already "adopted" an open-source project, and done huge work on it -- KHTML. There's nothing stopping them from grabbing WINE, stabilizing it greatly, and integrating it into OS X. Each subsequent Leopard upgrade could come with some updated "WINE" components -- kind of like how they do it with PHP. It's been updated at least 3 times now in Tiger.

SpaceMonkey · Apr 21, 2006, 05:12 PM

I can also see Microsoft completely dropping its Mac Business Unit if this happened.

meelk · Apr 21, 2006, 05:21 PM

Originally Posted by Big Mac

SWG, that's the stupidest friggin rumor in town. Apple does not possess the copious amounts of intimate knowledge of Windows and its APIs to be able to pull such a thing off; even if it did it definitely would be a violation of M$ intellectual property rights unless they got a license from M$ to do so. And Apple's going to abandon 95% of its installed base to pull this crazy scheme off? Cringely's obviously flipped his lid, or else he's a bigger moron than Dvorak.

In a stunning move, BAPCo, the industry-standard Windows benchmarking consortium, announced that Apple Computer has joined up as a member. BAPCo is responsible for the SYSmark 2004SE and MobileMark benchmark suites we use at PC Magazine Labs for testing PCs. BAPCo also produces the webserver test WEBmark.
http://gearlog.com/blogs/gearlog/arc...3/28/8751.aspx

I'll say it again: Apple is going to offer osx to the general pc buying public within 5 years.

SpaceMonkey · Apr 21, 2006, 05:26 PM

Originally Posted by meelk

In a stunning move, BAPCo, the industry-standard Windows benchmarking consortium, announced that Apple Computer has joined up as a member. BAPCo is responsible for the SYSmark 2004SE and MobileMark benchmark suites we use at PC Magazine Labs for testing PCs. BAPCo also produces the webserver test WEBmark.
http://gearlog.com/blogs/gearlog/arc...3/28/8751.aspx

That article is dated March 28. Boot Camp was announced April 5. Apple could have joined purely because of Boot Camp.

meelk · Apr 21, 2006, 05:28 PM

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

That article is dated March 28. Boot Camp was announced April 5. Apple could have joined purely because of Boot Camp.

I know how old the article is, I retrieved it from my original post in my history. It does not change my mind, I've stated my belief in Apple offering osx to the general public for some time now.

besson3c · Apr 21, 2006, 05:30 PM

Originally Posted by Big Mac

SWG, that's the stupidest friggin rumor in town. Apple does not possess the copious amounts of intimate knowledge of Windows and its APIs to be able to pull such a thing off; even if it did it definitely would be a violation of M$ intellectual property rights unless they got a license from M$ to do so. And Apple's going to abandon 95% of its installed base to pull this crazy scheme off? Cringely's obviously flipped his lid, or else he's a bigger moron than Dvorak.

Ever heard of WINE? It's existed for a long time...

- - e r i k - - · Apr 21, 2006, 05:31 PM

Originally Posted by goMac

Oh boy... where to start with this one...

1) Windows can't be loaded onto the same partition as OS X.

Yes it can. Using a Virtual HD or by loading OS X onto a NTFS partition (with presumably full r/w support coming in Leopard).

Originally Posted by goMac

2) Windows can't read HFS, meaning you couldn't just open documents in a Windows environment off of your HFS partition.

Yes it can using a number of products.

Originally Posted by goMac

3) Windows Vista renders it's windows entirely in DirectX, meaning these Windows couldn't be rendered easily in OS X's OpenGL environment.

True. But this is just the UI enviroment in Windows Vista (Windows Presentation Foundation). Presumably as long as no app required it (none do so far), it could be rendered under Quartz just as easily. Darwine does this right now.

Originally Posted by goMac

4) How would you launch Windows applications without a start menu?

Seriously? You double-click the executable. Just like on a Mac.

Originally Posted by goMac

5) How would you use Windows applications that require taskbar interaction?

Run it as a menu-bar item.

Originally Posted by goMac

6) What would you do about MDI applications? Menu bars?

No one said running Windows applications under OS X would be beautiful. X11 apps behave the same way.

besson3c · Apr 21, 2006, 05:31 PM

Originally Posted by production_coordinator

I have mixed feelings about XP/Vista applications running on my Mac.

