Panther and Windows?

[MacRumors]

BusinessWeek (http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/aug2003/tc2003085_7828_tc112.htm) reports on Apple's success in switching some users. Curiously, it notes the following:

Next, Apple's newest version of OS X, called Panther -- which is scheduled to debut later this year -- will let corporations run Windows applications on their Macs. That's a major plus, considering that nearly all companies use Windows.

Which, at the moment, can only be written off as a mistake -- despite the fact that Greg Maynes claims "such compatibility is a major selling point".

[arn]

Page 1'd because I'm sure everyone will be talking about it in the morning... and submitting it again if it isn't clearly visible.

It just looks like they just made an (odd) mistake.

arn

[arn]

Perhaps they misinterpreted this page:

http://www.apple.com/macosx/jaguar/compatibility.html

[Porshuh944turbo]

very funny...

i doubt though any corporations will base their buying on this... unless they are just that dumb...

[ZildjianKX]

Originally posted by arn
Perhaps they misinterpreted this page:

http://www.apple.com/macosx/jaguar/compatibility.html

Could be... its pretty messed up no matter what. Interesting though.

[Macpoops]

Although that would be pretty cool. I think someone would have heard about it at WWDC. so it must be a mistake

[MacSlut]

What a huge mistake. The editor is either an idiot for thinking Panther will run Windows apps or if there was some inside knowledge nobody knows about, an idiot for not making that in of itself a featured article.

More than likely it was just foolishly being confused with statements that Panther would come with Mail that allowed access to Exchange, or some other old news.

[Sol]

There is a possibility that Panther will come with its own x86 emulator. The power of the G5s will certainly push the performance of an emulated Windows to that of real x86 hardware.

My only doubt about this is that it is a stated fact that the new Office packages will come with Virtual PC so Apple would not have to offer emulation if Microsoft will do it for them on OS X.

Having said that, I think that if Classic can be a standard feature of OS X then an x86 component could also be a feature. It would certainly be something to shout about for Apple's marketing department.

[Porshuh944turbo]

Originally posted by Sol
There is a possibility...

okay now this is how dumb rumors get started... be real. We all know this was a mistake and any reading into it is either just plain stupidity or you are just trying to garner yourself attention.

[maradong]

sounds just plain wierd. :/

[X86BSD]

Granted this is totally wild speculation so WARNING! RDF follows.
If I recall there was a post of a story either here or on lamedot about some guy that had written code that would take binaries and run them on any platform by either decompiling them on the fly or intercepting the syscalls on the fly? I can't even remember the story post but it was pretty interesting none the less. He was able to get about 80% native platform speed through his code. I would imagine it would be possible for apple to license that code and bolt it onto panther. It would be basically the same ammount of work the Linux binary compatibility code was in FreeBSD.
Anyone else remember the article about this guy's code?

Chris

[Porshuh944turbo]

I remember hearing it referenced before here on mr, but never did find the originating information.

[nichrome]

This BusinessWeek article is probably just B.S., but it almost became a reality way back with Rhapsody DR2. Remember, Rhapsody shipped with the foundation for the so-called RedBox, which was a box alongside BlueBox (now Classic) and YellowBox (now Cocoa).

RedBox was designed to run x86 executables under an emulator as individual processes, thus allowing them to use Rhapsody/Mac OS X style window interleaving instead of running in a window like VirtualPC.

This is theoretically possible, but not very likely. Imagine the impact it would have on native Mac apps -- companies would just stop supporting OS X directly and instead they'd just make Mac users run x86 apps.

[LimeiBook86]

Well I think this could be cool... :)

[backspinner]

will let corporations run Windows applications on their Macs This all they have to say about it. One could guess that Java compatibility is meant, but it is more likely that they don't know what they are talking about. I think they mixed network compatibility with the ability to run programs. In the next page, they only talk about the use of a Mac in corporate intranets.

[lambda]

My guess is that they looked at the feature list, saw that it will include "X Windows", and figured that that was a OS X verson of Windows. The later statements about compatibility were probably simply about the increased support for Windows networks that Panther is supposed to have.

[mdavis]

Originally posted by whfsdude
Sounds like Fox news :D
rofl totally

[mvc]

"…That's a major plus, considering that nearly all companies use Windows"

This guy has a talent for the blindingly obvious as well - clearly he gets paid by the word not the braincell count
:D

[nagromme]

Obviously a mistake. Yes, Panther offers a lot in terms of Windows compatibility. No, it doesn't run x86 apps!

Not their only mistake, either. RAID stands for Redundant Array of INEXPENSIVE (not Independent) Disks. The opposite of SLED: Single Large Expensive Disk.

(And if there were a Red Box, it wouldn't run at the speed of native Mac software--or offer the Mac UI--so it wouldn't kill the Mac native software business.)

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by nichrome
This BusinessWeek article is probably just B.S., but it almost became a reality way back with Rhapsody DR2. Remember, Rhapsody shipped with the foundation for the so-called RedBox, which was a box alongside BlueBox (now Classic) and YellowBox (now Cocoa).

RedBox was designed to run x86 executables under an emulator as individual processes, thus allowing them to use Rhapsody/Mac OS X style window interleaving instead of running in a window like VirtualPC.

This is theoretically possible, but not very likely. Imagine the impact it would have on native Mac apps -- companies would just stop supporting OS X directly and instead they'd just make Mac users run x86 apps.

Perhaps my recollection is faulty, but that's not what I remember Red Box to be. As I recall, Rhapsody was originally slated to be a cross platform OS, and Red Box was the X86 equivalent of Blue Box on the PPC. That is to say, Red Box allowed users to run Windows programs on the X86 version of Rhapsody, just as Blue Box (now Classic) allows users to run older MacOS programs on the PPC version of Rhapsody...

So, Red Box was really no more of an emulation than Classic is now (which it really isn't). So, I really wouldn't hold your breath on this one...

[Porshuh944turbo]

geez.. THANK YOU snowy_river for actually reading someones post before just blindly posting what everyone else has already said.. (LIKE 90% of the people on MR do)
now.. to follow along with the conversation.....


So, Red Box was really no more of an emulation than Classic is now (which it really isn't). So, I really wouldn't hold your breath on this one...

I agree.. the whole mac-x86 merging isn't going to happen because of apple.. if microsoft wants to do something like this (by buying virtual pc, ahem) then that may be, but I don't think it benefits apple to cripple users by ultimately making them run x86 apps in emulation or whatever... it's always been apple's desire to have native software on OS x instaed of classic for this same reason, so that speed is there and that it runs smoothly, uncrippled... if you can semi-easily run x86 on os x, then why develop for os x?

[richie]

Boy, Steve's sure gonna be pissed that BusinessWeek ruined his next 'one more thing' - he can't fire people in other organisations, though ;)

Definitely a mistake, I can't imagine this happening, and I don't really want to say more, because the more is written regarding this, the more it will enter the collective rumour-consciousness

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by nagromme
...Not their only mistake, either. RAID stands for Redundant Array of INEXPENSIVE (not Independent) Disks. ...

