WINE for Intel Macs?

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

X86Project claims (http://osx86project.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=112&Itemid=2) that the first versions of WINE for Intel Macs has been complied and running (screenshots (http://forum.osx86project.org/index.php?s=&showtopic=8699&view=findpost&p=54080)).

The Darwine Project (http://darwine.opendarwin.org/) has been working to port WINE to run under Mac OS X. WINE is a compatibility layer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WINE) that has allowed x86 PCs to run Windows Applications under Unix/Linux operating systems. This is accomplished by re-engineering Windows system calls used by individual applications. As a result, the performance of the applications should be native as no emulation is required.

It appears compatibility at this early stage is still limited, but will Mac offer users one alternative to using Windows applications under Mac OS X on the new Intel Macs. A few commercial projects providing the entire Windows environment are reportedly under way, including Microsoft's own VirtualPC application. Also, efforts to dual boot Windows on the new Intel Macs are still underway.

[GUSTO]

Looks like we will have the best of both worlds soon on our Macs ;)

[wedge antilies]

For home, I don't really care about PC emulation, but at work, I have a PC box and Mac mini on my desk, and I would prefer to have a iMac or Mac Book Pro or Mac Pro.

Anyway, I think this has some real potential.., bring on the switchers.:)

[yellow]

Oh yes, yes, yes...

This is SUCH good news for those of us in the IT profession!!

[mandis]

Looks like we will have the best of both worlds soon on our Macs ;)

I really hope so!
Although this could have a very negative effect. Software companies could see this as an opportunity to develop even less native software for the mac. :(

[pauldunlop]

It should probably be pointed out that the Darwine project has had only a small amount of input in this release so far. Codeweavers have actually done about 80% of the work on getting WINE ported over so far.

Credit where credit is due, n' all that!

[Platform]

Well this is very good news for the people who need some windows apps.

And I think this can make an impact for some IT managers too.

But not for me...G5 ;)

[ScottB]

I've been checking the Darwine site for ages, wondering why a bigger deal was not being made of it. This will make life so much easier. I'm not sure how it works but dosn't this mean any mac with this software installed will be susceptible to viruses?

[yellow]

No, because the OS is still Mac OS X, which is still immunte to Windows viruses.

[MrCrowbar]

Let me get this right, will I be able to natively run Windows apps on an Intel Mac? How's it working? Live translation like Rosetta?

Anyway, I can't wait for this one. Maybe I could pack the Win laptop in a drawer for good.

PS: Yuck, the grey win apps sure look ugly in osx. Oh well, at least the menu bar buttons are at the right (left) place and the windows have shadows. :)

http://forum.osx86project.org/index.php?act=Attach&type=post&id=1358

[ScottB]

Good. This means I can test web pages for compatability in IE6 on my mac! I'm hungry for more screens.

[Capt Underpants]

If they ever get Steam running on Mac OSX, I'm selling everything I have and buying an iMac... Counter-Strike Source on a Macintosh will be possible.

[manu chao]

No, because the OS is still Mac OS X, which is still immunte to Windows viruses.
Yes and no. All trojan horses which are simple .exe files will run in WINE.

[Les Kern]

Looks like we will have the best of both worlds soon on our Macs ;)

Why in the HELL do I want to run Windows, ever, on a Mac? And why are too many idiots spending their time thinking of making it work? Jesus, what a waste of effort.
This is speculation, but I'd bet my house that the first REAL Vista virus is waiting for Vista's release. So why would I want to destroy my productivity so I can run that vertical marketing crap-application that's only available on a crap-PC? I'll buy the crap-box from evil Wal-Mart. When it dies, I toss it, much like a used Preperation-H towlette.

There is no "best" in the WIN world. It's an abomination. Vista on a Mac is like having a mole on your skin that might one day turn to cancer.

Keep your mole.

[alexstein]

YES!! That is awesome news. No need to have that windows PC around!! ....and even better that you don't have to dual boot...just do it all under one OS....great news...

[ruud]

Let me get this right, will I be able to natively run Windows apps on an Intel Mac? How's it working? Live translation like Rosetta?
There is no translation, the actual x86 windows executable runs unmodified. (Dar)wine provides the system calls that the windows process needs. It's essentially a reimplementation of the windows API on top of the Unix/X11 API provided by OSX. Hence: Wine Is Not an Emulator.

[Chaszmyr]

Everyone should note that if you read the forum thread he says that this is still in very early stages of development. He's not sure what the problem is, but most applications won't run yet.


Yes and no. All trojan horses which are simple .exe files will run in WINE.
Some of them won't have effects that actually do anything when executed in a WINE environment, though.

[yellow]

Yes and no. All trojan horses which are simple .exe files will run in WINE.

Yes they will run, but they won't infect the Mac OS X partion of your system. And it's unknown to me if they will be able to automagically attempt to perpetuate themselves via darWINE. Of course, the original posters asked about viruses, and a TJ is not a virus.

[Les Kern]

No, because the OS is still Mac OS X, which is still immunte to Windows viruses.

And what if the virus just SITS on the PC side, and is MADE to delete your documents folder on the Mac side... which doesn't have to deal with permissions since you are logged in as that user? I'm not sure how the actual beast will work, but scenarios like these can't be ruled out.
Warning: You will get what you deserve.
Promise: I won't say I told you so, but there will be zero sympathy for the trail-blazers.
None.

[yellow]

And what if the virus just SITS on the PC side, and is MADE to delete your documents folder on the Mac side...

How?

[hvfsl]

Let me get this right, will I be able to natively run Windows apps on an Intel Mac? How's it working? Live translation like Rosetta?


It's a bit like how you run Classic apps on PPC Mac OS X.

[SiliconAddict]

I have one and only one question....Office 2003....spec...Access 2003. Yes/No

If no then this is useless to me. Games I don't care about because nothing short of dual booting is going to make them "snappy".

Oh and people PLEASE shut up with the virus FUD. :rolleyes:

[nostaws]

I use three apps on the PC for which there is no viable mac alternative. None of them really require internet access. If I were really paranoid about viruses and the such, I would simply not connect while using those apps.

Plus I am hoping for dual boot. It doesn't SEEM like these current "environments" support external devices like usb a foot pedal.

[SiliconAddict]

And what if the virus just SITS on the PC side, and is MADE to delete your documents folder on the Mac side... which doesn't have to deal with permissions since you are logged in as that user? I'm not sure how the actual beast will work, but scenarios like these can't be ruled out.
Warning: You will get what you deserve.
Promise: I won't say I told you so, but there will be zero sympathy for the trail-blazers.
None.


You do realize that the scenario you just described would work on OS X without even needing Windows. If you yourself can delete files there is nothing stopping a script from doing the same. :rolleyes: Basically all you are doing is spreading FUD.


Why in the HELL do I want to run Windows, ever, on a Mac? And why are too many idiots spending their time thinking of making it work? Jesus, what a waste of effort.


And why the heck are there still people who are so clueless that they ask a question that has been answered several dozen times over yet still insist in asking the stupid question anyways.

Take your elitist attitude somewhere else. The rest of us will continue to live in real world where Windows owns 90% of the desktop market and where Microsoft Office (With MS Access and Outlook) rules. Your anti-Microsoft attitude may work on your home PC but for those of use who actually use our computers for business that kind of attitude will pretty much get your locked out of most jobs. It’s a fricking computer for god sake not a dang religion. Grow up.

[ezekielrage_99]

As Eric Cartman would say "sweeeet"...... I got to love WINE on SuSE but a stable port of it to Mac OSX would be totally killer.

I think if they could do something like WINE X it would be even better, but anyway this is a totally cool start :D

[HiRez]

:eek: Hideous and heinous beyond description...this unholy beast must have its head severed before it's too late for mankind...

http://www.dvddrive-in.com/images/a-d/beastofblood.jpg

[HiRez]

You do realize that the scenario you just described would work on OS X without even needing Windows. If you yourself can delete files there is nothing stopping a script from doing the same. :rolleyes: Basically all you are doing is spreading FUD.Yes, but it's a lot easier for such malware to get onto your computer in the first place, and then execute, through Windoze than it is through OS X. You're basically bringing the security of everything down to the lowest common denominator, which is Windoze. This should be a real concern for people, I know I would never trust it on the same drive. If I were going to play around with this I'd find a way to shut down or block off my internal drive and boot Win from a dedicated external.

[mkaake]

Yes, but it's a lot easier for such malware to get onto your computer in the first place, and then execute, through Windoze than it is through OS X. You're basically bringing the security of everything down to the lowest common denominator, which is Windoze. This should be a real concern for people, I know I would never trust it on the same drive. If I were going to play around with this I'd find a way to shut down or block off my internal drive and boot Win from a dedicated external.

wine doesn't run windows on your computer to run windows programs... so how do you get windows insecurity without windows?

windows programs aren't the problem, it's windows itself...

[HiRez]

wine doesn't run windows on your computer to run windows programs... so how do you get windows insecurity without windows?Sorry about that, I was just replying to a message about dual-booting Win/OS X in another thread, think I confused myself there. :rolleyes:

[yellow]

Here's an idea of how windows viruses might fare under OS X:

http://os.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=05/01/25/1430222

[MrCrowbar]

There aren't many evil viruses out there that really currupt all your data. Most of them are spyware apps that turn your computer into zombies without you ever knowing.

Whether I dual boot or have WINE to run the win apps, I would isolate the whole on a partition or even an external drive (does the MBP have the good USB ports that can power external 2,5" discs like the powerbooks did?). Running an anti vurus programm should be easy when running windows natively, but with WINE I guess it won't work.

But face it, Macs are cool, Mac apps too. But sometimes, you need those windows apps for business (windows world). I wonder if Microsoft will deliver a snappy VPC. The greatest still would be dual boot with fast user switching though. :p

[SiliconAddict]

Yes, but it's a lot easier for such malware to get onto your computer in the first place, and then execute, through Windoze than it is through OS X. You're basically bringing the security of everything down to the lowest common denominator, which is Windoze. This should be a real concern for people, I know I would never trust it on the same drive. If I were going to play around with this I'd find a way to shut down or block off my internal drive and boot Win from a dedicated external.

And you do realize that it wouldn't even work from a winDOWS point of view right? Your documents in Windows are in C:\documents and settings\[username]\My Documents vs. OS X's /users/[username]/documents
the pathing would be all wrong so they would have to actually code it for OS X. From a standpoint of using Windows outside of OS X. Windows can't even read an OS X partition so who cares and 99% of the viruses and Trojans in the last 6 years have been the variant that DOES not dink with people's MBR (you don't kill off the patient if you want to spread the disease.) which doesn't even exist on a Mac which kills the remaining 1%. It seems like people are determined to bang the FUD drum.

[yellow]

I wonder if Microsoft will deliver a snappy VPC.

I doubt it.

I really figure they're sitting on their hands right about now, "working" on a new VPC, but really waiting until someone dual-boots or WINEs it, at which point they will declare VPC EOL'd and be done with it.

But maybe, just maybe.. there's a giant room filled with cigar-smoking monkeys sitting at computers, baanging away randomly at the keyboard until they come up with VPC8.. or Vista.. whichever comes first.




http://www.acclaimimages.com/_gallery/_SM2/0006-0409-0913-1216_SM2.jpg

Knuckles takes a well deserved break from coding for Microsoft.

[SiliconAddict]

There aren't many evil viruses out there that really currupt all your data. Most of them are spyware apps that turn your computer into zombies without you ever knowing.

Whether I dual boot or have WINE to run the win apps, I would isolate the whole on a partition or even an external drive (does the MBP have the good USB ports that can power external 2,5" discs like the powerbooks did?). Running an anti vurus programm should be easy when running windows natively, but with WINE I guess it won't work.

But face it, Macs are cool, Mac apps too. But sometimes, you need those windows apps for business (windows world). I wonder if Microsoft will deliver a snappy VPC. The greatest still would be dual boot with fast user switching though. :p

Bingo. We have a sane and coherent winner.

[macluvrOSx]

So many of you are bashing WINE becuase you hate windows and don't want anything to do with Microsoft. What you're not realizing is that WINE is not windows - in fact it has absolutely nothing to do with windows. WINE is an environment that allows windows applications to run without windows and without emulation. It really doesn't get any better than this.

Yes, you'll be able to run Office (word, access, frontpage, publisher, excel...) but literally hundreds of thousands of "non microsoft" windows applications as well. I haven't played "Sim Tower" in forever because they never ported it to OSX and Classic doesn't work on Intel Macs. Once this project gets going, I'll be able to run Sim Tower.exe just like i would any other .app executable - and without any degredation in speed due to emulation.

The other big concern is that there will be viruses. Once again - this is NOT windows, and therefore is not going to have issues with viruses. Additionally, where do viruses come from?? The big two are IE and Outlook. So don't use IE and Outlook and you should be fine. Sure there are always some strange cases, but in this case the positives outweigh the negatives times a million.

Personally I can't wait. I've been using WINE on linux for some time now with great success and WINE for OSX would be incredible

[kwajo.com]

while this is good, I'd wait for something like Virtual PC which allows me to keep all the Windows crap self contained in a virtual drive/disk image that can save my normal hard drive partitions from data corruption or the remote chance of virus damage

[Hattig]

Good stuff, didn't think it would take that long before a port appeared.

Just wait for the WINE based games compatibility layer ... sure there'll be a hit from the Direct X -> OpenGL translation layer (as on Linux) but more games will work on Mac OS X directly. And certainly the lack of naff integrated graphics on Macs will mean a higher graphical capability than the average PC, so most games will run quite nicely, if not as fast as an equivalent hardware PC (which != average PC in terms of graphics).

[nagromme]

Nobody WANTS to have to settle for Windows apps, and for most average home users, there's no need to.

But for others, they HAVE to use a Windows app dictated by their work, or simply want to preserve their investment in Windows apps they've already paid for. Having more options for that on Mac is GOOD!

And WINE won't hurt Mac software development. People still want REAL Mac apps with REAL Mac features and appearance. (And the WINE experience is not polished and complete and compatible enough to be on the radar for everyday non-techie users anyway. Yet. But I watch the project with interest!)

[LimeiBook86]

This is very good news! :D I even heard that some people have gotten Counter-Strike 1.6 to run via WINE...you hear that? Counter-Strike...on...a...Mac! That's right Valve! There is a demand for it for Mac!! ;)

Anyway this can only mean good things to come. I can't wait for more news on this, this is wonderful :D No more crappy Mac OS X versions of MSN & Yahoo ;)

[manu chao]

Here's an idea of how windows viruses might fare under OS X:

http://os.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=05/01/25/1430222

This is quite reassuring, I am still not sure whether I prefer WINE to a sandbox kind of system like VPC. VPC is way more susceptible to viruses than WINE but nothing outside the sandbox can ever be touched.

