PDA

View Full Version : Windows Applications On Mac, Without Windows


MacRumors
Jun 30, 2006, 04:03 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Codeweavers has announced that CrossOver Mac (http://www.codeweavers.com/products/cxmac/) will be arriving this year in late July or early August 2006. Pricing will be at $59.95 for single-user licenses, with volume and educational discounts available. CrossOver Mac will support a number of Windows applications to run natively within Mac OS X using Wine (http://www.winehq.com/), enabling the user to run Windows applications without having a copy of Windows installed on their system.

In an email exchange with MacRumors, CodeWeavers has claimed that the application is still in an alpha testing stage. Application compatability is claimed to equal and that of their Linux counterpart (http://www.codeweavers.com/products/cxoffice/). In addition, the company is adding support for a limited number of games such as Half-Life 2.

Codeweaver's solution differs from solutions like Apple's Boot Camp (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/04/20060405094135.shtml) and Parallels Desktop (http://www.parallels.com/en/products/workstation/mac/) in that it does not require a copy of Windows to run the Windows applications. Also, applications will be able to run side by side with their Mac OS X counterparts, whereas virtualization solutions must be contained within a "Windows window" or the machine must be rebooted in the case of Boot Camp. On the flip side, only a limited number of applications will be supported, whereas dual booting can support any Windows application, and virtualization can support most non-3D intensive application.

News.com has posted two screenshots (http://news.com.com/2300-1016_3-6090070-1.html) of the product running Microsoft Project.

Digg this story (http://digg.com/apple/Crossover_Mac_Windows_Apps_without_Windows,_on_a_Mac)

Mord
Jun 30, 2006, 04:05 PM
lets hope apple does something like this but allot better..


otherwise AWESOME.

celebrian23
Jun 30, 2006, 04:06 PM
the kicker: limited applications.:p

QCassidy352
Jun 30, 2006, 04:07 PM
Full windows compatibility without windows... screw boot camp and virtualization - this would be the holy grail.

i know it's only some apps for now, but it will grow. This is the way to go.

brandon6684
Jun 30, 2006, 04:09 PM
For OS X, it doesn't seem quite as critical. Some of the most mentioned programed used on Linux WINE are Office, Photoshop, Dreamweaver, and iTunes, all of which are natively availble on OS X. Sure Half Life 2 might be nice, but the product doesn't seem as needed on OS X.

chris200x9
Jun 30, 2006, 04:10 PM
Isn't this bad?....I could be wrong but doesnt running widows apps nativley on OS X....open it up to windows viruses?

Thanatoast
Jun 30, 2006, 04:10 PM
How much? And are the apps limited by specific app or by what the app is designed to do?

I mean, there's any number of small apps that would be convenient to run on OSX. Just a question of whether the small apps have a better or worse chance of compatibility.

Mord
Jun 30, 2006, 04:10 PM
3ds max, autocad, games, ****, thats all i want....

SilentPanda
Jun 30, 2006, 04:11 PM
This could be bad in that OS/2 kinda way... :(

Digg this story (http://digg.com/apple/Crossover_Mac_Windows_Apps_without_Windows,_on_a_Mac)

What does that mean? I kinda sorta know what Digg is but... not sure why it's in a MR article... what's it do/for?

qtip919
Jun 30, 2006, 04:11 PM
If apple would just make this part of OS 10.5, I would be much more inclined to purchase *yet another* intel mac...especially another desktop maybe?

longofest
Jun 30, 2006, 04:16 PM
What does that mean? I kinda sorta know what Digg is but... not sure why it's in a MR article... what's it do/for?

I put it in the Forum version so forum users who want to digg the original posting of the article on digg.com can go and digg it by clicking the link. It only really applies for people that use digg.com, but it helps out the site when you digg the story, as it will help "promote" the story to the front page of digg.com, which means more people will come to see MacRumors and see why we love it so much :-).

Mord
Jun 30, 2006, 04:18 PM
wow, i completely forgot about darwine, i'll fire her up and try a few windows apps.

IJ Reilly
Jun 30, 2006, 04:18 PM
From alpha testing to a shipping product in a month? Uh-oh. :o

SilentPanda
Jun 30, 2006, 04:18 PM
I put it in the Forum version so forum users who want to digg the original posting of the article on digg.com can go and digg it by clicking the link. It only really applies for people that use digg.com, but it helps out the site when you digg the story, as it will help "promote" the story to the front page of digg.com, which means more people will come to see MacRumors and see why we love it so much :-).

Ahhh... I see now. Digg away! I would but I really don't use Digg (for some reason I keep matching Fark and Digg in my head and I dislike Fark a lot) and therefore don't need another user account to keep track of (to vote with).

Let the Diggers come though! I need more people to make fun of. :)

quigleybc
Jun 30, 2006, 04:22 PM
So, is this INTEL only?

Or can us PPC users get in on this ?

boncellis
Jun 30, 2006, 04:23 PM
This tells me that such a feature is that much more likely to be included in future OS updates. Maybe not immediately in 10.5 because of the majority of PPC Mac owners out there, but it almost seems like an eventuality if a third party is going to profit from it. If I'm right, then what will 10.5 feature as it's killer feature?

I'm not sure if it's good or bad in the long run, but it seems promising.

m-dogg
Jun 30, 2006, 04:23 PM
This is the scenario that would worry me about developers not bothering to develop Mac software anymore. With Bootcamp and Parallels, someone would still have to go out and buy a copy of Windows. This way, there is less of an investment - Which would make it easier for developers to get away with one version of their programs...

QCassidy352
Jun 30, 2006, 04:28 PM
This is the scenario that would worry me about developers not bothering to develop Mac software anymore. With Bootcamp and Parallels, someone would still have to go out and buy a copy of Windows. This way, there is less of an investment - Which would make it easier for developers to get away with one version of their programs...

but if everything would run at native speeds without installing windows, who cares if they say that the software is "developed for mac" vs. "developed for PC?"

If it's stable, seamless, and runs full speed, it doesn't matter to me what the developers had in mind when they wrote it.

SeaFox
Jun 30, 2006, 04:30 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Also, applications will be able to run side by side with their Mac OS X counterparts, whereas virtualization solutions must be contained within a "Windows window" or the machine must be rebooted in the case of Boot Camp.


A "Windows window" eh? Is that anything like "Picture Picture" from Mr Roger's Neighborhood? :D

JackSYi
Jun 30, 2006, 04:31 PM
Cool. Kinda pricey though.

081440
Jun 30, 2006, 04:31 PM
I'd like to see a list of compatible "windows only" software that works with it.

bwintx
Jun 30, 2006, 04:38 PM
For OS X, it doesn't seem quite as critical. Some of the most mentioned programed used on Linux WINE are Office, Photoshop, Dreamweaver, and iTunes, all of which are natively availble on OS X. Sure Half Life 2 might be nice, but the product doesn't seem as needed on OS X.

You're right on the money. After looking at the Codeweavers Web site and looking through the list of apps supported by this and its Linux counterpart, it quickly becomes clear that this is great for Linux -- for which Microsoft Office and such are unlikely to occur in the next few years, if ever -- but is only marginally useful for OS X.

Still think the Parallels approach is the way to go. Now, it's a question of whether something like that is built into Leopard or Apple decides not to step on the developer. Perhaps we'll know by early afternoon on August 7.

brepublican
Jun 30, 2006, 04:38 PM
Full windows compatibility without windows... screw boot camp and virtualization - this would be the holy grail.

i know it's only some apps for now, but it will grow. This is the way to go.
I'd rather see Apple try to develop a solution more along the lines of Parallels... but thats just me

vniow
Jun 30, 2006, 04:40 PM
I'd like to see a list of compatible "windows only" software that works with it.

http://www.codeweavers.com/products/cxoffice/supported_apps/

Some of those have Mac equivilents but there's the official list.

I doubt this will have any affect on the Mac development platform. Many of the apps that Crossover runs aren't 100% complete featurewise, don't have the Mac OS interface and are often outdated by a version or two. Notice that it'll ony run parts of Office 2000 and not anything newer very well.

nagromme
Jun 30, 2006, 04:41 PM
There's a chance... just a CHANCE... that people will fear the death of Mac because "there's no need to write Mac apps anymore." :p

I'm not afraid. People WILL write apps if there's anyone to buy them. Demand means income, and that's what developers seek.

And DEMAND for real Mac apps will hardly go away. Tacking Windows apps (for a price) onto a Mac is a neat option, and one that will bring new users to the platform, but it's not AS GOOD as a native Mac app with the Mac OS X benefits that brings. Nor do a lot of apps run at all.

So people won't "settle" for Windows apps on a large scale, anymore than they'd "settle" for taking OS X off of their Mac and running Windows. We use Mac OS X because it has real advantages. When you need a non OS X app, it's nice to have these options.

Any trickle of people who choose to buy Windows apps for their Mac INSTEAD of an existing Mac app will be more than offset by the increase in Mac sales overall.

The market for Mac native software will grow, not shrink. So I welcome these options.

fastlane1588
Jun 30, 2006, 04:41 PM
i think itd be kinda cool to play half life 2 or counterstrike on a mac, im sure itd be way cooler than on my pos pc!

artifex
Jun 30, 2006, 04:43 PM
Running Windows apps without a sandbox sounds scary to me, from a support standpoint. At least the damage from vulnerabilities in apps could be limited to what's in the sandbox.

