Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Leopard Recognizes Windows Executable Format, Virtualization in the Works?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I have found a use for the technology exactly the way it is. I downloaded a software update for my blackberry - it was a self extracting .exe. Leopard recognized it and extracted it, saving me from having to do that on a different computer. I think that is what the technology is there for, nothing more.
Really we are headed down a path were it wont matter how the app was written, it will have a good chance of running on several platforms even if it was written for one.
And I dont think it would hurt the Mac App side.
Apple can go two roads, one they practically have already. License and sell OS X for use on any intel based systems for Dell, HP, etc... This would likely cannibalize their hardware sales and hinder hardware development. My new Dell STILL has a floppy drive... But this is completely doable.
The more practical option is virtualization. They have the development teams in place who are obviously familiar with the workings of windows apps. There is also no licensing issues with Apple saying they can now run apps built for windows. The horsepower to do this is here for most apps. Look at rosetta or in a way the Classic environment for OS 9. Sure somethings like games may be slow on the uptake, but once thing I bet Apple will do is make a SDK for windows as they have done for PPC/Intel. "Use XCode for Windows and build you apps for both platforms".This will get the idea in place the foundation going for XCode for Windows and get developers who are already familiar with XCode a great platform, a single platform, to develop on.
And I dont think it would hurt the Mac App side.
Apple can go two roads, one they practically have already. License and sell OS X for use on any intel based systems for Dell, HP, etc... This would likely cannibalize their hardware sales and hinder hardware development. My new Dell STILL has a floppy drive... But this is completely doable.
The more practical option is virtualization. They have the development teams in place who are obviously familiar with the workings of windows apps. There is also no licensing issues with Apple saying they can now run apps built for windows. The horsepower to do this is here for most apps. Look at rosetta or in a way the Classic environment for OS 9. Sure somethings like games may be slow on the uptake, but once thing I bet Apple will do is make a SDK for windows as they have done for PPC/Intel. "Use XCode for Windows and build you apps for both platforms".This will get the idea in place the foundation going for XCode for Windows and get developers who are already familiar with XCode a great platform, a single platform, to develop on.
Wirelessly posted (Opera/9.50 (J2ME/MIDP; Opera Mini/4.0.9800/209; U; en))
that kinda means..viruses on Leopard?
that kinda means..viruses on Leopard?
If you really think this is a good idea, why not visit CodeWeavers and give CrossOver for Mac a quick spin. Their program lets you run Windows apps without a copy of Windows.
What a mess... I tried for months to find value in this product but every single application had it's own set of issues. I couldn't even get IE 6 to print a page without locking everything up. I noticed that every time a new app was found to have an issue, they had to tweak the product so it never seemed to stabilize. (probably because there are just too many apps to accommodate)
I also noticed my MacBook's battery life dropped about 75% and core temperature spiked with CrossOver installed. No, not when CrossOver was actually running anything. Just having it installed does something in the background which hogged every conceivable system resource. I finally had to fully trash it.
Use Boot Camp, or for a few more bucks you can get VMWare or Parallels.... about a billion fewer headaches.
What a mess... I tried for months to find value in this product but every single application had it's own set of issues. I couldn't even get IE 6 to print a page without locking everything up. I noticed that every time a new app was found to have an issue, they had to tweak the product so it never seemed to stabilize. (probably because there are just too many apps to accommodate)
I also noticed my MacBook's battery life dropped about 75% and core temperature spiked with CrossOver installed. No, not when CrossOver was actually running anything. Just having it installed does something in the background which hogged every conceivable system resource. I finally had to fully trash it.
Use Boot Camp, or for a few more bucks you can get VMWare or Parallels.... about a billion fewer headaches.
I would think a faster way to switch between a booted version of OS X and Windoze would be more what they would be after. Something similar to Fast User Switching for Operating Systems.
Whatever it is its probably a 10.6 holdout so we have a while to go yet.