[ctachme]

Meh... I'd rather dual-boot and get 100% performace... plus 100% of the Windows apps acutally woking. I'll consider Darwine when it can do both of these things. Otherwise, just give me a copy of Vista and be done with it.

[Dave00]

If this got up and running, it truly would be a Godsend. I am in what I think is a very common position in business - I have one application at work that I need to run that does not have a Mac OSX port (Medical Manager). Everything else I would use can be done better on Mac OS - internet/email, Office/productivity, etc. After dealing once again with a complete system meltdown on my Windows PC - more and more frequent blue screens of death, with "driver errors", eventually leading to an inability to boot and $300 worth of diagnostics/repair - I was really strongly considering replacing the system with an iMac or mini. However, the small customer base of the company that makes our practice management software leaves them no incentive to make a mac version, so I'm screwed. WINE will change all that. Can't wait.

Dave

[AidenShaw]

Although this could have a very negative effect. Software companies could see this as an opportunity to develop even less native software for the mac. :(
A real risk...

If the Windows .exe/.dll/.etc run well on OSx86, many companies will consider this.

[nagromme]

I think whether companies keep developing for Mac depends on only one thing: demand and sales.

I see demand rising, not falling, so I don't share those fears.

Demand will fall a TINY amount from people who are willing to settle for Windows apps, with their own UI tacked onto the Mac UI (not good usability, but does the job).

Demand will grow a HUGE amount as the Mac market grows. And ability to run Windows apps will in fact help that to happen.

If you think demand for Mac apps will shrink, then you must think people's willingness to run Windows apps on Mac will grow faster than the growth of the Mac market. You must think Mac users will be willing to "settle" for Windows apps on a large scale.

I think the reverse will be true, in a big way. In fact, if a developer cancelled their Mac version of an app, I think more Mac owners would boycott the app (maybe keep their old Mac version or find an alternative) than rush to buy the Windows version on WINE.

Some Mac owners ALREADY use Windows apps if they have to. They run VPC or keep an old PC around. It's not like living dual-platform is some new option. But the point is that it's something Mac users do if they HAVE to--but they'd rather have the Mac version. That demand won't go away.

Most people may not need Windows apps on Mac, but some do (including me, for occasional Windows testing at least), and having the option is a good thing for the Mac platform, not a bad one.

[maxp1]

I'm not trying to spread FUD here I'm trying to inject a word of caution. While it is neat and usefull that you can run .exe files, It would be unwise to not worry about viruses.

The article posted above does a rather lame attempt to run these viruses. If virus writes clued in a bit they might be able to easily re-write the virus to effect an OSX system. Nobody knows at this point. I don't think you can blanket say "Oh, this will never be a problem." So far we've been immune to viruses, but add another API, one that's known to be vulnerable, and who knows? There are a lot of virus writers out there.

I'd be VERY cautious about installing WINE on any computer of mine until more is known about virus susceptibility. I wouldn't want to be the guinea pig.

[nagromme]

I'd definitely rather have a VPC-style sandbox for my Windows apps. Security is one reason, and the other is the full Windows compatibility.

Dual-booting would not meet my needs for security (a Windows virus can't READ your Mac partition, but it can ERASE it). It also wouldn't meet my needs for using ALL my apps--Mac and Windows alike--at ONCE. VPC (or a competitor) will allow that, complete with drag-and-drop and copy-paste between Mac and Windows.

WINE is neat, but a virtualized OS (now at full speed unlike emulated VPC in the past) is definitely the better solution for many people.

[sishaw]

This is good news, but, as those of you who have used WINE on Linux know, it doesn't always work perfectly with all Windows programs (but it does work very well with a number of them). Still, for those who want to use a Mac but have just one or two programs for which they need Windows, this should make the Mac/OSX environment more attractive. Just be sure to read up on whether your particular program is supported.

[MrCrowbar]

[...]
The article posted above does a rather lame attempt to run these viruses. If virus writes clued in a bit they might be able to easily re-write the virus to effect an OSX system. Nobody knows at this point. I don't think you can blanket say "Oh, this will never be a problem." So far we've been immune to viruses, but add another API, one that's known to be vulnerable, and who knows? There are a lot of virus writers out there.
[...]

No offence, but most virus makers don't care for Mac (yet). Thus even less of them would care for the little percentage of Mac useres running WINE. Thus it is highly unprobable for a Windows virus to be made so it affects the Mac. There have always been viruses out there for Macs, but due to it's low market, there wasn't a big "demand" for mac viruses. But this may change in the future with growing market share. One day the Mac community might want to run a virus scanner on their mashines. :(

[GFLPraxis]

For home, I don't really care about PC emulation, but at work, I have a PC box and Mac mini on my desk, and I would prefer to have a iMac or Mac Book Pro or Mac Pro.

Anyway, I think this has some real potential.., bring on the switchers.:)


This is not emulation. This adds the Win32 API's so Windows apps run natively at near full speed in OS X.

As for you virus-paranoid people- don't worry. WINE either sets aside a special folder or a special partition and tells apps into that's the C: drive. The worst that can happen is a virus wipes the contents of that folder or infects the Windows files. It might slow down performance (close WINE, it goes away) but it's not going to hurt the OS X side.

On top of it, as long as you're not running Internet Explorer, Outlook Express, or all those stupid Windows services that are enabled by default, you don't have all the Windows security holes. Thus, there is no risk of Windows vulnerabilities. No exploits. People aren't going to be able to use Windows exploits to install a virus automatically. The only way you can get a virus is deliberately downloading a trojan.

[nagromme]

There have always been viruses out there for Macs
Small correction: "prior to Mac OS X" :)

You're right that someday we may need antivirus protection. But to date there has never been a Mac OS X virus or worm. (There were a few viruses for 1984-2001 pre-OS X macs.)

[shooterlv]

No, because the OS is still Mac OS X, which is still immunte to Windows viruses.
Somebody may have mentioned this already but the main reason macs are immune to viruses is that they don't run .exe (windows compiled applications) and a virus is generally compiled for windows. If wine can run the programs for windows it can run viruses. This means that macs would be succeptible to viruses. However most viruses and worms out today rely on the security exploits within windows or its applications. It is entirely possible though that a Mac running WINE could end up with a virus. If a virus wanted to delete everything in your Documents folder and access all of your email addresses it could through WINE. I love the concept of WINE, but I'll be safe and wait for a Windows Native Install for Mac.

[cgc]

Why in the HELL do I want to run Windows, ever, on a Mac? And why are too many idiots spending their time thinking of making it work? Jesus, what a waste of effort.
This is speculation, but I'd bet my house that the first REAL Vista virus is waiting for Vista's release. So why would I want to destroy my productivity so I can run that vertical marketing crap-application that's only available on a crap-PC? I'll buy the crap-box from evil Wal-Mart. When it dies, I toss it, much like a used Preperation-H towlette.

There is no "best" in the WIN world. It's an abomination. Vista on a Mac is like having a mole on your skin that might one day turn to cancer.

Keep your mole.

Just because YOU don't need to run Windows odoesn't mean WE don't need it. I have two applications I need to run: a form editor/filler program and a study guide program that is mandatory for me to advance at work. I run both under VPX but that's painfully slow. WINE would be great for hose uses...other than that it's OS X all the time.

[Arcus]

Why in the HELL do I want to run Windows, ever, on a Mac? And why are too many idiots spending their time thinking of making it work? Jesus, what a waste of effort.
This is speculation, but I'd bet my house that the first REAL Vista virus is waiting for Vista's release. So why would I want to destroy my productivity so I can run that vertical marketing crap-application that's only available on a crap-PC? I'll buy the crap-box from evil Wal-Mart. When it dies, I toss it, much like a used Preperation-H towlette.

There is no "best" in the WIN world. It's an abomination. Vista on a Mac is like having a mole on your skin that might one day turn to cancer.

Keep your mole.

Umm..there are some apps that people need that *gasp* dont have a Mac equal. OMG!!

And just because YOU cant keep a Windows machine from heading south doesnt mean the whole world is crazy. I love Macs just as much as the next guy , but I also love computers as a whole. All OS's have thier problems. Want proof? Look around here at all of the questions and problems that crop up.

Want an example? Windows users laugh wehn I explain that I have to repair my permissions once in a while. Repair permissions? Why? Cant it just record the current state and NOT change them? Why do they randomly seem to crap out. Good question aye?

[yellow]

If a virus wanted to delete everything in your Documents folder and access all of your email addresses it could through WINE.

Assuming I had changed my OS X file structure so my stuff was stored as "C:\Documents and Settings\yellow this would be true.. otherwise.. not. :rolleyes: ;)

[ChrisA]

Wine already runs on Solaris, and BSD. It's portable. Preview versions of Wine on Mac OX are available today

If it works the same on Darwin as on the other systems it will run a short list of Windows Apps flawleessly at native speeds and in some small cases even faster than native speed. There will a another list on Windows apps that run but with some flaws.

The big thing about Wine is that you don't need a copy of MS Windows and you don't need an emulation layer. The best way to think of Wine is that it extends Mac OSX to allow it to run Windows Apps. All the other methods of running Windows use some form of vitualization. BUt vitualization, when it works enable ALL windows apps to run, Wine lets a short list of Windows apps run. But if all you need are MS Office and the Adobe suite Wine works.

Wine has another use: It allows a developer to recompile a WIndows App on a UNIX platform without making much or any code change. THis allows developers to quickly move their code to UNIX based systems such Linux, Solaris or Mac OSX.
This might be of use to a game developer

[slffl]

Take your elitist attitude somewhere else. The rest of us will continue to live in real world where Windows owns 90% of the desktop market and where Microsoft Office (With MS Access and Outlook) rules. Your anti-Microsoft attitude may work on your home PC but for those of use who actually use our computers for business that kind of attitude will pretty much get your locked out of most jobs. It’s a fricking computer for god sake not a dang religion. Grow up.

Give me a break. 'Elitist'? Sounds like you've been listening to Rush and Hanity too much.

And I think the thread with those screenshots is hilarious. The guy has screenshots of WinZip running (why?) and people are asking him if he can get Google Earth to run (OMG!)

[dirtymatt]

Why in the HELL do I want to run Windows, ever, on a Mac? And why are too many idiots spending their time thinking of making it work? Jesus, what a waste of effort.
This is speculation, but I'd bet my house that the first REAL Vista virus is waiting for Vista's release. So why would I want to destroy my productivity so I can run that vertical marketing crap-application that's only available on a crap-PC? I'll buy the crap-box from evil Wal-Mart. When it dies, I toss it, much like a used Preperation-H towlette.

There is no "best" in the WIN world. It's an abomination. Vista on a Mac is like having a mole on your skin that might one day turn to cancer.

Keep your mole.

Please do the world a favor and shut up. You don't want to run Windows apps, good for you, don't. It's that simple, don't do it. Some of us want to run some Windows apps, some of us need to for our jobs. Yes believe it or not some people actually use computers to make money. Those of us who want Windows apps will try things like Wine, VMWare, dual-booting. Those of you who don't want to, don't, but kindly keep your opinion to your self, no one cares what you think.

[displaced]

Just because YOU don't need to run Windows odoesn't mean WE don't need it. I have two applications I need to run: a form editor/filler program and a study guide program that is mandatory for me to advance at work. I run both under VPX but that's painfully slow. WINE would be great for hose uses...other than that it's OS X all the time.

Absolutely.

Personally, I'm looking forward to a Mac version of Virtual PC which behaves the same way as VPC on the PC. Basically, it just creates a virtual machine within the existing OS (without emulation, which the PPC VPC has had to do). That way, I could have a stable Windows installation running from a disk image inside a virtual machine at (close to) native speed.

The only programs I need Windows for is Visual Studio 2005, SQL Server Developer Edition, and Access. These already run fine under VPC on my PC, so assuming OS X would allow such a virtual machine to run, I'd be happy.

I'd love to be able to give up my Windows work laptop for a MBP. Every time I work on a presentation, or a tech-specs sheet, or a promo flyer, I yearn for Keynote, Pages and Omnigraffle. However, because my Mac's my home machine, it'd mean that I'd have to give up my free time to work on projects for my job. They don't pay me enough for that :-)

Running software within virtual machines is something I do regularly. I have a set of standard Win98, Win2000 and WinXP virtual machines which I use for compatibility testing with the software I develop. The idea is, you save the image in a 'fresh' state. Then, you start up an image, do your testing or whatever, then re-set the virtual machine back to the fresh state. It's a great way to work, and I'd love to be able to have a sandboxed, always-clean Windows system ready to go right inside OS X.

As for viruses, malware, etc... you'd have exactly the same situation as you do with VPC on the PC at the moment. What's running in the VM stays in the VM. If you need access to data outside the VM, copy that data into the VM to work on. Don't share your host OS's drives with the guest OS (which, on VPC isn't set up by default).

[Hattig]

Want an example? Windows users laugh wehn I explain that I have to repair my permissions once in a while. Repair permissions? Why? Cant it just record the current state and NOT change them? Why do they randomly seem to crap out. Good question aye?

I don't get this repair permissions thing.

As far as I understand, it is a hold over from Mac OS Classic. Is it even relevant these days?

Certainly I doubt that many Mac OS X users ever repair permissions, and their systems keep on running.

I reckon it is a placebo function.

[MacSlut]

Why in the HELL do I want to run Windows, ever, on a Mac? And why are too many idiots spending their time thinking of making it work? Jesus, what a waste of effort.

Why is there always some idiot who has to post this reply to every article that has to do with the ability to run Windows and/or Windows apps on Macs?

Is it really that friggin' hard to read the replies from people who *need* to run a specific Windows only app for work?

[maxp1]

Yeah, I've never had to repair permissions on any Mac running in our shop. I don't get that part.

[blakbyrd]

I don't get this repair permissions thing.

Is it even relevant these days?

Certainly I doubt that many Mac OS X users ever repair permissions, and their systems keep on running.

I reckon it is a placebo function.

Repairing permissions is something new that is related to Mac OS X.

[Eric5h5]

I don't get this repair permissions thing.

As far as I understand, it is a hold over from Mac OS Classic. Is it even relevant these days?

Not at all; Classic doesn't even have file permissions. It's very much an OS X thing. Actually, it's a Unix thing.

Certainly I doubt that many Mac OS X users ever repair permissions, and their systems keep on running.

I reckon it is a placebo function.

Now that's completely true...I never bother. I think an early version of OS X had actual problems with file permissions getting messed up, and a number of people still have it in their heads that "repair permissions" magically fixes everything. It almost never does, of course.

