Run Windows Applications Natively in OS X? 521
mcho writes "Unlike other speculators, who get no spam, Robert X. Cringely offers an intriguing reason behind Apple's recent strategy of Boot Camp. From the article: '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.'
tap, tap, tap, .. there's no place like OS X... (Score:3, Interesting)
He points out one of the difficulties WINE has had keeping applications healthy:
I wonder that his assumption Microsoft can't break its own API in Windows is correct, and suspect (or fear) it isn't. Or, at best, writing to Microsoft's API is only a half truth and is at the core of one of the EU's complaints against Microsoft -- complete API documentation!
Cringely does confirm third party reports of this suite of software working at Apple, but I wonder for how long? And for what versions? A complete, robust, and current maintenance of what is available for a Windows API is a minefield, and in my opinion, likely to somehow "break" rather quickly.
I can imagine if Apple somehow has pulled this off and is ready to roll it out publicly they must be bracing for the Microsoft blitzkrieg, because they're going to get it.
As to whether or not this really is a realistic scenario (Microsoft and Windows Apps running transparently in OS X), please, please, please let it be true! (We can all hope, right?)
Re:What's the incentive to write a program for OS (Score:1, Interesting)
--
ahref=http://unk1911.blogspot.com/rel=url2html-92
It's a nice idea... (Score:4, Interesting)
It's a stroke of genius, actually.
Something like that... (Score:3, Interesting)
Classic but for Windows. (Score:4, Interesting)
Could it be... (Score:3, Interesting)
Really the most shocking part of this whole article is the fact the Cringely said something that actually kinda makes sense. I guess a stopped clock really can be right once in a while.
Re:Uhhh... hello. (Score:1, Interesting)
2) I would think it QUITE interesting if Linux binaries (at least non-3D graphics ones) could be run natively under OS X. Does anybody have any idea whether this is being done?
I would think it straightforward - substitute
Maybe (Score:3, Interesting)
First, there is more than one API used in Windows. Second, WINE is an implementation of the Windows APIs. It is entirely possible Apple will reuse a lot of the WINE project and DarWINE in order to allow Windows Apps to run in OS X (hopefully sandboxed), but it is also entirely possible they won't. I rather suspect the latter for a number of reasons. First, Apple doesn't have to do this, there are a half dozen third parties clamoring to offer the same functionality. Second, by making it too easy to run Windows programs within OS X, they can reduce the incentive for developers to write programs to the current APIs. Third, since Windows is slowly strangling OpenGL on their platform and MS owns DirectX, Apple may have difficulty keeping graphics intensive applications behaving well if they go this route. Fourth, Windows APIs do not have all the functionality of OS X APIs and some of the most useful and advantageous features of OS X would be killed.
Only time will tell for sure.
Re:tap, tap, tap, .. there's no place like OS X... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:What's the incentive to write a program for OS (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, only if I can plug in any PCIE gfx card and be able to get the OSX drivers for them, I'll be all set....
Virtualization, Not This (Score:3, Interesting)
Frankly, it's probably better not to go down Cringley's road, since Microsoft's flavor of application design and integration is so very, very different from the OS X model; running Windows Word "native" in OS X would be a constant headache for users used to the drag-and-drop-just-works world of Apple's flagship apps...
Windows in a VM (Score:3, Interesting)
What's the incentive to write a program for OS X (Score:5, Interesting)
The answer? Because X11 apps (and likely Windows apps, if they did implement Windows compatibility) look and behave like crap next to Cocoa and Carbon apps. They don't use the menu bar, all the shortcuts use control instead of the command key, etc. There's nothing wrong with those on an X11 system, but switching back and forth between Cocoa and X11 apps can be jarring.
I doubt Windows compatibility would cause existing Mac developers to drop support. And who knows, Windows-only developers might start considering a Mac port more seriously if a significant portion of their user base started running their apps on a Mac.
Re:What's the incentive to write a program for OS (Score:5, Interesting)
Ideally this would be in a sandbox, similar to a virtual machine. That way all you have to do is kill the VM, and all that crud is gone. Since it's a VM, you can easily make backup copies of the file system -- similar to a restore partition on OEM machines. Set it up the way you want, and when ActiveX rips a hole in Windows or malware slows it to a crawl, it's easy. Kill the VM process, copy the backup partition over.