Actually, that's not a mistake. From whatis?com (http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,289893,sid9_gci214332,00.html) :

RAID (redundant array of independent disks; originally redundant array of inexpensive disks)

[AmigoMac]

Nice way to transalte a lot of x86 apps into OSX, It will call a lot of Developers to transalte their apps to Mac, look at x11, classic... The world is turning X....;) ..The end of WindoX

[nagromme]

(redundant array of independent disks; originally redundant array of inexpensive disks)

Ah, they do like to change those tech acronyms! :)

[SubGothius]

How's this for unfounded speculation and blatant rumormongering:

Heyyy, mebbe this is a hint as to what really happened to FWB's promised but as-yet-undelivered revival of RealPC. If FWB's contractual agreement with Connectix to not market RealPC for Mac were still binding after M$ bought all assets of Connectix (including said agreement), perhaps the language of the agreement still left FWB free to sell that property to Apple, who could then develop and market it themselves...

Erm, naaah... :rolleyes:

[Mr. Anderson]

Yes, very weird mistake. And if it is such, I'm wouldn't be surprised if Apple says something about it being a mistake.

But it would open up a whole new world for macs......then M$ would make *special* code, optimized for PCs that wouldn't work on the Apple Windows version....:rolleyes:

I'll believe it when I see it.

D

[tazznb]

At least it may get some corporations to mistakenly take a look at Mac OSX, and see what dunderheads they've been all along for using that wannabe OS named windows.

At least windows is good for use as a gaming console.

[ewinemiller]

Originally posted by tazznb
At least it may get some corporations to mistakenly take a look at Mac OSX, and see what dunderheads they've been all along for using that wannabe OS named windows.

And them have them walk away after the evaluation saying "the Mac is all BS hype"? No you want to portray the platform accurately, not have this kind of crap floating around and then have someone figure out that it's not true after spending money and time to do the evaluation. That will really leave a bad impression of Apple. Amongst the PC crowd I interact with, Apple already has a reputation for not accurately portraying their capabilities, this kind of stuff just feeds the fire.

[Kamu-San]

I don't think it's true and I do think this guy is talking out of his ass.

I also think that Windows-compatibility out of the box would be a major mistake. Rememer OS/2? No? See? Nobody remembers OS/2 (this is actually a Bill Gates quote ROFL!)

OS/2 shot itself in the foot by offering a Win3.1 compatibility. So nobody bothered to develop OS/2 applications, since Win3.1 apps would run as good (actually better) under OS/2.

[solvs]

I'm sure it's a mistake.

I doubt people in the know will buy a Mac thinking you can run PC software, then be disappointed when it doesn't. I'm sure they just misread the whole Exchange support thing. They did say Panther was going to be more Windows compatible. There is the whole, Remote Desktop thing, but you can already do that.

And I think the Fox News joke was funny. Have you seen Fox News lately? There's your example (besides, lighten up). CNN sucks sometimes, too. MSNBC REALLY sucks. What, do you work for Fox or something?

If you do, I'm sorry. Not for the comment, I'm just sorry.

THIS JUST IN - CHEECH AND CHONG TO REUNITE! (if you're a Daily Show fan, you'll get it)

[Fender2112]

Even though Apple's policy is to not comment about rumors or unannounced products, they will have to same something one way or the other about this.

If they statement is false, Apple will have to say so. Otherwise their silence will mean that the statement is true.

[abdul]

i really do hope they bring out an emulator that allows you to use the software without having to have the os on your computer as well. a bit like x11. In think apple have the technology to develop a good emultor as they currently have 2 available to mac os X (classic and x11)

personally i dont think it should be free but be less expensive than VPC, as if free the mac os X native software would not be developed. Already many smaller companies havent developed mac osx software especially ISPs eventhough its been out for about 3 years, still upport up2 os9.2.

i also feel that they should integrate a Linux emulator into Panther for free. The reason to grow on attracting the unix base which that they have already attracted through x11.

[yoshi1013]

I think someone at Businessweek is going to be really really embarrassed soon.

Even though it has to be a mistake, the prospect of being able to just use Windows software in a Mac would be a great thing to gloat over with PC users who don't like Macs because of lack of games.

[uberska]

Why is it so far fetched? Look at http://www.winehq.com/ . It houses a program called WINE ( Wine Is Not an Emulator...yeah, yeah...geeky fun ).

From the website:

"Wine is an Open Source implementation of the Windows API on top of X and Unix....allowing many unmodified Windows binaries to run on x86-based Unixes, including Linux, FreeBSD, and Solaris."

If Apple created a built in x86 emulator and included WINE, windows apps could run in Mac OSX....or maybe they're talking about VirtualPC. Either way, they can run their windows apps in OSX....they didn't say run natively.

[Rocketman]

"will let corporations run Windows applications on their Macs."

1. A stock Mac will run Microsoft Office if you install it. It does not come in a truly stock Mac.

2. A stock Mac will run MANY windows applicatos if you install Virtual PC or the like. It does not come in a truly stock Mac.

3. A stock Mac will communicate with Microsoft networks now better than ever. It does come in a truly stock Mac.

I have heard several previous windows zealots who have switched to Macs state it runs windows better than wintel hardware. Not surprising considering the tight integration of hardware, software, plugs/outlets and extensions.

So therefore technically the article is correct and maybe the solution to switchers is to have them simply switch from cheap knock-off wintel hardware to kick-ass IBM-Apple hardware and retain the windows they have become accustomed to, as a mere application on a vastly superior primary desktop.

Microsoft gets paid (sometimes twice), so they should be well in favor of it.

Rocketman

[QuiteSure]

Yes, it is an obvious mistake. But it is actually TRUE!

IF you are working on a network that has at least one box running XP Professional and

IF you are running Jaguar

you can download the very impressive and FREE Microsoft Remote Desktop Connection app and control the XP box from your mac. I have this setup in my office and it is surprisingly effective. I can run windows apps on my mac without an emulator. Very slick.

So although the sense of the BizWeek article -- that Panther will be set up to inherently run windoze apps -- is an obvious mistake, the reality is that on the networks which may swing over to macs, which are already probably running at least 1 windoze box, you will be able to run these apps on your mac, if you have the proper configuration.

[yankeedoodle]

Originally posted by yoshi1013
I think someone at Businessweek is going to be really really embarrassed soon.

Even though it has to be a mistake, the prospect of being able to just use Windows software in a Mac would be a great thing to gloat over with PC users who don't like Macs because of lack of games.

Don't expect Wintel games to be running on a Panther G5 anytime soon... Games are just too much hardware dependent and are way too slow in emulation environments. If a x86 emulator should indeed make its way into the Mac OS, expect to run business applications, control applications for special hardware (egg. lab-systems, production machines, etc.) and that kind of stuff. Heck, if you want to play games, go and get a PlayStation! ;)

[cubist]

Originally posted by adzoox
... Supposedly Panther will integrate seamlessly into NT and Windows networks using a different abstraction of TCP/IP/Rendezvous Hybrid and will finally drop ALL Appletalk code. ...

Won't this make it difficult for Panther to communicate with Mac OS 9 machines on the same LAN? I sure hope that's not true.

I thought I'd heard that X Window support was going to be fully integrated. This would allow X Window applications to be run... which is close (syntactically if not semantically) to the original quote, and something that would make a lot of people happy.

[agreenster]

(in my best HomestarRunner (http://www.homestarrunner.com) voice)

Okay guys, thats weally weird.