--Eric

[windmaomao]

I've been checking the Darwine site for ages, wondering why a bigger deal was not being made of it. This will make life so much easier. I'm not sure how it works but dosn't this mean any mac with this software installed will be susceptible to viruses?

good point. But imo, what makes mac less virus is mainly because the hacker can't afford a mac (but they should at least get a mini :D )

[maxp1]

Once again, regarding viruses, I'd rather not install an API on my computer that is known to be vulnerable to attack. Relying on the structure of your directory tree to keep you safe seems like folly.

OSX's immunity from viruses is not just from obscurity. It's also because the way it's build is less vulnerable. Allowing non-OSX code to run (especially code that is so well known for exploits) may reduce the security of the OS.

I understand that many viruses use vulnerabilities in the windows code to create mischief, but all it takes is one .exe file with malicious code to wipe out my entire hard drive. No thanks, I'll pass. If I'm running any windows code on my computer it'll be in a sandbox.

Once again, I'm not trying to spread FUD. Except maybe the U part. Because there IS uncertainty. Can anyone here say with absolute confidence that there is no way windows code could be manipulated to damage an OSX system running WINE?

If you create the opening, someone will come and take advantage.

[yellow]

I don't get this repair permissions thing.

As far as I understand, it is a hold over from Mac OS Classic. Is it even relevant these days?

Certainly I doubt that many Mac OS X users ever repair permissions, and their systems keep on running.

I reckon it is a placebo function.

Nothing to do with OS9, as there were no permissions involved.

Repairing Permissions is comparing a BOM from the receipt of the installed app with that of the current UNIX permissions. If anything is amiss, the permissions are changed (repaired). It's all about the developer determining the optimal permissions for use/security.

The mistake most users get into is overusing it. Most people don't realize that it never decends into the /User hierarchy, so any problems one has in that realm are not solved by "repairing permissions". Otherwise, it does seem to be a magic bullet that people use in troubleshooting.

[windmaomao]

Why in the HELL do I want to run Windows, ever, on a Mac? And why are too many idiots spending their time thinking of making it work? Jesus, what a waste of effort.
This is speculation, but I'd bet my house that the first REAL Vista virus is waiting for Vista's release. So why would I want to destroy my productivity so I can run that vertical marketing crap-application that's only available on a crap-PC? I'll buy the crap-box from evil Wal-Mart. When it dies, I toss it, much like a used Preperation-H towlette.

There is no "best" in the WIN world. It's an abomination. Vista on a Mac is like having a mole on your skin that might one day turn to cancer.

Keep your mole.

you probably are either linux guy or just office guy.

[itsa]

Good. This means I can test web pages for compatability in IE6 on my mac! I'm hungry for more screens.


yeah... I hate dealing with IE for windows.... that thing screws up every site!

[windmaomao]

Take your elitist attitude somewhere else. The rest of us will continue to live in real world where Windows owns 90% of the desktop market and where Microsoft Office (With MS Access and Outlook) rules. Your anti-Microsoft attitude may work on your home PC but for those of use who actually use our computers for business that kind of attitude will pretty much get your locked out of most jobs. It’s a fricking computer for god sake not a dang religion. Grow up.

feel the same here. Ex. I made some chart program to faciliate my research due to the knowledge I have and tools avariable in windows. But I don't have time to re-learn everything in mac. To be able to get paid regularly, I have to work on windows(visualization,analyse), linux(simulation) and mac(my laptop) at same time. I wish I could know more to stay at one side, but well I already got IBS :eek:

[kenaustus]

I went the VPC route.

The sad fact is that I sell a service and have to demo it - and it's a Win only app and uses an Access data file. Since I work in a very small company whose customers are all on Win the only way I could get a Mac version is to pay the programmer out of my pocket to do it - about $15,000. VPC & 2000 Pro is a lot cheaper.

I also use a piece of medical equipment (an autopap) and the only way to obtain the graphs & stats is with a Win app. The company won't put out a Mc version as they are too busy supporting all versions of Win, back to 3.1!

I'm also preparing a Provisional Patent Application (not in the software world) and could not find a Mac version of software to help with the process. As soon as it's filed the software will be uninstalled.

VPC has handled the job very well - if a bit slow - and I'll stay in this isolated environment for Windows apps that I have to use. No dual boot or Wine for me as I don't want the hassles. I'm a salesman and the best rule of thumb for salesmen is to stay away from computers (unless it's a Mac) and follow the KISS principle when entering the Win world.

And, yes, if VPC was not available I wouldn't have been able to "switch" when I did.

[tdar]

Once again, regarding viruses, I'd rather not install an API on my computer that is known to be vulnerable to attack. Relying on the structure of your directory tree to keep you safe seems like folly.

OSX's immunity from viruses is not just from obscurity. It's also because the way it's build is less vulnerable. Allowing non-OSX code to run (especially code that is so well known for exploits) may reduce the security of the OS.

I understand that many viruses use vulnerabilities in the windows code to create mischief, but all it takes is one .exe file with malicious code to wipe out my entire hard drive. No thanks, I'll pass. If I'm running any windows code on my computer it'll be in a sandbox.

Once again, I'm not trying to spread FUD. Except maybe the U part. Because there IS uncertainty. Can anyone here say with absolute confidence that there is no way windows code could be manipulated to damage an OSX system running WINE?

If you create the opening, someone will come and take advantage.


Sorry but you are sadly mistaken. It's not the windows API that causes windows users the problems that we have seen reported. Does Windows have bugs...yes does Microsoft work to fix them...much more than any other vendor I'd say. The time to fix from report is getting smaller and smaller...much more so than any other OS provider at this point.
The biggest problem in the Windows world is that users do not take advantage of the fixes that are provided. Windows update and Automatic update are designed to try to overcome this.


"OSX's immunity from viruses" does largely come from the fact that it is a less than 5% solution. Why would a virus maker care about hitting OSX systems...the damage would be so small as to not even cause any notice, which is after all why they do this evil stuff.

By the way Apple does put out security fixes.....

While I have a Mac and love it, I also have several PC's. I tend to run my windows software on Windows and my Mac software on my Mac...That's why I have both. But it should not be so hard to understand that some would find important the chance to run some Windows apps on OSX or to even dual boot to Windows from time to time.

[nagromme]

I think an early version of OS X had actual problems with file permissions getting messed up, and a number of people still have it in their heads that "repair permissions" magically fixes everything. It almost never does, of course.
That's my understanding. You can still run Repair Permissions and see things change once in a blue moon, but are those things actually problems? Repair Permissions, like manual pre-binding, is something that could help early OS X issues a few years ago, but today Mac users don't really have to even know those things exist. Maybe it could be useful in some cases to troubleshoot a problem, but it's NOT required maintenance.

[supremedesigner]

So many of you are bashing WINE becuase you hate windows and don't want anything to do with Microsoft. What you're not realizing is that WINE is not windows - in fact it has absolutely nothing to do with windows. WINE is an environment that allows windows applications to run without windows and without emulation. It really doesn't get any better than this.

Yes, you'll be able to run Office (word, access, frontpage, publisher, excel...) but literally hundreds of thousands of "non microsoft" windows applications as well. I haven't played "Sim Tower" in forever because they never ported it to OSX and Classic doesn't work on Intel Macs. Once this project gets going, I'll be able to run Sim Tower.exe just like i would any other .app executable - and without any degredation in speed due to emulation.

The other big concern is that there will be viruses. Once again - this is NOT windows, and therefore is not going to have issues with viruses. Additionally, where do viruses come from?? The big two are IE and Outlook. So don't use IE and Outlook and you should be fine. Sure there are always some strange cases, but in this case the positives outweigh the negatives times a million.

Personally I can't wait. I've been using WINE on linux for some time now with great success and WINE for OSX would be incredible

AMEN TO THAT! SIMTOWER are the best game! Only if they ever make more... :confused: :eek: :D :(

[nagromme]

The truth about viruses and WINE seems to lie at neither extreme (so often the case in life). WINE won't make your Mac a magnet for Windows viruses and is likely not to be a big issue in that way. But it's not 100% a non-issue either. There's some potential for damage.


By the way Apple does put out security fixes.....

...it should not be so hard to understand that some would find important the chance to run some Windows apps on OSX...
True on both counts. Every OS has bugs and patches. And while some don't need any Windows apps, some do.


"OSX's immunity from viruses" does largely come from the fact that it is a less than 5% solution. Why would a virus maker care about hitting OSX systems...the damage would be so small as to not even cause any notice, which is after all why they do this evil stuff.
That myth is often repeated, and I used to believe it myself. It didn't bother me, since the result was good regardless :) But it IS a myth.

The Mac's smaller market presence is a good thing for security. Obviously. And unless you predict that Macs will SURPASS Windows any time soon, then it's a great reason to expect that Macs will STAY more secure than Windows. (And that Apple won't charge us for a service to solve their own OS's problems, like Microsoft is about to do (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060207/ap_on_hi_te/microsoft_security) with OneCare :D )

But to say that's the main reason would be to turn a blind eye to some basic facts. There are real, technical reasons why Windows is less secure and OS X is more secure--by design. Just as there are historical reasons for the complexity of Windows' code--and of the varied array of hardware it must run on--that makes patching those holes more difficult for Microsoft than for Apple. That's why now we're STILL finding gaping holes (WMF exploit) that have existed for years and remain even in the latest versions of Windows--including Vista.

And beyond the "number of holes" there's also the question of how easily those holes can be exploited, and how much damage can be done once entry is gained. OS X appears to be far more likely to limit those two factors. Look at the nature of OS X "vulnerabilities" (not viruses, because there are none) and you will most often see a very specific set of factors that have to come together before an intrusion can occur. Not like recent Windows problems where simply viewing a web page is enough to get a virus. Windows has more serious holes that are more easily exploited. And no open-source community to help, like Apple has.

"Security by obscurity" isn't a myth at all in a sense: it's a real factor and it's a good thing. Windows has more machines to target, and more machines to allow effective spreading of a virus. But that's NOT the whole reason our Macs are more secure. That's where it becomes myth. It's just ONE factor in our favor.

And absolutely Macs ARE a target for crackers. A BIG one, an ATTRACTIVE one, and a PROFITABLE one, and they have been for a long time:

* OS X has been around for years, now--and it's partly based on technologies and OS's (BSD, NeXT) familiar to tech afficianados for even longer.

* Crackers of a certain type have sought challenges and prestige for years.

* Macs have been worth extra points in cracking contests for years.

* Apple and Macs and iPods have ever-increasing mindshare. They are "on the radar" of computer users like never before.

* Certain vocal users of other platforms have long felt jealousy toward Macs, and would love to take them down a peg. More so now than ever before, with the Mac platform finally starting to be seen as the success that it is.

* Some high-profile specific targets, like universities, media companies, scientific research labs, and the US Army, use Mac OS X. Zombie harvesting for profit may be the most common reason to write a virus, but not the only one. Invading privacy is another, and causing damage and downtime is too (like the recent Kama Sutra worm).

* Then throw in the specific challenges and prizes that have been offered from time to time for the first real-world, succesful Mac OS X virus.

The incentives ARE there, in a big way. AS BIG an incentive as Windows? Overall, no, I'd never claim that--but still an incentive, and in certain ways (prestige for instance) the incentive is higher for OS X than for Windows.

And what makes people assume crackers would have no interest in any target BUT the biggest? They have MORE interest in Windows, but plenty of interest in other platforms too--UNIXes included. Honda Accords, last I heard, are the MOST common target of theft. That doesn't make them the ONLY target.

There are a LOT of unethical programmers in the world... some with a desire to do more than be a "script kiddie." Some who don't share your assumption that no target but THE biggest is of any interest. Some who just want to take Apple down a peg. And some who would love to take down (or infiltrate) the high-profile Mac targets out there.

So it's a certainty that at least SOME people have been trying to make OS X viruses--for quite some time. They've never managed it yet. I believe they WILL.

Then we'll have one virus instead of zero... and I'll still be safer than a Windows user :)

[gnasher729]

You're right that someday we may need antivirus protection. But to date there has never been a Mac OS X virus or worm. (There were a few viruses for 1984-2001 pre-OS X macs.)

I bet there has been more damage done on Macs running MacOS X by antivirus software than by viruses. So yes, you are right. We need antivirus protection. We need it more than virus protection. Protect us from Symantec, Norton and all the rest.

[nagromme]

I bet there has been more damage done on Macs running MacOS X by antivirus software than by viruses.
No doubt :D There's been zero damage by viruses, and that recent Norton Antivirus glitch was pretty embarrassing for Symantec.

My strategy: I'll download antivirus software the day there IS a virus for OS X. The news of it will reach some site I visit, I'm sure. Some people will download the latest virus definitions on that day... but I will download the definitions AND the app :) (Unless, that is, Apple has a patch that plugs the hole the virus exploits. Then that virus is a non-issue to me, and the wait begins for virus #2!)

Now how did a discussion of Windows apps degenerate into discussion of security and viruses?

[yellow]

Now how did a discussion of Windows apps degenerate into discussion of security and viruses?

LOL!! That NEVER happens! :)

[anonicon]

Why in the HELL do I want to run Windows, ever, on a Mac? And why are too many idiots spending their time thinking of making it work? Jesus, what a waste of effort. This is speculation, but I'd bet my house that the first REAL Vista virus is waiting for Vista's release. So why would I want to destroy my productivity so I can run that vertical marketing crap-application that's only available on a crap-PC? I'll buy the crap-box from evil Wal-Mart. When it dies, I toss it, much like a used Preperation-H towlette.

The top 10 reasons why this is an ignorant troll:

10. WINE is not Windows, nor is it an emulator.
9. This version of WINE allows programs to run on OSX that otherwise could not, including games, productivity and office apps, developer apps, and *much* more.
8. Professionals don't have the luxury of choosing what environments they'll support when their clients and bosses are calling the shots.
7. Thinking Dumbass is not Thinking Differently.
6. The Mac is not just about Me, Myself, and I, and it's not just about you either.
5. Preparation-H, WINE, and Apple, unlike you, actually provide a public benefit.
4. Microsoft Vista will not be running on a Mac.
3. Blaming WINE for potentially destroying your productivity isn't likely unless you choose to install it on your PC.
2. WINE for OSX helps Apple and hurts Microsoft (a very little). This is bad?

...and the final reason this is an ignorant troll...

1. The Taliban called, and they want their simple-minded righteousness back.

Love and Kisses!

[SiliconAddict]

The top 10 reasons why this is an ignorant troll:



http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/images/smiles/rotfl.gif
Thank you. You made my day. :D

[MacsRgr8]

9. This version of WINE allows programs to run on OSX that otherwise could not, including games, productivity and office apps, developer apps, and *much* more.


Sure about this?

Are the Mac-specific grfx cards in the Mac-Tels supported by DirectX using WINE?