Of course some of us can run Windows without malware, viruses, and all that stereotypical garbage. Some of us do have a clue how to administer a Windows computer. I've worked with many operating systems -- DOS, DOS/Windows, Windows NT, Linux, FreeBSD, Solaris, HPUX, and even little Vax. In my experience, none are easier or more difficult to secure with the exception of DOS or DOS-based Windows (96/98/ME), which suck. All it takes is a little training on the security issues and the ability to be proactive with security.
did you forgot darwine?? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:tap, tap, tap, .. there's no place like OS X... (Score:5, Interesting)
According to Cringely, Apple has had access to XP APIs under an tech sharing agreement between Apple and MS that was forged in 1997. (This was part of the agreement that let MS off the hook for appropriating quicktime technology into their own media products.)
That would actually be the major reason not to (Score:5, Interesting)
I think Apple would face a similar problem. Not all apps would stop porting, of course, apps that have a healthy market like Photoshop would keep porting, but I think many would. You'd never see another game port, and any app that wasn't really core-market kind of app for Apple would likely stop porting. You have to figure you aren't really going to lose any sales since it does run, and there are few people using it in the first place, so why bother?
Now maybe Apple decides they don't care. Maybe they want to implement the Windows APIs and just use those. Maybe they figure the other features of the OS are enough to keep epopel buying. However I gaurentee they are smart enough to know that if they implement the Windows API natively in OS-X, that most apps will just use that and not bother to port.
CarbTime (Score:2, Interesting)
Hell, make XCode a cross-compiler that builds Win32 apps from Win32 and Cocoa projects and give it away for free
Hades, the Windows version of QuickTime already implements 2/3 of Carbon itself.
Re:WINE is an OS component (Score:5, Interesting)
So apache an OS component, because all of the distribution vendors bundle it with linux?
Does that mean AOL is a component of windows, because dell bundles a 6 month trial on most of their machines?
Re:What's the incentive to write a program for OS (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:tap, tap, tap, .. there's no place like OS X... (Score:2, Interesting)
I doubt Apple is going to bother trying to reinvent Wine inside it's OS. There has been a plan to make a foreign set of API's a new part of an OS for many years, however.
Back in the days after Steve Job's Next bought Apple for -$400 million dollars, there was talk of Cocoa based programs running on top of Windows. Apple called this idea Yellow Box for Windows. Rumors have been spreading that Yellow Box for Windows is being discussed again.
"Apple's emphasis in the 10.5 era will be on resurrecting 'Yellow Box for Windows,' a set of Cocoa (and potentially also Carbon) API's for Windows that would allow Universal Binary applications to run on Windows with a mere 150MB software package installation. And best of all, there is no extra work to be done on the developer's part to get fully native, rock-solid stable performance from their Xcode-developed Universal applications on Windows!"
What is Cocoa? [wikipedia.org]
What is Carbon? [wikipedia.org]
Re:As usual.... (Score:3, Interesting)
The API is documented -- how do you think programmers write apps that work in the OS. There are undocumented portions; but, as Cringley points out, Apple has had access to the full API via cross licensing since 1997.
2) It's blatantly obvious he doesn't understand precisely what Wine is. Remember: Wine Is Not an Emulator. It's a built-from-scratch implementation of the Windows API.
Your partially right... Wine is not an emulator. It's also sadly incomplete. Still beta 0.9.xx I believe. Without access and support it is never going to be complete because Microsoft keeps portions of the API a moving target; and, buries portions.
His idea actually has merit if you think about it; Microsoft might actually support such a move. They could drop support of the Apple specific version of Office, lowering development cost. They could increase sales of Office, Exchange, etc. And they could re-coup lost Windows revenue through licensing fees paid by Apple for continued access to the API and development support.
How this would work (Score:5, Interesting)
But with a recompile and some refactoring, I bet most windows programs could run quite will under this compatibity layer. What those would do is open up the Mac platform as a viable target for Windows software developers. Recompile under OS X, fix the few quirks, or work around the APIs that aren't present, and bingo, you've got a mac app. With a few IFDEFs you might even be able to support both Mac and Windows versions with the same code base. Software makers like Quicken might find this a very attractive option.
Re:Wine vs Windows API (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, OS/2 came with a "power user" desktop that relied heavily on nested folders, drag-n-drop, right-drag-n-drop, "templates", and property windows. This was in an era when most PC users hadn't even touched a mouse. Confusing+Ugly=Problem.
Most of this was fixed with OS/2 v4 that copied the "Start Menu" idea and had some graphical treatment. But that came out in 1996 (8 years after the original OS/2 GUI), and was too-little, too-late.
My favourite parts (Score:3, Interesting)
In this amusing quote, Cringely is asserting that the mostly-microkernel architecture of Xnu is responsible for poor integer performance, which wrecks web/db performance, but does fine with floating-point operations. Makes sense to me!
