Apple has their own W.I.N.E. type of Application ready for Leopard?

GodBless

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Jan 22, 2005
1,005
0
What if Apple has their own W.I.N.E. type of Application ready to release with Leopard that will run Windows programs? Just think we already have X11 so what is the problem with another interface emulator? This would go against the Apple interface standards (although it wouldn't be any worse than X11) but maybe that is why they put new interfaces in Tiger -- so we could get used to the inconsistency. This could have been one of the reasons why Apple decided to switch to Intel Processors, so we could run Windows programs. Just think of all the 3rd party programs you'll be able to run if Apple does this.

What are your thoughts? Do you think Apple will do it?
 

GodBless

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Jan 22, 2005
1,005
0
Mitthrawnuruodo said:
Why wait for Leopard? Just have it ready when the first Mactels are shipped... ;)
Even better! Come on Apple, give it to us as a free download after demonstrating it at next years WWDC Keynote!
 

Sun Baked

macrumors G5
May 19, 2002
14,874
57
GodBless said:
What if Apple has their own W.I.N.E. type of Application ready to release with Leopard that will run Windows programs?
That would be the beginning of the end for OS X, and OS X would follow down the same path as O/S 2.

Because once WINE ships in the Box with OS X, there is zero reason for a developer to spend money creating a Mac OS X application.

What would be the point if the Windows app will run just as well?
 

mkrishnan

Moderator emeritus
Jan 9, 2004
29,641
12
Grand Rapids, MI, USA
Apple is widely rumored to have been working on such a thing since back around the time when OS X was scoped out. The code name is "Red Box" (there's a recent article about it here, although no voucher for quality). The Red Box complemented the Yellow Box (the layer of the OS that ran native programs) and the Blue Box (which ran MacOS Classic apps). It is always a possibility that Red Box could see the light of day, and even that it could extend open source code from Darwine or something else.

But one way or another, this functionality will exist shortly after Leopard and the Mactels arrive. It'll be great for those of us who occasionally use PC only productivity, and would be too inconvenienced by rebooting. It'll be great, that is, as long as (should Apple themselves include it) it doesn't kill the OS by stifling development in favor of letting Macs run windows binaries.... That's a thread that's been done here to death. ;)
 

GodBless

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Jan 22, 2005
1,005
0
Sun Baked said:
That would be the beginning of the end for OS X, and OS X would follow down the same path as O/S 2.

Because once WINE ships in the Box with OS X, there is zero reason for a developer to spend money creating a Mac OS X application.

What would be the point if the Windows app will run just as well?
Yeah I know what happened to O/S 2 but everybody like carbon apps which Windows doesn't provide. It will show how much better OS X's interface is compared to Windows. O/S 2 couldn't do that. OS X Application will be developed just because of the awesome interface which makes all applications better. It could even influence Windows developers to develop for OS X.
 

acedickson

macrumors 6502a
Dec 6, 2004
727
0
ATL
I think running Windows in Virtual PC or a similar app could be great too. No emulation would be involved so it should run full speed. It'd be nice to open a Windows window, if you needed to use it, instead of having to reboot.
 

GodBless

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Jan 22, 2005
1,005
0
Benjamin said:
why not just dual boot? apple vp already said they aren't going to restrict it...
Dual booting is time consuming. Why not run everything you want without having to reboot every 5 minutes?
 

BornAgainMac

macrumors 603
Feb 4, 2004
6,349
3,211
Florida Resident
1) OS X beats O/S 2 because it offers a far superior environment for applications not easily made for Windows.
2) O/S 2 didn't have a large library of applications. No Microsoft Office for it.
3) O/S 2 didn't come with nice developer tools except maybe REXX and a DOS like shell for BAT files.
4) OSX doesn't have the viruses and problems of Windows.
5) Back in the early days of Windows 3.1, new apps were coming out everyday as frequently as Widgets for Tiger.
6) Windows 3.1 took far less hardware to run compared to O/S 2 from the reviews of the time.
 

