Running Windows apps on OSX86

Discussion in ' News Discussion' started by MacBytes, Nov 20, 2005.

  1. macrumors bot

    Jul 5, 2003
  2. Administrator/Editor


    Staff Member

    Jan 20, 2005
    Wow...a very interesting development (at least this is the first I've heard of this). The benefits of the Intel move just keep coming...
  3. macrumors 65816

    Mar 13, 2003
  4. macrumors 65816


    Sep 1, 2003
    How are you so sure of this? Explain please.

    If hopefully Apple comes up with some way of locking their OS to an Apple built, Mac only motherboard, as in, puts in a serious of complex chipsets, like keys, without which OS X will not run, Apple's hardware sales will go on, stay strong. Meanwhile an added advantage of buying a Mac with OS X and an Intel chip, you can run your (crummy) x86 applications if you so desire. Of course this could hurt software developers except the big ones, ultimately if you code for OS X it'll still be hella faster than coding x86 and Intel though, or should be.

    Take the worst case scenario of people hacking to get OS X to work on a FUGLY peecee, well, first up, it's sad but flattering, secondly quite a few polls show that there's many peecee lusers crave to run OS X. Apple isn't going to go quietly into simply letting people run OS X on their peecees, but, those that do, and who buy a legit copy, still aren't hurting Apple coffers. And hopefully such a hack will be difficult, made difficult, and continue, so that only the truly crafty and having plenty of time on their hands would go about doing such a thing.

    All bets are really off until January and whenever the MacTels get here. Until then all these broken code OS X copies are just one offs.
  5. Moderator emeritus


    Jun 15, 2000
    I'd like to see screenshots. Words aren't enough.
  6. macrumors 65816


    Nov 20, 2003
    Chicago, IL
    Would this concept hold true for other apps, like 3D games?

    /would love to boot System Shock 2 on a mac.
  7. macrumors Penryn


    Mar 23, 2005
    I've being looking around...

    But has ANYONE thought about Virtual PC on the Intel Mac?
  8. macrumors 6502a

    Truly interesting. If windows apps will be able to run on an intel mac without emulation, will windows people figure out how to run OS X apps on a windows box without emulation (or hacked OSX?). That could be damaging- ilife is a big selling point for macs.

    But hey, if you could run windows apps on a mac no problem, OR dual boot into windows, I can imagine a LOT of PC users buying apple hardware for it's design, ability to run OS X, etc. who otherwise would not consider a mac.

    Also impressive, that a hack can be run on top of a hack like that.
  9. macrumors 68040


    Nov 9, 2004
    Salt Lake City, UT
    The thing I worry about with this kind of ability is the possible tendency for software developers to stop creating Mac ports. It'll just be too easy to just tell Mac users to run your software in WINE. That's all fine and good, but it doesn't help the Mac much because if all the software you're running is Windows stuff being run through WINE, what's the point of not just running Windows?
  10. macrumors member

    May 2, 2002

    Running media player 5.1, has no sound for any app yet so you can watch the avi but that's about it... runs smoothly so I hear.
  11. macrumors regular

    Jul 20, 2002
    I don't think Apple will ever officially support Windows apps running within OS X, partly because if you can run Windows apps in OS X, then you'll be able to run Windows viruses in OS X as well. I think dual-booting to a separate HD may still be a "safer" solution in the end.. either that, or Symantec is going to be getting a lot more Mac users' money in the future..
  12. macrumors 68030


    May 7, 2002
    2 Much Infinite Loops
    why i think apple would not support "windows".

    Apple stands for quality, ease of use, full integration between Apple software and hardware.

    that is the reason why i don't think Apple would support dualbooting windows or running windows apps "natively" in the upcoming macintels.

    imagine if a certain programs does not run fine (it does not matter if it is Apple's fault or not). people would blame the "new software/hardware company which is Apple".
  13. macrumors 6502a

    Why not virtualization?