The only issue I can think of is wanting to not buy another copy of Windows, and thus giving MS more money that they don't need...
So WINE and Crossover and its ilk are good ideas.
Office 2008 doesn't need anything like that... neither does any sort of 2007 support/integration either.
The docx format (along with xlsx, etc) are all XML file formats (with a binary XML option). No funny business, thankfully.
Apple makes their profits from selling hardware.
You have a plan that would cannibalize their profits, but you deem it "doable?"
What are you basing that opinion on?
Apple obviously had a huge jump on dual-booting. They released Boot Camp within minutes of the first successful dual boot hack, which tells me they were working on it all along. I think they intended to release it the moment somebody figured out the hack, if only because that's what happened. Applying this lesson to virtualization, causes me to believe that Apple will watch very carefully how these products develop and get used. If they become popular, but don't provide users with a good experience, then they will jump in quickly with an Apple solution.
Office 2008 doesn't need anything like that... neither does any sort of 2007 support/integration either.
The docx format (along with xlsx, etc) are all XML file formats (with a binary XML option). No funny business, thankfully.
I agree.I was referring more to the .NET frameworks that might be used in Office 2008.
Yeah I understand that part. But it's not like copies of Windows can't be easily obtained (legally even).
Have you tried CrossOver? Most people are not computer geeks and would want such WINE products to "just work" out of the box. But they don't "just work"... not without great effort ... expect to have about 100 times the issues you'd have with Boot Camp or Parallels.
I didn't even have to pay for my copy of CrossOver because I was one of their registered testers and just couldn't take the torture anymore.
Identifying and parsing an EXE file is a far cry from executing the contents. There are plenty of reasons why you might want to process the file without executing the application. Off the top of my head:
- To give an accurate description in "get info" windows
- To allow file-type associations with third-party emulators
- Show the application icon in the Finder
- So QuickView can display application resources (icons, string tables, etc.)
- So Spotlight can index the application's resources
- To speed up application porting (e.g. by converting Windows resources to Mac resources, so they don't have to be re-created from scratch)
Maybe, but there's a big difference here. Any Windows-compatibility solution that actually works will require licensing Microsoft's code. I don't think MS would sell any such license.
Reverse-engineering the Windows APIs (a-la WINE) is always doomed to failure. It's a massive effort, requires tons of hacking (to determine the undocumented behavior), and is always a game of catch-up (every update from MS will require a corresponding update from Apple.) Apple would need an R&D team larger than Mac OS itself to make this work.
Which leaves running a stock copy of Windows in a virtual environment. There are two very good solutions already out there. I doubt Apple would release a third solution - especially since it would require the customer to buy a Windows license. If they offer any such solution, they'll probably just buy one of the existing products.
Basing an opinion? Um, its an OPINION! lol All I said is that Apple could release OX into the "wild" so to speak, license it out for use on non-apple hardware. How is that not doable? And thats why I said it WOULD cannibalize hardware sales. Cannibalize would be a negative effect.
I am missing you point for quoting me.
I could go out and light myself on fire. I would die. But it's doable.
Taking that statement, the obvious question is "Ok, it's doable, but WHY on earth would you do that?"
That's pretty much all I'm asking you. WHY would you suggest that Apple light themselves on fire? That's the question.
Could be. I don't have an opinion about the technical issues involved. So long as Apple is happy with the implementation of the current virtualization solutions, then I can't see them becoming involved directly with this market. However, if we're to gain anything from how they handled dual booting, it would be the lesson that they will fiercely protect user experience with their products, and that they have probably already expended some of the technical effort required to move into this one fairly quickly if the need arose.
I'll admit, I don't understand this all and would need to see how it develops. But I can see a good and bad side to this. Good: more apps. Bad: why would developers have to develop for Mac OS X? They'd just have to create a single program for Windows and it'll work automatically on Macs if my understanding is correct. Hopefully, there are enough really good Mac OS X-only features to keep developers working on Mac native apps.