Sun Baked

macrumors G5
May 19, 2002
14,874
57
GodBless said:
Yeah I know what happened to O/S 2 but everybody like carbon apps which Windows doesn't provide. It will show how much better OS X's interface is compared to Windows. O/S 2 couldn't do that. OS X Application will be developed just because of the awesome interface which makes all applications better. It could even influence Windows developers to develop for OS X.
It usually isn't up to the developers at quite a few companies, the bean counters are the ones that can start and kill projects.

Why would any smart accountant spend money developing and application twice for the same OS? They wouldn't.

That's what killed OS 2, and would kill OS X if Apple tried this.

You would lose zero Mac customers by killing OS X development in this case...

In most of these companies, the dollars spent speaks quite loud.

If it was totally up to developers, the NeXT OS would still be around ... but even the developers who were hot for the OS couldn't save it.
 

RacerX

macrumors 65832
Aug 2, 2004
1,504
2
mkrishnan said:
Apple is widely rumored to have been working on such a thing since back around the time when OS X was scoped out. The code name is "Red Box" (there's a recent article about it here, although no voucher for quality). The Red Box complemented the Yellow Box (the layer of the OS that ran native programs) and the Blue Box (which ran MacOS Classic apps). It is always a possibility that Red Box could see the light of day, and even that it could extend open source code from Darwine or something else.
One problem... Red Box never existed.

Red Box was a fantasy of people outside of Apple when they first heard that Rhapsody was going to be able to run on both Macs and PCs, and that the Mac version was going to include Blue Box (a Mac application environment based on Mac OS 8).

But all it was was a fantasy.

Also, Yellow Box (formerly known as OpenStep, later renamed Cocoa) was the native application environment for Rhapsody... but was also an application environment for Windows (this is also the development/deployment environment of WebObjects 4.x).

And to top it off, I really could never see Apple giving such an environment a name like Red Box. If anything, I could see Apple naming something like this either Green Box or Purple Box.

Still, I would point out that at the time of Rhapsody development (when these rumors started), Apple was feeling a large amount of pressure to get a shipping product out. To deal with this, almost everything that went into the Rhapsody project had it's start somewhere else. As I said, Yellow Box was based on OpenStep from NeXT's OPENSTEP operating system (as was Rhapsody's Mach foundations). Blue Box was based on MAE (Macintosh Application Environment) for AIX. And even Carbon was based on the APIs developed for Copland*.

There was nothing that either Apple or NeXT brought to the table that could even hint towards anything like Red Box.

And why would Apple want to waste time on such a thing anyways? Blue Box was not the Classic you guys know of now. It was far more like VirtualPC. When in Blue Box your Mac looked like it was running in Mac OS 8.x. Other than the applications menu, you can't see anything of the Yellow Box environment. And when in Yellow Box (again other than the applications menu) you can't see anything of Blue Box. And Blue Box runs off of a disk image (like VirtualPC). I even put together a set of instructions for increasing the size of that image on my site (here).

If anything, Apple would have left something like Red Box up to third party developers like Connectix.

But the thing is, the people who came up with Red Box... and those who continue to propagate the fantasy, have never even seen Yellow Box or Blue Box, or understand what Apple was trying to do at the time.

As for today... with Mac OS X, I have said it before and will say it again, Microsoft will make VirtualPC for Mac OS X on Intel that can access the processor directly (much like the Windows version of VirtualPC does now) and the thing we should be worried about is if Microsoft is going to want to continue developing Office for Mac after that. They could just start bundling Office for Windows with VirtualPC and drop the Mac version altogether.

But I highly doubt that Apple as any designs on a Red Box environment like people are again fantasizing about. There will be VirtualPC and I'm sure that WINE for X11 is going to be there too, but nothing from Apple.






*Note: When Apple started developing Copland, it was originally going to be a completely new operating system in every way. When developers started hearing about this and the fact that they were going to be forced to completely rewrite their apps for Copland, they protested. This forced Apple to take a hard look at the existing Macintosh APIs and they came up with an environment that would be easy to port apps from System 7.x while still letting the apps take advantage of the new operating system's modern features.