Killyp
Jun 30, 2006, 04:43 PM
Compatible Apps (http://www.codeweavers.com/products/cxoffice/supported_apps/)

IMO, this is good that the supported apps are limited, it means viruses won't work with it, as it's only working with 'preset' apps...

artifex
Jun 30, 2006, 04:45 PM
Compatible Apps (http://www.codeweavers.com/products/cxoffice/supported_apps/)

IMO, this is good that the supported apps are limited, it means viruses won't work with it, as it's only working with 'preset' apps...

Right. Because we never had macro viruses for Excel or Word, right? ;)
There may be other vulnerabilities we don't know yet.

vniow
Jun 30, 2006, 04:46 PM
Right. Because we never had macro viruses for Excel or Word, right? ;)

...which are cross platform.

longofest
Jun 30, 2006, 04:52 PM
So, is this INTEL only?

Or can us PPC users get in on this ?

No, it's Intel only. I feel your pain (My Quad will be missing out on the fun).

A "Windows window" eh? Is that anything like "Picture Picture" from Mr Roger's Neighborhood?

Hey now, I was having trouble figuring out what the hell to call it. :p Lets not even get into the people who are gonna be offended by excluding Linux :rolleyes:

MacsRgr8
Jun 30, 2006, 04:52 PM
<snip>In addition, the company is adding support for a limited number of games such as Half-Life 2.


?
Does that mean with full 3D grfx support? DirectX 9c?

mrrory
Jun 30, 2006, 04:54 PM
I've been trying to convince my brother to give up his nasty PC for so long now, but he clings to it because of some bespoke auto-data PC only software, and this sounds like the perfect solution (if it's supported). I tell him "throw away your PC, buy a mac mini and run your software using WINE. Brilliant! Don't even have to have Windows installed. That's my kind of solution!

Peace
Jun 30, 2006, 04:54 PM
?
Does that mean with full 3D grfx support? DirectX 9c?

I think the games that will be supported will be the ones dependent on the CPU rather than the GPU.

longofest
Jun 30, 2006, 04:55 PM
Viruses and worms now adays typically target a very specific vulnerability or piece of code in Windows API's. Note that this does NOT used Microsoft code, but rather is using reverse-engineered stuff (Wine). Therefore, a vulnerability that is found in Microsoft's OS may not be present in Wine. On the flip side, a vulnerability may be found in Wine that is not present in Microsoft's OS.

LieutenantLefse
Jun 30, 2006, 04:55 PM
If it's stable, seamless, and runs full speed, it doesn't matter to me what the developers had in mind when they wrote it.

Running apps under Codeweavers/WINE will never be as stable, seamless, and full speed as a natively developed app. WINE is a complete rewrite of all the Windows APIs - it needs to match every feature and every bug in Windows exactly, or software will break. The WINE developers have made some fantastic progress, but it's slow going and every time it comes close to being usable, Microsoft releases a new version of Windows.

baleensavage
Jun 30, 2006, 04:57 PM
but if everything would run at native speeds without installing windows, who cares if they say that the software is "developed for mac" vs. "developed for PC?"
If it's stable, seamless, and runs full speed, it doesn't matter to me what the developers had in mind when they wrote it.

Because then the apps wouldn't be Mac Apps and all the reasons we bought a Mac in the first place would be gone. If an application is written for a PC it follows all the PC strictures. We would have the menu bar on each window and a square/line and X in the place of the colored buttons. All the menus would all be set up like on a PC. There would be no application consitency and we may as well be running Windows. The only way around this would be some type of direct translation program which is probably what this software is and is also probably why it has to be done on an application by application basis.

Peace
Jun 30, 2006, 04:57 PM
It's a mad,mad,mad,mad world!

Just a year ago none of us could really visualize all this stuff.Whats gonna happen with OS XI

starflyer
Jun 30, 2006, 05:06 PM
I vote fake! The drop shadows are not proportional. Where's the poll?

:D

dtm

Mord
Jun 30, 2006, 05:07 PM
i'm now an official beta tester waiting for my download link :P.

longofest
Jun 30, 2006, 05:08 PM
I think the games that will be supported will be the ones dependent on the CPU rather than the GPU.

Not necessarily. Half Life 2 (mentioned by Codeweavers as a probable supported game) uses OpenGL. We are trying to find out if they are just porting OpenGL API's or whether DirectX is also in the picture. Of course, this is all based on Wine.

50548
Jun 30, 2006, 05:16 PM
It's a mad,mad,mad,mad world!

Just a year ago none of us could really visualize all this stuff.Whats gonna happen with OS XI

Perhaps Dvorak was right after all...OS XI will become Windows...:p

Peace
Jun 30, 2006, 05:25 PM
i'm now an official beta tester waiting for my download link :P.


Same here..Only problem I might have is a conflict of interest with my Apple NDA but I'll find a workaround.I love doing this stuff!!

fowler.
Jun 30, 2006, 05:29 PM
The only programs that are a must for me are CS2, Dreamweaver, Flash and the bevy of Windows browsers.

leenoble
Jun 30, 2006, 05:34 PM
I think the biggest issue is the fuglyness of these apps. I presume there isn't some magic piece of code in WINE which will make every app suddenly employ Apple's UI grid for spacing and layout. That's why they need a "Windows window" so that people understand these are Windows applications and that's why they look like ass.

ahuman7341
Jun 30, 2006, 05:37 PM
Wow I think they are just reselling WINE a FREE virtualization app available for x86 based unixes.

http://www.winehq.com/

whats diferent abot wine from this crossover mac is there is a PowerPC version called darwine.

http://darwine.opendarwin.org/

Mord
Jun 30, 2006, 05:44 PM
yeah, but the thing is darwine doesn't work without spending a day trying to config it.

Lixivial
Jun 30, 2006, 05:46 PM
This could be bad in that OS/2 kinda way... :(

Hasn't killed Linux yet. The Linux version runs IE (though I only use it for localized testing and never web browsing), Office 2003 and a few other "mission critical apps" rather well. Not being a CAD Engineer, I've never tried AutoCad, but if they list it, it should work. Its true purpose isn't to run Windows, but rather to run Windows' critical apps, those which are truly exclusive to Windows or the Windows world.

Most everything else has a equal or better alternative that integrates and collaborates just as well. Also, since this runs in an almost sandbox-like environment, if a Windows app crashes it does/should not take down the entire system, at best just CXOffice/Wine. (There has been a recent study of this using Ubuntu vs Windows XP).

Wow I think they are just reselling WINE a FREE virtualization app available for x86 based unixes.

You're not purchasing the program, but rather the support and guarantee that it will work with the programs they've listed. Fairly common in the Open Source business model, no?

Mord
Jun 30, 2006, 05:51 PM
just got it running and it's pretty nice, i've just got steam running and i'll test a few games out.

m-dogg
Jun 30, 2006, 05:51 PM
but if everything would run at native speeds without installing windows, who cares if they say that the software is "developed for mac" vs. "developed for PC?"

If it's stable, seamless, and runs full speed, it doesn't matter to me what the developers had in mind when they wrote it.

One of the reasons I prefer OS X over Windows is that I think the Mac OS and the applications running on it are far more attractive/polished/stylish/aesthetically pleasing than Windows. Yes, I guess I'm vain in that regard.

I'd hate to see developers not bother with a Mac version since the windows version would be "stable, seamless, and runs full speed," so who cares what it looks like on the screen.

I'd like to think that a program running in this manner would never be as fast and stable as a program built from the ground up to run in OS X.

I look at ugly Windows programs all day at work - I don't want to have to start using them at home again!

solvs
Jun 30, 2006, 05:51 PM
Isn't this bad?....I could be wrong but doesnt running widows apps nativley on OS X....open it up to windows viruses?
No, because it isn't running Windows and wouldn't affect OS X at all. This is limited, but promising. I doubt it would the death of the Mac, quite the opposite really. As nagromme mentioned, more people would be buying Macs so demand for native software goes up. Even better if Apple could make some sort of conversion app like they have with xCode. Companies would be able to recompile their Windows apps to run on Macs and PCs. True Universal. And even if they didn't, if they could somehow get this to work better, we wouldn't need special apps for Macs. They'd run just like they did on Windows, only you wouldn't need Windows.

Ironic that OS X may run some older Windows apps better than Vista.

SiliconAddict
Jun 30, 2006, 06:10 PM
For OS X, it doesn't seem quite as critical. Some of the most mentioned programed used on Linux WINE are Office, Photoshop, Dreamweaver, and iTunes, all of which are natively availble on OS X. Sure Half Life 2 might be nice, but the product doesn't seem as needed on OS X.

Don't know about you but I don't have half a grand to blow on a second copy of office, Photoshop, etc. :rolleyes:

Mainyehc
Jun 30, 2006, 06:11 PM
Running apps under Codeweavers/WINE will never be as stable, seamless, and full speed as a natively developed app. WINE is a complete rewrite of all the Windows APIs - it needs to match every feature and every bug in Windows exactly, or software will break. The WINE developers have made some fantastic progress, but it's slow going and every time it comes close to being usable, Microsoft releases a new version of Windows. (emphasis mine)


Hmmm, that's a fairly good point... However, if a switcher intends to use Codeweavers/WINE with the same purpose as an established Mac user would use Classic circa '01-'05, that doesn't really matter, does it? Most likely, that would be a last resort solution for running *old* software. And also, don't forget, if Mac marketshare grows dramatically (which could happen if these solutions become popular, as Parallels is already endorsed by Apple), developers may just start to port some Windows-only apps to the Mac... Maybe, just maybe... :cool:

iEric
Jun 30, 2006, 06:18 PM
yea if this works well i wouldn't mind paying 60 us $

odedia
Jun 30, 2006, 06:18 PM
This is excellent. Lots of sites support only Internet Explorer (6.0, not the worthless 4.0 for Mac that can't even display most languages). This solution offers a great way to just open up explorer when you have to, in order to check that site that doesn't support firefox/safari. It's also a great thing for developers, who probably have too much stuff open as it is, and jut wanna check their site in Internet Explorer, but don't have enough resources to run Parallels.