[pkradd]

The writer was obviously confused. Not the first time a BusinessWeek article got the specifics wrong. It will most likely be corrected by the end of the day (if BW has any pride in their reporting). This is how stupid rumors.... which are the basis for almost 75% of Mac sites reporting on the net, get started.

[Jerry Spoon]

This is what happens when you don't fully research a topic. I'm pretty sure we covered that in High School journalism.

Those who say this is "technically true" would probably be really ticked off if you were windows users and actually looked at macs to run all of your specialized software and found out the hoops you'd have to jump through. I'd think Apple was a hack company for making those claims (even though the fact that they weren't made by Apple is "technically true")

[Tim Flynn]

Assuming there is a little "truth" ...
WINE makes more sense than VirtualPC.
WINE does not require a Windoze License to run a "windows" program.
VirtualPC does. I don't think Apple would actively help sell more Windoze licenses.

[Azzy]

Originally posted by uberska
Why is it so far fetched? Look at http://www.winehq.com/ . It houses a program called WINE ( Wine Is Not an Emulator...yeah, yeah...geeky fun ).

From the website:

"Wine is an Open Source implementation of the Windows API on top of X and Unix....allowing many unmodified Windows binaries to run on x86-based Unixes, including Linux, FreeBSD, and Solaris."

If Apple created a built in x86 emulator and included WINE, windows apps could run in Mac OSX....or maybe they're talking about VirtualPC. Either way, they can run their windows apps in OSX....they didn't say run natively.

Wine runs well because it sits ontop of an intel processor. Wine with an x86 emulator would be like running VirtualPC...

I AM interested to see how VPC runs on a dual 2ghz G5, however....

[QuiteSure]

Originally posted by Tim Flynn
I don't think Apple would actively help sell more Windoze licenses.

To the contrary, when MS bundles VPC with Office, Apple will gladly promote the daylights out of that product.

Under that scenario, everybody (but Intel) wins.

[slightly]

This is obviously an error, but here's why I don't even want it to be true.

First, it would go against a prime tenet of the switch campaign: "with an Apple, you have all the software you need." Erm, well, actually we were wrong about that and we're going to make it so that you can finally run the software you need on a Mac.

Second, and this point has been made a few times already, if Windows applications will run on a Mac, why bother developing Mac applications?

Third, and I'm trying not to automatically diss Microsoft here, but once Windows apps get onto the Mac en masse, that does give MS some say in the hardware they need to support their software, even if it's third party. A PC game will only run using a certain video card? Apple will then have to support that card. When Apple loses control over its software, it pretty much loses control over the hardware too. And while it's not necessarily a bad thing to have a broad support for many different configurations, one of the reasons that the Mac/OS X platform is so stable is that Apple knows pretty much what's running on it.

The biggest argument on the "pro" side of this seems to be that the greater number of PC games will woo people into buying a Windows-supporting Mac. Well, I don't think so. If you're a big PC gamer, you'll already have a PC, and the relative expense of upgrading to a Mac isn't going to get you into the Apple Store anytime soon.

Matt

[QuiteSure]

Originally posted by slightly
First, it would go against a prime tenet of the switch campaign: "with an Apple, you have all the software you need." Erm, well, actually we were wrong about that and we're going to make it so that you can finally run the software you need on a Mac.

Second, and this point has been made a few times already, if Windows applications will run on a Mac, why bother developing Mac applications?

Let's not forget, this piece ran in Business Week and is obviously about Apple's attempt to woo business customers. The switch campaign was directed primarily at consumers, and the "prime tenet" was true: for consumers, Apple does have all the software needed.

But that is simply not the case in many business environments. For any given field (outside of the creative endeavors) there is always the potential that no good mac alternative exists (for example, Sage has stopped OSX development for Timeslips, and there is no good bankruptcy software for OSX).

If a business can add the mac's reliability and ease of use to existing windows only software, that will be a major boon for them.

But I see a different scenario than the "if windows runs on macs, why make mac software?" problem. If more and more people are buying macs because they can get windows software to run, developers will see Apple gain market share and then refocus their efforts on that market.

Also, the more macs appear in the business world, the more likely that the other 95% will be exposed to macs, also growing market share without specific consideration of the ability or not to run windows software.

[rufwork]

I wonder if he's twisted all the Windows integration OS X has now. There's SAMBA to access Windows file systems (though that's an old feature) and possibly the Exchange server support and Word doc reading (using Textedit) we're starting to hear about in Panther.

So if Mail.app & iCal talks to Exchange, you can see files on your Windows LAN with SMB, Textedit reads docs, and Keynote makes and reads Powerpoint, the Mac is close to running seamlessly on a traditionally Windows-specific network. Other than the obvious Excel hurdle (I know I know, Appleworks kinda does it), you've got the whole suite.

So perhaps that's what they've mistakenly referred to... that out of the box Macs now handle a Microsoft world?

[Vlade]

Wow... that can't be true... can it?

[centauratlas]

1. Wine is already running on OS X (in a limited fashion and under X11):
see http://www.winehq.com/site?issue=179#MacOS%20X%20Success

2. If the rumors about Apple using more integration with X 11 are true, then #1 is even better. And if these people had support from Apple...

3. See also (from the FAQ):"Then there's what everyone has been waiting for: 'I want to be able to run my x86 Windows applications on any processor architecture I like. That's the most complex one. Again the prerequisite is that Winelib works on this architecture, which will definitely happen someday. Then 'all that is needed' is to integrate an x86 emulator with Wine (and also change Wine's name :-)."

[SilentPanda]

Has anybody e-mailed the author of the article? I would but... well... I'm lazy.

[kmac51]

Maybe what we are missing is that Connectix sold out to MS because they knew an awesome emulator for Windows on the Mac was coming from Apple ;)

I'm not supporting such a move, I think it would do more damage than good, but its just another theory :)

Kmac

[legion]

As the only multiplatform guy at a Mac based company (and yes, buying into stereotypes for Mac based companies, it is a company that works in the creative industries), the end of AppleTalk will be great! You'd think that users only familiar with Macs would be able to figure out AppleTalk protocols, but it always seems to baffle my colleagues and I always get dragged away from my work to solve these issues. They should get rid of the "Chooser" control panel too along with AppleTalk.

Now if Apple would stop being so stubborn on big endian and little endian PCI and AGP, it'd open Macs to the larger market of hardware (and to think that was an arbritary decision, arghhhh:( )

[krazykarl]

This could mean that Apple has introduced a version of Wine into the code. Wine is a Unix app that adds windows functionality to their computers. Go to http://www.winehq.com/ to read more. Just an idea!

[QuiteSure]

Originally posted by SilentPanda
Has anybody e-mailed the author of the article? I would but... well... I'm lazy.

I just did. Here is the text of my message:

Dear Ms. Kharif:

Your article in Business week has sparked a lively debate within the readership at Macrumors.com:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=34208&perpage=25&pagenumber=1

Much of the discussion has regarded the following statement in your article:

"Next, Apple's newest version of OS X, called Panther -- which is scheduled to debut later this year -- will let corporations run Windows applications on their Macs. "

I would love to learn your source for this statement. If true, it could truly change the face of Apple computing. I look forward to hearing from you soon.

