Would this eliminate the problem PC users have of not having essential ProgramX on the Mac platform, freeing them from having to purchase windoze stuff? 
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.
Cross-Platform Universal Emulation?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Applications NOT the OS
I think the Wired story makes VERY clear that QuickTransit affects applications, not the OS, so OSX will not be suddenly able to run on Intel machines.
Presuming that this is correct, this result can only help Apple. Now, the inability to run any given application or game will not be a reason to spurn the Mac, which has the superior form and (I think) superior OS.
I think the Wired story makes VERY clear that QuickTransit affects applications, not the OS, so OSX will not be suddenly able to run on Intel machines.
Presuming that this is correct, this result can only help Apple. Now, the inability to run any given application or game will not be a reason to spurn the Mac, which has the superior form and (I think) superior OS.
the question also stands, what kind of software will it run ?
people miss the fact that, the reason we have intel, amd, ibm (g5), etc... is because the chips do different things.
its 1 thing to write a java applet or what have you and have it work across multiple systems because the applet still needs the java virtual runtime installed, which itself is compiled specifically for the os / processor required.
if it was as easy as installing a piece of software and calling it a day, thats fine
and it may be that way for a calculator or word processor. but for something like photoshop, 3dsmax, etc... anything requiring specific functions of a specific processor / video card, your going to have problems.
i didnt read the hold article cause it doesnt hold interest to me, but unless they work out how photoshop will have access to excessive amounts of ram, etc... its vapor ware to me
its 1 thing to emulate (vpc 6, 2004, vmware, etc...) but with no drop in speed is very hard to swallow.
-Mario
people miss the fact that, the reason we have intel, amd, ibm (g5), etc... is because the chips do different things.
its 1 thing to write a java applet or what have you and have it work across multiple systems because the applet still needs the java virtual runtime installed, which itself is compiled specifically for the os / processor required.
if it was as easy as installing a piece of software and calling it a day, thats fine
and it may be that way for a calculator or word processor. but for something like photoshop, 3dsmax, etc... anything requiring specific functions of a specific processor / video card, your going to have problems.
i didnt read the hold article cause it doesnt hold interest to me, but unless they work out how photoshop will have access to excessive amounts of ram, etc... its vapor ware to me
its 1 thing to emulate (vpc 6, 2004, vmware, etc...) but with no drop in speed is very hard to swallow.
-Mario
IT's about Freaking Time
I've been debating about whether to purchase VirtualPC, or hold out to see if Apple was developing their own type of "Darwine" project (http://darwine.opendarwin.org//) as has been rumored by several sites. I see the breaking of a new dawn in cross platform compatibility finally!
I've been debating about whether to purchase VirtualPC, or hold out to see if Apple was developing their own type of "Darwine" project (http://darwine.opendarwin.org//) as has been rumored by several sites. I see the breaking of a new dawn in cross platform compatibility finally!
Marketshare?
How?
This is processor emulation, it doesn't replace Windows. It might make Wine run on Mac OS X, but Microsoft already offer a more compatible solution (and there is no reason to believe that this new emulator will be faster than VPC 6 or 7).
As for the ability to run PowerPC GNU/Linux binaries on x86 and vice versa, this would be helpful if most GNU/Linux programs weren't open source anyway.
I'm not excited.
mgargan1 said:
How?
This is processor emulation, it doesn't replace Windows. It might make Wine run on Mac OS X, but Microsoft already offer a more compatible solution (and there is no reason to believe that this new emulator will be faster than VPC 6 or 7).
As for the ability to run PowerPC GNU/Linux binaries on x86 and vice versa, this would be helpful if most GNU/Linux programs weren't open source anyway.
I'm not excited.
Yes, the site's dog-slow for me too. But I finally got here:
http://www.transitive.com/technology.htm
"an operating system mapper translates operating system calls from the source system to the target system in situations where the source and target operating systems are different"
My understanding: you are running an app by "emulating" (pick another term if they don't like it) the hardware AND the OS. So running Mac apps on Windows would require writing the OS emulator of sorts... or more technically, the "operating system mapper."