I will also wonder that when/if Win XP/Vista gets booted natively on a Intel Mac, if grfx cards etc. will be supported.

[Dane D.]

Why in the HELL do I want to run Windows, ever, on a Mac? And why are too many idiots spending their time thinking of making it work? Jesus, what a waste of effort.
This is speculation, but I'd bet my house that the first REAL Vista virus is waiting for Vista's release. So why would I want to destroy my productivity so I can run that vertical marketing crap-application that's only available on a crap-PC? I'll buy the crap-box from evil Wal-Mart. When it dies, I toss it, much like a used Preperation-H towlette.

There is no "best" in the WIN world. It's an abomination. Vista on a Mac is like having a mole on your skin that might one day turn to cancer.

Keep your mole.

I agree, why waste your time on anything Microsoft. I just got a taste of Windows today, one of our employees is leaving and I will be helping out until the new person can take over the tasks. I used a DELL, running XP, and PageMaker 6.5 (vomit), I was this close to heaving the :mad: f..king computer out the window. How anybody can use that operating system and programs on that system is beyond me. Give me a Mac and any Mac OS I will be productive.

[kironin]

I think some of this is beside the point.

I already have to run anti-virus software on Mac because I am required to at work. Intego Virus Barrier runs just fine (already a universal binary).

I have a single custom Windows app that I have no Mac version of that I need to conduct my own business. I have to run Virual PC to use it now and that is a
real headache. It would be great if I could run it with WINE instead of having to boot a whole second operating system. WINE just allows you not to be stuck with having to use or buy a WinPC or Windows for the rare exception to 99% everything useful you can do on a Mac. (caveat - I am not a gamer. I use my computer for science research, programming and business).

I don't want to buy a second computer for 1 or 2 necessary apps. If Virtual PC did not exist I would have had to. I would like to now not have to buy and maintain the second operating system that I had to for Virtual PC. That's what WINE offers.

[SiliconAddict]

Sure about this?

Are the Mac-specific grfx cards in the Mac-Tels supported by DirectX using WINE?


Not all games use Direct X. Some are OpenGL. Conversely MANY, MANY, MANY do, and as such I wouldn't expect these games to run at all or if they do they will use the CPU for graphics acceleration, which will make you..http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/images/smiles/mecry.gif

[djdarlek]

Is there any chance on earth that Apple are secretly planning to 'enable' some sort of native PC app compatibiity (for intel macs) via their next release of OSX? You can imagine the fanfare they could give a feature like that, especially if it had some sort of virus resistance and you wouldn't have to log off to dual boot.

I appreciate that Virtual PC does this to some extent (I run it myself every now and then), but we would hopefully be talking about NATIVE support. So games would at last be a possibility.

I am not sure of the licensing of windows source code would go down - maybe they could be ultra sly and just rebuild a new version of XP :cool:

Oh well, here's to a perfect world :)

[nagromme]

Is there any chance on earth that Apple are secretly planning to 'enable' some sort of native PC app compatibiity (for intel macs) via their next release of OSX? You can imagine the fanfare they could give a feature like that, especially if it had some sort of virus resistance and you wouldn't have to log off to dual boot.

I appreciate that Virtual PC does this to some extent (I run it myself every now and then), but we would hopefully be talking about NATIVE support. So games would at last be a possibility.
No, I don't think so. Apple wouldn't want to be in the nightmare business of supporting Windows users any more than they already are! Windows-on-Mac is good for Apple in many ways, but I think it's better for Apple to focus on their OWN OS and let third parties specialize in Windows-on-Mac. (Or Windows apps on Mac.)

As for games, VirtualPC could play games just fine if it supported the GPU, and that feature has been mentioned as planned for the future, IF there's another VPC version (which I expect will happen). If not, someone else can do it. You can have your speed, your games, your GPU, your apps, AND your virus protection, with something like VPC. Not today, but I'm sure it's coming, from Microsoft and/or someone else.

[Marvy]

Once again, I'm not trying to spread FUD. Except maybe the U part. Because there IS uncertainty. Can anyone here say with absolute confidence that there is no way windows code could be manipulated to damage an OSX system running WINE?

No, but you could say the same about Mac apps. Noone can with absolute certainty say that there is no way a virus can harm the Mac. But the virus fear here is just hilarious. You know, the mac security layer, with all its file permissions and password protection doesn't magically get turned off by WINE. It's still there. Just like before apps can't suddenly start to delete files from your System folder, or do things that would require root priveleges. Sure, a virus could mess up something inside its realm, like delete a file you just created under WINE and which is accessible under WINE. But even that is so highly unlikely, since there is no good way a virus can nest itself into the OS, since it is expecting Windows, and that is simply not there.
Could someone modify a win virus to be able to wreak havoc on a Mac? Yes, but it would be easier to create a Mac virus from the start.

[ChrisA]

I have one and only one question....Office 2003....spec...Access 2003. Yes/No
:

Why ask us? Go to www.winehq.org site and read the list of compatable applications. It is more then just yes/no however. they use a gold/silver/bronze system to mean different levels of "yes"

[sehix]

Why in the HELL do I want to run Windows, ever, on a Mac? And why are too many idiots spending their time thinking of making it work? Jesus, what a waste of effort.


Nobody says *you* have to use it, do they?

I have one critical application, Adobe FrameMaker, that I've been using at work since before Adobe bought the original company out.

Adobe has dropped it on Mac OS. Since I still need to use it, why should I have to buy a PC to run FrameMaker (*everything* else I need to do I can do in Mac OS X), when I could run it on one of my Macs using Darwine?

It's no skin off your nose.

[iEdd]

Sorry if it's already been mentioned, but the intel mac version has been out for ages, just hasn't worked with anything above 10.3 or something. Whatever it was, it only worked on the earliest of developer machines if I remember.
EDIT: I found it Here (http://rapidshare.de/files/7454334/Darwine_x86-Installer_0.1.1.dmg.html)
I don't understand rapidshare.. It seems like crap.. The download never starts then I refresh it to say "sign up or wait 18 minutes". I wait 30 minutes and still nothing... So I reload again. "sign up or wait 57 minutes".

[macffooky]

I have a 1 gig Win2K VPC image solely for the purpose of running Exact Audio Copy as it is the only app capable of a secure rip using a drive that caches audio. I know it runs under WINE and I'll be absolutely delighted if it'll do the same on an Intel Mac :)

[SiliconAddict]

Why ask us? Go to www.winehq.org site and read the list of compatable applications. It is more then just yes/no however. they use a gold/silver/bronze system to mean different levels of "yes"

Kinda a rhetorical question to make the point that Office is my primary reason for wanting this.. Sorry. :o

[revjay]

The top 10 reasons why this is an ignorant troll:

10. WINE is not Windows, nor is it an emulator.
9. This version of WINE allows programs to run on OSX that otherwise could not, including games, productivity and office apps, developer apps, and *much* more.
8. Professionals don't have the luxury of choosing what environments they'll support when their clients and bosses are calling the shots.
7. Thinking Dumbass is not Thinking Differently.
6. The Mac is not just about Me, Myself, and I, and it's not just about you either.
5. Preparation-H, WINE, and Apple, unlike you, actually provide a public benefit.
4. Microsoft Vista will not be running on a Mac.
3. Blaming WINE for potentially destroying your productivity isn't likely unless you choose to install it on your PC.
2. WINE for OSX helps Apple and hurts Microsoft (a very little). This is bad?

...and the final reason this is an ignorant troll...

1. The Taliban called, and they want their simple-minded righteousness back.

Love and Kisses!


Pardon...who's the troll?
#7 #5 #1 serve no purpose in this discussion
#4 ...a crystal ball have you?

I agree, WINE may offer software solutions necessary for many...but, come on...for the average home MAC user, WINE will serve little or no purpose.

[dermeister]

Pardon...who's the troll?
#7 #5 #1 serve no purpose in this discussion
#4 ...a crystal ball have you?

I agree, WINE may offer software solutions necessary for many...but, come on...for the average home MAC user, WINE will serve little or no purpose.
I completely agree with him. The guy is a troll. His point was essential this:
OMFG I HATE WINDOZE IT SUX OMGOGGOMGG WHY WOULD ANYBODY USE THIS OMG WTF".

[panoz7]

Hi... sorry for my ignorance. Does any body know if WINE will work with external peripherals connected through USB? I'm a science major and my university forces us to use a windows only data collection program that connects to an external interface through USB. Any idea if this will eventually work with WINE? This stupid program is all that's keeping me from fully switching over to macs... and oh how i'd love to trade this stupid windows laptop in for a nice new macbook pro. On a related note, does VPC allow you to use USB peripherals? I only ever tried VPC on my old emac, and was very disapointed by the emulated performance. This program is kind of a ram hog, and I can't risk having it crash (it crashes enough when running natively in windows) so I never even considered running it in VPC... but if it can run natively without emulation... well that'd just be great.

[flahiker]

Quote:
Originally Posted by yellow
No, because the OS is still Mac OS X, which is still immunte to Windows viruses.

WRONG! The one major reason Apples have been less vulnerable to viruses (definatley not immune) is because they used a RISC processor and the Apple OS and other programs use many instruction sets embedded into the processor. This has changed with the inferior x86 hardware.

I really don't care because now Apples are just IBM clones.


This is conpletely wrong. Apples have always been and currently are vunlerable to a host of exploits. These are at the OS level. RISC has nothing to do with the security of the OS, niether does X86.

Linux, BSD, BEOS, Solairs, Net BSD, Open BSD, etc all run on X86. Many run on different hardware platforms as well. All are vulnerable by varying degrees to exploits.

My point is that OSX is not more or less secure because it is on a different hardware platform.

[nagromme]

WRONG! The one major reason Apples have been less vulnerable to viruses (definatley not immune) is because they used a RISC processor and the Apple OS and other programs use many instruction sets embedded into the processor. This has changed with the inferior x86 hardware.

I really don't care because now Apples are just IBM clones.
Your history of anti-Intel posts suggests that personal feelings may be clouding your view here :D

Some facts you miss:

* RISC vs. CISC is not the clear-cut distinction it once was. G5s have some CISC attributes, and Core Duo has some RISC attributes.

* The reason there are zero OS X viruses is not the processor. It's the OS. Processors can and do have flaws, but they aren't "the one major reason" for viruses. The Windows OS is the culprit there--truly.

* x86 HAS indeed often been inferior--Netburst (Pentium 4, Celeron, Xeon) especially--but it is not inferior moving forward. Intel acknowledges the problems with Netburst and is officially scrapping the whole line by the end of this year. Their NEW direction began with the excellent Pentium M line, which, like the recent Core Duo chips, are NOT in the Netburst family. Nor will future Intel chips be. So x86 is not inferior today, unless you can point to a laptop PowerPC that competes with Core Duo and is available in quantity. And to a chip coming this year to compete with Merom. And Conroe.

The CPU change was a lot to swallow for me too, last year. But IBM and Freescale don't want to be in the personal computer processor market. How could Apple change that short of tripling the price of Macs and throwing the money at IBM? And even that wouldn't guarantee IBM's ability to deliver a laptop chip to compete with Yonah and Merom--and in a timely fashion.

Apple only makes "IBM clones" if you don't care about Mac OS X. But if you sit down at a new iMac all you use is Mac OS X. You can't even TELL what chip is inside, so it's not worth long-term emotional trauma about it. Look at at this way: change is scary, but it can also be exciting. The only thing that's changing for us Mac users is that our Macs will get faster, smaller, and quieter--and all of those things far sooner than could ever have happened with IBM.

The transition has its rough edges, and nothing can help that. But they are temporary, and they are well worth it. Apple's very good at managing big platform changes and keeping things running amazingly smoothly for us users in the process.

[amateurmacfreak]

Why in the HELL do I want to run Windows, ever, on a Mac? And why are too many idiots spending their time thinking of making it work? Jesus, what a waste of effort.
This is speculation, but I'd bet my house that the first REAL Vista virus is waiting for Vista's release. So why would I want to destroy my productivity so I can run that vertical marketing crap-application that's only available on a crap-PC? I'll buy the crap-box from evil Wal-Mart. When it dies, I toss it, much like a used Preperation-H towlette.

There is no "best" in the WIN world. It's an abomination. Vista on a Mac is like having a mole on your skin that might one day turn to cancer.

Keep your mole.
Haha, very much like the whole scenario and the personality, ;) but some people just need some certain Windows apps for work, etc. And this could bring some some switchers....:)

[atomiton]

So if i have a windows only app (i have ONE) and I want to run it under darWine, how do i go about doing that?

Is there resources on the net? I can't find much in the way of instructions (beyond installing darwine) to using an application.

Thanks!

btw, this is on a G4

[AndrewMT]

Why in the HELL do I want to run Windows, ever, on a Mac? And why are too many idiots spending their time thinking of making it work? Jesus, what a waste of effort.
This is speculation, but I'd bet my house that the first REAL Vista virus is waiting for Vista's release. So why would I want to destroy my productivity so I can run that vertical marketing crap-application that's only available on a crap-PC? I'll buy the crap-box from evil Wal-Mart. When it dies, I toss it, much like a used Preperation-H towlette.

There is no "best" in the WIN world. It's an abomination. Vista on a Mac is like having a mole on your skin that might one day turn to cancer.

Keep your mole.

Games. Can I play Windows games on a Mac under WINE?

[milo]

Why in the HELL do I want to run Windows, ever, on a Mac? And why are too many idiots spending their time thinking of making it work?

Apps that are windows only. Why is that so hard to understand?

And I think the thread with those screenshots is hilarious. The guy has screenshots of WinZip running (why?) and people are asking him if he can get Google Earth to run (OMG!)

We're talking about something that is just starting to run the most simple apps. Something like WinZip is an excellent thing to try in the early stages since it's simple and doesn't have any special hardware interaction. Once the basics work, they can try out more complex apps.

[bigandy]

Why in the HELL do I want to run Windows, ever, on a Mac? And why are too many idiots spending their time thinking of making it work? Jesus, what a waste of effort.
This is speculation, but I'd bet my house that the first REAL Vista virus is waiting for Vista's release. So why would I want to destroy my productivity so I can run that vertical marketing crap-application that's only available on a crap-PC? I'll buy the crap-box from evil Wal-Mart. When it dies, I toss it, much like a used Preperation-H towlette.

There is no "best" in the WIN world. It's an abomination. Vista on a Mac is like having a mole on your skin that might one day turn to cancer.