I'll keep you all posted on any replies I may receive.

[Frobozz]

There is no way Apple is going to say "okay, use Wintel software" on their Mac machines. If that was the case, then they should just stop making Mac OS X.

It makes sense to have x11 because it has never been a desktop threat-- but Windows is. Also, x11 is something that Windows _can't_ do. Supporting Windows, out of the box, would be one of the worst decisions they could make. It would mean every developer in the world would suddenly say "oh, well, Mac's can run windows software so lets can the OS X version as soon as possible."

[Frobozz]

Originally posted by QuiteSure
there is no good bankruptcy software for OSX

Do I need to point out the joke there, or should I let that one just simmer?

[Frobozz]

Originally posted by QuiteSure
If more and more people are buying macs because they can get windows software to run, developers will see Apple gain market share and then refocus their efforts on that market.

And what market is that when the Mac runs Windows? It's Windows, because one development cycle would literally cover 99% of the desktop market. The market you speak of will be the Apple brand, not OS X as an operating system. OS X Would be eradicated for anything but Unix GUI apps.

[QuiteSure]

Originally posted by Frobozz
Do I need to point out the joke there, or should I let that one just simmer?

The joke is that there is no way that any law firm who prepares bankruptcy packages for clients will switch to OSX.

Hilarious.

The same joke applies to real estate settlement companies. There's nothing for them on OSX either.

But hey, Apple really doesn't need THAT business.

I can't stop laughing.

[bobindashadows]

Originally posted by Frobozz
Originally posted by someone i don't remember
THere is no good bankrupty software for OS X

Do I need to point out the joke there, or should I let that one just simmer?

let's hope you bought the software before you went bankrupt.

[Raiden]

Why cant steve put windows funtionallity into OSX at a ...50% performance hit.

At 50%, people would be happy that they can use all of their windows apps on the mac. Yet the developers would still develop apps for OSX, because 50% emulation of windows isnt fast enough.

Hell, I could see steve having a G5 exclusive feature that lets you play any windows game at full power (as fast as the emulation could do) (instead of 50% power). This would satisfy thousands of wintel gamers, who see the pros of switching, but wont because of the lack of mac compatible games.

Meh, maybe I dont know what im talking about. Whatever.

[DeusOmnis]

Dude people, this is a n00b mistake by a guy trying to make money by writing. Stop posting like it's even a rumor.... I dont think this should even be on the second page, let alone the front page.

[SpamJunkie]

A friend of mine was at an Apple demonstration of iCal and other Apple apps before WWDC and during the presentation Keynote crashed, or some such thing, and he got to see the desktop of the powerbook that was running the presentation.

He says that it was obviously Panther running because the Finder was metal. Then he went on to tell me that there were two windows apps running rootless - that is, intermixed with OS X app windows. The person running the demo quickly got the presentation going again but after that he's been convinced that Panther will run Windows apps natively.

Which is why I was so surprised to see this on Macrumors this morning. When he told me his story I made a post saying something similar on the macnn forums but I mistakenly said Jaguar and not Panther and everyone informed me that Jaguar can run Windows apps... with VPC.

Food for though, anyways.

[Sol]

Originally posted by kmac51
Maybe what we are missing is that Connectix sold out to MS because they knew an awesome emulator for Windows on the Mac was coming from Apple ;)

If Apple was working on an x86 emulator then Connectix would be the last company to find out about it. After all, they would be The Competition.

As for Fox News... Who gives a *****? I for one do not. Damn!

[Daringescape]

theres only one PC app I wish I could get for my mac, and thats SWISH....those lazy people over there just wont port it over!

[Frobozz]

Originally posted by QuiteSure
The joke is that there is no way that any law firm who prepares bankruptcy packages for clients will switch to OSX.

Hilarious.

The same joke applies to real estate settlement companies. There's nothing for them on OSX either.

But hey, Apple really doesn't need THAT business.

I can't stop laughing.

LOL. Calm down. :-)

[Nebrie]

Originally posted by Tim Flynn
Assuming there is a little "truth" ...
WINE makes more sense than VirtualPC.
WINE does not require a Windoze License to run a "windows" program.
VirtualPC does. I don't think Apple would actively help sell more Windoze licenses.

Uh, Wine Is Not an Emulator. That's what it stands for. It is impossible for Macs to ever use Wine.

[macphoria]

This could be a mistake. Or, maybe Panther has VirtualPC like functionality built into it. If so, I think this could be one heck of development, since this could attract more PC users to Mac platform. Personally, I hope this is true.

[kenkooler]

It seems like it has been corrected:
Next, Apple's newest version of OS X, called Panther -- which is scheduled to debut later this year -- coupled with new emulation software from Microsoft (MSFT ) will let corporations run Windows applications on their Macs more smoothly. That's a major plus, considering that nearly all companies use Windows.

[XForge]

Originally posted by nagromme
(redundant array of independent disks; originally redundant array of inexpensive disks)

Ah, they do like to change those tech acronyms! :)

That's a dumb redefinition - they're not "independent," they're a bloody array!!!

[bobindashadows]

Originally posted by XForge
That's a dumb redefinition - they're not "independent," they're a bloody array!!!
But what if you have, for example, a Serial-ATA array? They cost quite a bit more! So, then you just had a RAD array. (Dude, where's my car scene)

Dude, I just got a RAD array!
Sick dude, that array is sweet!
Yeah, and it's RAD!
Yeah, it's killer!
Dude, it's RAD too!
Sick!

[hayesk]

Originally posted by kenkooler
It seems like it has been corrected:
Next, Apple's newest version of OS X, called Panther -- which is scheduled to debut later this year -- coupled with new emulation software from Microsoft (MSFT ) will let corporations run Windows applications on their Macs more smoothly. That's a major plus, considering that nearly all companies use Windows.

Still a stupid quote, considering VPC has been available for years.

[yoshi1013]

Originally posted by yankeedoodle
Don't expect Wintel games to be running on a Panther G5 anytime soon... Games are just too much hardware dependent and are way too slow in emulation environments. If a x86 emulator should indeed make its way into the Mac OS, expect to run business applications, control applications for special hardware (egg. lab-systems, production machines, etc.) and that kind of stuff. Heck, if you want to play games, go and get a PlayStation! ;)

I wasn't thinking that something like this could ever happen. I was just thinking in my own mind an imaginary magical world where it rains chocolate and Macs run everything. And like you said, I prefer console games to games on a computer especially because they usually don't crash. (Except for when I rented "Enter the Matrix" *shudder*)

[bobindashadows]

Originally posted by hayesk
Still a stupid quote, considering VPC has been available for years.
Well, what did you expect them to do? Just erase it and say:
Originally posted by BusinessWeek
Our bad. It turns out that we have no idea what we're talking about. I blame the edit..[snip]



I don't see that happening anytime soon ;)

[steveh]

Originally posted by legion
They should get rid of the "Chooser" control panel too along with AppleTalk.

Rejoice, then: there is no Chooser in OS X. Never was.

[jettredmont]

ARN: Can we get this correction up on the front page? It's kinda significant!