Functions of Mac OS would be emulated to make Mac apps run (IF anyone makes such a mapper), but the OS as a whole would not be present.
I'm skeptical that you could get reliable "universal" functionality by running Mac apps on a Frankenstein re-mapped OS and hardware.
http://www.transitive.com/technology.htm
"an operating system mapper translates operating system calls from the source system to the target system in situations where the source and target operating systems are different"
My understanding: you are running an app by "emulating" (pick another term if they don't like it) the hardware AND the OS. So running Mac apps on Windows would require writing the OS emulator of sorts... or more technically, the "operating system mapper."
Functions of Mac OS would be emulated to make Mac apps run (IF anyone makes such a mapper), but the OS as a whole would not be present.
I'm skeptical that you could get reliable "universal" functionality by running Mac apps on a Frankenstein re-mapped OS and hardware.
Switch
I can't imagine what Apple could do if it could safely tell Microsoft to go stuff itself. Up til now, they've needed the Macintosh BU (mostly, just Office) to keep people from worrying about compatability. If switchers can be promised that ANY app will just run on a Mac, then we can move further away from those sorts of worries and closer to selling a heck of a lot of really cool, high-margin hardware.
If you can switch without really having to change how you do things, it'll give you time to get used to easier, better systems. For someone like my 65 year old mom, even a easier new system seems harder than clunkier old one.
So, with all of that going for us, this'll probably turn out to be all smoke and no fire...
I can't imagine what Apple could do if it could safely tell Microsoft to go stuff itself. Up til now, they've needed the Macintosh BU (mostly, just Office) to keep people from worrying about compatability. If switchers can be promised that ANY app will just run on a Mac, then we can move further away from those sorts of worries and closer to selling a heck of a lot of really cool, high-margin hardware.
If you can switch without really having to change how you do things, it'll give you time to get used to easier, better systems. For someone like my 65 year old mom, even a easier new system seems harder than clunkier old one.
So, with all of that going for us, this'll probably turn out to be all smoke and no fire...
squatch said:I've been debating about whether to purchase VirtualPC, or hold out to see if Apple was developing their own type of "Darwine" project (http://darwine.opendarwin.org//) as has been rumored by several sites. I see the breaking of a new dawn in cross platform compatibility finally!
I have a hard time believing that Apple would develop anything that encouraged the use of Win32 apps on Mac, especially if they ran at a better speed than Virtual PC. It would mean that 3rd party software makers could potentially stop developing for the Mac platform.
The hype on this reminds me of when Java was first announced, cross platform development that will run on any machine. I just don't see this panning out in a way that will really change anything. Besides, I wouldn't want to try running FCP on an emulation layer... using it on the real deal suits me just fine.
I don't get it
The article says:
And then it says:
If this software will enable MACs to run Windows apps, why would PC makers want it? It sounds like it's software for MAC hardware, but then says PC hardware makers are buying it.
The article says:
And then it says:
If this software will enable MACs to run Windows apps, why would PC makers want it? It sounds like it's software for MAC hardware, but then says PC hardware makers are buying it.
At this point I think that if you want to run Mac software why not just get a Mac. If it would work successfully then it could encourage more to switch. At least Apple would benefit.
I'm also sure that Apple could develop a program to run on the Mac that would emulate the PC better than VPC.
I'm also sure that Apple could develop a program to run on the Mac that would emulate the PC better than VPC.
jimthorn said:
I disagree, I see many 3rd party companies (mostly your larger ones) who write for both platforms falling further and further behind in keeping the Mac version equal in feature parity with their Windows counterpart. I'm sure Apple is taking note of this. While Apple makes awesome software apps for their OS, many other companies are just not putting the resources into keeping their software on par cross-platform wise.
elskeptico said:If this software will enable MACs to run Windows apps, why would PC makers want it? It sounds like it's software for MAC hardware, but then says PC hardware makers are buying it.
It's not just for Macs - it allows you to run just about anything on just about anything else.
the Wired article said:
QuiteSure said:
I am not sure this is correct.
You spend most of your time working within applications, not working with the OS.