Keep your mole.

after the huge number of times that this question has been raised, and the huge amount of times it has been answered, i think people should be given a warning for petty bashing of windows. just because you (and maybe everyone else here) don't like it doesn't mean you have to say what you're saying. people are looking to this as a "best of both" because they NEED to run windows apps for WORK (i.e. they probably have NO CHOICE in the say of what platform is used) and this will allow them to keep using their beloved Macs without having to keep switching back to a PC every fifteen seconds.

i can't stand windows, but sometimes i have to use it, and i accept this, because there's no great way to run these required apps on a mac. i wish i could, however.

No offence, but take the temper elsewhere.

[ZildjianKX]

Why did this make front page? No big WINE breakthroughs have been made lately.

Hell, I've probably talked about WINE on intel macs at least 20 times in the forums over the past couple of months and no one seemed to care then.

[bigandy]

And what if the virus just SITS on the PC side, and is MADE to delete your documents folder on the Mac side... which doesn't have to deal with permissions since you are logged in as that user? I'm not sure how the actual beast will work, but scenarios like these can't be ruled out.
Warning: You will get what you deserve.
Promise: I won't say I told you so, but there will be zero sympathy for the trail-blazers.
None.

umm, ok. wine is a pretty niche system, and getting it running on MacOS isn't probably going to be for the beginners, so i doubt if anyone stupid enough to double click an .exe based virus will be using it. and why write a virus that'll work on wine/macos? viruses are written for the sole purpose of screwing up as many computers as possible (hence one of the many reasons you don't see mac or linux ones, mainly windows ones), which would make this a stupid exersize. and virus writers are very rarely stupid.

why write a virus for wine/macos that'll maybe screw up less than 5% of the computers you could screw up writing a plain windows .exe virus?

which brings me to think one thing... maybe it's a little stupid to think that this would happen? :rolleyes:

[joebells]

The top 10 reasons why this is an ignorant troll:

10. WINE is not Windows, nor is it an emulator.
9. This version of WINE allows programs to run on OSX that otherwise could not, including games, productivity and office apps, developer apps, and *much* more.
8. Professionals don't have the luxury of choosing what environments they'll support when their clients and bosses are calling the shots.
7. Thinking Dumbass is not Thinking Differently.
6. The Mac is not just about Me, Myself, and I, and it's not just about you either.
5. Preparation-H, WINE, and Apple, unlike you, actually provide a public benefit.
4. Microsoft Vista will not be running on a Mac.
3. Blaming WINE for potentially destroying your productivity isn't likely unless you choose to install it on your PC.
2. WINE for OSX helps Apple and hurts Microsoft (a very little). This is bad?

...and the final reason this is an ignorant troll...

1. The Taliban called, and they want their simple-minded righteousness back.

Love and Kisses!



I almost guarantee that vista will be running on a mac in the future #4 is a pretty foolish comment.


Wine is a pretty nice program. I believe that there is a company that has produced a modified version of wine for playing directx games and I believe that it works fairly well. So that should be possible at some point if people care enough to do it.

[maxp1]

Regarding viruses again, I'm not germaphobe but purposfully introducing a disease vector onto your computer seems like a bad idea. Yeah, you think it's benign right now...

If I were going to do it I would at least create a special account that Windows applications would run in on WINE. Then you could at least limit the possible damage to the contents of that account. And easily wipe it if it got filled with ad ware.

[emaja]

WRONG! The one major reason Apples have been less vulnerable to viruses (definatley not immune) is because they used a RISC processor and the Apple OS and other programs use many instruction sets embedded into the processor. This has changed with the inferior x86 hardware.

I really don't care because now Apples are just IBM clones.

You really haven't bothered to read anything intelligent on this subject at all, have you? If you believe, and spread this FUD, then you are doing yourself and the community at large a disservice.

Read he rest of this thread before commenting further, as you have a lot to learn about the subject.

[bigandy]

A real risk...

If the Windows .exe/.dll/.etc run well on OSx86, many companies will consider this.


not really. wine won't be a native app, and probably always run under X11, which will never be as user friendly as required for the lowest common denominator. because of this i doubt that this would be a risk at all - just because wine exists for linux doesn't mean that developers creating linux and windows software have stopped producing said linux based versions, does it?

wine, i'm pretty sure, will always be a niche and not too completely simple to use system. it'll appeal to people wanting to get their hands a little dirty, but something like VPC will still have to be there to spoon feed the masses, like my parents, for example. they'd never touch anything X11 based. they took one look at openoffice for mac and bought ms office, just because it was easier to install.

[maxp1]

which brings me to think one thing... maybe it's a little stupid to think that this would happen? :rolleyes:


Umm... there's a difference between caution and stupidity. One might say that it's stupid not to be cautious. :rolleyes: :D

[crees!]

I agree, why waste your time on anything Microsoft. How anybody can use that operating system and programs on that system is beyond me.

If you were a web developer you would understand why.

[fluidinclusion]

Hi... sorry for my ignorance. Does any body know if WINE will work with external peripherals connected through USB? I'm a science major and my university forces us to use a windows only data collection program that connects to an external interface through USB. Any idea if this will eventually work with WINE? This stupid program is all that's keeping me from fully switching over to macs... and oh how i'd love to trade this stupid windows laptop in for a nice new macbook pro. On a related note, does VPC allow you to use USB peripherals? I only ever tried VPC on my old emac, and was very disapointed by the emulated performance. This program is kind of a ram hog, and I can't risk having it crash (it crashes enough when running natively in windows) so I never even considered running it in VPC... but if it can run natively without emulation... well that'd just be great.

I don't know about WINE yet, but Virtual PC does support USB peripherals. I'd recommend that you look into that, although it isn't supported on the MacBook yet. When it is, you'll probably have better overall stability than with WINE (don't flame me please) because Virtual PC will at least be a "supported" program, instead of open source.

Can anyone reply to the question of whether WINE will support USB peripherals?

[lucas]

Wine has another use: It allows a developer to recompile a WIndows App on a UNIX platform without making much or any code change. THis allows developers to quickly move their code to UNIX based systems such Linux, Solaris or Mac OSX.
This might be of use to a game developer
Er.. No. No No No. wine has a lot of benefits but this is not one of them.

[bluebomberman]

wine, i'm pretty sure, will always be a niche and not too completely simple to use system. it'll appeal to people wanting to get their hands a little dirty, but something like VPC will still have to be there to spoon feed the masses, like my parents, for example. they'd never touch anything X11 based. they took one look at openoffice for mac and bought ms office, just because it was easier to install.

So I can forget about using WINE to turn my Mac into a PC gaming machine (unless I'm willing to pull my hair out)?

[DeathChill]

Sure about this?

Are the Mac-specific grfx cards in the Mac-Tels supported by DirectX using WINE?

I will also wonder that when/if Win XP/Vista gets booted natively on a Intel Mac, if grfx cards etc. will be supported.
Well, they aren't Mac-specific in the first place. They use standard PC (well, notebook) video cards. This means video cards for Mac's will get much cheaper. :)


Also, for the guy who says that the CPU has anything to do with virus immunity/security: you're an idiot.

[ericschmerick]

Your history of anti-Intel posts suggests that personal feelings may be clouding your view here :D

Some facts you miss:

<snip>

* The reason there are zero OS X viruses is not the processor. It's the OS. Processors can and do have flaws, but they aren't "the one major reason" for viruses. The Windows OS is the culprit there--truly.

<snip>

Apple only makes "IBM clones" if you don't care about Mac OS X. But if you sit down at a new iMac all you use is Mac OS X. You can't even TELL what chip is inside, so it's not worth long-term emotional trauma about it. Look at at this way: change is scary, but it can also be exciting. The only thing that's changing for us Mac users is that our Macs will get faster, smaller, and quieter--and all of those things far sooner than could ever have happened with IBM.

The transition has its rough edges, and nothing can help that. But they are temporary, and they are well worth it. Apple's very good at managing big platform changes and keeping things running amazingly smoothly for us users in the process.

Extremely well put! I've read several of your posts in the recent past, and I commend you for your cogent arguments in favor of a sensible perspective over this transition.

I do not understand the irrational connection that people seem to draw between a processor that runs x86 instructions, and computer viruses, nearly all of which exploit a flaw of the host OS, not of the microarchitecture in use. The emotional overraction that many seem to have over the intel transition in general is so strange to me. It almost seems like it's bringing out the worst in some in the mac community.

I'm just excited to get a machine (MacBook) that will substantially outperform my current machine (PB 1.25), and am even more excited about what the future holds.

[joebells]

So I can forget about using WINE to turn my Mac into a PC gaming machine (unless I'm willing to pull my hair out)?

If Transgaming (http://www.transgaming.com/) (cedega is just a modified wine I believe), or someone do the work of porting this then you could be playing pc games on the mac. Not quite sure how well it works but I believe that I read it works fairly well, or at least did last year when I read some about it.

[generik]

Because you yourself are an idiot who can't resist clicking on that EXE attachment in your email like a bug is drawn to a candle?

Jeez, there are so many good reasons why WINE is a good thing.

Why in the HELL do I want to run Windows, ever, on a Mac? And why are too many idiots spending their time thinking of making it work? Jesus, what a waste of effort.
This is speculation, but I'd bet my house that the first REAL Vista virus is waiting for Vista's release. So why would I want to destroy my productivity so I can run that vertical marketing crap-application that's only available on a crap-PC? I'll buy the crap-box from evil Wal-Mart. When it dies, I toss it, much like a used Preperation-H towlette.

There is no "best" in the WIN world. It's an abomination. Vista on a Mac is like having a mole on your skin that might one day turn to cancer.

Keep your mole.

[kretzy]

I think this is a good thing. I would much rather be able to run the 1 or 2 windows only apps, natively in OS X, rather than have to go through VPC which is so slow and clunky. As for viruses, I don't think they'll be a problem for most people as (hopefully) they won't just run any old .exe file they find lying around.

[pjkelnhofer]

I'm not trying to spread FUD here I'm trying to inject a word of caution. While it is neat and usefull that you can run .exe files, It would be unwise to not worry about viruses.

The article posted above does a rather lame attempt to run these viruses. If virus writes clued in a bit they might be able to easily re-write the virus to effect an OSX system. Nobody knows at this point. I don't think you can blanket say "Oh, this will never be a problem." So far we've been immune to viruses, but add another API, one that's known to be vulnerable, and who knows? There are a lot of virus writers out there.

I'd be VERY cautious about installing WINE on any computer of mine until more is known about virus susceptibility. I wouldn't want to be the guinea pig.

By that logic why wouldn't they just write a virus for OSX?

If OS X becomes more popular some one will write a virus for it, I promise. You will not need to worry about if you are running VPC, WINE, dual booting or just running OS X. It will come eventually.

It is not impossible to write a virus for OS X, it is more difficult and would effect a smaller portion of the population so no one bothers!

[savar]

It should probably be pointed out that the Darwine project has had only a small amount of input in this release so far. Codeweavers have actually done about 80% of the work on getting WINE ported over so far.

Credit where credit is due, n' all that!

Why hasn't WINE been more interested in making this port? This would increase awareness of their application many times over. I suggested this as a Google SoC Project but got rejected. I get the feeling they're not so interested in WINE on OS X.

My concern is that when Vista comes out, there's going to be tooonns of new APIs and WINE will be way behind again, and we'll all be running old apps.

Still, the price is right.

[kingtj]

Maybe YOU don't have a reason to run Windows, ever, on your Mac - but acting like your personal situation should apply to the rest of the Mac using world is total B.S.

For starters, some of us are trying to consolidate hardware. For far too long, I've owned at least 4 or 5 computers in my house. I had one system all configured special for doing music and MIDI work. (You can easily fill a whole hard drive with digital sample collections and multi-track recordings, and timing and MIDI latency are critical. Loading some other general purpose software on a box like this can screw up everything.) I've always had a laptop for when I need to take a computer with me. I've got a computer just for my kid, too. I have a dedicated "MythTV" box running Linux that just acts as my "Tivo on steroids" in my living room. And then, I have a "primary desktop PC" for everything else.

For the last couple years, a PowerMac G5 has been my "primary desktop PC", but there are a lot of things I can't do with it. Sure, I can live without some of them since they're rarely "necessary" -- but for example, I like playing Half Life 2 once in a while. Can't do it in OS X or even VirtualPC as it stands today. A new Intel-based Mac with an option to boot into Windows, however, would make it possible.

I've also run into quite a few limitations with my Powerbook laptop - all due to it not being able to run Windows natively. EG. Ever try finding good street mapping GPS software for one? DeLorme Street Atlas USA is considered one of the best products out there, but no Mac OS X version at all. They haven't even written a version for classic MacOS in years. And Microsoft never bothered to do a Mac version of their "Streets and Trips" software either. I've also got a device that lets you plug into the "OBDII" port on your car and reset "check engine" codes, run diagnostics on your vehicle, etc. Again, no Mac version of the software for it available.

Sure, viruses will come out for Vista in no time, just as they have for every other version of Windows and MS-DOS. But generally, these things don't just fly onto your computer at random and infect you. They're almost always due to users opening files downloaded from dubious sources on the net, opening suspect emails, or trying to use illegal file sharing software that installs more than they bargained for. By just booting into Windows when I need specific apps, and running OS X for everything else, I wouldn't expect to see any real issues from that front.


Why in the HELL do I want to run Windows, ever, on a Mac? And why are too many idiots spending their time thinking of making it work? Jesus, what a waste of effort.
This is speculation, but I'd bet my house that the first REAL Vista virus is waiting for Vista's release. So why would I want to destroy my productivity so I can run that vertical marketing crap-application that's only available on a crap-PC? I'll buy the crap-box from evil Wal-Mart. When it dies, I toss it, much like a used Preperation-H towlette.

There is no "best" in the WIN world. It's an abomination. Vista on a Mac is like having a mole on your skin that might one day turn to cancer.

Keep your mole.

[savar]

Er.. No. No No No. wine has a lot of benefits but this is not one of them.

I think he's referring to WineLib -- recompile your app and link against WineLib instead of the MS library. A nice feature for those who use it.

[savar]

How?

WINE reproduces most of the Windows API, including file system calls. I imagine the implementation is to map those calls to their Unix counterparts. So if a Windows trojan horse simply iterates over files in the home directory and tries to remove them, WINE will call the Unix file system APIs to do the same thing. So a user could easily run a trojan horse which deletes most of his home directory. Of course, Unix permissions prevent an app from deleting system files or other users' files. But AFAIK, WINE doesn't run in a sandbox or anything, so it can touch your files just like any other application.

I don't see viruses being a huge problem here. The vulnerability isn't in the API, its in MS's lazy-ass implementation -- constantly using string methods which don't do boundary checking, for instance. I would have to hope that because WINE was written more recently and is open source, they wouldn't have done dumb things like that.

[Austin.xstone]

Sounds like i will only need an apple - when the new MacBooks come out!