Originally posted by kenkooler
It seems like it has been corrected:
Next, Apple's newest version of OS X, called Panther -- which is scheduled to debut later this year -- coupled with new emulation software from Microsoft (MSFT ) will let corporations run Windows applications on their Macs more smoothly. That's a major plus, considering that nearly all companies use Windows.

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by bobindashadows
But what if you have, for example, a Serial-ATA array? They cost quite a bit more! So, then you just had a RAD array. (Dude, where's my car scene)



The disks are "inexpensive" relative to truly fault-tolerant non-redundant disks. Which has little to nothing to do with the electronic interface.

[theRebel]

Originally posted by kenkooler
It seems like it has been corrected:
Next, Apple's newest version of OS X, called Panther -- which is scheduled to debut later this year -- coupled with new emulation software from Microsoft (MSFT ) will let corporations run Windows applications on their Macs more smoothly. That's a major plus, considering that nearly all companies use Windows.

Although that is somewhat more accurate, it is still misleading in a different way.

It makes it sound like Microsoft is inventing something new when the truth is that they are only updating the VPC product that has been around for several years.

It also makes it sound like users will have to wait for Panther before they can run Windows apps on Macs when you can actually do it now with Jaguar and the current VPC.

So the author improved the accuracy but now he is giving Microsoft way too much credit.

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by hayesk
Still a stupid quote, considering VPC has been available for years.

Exactly, but it's "new from Microsoft" in the same way that IE was "new from Microsoft" after they bought it and CD-burning in XP is "new from Microsoft", etc.

If we stripped MS of the right to call their acquisitions new and revolutionary software ... I mean, where would we be then? MS would appear to not innovate, and that just must be wrong, right?

[theRebel]

Originally posted by abdul
In think apple have the technology to develop a good emultor as they currently have 2 available to mac os X (classic and x11)

Neither X11 nor Classic are emulators.

[bobindashadows]

Originally posted by jettredmont
The disks are "inexpensive" relative to truly fault-tolerant non-redundant disks. Which has little to nothing to do with the electronic interface.
Oh. My bad. Then I like "inexpensive" more than "independent"

[Wonder Boy]

What is so bad about having a virtual pc type program built in? I'd pay for the upgrade if this is real. Maybe I could actually play some games on my mac.

[silver6x]

well.. businessweek still seems it made sure to make mention of the capability, and does say that microsoft's vpc /coupled/ with panther "will let corporations run Windows applications on their Macs more smoothly." Are they just saying the emulation software will probably run faster in panther?... or is there some deal between apple and MS going on here?

[jaedreth]

There is no way Microsoft would shoot itself in the foot and provide an awesome pc emulation environment for Panther. In fact, this blatant error could only have been true if Apple had bought VPC from Connectix. And I think Apple should have.

Jaedreth

[legion]

Originally posted by bobindashadows
But what if you have, for example, a Serial-ATA array? They cost quite a bit more! So, then you just had a RAD array. (Dude, where's my car scene)

Dude, I just got a RAD array!
Sick dude, that array is sweet!
Yeah, and it's RAD!
Yeah, it's killer!
Dude, it's RAD too!
Sick!

Xforge is right about the idiocy of the "redefinition."

As for Serial-ATA, they are cheaper than the drives that are defined as inexpensive by RAID. Delving into the origination of RAID, the expensive drives that were replaced by RAID were 10 times (or more) as expensive because the production costs and reliability required special fab plants (remember this is when data density was far below what it is today) and very few companies could afford them. RAID was ingenious in that it did away with the need for these specially made drives and allowed mass market drives to be used for large storage (mirroring was a secondary bonus, striping was the real goal) Still, these mass market drives were expensive (SCSI type), just far cheaper than what was required before and therefore termed inexpensive.

When redefining an acronymn such as a RAID, I always try to look at the converse: does "reduntant array of dependent drives" make sense??? nope. Therefore including the characteristic of the drives being independent is a useless piece of information since all drives would have to be independent. The expensive verses inexpensive characteristic, however, is critical to the item (ie RAIDs.) IMHO, whoever created this new definition is a hack. Most likely he was a lay journalist trying to use technical terms.

(Though I have to disagree with Xforge on the drives being dependent since they are in an array-- one of the beautiful things about RAID is that each drive that is part of the array is independent of its fellow drives and can be replaced as such. You can, however, RAID a RAID system: I guess the true acronymn for this should be RARAID...ok I'm now lost in my own musings and drifting towards Ars Technica...:rolleyes: )

[legion]

Originally posted by steveh
Rejoice, then: there is no Chooser in OS X. Never was.

Rejoicing....

alas, not all the software we need to run has been ported to OS X so we have both Mac systems running around the building:(

[macmax]

wait!!!

i think it says that with panther and a solution from microsuck(vpc) they can emulate things faster .

[zephc]

Originally posted by Frobozz
"Also, x11 is something that Windows _can't_ do."

This is false, there have been X11 implementations for Windows for years now.

[iLilana]

Originally posted by jaedreth
There is no way Microsoft would shoot itself in the foot and provide an awesome pc emulation environment for Panther. In fact, this blatant error could only have been true if Apple had bought VPC from Connectix. And I think Apple should have.

Jaedreth

How would microsoft be shooting itself in the foot? It's providing a platform to sell more copies of it's primary income. The Operating system. This way they don't have to care what kind of box it's in. So long as they sell more copies of Windows.


oops I read it wrong :) I think... Are you trying to say they are providing a place to run OSX within windows? A mac emulator? I thought that Jobs put the stopper in that kind of a thing.

hmm as you just replied to this I got it right the first time.

[silver6x]

Originally posted by jaedreth
There is no way Microsoft would shoot itself in the foot and provide an awesome pc emulation environment for Panther. In fact, this blatant error could only have been true if Apple had bought VPC from Connectix. And I think Apple should have.

Jaedreth

well.. if it wasn't just a big mistake, maybe BusinessWeek was trying to cover up something they shouldn't of said of panther's new features by just saying that you can run windows apps with MS's new emulation software.
So maybe MS wouldn't "shoot itself in the foot", but whatever happened to FWB's new RealPC for OS X after it mysteriously slipped into the darkness? thwarted by microsoft maybe? i don't think anyone knows as of late.

[jaedreth]

Well, good point.

More copies of windows, office, etc.

If it can sell VPC and Windows and Office, score.

Jaedreth

[Capn_Moho]

Originally posted by jettredmont
If we stripped MS of the right to call their acquisitions new and revolutionary software ... I mean, where would we be then? MS would appear to not innovate, and that just must be wrong, right?

Yeah! We'd have to strip off the rights to let Steve say that iChatAV is the first, too. Stupid Steve. :D

[edenwaith]

Originally posted by X86BSD

If I recall there was a post of a story either here or on lamedot about some guy that had written code that would take binaries and run them on any platform by either decompiling them on the fly or intercepting the syscalls on the fly? I can't even remember the story post but it was pretty interesting none the less. He was able to get about 80% native platform speed through his code. I would imagine it would be possible for apple to license that code and bolt it onto panther. It would be basically the same amount of work the Linux binary compatibility code was in FreeBSD.
Anyone else remember the article about this guy's code?

Chris

Say that there is the x86 emulation, that still probably wouldn't allow for native Windows or Linux applications to run on top of Mac OS. Think of the software side of things...such as all of those lovely missing DLLs! If a copy of Windows or Linux could be installed on top of the emulation, then perhaps there might be a case.

