Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

boingboing · Aug 5, 2003, 08:44 AM

A Businessweek article had this quote:

Next, Apple's newest version of OS X, called Panther -- which is scheduled to debut later this year -- will let corporations run Windows applications on their Macs. That's a major plus, considering that nearly all companies use Windows.

Is there something new with Panther that I missed or is BW just clueless?

http://www.businessweek.com/technolo...7828_tc112.htm

GENERAL_SMILEY · Aug 5, 2003, 08:51 AM

"Next, Apple's newest version of OS X, called Panther -- which is scheduled to debut later this year -- will let corporations run Windows applications on their Macs. That's a major plus, considering that nearly all companies use Windows."
(Article from MacNN front page: http://www.businessweek.com/technolo...7828_tc112.htm )

Really?

msuper69 · Aug 5, 2003, 08:53 AM

Originally posted by boingboing:
A Businessweek article had this quote:

Next, Apple's newest version of OS X, called Panther -- which is scheduled to debut later this year -- will let corporations run Windows applications on their Macs. That's a major plus, considering that nearly all companies use Windows.

Is there something new with Panther that I missed or is BW just clueless?

http://www.businessweek.com/technolo...7828_tc112.htm

You didn't miss anything.

This article is just plain wrong. You can't run Windows applications on Mac OS X (any version) w/o Virtual PC.

They may have been trying to infer that the Xserve could be used to replace Windows servers due to the much improved connectivity.

Or, more likely, the author is clueless.

msuper69 · Aug 5, 2003, 08:54 AM

No. Not really.

Powaqqatsi · Aug 5, 2003, 08:55 AM

Eug · Aug 5, 2003, 08:57 AM

Originally posted by GENERAL_SMILEY:
"Next, Apple's newest version of OS X, called Panther -- which is scheduled to debut later this year -- will let corporations run Windows applications on their Macs. That's a major plus, considering that nearly all companies use Windows."
(Article from MacNN front page: http://www.businessweek.com/technolo...7828_tc112.htm )

Really?

No. The journalist is simply out to lunch.

MacGorilla · Aug 5, 2003, 09:00 AM

Originally posted by msuper69:
You didn't miss anything.

This article is just plain wrong. You can't run Windows applications on Mac OS X (any version) w/o Virtual PC.

They may have been trying to infer that the Xserve could be used to replace Windows servers due to the much improved connectivity.

Or, more likely, the author is clueless.

I vote clueless.

GENERAL_SMILEY · Aug 5, 2003, 09:12 AM

You beat me by six minutes to post this exciting news about Panther... I told you doubters those pre-releases didn't have all the functions implemented yet

gorickey · Aug 5, 2003, 09:14 AM

All he meant was full Exchange compatibility is going to be built-in to Panther probably...

(Do editors even get paid these days? If so, why?!?)

Millennium · Aug 5, 2003, 09:49 AM

Yeah; I vote for clueless here.

The only way it would ever be possible for Windows apps to run directly in OSX would be if OSX were first ported to the x86 architecture. May that day never come.

Millennium · Aug 5, 2003, 10:20 AM

Um, no. We have a wacko on our hands here.

gorickey · Aug 5, 2003, 10:27 AM

Another thread on this already...

I am guessing this fool meant something along the lines of Panther's built in Exchange capabilities...

Angus_D · Aug 5, 2003, 11:11 AM

It is cluelessness. I e-mailed the person that wrote that article to inform them so.

Mostly likely someone getting confused with the "improved Windows compatibility" and the "X Window System support".

::maroma:: · Aug 5, 2003, 11:15 AM

And someone paid this dolt to write this crap. Sheesh, I'm in the wrong biz.

Moose · Aug 5, 2003, 11:29 AM

Originally posted by Millennium:
The only way it would ever be possible for Windows apps to run directly in OSX would be if OSX were first ported to the x86 architecture. May that day never come.

Erm...care to elaborate on that?

DeathMan · Aug 5, 2003, 11:38 AM

Originally posted by Moose:
Erm...care to elaborate on that?

What does he need to elaborate on? There will have to be an emulation layer built into OS X to run Windows crap on OS X. If they wanted to run X86 software nativley on OS X, it'd have to be OS X on X86 which would be a disaster.

bstone · Aug 5, 2003, 11:50 AM

Originally posted by Millennium:
Yeah; I vote for clueless here.