Why would I port something to the OS X APIs?

OS X integration and support of OS X core technologies.

besson3c · Apr 21, 2006, 05:33 PM

Originally Posted by mduell

Personally, I doubt the Windows APIs are documented well enough to reimplement.

Ever heard of WINE? They've gotten Office, iTunes, even IE 6 to run in it.

goMac · Apr 21, 2006, 05:33 PM

Originally Posted by meelk

In a stunning move, BAPCo, the industry-standard Windows benchmarking consortium, announced that Apple Computer has joined up as a member. BAPCo is responsible for the SYSmark 2004SE and MobileMark benchmark suites we use at PC Magazine Labs for testing PCs. BAPCo also produces the webserver test WEBmark.
http://gearlog.com/blogs/gearlog/arc...3/28/8751.aspx

I'll say it again: Apple is going to offer osx to the general pc buying public within 5 years.

That's entirely different than Apple switching to an NT based kernel. I think BAPCo's role is probably to bench Windows, not Windows compatible OS's.

SpaceMonkey · Apr 21, 2006, 05:34 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

OS X integration and support of OS X core technologies.

Why would they care about these things?

besson3c · Apr 21, 2006, 05:35 PM

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Of course they would. It most assuredly would be the end of OS X. But what Cringely outlines is completely infeasible anyway, so it's really a pointless discussion to have.

Not true.

smacintush · Apr 21, 2006, 05:37 PM

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Use your head, SWG, why would that be a desirable thing? If there were no real penalty for running Windows apps, there would be little to no incentive to write Mac apps anymore for the vast majority of developers.

I wasn't into computers then, but isn't this exactly what killed OS/2?

meelk · Apr 21, 2006, 05:38 PM

Originally Posted by goMac

That's entirely different than Apple switching to an NT based kernel. I think BAPCo's role is probably to bench Windows, not Windows compatible OS's.

Steve doesnt seem to look at things from that kind of very singular perspective.
I'd say its only one piece of a larger plan. Apple is going to have to continue to make changes for the eventual loss of steam the ipod will face as time goes on.

besson3c · Apr 21, 2006, 05:39 PM

Originally Posted by goMac

1) Windows can't be loaded onto the same partition as OS X.

You can with WINE, Xen, Qemu, and VMWare.

2) Windows can't read HFS, meaning you couldn't just open documents in a Windows environment off of your HFS partition.

You can with WINE.

3) Windows Vista renders it's windows entirely in DirectX, meaning these Windows couldn't be rendered easily in OS X's OpenGL environment.

You're thinking of Glass, there are still other display options

4) How would you launch Windows applications without a start menu?

Double clicking on them. WINE does this.

5) How would you use Windows applications that require taskbar interaction?

Which do?

6) What would you do about MDI applications? Menu bars?

What are MDI applications?

goMac · Apr 21, 2006, 05:40 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

Not true.

It is very infeasable. Switching kernels would mean all our extensions would have to be rewritten, and we could no longer run OS X programs (which are compiled as Mach-O).

I don't know what Cringly is into but it must be awful good.

As I mentioned earlier, there are kernels like L4 which have Mach compatibility layers, but no such thing would really be possible under NT.

besson3c · Apr 21, 2006, 05:40 PM

Originally Posted by Tomchu

It's possible to do, but difficult. Still, if anyone can pull it off and make it look slick, it's Apple (with the help of the WINE team and the work they've done so far, of course).

Apple has already "adopted" an open-source projected, and done huge work on it -- KHTML. There's nothing stopping them from grabbing WINE, stabilizing it greatly, and integrating it into OS X. Each subsequent Leopard upgrade could come with some updated "WINE" components -- kind of like how they do it with PHP. It's been updated at least 3 times now in Tiger.

Yes... Crossover Office has already done this. It can be done!

besson3c · Apr 21, 2006, 05:43 PM

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

Why would they care about these things?

They very well could not, I suppose it depends on the user breakdown and the resources of the company. However, there are many companies that would have never developed for OS X anyway..

besson3c · Apr 21, 2006, 05:44 PM

Originally Posted by goMac

It is very infeasable. Switching kernels would mean all our extensions would have to be rewritten, and we could no longer run OS X programs (which are compiled as Mach-O).