Microsoft Office is a blessing for Hebrew users like me (or Arabic/Greek/lots of others), because Microsoft Office for Mac doesn't support right-to-left languages.

camomac
Jun 30, 2006, 06:23 PM
Compatible Apps (http://www.codeweavers.com/products/cxoffice/supported_apps/)

that says linux...

solvs
Jun 30, 2006, 06:25 PM
Don't know about you but I don't have half a grand to blow on a second copy of office, Photoshop, etc. :rolleyes:
Adobe used to offer cross platform upgrades. MS, probably not so much, but Teach and Student is available for around the price of an upgrade when they come out. Go take a class at the local community college, it counts. :p

Mord
Jun 30, 2006, 06:27 PM
http://img426.imageshack.us/img426/1280/aboutthismac4lp.jpg

:eek:

Les Kern
Jun 30, 2006, 06:29 PM
Is there at least a tentative list of the "approved" apps? My needs are pretty specific working in EDU. I HAVE all the apps I need on Mac. The Win-specific apps I need will probably NOT be supported, like some athletic trainer programs and a nifty data analyzer I've forgotten the name of. Otherwise it is of no use to me.

Mord
Jun 30, 2006, 06:33 PM
http://img324.imageshack.us/img324/7774/ie2sz.png

balamw
Jun 30, 2006, 06:33 PM
yeah, but the thing is darwine doesn't work without spending a day trying to config it.
And at the end of the day you have no support for DarWine beyond forums like MR...

Crossover Office = Wine with some packaging, optimizations and support and the company is essentially the main developers behind Wine.

An excellent choice for people who may need to just run an existing license of QuickBooks or something like that.

Note too that the list of supported apps doesn't mean that's all that works, it just means that those apps are specficially tested for and supported, I've personally run a number of other programs on Crossover Office for Linux that are not on the list...

Now i'm really torn. I've already got Boot Camp working, but intended to buy Parallels or Crossover Office too. To let the Parallels discount expire or not...

B

Mord
Jun 30, 2006, 06:34 PM
yeah, i've been running through them, i'll do some more tomorrow and post results.

mark!
Jun 30, 2006, 06:39 PM
yeah, i've been running through them, i'll do some more tomorrow and post results.


Sorry to....be off topic-ish.

But how did you install it? I downloaded it and it comes as a text file ... and opens in text edit. what is a **.sh file suppose to open in? AHH I wanna install it :(

Mord
Jun 30, 2006, 06:41 PM
Sorry to....be off topic-ish.

But how did you install it? I downloaded it and it comes as a text file ... and opens in text edit. what is a **.sh file suppose to open in? AHH I wanna install it :(

what did you download? if wine may god help you

if crossover it's just a disk image with an app in it, it's pretty self explanatory

dongmin
Jun 30, 2006, 06:47 PM
http://img426.imageshack.us/img426/1280/aboutthismac4lp.jpg

:eek:I assume that's some sort of a joke. "Mac OS X Version 10.5 Alfa 2"???

mark!
Jun 30, 2006, 06:48 PM
rawr.

Mord
Jun 30, 2006, 06:54 PM
I assume that's some sort of a joke. "Mac OS X Version 10.5 Alfa 2"???


or is it >_>

mark!
Jun 30, 2006, 07:03 PM
how did you sign up for beta testing :mad:

Mord
Jun 30, 2006, 07:04 PM
by being 1337

Lixivial
Jun 30, 2006, 07:08 PM
how did you sign up for beta testing :mad:

I don't usually say this, but... RTFA. Nah, I'm joking. :D

Can I sign up for the Beta Test program?

Yes, but we have a backlog of testers. The best way to sign up for the Beta Test group is to email info@codeweavers.com and request access to the beta. Please be aware that we already have a very large pool of testers and so your request may not be accepted. We will respond to all requests.

The thing you downloaded was likely the Crossover Office Standard Trial for linux, which comes as a shell script that you execute from the terminal. :)

tipdrill407
Jun 30, 2006, 07:15 PM
This seems kinda useless to me. Most of the applications on the supported list have been ported to Mac OS X and the ones that aren't have Mac alternatives. Also Microsoft will almost indefinitely introduce "Genuine Windows" crap on all their future software which will not work in this Crossover environment or w/e since it is based on WINE.

mark!
Jun 30, 2006, 07:19 PM
I don't usually say this, but... RTFA. Nah, I'm joking. :D



The thing you downloaded was likely the Crossover Office Standard Trial for linux, which comes as a shell script that you execute from the terminal. :)

Yeah, I sent an email I just kinda wondered how he got the link so fast. I figured out what I downloaded was a linux thing later :o

but GEEEZ I just wanna run some Windows stuff without parallels or bootcamp or something.

akac
Jun 30, 2006, 07:45 PM
You're right on the money. After looking at the Codeweavers Web site and looking through the list of apps supported by this and its Linux counterpart, it quickly becomes clear that this is great for Linux -- for which Microsoft Office and such are unlikely to occur in the next few years, if ever -- but is only marginally useful for OS X.

Still think the Parallels approach is the way to go. Now, it's a question of whether something like that is built into Leopard or Apple decides not to step on the developer. Perhaps we'll know by early afternoon on August 7.

Who says you have to choose one or the other? :) I'm going to run Parallels for most of my work because that sort of stuff (Windows Mobile dev) won't be usable in any WINE type environment. But I'd use CodeWeavers for Half-Life 2 definitely. And maybe Office 2007 over Entourage. Plus I have my own Windows apps - FlexWallet 2006 that I'd want to run and I'd prefer to use my QuickBooks 2006 for Windows on OS X (the Mac version just doesn't do anything for me vis a vis payroll).

vd0t
Jun 30, 2006, 08:09 PM
@ Hector

Can it run the new Windows Live Messenger (MSN Messenger 8)?

Omni Geno
Jun 30, 2006, 08:17 PM
Also @ Hector, how is it you have two "About This Mac" windows open, with 10.4.7 as well as that Leopard test version?

Mord
Jun 30, 2006, 08:20 PM
Also @ Hector, how is it you have two "About This Mac" windows open, with 10.4.7 as well as that Leopard test version?

the one in the backround is part of a thread.


i'll test msn 8 tomorrow, but i doubt it will work as it's very integrated with the OS.

zephead
Jun 30, 2006, 08:33 PM
Wow, it looks like that other guy who admittedly posted fake (but convincing) Leopard screenshots was on to something. :D But wait...

Note that this does NOT used Microsoft code, but rather is using reverse-engineered stuff (Wine).
Wouldn't this get into some legal trouble with Microsoft and the Windows developers, since in most EULAs, "reverse engineering" is a violation of the EULA?

Xephian
Jun 30, 2006, 09:01 PM
Most games and apps would probably run like crap at first.

Peace
Jun 30, 2006, 09:03 PM
Ok..
While I got this installed and running I can say it is most definetly Alpha status.

It runs Excel fine..However it requires X11..
This is a step backwards imho..

I tried installing unsupported apps but it just went thru the installer and stopped.

I'll give it some more intense testing and will know more in a few days but as of right now it's a back-burner type thing for me at least..

It's trying to do the same thing Parallels does without the Windows O/S..


I might have to stop using this because in order to give them good input I might have to send them crash logs that are covered by my NDA with Apple and I can't do that

Lixivial
Jun 30, 2006, 09:04 PM
Yeah, I sent an email I just kinda wondered how he got the link so fast. I figured out what I downloaded was a linux thing later :o

Yes, okay. I was giving you the legitimate way of doing it. Being that this all is, essentially, old news there are other ways as well. I don't know if that's how Hector obtained his copy or not.

Note that this does NOT used Microsoft code, but rather is using reverse-engineered stuff (Wine).

Actually, while WINE does reverse-engineer a good portion of the win32 API, not all of it is entirely reverse-engineered. WINE can and does use some native DLLs for certain functions when the built-in ones fail. However, yes, WINE is very capable without any Microsoft code whatsoever.

paj
Jun 30, 2006, 09:23 PM
There's a chance... just a CHANCE... that people will fear the death of Mac because "there's no need to write Mac apps anymore." :p

I'm not afraid. People WILL write apps if there's anyone to buy them. Demand means income, and that's what developers seek.

And DEMAND for real Mac apps will hardly go away. Tacking Windows apps (for a price) onto a Mac is a neat option, and one that will bring new users to the platform, but it's not AS GOOD as a native Mac app with the Mac OS X benefits that brings. Nor do a lot of apps run at all.

So people won't "settle" for Windows apps on a large scale, anymore than they'd "settle" for taking OS X off of their Mac and running Windows. We use Mac OS X because it has real advantages. When you need a non OS X app, it's nice to have these options.