If you could now run OSX apps on a windows machine, why pay the higher premium for mac hardware.
Windows may suck, but double clicking on an application to launch it is the same in both operating systems..
a os is just software yes. the problem is, a os contains low level assembly that access's the processor directly
and aside from the fact the the G4 nor the G5 are even close structuraly to a intel like chip
this is the reason for pearpc, the os x emulator for windows ? sure it works, sure they had to remap a ton of registers intel processor dont have and g4 / g5 processors do, but look how slow it is. think it took them 5+ hours just to install the os ?
running software that access's a os's underlying apis is 1 thing. running a os that access's the processors registers directly is a totally different situation.
i still think its impossible to emulate even windows with no speed loss at all, but wel just have to wait and see
-Mario
and aside from the fact the the G4 nor the G5 are even close structuraly to a intel like chip
this is the reason for pearpc, the os x emulator for windows ? sure it works, sure they had to remap a ton of registers intel processor dont have and g4 / g5 processors do, but look how slow it is. think it took them 5+ hours just to install the os ?
running software that access's a os's underlying apis is 1 thing. running a os that access's the processors registers directly is a totally different situation.
i still think its impossible to emulate even windows with no speed loss at all, but wel just have to wait and see
-Mario
How much?
maybe i missed it but i searched all over their site and did not see any prices. is this available to the end user or only to the manufacturers like apple, dell, etc??
maybe i missed it but i searched all over their site and did not see any prices. is this available to the end user or only to the manufacturers like apple, dell, etc??
Its available to buy NOW!!
Go here http://www.transitive.com/news_quicktransit.htm
"Availability and Pricing Model
Transitives QuickTransit products are currently available and shipping to major OEM customers. Pricing for QuickTransit products is based on a one-time technology license fee and a usage fee model that depends on the customers deployment strategy."
tons of info on how it works! i guess this is for real..
WOOT!!!
the site is slow but all the info is there
Go here http://www.transitive.com/news_quicktransit.htm
"Availability and Pricing Model
Transitives QuickTransit products are currently available and shipping to major OEM customers. Pricing for QuickTransit products is based on a one-time technology license fee and a usage fee model that depends on the customers deployment strategy."
tons of info on how it works! i guess this is for real..
WOOT!!!
the site is slow but all the info is there
This is not an impossible thing. Infact... I had this idea myself and it is quite possilbe to do this, but as a student working full time i don't quite have the resources to pour into this thing.
For the any OS, and CPU thing to really work, one key point must be observed.
Any program that you want to work this way must not directly interact with hardware.
Most programs written for windows 2000+, or OS X satsify this condition. They interact with the hardware though an OS abstaction of the hardware. (ie. to open a file you don't call interupt what ever, request a DMA channel blah, blah blah, you just call open file (or whatever).
After that condition is satsified all that needs to be done is
-before the program is run, translate all user code to target machine code (ie .. x86->ppc), observing all long jumps to system libaries.
-take all long jumps to system libaries and replace them with jumps and point them to a libary that translates API arguments from user OS to target OS.
-make some changes to the exe to conform to the target system exe format. (win32 exe->Mach-O)
-make sure that any dylibs that the translated program calls are the translator API, and make sure that the translarot API calls the proper system lib.
done.
Not impossible, Just hard.
For the any OS, and CPU thing to really work, one key point must be observed.
Any program that you want to work this way must not directly interact with hardware.
Most programs written for windows 2000+, or OS X satsify this condition. They interact with the hardware though an OS abstaction of the hardware. (ie. to open a file you don't call interupt what ever, request a DMA channel blah, blah blah, you just call open file (or whatever).
After that condition is satsified all that needs to be done is
-before the program is run, translate all user code to target machine code (ie .. x86->ppc), observing all long jumps to system libaries.
-take all long jumps to system libaries and replace them with jumps and point them to a libary that translates API arguments from user OS to target OS.
-make some changes to the exe to conform to the target system exe format. (win32 exe->Mach-O)
-make sure that any dylibs that the translated program calls are the translator API, and make sure that the translarot API calls the proper system lib.
done.
Not impossible, Just hard.