I don't know what Cringly is into but it must be awful good.

As I mentioned earlier, there are kernels like L4 which have Mach compatibility layers, but no such thing would really be possible under NT.

I'm not saying that switching kernels is feasible, I'm saying that what Cringly has outlined is entirely possible. It's already been done.

goMac · Apr 21, 2006, 05:49 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

I'm not saying that switching kernels is feasible, I'm saying that what Cringly has outlined is entirely possible. It's already been done.

No, what he is outlining is a heck of a lot different than WINE.

I can't and won't say much more, but Apple has probably played with WINE for fun, I doubt they'd release anything. I highly doubt they are doing any kernel level Windows support.

Chuckit · Apr 21, 2006, 05:53 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

I'm not saying that switching kernels is feasible, I'm saying that what Cringly has outlined is entirely possible. It's already been done.

Cringly is suggesting that Apple will create a monolithic kernel with the Windows API somehow "directly implemented in the OS" (whatever that means) — he explicitly says he's not talking about something like WINE.

besson3c · Apr 21, 2006, 05:56 PM

Originally Posted by goMac

No, what he is outlining is a heck of a lot different than WINE.

I can't and won't say much more, but Apple has probably played with WINE for fun, I doubt they'd release anything. I highly doubt they are doing any kernel level Windows support.

Did Cringly say something about kernel level support? If so, I apologize for my premature correction. I read this article a few days ago, but I guess I forgot about this detail.

I'm saying that producing something just like WINE is entirely possible. In fact, I think it's highly likely that they'll do so. Compatible apps would simply be a stop-gap measure - I'm sure that customers will continue to complain/demand an OS X native release from the vendor. Many vendors charge to crossgrade from an OS X -> Windows version or vice versa, so they still stand to gain money. In fact, in a way this would represent a whole new market for software developers: OS X users who don't have access to a PC who want to try out their software.

besson3c · Apr 21, 2006, 05:57 PM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Cringly is suggesting that Apple will create a monolithic kernel with the Windows API somehow "directly implemented in the OS" (whatever that means) — he explicitly says he's not talking about something like WINE.

My apologies to all! I don't know whether this would be possible or not, but it seems pretty illogical when you can do the same thing with software that is much easier to maintain.

Eriamjh · Apr 21, 2006, 08:40 PM

Isn't this what killed OS2?

awaspaas · Apr 21, 2006, 09:06 PM

It would work great, as long as the Windows apps are UGLY, and maybe a little bit slower. Then developers still have the incentive to make Mac apps. But, what if Apple released a development toolkit that made universal Mac/Windows apps. Then things would get interesting!

Dork. · Apr 21, 2006, 09:37 PM

Forget the kernel stuff. Cringley quite often goes in "technobabble" mode when he gets fixated on a technical term and pretends that it's the holy grail. He probably picked up on something one of his sources said to get to his column word quota.

I do think there's something to this, though. I do remember Red Box. WINE has proven it is possible to emulate the Windows API's without necessarily loading a copy of Windows. It may not be optimal, but its possible. I'll assume that if Apple wants to do this, they have the engineering resources to do it right. Why would they want to do it?

I think there are several reasons, but one reason is to target one of Microsoft's key weaknesses: security. If Apple can run Windows binaries natively within OS X, then wouldn't they be able to run them more securely? Can Apple implement Windows API's within OS X more securely than Microsoft can in Windows? It seems like every Windows user has had a bout with spyware and malware lately. If Apple can offer users a way to run their old programs more securely, then people will line up in droves to buy Mac Mini's!

meelk · Apr 21, 2006, 09:40 PM

I'm still of the opinion that Apple is hell bent on supplying osx to the general public within 5 years. I'd think they are most interested in getting the driver model to work flawlessly for this reason. I dont know enough about this to make assumptions beyond the one stated (which is more market oriented than technical). Could they not get the driver model/foundation working without worrying about the larger api, thereby ensuring that osx on "every pc" would be easily supported and compatible across the widest possible range of hardware and peripherals possible?

beyond something like boot camp I dont think running windows programs is their goal. They want to lock people into OSX family software, but to do that, they need your damn pc to actually work with the OS.