[ezekielrage_99]

Sure about this?

Are the Mac-specific grfx cards in the Mac-Tels supported by DirectX using WINE?

I will also wonder that when/if Win XP/Vista gets booted natively on a Intel Mac, if grfx cards etc. will be supported.

Well you can get another little application of Linux called WINE X it's DirectX compatible version of WINE however you do have to pay for it, and yes I would pay for it the moment it is released for Mac OSX.
http://www.transgaming.com/

WINE running on an Intel Mac is a great start, but I'll be happier when some great company ports WINE X then Mac OSX will be interesting, running Windows Software without having to have a Windows Box or a copy of VPC.

As for all the talk about viruses just read http://os.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=05/01/25/1430222 seriously the guy knows what he is talking about.

[Les Kern]

How?

How the heck do I know? Will Vista run concurrently? If so, and virus is on it, perhaps it could be written thusly. You're logged in, so your docs are vulnerable.
I KNOW it's speculation, but why does it need to BE? See my earlier post on the stupidity of it all.

[Les Kern]

Because you can't resist clicking on that EXE attachment in your email like a bug is drawn to a candle?

Jeez, there are so many good reasons why WINE is a good thing.

You don't even know me. I have 25 years in the IT business, and have forgotten more about PC's than you now know. So now that your callous disregard and rude replies for other peoples opinions is known, tell me that it's IMPOSSIBLE for a virus to be developed for Vista that needs no "idiot" to click on an ".exe".

[RBilRamZ]

Does this mean that I will be able to run AutoCAD with OSX?

[Les Kern]

Maybe YOU don't have a reason to run Windows, ever, on your Mac - but acting like your personal situation should apply to the rest of the Mac using world is total B.S.

I'd have to agree with you there... it's just that how many things will you want one Intel Mac to do? All that stuff you mentioned? I like redundancy. But you are right... there is a certain number of users that could benefit from the subject of this topic.

[Les Kern]

Nobody says *you* have to use it, do they?

I have one critical application, Adobe FrameMaker, that I've been using at work since before Adobe bought the original company out.

Adobe has dropped it on Mac OS. Since I still need to use it, why should I have to buy a PC to run FrameMaker (*everything* else I need to do I can do in Mac OS X), when I could run it on one of my Macs using Darwine?

It's no skin off your nose.

Of COURSE not! Much like music, the various flavors of computing is a joy to explore. But isn't there another solution? And you're willing to run the risk of meltdown to run FRAMEMAKER? When it bursts into flames, my nose skin will still be intact.

[Les Kern]

Just because YOU don't need to run Windows odoesn't mean WE don't need it. I have two applications I need to run: a form editor/filler program and a study guide program that is mandatory for me to advance at work. I run both under VPX but that's painfully slow. WINE would be great for hose uses...other than that it's OS X all the time.

You evidently didn't actually READ my post.
Please review it.
I JUST don't trust Windows enough to have it meet my Mac. Get the $250.00 Wal-Mart box... or not.

[Eric5h5]

Are the Mac-specific grfx cards in the Mac-Tels supported by DirectX using WINE?

Sounds like you're not getting what WINE does. It's not Windows, and it's not an emulator. Supporting graphics cards is a non-issue and irrelevant. It's about the APIs. If a Windows program wants to draw a box on the screen for example, it calls Windows routines for drawing a box, which WINE re-implements on OS X, so the OS X box-drawing functions are used instead. That's why the close gadgets on windows on WINE are in the right place...when run on Windows, the programs say "make a window on the screen and put a close gadget on it." They don't actually draw all the pixels themselves. So Windows goes and does its own thing (wrongly, of course. ;) ). But when that program is run on OS X and says "make a window on the screen and put a close gadget on it", the OS X window routines are called instead, and you get what you'd expect.

(Note that I'm simplifying. WINE is an X11 app, so Windows calls are actually getting mapped to X11 calls, which in turn are mapped onto OS X calls. It would certainly be possible to make an OS X native version of WINE, but it would require quite a bit of work.)

--Eric

[Les Kern]

Sure, viruses will come out for Vista in no time, just as they have for every other version of Windows and MS-DOS. But generally, these things don't just fly onto your computer at random and infect you.

"Generally" isn't good enough.
And I have first-hand experience with JUST THAT on a rather expensive weather station PC. Too detailed to explain here, but it's one of the main reasons I stand by my sentence "Windows is an abomination", and have in fact banned it from my network. My several hundred users said "Thank you", as they were glad to escape their home PC's by coming to work.

[ezekielrage_99]

I still think the only people who will be benefiting from WINE are the type of people who only use Windows for 1 or 2 small tasks (and the die hard Linux geeks). After all if you really need windows so badly just buy a cheap Dell or a cheaper white box.......

Still with that said, there seems to be some rather interesting WINE opportunities :)

[ezekielrage_99]

Sounds like you're not getting what WINE does. It's not Windows, and it's not an emulator.


WINE Is Not an Emulator.... I glad some people get it :D

[Les Kern]

Okay, Looking at some of my posts, I have to admit I MIGHT look like a dick to some, but I am not. I'm actually a decent guy.
Sorry for the confusion, and keep on computing.
:)

[Eric5h5]

Well, they aren't Mac-specific in the first place. They use standard PC (well, notebook) video cards. This means video cards for Mac's will get much cheaper. :)

Sorry, they are just as Mac-specific as they've always been. They have Mac ROMs in them; ATI themselves say so. Nothing at all has changed with video cards.

Also, for the guy who says that the CPU has anything to do with virus immunity/security: you're an idiot.

Not really; x86 used to have problems with memory not being designated as executable or not, so you could point at any arbitrary address and execute whatever was there. PPC never did that. Apparently x86 doesn't anymore either, but I haven't paid too close attention.

* * *

As for the Marketshare Myth: Um, HELLO, if that was all there was to it, then OS 9 would never have had viruses either! But it does! I know most people understand that, but there seem to be a few people who refuse to get it.

--Eric

[DeathChill]

Sorry, they are just as Mac-specific as they've always been. They have Mac ROMs in them; ATI themselves say so. Nothing at all has changed with video cards.


--Eric
Uh, where'd you hear this? What I understand is that they are standard video cards with EFI-compatible firmware (which is going to be a standard soon enough, and is definitely not Mac-specific).

Stuff certainly must have changed because Apple is using generic x86 hardware, so the card is obviously a normal video card. However, it just does not have the support for the old VGA standard, as it supports the new EFI standard UGA. This does not make it Mac specific at all, it just makes it more future proof. xD

[generik]

You don't even know me. I have 25 years in the IT business, and have forgotten more about PC's than you now know. So now that your callous disregard and rude replies for other peoples opinions is known, tell me that it's IMPOSSIBLE for a virus to be developed for Vista that needs no "idiot" to click on an ".exe".

Yes sir, you are truly experienced. Millions of viruses are floating around on Linux PCs as we speak... oh wait.

Little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and I believe you have reached your limitation and is time for you to step back and retire. Tell me, what are the main security loopholes on Windows? Why would WINE promote it? Does Wine have the same HTML renderers that exist in Windows? No... Does Wine run applications by default in admin? No...

Oh and please don't give me that crap about deleting userhome folders, I can rig up something that can do that in a couple minutes. If you downloaded the app and run it, it is your own damned fault.

[generik]

Of COURSE not! Much like music, the various flavors of computing is a joy to explore. But isn't there another solution? And you're willing to run the risk of meltdown to run FRAMEMAKER? When it bursts into flames, my nose skin will still be intact.

Oh nos! It will burst into flames and melt down! Omg! Daddy will not be able to do his job! Who will pay the bills now?! Will someone think of the babies?!???!?

Please, your paranoia and mental disorder aside, please find me a source and reference documenting that Windows virii are capable of propagating on WINE. Not Windows obviously, WINE. Thank you.

[generik]

You evidently didn't actually READ my post.
Please review it.
I JUST don't trust Windows enough to have it meet my Mac. Get the $250.00 Wal-Mart box... or not.

Sorry, I hate to clutter my home. Can't imagine yours though.

[generik]

"Generally" isn't good enough.
And I have first-hand experience with JUST THAT on a rather expensive weather station PC. Too detailed to explain here, but it's one of the main reasons I stand by my sentence "Windows is an abomination", and have in fact banned it from my network. My several hundred users said "Thank you", as they were glad to escape their home PC's by coming to work.

Yes, it is too detailed. Oh how convenient.

[nichos]

Where is Apple during all of this? Why don't they contribute to some of these projects (ahem, openoffice, like the world needs another format, like iwork<I know, they're different, but still close>). It would be in their best interest to help these projects.

[dubnluvn]

OK...I'll apologize in advance for my naivety. My mouth was watering as I read what it can do but I got lost in all the 'how it does it' jargon and rants on why some find it rediculous to want to do so. I HAVE to run windows for work as I'm sure many of you do. The only thing I need to do is run IE 6 with the ActiveX plug-in for it. Yep, that's all. Is this something I could do with this WINE thing without having windows at all? Do you need an intel Mac to do it?

[janstett]

Where is Apple during all of this? Why don't they contribute to some of these projects (ahem, openoffice, like the world needs another format, like iwork<I know, they're different, but still close>). It would be in their best interest to help these projects.

Apple isn't in the business of contributing to open source.

Actually, that reminded me of something John C. Dvorak threw out there on the latest TWiT podcast... He is suggesting that as Steve Jobs moves on to bigger and better things at the Big Mouse, much like sustaining the PPC was an uphill battle, maintaining OSX will become a draining uphill battle that just can't be won (see IBM OS/2). And as a result OSX could go away and/or be turned over to the open source community ala Fedora Core; Apple would still offer it but not spend as much energy on it as it does today, and would also offer Windows on the boxes. This dovetails with the Yellow Box rumors quite nicely.

Having been an OS/2 fan in the old days, I can see it happening. It's hard to win software publishers over to your side. It's hard for big publishers to justify two versions of their application when one version serves 95% of the market. It doesn't matter how great your alternative OS is. The fact that Adobe isn't JUMPING to get native apps out is a big red flag.

It might take 5 years, but it may indeed happen.

[demallien]

Someone stated a while back that virus are not linked to the processor architecture, but to the operating system, meaning that if you are running WINE on a Mac, you should be safe from viruses.

This isn't, strictly speaking, true. Most viruses exploit security flaws known as buffer over-runs. Basically, a buffer over-run occurs when the programmer makes a mistake and allows the copying of too much data into a buffer of a fixed size. This extra data ends up being copied over the top of code. If you can write just the right data, so that the extra bytes actually represent a program that the processor can execute, the next time that the processor tries to run the overwritten code, it will actually be executing the virus instead. That's how viruses work. To make this happen is quite a technical feat, which is why most hardline hackers are considered to be guru programmers (as opposed to scriptkiddies that use tools written by gurus).

When the Mac changed to the Intel processor, it all of a sudden became a whole lot easier to write a virus that could attack a Mac and a PC at the same time. The virus code would "just" need to change it's API calls to those of a Mac. This would involve changing an address, and perhaps the order in which certain parameters are placed on the stack before calling the API routine. Certainly much easier than having to worry about translating all of the different op-codes etc.

If you then throw WINE into the mix, the only thing that needs to be changed to make a virus PC and Mac compatible would be file directory stuctures and things like that. Well, assuming that the loader in WINE copies the loader in Windows pretty well.

So, whilst it is true that WINE and an Intel processor don't mean that a Mac can be hammered by PC viruses, it does substantially reduce the amount of work needed to make a virus capable of infecting both computers at once.

My advice to those that don't want to have their Intel Mac nailed by a PC virus would be to not use WINE. Opt for VirtualPC (when it becomes available) instead. That way viruses can only wreck whatever limited work you absolutely have to do on the PC - your Mac will remain quarantined.

I work in IT security (my company does DRM software), and I often have a look at viruses (and DRM hacks) to see how the hackers have hacked the system (so that I can protect my products from the same flaws). Ironically, I do this work on an iMac G5 using Virtual PC, because when a virus destroys my hard drive, it takes me five seconds to copy over the hard drive with a saved copy, and reboot - with my Virtual PC back in pristine condition.

Virtualisation is great technology for staying safe, and if it's emulating at the same time as virtualising, you're even safer still...

Something to think about.

[demallien]

Apple isn't in the business of contributing to open source.


Ummm, yeah they are... The entire OS core - Darwin - is Open Source, for example. As are a whole load of applicatin layer stuff, like Bonjour...

Actually, that reminded me of something John C. Dvorak threw out there on the latest TWiT podcast... He is suggesting that as Steve Jobs moves on to bigger and better things at the Big Mouse, much like sustaining the PPC was an uphill battle, maintaining OSX will become a draining uphill battle that just can't be won (see IBM OS/2). And as a result OSX could go away and/or be turned over to the open source community ala Fedora Core; Apple would still offer it but not spend as much energy on it as it does today, and would also offer Windows on the boxes. This dovetails with the Yellow Box rumors quite nicely.


I really can't see this happening. Apple as a company works because they actually sell physical boxes. You can't copy a physical box by clicking and dragging, and Apple knows it only all too well. The Mac experience, where everything just works, comes about because they aren't trying to support 50 squillion different hardware platforms with their software. Their testing is hence more rigourous (less of a chance of coming unstuck because they never tried the combination of Driver A, Driver B and Driver X)

And while Apple is still capable of selling millions of Macs a year, there will always be software companies willing to write software for them. If you sell a product for $50 dollars to every tenth Mac owner, you are going to make profits in the order of 100s of millions of dollars...

Something to think about: the number of Macs in operation today is around about the same as the number of PCs in existence in the mid-90s when Microsoft became huge.

[macmax77]

Apple isn't in the business of contributing to open source.

Actually, that reminded me of something John C. Dvorak threw out there on the latest TWiT podcast... He is suggesting that as Steve Jobs moves on to bigger and better things at the Big Mouse, much like sustaining the PPC was an uphill battle, maintaining OSX will become a draining uphill battle that just can't be won (see IBM OS/2). And as a result OSX could go away and/or be turned over to the open source community ala Fedora Core; Apple would still offer it but not spend as much energy on it as it does today, and would also offer Windows on the boxes. This dovetails with the Yellow Box rumors quite nicely.

Having been an OS/2 fan in the old days, I can see it happening. It's hard to win software publishers over to your side. It's hard for big publishers to justify two versions of their application when one version serves 95% of the market. It doesn't matter how great your alternative OS is. The fact that Adobe isn't JUMPING to get native apps out is a big red flag.

It might take 5 years, but it may indeed happen.

if Apple stops delivering OSX and moves to Winblows i will start using a pencil and a notebook again

[Evangelion]

Why in the HELL do I want to run Windows, ever, on a Mac?