But it looks to me that someone decided to try and think and screwed up (or reworded themselves very wrongly).

[lilblueimac]

Yeah, I noticed that too. As soon as I saw it, I IMed the macrumors dude ("chaosmint") and then posted some comments here and on the iCity rumor site. What a bozo mistake to make. I'm disappointed at the way Macrumors skewed this article. It's makes a big difference in the meaning when you leave part of a quote out!

[agentfive]

It mentions emulation software? How about Virtual PC bundles - come on - don't spread crappy rumors and rewrite paragraphs!

Next, Apple's newest version of OS X, called Panther -- which is scheduled to debut later this year -- coupled with new emulation software from Microsoft (MSFT ) will let corporations run Windows applications on their Macs more smoothly. That's a major plus, considering that nearly all companies use Windows.

[Foocha]

Oooh Agentfive - read the whole thread before you post stuff like that :eek:

[bobindashadows]

Originally posted by agentfive
It mentions emulation software? How about Virtual PC bundles - come on - don't spread crappy rumors and rewrite paragraphs!

Next, Apple's newest version of OS X, called Panther -- which is scheduled to debut later this year -- coupled with new emulation software from Microsoft (MSFT ) will let corporations run Windows applications on their Macs more smoothly. That's a major plus, considering that nearly all companies use Windows.
Wow. way to read the rest of the posts. Good job, big guy.

The site EDITED THER QUOTE!!1!!1! OMG WTF LOL when it was brought to their attention that they screwed up. MacRumors reported the original report, and it appears that Arn has not yet acknowledged that it has changed.

[agreenster]

lilblueimac
agentfive

Pay attention. BusinessWeek edited their own article after noticing the blatant error they made. What you read was a NEW paragraph.

:rolleyes:

[123]

Originally posted by Azzy
Wine with an x86 emulator would be like running VirtualPC...


It's probably a bit faster than running an app on top of windows.

[123]

Originally posted by Nebrie
Uh, Wine Is Not an Emulator. That's what it stands for. It is impossible for Macs to ever use Wine.

No. You just have to add an emulator first (e.g. bochs).

http://darwine.sourceforge.net/project.html

[123]

Originally posted by legion

Now if Apple would stop being so stubborn on big endian and little endian PCI and AGP, it'd open Macs to the larger market of hardware

What hardware? And what's the problem there?

[agentfive]

Macrumors should fix the front page - sorry for not reading every page in the posts - the post right before mine is the same claim.

...

[bwhitemo]

http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/unix_open_source/bochs.html

from apple's web site

"Bochs is a highly portable open source IA-32 (x86) PC emulator written in C++, that runs on most popular platforms. It includes emulation of the Intel x86 CPU, common I/O devices, and a custom BIOS. Currently, bochs can be compiled to emulate a 386, 486 or Pentium CPU. Bochs is capable of running most Operating Systems inside the emulation including Linux, Windows 95, DOS, and recently Windows NT 4. Bochs was written by Kevin Lawton. Bochs can be used in a variety of modes, some which are still in development. The ‘typical’ use of Bochs is to provide complete x86 PC emulation, including the x86 processor, hardware devices, and memory. This allows you to run OS’s and software within the emulator on your workstation, much like you have a machine inside of a machine. For instance, let’s say your workstation is a Unix/X11 workstation, but you want to run Win’95 applications. Bochs will allow you to run Win 95 and associated software on your Unix/X11 workstation, displaying a window on your workstation, simulating a monitor on a PC."

[MisterMe]

Originally posted by 123
No. You just have to add an emulator first (e.g. bochs).

http://darwine.sourceforge.net/project.html Have you actually read the linked page? It reads like the recipe for tiger soup. Darwine is a two-phase project. The first phase is to port Bochs to Darwin/x86 and Xfree86. The second phase is to port to integrate Bochs into the Darwin/PPC port. Darwine has yet to even start.

[AppleMatt]

Just a little off-topic question (inspired by the 'new from Microsoft' comments),

Can Microsoft buy-out whoever they want? Eg, if I had a nice little software business going and Microsoft wanted one of my programs to put in their brand spanking new (more colorful) operating system, could they just buy me out? Wouldn't I be able to say "Actually no Billy boy, that's my code"

I know they'd just reverse engineer it then anyway, but still, I'd like to know.

AppleMatt

[bobindashadows]

Originally posted by AppleMatt
Just a little off-topic question (inspired by the 'new from Microsoft' comments),

Can Microsoft buy-out whoever they want? Eg, if I had a nice little software business going and Microsoft wanted one of my programs to put in their brand spanking new (more colorful) operating system, could they just buy me out? Wouldn't I be able to say "Actually no Billy boy, that's my code"

I know they'd just reverse engineer it then anyway, but still, I'd like to know.

AppleMatt

As far as I know, you'd have to be a corporation in order to be bought out. If your one-man operation were tradeable, then they'd snap you up in a second. In which case, you'd have to do some SERIOUS acts of book-cooking to keep them from being able to afford you.

Otherwise, they just break into your house and steal your code, then blame it on the American secret police.

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by Wonder Boy
What is so bad about having a virtual pc type program built in? I'd pay for the upgrade if this is real. Maybe I could actually play some games on my mac.

The 80x86 emulatoy, perhaps, but not Windows too.

You have to pay for that license of Windows. Imagine Panther costing $329 instead of $129!

[yes, I saw the misspelling above ... but then decided I liked it and so it remains :) ]

[daveL]

Originally posted by bobindashadows
As far as I know, you'd have to be a corporation in order to be bought out. If your one-man operation were tradeable, then they'd snap you up in a second. In which case, you'd have to do some SERIOUS acts of book-cooking to keep them from being able to afford you.

Otherwise, they just break into your house and steal your code, then blame it on the American secret police.
Being incorporated doesn't mean someone can buy you out against the corporations will. It's all a matter of who has controlling interest. If *you* own 51% of the voting shares, and *you* don't want to sell to MS, that's the end of the story. You can tell MS to piss off. Now, that's not to say they may make you a *really* nice offer that you would short sighted to refuse, but that's a different matter.

It's the same deal if you are a sole proprietor, since you own the business outright. The problem here becomes protecting yourself against personal liability if a customer or vendor decide to sue you.

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by bobindashadows
As far as I know, you'd have to be a corporation in order to be bought out. If your one-man operation were tradeable, then they'd snap you up in a second. In which case, you'd have to do some SERIOUS acts of book-cooking to keep them from being able to afford you.

Otherwise, they just break into your house and steal your code, then blame it on the American secret police.

That's not true, if you own a controlling share. Also, even if you're not a one-man operation, but an incorporated company, you can still be a privately owned corporation, and then you can simply say 'no' to Billy.

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by AppleMatt
Just a little off-topic question (inspired by the 'new from Microsoft' comments),

Can Microsoft buy-out whoever they want? Eg, if I had a nice little software business going and Microsoft wanted one of my programs to put in their brand spanking new (more colorful) operating system, could they just buy me out? Wouldn't I be able to say "Actually no Billy boy, that's my code"

I know they'd just reverse engineer it then anyway, but still, I'd like to know.