Speeding-up performance is great, but normally a system vendor won't want to do that for older hardware, which might encourage some users to keep their old box and just add a new OS. But in this case, Apple HAS NO installed base of Intel Macs to worry about having to compete with, so speeding up the OS becomes a no-brainer, especially if it simultaneously encourages PowerPC owners to upgrade so they can share in the fun.
Apple already does make their OS releases faster from one to another - I don't know about other Apple policies, but the WebKit team, for example has a strict 'no performance regressions' policy which is enforced pretty well. It wouldn't surprise me to find the same is true of the rest of the OS and components. Asserting that Apple is so intent on selling new hardware that they would intentionally ignore potential performance improvements is ludicrous to say the least.
re-writing the Windows API, eh? (Score:1, Interesting)
Here's what I think will happen:
Step 1: Develop a way to run Windows on a Mac in its own partition. Done. (via Bootcamp)
Step 2: Develop a way for OS X to "talk" to Windows machines (or virtual machines) efficiently. Done. (Apple just released Bonjour for Windows a few days ago)
Step 3: Virtualize and run Windows inside OS X with full drag and drop capabilities (via Bonjour), running at native (since Apple has all the tech specs on the hardware) speeds in its own partition (Bootcamp).
My fearless forecast? WWDC, Steve will announce this.
Re:That would actually be the major reason not to (Score:5, Interesting)
At this point, Apple has people porting to OS-X. Not a ton, but enough. If they add Win32 support, I think the number porting will fall significantly. The problem is they then become chained to the MS API. If MS releases a changed API, they have to scramble to implement it as well.
It also means that bugs and such come over. Thought your computer was protected against spyware? Sorry, no longer, it can execute Windows programs, and they don't bother to set the Evil Bit to allow you to ignore them, You get the good with the bad.
I think that would take away a major percieved advantage Macs have. The one thing that more people who claim to want to switch, or actually do switch, bitch about than any other in my experience is spyware and viruses. They see them as MS's fault and want them ot stop. They've been promised the Mac does not have those, which is true at this point.
Well, if all of a sudden all the Windows malware runs on a Mac, you are back to where you started. It is again incumbent on the user not to do stupid stuff, rather than having a protection because the bad code just won't execute.
Re:What's the incentive to write a program for OS (Score:4, Interesting)
You can do most of that right now, if your model classes (assuming MVC design) are in C++. Just use controllers written in Objective-C++ to talk to your C++ models and Objective-C views. The only thing missing from what you're describing is importing VC projects, but that's just an inconvenience, not a show-stopper - it's not exactly rocket surgery to create a new project and add your model files to it.
Codeweavers will be out soon (Score:3, Interesting)
It does not need to run 100% of apps to REALLY be a hit. If the majority of vanilla apps run with little or no issues then I know of MANY People who would dump windows.
What if Apple bought codeweavers? With the Windows API in hand they could probably take their modified codebase and get it running even better than it is now.
Apple will do what is right for Apple (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't know what Apple will do. I do not know any insiders and unlike Cringly, I do not have some sort of mystic ability to look into a crystal ball and predict the future.
What I do know is that Apple is currently operating from a position of financial strength, they are making quality products that have captured the public's imagination and, they have a great deal of real marketing talent on their side. At various times in their history, you could have said that Apple lacked focus but I don't think we can say that today -- I think they have a plan and are following it. I do not know what it is but I suspect that it is the right one for Apple.
Is Boot Camp a sign of something to come? I don't know and neither does anyone outside of the inside circle at Apple. Maybe it is a flag they are waving at Microsoft, telling them "Yea, we can run your O/S too" or maybe they just thought that they had to float it out there before hobbiests did something that Apple would find harder to control? Maybe by showing the public that they can run Windows, they can manipulate Microsoft into giving them a very attractive license agreement?
In the end, Apple will do what they know is the right thing for their product(s) and their plans for the future. That is what has always worked for them before. They know what they are doing. They are bright and savy technobusinessmen (hey, did I just invent a word?).
Re:Porting Windows API not that easy (Score:3, Interesting)
Wine already works with many XP apps. Mono is can do some interesting things, as well, in terms of usage in combination with Wine.
Wine + Apple's pockets? And maybe IBM's pockets?
Booyah. Not to mention that the Wine project is getting pretty dang close to Win32. DirectX included.
MS can't make Win32 too much of a moving target, or they'll have to EOL XP. And they can't really make the API's too sophisticated, because then they'll turn off developers. The biggest problem the Wine project really has is lack of man hours, not lack of knowledge. $$ can buy man hours, and corporations with programmers familiar with Win32's internals can provide man hours in bulk.