Well, Copland was scrapped as an operating system, but many aspects of it popped up in other operating systems (the Platinum theme was given to both Mac OS 8 and Rhapsody at the same time, and many of the other features were added to Mac OS 8.x and 9.x over the years that followed).

When Mac developers again protested at being forced to rewrite their applications for Yellow Box, Apple realized that they already had a major head start on a solution... the application environment that was started for Copland. Apple renamed this set of APIs Carbon and at WWDC 1998 showed off Rhapsody with Carbon (no version of Rhapsody outside of Apple ever had Carbon). They demoed a number of apps on Rhapsody including Carbon versions of AppleWorks and Photoshop.
 

GodBless

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Jan 22, 2005
1,005
0
RacerX said:
If anything, Apple would have left something like Red Box up to third party developers like Connectix.
Why, when they can make something like X11?

RacerX said:
As for today... with Mac OS X, I have said it before and will say it again, Microsoft will make VirtualPC for Mac OS X on Intel that can access the processor directly (much like the Windows version of VirtualPC does now) and the thing we should be worried about is if Microsoft is going to want to continue developing Office for Mac after that. They could just start bundling Office for Windows with VirtualPC and drop the Mac version altogether.
This is dangerous territory but remember what the Microsoft spokesperson said at WWDC 2005. She said that they would continue to develop software for the Mac platform. This means separate from Windows.

RacerX said:
But I highly doubt that Apple as any designs on a Red Box environment like people are again fantasizing about. There will be VirtualPC and I'm sure that WINE for X11 is going to be there too, but nothing from Apple.
Who says? Apple already made X11 when 3rd parties could have, and probably did, make something similar. If Apple makes a Windows interface emulator then it will be the best it can be. Apple makes the best software.

I am almost 100% sure that Apple will go through with this because they already made X11. This will have much, much, much more potential. People complain that Macs don't run all the Applications they should. Just think -- OS X will run more Applications than Windows and Linux combined. It will be able to run all Mac, Windows and Linux Applications.
 

Linkjeniero

macrumors 6502
Jan 6, 2005
255
0
GodBless said:
Why, when they can make something like X11?

This is dangerous territory but remember what the Microsoft spokesperson said at WWDC 2005. She said that they would continue to develop software for the Mac platform. This means separate from Windows.

Who says? Apple already made X11 when 3rd parties could have, and probably did, make something similar. If Apple makes a Windows interface emulator then it will be the best it can be. Apple makes the best software.

I am almost 100% sure that Apple will go through with this because they already made X11. This will have much, much, much more potential. People complain that Macs don't run all the Applications they should. Just think -- OS X will run more Applications than Windows and Linux combined. It will be able to run all Mac, Windows and Linux Applications.

The big difference is that X11 is used to run UNIX apps, wich usually are not commercial. If Apple were to make such a thing to run Windows apps in Mac OS X, many companies would indeed stick to Windows only... how would you like having all your apps use the awful Windows UI? Instead (and I know I'm dreaming here), what Apple should come up with is something that allowed developers to easily port their apps to OS X (I know, HUGE task, but slightly easier given the architecture change). Maybe even offer some sort of "X11" but at a lower level, so apps would have to be recompiled and made to comply OSX UI? (use of the Menubar, etc). Or maybe... I'll just stop babbling and go to sleep, I'm kind of drowsy :D
 

petej

macrumors regular
Jun 9, 2004
132
0
X11 is totally different to anything like a WINE project. X11 is not a UNIX environment for running UNIX apps. X11 is a window server. All programs that run on Macs that use X11 have been completely compiled for the mac environment and as such, are native Mac applications. All X11 does is draw pictures on the screen. The program talking to X11 telling it what to draw does not even have to be running on the same computer.
 

crees!

macrumors 68000
Jun 14, 2003
1,921
26
MD/VA/DC
GodBless said:
...maybe that is why they put new interfaces in Tiger -- so we could get used to the inconsistency.

What are your thoughts?
I think that's one of the most ridiculous statements I've heard as of late. Get used to inconsistency? Go smoke another doobie my friend.
 

savar

macrumors 68000
Jun 6, 2003
1,954
0
District of Columbia
Sun Baked said:
What would be the point if the Windows app will run just as well?
If it actually does run just as well, then there is none. What's wrong with that? I don't care what API my applications use, I just care how well they get the job done.