Any trickle of people who choose to buy Windows apps for their Mac INSTEAD of an existing Mac app will be more than offset by the increase in Mac sales overall.

The market for Mac native software will grow, not shrink. So I welcome these options.
That's exactly what people said when OS/2 2.1 was released....

longofest
Jun 30, 2006, 09:28 PM
Actually, while WINE does reverse-engineer a good portion of the win32 API, not all of it is entirely reverse-engineered. WINE can and does use some native DLLs for certain functions when the built-in ones fail. However, yes, WINE is very capable without any Microsoft code whatsoever.

Yeah, Wine can use the Windows DLLs if you have them, but I'm pretty sure CodeWeaver's product is meant to be run without the Windows DLLs (so, pure reverse-engineering and no need for a Windows install).

p.s. Note that the story has been updated, as we got word about the OpenGL and DirectX stuff :-)

dongmin
Jun 30, 2006, 09:34 PM
I'm assuming whatever works with the open source version of WINE works with Crossover.

A more extensive list of what works on WINE... (http://appdb.winehq.org/)

springerj
Jun 30, 2006, 09:38 PM
is the ability to actually run IE6.0 on a mac.

There are still, unfortunately, way too many sites that have designed to take use ActiveX or IE's specific scripting features and will not run on anything else. This would provide a work-around. I'd just like it to work without having to shift into a full-on windoze mode.

Peace
Jun 30, 2006, 09:58 PM
is the ability to actually run IE6.0 on a mac.

There are still, unfortunately, way too many sites that have designed to take use ActiveX or IE's specific scripting features and will not run on anything else. This would provide a work-around. I'd just like it to work without having to shift into a full-on windoze mode.


IE6 runs ok.I'm making this post from IE 6 from CrossOver.

The text rendering has that funky X11 look to it though.I really don't want to bust any bubbles as this is a good step but it does need work.Like I said it is in Alpha so I'll give it some time.

Westside guy
Jun 30, 2006, 09:59 PM
Under Linux, WINE allows you (if you actually own a copy of Windows) the option of using the actual Windows DLLs rather than their WINE replacements. I'm curious to know if the WINE ports to OS X will allow this as well. It's advantageous because some apps that won't work quite right in WINE normally will work with the real libraries.

balamw
Jun 30, 2006, 10:10 PM
Under Linux, WINE allows you (if you actually own a copy of Windows) the option of using the actual Windows DLLs rather than their WINE replacements. I'm curious to know if the WINE ports to OS X will allow this as well. It's advantageous because some apps that won't work quite right in WINE normally will work with the real libraries.
Which is particulalrly interesting if you happen to have a Boot Camp install handy... (i.e. all the Windows DLLs on a mountable NTFS partition...).

B

Kingsly
Jun 30, 2006, 10:19 PM
:eek: :confused: :rolleyes: :o :cool: :p ;) :( :) :D

(my experienced emotions, in a nutshell, whilst reading this article)

bigbossbmb
Jun 30, 2006, 11:09 PM
on the list of apps, the latest version of Photoshop that is supported is version 7!!!......besides the ability to play games, this doesn't help much

ChrisA
Jun 30, 2006, 11:34 PM
From alpha testing to a shipping product in a month? Uh-oh. :o

This software is relatively mature. It's been around for years under linux and a Mac version quickly followed the first Intel Macs. Wine is free but codeweavers sells a version too. The profit supports work on the free Wine. What we have here is the alpha release of the commercial version of the Mac port.

Linux and mac OSX are enough alike that I imagine the port from Linux to OSX was not a huge effort

celebrian23
Jun 30, 2006, 11:42 PM
on the list of apps, the latest version of Photoshop that is supported is version 7!!!......besides the ability to play games, this doesn't help much

Most of the versions are so old. I wouldn't use this technology- I can't deal with non-up to date versions of software I need.

blueflame
Jun 30, 2006, 11:59 PM
is this a free download we can test now? I would be interested to see how it runs
andreas

Core Trio
Jul 1, 2006, 12:16 AM
Im sorry, this just doesnt sound like a good idea to me.

devman
Jul 1, 2006, 12:20 AM
This is good news. I ran Crossover under Linux for a few years before I switched to OS X. For that special app that you must run that is Windows only this can be a great solution. It is different to vmware and parallels - not better, just different and what will appeal will depend on your needs. What I love about crossover is that I'm not running a copy of windows at all. That means I have NONE of the never-ending maintenance hassles of real windows etc.

In Australia a problem app is quicken/quickbooks. There is no OS X version.

Sure, I can run quickbooks now under parallels, but I must have a real copy of windows running that must be maintained just like a real copy of windows. I don't want that. If crossover works like it did for me on linux it is my dream solution - quickbooks will launch and run in just another window - no windows desktop, start menu, task bar, etc.

wmmk
Jul 1, 2006, 12:37 AM
Don't know about you but I don't have half a grand to blow on a second copy of office, Photoshop, etc. :rolleyes:
yes, but he's trying to make a point. whether you buy the mac or windows version is up to you.

fblack
Jul 1, 2006, 12:38 AM
There's a chance... just a CHANCE... that people will fear the death of Mac because "there's no need to write Mac apps anymore." :p

I'm not afraid. People WILL write apps if there's anyone to buy them. Demand means income, and that's what developers seek.

And DEMAND for real Mac apps will hardly go away. Tacking Windows apps (for a price) onto a Mac is a neat option, and one that will bring new users to the platform, but it's not AS GOOD as a native Mac app with the Mac OS X benefits that brings. Nor do a lot of apps run at all.

So people won't "settle" for Windows apps on a large scale, anymore than they'd "settle" for taking OS X off of their Mac and running Windows. We use Mac OS X because it has real advantages. When you need a non OS X app, it's nice to have these options.

Any trickle of people who choose to buy Windows apps for their Mac INSTEAD of an existing Mac app will be more than offset by the increase in Mac sales overall.

The market for Mac native software will grow, not shrink. So I welcome these options.

I agree completely. People have complained in the past when a game or app is ported to mac that it often is clunky and does not take advantage of the mac OS feel or features. I've used same apps on XP and mac and the windows versions are often ugly at best and counterintuitive at worst. The look, the feel, how we interface with the app is critical. I'll take the ease of use of iphoto, itunes and safari over internet explorer and the junky photo and music software that came with my dell. I think people will use these new options-bootcamp, wine,etc-because of a need to use specific software not because they love the windows experience.

Options are good and if it grows the mac market, we will have more mac native software.

mcarnes
Jul 1, 2006, 12:46 AM
For what I use, all the best software in OS X is written by Apple or Adobe anyway, and I don't see either of them giving up on Mac versions (especially Apple :p ). So I see this news as nothing but a good thing.

Bring it on.

suzerain
Jul 1, 2006, 01:16 AM
This could be a useful way for Windows-hating Web developers (like myself, for example) to run Internet Exploder to test apps. Exploder 6.x is one of the 'officially supported' apps...

I'm using Parallels, but unfortunately IE in Windows under Parallels can't see the local domains I have hosted in Apache under OS X, and perhaps this solution would just patch through to the OS X networking stack, which would allow it to see 'fake' domains I have set up in /etc/hosts.

Anyway...nice to have all these options developing...

qtip919
Jul 1, 2006, 01:20 AM
For what I use, all the best software in OS X is written by Apple or Adobe anyway, and I don't see either of them giving up on Mac versions (especially Apple :p ). So I see this news as nothing but a good thing.

Bring it on.


Totally Agree...

here's the reason I bought a mac:

1. iPhoto
2. iMovie
3. iDVD
4. Final Cut

I did not buy a computer for the operating system, and only geeks do something like this. Real people (Im talking about 90% of the world's population) buy a computer for specific tasks...writing a paper, browsing porn sites, etc.

thanks, and goodnight

nagromme
Jul 1, 2006, 01:30 AM
That's exactly what people said when OS/2 2.1 was released....
I hereby contend that the current state of the Mac and Windows platforms is very, VERY different from the state of the OS/2 and Windows platforms at that time.

There is really no comparing the two situations. Doing so sounds good at first glance but this situation is not that one. The similarities one might note are all affected by the pile of differences.

Some examples: Mac OS X has an established consumer user base with significant public mindshare, developer support, and history. (You think too few people know about the Mac... go out on the street and ask random passersby if they ever heard of OS/2 :) It is also, across the board, fully mature, complete for a huge range of tasks, and in fact often a more productive environment than Windows. And it's tied to some great hardware. And it's not marketed in the way OS/2 was, nor to the same people. And Windows is currently in a situation to be vulnerable to defectors, more than the reverse. And Mac OS has highly polished end-to-end experience that Windows apps break. And Mac OS has a passionate user base that WILL resist non-native apps. (Look at the heated objections people had to running even Classic Mac apps instead of carbon ports!) And the Mac has a huge library of top-shelf, heavily-relied-upon, big-name, profitable native apps already long established.

The list could go on, but bottom line: OS/2 tells us very little about the future of Mac OS. OS/2 was vulnerable in ways that just don't make sense with the Mac platform.

(O/T but I'm reminded of people saying that Apple will lose the marketshare lead with iPod because they lost the marketshare lead with the Mac... when they never HAD a lead with the Mac :p )

dextertangocci
Jul 1, 2006, 03:54 AM
I this on intel only, or on PPC as well?

devman
Jul 1, 2006, 04:44 AM
I this on intel only, or on PPC as well?

Intel only.