AppleMatt

The typical negotiation goes like:

MS: "So we hear you have a cool product."

Dev: "Yeah ... wanna see it? ... wait, you have to sign an NDA first ..."

MS: [shrugs] "We've seen enough. Is it for sale?"

Dev: "No. I don't want to sell it yet."

MS: "Would you like to work for us?"

Dev: "No, really. I like doing my own thing."

MS: "Will you let us 'license' the software on terms that essentially allow us to duplicate it as fast as we can then drop you like a hot potato?"

Dev: "Hmmm ... tempting, and that might bring excitement to my dull life, but I've got customers to think about. So, no. Sorry."

MS: "Whatever. Well, good luck with that."


[two weeks later ...]


MS: "Hey, look at this!"

Dev: "Huh? What's that? ... it looks ... familiar ..."

MS: "It's our brand new Defrobogulator. Guaranteed to do great things, under-budget. And it makes your business move at the speed of light."

Dev: "It sure looks a lot like that product I showed you a few weeks ago."

MS: "What product? You can't expect us to keep track of your piddly projects, can you? Looks like we both saw a need in the market and filled it. Unfortunately, ours is better."

[Defrobogulator crashes noisily to a blue screen of death. Lights flicker in the room.]

Dev: "Better?"

MS: "Absolutely! Ours has a $10 million marketting campaign behind it!"

Dev: "Hmm, I guess I can't compete with that. But I've got terrific word of mouth going."

MS: "Whatever. By the way, yours doesn't work with Windows any more."

Dev: "What?"

MS: "Oh, you'll see. When the next service pack of Windows comes out ... well, don't be surprised to get some unresolvable tech calls!"

[loneAzdgari]

This post makes me laugh, stupid BusinessWeek journalist, don't believe anything they type or say about Apple.

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by Nebrie
Uh, Wine Is Not an Emulator. That's what it stands for. It is impossible for Macs to ever use Wine.

That should be 'WIndows Not in Emulation". "Wine Is Not an Emulator" is a joke name that came later.

However, that said, it seems that it might well be possible to run WINE under Mac OS X. There is both the DarWINE project, and there is also something that seems even more promising...

Pierre d'Herbemont has spent a lot of time getting Wine to run on MacOS X. Along the way he's gotten his hands wet in assembly language and had to rework a bunch of patches. It seems his work has paid off:


I have some good news. I am able to play with WineMine on Mac OS X :) See the screenshot here:
http://stegefin.free.fr/WineMine.jpg

But comctl32 is not working and probably some others dlls, so I still have some work, but this is a good step.

Cheers,

Pierre

PS : I would like to know if the color of winemine are the colors which are supposed to be, thanks.


This is a pretty interesting development for many reasons. First, Wine has only had marginal portability. Most developers use Linux day in and day out. Some folks have worked on Solaris x86 and FreeBSD. Others have worked on Linux ported to other architectures. Now we have it running on a non-x86 processor on a non-Linux platform. Not just any platform, but one that has widespread adoption. It seems a lot of work remains to be done, but in theory a lot of Windows-specific programs could be recompiled with Winelib to run on MacOS X.

Yes Pierre, winemine is that ugly.

To me, this is a very exciting development that I'm pleased to read about. I hope that developments in this direction continue...

[bobindashadows]

You're right, I should've said Privately owned company, and the controlling interest deal.

So I don't know what I'm talking about. Didn't i say that before?

[daveL]

Jettredmont:

Yet another great reason to develop apps for OS X. Maybe Linux, too. I wonder how far along OpenStep (I think that's what it's called) is?

[Foocha]

Jettredmont - that was a great post. I really enjoyed reading it.

[3.1416]

Originally posted by daveL
Yet another great reason to develop apps for OS X. Maybe Linux, too. I wonder how far along OpenStep (I think that's what it's called) is?

You mean GNUstep (http://www.gnustep.org)? OpenStep was what NeXT had, GNUstep is the open source port. It's very usable, I have a moderately complex Cocoa app that was easy to port. The graphics are primitive compared to Quartz, but everything works perfectly except for some OS X features like drawers and sheets.

[Powerbook G5]

Reminds me of that Simpsons episode where Homer starts an internet company and Bill Gates comes to buy them out and destroys their living room...sounds just like them...

[daveL]

Originally posted by 3.1416
You mean GNUstep (http://www.gnustep.org)? OpenStep was what NeXT had, GNUstep is the open source port. It's very usable, I have a moderately complex Cocoa app that was easy to port. The graphics are primitive compared to Quartz, but everything works perfectly except for some OS X features like drawers and sheets.
Thanks for the info!

[macdc]

My guess is that this BW is wrong, even with the correction. If you go to the "Mactopia" site, you'll see that Microsoft has started selling Virtual PC on the Mactopia website (as a Connectix channel). So my guess is that when BW says "Mac users will be able to use Windows apps under Panther with additional software from MS" it's really a misunderstood reference to running Virtual PC

[jaedreth]

The exact wording was New emulation software from Microsoft.

This could mean VPC, since it is owned by Microsoft. But the current incarnation of VPC isn't new.

They might have to make a new version of VPC in order to support Panther, that may be what it means.

Or, Microsoft may make *just* emulation software to allow PC *apps* to run in Mac OS X. Now such hardware emulation being added at the framework level (albeit third party) would allow the user to run any version of Windows they wanted (or Linux), as well as run any Windows program sans Windows or Linux, straight from the Apple GUI.

Why would Microsoft do something this radical? Wouldn't it undercut their Operating System sales?

Not for two reasons:

1) They could charge more for this program that VPC because it is a revolution beyond VPC, an integrated seemless emulation.

2) They wouldn't be bundling any OS with it, and thus would make more money.

3) They'd be able to sell a version of windows in addition to it. Right now, VPC comes with a version of windows, and the version of windows you want determines which price you get.

Of course, it *does* leave the possibility of running just Linux and Windows Apps.

Unless Microsoft does something sneaky...

Of course, that's all unbridled speculation. They could just mean the current version of VPC.

Which would be fine if they optimized it for Panther.

But if Microsoft sold a pure emulation package that was seamless, ran in the background as a process, fully configured via system preferences, and was stable enough to run even Server 2000 / 2003 on, then I'm sure sales of the product would be off the charts.

Jaedreth

[daveL]

The revised press release is an obvious reference to MS-VPC. I don't understand where the speculation part comes from in these posts. The "new" part is MS marketing-speak, and it means "we own it now". There will be a VPC 6.1 release this month that, according to MS themselves, is simply a re-branding (copyrights, license, etc.) of the existing release.

I wager (before I get a ton of crap from everyone "wager" means "this is my opinion") that MS cripples the product in two ways: 1) you will not be able to buy it with PCDOS anymore; if you buy the stand-alone version that is still available, you'll *have* to buy a version of Windows, and 2) you will not be able to run Linux. The upside is that MS may improve the performance, since it's in their best interest to do so.

[daveL]

Sorry for the double post, but I forget something. jaedreth: No way is MS going to release an x86 emulation package that doesn't include a Windows OS. They will use VPC to shove Windows down your throat as far as possible. MS wants to ensure that you get the "Windows experience", not just allow you to run their apps.

