@T_Bone

You can do so with Linspire so why not with OSX which is yet-another-linux-distro ?

_________________
Philippe 'Elwood' Ferrucci
Sam460 1.10 Ghz
AmigaOS 4 betatester
Amiga Translator Organisation

@elwood

Except it's not a linux distro at all. It is a commercial *nix. Damn big difference.

Will be intresting if they do get windows crap working natively. Especially as OS X is based on freebsd UNIX.. that would mean a total rework of the entire operating system, something im sure not even apple would look upon as an easy task.

There will also be the security implications of such a move.

_________________
--
Out of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most.

@elwood

Quote:

elwood wrote: @T_Bone You can do so with Linspire so why not with OSX which is yet-another-linux-distro ?

(OSX a linux distro?)

Except in the case of OSX, Apple don't need to reverse engineer anything, their implementation might be better than not only Wine, but better than Microsoft's!

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

@gnarly

Quote:

gnarly wrote: @T_Bone Even if Apple do have a license to it, that only enables them to implement the documented parts of the Windows APIs.

I would imagine if they needed something that's undocumented, they could get it. There's never been any struggle between Apple or Microsoft over things like this in the past, and I can't imagine why Microsoft would stand in the way of helping MS Office run on OSX seeing as they'd make more on that than the OS anyway, especially if it also not only risked a lawsuit over breach of contract, but could reopen government prosecution over monopoly charges again.

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

@prism

It's merely a reimplementation of the Windows API. Nothing more.

Apple could easily do this in a sandboxed manner, so it basically runs virtualized anyway - unable to damage the OS X installation.
And again.. it's not a question of whether they can do it. They have it running already. Cringeley is one of the few writers out there who actually knows what he's talking about.

@Trezzer who said Quote:

If you read the quote, it clearly says that it is *already working*.

I simply don't believe the quote! Do you believe every rumour you hear?

It is just too unlikely & too much hard work for it to BE believable. Much more likely it is a misunderstanding about Apple/Microsoft already having Windows running fast on OS X thanks to a PC emulator that uses the current x86 cpu like ShapeShifter does for 68k.

Quote:

It's merely a reimplementation of the Windows API.

Do you know how ridiculous that statement sounds? Close to "We merely need to build a rocket for a manned expedition to Mars." Easy to say, but completely overlooks the sheer effort & expense, not to mention the huge number of small problems that need solving.

It is MUCH more likely that Microsoft will take the PC emulator they now own (Virtual PC?), and remove the need to emulate the x86 cpu on x86 machines. There have even been articles about that happening, from far more reliable sources.

Last edited by ChrisH on 02-May-2006 at 10:43 AM.

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

One final thought: Apple could well provide a subset of the Windows API on OS X (that would be feasible), but you would only be able to run a limited selection of apps, and most likely they would have to be approved by Apple in advance or otherwise used "at your own risk". Personally, I really don't think this would be worth Apple's effort though. And they would be ensuring that they have to be permanently playing the "catch-up" game, just like WINE does.

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

@ChrisH

Quote:

I simply don't believe the quote! Do you believe every rumour you hear?

I'm quite sceptical of most rumours actually. I just happen to trust what Cringely writes - and I'm sure he wouldn't be so certain of this, if he heard it from someone who wasn't entirely tech savvy.

Virtualization is no big deal. There is already a product out there that delivers that for OS X. So Virtual PC can really only offer better integration.

@ChrisH

Catch up game that currently runs many DirectX 9 games faster than native. Not bad at all... I bet on a virtual approach myself... But if they go the reimplementation way, I do not know. Their own implementation would be a waste of time, with their funds, WINE would quickly rule on all systems and it's not as if they've shown any hesitations in funding open-source projects in the past.

_________________

@RoqueFort

Quote:

RoqueFort wrote: "Will OSX run Windows software natively?" Erm, even windows doesn't run windows software natively! Not properly anyway.

I'll try to remember that the next time I'm using OpenOffice and Firefox and you're poking along with...what, Wordsworth? Aweb?

_________________
The problem with AmigaOS on PPC isn't that PPC is big-endian. The problem with AmigaOS on PPC is that PPC is dead-endian.

Erm....

Not that I've ever used Wine or anything....but I was under the impression that Wine could use either it's own re-implementation of the Windows API, or if Windows files were on the same machine, could use those, and be far more compatable.

In other words if Windows was installed on an x86 Mac running MacOS, then something like Wine would have little problem using the Windows DLLs and executables with a fair degree of success.

But I could be wrong.

Anyway, what would be the benefit of Macs running Windows software? What do Macs lack really? Even if you could run windows software those apps would surely be rather un-Mac like.

I'm sure whatever the outcome, you'd still rather run your games under Windows and Apple wouldn't be interested just for the ability to play windows games as they've steered the Mac platform away from games on many occasions.