WildPalms
Jul 1, 2006, 05:50 AM
I assume that's some sort of a joke. "Mac OS X Version 10.5 Alfa 2"???


...yes. its a joke. its also a photoshopped (or whatever) image.

The version of the operating system is his punchline.

Funny, no?

...but definitely obviously faked.

EagerDragon
Jul 1, 2006, 06:07 AM
This sounds like the best solution, it is low cost and no $ to MS.

Apple more than likely will use WINE for their own 10.5 capabilites and will be more integrated.

Most people only need a few window apps to run in order to live in the current windows world, but ........... that is changing, here comes Apple and the new Macs!!!!!!!

Poff
Jul 1, 2006, 06:13 AM
That's exactly what people said when OS/2 2.1 was released....

OS/2 would have lived if Microsoft hadn't illegaly used their monopoly-powers.. :(

OS/2 rocked!

Mord
Jul 1, 2006, 06:17 AM
...yes. its a joke. its also a photoshopped (or whatever) image.

The version of the operating system is his punchline.

Funny, no?

...but definitely obviously faked.

nope, not photoshoped

some guy asked how i got the copy, i'm a beta tester and theirs no NDA or anything.

EagerDragon
Jul 1, 2006, 06:32 AM
I like to know how the apps are installed if there is no windows os.

Mord
Jul 1, 2006, 06:33 AM
their is a directory which simulates the c drive in application support under your user directory, it has all the standard windows folders where stuff is installed.

Collin973
Jul 1, 2006, 10:28 AM
I'm surprised more companies haven't tried to develop this sooner. I think it'll be a great benefit for mac users to natively run windows apps. Most people only need the apps from the windows world, not the OS. I think this has the potential to boost mac OS's up because people will be able to use their windows apps they need for work, while running OS X.

thegreatluke
Jul 1, 2006, 10:30 AM
I assume that's some sort of a joke. "Mac OS X Version 10.5 Alfa 2"???
...Unless Apple is planning on naming their OS 11 versions after sprouts.

"Oh, and one more thing... Here's Mac OS 11.0 'Alfalfa!' "

I'm surprised more companies haven't tried to develop this sooner. I think it'll be a great benefit for mac users to natively run windows apps. Most people only need the apps from the windows world, not the OS. I think this has the potential to boost mac OS's up because people will be able to use their windows apps they need for work, while running OS X.
I'm sure they are but... no matter how many people you have on a development team, things take time. I'm sure an app that seamlessly virtualizes (or whatever the term is) Windows apps on Linux and Mac OS X would take a long time to code and develop.

shawnce
Jul 1, 2006, 10:43 AM
I'm surprised more companies haven't tried to develop this sooner. ...because it is hard to do and support.

It is very hard to implement something like WINE that even has a chance to run a handful of applications well (really WINE sucks for stability in experience). Also with Vista coming out WINE has a lot to catch-up with in new Windows APIs if they want to continue to run the next generation of Windows applications.

Also currently the WINE ports to Mac OS X suck since they usually depend on X11 for windowing and display.

mcarnes
Jul 1, 2006, 11:05 AM
"Oh, and one more thing... Here's Mac OS 11.0 'Alfalfa!' "

I'd wait for 11.1 'Bean'. No sense in going through early adopter woes.

thegreatluke
Jul 1, 2006, 11:10 AM
I'd wait for 11.1 'Bean'. No sense in going through early adopter woes.
Yeah, but you'd be stuck with OS X and their stupid cat names.

:)

Sprouts are the way to go.

dubnluvn
Jul 1, 2006, 12:45 PM
is the ability to actually run IE6.0 on a mac.

There are still, unfortunately, way too many sites that have designed to take use ActiveX or IE's specific scripting features and will not run on anything else. This would provide a work-around. I'd just like it to work without having to shift into a full-on windoze mode.

I'm with you Springer. IE is the ONLY reason I need a PC for work. Damn ActiveX. I really hope this works. It could save me a lot of money and a lot of headache. Here is to hoping!


Dub

nathan2301
Jul 1, 2006, 01:32 PM
http://img426.imageshack.us/img426/1280/aboutthismac4lp.jpg

:eek:

WOW!!! You can read and follow instructions

http://dustin.waterfallsw.com/2006/06/how-to-create-your-own-leopard.html

:rolleyes:

Mord
Jul 1, 2006, 01:46 PM
actually I'm just lazy, i used the same pic in both the post your about this mac thing thread and this one, and i've known how to edit plist values for a very long time.

MacsomJRR
Jul 1, 2006, 02:32 PM
This is really exciting news. I'm getting a little tired of having to reboot my MBP every time I want to play around with a game or some app in windows... Can't wait to see this in action:)

shawnce
Jul 1, 2006, 03:03 PM
actually I'm just lazy, i used the same pic in both the post your about this mac thing thread and this one, and i've known how to edit plist values for a very long time.

You do realize it is "Alpha" not "Alfa" as in...

Alpha - "the first letter of the Greek alphabet (?, ?), transliterated as “a.”"

alec
Jul 1, 2006, 03:57 PM
no more virtualization, no more boot camp -- can we look forward to WINE in leopard?? i hope

DaveTheGrey
Jul 1, 2006, 04:23 PM
would it be possible for codewaver to get os x aps running natively in wondoze?

dave

sonnys
Jul 1, 2006, 04:38 PM
Something like this will NEVER become part of the standard OS from Apple, and here's why: no incentive to develop Mac apps.

Application development is, first and foremost, a business. It makes no business sense to develop for two platforms when you can develop for one platform and know it will run on all platforms. Love of Mac has nothing to do with this -- it's economics. There will be die-hard Mac fans that will continue writing for the Mac platform, but the big guys will be quick to abandon it for sound business reasons.

I hope this never becomes a part of OS X, or the Mac will be dead as a viable alternative to Windows.

Mord
Jul 1, 2006, 04:51 PM
You do realize it is "Alpha" not "Alfa" as in...

Alpha - "the first letter of the Greek alphabet (?, ?), transliterated as “a.”"


i should really put my "dyslectics off teh wrold untie!" sig back up

GFLPraxis
Jul 1, 2006, 05:06 PM
Isn't this bad?....I could be wrong but doesnt running widows apps nativley on OS X....open it up to windows viruses?

Trojans, maybe.

Viruses exploit holes in Windows- which isn't running.

Trojans are just evil programs. They might run. Hopefully they are some of the programs that aren't compatible :) And in all likelyhood unless specificly designed to hurt Macs they wouldn't affect the Mac side of things (they can't install themselves into OS X or set themselves to come out on boot, they probably can't wipe your HFS partition, and they won't know where to access your stored passwords/credit card info/etc that you told your Mac to store because it'll be looking for Windows' stuff.

Anyway, I don't know why people are voting this as negative. If you don't want it, don't use it, but for people with lots of Windows only apps who can't afford to go buy a seperate Mac versions, this is the perfect excuse to switch.

GFLPraxis
Jul 1, 2006, 05:10 PM
From alpha testing to a shipping product in a month? Uh-oh. :o

It is a port, not written from scratch. They just have to work out bugs in implementing it on OS X instead of Linux.

ChrisA
Jul 1, 2006, 06:51 PM
Question: Which would run faster the PPC version of Photoshop running under Rosetta or the Windows versin of PS running under Wine? My gueess is The Winddows version would run twice as fast. Same for Office.

ChrisA
Jul 1, 2006, 06:59 PM
I'm surprised more companies haven't tried to develop this sooner.

It was hard to be "sooner". The free version of this came out weeks after the first Intel Mac. What we see here in Alpha release of a commercial version. As for way there are not more companies. This is Open Source software Once someone puts the source code on the Internet there is no incentive for anyone else to duplicate that work when it available for free. Easier to build off that than re-invent.

asphalt-proof
Jul 1, 2006, 08:51 PM
I hereby contend that the current state of the Mac and Windows platforms is very, VERY different from the state of the OS/2 and Windows platforms at that time.

There is really no comparing the two situations. Doing so sounds good at first glance but this situation is not that one. The similarities one might note are all affected by the pile of differences.

Some examples: Mac OS X has an established consumer user base with significant public mindshare, developer support, and history. (You think too few people know about the Mac... go out on the street and ask random passersby if they ever heard of OS/2 :) It is also, across the board, fully mature, complete for a huge range of tasks, and in fact often a more productive environment than Windows. And it's tied to some great hardware. And it's not marketed in the way OS/2 was, nor to the same people. And Windows is currently in a situation to be vulnerable to defectors, more than the reverse. And Mac OS has highly polished end-to-end experience that Windows apps break. And Mac OS has a passionate user base that WILL resist non-native apps. (Look at the heated objections people had to running even Classic Mac apps instead of carbon ports!) And the Mac has a huge library of top-shelf, heavily-relied-upon, big-name, profitable native apps already long established.

The list could go on, but bottom line: OS/2 tells us very little about the future of Mac OS. OS/2 was vulnerable in ways that just don't make sense with the Mac platform.

(O/T but I'm reminded of people saying that Apple will lose the marketshare lead with iPod because they lost the marketshare lead with the Mac... when they never HAD a lead with the Mac :p )


Thank you. Thank you. Thank YOU!!! I hope that people will read your post and gain a little perspective. The OS2 situation is a vastly different animal than what we are dealing with right now. This is only a good thing for Apple.