I think many developers would see that the quality of apps they can produce with the Cocoa API is much higher than that with the Win API...Hopefully we'll still get to see a lot of unique, interesting applications.

Keep in mind, being able to run all Windows apps isn't a bad thing, and its not like Windows can run our apps [yet?]. Having an OS thats way better and runs all the apps that Windows can plus more is going to be great.

Also, most people don't realize that WINE doesn't use Windows widgets or L&F, since that would be a copyright infringement. Instead, they use native X11 components. When WINE gets properly ported, it will most likely have an Aqua driver to replace the X11 driver it uses now...meaning that Windows applications will be tough to distinguish from native Carbon/Cocoa apps. (In the same way that its tough to tell a Cocoa app from a Carbon app just by using it.)
 

John Jacob

macrumors 6502a
Feb 11, 2003
548
9
Columbia, MD
Ok, I'll play the devil's advocate here.

BornAgainMac said:
1) OS X beats O/S 2 because it offers a far superior environment for applications not easily made for Windows.
I dunno, OS/2 an the Workplace Shell was pretty advanced for its time.

BornAgainMac said:
2) O/S 2 didn't have a large library of applications. No Microsoft Office for it.
Neither does OS X for X86 - yet. Anyway, the issue is why would developers continue investing money to develop and improve their OS X apps if the Windows version would work just as well on a Mac?

BornAgainMac said:
3) O/S 2 didn't come with nice developer tools except maybe REXX and a DOS like shell for BAT files.
I'll grant you that, although I don't know how good the Mac tools are. Me, I prefer gcc, an editor and grep. No fancy IDEs or Source Code Browsers for me. :D

BornAgainMac said:
4) OSX doesn't have the viruses and problems of Windows.
Full agreement there. Although the Windows viruses would still work fine in the emulation environment (they wouldn't be able to infect the system as a whole).

BornAgainMac said:
5) Back in the early days of Windows 3.1, new apps were coming out everyday as frequently as Widgets for Tiger.
I'm not sure what you're implying here. 1) A widget can't be compared to a complete app. 2) Apps for Wintel are coming out everyday far faster than equivalent MacPPC ones are (or Mactel ones will).
BornAgainMac said:
6) Windows 3.1 took far less hardware to run compared to O/S 2 from the reviews of the time.
True, although OS/2 offered a full 32-bit multitasking OS to compensate. Let's hope OS X for x86 offers far more than Longhorn and runs far better on the same hardware.

- John
 

MisterMe

macrumors G4
Jul 17, 2002
10,650
28
USA
GodBless said:
Why, when they can make something like X11?
To illuminate RacerX's point, X11 has nothing to do with emulation, per se. Apple has developed and supported the X Windowing System since the early 1990's. This goes back to System 7 and predates the PowerMac. Apple's X Windowing server did then what it does now. It allows Mac users to run X-compatible applications on their desktops. The major difference between then and now is that the X-compatible application can be either local or remote today. Back in the days of System 7, the X-compatible application had to be remote. FWIW, there were also X Windowing System implementations for Windows. They were available exclusively from third-parties because Microsoft did not develop such an implementation. There were also third-party implementations of X Windows for the Mac. They tended to be somewhat easier to setup and use than Apple's product.
 

GodBless

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Jan 22, 2005
1,005
0
Maybe Apple can help the open source development of W.I.N.E. and make it run with OS X. OS X already has a lot of open source projects that run with it so why can't Apple do the same with W.I.N.E.?
 

RacerX

macrumors 65832
Aug 2, 2004
1,504
2
GodBless said:
Why, when they can make something like X11?
As has been pointed out, X11 isn't Apple's first X Window Server. Their original one was called MacX, of which I have both the version that came with A/UX and the version I bought on it's own from Apple back in 1999 (which ran me about $175 as I recall).