    Forthcoming Intel chips are going to have built in support for concurrent operation of multiple Operating Systems (virtualization), so why shouldn't these be run simultaneously? IIRC, we already have a patent, or something along those lines, from Apple concerning a method for making systems calls in one OS from another, so it is highly likely Apple is working on this already. Why would you dual boot or run a software abstraction layer when you can just switch primary OS as easily as going to sleep or run applications natively from both systems at the same time?
  14. macrumors 6502

    Feb 18, 2002
    I think this can be said...something is up. This is a space to watch further developments. I'm surprised nobody tried this sooner.
  15. macrumors 65816


    Sep 1, 2003
    WOW!!! Good god Windoze is hideous looking! Or is that wine emulation? Either way that is the must ****LY looking application, and it reminds me of another thing. Except for those aesthetically challenged (sadly many peecee lusers are) why would ANYONE, excepting I guess some "must have" application (I can't think of any) want to run ugly Windoze crap when you can run stuff with OS X gooeyness?
  16. Moderator emeritus


    Jun 15, 2000
    Uh, AutoCAD? :D
  17. macrumors G5


    May 2, 2002
    Running Windows on Mac will NOT kill Mac-native apps

    From day one I've suspected that MS will release that--and if they don't, there will be alternatives.

    Dual-boot is a terrible, last-resort kind of solution. Aside from the delay and hassle, you can't USE all your apps together! You're using JUST the Mac apps or JUST the Windows apps. When you're in Windows you don't have your Mac files, or emails, or bookmarks, or.... No. Only a last resort for RARE Windows use.

    And even then... Windows opens your Mac up to attack. A Windows virus may not be able to read HFS (unless... it was designed to!) but it can still reformat your HD in theory, Mac partition and all. No thank you! I want to KNOW--not assume--that my Mac is safe from Windows attacks.

    So running Windows emulation--now at close to full speed thanks to Intel chips--is the way to go.

    * Copy/paste/drag data and files between Mac and Windows.

    * Use ANY app at any time in any combination. Mac or Windows.

    * Keep Windows running on its own hardfile, entirely unaware of the rest of the HD at any level. So no attack can do worse than wipe Windows' own hardfile.

    I'd still rather do without Windows entirely--and not have to BUY Windows--but for people with no other choice, the above sounds pretty nice to me.


    There are two BIG reasons why Mac users will NOT be willing--on a large scale--to settle for running Windows on their Macs instead of demanding a Mac-native app. And with the Mac market growing (especially after the Intel change), developers will be more motivated than ever to sell to us :) (Besides, if they already have Mac experience and Mac apps to leverage, why throw them out?)

    1. Cost. You have to BUY Windows. And possibly some helper app, either for installation or to actually host Windows like VPC. (Which also means a whole extra set of setup steps you have to go through before you can run Windows apps--not too difficult I'm sure, but not something your Mac can do out of the box.)

    2. Usability. You give up the benefits of OS X, which gets better all the time and is the reason you HAVE a Mac. You either accept the time and effort and inconvenience to dual-boot--in which case you give up OS X entirely for those times, and cannot use those apps in conjunction with your Mac apps... or else you run Windows and Mac simultaneously (with a fast new VPC, or even WINE to run--some--apps without Windows itself). Running two OS's at once is cool in a geeky way, but it's far from ideal usability: working back and forth between two GUIs at once! That's not Mac user friendliness. Not to mention a possible performance hit. Running ONE excellent OS is much nicer.

    When you stop and think about it, can you really imagine most Mac users settling for Windows?

    For these reasons, users will continue to DEMAND Mac apps. (Even games, to a lesser extent. The GUI is not always an issue for those, but the other issues remain. I know I'll give my money first for native Mac games.)

    Running Windows on Mac WILL be great for certain things--such as to give a comfort zone to people fearful of straying from Windows, and thus grow the Mac platform hugely. And it's great as a last-resort option for Mac fans who need a certain Windows app for work or whatever. But it won't make us LIKE running Windows, and won't make us want to buy Windows apps. We'll do it only when we HAVE to.

    And we already DO: if we HAVE to--and often by choice for games. We already run VPC or simply own a PC if we have no other choice. No change there. (And neither option is free!) So the people most likely to accept a Windows app or game on their Mac are the very people ALREADY buying Windows apps--for their PC game systems, or their old PC they keep around, or VPC to run some app from their employer, or whatever.

    Conclusion: EVEN if it's easy to run Windows apps on Mac, the market for native Mac apps is about to grow, not shrink, and developers will deliver! :)

Share This Page