[jaedreth]

No, they're not likely to do that. Even though they have the *potential* to make more revenue (one buys the emulator, the os, and the office separate), they also have the potential to make a lot less revenue (just buy the emulator and run linux).

And I have said before on earlier discussions of MS's aquisition of VPC, that it will likely either suck rotten eggs, or be severely crippled. In that, I am in full agreement.

One can hope. But then again you can hope in one hand...

Jaedreth

[chmorley]

Originally posted by Sol
...it is a stated fact that the new Office packages will come with Virtual PC...Just to clarify, this is not going to be the standard Office package. It has been talked about as a "Pro" package that might cost $100 more than the base package of Office.

On another note, the censorship around here has gotten ridiculous.

Chris

[XForge]

<i>That's a major plus, considering that nearly all companies use Windows.</i>

Way to go out on a limb there BusinessWeek.

Isn't this the publication that actually honest-to-g*d pronounced Apple DEAD back in the 90s? Printed an issue of the magazine that was basically a eulogy?

Sorry if these points have been addressed, I haven't read the entire thread.

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by daveL
... 2) you will not be able to run Linux. ...

This is becoming a less and less significant threat, as so much is possible under OS X. I even had KDE running for a while under X11...

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by chmorley
On another note, the censorship around here has gotten ridiculous.

Chris


What censorship are you referring to?

I guess the flip side of that is that if people don't want censorship, then they need to learn to control themselves. I've been around for a few threads that were just disgusting before they got censored (loaded with insults, etc.).

To date, I haven't noticed any extreme censorship, though.

[legion]

Originally posted by 123
What hardware? And what's the problem there?

Oh no :eek:, this is a bit of a bag of worms if I don't know your background, so just some quick info about big-endian vs little-endian (stolen from another website; scary thing is Microsoft actually has a really good explaination, but I fear it might be a bit heretical to post a link to a microsoft site:rolleyes: )

"Bi-endian
There are two possible byte ordering conventions for representing scalar (that is, non-string) quantities in system memory. Big-endian byte ordering places the most significant byte of the scalar at the lowest memory address, whereas little-endian byte ordering places the least significant byte of the scalar at the lowest memory address. Virtually all CPUs support either one convention or the other, but a CPU that can be configured to handle both schemes is called bi-endian. The PowerPC is bi-endian in nature, which allows it to execute both big-endian 680x0 binaries and little-endian x86 binaries under emulation, without running afoul of byte-ordering conflicts.

Big-endian
A term specifying a byte-ordering convention for scalar data items. In the big-endian scheme, the most significant byte of a scalar is stored at the lowest memory address, the next most significant byte of the scalar is stored at the next higher address, and so on. The Motorola 680x0 line of CPUs is big-endian in nature. The PowerPC, while defaulting on power-up to big-endian mode, is in fact bi-endian and can operate either in big-endian or little-endian mode as required.

Little-endian
A term specifying a byte-ordering convention for scalar data items. In the little-endian scheme, the least significant byte of a scalar is stored at the lowest memory address, the next most significant byte of the scalar is stored at the next higher address, and so on. The Intel x86 line of CPUs is little-endian in nature."

[gross simplification]
So the deal is when things were moved to the PPC, Apple had a choice to use little-endian, however since it had history with the Moto 680x0 line, it chose to go with big-endian. In PCI buses and AGP, this effects how the information is transported between the system and the card. It's like when you want to describe a circle to the monitor through a graphics card, the system will send 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 to the AGP slot on a x86 system which will then be sent to the GPU for rendering. On a PPC (big-endian) system, the info to the AGP slot needs to be "flipped" so the system will send 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 to the AGP, but the GPU has that flipped to what it can understand before using the info.

What card makers do is they have ROM translate how to receive the info (or some other embedded system depending on how complicated the info.) This is why Apple requires different hardware from the same manufacturer of PC hardware (and why flashing ROMS sometimes works) Also, performance hits can occur if the hardware manufacturer is lazy and then you'll notice things like the exact same GPU on a x86 and PPC will run slower on the PPC. If Apple went to little-endian, then all the x86 hardware would become available to Macs (as long as, of course, they are physically compatible.) All that would really need to be done is a software driver solution for OS X (and since hardware manufacturing costs are a big reason why specialty cards are not developed for smaller niche platforms (Macs), software development would be a negligible cost to open up another market)

This may seem of little concern for consumer products, but it is one of the larger concerns for scientific markets and graphics/video/audio markets if they want to move to Macs
[/gross simplification]

Hope that makes sense. My DEC Alpha (a 64bit RISC processor) is also bi-endian like the PPC. If I start it in VAX/VMS it is running big-endian, if I start it in WinNT, it is running little-endian so that it can transparently use x86 code. The system board chipset manages what to send to add-on boards on the buses, so there is no concern about what system is running at the moment for the hardware.

[daveL]

Very informative post. Thanks!

[XnavxeMiyyep]

Just out of curiousity, if I were to get a PC running Linux, and I installed Wine on it, would I be able to play Windows games?

[legion]

Usually it works (I won't claim it works for all, but I've seen people using it without problems.)

I'd almost bet that WINE is really only developed, these days, so games from Windows will run on Linux.

I, myself, am not really a computer game player (I like consoles if I feel like playing a game), but I have never seen anyone using WINE to run business apps on linux (usually because there are already better, native linux solutions.)

[jaykk]

Penguin Moves to Disney (http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,1210083,00.asp)

"Rather than wait, Disney, along with two other motion picture animation studios (which declined to be named for this article), decided to jointly fund the development of a Windows-to-Linux porting solution. The idea: develop technology using the Wine emulator to run Adobe Photoshop on Linux."

[nichrome]

Originally posted by Snowy_River
Perhaps my recollection is faulty, but that's not what I remember Red Box to be. As I recall, Rhapsody was originally slated to be a cross platform OS, and Red Box was the X86 equivalent of Blue Box on the PPC.
Partly true, but your recollection is still faulty. The x86 Red Box was the Windows APIs running natively as a Rhapsody process, not unlike Blue Box (Classic) for PPC. However, Red Box also existed in Rhapsody PPC, in emulator form.

Rhapsody Enterprise/Universal was to ship with Yellow Box, Blue Box and Red Box for PPC, and with Yellow and Red for x86. Rhapsody Standalone was supposed to be Yellow only on both platforms.

This non-functional Yellow-centric vision, brought in by the old NeXTies when Apple acquired NeXT, was of course later scrapped in favor of Yellow/Blue/Carbon.

To quote an old MacKiDo article (http://www.mackido.com/Software/rhapsody.html):
On Intel, RedBox will be the Windows API's running natively on top of the other services. On PowerPC, the RedBox will be an Emulator that will allow Windows Application to work on Rhapsody. Apple may not directly offer RedBox on the MacOS since there are already a few good emulators available, or they may just make a licensing deal with Connectix (or Insignia) to bundle their emulators.

Side note, Apple was also rumored to be working on an OS/2 box to run alongside Yellow, Blue and Red. Of course, OS/2 never became a big hit, so that project, if there ever was one, was probably killed off pretty quickly.

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by nichrome
However, Red Box also existed in Rhapsody PPC, in emulator form.


Thank you for the correction...