The only situation I see that this might improve is the array of custom built business apps written for the Windows OS. This would give MacOS more leverage in the business arena, which I am sure was a factor in prompting the Intel switch. Intel boxes pose less of a risk to businesses, as they could just revert to Windows if they had Mac problems.

Ok. Going back to my happy place now.

_________________
Leo Nigro, CTO Commodore USA, LLC
Opinions expressed are my own and not those of C= USA.
Commodore/AMIGA "Beautiful, High-Performance, Home Computers for Creativity and Entertainment."

@ChrisH

Quote:

I simply don't believe the quote! Do you believe every rumour you hear? It is just too unlikely & too much hard work for it to BE believable. Much more likely it is a misunderstanding about Apple/Microsoft already having Windows running fast on OS X thanks to a PC emulator that uses the current x86 cpu like ShapeShifter does for 68k.

One thing I've learned about Apple now since the Intel announcement (which I didn't believe until it was confirmed at WWDC 2005) is that those guys really, really, (really!) plan ahead. At least 5-7 years. The philosophy of "let's invent stuff and see where it goes" seems to be long gone. There seem also to be many contingency plans for things that might go wrong.

I wouldn't be wondering one bit if there is a lab somewhere inside of Apple headquarters with OSX Leopard builds that runs WinXP apps with no trouble at all.

Apple didn't get to where they are now with Tiger without a ton of planning: Many features such as Core Image or Spotlight weren't invented overnight. It's careful design that has been implemented over years, probably since the beginning of the life of OSX 5 years ago. You can tell that by, say, comparing Tiger to its previous edition Panther. None of the features are slapped on. They are tightly integrated into the OS. Spotlight is everywhere, you can develop for it and there's a ton of documentation on how to use it. This is just from one version of the OS to the next. It's a huge jump.

Spotlight was predicted two years before Tiger was out, because specific BeOS developers were hired. They were the ones who had done the Queries technology a decade ago for BeOS which works a bit like Spotlight in Tiger.

At Apple there is no such thing as "too much hard work". It's just about hiring the right people, and I bet there might be even a few former Microsoft engineers in that lab.

@BigBentheAussie

Quote:

Anyway, what would be the benefit of Macs running Windows software? What do Macs lack really? Even if you could run windows software those apps would surely be rather un-Mac like.

It would have the benefit of easing the pain of switching and make more switchers. Nothing more.

I know lots of people who think that macs are cool, but they just can't justify buying one, because it doesn't run some obscure Windows app that they really need for their business.

Being un-mac like is probably exactly the trick, Apple want to achieve: They want Windows apps to behave like plain old ugly Windows, just like we all know it, not beautified at all. There are just a few changes. There aren't any viruses and the OS doesn't crash as often.

There would be tight integration: Filesystem access would work, clipboard would work, so it wouldn't feel separated from the OSX desktop in that sense. You can work with your Windows app on a sensible level. It's not handicapped or useless.

In the end, the impression this is supposed to give to a user is two-fold:

- OSX runs Windows apps better than Windows does.
- OSX apps are a whole lot more cool and beautiful than Windows apps. You can compare them directly on the desktop. You can even develop your own with XCode which comes for free with every Mac. All served on a silver platter.

It's about playing on the sweet tooth of the users and seduce them rather than plain old used-car-salesman talk. That's how they want to do it. That's how they make OSX advocates. It's already working. I'm preaching about OSX, Apple and their stuff every day, because I think it's good.

@TheDungeonDelver

Wouldn't it be rather silly, when there are already OS X versions of the two? ;)

@ChrisH

Quote:

ChrisH wrote: @Trezzer who said Quote: If you read the quote, it clearly says that it is *already working*. I simply don't believe the quote! Do you believe every rumour you hear? It is just too unlikely & too much hard work for it to BE believable. Much more likely it is a misunderstanding about Apple/Microsoft already having Windows running fast on OS X thanks to a PC emulator that uses the current x86 cpu like ShapeShifter does for 68k.

Adobe, who originally said it's products wouldn't be ready for Intel Macs until sometime in 2007, is planning on releasing CS3 this year, about the same time the Windows API is rumored to be made available. What's suddenly speeding up Adobe's release? Could be a coincidence, but it would explain alot of things going on.


Quote:

Quote: It's merely a reimplementation of the Windows API. Do you know how ridiculous that statement sounds? Close to "We merely need to build a rocket for a manned expedition to Mars." Easy to say, but completely overlooks the sheer effort & expense, not to mention the huge number of small problems that need solving.

That's what people said about Mac on x86, or XP on an x86 Mac, but both happened with surprisingly little pain. My hat's off to Apple. I wish they'd buy Amiga. All I hear from anything Amiga these days is why anything can't be done or is impossible for tons of reasons.

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

Quote:

by acefnq on 29-Apr-2006 10:53:49 @T_Bone Who cares, this is an Amiga site. ace

The commenter doesn't value the discussion about Windows or Mac on a forum dedicated to Amiga. They seem indifferent and possibly dismissive of other operating systems in that context.