This is dangerous territory but remember what the Microsoft spokesperson said at WWDC 2005. She said that they would continue to develop software for the Mac platform. This means separate from Windows.
And we all know how well Microsoft keeps to their word. Or were you not watching when the Microsoft spokesperson said at WWDC 2000 that they would develop Outlook Express for Mac OS X?

Who says? Apple already made X11 when 3rd parties could have, and probably did, make something similar. If Apple makes a Windows interface emulator then it will be the best it can be. Apple makes the best software.
Well... I believe I said it. That would be me, RacerX.

And we were talking about the phantom "Red Box". Did Apple make an X Window Server for Rhapsody? No. Why? Because there were already third party developers doing it and Apple had their plate full enough with Rhapsody/Mac OS X issues.

I am almost 100% sure that Apple will go through with this because they already made X11.
So? X11 was designed for the education and research markets that use specialized Unix apps often written for one very unique task.

Further, Apple didn't introduce X11 until Mac OS X v10.2, and it didn't ship with systems until 10.3.

Right now, Apple has to develop new hardware and port Mac OS X to that hardware... it has it's plate full again. Which is part of the reason why 10.5 has been pushed off by more than a year.

This will have much, much, much more potential. People complain that Macs don't run all the Applications they should. Just think -- OS X will run more Applications than Windows and Linux combined. It will be able to run all Mac, Windows and Linux Applications.
Well, it has the potential of making awful apps run on Mac OS X. That would be the single worse thing I could think of.

Basically, what you are saying follows the same logic as the bar tender who figures he can sell more beer by adding more water to it.

:rolleyes: Sure, the quality suffers, but you have more beer! And that is what is important, right?

Windows apps run like Windows apps. That, in and of itself, is the number one reason why I think this is a desperately bad idea.

I can only imagine that someone wanting windows apps to run on a Mac has no idea what makes Macs and Mac apps so special to begin with.

If you want Windows apps, go buy a PC with Windows or run VirtualPC. But don't pollute Macs with that stuff! :eek:
 

GodBless

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Jan 22, 2005
1,005
0
RacerX said:
And we all know how well Microsoft keeps to their word. Or were you not watching when the Microsoft spokesperson said at WWDC 2000 that they would develop Outlook Express for Mac OS X?
I was still an ignorant PC user then and wasn't up-to-date with Apple then so thanks for letting me know Microsoft's history with this type of thing. It figures that this was the case considering how Microsoft is in other ways.

RacerX said:
And we were talking about the phantom "Red Box". Did Apple make an X Window Server for Rhapsody? No. Why? Because there were already third party developers doing it and Apple had their plate full enough with Rhapsody/Mac OS X issues.
Apple is in good condition now. They need to be on top of it and looking ahead to keep their company alive. Their software team has plenty of time to come up with both this an Leopard.

RacerX said:
Right now, Apple has to develop new hardware and port Mac OS X to that hardware... it has it's plate full again. Which is part of the reason why 10.5 has been pushed off by more than a year.
Apple's hardware and software divisions are totally separate.

RacerX said:
Well, it has the potential of making awful apps run on Mac OS X. That would be the single worse thing I could think of.
True. But maybe some developers will wake up and realize that carbon and cocoa applications are much better. Since everything will run on OS X it will be easy to compare the different GUI strengths and weaknesses of Windows and OS X and people will easily see the truth. And the truth is that Windows GUI and programming techniques are terrible and Apple's GUI and programming techniques are awesome.

RacerX said:
Basically, what you are saying follows the same logic as the bar tender who figures he can sell more beer by adding more water to it. :rolleyes: Sure, the quality suffers, but you have more beer! And that is what is important, right?
This is not at all the case. This is a bad comparison. Besides who in their right mind drinks beer. Water tastes better anyway so it would be an asset to the horrible beer taste and wouldn't make you as drunk so it would wake you up to reality better.

RacerX said:
Windows apps run like Windows apps. That, in and of itself, is the number one reason why I think this is a desperately bad idea.
True. But I am sure I will find myself using Windows programs occasionally until the companies switch to program on the Mac.

RacerX said:
I can only imagine that someone wanting windows apps to run on a Mac has no idea what makes Macs and Mac apps so special to begin with.
I do understand why Macs are better. Maybe you should read some of my other posts.