GFLPraxis
Jul 1, 2006, 10:26 PM
Question: Which would run faster the PPC version of Photoshop running under Rosetta or the Windows versin of PS running under Wine? My gueess is The Winddows version would run twice as fast. Same for Office.

Windows version under WINE. It'd be running at full speed, minus some overhead from the extra RAM of having OS X and part of Windows running at the same time. PPC Photoshop would be running under emulation. Much slower.

FF_productions
Jul 2, 2006, 12:04 AM
So while I'm out of town I hear about this crazy story telling me I can run my windows apps NATIVELY on OSX.:eek:

I hope it comes standard with Leopard so someone doesn't have to whip out 60 dollars to do this.

madtowndoc
Jul 2, 2006, 12:10 AM
Sweet! My 10th grade invention (11 years ago) of the PowerMacWinDOS (a play on Power Macintosh), a computer that runs Mac, Windows, and DOS programs all in one Mac operating system, will finally see the light of day! If only I had developed it first!

Mammoth
Jul 2, 2006, 02:23 AM
Yes... I hope these 'educational' discounts extend to K-12 students. :D

iAlan
Jul 2, 2006, 02:27 AM
Honestly, not sure what to make of this...

Let's say it works well. Let's also say that a majority of key software offerings are compatable. Would these companies then continue to invest in developing OS X versions of their software? Honestly. If a company could develop just one version of their software for 2 (or more) platforms then why evelop 2?

And did Apple concider teh posibilioty of this happening? Although given Apple's current software development (and acquisition) they may have Apple-created equivalents for all the software that runs Windows versions on OS x anyway (can you see the headline 'Apple acquires Adobe' on all major news wires in the next 18 months?)

ezekielrage_99
Jul 2, 2006, 07:35 AM
Sign me up, I'm buying this one :D

This is better than buying a copy of Windows XP SP2

pmitch
Jul 2, 2006, 08:44 AM
The only programs that are a must for me are CS2, Dreamweaver, Flash and the bevy of Windows browsers.

MS Publisher is one that comes to mind. I know two teachers weaned on Windows who find to hard to accept Macs because that one program doesn't run on them. But I don't see MS Publisher on the supported list :(

macthorough
Jul 2, 2006, 08:52 AM
10.5 is going to be able to run windows natively, meaning windows will run like OS9 Classic does currently. Thsi means no more rebooting to change ur startup disk. (bootcamop builtin basically)!!!

= )

BornAgainMac
Jul 2, 2006, 09:49 AM
I wish it would focus on programs that are not available on the Mac. I would rather pay $500 for a Mac version than run some crappy Windows version of the same app for free.

Also OS/2 wasn't that much different than Windows for 90% of the people out there. At least you can see the differences with OSX with boot times, visual eye candy, speed, and unique software.

2ndPath
Jul 2, 2006, 11:02 AM
Question: Which would run faster the PPC version of Photoshop running under Rosetta or the Windows versin of PS running under Wine? My gueess is The Winddows version would run twice as fast. Same for Office.

Wheres und Cross Over Office the newest Photoshop version working seems to be 7 (at least on linux) while the OSX native version is available in newer versions like CS and CS2.

mark!
Jul 2, 2006, 11:06 AM
10.5 is going to be able to run windows natively, meaning windows will run like OS9 Classic does currently. Thsi means no more rebooting to change ur startup disk. (bootcamop builtin basically)!!!

= )

just a rumor :confused:

retroneo
Jul 2, 2006, 11:26 AM
yes, but he's trying to make a point. whether you buy the mac or windows version is up to you.

But for switchers, they wouldn't need to re-purchase their entire software library.

retroneo
Jul 2, 2006, 11:30 AM
If an application is written for a PC it follows all the PC strictures. We would have the menu bar on each window and a square/line and X in the place of the colored buttons. All the menus would all be set up like on a PC. There would be no application consitency and we may as well be running Windows.

It is possible to integrate this better and give Windows applications a Mac OS-like look and feel. Just look at the (optional) Mac OS look and feel of the Java environment for an idea of how this looks. The windows menubar at the top of a window can be easily re-implemented to be more mac like at the top of the screen.

Future versions won't require X-windows.

shawnce
Jul 2, 2006, 11:34 AM
It is possible to integrate this better and give Windows applications a Mac OS-like look and feel. Just look at the (optional) Mac OS look and feel of the Java environment for an idea of how this looks. The windows menubar at the top of a window can be easily re-implemented to be more mac like at the top of the screen. The Aqua look and feel that Apple provides for Java is nice but it still has many holes and to support things like the single menu bar application have to be coded to request it and manage it. In other words even with Java it isn't free of charge.

Expecting a Window application written to Window API to be able to even come close to looking like a Mac OS X application (including a single menu bar) is much more difficult.

macthorough
Jul 2, 2006, 11:56 AM
just a rumor :confused:

Sure it's a rumor. I'm not totally sure but it makes sense. I've worked for apple for 3 years and it's the only logical step for them to take in regards to suporting windows/bootcamp otherwise people will use viurtul PC or the crap they're posting about in the forum (which is usually what software companies do as they steal secrets from Apple and try to beat Apple to the punch). Apple's goal is to increase their market share. Adding windows to their already superior product lineup is the only way to catch up to MS. Dont be suprised if you see Safari for windows XP soon either (just a guees). I cannot wait till Apple releases 10.5 in November. I'm totally going to be stuck between buyin a Macbook, MacMini or a Playstation 3. I soon expect Windows to be a thing of the past due to the lack of luster of their OS. Apple just needs to get enough hard-headed windows users to switch to OS X. Where would all the cool gradmas be without iPhoto? They'd be ueing some crappy shareware program that downloads spyware and viruses in their .exe's. Needless to say theyd be withou a photoalbumn ont their harddrive. Since my Mac was stolen I've been working with PC's and I miss having the dock!

macthorough
Jul 2, 2006, 12:03 PM
I wish it would focus on programs that are not available on the Mac. I would rather pay $500 for a Mac version than run some crappy Windows version of the same app for free.

Also OS/2 wasn't that much different than Windows for 90% of the people out there. At least you can see the differences with OSX with boot times, visual eye candy, speed, and unique software.

I don't know what you or anyone on this website knows about macs to the the history of macs. but gates stole the idea of windows from Apple. Back when apples dominated in schools everwhere with the burnt up green screens...Jobs was planning on leaving apple and staring his own computer/sofware company based on GUI. his goal was to infest the world with computers so everyone can network and whatever. well when he left apple he stole the layout of the OS already in place by apple. fortunetly he succeeded and almost ran apple aground. once jobs took over and created the OS X the OS that "you'd want to lick" apple began it's comback. as history repeat itself expect Windows Vista to look a lot like OS X.

macthorough
Jul 2, 2006, 12:08 PM
Full windows compatibility without windows... screw boot camp and virtualization - this would be the holy grail.

i know it's only some apps for now, but it will grow. This is the way to go.

u mean no windows at all just OS X that will work with product spec'd for windows?

zephead
Jul 2, 2006, 12:08 PM
Since my Mac was stolen I've been working with PC's and I miss having the dock!
I have Windows, and I use RK Launcher (http://home.cogeco.ca/~rklauncher/) which is a really good dock IMO. And since the stuff you drag onto it isn't exactly Mac-like, there's help for that too! osx-e.com (http://osx-e.com/downloads/icons/) has 1400 Tiger PNG's you can use for the dock. :)

dicklacara
Jul 2, 2006, 02:01 PM
http://img426.imageshack.us/img426/1280/aboutthismac4lp.jpg

:eek:


mmmmm.... how do you spell alpha

mark!
Jul 2, 2006, 02:04 PM
mmmmm.... how do you spell alpha

soomeone said this alreadyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

eric_n_dfw
Jul 2, 2006, 02:52 PM
OS/2 would have lived if Microsoft hadn't illegaly used their monopoly-powers.. :(

OS/2 rocked!
As a former OS/2 3.x (Warp) user, I'd say IBM's schizophrenic marketing and iron fisted tactics when MicroSoft was working on it with them was as much to blame as illegal tactics by one or the other. I think everything shady that MS learned to do was from the example of "Big Blue".

By the time Win95 came out, IBM was selling PC's with it by default while their OS/2 adds were few-and-far between.

garfield2002
Jul 2, 2006, 03:10 PM
A couple years ago I interned with a company that only used Linux. From that experience I decided to delve into Linux in my spare time and WINE was part of that experimentation. At the time I simply wanted to use Office/Word, because StarOffice did not produce compatible files that others could read.

In a nutshell, WINE was extremely buggy, and aside from opening the program nothing else really worked as it was supposed to. Now in the intervening time, I am sure that many many improvements have been made to WINE in terms of functionality and compatibility. However even after reading the MS Office compatibility site for crossover, so kindly provided by vinow, it brought back many bad memories.

To get ONE program running 100% in WINE is not a small task. By the time you get it working (or it may never work), a new version of that program will have been released with a whole set of new problems. You are always going to be one step behind and playing catch up. Now we all acknowlege that MS programs are buggy in their own right, now add the bugs of crossover on top and you've got a support nightmare for Apple. Can you imagine a new Leopard user calling Apple wondering why XXXX.exe (dumb PC program) is not working properly in OS X. If this type of native windows application support were built into Leopard that user would be within his/her right to call Apple for support. Logically I do not think that Apple will take on the responsibility of maintaing something like WINE for OS X. It is just too much of a comittment.