This isn't about running Windows, this is about running Windows-apps, comprende?

And I can see why some people would want to buy a Mac only to run some other OS on it.

And why are too many idiots spending their time thinking of making it work? Jesus, what a waste of effort.

Who the HELL are you calling them idiots?! If they want to work on this, what grounds do YOU have to tell them that "No, this is stupid! Do something else!" I would propably find many things YOU do to be stupid and pointless, yet I don't start to demand that you should not be doing those things. And if/when other people find their efforts worthwhile, that alone makes their project useful. And maybe they are doing it for themselves, ever though of that? Maybe they just want to run few Windows-apps on OS X. What's so bad about that?

This is speculation, but I'd bet my house that the first REAL Vista virus is waiting for Vista's release. So why would I want to destroy my productivity so I can run that vertical marketing crap-application that's only available on a crap-PC? I'll buy the crap-box from evil Wal-Mart. When it dies,
I toss it, much like a used Preperation-H towlette.

Pipe it down, fanboy.

There is no "best" in the WIN world. It's an abomination. Vista on a Mac is like having a mole on your skin that might one day turn to cancer.

This is not about running Vista on Mac you idiot, this is about running Windows APPS on OS X!

Hell, rabid fanboys like you make me want to buy Macintel, only to make Windows ME run on it somehow. Just to piss the fanatic Mac-heads off.

That said, I AM considering to buy more Apple-hardware, in order to run Linux on 'em. What are you going to do about it? Punch me in the face?

[Eric5h5]

Uh, where'd you hear this? What I understand is that they are standard video cards with EFI-compatible firmware (which is going to be a standard soon enough, and is definitely not Mac-specific).

MWSF: IMG Chats With ATI (http://www.insidemacgames.com/news/index.php?date=2006-01-11)

"Notable facts include the fact that both the Mobility and the standard X1600 use the same driver sets, and that future optimization should be made easier by the fact that both the Mac and PC sides will be using the same basic sets of hardware. When asked about using a PC ATI card in a Mac, however, it was pointed out that the Mac cards still feature different firmware sets as well as use different drivers."

It's a retorical acronym, and great nerd thing to add to society.....

It's a recursive acronym. ;) A rhetorical acronym...no such thing....

Apple isn't in the business of contributing to open source.

*cough*Safari*cough*

It's hard to win software publishers over to your side. It's hard for big publishers to justify two versions of their application when one version serves 95% of the market.

Except that OS X commands much more than 5% in a number of markets. I don't think Adobe, for example (who's not exactly a small publisher), would like to see such a huge chunk of their income disappear.

--Eric

[Evangelion]

Not all games use Direct X. Some are OpenGL. Conversely MANY, MANY, MANY do, and as such I wouldn't expect these games to run at all or if they do they will use the CPU for graphics acceleration, which will make you..http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/images/smiles/mecry.gif

WINE runs many Direct3D-games on Linux just fine. It converts the Direct3D-calls to OpenGL-calls, so that those games work with full 3D hardware-acceleration. AFAIK, there is a performance hit, but many people are playing Max Payne (for example) just fine on Linux through Wine.

[SiliconAddict]

Hell, rabid fanboys like you make me want to buy Macintel, only to make Windows ME run on it somehow. Just to piss the fanatic Mac-heads off.

That said, I AM considering to buy more Apple-hardware, in order to run Linux on 'em. What are you going to do about it? Punch me in the face?

Amen.

When I get my MacBook I'm thinking about getting a neck tattoo that says
"No I'm not a rapid psychopath Apple fanboi.”
It will make life much simpler when I talk to common folks about the Mac. Fanboi morons like this give the platform a bad name. I know several people who WILL not go near a Mac simply because they don’t want to be grouped in with these people. All these people are doing is hurting their own platform. Hell I more then anyone should be foaming at the mouth over Microsoft. I support a couple offices of about 130 Windows 2000 users. The stories I could tell you of wasted weekends patching systems. But even I'm a realist. Windows is a necessary evil right now and will be for the foreseeable future.

[DeathChill]

MWSF: IMG Chats With ATI (http://www.insidemacgames.com/news/index.php?date=2006-01-11)

"Notable facts include the fact that both the Mobility and the standard X1600 use the same driver sets, and that future optimization should be made easier by the fact that both the Mac and PC sides will be using the same basic sets of hardware. When asked about using a PC ATI card in a Mac, however, it was pointed out that the Mac cards still feature different firmware sets as well as use different drivers."

--Eric
Yes, which is EXACTLY what I just said. Current ATI cards feature VGA support, Apple said they didn't require it so their firmware was simply UGA. UGA is the future as it is used for EFI based machines; in fact, Vista supports it.

This does NOT make them Mac specific. You could boot Vista on it if you could load proper EFI drivers for UGA, but currently no one's sent them out (though I do have the iMac ones and so do others).

EDIT: It even says they're the exact same hardware as PC cards, it's just they're flashed to only use UGA. This is not the same thing as with the PowerPC Macs where many of the graphics cards actually had physical differences. They are the exact same cards as normal PC's, just flashed with a firmware that makes them support UGA, rather then VGA.

[dernhelm]

And what if the virus just SITS on the PC side, and is MADE to delete your documents folder on the Mac side... which doesn't have to deal with permissions since you are logged in as that user? I'm not sure how the actual beast will work, but scenarios like these can't be ruled out.
Warning: You will get what you deserve.
Promise: I won't say I told you so, but there will be zero sympathy for the trail-blazers.
None.

Please. We are all big boys and girls here. We trailblazers will not need your sympathy.

Ever.

[SiliconAddict]

WINE runs many Direct3D-games on Linux just fine. It converts the Direct3D-calls to OpenGL-calls, so that those games work with full 3D hardware-acceleration. AFAIK, there is a performance hit, but many people are playing Max Payne (for example) just fine on Linux through Wine.

o.O I did not know that WINE supported part of DirectX. Do you know up to what version? Of course I could RTFI*. Its prob on their site somewhere.

EDIT: Woah. Direct X 9 (http://sourceforge.net/projects/directxwine/). Hot damn that is nice. Thanks for the heads up.

EDIT2: Huh. Not as complete as I had hoped. http://www.winehq.com/site/status_directx

*Read the ********** Internet

[Evangelion]

You evidently didn't actually READ my post.
Please review it.
I JUST don't trust Windows enough to have it meet my Mac. Get the $250.00 Wal-Mart box... or not.

And Windows does NOT "Meet your Mac". WINE does NOT run Windows! Is it really that hard to understand? It runs Windows-apps without running Windows.

"25 years in the IT-business".... yeah right. Are you one of those clueless PHB's?

[Evangelion]

Someone stated a while back that virus are not linked to the processor architecture, but to the operating system, meaning that if you are running WINE on a Mac, you should be safe from viruses.

This isn't, strictly speaking, true. Most viruses exploit security flaws known as buffer over-runs.

Which is why Linuxes on x86 are riddled with viruses. I mean, since it's up to the CPU and not the OS to determine how resilient the system is to viruses, it clearly means that there are as much viruses xor x86-Linux as there is for Windows, since they both use x86-processors.

Or maybe not....

[demallien]

Which is why Linuxes on x86 are riddled with viruses. I mean, since it's up to the CPU and not the OS to determine how resilient the system is to viruses, it clearly means that there are as much viruses xor x86-Linux as there is for Windows, since they both use x86-processors.

Or maybe not....

Nice sarcasm (I'm assuming that's supposed to be sarcasm????)
But of course, you will have noted that Windows viruses don't run under Linux because Linux doesn't provide the Windows APIs that virus writers use. As I mentioned previously, a mapping of API calls would have to be done. This is a non-trivial task when you are working in byte-code.

I also mentioned that the loader has a role to play, and of course Linux uses a different loader from Windows.

All this being said, it also has to be noted that Linux running WINE is substantially more at risk, precisely because WINE provides Windows APIs and a Windows-style loader. Now all that is needed is a remapping of resources (file directories, address book locations, that sort of stuff). This is a much easier task, and one of these days someone will do it if WINE becomes popular enough to attract virus writer attention.

Well, again, I say "all", but to be correct, it is highly unlikely that WINE reproduces the original security flaw that made the buffer overflow possible in the first place. At least, we can hope that his is the case. Of course, if some naughty people are actually reading the Windows binaries, and rewriting their C code source from this, there is every possibility that WINE reproduces the bug :eek:

[SiliconAddict]

Nice sarcasm (I'm assuming that's supposed to be sarcasm????)
But of course, you will have noted that Windows viruses don't run under Linux because Linux doesn't provide the Windows APIs that virus writers use. As I mentioned previously, a mapping of API calls would have to be done. This is a non-trivial task when you are working in byte-code.

I also mentioned that the loader has a role to play, and of course Linux uses a different loader from Windows.

All this being said, it also has to be noted that Linux running WINE is substantially more at risk, precisely because WINE provides Windows APIs and a Windows-style loader. Now all that is needed is a remapping of resources (file directories, address book locations, that sort of stuff). This is a much easier task, and one of these days someone will do it if WINE becomes popular enough to attract virus writer attention.

Well, again, I say "all", but to be correct, it is highly unlikely that WINE reproduces the original security flaw that made the buffer overflow possible in the first place. At least, we can hope that his is the case. Of course, if some naughty people are actually reading the Windows binaries, and rewriting their C code source from this, there is every possibility that WINE reproduces the bug :eek:

OK I know that we aren't suppose to do direct insults but my GOD people are stupid. Talking crap about what they don't know. A virus that runs on Windows is going to try to exploit a windows vulnerability or path which on a Mac WILL NOT WORK. How ****** hard is this to understand? :mad: And the idea that the exploit is replicated in WINE is ****** retarded. Its the OS! Its the OS. Its the OS. Its the OS that is where the vulnerability is not the freaking baseline API. Please people for the love of god go to http://www.symantec.com/avcenter/global/index.html and READ what 90% of the virues on Windows DOES!!

*starts foaming at the mouth and bangs his head into his keyboard*
ser4rvwervqw2werwwer4r rrwewerwe34$

Example:

http://www.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/w32.kiman.b.html

Once W32.Kiman.B is executed, it performs the following actions:

1. Copies itself as the following file:

%System%\hdcontroller.exe

Note: %System% is a variable that refers to the System folder. By default this is C:\Windows\System (Windows 95/98/Me), C:\Winnt\System32 (Windows NT/2000), or C:\Windows\System32 (Windows XP).

2. Adds the value:

"Hard drive Controller" = "hdcontroller.exe"

to the following registry subkeys:

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\
RunServices
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run

so that it runs every time Windows starts.

3. Modifies the value:

"restrictanonymous" = "1"

in the registry subkey:

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Lsa

to prevent NULL session enumeration of the host.

4. Modifies the value:

"EnableDCOM" = "N"

in the registry subkey:

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\OLE

to disable DCOM.

5. Creates the following files which are used to modify registry keys:

* %SystemDrive%\a.bat
* %Temp%\1.reg

Note: %Temp% is a variable that refers to the Windows temporary folder. By default, this is C:\Windows\TEMP (Windows 95/98/Me/XP) or C:\WINNT\Temp (Windows NT/2000).

6. Modifies the value:

"TransportBindName" = ""

in the registry subkey:

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\
NetBT\Parameters

to enable it to spread and to enable its back door functionality.

7. Modifies the value:

"Start" = "4"

in the registry subkey:

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\SharedAccess

so that it disables the Shared Access service in Windows 2000/XP.

8. Modifies the value:

"Start" = "4"

in the registry subkeys:

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\wuauserv
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\ControlSet001\Services\wscsvc

to change the system configuration.

9. Modifies the value:

"EnableRemoteConnect" = "N"

in the registry subkey:

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Ole

to change the system configuration.

10. Modifies the value:

"Enabled" = "0"

in the registry subkey:

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\
SecurityProviders\SCHANNEL\Protocols\PCT1.0\Server

to change the system configuration.

11. Modifies the values:

"AutoShareServer" = "0"
"AutoShareWks" = "0"

in the registry subkey:

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\
lanmanserver\parameters

in an attempt to harden system security by removing Administrative shares.

12. Modifies the values:

"NameServer" = ""
"ForwardBroadcasts" = "0"
"IPEnableRouter" = "0"
"Domain" = ""
"SearchList" = ""
"UseDomainNameDevolution" = "1"
"EnableICMPRedirect" = "0"
"DeadGWDetectDefault" = "1"
"DontAddDefaultGatewayDefault" = "0"
"EnableSecurityFilters" = "1"
"AllowUnqualifiedQuery" = "0"
"PrioritizeRecordData" = "1"
"TCP1320Opts" = "3"
"KeepAliveTime" = "23280"
"BcastQueryTimeout" = "2ee"
"BcastNameQueryCount" = "1"

in the registry subkey:

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\Tcpip\
Parameters

to change the system configuration.

13. Attempts to open a back door by connecting to an IRC channel through TCP port 443 on the following domain:

enz.fulame.biz

14. Listens for commands that allow a remote attacker to perform the following actions:

* Download and execute files
* List, stop, and start processes and threads
* Launch ACK, SYN, UDP, and ICMP Denial of Service (DoS) attacks
* Perform port redirection
* Send files over IRC
* Send email using its own SMTP engine
* Start a local HTTP, FTP, or TFTP server
* Search for files on the compromised computer
* Access network shares and copy itself to those network shares
* Scan the network for vulnerable hosts by means of port scanning
* Intercept packets on the local area network
* Flush the DNS and ARP caches
* Open a command shell on the infected computer
* Add and delete network shares and disable DCOM
* Reboot the infected computer

15. Scans for computers and attempts to exploit any of the following vulnerabilities:

* The Microsoft Windows DCOM RPC Interface Buffer Overrun Vulnerability (as described in Microsoft Security Bulletin MS03-026) using TCP ports 135, 445, 1025.
* The Microsoft Windows Local Security Authority Service Remote Buffer Overflow (as described in Microsoft Security Bulletin MS04-011) using TCP ports 135, 139, 445.
* The Microsoft SQL Server 2000 or MSDE 2000 audit (as described in Microsoft Security Bulletin MS02-061) using UDP port 1434.

16. Attempts to spread by copying itself to network shares protected by weak passwords.

99.5% of the above won't even work on a Mac and that .5% (Like listening to ports) is handled differently on the Mac then on Windows. Hell I wouldn't be at all surprised if the virus outright exploded as it is trying to do the above. What happens when it can't copy itself or can't edit a registry or can't etc.

[Evangelion]

Nice sarcasm (I'm assuming that's supposed to be sarcasm????)

duh!

But of course, you will have noted that Windows viruses don't run under Linux because Linux doesn't provide the Windows APIs that virus writers use.