RacerX said:
If you want Windows apps, go buy a PC with Windows or run VirtualPC. But don't pollute Macs with that stuff! :eek:
I don't necessarily want this to happen but it will happen either by a 3rd party or by Apple. They already said it would be able to dual boot Windows who says that it won't emulate the software too?
 

RacerX

macrumors 65832
Aug 2, 2004
1,504
2
GodBless said:
Apple is in good condition now. They need to be on top of it and looking ahead to keep their company alive. Their software team has plenty of time to come up with both this an Leopard.
This statement is counter intuitive... if Apple is in good shape why are they having to worry about keeping the company alive?

And becoming a Windows clone is not a good way to keep the company alive. If it was, they would have done this a decade ago.

It is a slippery slope that you would have Apple walk down... and the consequences are sadly visible to most everyone else but you.

In the end we would end up with a lot of bad running Windows apps and few Mac apps... everything that sets the Mac apart would be lost and Apple would most likely be gone soon afterwards.

Apple catering to Windows is the single worst thing that could ever be suggested. That would be the beginning of the end for Apple as a computer maker.

Apple's hardware and software divisions are totally separate.
Boy, you really are new to Macs aren't you.

Tight integration between the operating system and the hardware is the corner stone of what makes a Mac a Mac.

True. But maybe some developers will wake up and realize that carbon and cocoa applications are much better. Since everything will run on OS X it will be easy to compare the different GUI strengths and weaknesses of Windows and OS X and people will easily see the truth. And the truth is that Windows GUI and programming techniques are terrible and Apple's GUI and programming techniques are awesome.
False... Developers would wake up and realize that their Windows versions already run on Macs and they would have no reason to develop Mac OS X native versions.

We would lose real Mac apps for badly running Windows apps because it would be cheeper for developers.

This is not at all the case. This is a bad comparison. Besides who in their right mind drinks beer. Water tastes better anyway so it would be an asset to the horrible beer taste and wouldn't make you as drunk so it would wake you up to reality better.
The point has nothing to do with beer... it has to do with the loss of quality to try to gain quantity.

I don't drink, but the idea of losing quality software for more second rate software is quite alarming.

Of course, not for you... you have already seen that Apple is on the ropes and is struggling to stay alive. I would guess you are already foreseeing the day you return to Windows.

True. But I am sure I will find myself using Windows programs occasionally until the companies switch to program on the Mac.

I do understand why Macs are better. Maybe you should read some of my other posts.
If you understand why Macs are better, then why are you using Windows apps? I understand why Macs are better... and I don't use any Windows apps.

I don't necessarily want this to happen but it will happen either by a 3rd party or by Apple. They already said it would be able to dual boot Windows who says that it won't emulate the software too?
I couldn't care less if a third party wants to do this... as long as Apple doesn't.

And what they said was that they wouldn't do anything to stop someone from trying... at this point, Apple doesn't even really know what the final hardware is going to be like.

And for all we know, the hardware could be so different that Windows wouldn't run on it without some major help (like a boot loader to send Windows the information it would normally get from a PC compatible system).

Apple has no reason... what so ever, to make Macs Windows compatible. In fact, it is in their best interest to make them completely incompatible with Windows.

Why? Because if they are incompatible, then the final released version of Mac OS X Intel would be designed to run on completely different hardware than your standard PC.

If you can get Windows on Macs, then you could get Mac OS X on PCs.

That would be bad for Apple.

Now, as the only person here who is still running an Apple OS on a PC (Rhapsody 5.1 on my ThinkPad), I have nothing against PC hardware. In fact, my ThinkPad has been great!

But Apple is a hardware maker. There software business (which you seem to think is totally separate) is designed to serve hardware sales. Apple has bought many software companies and quickly ended the making of non-Mac versions of the software. Why? Because Apple wants you to use their hardware... because that is where they make their money.



In the end, there really isn't much to debate here, specially seeing as you have motives for wanting something like this that have nothing to do with the health of Apple or the community. But in the long run it would mortally wound the Macintosh and cripple Apple as a computer maker.