Windows Applications On Mac, Without Windows

MacRumors · Jun 30, 2006

Codeweavers has announced that CrossOver Mac 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, 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. 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 and Parallels Desktop 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 of the product running Microsoft Project.

Digg this story

Mord · Jun 30, 2006

lets hope apple does something like this but allot better..

otherwise AWESOME.

celebrian23 · Jun 30, 2006

the kicker: limited applications.

QCassidy352 · Jun 30, 2006

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

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

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

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

3ds max, autocad, games, ****, thats all i want....

qtip919 · Jun 30, 2006

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?

SilentPanda · Jun 30, 2006

This could be bad in that OS/2 kinda way...

Macrumors said:
Digg this story

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?

longofest · Jun 30, 2006

SilentPanda said:
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

wow, i completely forgot about darwine, i'll fire her up and try a few windows apps.

IJ Reilly · Jun 30, 2006

From alpha testing to a shipping product in a month? Uh-oh.

SilentPanda · Jun 30, 2006

longofest said:
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

So, is this INTEL only?

Or can us PPC users get in on this ?

boncellis · Jun 30, 2006

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

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

m-dogg said:
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

Macrumors said:
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?

JackSYi · Jun 30, 2006

Cool. Kinda pricey though.

081440 · Jun 30, 2006

I'd like to see a list of compatible "windows only" software that works with it.

bwintx · Jun 30, 2006

Brandon Sharitt said:
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

QCassidy352 said:
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

081440 said:
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

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."

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.

Windows Applications On Mac, Without Windows

macrumors bot

macrumors G4

macrumors 65816

macrumors G5

Guest

macrumors 6502a

macrumors 65816

macrumors G4

macrumors 6502

Moderator emeritus

Editor emeritus

macrumors G4

macrumors P6

Moderator emeritus

macrumors 68030

macrumors 6502

macrumors 65816

macrumors G5

macrumors 68030

macrumors 6502a

macrumors regular

macrumors 6502

macrumors 6502a

macrumors G4

macrumors G5

Our Staff