The only way it would ever be possible for Windows apps to run directly in OSX would be if OSX were first ported to the x86 architecture. May that day never come.

::chior voices::

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaammmmmmmeeeeeeeeeeeennnnnnnnnnnn nnnnn

DBvader · Aug 5, 2003, 12:04 PM

hah, that would be cool, but maybe he got confused with the x11 compatibility?

gorickey · 12:14 PM

You have seen they revised the story already, right?

It now reads:

"Next, Apple's newest version of OS X, called Panther -- which is scheduled to debut later this year -- coupled with new emulation software from Microsoft (MSFT ) will let corporations run Windows applications on their Macs more smoothly. That's a major plus, considering that nearly all companies use Windows."

LOL.

gorgonzola · Aug 5, 2003, 12:07 PM

What? So they're bundling VirtualPC? What's the story?

Obviously the original thing was wrong, but they've left in some odd thing about running Windows apps after revising...

BTW, I merged the two threads on this together.

Bobby · Aug 5, 2003, 01:02 PM

Read the article: It says they will be able to run Windows appliations using software from Microsoft.

Microsoft bought Virtual PC from Connectix...

IE they will be able to run Windows software using Microsoft's Virtual PC...

Hi I'm Ben · Aug 5, 2003, 01:29 PM

Microsoft buying connectix was a good thing...

It's not like they could make it WORSE then what it was. VPC was garbage. Especially for the price. You could buy a faster cheap PC and use it rather then use VPC.

Originally posted by Bobby:
Read the article: It says they will be able to run Windows appliations using software from Microsoft.

Microsoft bought Virtual PC from Connectix...

IE they will be able to run Windows software using Microsoft's Virtual PC...

spiznet · Aug 5, 2003, 01:36 PM

Originally posted by Bobby:
Read the article: It says they will be able to run Windows appliations using software from Microsoft.

Microsoft bought Virtual PC from Connectix...

IE they will be able to run Windows software using Microsoft's Virtual PC...

...And on a G5 it will run at the speed of a G4!!!!
at least there is no debug code...

ambush · Aug 5, 2003, 01:55 PM

Originally posted by Moose:
Erm...care to elaborate on that?

See the 21871368127638712638127623382173681276387126381273 68213681263812638612836712836871263 threads about

Mac OS X on x86 thread on these Forums.

If Microsoft could eliminate the debug code in VPC, it'd prolly be snappier

Peter · Aug 5, 2003, 02:19 PM

It will happen because Steve Jobs will buy the microsoft and give away free dancing monkeys. No really.

gorickey · Aug 5, 2003, 02:20 PM

Originally posted by ambush:
Mac OS X on x86 thread on these Forums.

If Microsoft could eliminate the debug code in VPC, it'd prolly be snappier

Wow, in a few short keywords, you managed to sum up the MacNN forums over the past couple years...impressive:

Microsoft
Mac OS X
x86
debug code
VPC
snappier

Wevah · Aug 5, 2003, 05:52 PM

That's bizarre...I know people who work at RiskWise.

Jan Van Boghout · Aug 5, 2003, 07:07 PM

Originally posted by gorickey:
Wow, in a few short keywords, you managed to sum up the MacNN forums over the past couple years...impressive:

Microsoft
Mac OS X
x86
debug code
VPC
snappier

lol, how true

Only it should have been Debug Code� and Snappier�

LaGow · Aug 6, 2003, 09:36 AM

Originally posted by ambush:
If Microsoft could eliminate the debug code in VPC, it'd prolly be snappier

Of course that implies Microsoft is capable of shipping worthwhile code.

bracken · Aug 6, 2003, 10:14 AM

Originally posted by ::maroma:::
And someone paid this dolt to write this crap. Sheesh, I'm in the wrong biz.

Yeah, really. I wish I could get a job like that.

Moose · Aug 6, 2003, 10:25 AM

Originally posted by ambush:
See the 21871368127638712638127623382173681276387126381273 68213681263812638612836712836871263 threads about

Mac OS X on x86 thread on these Forums.