So you are saying that it's NOT due to the CPU???

As I mentioned previously, a mapping of API calls would have to be done. This is a non-trivial task when you are working in byte-code.

I also mentioned that the loader has a role to play, and of course Linux uses a different loader from Windows.

All this being said, it also has to be noted that Linux running WINE is substantially more at risk, precisely because WINE provides Windows APIs and a Windows-style loader. Now all that is needed is a remapping of resources (file directories, address book locations, that sort of stuff). This is a much easier task, and one of these days someone will do it if WINE becomes popular enough to attract virus writer attention.

Well, again, I say "all", but to be correct, it is highly unlikely that WINE reproduces the original security flaw that made the buffer overflow possible in the first place. At least, we can hope that his is the case. Of course, if some naughty people are actually reading the Windows binaries, and rewriting their C code source from this, there is every possibility that WINE reproduces the bug :eek:

Dude, in short: the type of processor that runs the computer is next to irrelevant. The fact that matter is the OS, period. That fact is proven by the fact that we have a bajillion OS'es running on x86, and ONLY Windows has a problem with viruses.

All this crap about "loaders", and WINE exposing the system to viruses is pure and utter CRAP. If you look at the virus-problem Windows has it's because of WINDOWS, period. And since Wine does not run Windows, I fail to see the problem here. And viruses are not videspread because of x86, the problem is squarely at Windows. And today we have the NX-bit in x86-CPU's, making the even the paranoids among us breath more easily.

I don't know whether I should laugh or cry when I watch Mac-users try to tackle with the phenomena that is know as "computer viruses". "OMG, will we now get viruses when Apple switches to Intel?!?!?!?" "d000d, does WINE expose my system to viruses?????". Sometimes I feel like Mac-users relationship with viruses is something similar to Howard Hughes's relationship with germs.

Then we have the "it's now easier to infect Macs! They just have to change the API's!". Yeah, THAT has been demonstrated to be true on Linux on x86. Linux has been running on x86 for 15 years, and the number of Linux-viruses can be counted with two hands, and even those have been mostly proof-of-concepts. Hell, someone even tried to run Windows-virus on Linux through WINE. End-result? Utter failure. The virus didn't do a thing to the OS.

[SiliconAddict]

More info on Viruses in WINE
http://os.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=05/01/25/1430222

Some of the biggest Viruses and Worms in the last few years. Only one was able to do ANYTHING to a Linux box and that was simply eating clocks as if a process was stuck. Kill the process and move on. OMG its the end of the world!!!!11oneoneeleventyiiI||

[demallien]

OK I know that we aren't suppose to do direct insults but my GOD people are stupid. Talking crap about what they don't know. A virus that runs on Windows is going to try to exploit a windows vulnerability or path which on a Mac WILL NOT WORK. How ****** hard is this to understand? :mad: And the idea that the exploit is replicated in WINE is ****** retarded. Its the OS! Its the OS. Its the OS. Its the OS that is where the vulnerability is not the freaking baseline API. Please people for the love of god go to http://www.symantec.com/avcenter/global/index.html and READ what 90% of the virues on Windows DOES!!

*starts foaming at the mouth and bangs his head into his keyboard*
ser4rvwervqw2werwwer4r rrwewerwe34$

Example:


99.5% of the above won't even work on a Mac and that .5% (Like listening to ports) is handled differently on the Mac then on Windows. Hell I wouldn't be at all surprised if the virus outright exploded as it is trying to do the above. What happens when it can't copy itself or can't edit a registry or can't etc.

Yeah, as I said, none of this stuff works if you don't have the Windows APIs. But then, of course, if you're running WINE, you DO have the Windows APIs, even if they are a different implementation of those APIs. All of a sudden, your computer is capable of responding to most of this stuff.

And, seeing as you believe yourself an expert on these matters, I'd like to ask what you do for a living. Personally, I reverse-engineer viruses and DRM-exploit hacks for a living, and you? Somehow, I think I may just have a slightly better grasp of what it would take than you.

Want an example of what it would take to create a virus for both Mac and PC? OK, here goes:

*Take a multi-platform application with a security flaw - an example we had recently was a graphics renderer.

*Construct a file/image that creates a buffer overflow in the common app.

*Write the windows virus that exploits the flaw, including all of the usual calls to APIs etc

*Replace the calls to Windows APIs by calls to Mac equivalent APIs

*convert the byte code from IA32 to PPC

*change resources such as directory paths, filenames etc


Now, the problem is that the two versions are effectively two completely different viruses exploiting the same securiy flaw. But, if you are running an Intel Mac, the bytecode doesn't need to be replaced. Better still, the first bit of code can be used to detect what sort of computer the virus is running on, knowing if it needs to launch the Mac or the PC version

And if you are running WINE on your Intel Mac, you don't need to remap the APIs either, so the two versions just need to change their resources. In case you've missed the point, all of those Registry operations are carried out through Windows API calls (well, most of them - sometimes viruses can hook undocumented APIs)

It's still hard, and it still demands a pretty decent knowledge of BOTH pltforms, something most people don't have, but it is possible. The Mac does of course throw in some extra protection through correctly configuring security on it's Macs, "out-of-the-box", but this can be defeated once you get code onto the system.

My whole point is that the more your system resembles a PC, the easier it gets to write a multi-platform virus. That's all. We've gone from having two systems using different bytecode, different APIs, different system configs, to systems which - if you run WINE - are starting to be quite similar.

Now, if you want to make yourself a goose by disagreeing with this self-evident fact, go right ahead...

[demallien]

Dude, in short: the type of processor that runs the computer is next to irrelevant. The fact that matter is the OS, period. That fact is proven by the fact that we have a bajillion OS'es running on x86, and ONLY Windows has a problem with viruses.

All this crap about "loaders", and WINE exposing the system to viruses is pure and utter CRAP. If you look at the virus-problem Windows has it's because of WINDOWS, period. And since Wine does not run Windows, I fail to see the problem here. And viruses are not videspread because of x86, the problem is squarely at Windows. And today we have the NX-bit in x86-CPU's, making the even the paranoids among us breath more easily.

I think you are seriously missing the point of what I am saying. If you've read my posts, you'll realise that what I am saying is that each time you take a step closer to having a Windows environment on your computer (and that's what Intel and WINE will do), then the easier it is for someone to write a virus that can attack your computer too.


Then we have the "it's now easier to infect Macs! They just have to change the API's!". Yeah, THAT has been demonstrated to be true on Linux on x86. Linux has been running on x86 for 15 years, and the number of Linux-viruses can be counted with two hands, and even those have been mostly proof-of-concepts. Hell, someone even tried to run Windows-virus on Linux through WINE. End-result? Utter failure. The virus didn't do a thing to the OS.

That would be because the designer didn't think to stick in a few if statements to attack Linux as well. I can think of several reasons for that:
1) The virus writer was lazy
2) The virus writer didn't think that the target audience of WINE using Linuxers was worth the extra effort
3) The virus writer doesn't know Linux well enough
4) The virus writer doesn't know the security flaws in Linux
5) The different versions of Linux have enough differences that this would further fragment the virus's impact without major efforts to account for debian, suse, redhat, and all the other variants

In short, if you take a bog-standard Windows virus, it won't do anything to an Intel Mac running WINE. But if you take a virus, and with a very small amount of work, tweak it to attack an Intel Mac with WINE, we'll see our very first Mac virus. And because the amount of work required to do this is minimal compared to writing a Mac virus from scratch, I for one consider that WINE on an Intel Mac puts the user at a much greater risk of viruses.

[yellow]

More info on Viruses in WINE
http://os.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=05/01/25/1430222

Seems like a familiar link. :rolleyes:

[Antares]

You do realize that the scenario you just described would work on OS X without even needing Windows. If you yourself can delete files there is nothing stopping a script from doing the same. :rolleyes: Basically all you are doing is spreading FUD.

This may be very off topic...but I've seen the word "FUD" used in a number of posts on this site. What does it mean?

To get back on topic, if Access could work with WINE or something similar, I would be very happy. That's the only Windoze application I need.

[blakbyrd]

This may be very off topic...but I've seen the word "FUD" used in a number of posts on this site. What does it mean?

Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. Basically, it means propaganda.

[milo]

This may be very off topic...but I've seen the word "FUD" used in a number of posts on this site. What does it mean?

Fear, uncertainty and doubt. Used alot back in the day when pundits used to predict Apple going out of business. Basically the misinformation and unsubstantiated rumors used to bash a product.

[digitalbiker]

This may be very off topic...but I've seen the word "FUD" used in a number of posts on this site. What does it mean?

To get back on topic, if Access could work with WINE or something similar, I would be very happy. That's the only Windoze application I need.

FUD is an undermining propaganda campaign to spread unjustified (F)ear (U)ncertainty & (D)oubt about any particular subject or product.

[Val-kyrie]

Why in the HELL do I want to run Windows, ever, on a Mac? And why are too many idiots spending their time thinking of making it work? Jesus, what a waste of effort.
This is speculation, but I'd bet my house that the first REAL Vista virus is waiting for Vista's release. So why would I want to destroy my productivity so I can run that vertical marketing crap-application that's only available on a crap-PC? I'll buy the crap-box from evil Wal-Mart. When it dies, I toss it, much like a used Preperation-H towlette.

There is no "best" in the WIN world. It's an abomination. Vista on a Mac is like having a mole on your skin that might one day turn to cancer.

Keep your mole.

Some of us need only one windows program for professional purposes, but would prefer to use a Mac if possible. The Darwin Project will greatly assist those of us who must straddle two worlds.

[brettbolt]

This isn't, strictly speaking, true. Most viruses exploit security flaws known as buffer over-runs. Basically, a buffer over-run occurs when the programmer makes a mistake and allows the copying of too much data into a buffer of a fixed size. This extra data ends up being copied over the top of code. If you can write just the right data, so that the extra bytes actually represent a program that the processor can execute, the next time that the processor tries to run the overwritten code, it will actually be executing the virus instead. That's how viruses work. To make this happen is quite a technical feat, which is why most hardline hackers are considered to be guru programmers (as opposed to scriptkiddies that use tools written by gurus).
Intel Macs ship with the CPU's "Execute Disable" (NX) bit set by default. This means it doesn't execute "code" on the stack resulting from a buffer overflow -- thus defeating the attack mechanism often used by malicious code.

So now its even more difficult to infect a system, but unfortunately still not impossible.

[demallien]

Intel Macs ship with the CPU's "Execute Disable" (NX) bit set by default. This means it doesn't execute "code" on the stack resulting from a buffer overflow -- thus defeating the attack mechanism often used by malicious code.

So now its even more difficult to infect a system, but unfortunately still not impossible.

Again, yes and no. Execute Disable means that the processor will not execute code in a page of memory if the application has defined that page as being data. So, if a virus has stashed some of it's code in an area that was previously defined as data, the processor won't execute it.

However, for this to work, the application first has to remember to specify which parts are code, and which parts are data. Secondly, many packages today can't use this technique because they explicitly stock their code, in an encrypted format, in the data section to make it harder to reverse engineer. Execute Disable would block these apps from working, so the app disables the feature (or rather, doesn't implement it). I use this technique for my work, to prevent hackers...

So, in short, this feature will stop SOME viruses, IF the application is using Execute Disable, and IF the virus tries to store some of it's code in a data section. As you have probably picked up, it's rather a limited protection at best, and at worst could stop certain legitimate applications from working...

I repeat, the closer a Mac gets to having the same underlying functionality as Windows, the easier it gets to write a multiplatform virus. My advice - limit PC stuff on your Mac to a virtualised environment. WINE is a risk without justification, especially as we will almost certainly have some high-speed Windows virtual machines such as QEMU available on the Intel Mac fairly soon...

[DeathChill]

Totally WRONG! It's the way the Apple OS's have been written to use instruction sets on the processor that make them less likely to get a virus (under OS 10) They will be spreading like wild fire now AND you will have freezing ups just like Steve did at MacWorld, typical x86 machine.
You don't really believe this do you?

Look at Linux, an x86 OS (or at least it has an x86 version), and tell me that there are viruses spreading like wildfire on it. What part do you think the processor plays in virus protection? None at all, unless it has some the NX/DX stuff, but that hasn't been actively put to use.

Any freezes on an x86 machine would be the result of the code in the OS, not the processor.

So, in short, please shut up before trying to spout off like a moron about something which you have no clue about.

[dvdh]

Does this mean that I will be able to run AutoCAD with OSX?

Too bad no one has been able to provide an answer this yet. It was my big question about WINE as well. If there is one application that has dictated that I have a Windows box sitting in reserve it has been AutoCAD.

For the longest time (since release 12 for Mac was retired) there has been a small but persistent faction in the design world who have absolutely been begging for a way to run AutoCAD on our Macs. Virtual PC was hardly a passable solution with 1/3 speed performance and awful graphics support.

So the question, to state it again, is: Will Mac users be able to run AutoCAD on their machines at a reasonable speed and with reasonable graphics capacity under WINE?

Thanks in advance . . . :)

[AtHomeBoy_2000]

OK, I understand that WINE may someday be AWESOME to run windows only apps on a Mac, but how do you install them? Mac apps are pretty much drag and drop into the applications folder. Windows software installs differantly.

[FaasNat]

OK, I understand that WINE may someday be AWESOME to run windows only apps on a Mac, but how do you install them? Mac apps are pretty much drag and drop into the applications folder. Windows software installs differantly.
There are some Mac apps that go through an installer. I dunno, maybe there's some kinda WINE wrapper that does the installation of the Windows app or something. Never used WINE so I'm just taking a stab in the dark.....

[lucas]

OK, I understand that WINE may someday be AWESOME to run windows only apps on a Mac, but how do you install them? Mac apps are pretty much drag and drop into the applications folder. Windows software installs differantly.
since wine lets you run windows software, you simply install windows apps with their windows installers. wine lets them think they are installing on a hard drive of their own, which is really just a folder (~/.C/ for example), so the programs installer does the usual thing it would on windows and puts its stuff in ~/.C/Program\ Files/Crappy\ App/. you then run "wine ~/.C/Program\ Files/Crappy\ App/program.exe" and you're off. this is from my experience a few years back, i'd guess not much on the technical side has changed though from what i hear its been simplfied to click-and-go

[Mr. Mister]

Yeah, one of my only dislikes of the Macintosh platform are the proud and the few: the misinformed, stupid Mac lovers.

[Cori2]

Crossover Office will be extend its support to Intel Macs as well.

You can read more info here http://www.codeweavers.com/about/general/press/?id=20050622

[mark88]

The only thing holding me back from making a 100% switch to mac is the fact I need to run a couple of XP apps on a daily basis.

It will be so so nice to be able to run these apps in OS X.