interesting

Quote:

Even better, remember that Steve Jobs signed the dotted line with the Evil Empire in 1997 that gave both companies a five-year patent cross-licensing agreement. Many, myself included, figured Microsoft would loot the labs of Cupertino and Jobs would never get that CEO job for sure after Apple fell deeper into its abyss. But take note of the signing date and when Windows XP was release. October 25, 2001 was the date the Luna interface of XP hit desktops around the world which was 10 months before the agreement was to expire. Thus, Apple had full access and rights to the API. Since the agreement allows for the technology to be used, that was developed during the five year covenant, even after expiration of the deal, Apple's definitely been running Windows API's in OS X for some time for sure. Remember how long OS X was running on Intel chips? Yup, since 10.0. But if you don't believe me, then believe Cringely because he has sources who have seen! I'm told Apple has long had this running in the Cupertino lab - Intel Macs running OS X while mixing Apple and XP applications. This is not a guess or a rumor, this something that has been demonstrated and observed by people who have since reported to me.

_________________
"If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you." - Oscar Wilde

"Will OSX run Windows software natively?"

Erm, even windows doesn't run windows software natively!

Not properly anyway.

_________________
SEX SUX

Sex doesn't prove to me that sex doesn't suck.

@T_Bone

I think it will, even if not from Apple.

http://darwine.opendarwin.org/

_________________
All glory to the Hypnotoad!

@T_Bone
Definitely yes, using some form of virtual machine, but with the x86 cpu being used natively like ShapeShifter did.

There is NO way Apple has the resources to completely re-implement the Windows API as wrappers around OS X APIs - just look at the troubles Wine has had with compatability. Even Microsoft would have trouble reimplementing the Windows API around another OS, which is why it has not even tried (beyond DOS anyway), despite the potential benefits of vastly increased stability, speed & security.

_________________
Author of the PortablE programming language.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue...

@billt

I am almost 100% sure that this is one of the main reason for the CPU shift

_________________
Best regards,
hnl_dk - Henning Nielsen Lund [Denmark]

Please send no PM to me, email me if you want to contact me. See you somewhere else.

@hnl_dk

Sorry, but this is one of those "does my face look bothered?" moments, you can boot into Windows XP on a Mac, you can run Windows apps in i386 Linux, so probably, but who cares?

I want to see Mac applications on my Amiga 1. Even if I have to emulate the whole OS prefeably without using Linux, natively on OS4.

_________________
Rage quited 29th May 2011

@ChrisH

I'm not sure you mean the word "resources" do you? I mean, both Apple and Microsoft have a huge development base (resource) and big pots of cash (resource.)

What do you mean "resources"?

Rude!

_________________

@T_Bone

Who cares, this is an Amiga site.

ace

@acefnq

here, here

_________________
Power Mac DP 1.8 GHZ, 4 Gb Ram and still trying to get EUAE in full speed

@acefnq

Quote:

acefnq wrote: @T_Bone Who cares, this is an Amiga site. ace

It's the General Computing and Technology forum.

neener!

_________________
"If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you." - Oscar Wilde

@Rudei who said Quote:

I'm not sure you mean the word "resources" do you? I mean, both Apple and Microsoft have a huge development base (resource) and big pots of cash (resource.)

Yeah, and my point was that even in those cases it would be rather difficult. The Windows API is a huge mess, and poorly documented with many 'secret' side-effects.

BTW, Apple is a tiny fish compared to Microsoft. I can't recall the figures, but Apple managed to produce OS X at something like 100 times less cost (maybe even 1000) than Microsoft took to produce a version of Windows (probably XP or Vista). While that may demonstrate that Microsoft is hugely inefficienct compared to Apple, it also demonstrates that Apple has far more limited resources. And some things can't avoid needing large resources.

Last edited by ChrisH on 30-Apr-2006 at 08:06 AM.

_________________
Author of the PortablE programming language.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue...

@ChrisH

You're figues seem a little vague (!) but I think that says that MS is 100/1000 more bloated than Apple!

If they started on a level field, everything runnning on same hardware/no nasty competative stuff, MacOS would bury Windows on use, as it's so much better.

Proably good it hasn't as Apple are EVIL, apparently.

And you could say the same about OS4... Not that they're evil, you understand

_________________
Rage quited 29th May 2011

@ChrisH

Quote:

ChrisH wrote: @Rudei who said Quote: I'm not sure you mean the word "resources" do you? I mean, both Apple and Microsoft have a huge development base (resource) and big pots of cash (resource.) Yeah, and my point was that even in those cases it would be rather difficult. The Windows API is a huge mess, and poorly documented with many 'secret' side-effects.

But according to the article, Apple have a technology license to it. Microsoft would be dragged into court in less than half a second if they pulled anything, oh, anticompetitive, especially considering the agreement.

_________________
"If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you." - Oscar Wilde

@T_Bone

Mixing the two OS's can be a move to Blow away Linux?

_________________
retired

@T_Bone

Even if Apple do have a license to it, that only enables them to implement the documented parts of the Windows APIs. If they want complete compatibility, they'd also need to implement all of the undocumented features and all of the bugs - that's a task that just seems to be unfeasible.

The virtualisation route seems to be much more likely to me.

_________________

@ChrisH

Virtualization is the way to go. If they do anything like that, they're not gonna re-implement Windows, they'll pull off a "classic".

_________________

I think the closest we will get is WINE... And i honestly dont think it is a very good idea to be binary compitable with Windows anyways, since these would mean less Mac native software for OSX, since developers dosent bother porting or programming on the Mac anymore, since OSX will run the Windows binary anyways.

This is one of the reasons to why os/2 died. It was superiour to windows in many ways, but it had nearly zero native software in the end since it was able to run win3x 16bit applications. They were screwed completly when win9x came out, because then microsoft would not let them have an emulator for this new 32 bit OS.

@ChrisH

If you read the quote, it clearly says that it is *already working*. It's not a question of whether or not this is possible, but whether Apple chooses to bring it to market or not.

And you clearly have no idea how big cash reserves Apple actually have. That doesn't mean they waste them where it's not necessary. I don't think it's an easy peasy job being at Apple. You're expected to perform and if you don't you're out - or probably didn't get in in the first place. Look at Microsoft - they're now aiming to cut down the number of employees by at least 6% each year from now.

@T_Bone

Quote:

But according to the article, Apple have a technology license to it. Microsoft would be dragged into court in less than half a second if they pulled anything, oh, anticompetitive, especially considering the agreement.

It's not as simple as that, though. Both companies have a mutual license to technology up till (IIRC) 2002. That means everything since then can be changed without any notice between the two.

Vista could have broken this entirely, but since it'll mostly just be XP with extra gloss, applications should still work as long as you're API compatible.

@T_Bone

A firm...dunno. It would be interesting if it happened, and likely result in more sales for Apple.

For whomever said 'oh, but you can now boot into XP,' that's only valid for the gamers really, as much of an advantage...it does little for professionals who may have a preference of OS X, but occasionally need a specific Windows program (for example, OpenOffice.org's spreadsheet still isn't 100% with some complex spreadsheets, although it's usually fine.)

Virtualization and running concurrently is of much more use for most tasks, games excluded. I run Linux on my work systems (as well as home), but have a VM handy for if I _really_ need to run Windows for something specific. In the past, I've also used WINE for running MS Office apps on Linux, as well as Visio..rebooting and disrupting my workflow isn't a great option, which working through either WINE or a VML at the same time allows me to multi-task, or even grab data from the Windows app or VM instance and share it with my native Linux apps. Much better

_________________
Are we not done with the same silly arguments and flames yet??!