In my opinion Apple has already revealed a great solution with Boot Camp. Parallels can also be considered a similar solution. It give OS X users the option to run Windows, but limits Apple's liability. Apple provides the hardware support for Windows, however if a program doesn't work it's not Apple's fault. Blame windows and buy the OS X version of the software.

:)

Scruff
Jul 2, 2006, 03:27 PM
Any solution that requires me to buy 2 OS's is a bad solution. I want to be able to use Steam, for example, without having to run Windows, or a 'Windows Window'. I just want to click on the icon, and have it run. I don't want to have to have downloaded a special version that came out 6 months later, I want to run the same software.

A tall order, maybe, but I shouldn't have to compromise on this, it should just work. If doing this meant Mac devs stopped making Mac only software, then that'd be great, they'd be making the same software for a wider audience, Hell, the WHOLE audience. I mean, we're never going to convince EVERY Dev to rewrite their code for us, and I'm certainly not alone in not wanting to have to own two OSs.

Boot Camp is a temporary solution, at best.

-Jeff
Jul 2, 2006, 05:05 PM
To get ONE program running 100% in WINE is not a small task. By the time you get it working (or it may never work), a new version of that program will have been released with a whole set of new problems.

In a perfect world, when an application runs in Windows and doesn't run in WINE, they would make the appropriate changes to WINE instead of the application. That way, different apps that make the same offending API call would run unmodified.

sonnys
Jul 2, 2006, 05:14 PM
Doesn't anyone see a trend with all of this? First Apple moves to Intel, then it released Boot Camp, now another party is making it possible to run Windows apps natively on the Mac... Mac OS and Windows appear to be converging, who thinks that in 5 years they will be a single, indistinguishable product?

There is something terribly sexy about being able to run Windows apps natively on my Mac as well as superior Mac OS applications side-by-side. Although I'm afraid Mac developers would jump ship, I love the idea of having the "superior" computer that can run everything at native speed. That would definitely give Apple a great "supercomputer" ad campaign!

fawlty
Jul 2, 2006, 06:00 PM
Something like this will NEVER become part of the standard OS from Apple, and here's why: no incentive to develop Mac apps.

Application development is, first and foremost, a business. It makes no business sense to develop for two platforms when you can develop for one platform and know it will run on all platforms. Love of Mac has nothing to do with this -- it's economics. There will be die-hard Mac fans that will continue writing for the Mac platform, but the big guys will be quick to abandon it for sound business reasons.

I hope this never becomes a part of OS X, or the Mac will be dead as a viable alternative to Windows.

But, but... if something like this were part of the OS, then as a Windows developer, I could deliberately build my product to play well with WINE, and
suddenly it's a cross-platform product. And can be marketed as such.

Which brings no disadvantage to the Mac OS. Indeed it makes the Mac an option for my clients, which currently it is not.

Peace
Jul 2, 2006, 06:39 PM
The ultimate solution would be to STOP using MS programs.Period..

Get over the Windows addiction..


I did it 4 years ago and am a happy camper now.

I know..I know..But what about all those CAD programs??

Oh well!! :p

milatchi
Jul 2, 2006, 06:51 PM
Yawn, tell me when full compatibility comes along.

garfield2002
Jul 2, 2006, 08:00 PM
In a perfect world, when an application runs in Windows and doesn't run in WINE, they would make the appropriate changes to WINE instead of the application. That way, different apps that make the same offending API call would run unmodified.

Ah, you are quite correct. However in the Linux world you could theoretically make that change to WINE yourself. Should Apple choose this approach to crossplatform compatibility its implementation would be closed source. In essence this means that Apple takes upon itself the task of debugging WINE. With constantly changing PC programs (even without the changes in Vista) its akin to patching a leaking ship. :)

balamw
Jul 2, 2006, 08:10 PM
Yawn, tell me when full compatibility comes along.
There ain't no such thing as 100% compatibility, even when you run the code provided by Microsoft. The main problem is that there are so many variations of Windows out there, that even on PCs you can't guarantee compatibility with anything but the exact version of Windows with the same drivers that was used to develop the app in question in the first place.

Is XPSP1 supported? Media Center? Pro vs. Home? How about Win2K? ME? 98SE? 98? Each has their own compatibility quirks.

B

kodiak
Jul 3, 2006, 05:23 AM
what does crossover add over wine/darwine? is it easier to install/configure?

seems a surprise to me, that developers are still bothering with wine...

issues i see:

as windows moves on, wine has to be constantly updated, std problem with reverse engineering:

- isnt Vista and the M$ move to new apis (WPF, WCF, WF) going to make this irrelevant?
M$ have stated though the win32 api is going to continue at present the new apis are the future (so theorectically these are now the ones to emulate)

- does wine have as many developers as M$, M$ will constantly introduce new features/api .. and if wine doesnt have, then its not compatible.

oldMac
Jul 3, 2006, 08:41 AM
A few thoughts...
(Forgive me for repeating what others may have said already.)

1) The Windows APIs (there are several) have grown into a really big legacy mess. And Vista appears to be making this worse rather than better. The only glimmer of hope here is that maybe the win32 api will stop changing so much, which offers a better chance that WINE could become stable for legacy apps.

2) WINE has been around for a very long time and it's never produced a reliable way to run Windows apps on Linux. It seems hard to believe that this will suddenly change.

3) Some level of isolation for the Windows environment is probably desirable given the number of viruses out there.

4) Perhaps it would be possible to run windows on the Mac (via virtualization), but hide the Windows desktop and start menu so that Windows apps "appear" to be running side-by-side with Mac apps.
- Perhaps MS could include some remote APIs that the Mac OS could interact with to make this a more seamless integration while still providing that layer of protection
- However, with the hardware requirements of Vista, this is going to require some beefy machines

5) Our best hope here is for Apple and MS to work together to make this happen
- Benefits MS because they could sell more copies of Office/Windows
- Benefits Apple because they could sell more hardware

guzhogi
Jul 3, 2006, 10:02 AM
Here's a little trivia for you: back in system 7, Apple had a project to port the Mac OS to Intel. This project was called "Star Trek." Later, when Apple released Mac OS X, before the switch to Intel, they tried porting Mac OS X to Intel. This project was called "Star Trek: The NeXT Generation."

To be honest, I miss the days of OS 7, specifically the simplicity. All you needed to boot the Mac up to the desktop was a folder in the root directory of your hard drive and have the system folder and finder in the folder. Also, think how fast system 7 would be on the newest Macs, if it were ported. That would scream!

charlien
Jul 3, 2006, 10:05 AM
Will CrossOver Mac run on PowerPC Macs?

No. It will only run on Intel OS X Macs. Our underlying technology -- Wine (www.winehq.org) -- requires an x86 architecture chip.


bummer

balamw
Jul 3, 2006, 10:19 AM
Will CrossOver Mac run on PowerPC Macs?

No. It will only run on Intel OS X Macs. Our underlying technology -- Wine (www.winehq.org) -- requires an x86 architecture chip.


bummer
This is a bit misleading, though probably true for Crossover Office. The free/OSS version of DarWine does come in a PPC version, but IIRC it basically usues QEMU to provide the X86 emulation on PPC. (i.e. it's slower than snot on PPC).

B

FF_productions
Jul 3, 2006, 10:41 AM
To be honest, I miss the days of OS 7, specifically the simplicity. All you needed to boot the Mac up to the desktop was a folder in the root directory of your hard drive and have the system folder and finder in the folder. Also, think how fast system 7 would be on the newest Macs, if it were ported. That would scream!

I loved OS 7, surfing the internet was ridiculous though. I remember when 56k modems came out and I kept yelling at my dad to get one because we still had 28k. It would take 45 minutes to load a single website, I used to download 1.4 mb games, it would take about 4 hours to download that. I still loved the simplicity of OS 7, it's still very simple here on OS X, but not as simple as OS 7 was.

wmmk
Jul 3, 2006, 11:36 AM
This is a bit misleading, though probably true for Crossover Office. The free/OSS version of DarWine does come in a PPC version, but IIRC it basically usues QEMU to provide the X86 emulation on PPC. (i.e. it's slower than snot on PPC).

B
AFAIK, ther PPC Darwine version using QEMU hasn't come out yet. I'm pretty sure that the current version can only run Windows apps that have been pre- compiled for PPC, even though they use the Win32 API.

QPlot
Jul 3, 2006, 11:52 AM
it's wine on mac, seriously, one thing could be better than this is duel boot which is not very convienent some times.

wmmk
Jul 3, 2006, 12:16 PM
it's wine on mac, seriously, one thing could be better than this is duel boot which is not very convienent some times.
people may vote negative because this may open os x up to viruses, hurt the development of native mac apps, and also because this is wine on mac (aka darwine, which is opensource) but proprietary and not free in terms of money.

aussie_geek
Jul 3, 2006, 03:13 PM
bleh...

many of the supported apps are available on Mac anyway... :rolleyes:

This gets a negative vote from me.


aussie_geek

akac
Jul 3, 2006, 03:20 PM
But, but... if something like this were part of the OS, then as a Windows developer, I could deliberately build my product to play well with WINE, and
suddenly it's a cross-platform product. And can be marketed as such.

Which brings no disadvantage to the Mac OS. Indeed it makes the Mac an option for my clients, which currently it is not.