This depends on your definition of "native." First off, the article didn't say anything about native. I will, therefore, focus my post on running Windows applications TRANSPARENTLY on Mac OS X, which is what the article implied would be possible.

It is possible that this could be done. Already, Classic starts up an entire Mac OS 9 runtime that handles the abstraction between the system and the hardware. Mac OS 9 applications appear individually on the dock and run rootlessly, but are vulnerable to other applications taking the VM down. A similar trick could be done for Windows applications, although it would likely require significantly more work than Classic did.

I do not, however, think that it is likely that this will happen. Too much effort for so little gain, and it'd actually discourage Mac OS X development if it worked even passably.

yukon · Aug 8, 2003, 12:03 PM

sigh, and i was hoping that Apple had taken Bochs under it's wing and integrated it as it did KHTML/Samba/X11/etc...

bochs.sf.net for the newbies (it's an OpenSource x86 emulator like VPC, but slower and currently less able)

himself · Aug 8, 2003, 12:53 PM

Originally posted by Moose:
This depends on your definition of "native." First off, the article didn't say anything about native. I will, therefore, focus my post on running Windows applications TRANSPARENTLY on Mac OS X, which is what the article implied would be possible.

...

I do not, however, think that it is likely that this will happen. Too much effort for so little gain, and it'd actually discourage Mac OS X development if it worked even passably.

IIRC, Apple had been working on a Windows compatibility environment (dubbed the "Red Box," I believe) since the Rhapsody days. Who knows, Apple probably still maintains Red Box development to this day. Whether they decide to release it or not is a whole 'nother story.

Maybe that will be Apples "ace in the Hole"...

CharlesS · Aug 8, 2003, 01:27 PM

Originally posted by yukon:
sigh, and i was hoping that Apple had taken Bochs under it's wing and integrated it as it did KHTML/Samba/X11/etc...

bochs.sf.net for the newbies (it's an OpenSource x86 emulator like VPC, but slower and currently less able)

It's not just slower, it's completely unusable. Have you ever tried using it? You'd be an old man by the time a simple DOS game would launch.

euphras · Aug 8, 2003, 02:05 PM

Quote:" IIRC, Apple had been working on a Windows compatibility environment (dubbed the "Red Box," I believe) since the Rhapsody days. Who knows, Apple probably still maintains Red Box development to this day. Whether they decide to release it or not is a whole 'nother story."

"Red box", ........is it synonymous to "Marklar"?

BuonRotto · Aug 8, 2003, 02:59 PM

No, Marklar is a build of the OS X kernel that allows it to interact (run) on Intel chips. The system still wouldn't run Windows apps within the OS.

Red Box was this rumored environment like the Classic environment in OS X to allow Windows programs to run wherever the Mac OS would run: on either Intel chips, Motorola chips, or wherever. Red Box would have run in the OS, like Classic. Marklar doesn't care what happens in the OS, it only cares about the kernel and the hardware, and Red Box wouldn't care about what hardware it ran on. (By the way, IIRC, there was no official "red box" proejct at Apple, it was dubbed that because they had official projects with code names, "blue box" (Classic environment) and, "yellow box" (Cocoa API) and someone arbitrarily decided red would be the color for the rumored Windows runtime environment.)

All of this is mountains out of mole hills, however. This reporter made a mistake out of ignorance, not out of secret knowledge of Apple's plans or technology.

thefamousmred · Aug 8, 2003, 03:49 PM

There's another interesting possibility for Windows-on-OSX: Wine. Wine is a compatibility layer for Linux that lets you run Windows apps without running Windows. Wine was recently ported to OS X, which is seriously cool. That doesn't mean that all Windows programs will run, however. Since Wine Is Not Emulation, it will only run windows programs compiled for PowerPC (which do exist). The missing piece is to integrate an emulation layer into Wine. My understanding is that the integration would be pretty tough to do.

There's another solution, though: run WINE on top of an emulator. There's an up-and-coming x86 emulator called QEMU (http://fabrice.bellard.free.fr/qemu/) that's already capable of running Wine. QEMU runs on PowerPC Linux. If someone were to port QEMU to OS X, we might be able to run Windows apps without emulating all of windows.

While sticking an emulator into WINE and using the OSX-native version of WINE with the emulator would provide better performance, I think porting QEMU might be the path of least resistance. Any takers?