Exactly right. I have a desktop app on Windows I'd love to have running natively on OS X with OS X look and feel. I've considered DarWine once they move to Aqua instead of X. But frankly, I'd be happy just for myself to get it on OS X.

hayesk
Jul 3, 2006, 03:24 PM
But, but... if something like this were part of the OS, then as a Windows developer, I could deliberately build my product to play well with WINE, and
suddenly it's a cross-platform product. And can be marketed as such.

Which brings no disadvantage to the Mac OS. Indeed it makes the Mac an option for my clients, which currently it is not.

No disadvantage?!? You would be running Windows apps. How is that not a disadvantage. Making WINE or whatever part of the OS will not make developers make their apps more consistent, well thought out, or use any of the nice MacOS X features such as Apple Events, Sheets, better drag and drop, address book integration, etc.

Instead, we'll be stuck with windows apps that barely work because the developer will slap a MacOS sticker on the box with little or no testing.

Instead Apple should release Cocoa for Windows. Let Mac developers use Apple's libraries to make Mac and Windows apps that act like Mac apps. Windows is already a hodgepodge of inconsistency, Cocoa apps would probably improve the situation. It would probably also entice some Windows developers to use Cocoa.

hayesk
Jul 3, 2006, 03:31 PM
To be honest, I miss the days of OS 7, specifically the simplicity. All you needed to boot the Mac up to the desktop was a folder in the root directory of your hard drive and have the system folder and finder in the folder. Also, think how fast system 7 would be on the newest Macs, if it were ported. That would scream!

Actually the System Folder could have been anywhere on the disk. All you needed to do was "bless" it so the ROM knew which one to use. With System 6 you could even switch from one system folder to another by option-double clicking the system file - without restarting!

I wonder what would happen if they made System 7 with a pre-emptively multitasked, memory-protected kernel back then when they made the switch from System 6. Add multi-user to the mix too.

The only thing I can think of that would have held them back at the time was that RAM was really expensive. At the time Macs were shipping with 2MB RAM at the low end, and the most RAM you could have was 8MB. You probably would have needed 4MB minimum.

fawlty
Jul 3, 2006, 03:58 PM
No disadvantage?!? You would be running Windows apps.

Touché!

Digitalclips
Jul 3, 2006, 04:16 PM
You're right on the money. After looking at the Codeweavers Web site and looking through the list of apps supported by this and its Linux counterpart, it quickly becomes clear that this is great for Linux -- for which Microsoft Office and such are unlikely to occur in the next few years, if ever -- but is only marginally useful for OS X.

Still think the Parallels approach is the way to go. Now, it's a question of whether something like that is built into Leopard or Apple decides not to step on the developer. Perhaps we'll know by early afternoon on August 7.

This is the Holy Grail for Realtors. Only one app needed here, <Internet Explorer 6> so we can access those sites that are written to exclude Macs (for whatever reason). Real Estate MLS sites ...from a Mac... Oh Bliss :)

I will have three PCs for sale soon really cheap ... any takers? On second thoughts, where is the nearest cliff?

adking17
Jul 3, 2006, 05:44 PM
I am curious about the vulnerability associated with such a venture. Won't this software leave Mac users open to all the same viruses and other issues as Windows users?

zephead
Jul 3, 2006, 06:10 PM
No, because the virus would probably look for things like "C:\WINDOWS\system32\whatever.file", which of course isn't on a Mac, so there's no effect.

CommodityFetish
Jul 4, 2006, 05:03 PM
Apple would be crazy to build this into OS X - first the support nightmare it would be, and also they need some hurdle people have to jump for windows apps in order to promote native apps. Having to buy windows is a pretty good hurdle, paying $70 for this is much less, but then you get less than full app support...

I wonder if this will help with the intel transition since Adobe products and office could be used this way, bypassing rosetta slowdown...?

The apps list will surely grow, and reflect more mac-needed rather than Linux-needed apps... (games?)

Compufix
Jul 4, 2006, 08:31 PM
Well, it works well. And for someone that wants to dip their toes into OSX and still run their existing software, it is a great option. It has it's merit. I prefer to have the FULL Windows experiance (ala Parallels or Boot Camp) if I HAVE to use windows...but being able to open the occasional program directly in OSX is fantastic for those that need it (as the previous person said about reality programs). Any simple program should work, and many i tested work well.

Don't discount this solution, it has it's place. Imagine a school that has 90% of the programs they need on OSX, but those few biology or other stat programs are only available for Windows.....this works like a charm.

-Compufix

daferrisda
Jul 5, 2006, 04:55 PM
So this is what's going to happen. Developers of applications will look at this and think, well what's the point of creating two verstions of our application when a Windows version will work on a Mac. So guess what we have slow sluggish, buggy apps running on our Mac's, hey may as well buy a PC. Mr Jobs please remember what the Mac is all about!!

Compufix
Jul 6, 2006, 06:30 PM
So this is what's going to happen. Developers of applications will look at this and think, well what's the point of creating two verstions of our application when a Windows version will work on a Mac. So guess what we have slow sluggish, buggy apps running on our Mac's, hey may as well buy a PC. Mr Jobs please remember what the Mac is all about!!


The point is that this is only a stop gap and by no means will offer a comprehensive support option for the majority of software, especially multimedia and more complex software....so OSX version are still advantageous....I would also think that trying to support their applications running on this would be a nightmare for them.

balamw
Jul 6, 2006, 06:50 PM
The point is that this is only a stop gap and by no means will offer a comprehensive support option for the majority of software, especially multimedia and more complex software....so OSX version are still advantageous....I would also think that trying to support their applications running on this would be a nightmare for them.
Unfortunately you're only partially right, as the Wine project serves two major purposes.

The first is the one Crossover Office fills, running Win32 binaries on foreign x86 OSes. The other, usually called Winelib (http://www.winehq.com/site/winelib), is a library that allows people to compile applications written for Win32 as "native" applications on the foreign system (Linux, OS X). For all intents and purposes these are Linux or Mac applications, they just look a whole lot like Windows apps and make calls to Win32 API under the hood.

This was the main reason Corel was working so intensley on Wine, so they could have an easy path to porting their apps to Linux....

B

weldon
Jul 6, 2006, 11:56 PM
So this is what's going to happen. Developers of applications will look at this and think, well what's the point of creating two verstions of our application when a Windows version will work on a Mac. So guess what we have slow sluggish, buggy apps running on our Mac's, hey may as well buy a PC.
That might happen, but think what will follow if you're right...

If people are running slow, sluggish, buggy apps on their Mac that means there is a market opportunity to make a better app. The other possibility is that this is such a niche app that no one else will make a competing app. In that case, the small community that wants to use that app is well served by being able to use the product available for Windows.

My point is that allowing Windows programs to run on the Mac creates a more open market. I believe that open markets create better solutions.

Tzu
Jul 9, 2006, 09:47 AM
That might happen, but think what will follow if you're right...

If people are running slow, sluggish, buggy apps on their Mac that means there is a market opportunity to make a better app. The other possibility is that this is such a niche app that no one else will make a competing app. In that case, the small community that wants to use that app is well served by being able to use the product available for Windows.

My point is that allowing Windows programs to run on the Mac creates a more open market. I believe that open markets create better solutions.

This seems more likely to me than the disaster scenarios. I mean, if more people are running the crappy PC versions, then that means that Apple's market share is going up which should mean that more developers get interested in selling to that market. Or at least making software that's attractive to that market.

If we think that Vista is going to look a lot more like OSX, then it sort of follows that programs developed for Vista will look more like those made for OSX. They'll be pushed toward the Apple way of doing things. Combine that with an increasing Mac market share and there could just as easily be a very bright future coming.

seashellz
Jul 11, 2006, 01:05 PM
>>people will fear the death of Mac because "there's no need to write Mac apps anymore."
----
I dunno-as APPLE gains market share-what developer would turn up their noses at adding another 5-10% sales to their volume by adding Mac compatability?

JackSYi
Jul 28, 2006, 11:45 AM
That would be so nice if Apple figured out how to run Windows apps on OS X. 10 days till we all find out.

dgrotz
Jul 29, 2006, 08:25 PM
This probably has been asked but will you need to use an external mouse on the MacBook or will ctrl click work :confused: In BootCamp I have not figured out how to right click excxept to use an external mouse?

ChickenSwartz
Jul 29, 2006, 09:36 PM
As a soon-to-be Mac convert, I think this is great news. I will rely on this only to run Office. I bout Office XP a few years back and use it all the time.

So I have a choice:
1. Buy Office Mac, which, being a student isn't too bad.
2. Buy CodeWeavers

The second option has the most pros for me. I am a self proclaimed wiz at Excel and know it backwards and forwards (after 4 years engineering education). While there isn't much difference between Office for Mac and Office XP, there are subtle things that can drive a person nuts when they have 5+ hours of work to do.

So I see this as way to run Office XP, which I spend 70%+ of my computer time, until I can master Office for Mac (now to find a friend with this). I would never want to rely on a program to run all my programs. With the exception noted above, I plan to use "Mac programs" exclusively. I think a lot of people are in my or similar situation.

Think of this as weaning us off Windows (us that don't want to dual boot etc.). I couldn't do it cold turkey.

echosmyron
Aug 10, 2006, 09:31 AM
would halflife or counterstrike work on this?

mhuk01
Aug 14, 2006, 08:28 AM
is anyone a beta tester for this? I would be really interested in using this product but it appears the site hasn't been updated for a while now: -
http://www.codeweavers.com/products/cxmac/

any thoughts?