Leopard Recognizes Windows Executable Format, Virtualization in the Works?

[inkswamp]

This sounds interesting, the iTunes excuse doesn't seem to fly after all iTunes for Windows was around hell of a long time before Leopard. Wonder what it could mean, probably nothing.

Exactly what popped into my head as well. What changed here?

I'm not saying this is a sure thing, but running Windows programs from within OS X has been one of those rumors that has floated around for quite a while and never quite disappeared despite sounding unlikely. And we've had a few such rumors that turned out to be true, despite all the self-appointed rumor experts claiming they were impossible or would ruin Apple. Two examples: the fabled Intel build of OS X and the iPhone, two rumors that floated around for ages before turning out to be true.

Look at Apple's trajectory over the last few years. What have they been doing? They have taken all the complaints that people had about Macs and slowly and surely been knocking them down, one-by-one. Slower than PCs? Doesn't have standard components? Too expensive? No headless, entry-level Mac. Etc., etc. The next standing gripe is that it can't run Windows apps, namely games and whatnot, without a reboot.

Looking at Apple's recent history and recent features like Boot Camp, I'd say running Windows on a Mac right out of the box from *within* OS X seems like a logical next step.

 

[shamino]

... rumors that turned out to be true, despite all the self-appointed rumor experts claiming they were impossible or would ruin Apple. Two examples: the fabled Intel build of OS X and the iPhone, two rumors that floated around for ages before turning out to be true.

The rumor about Intel was about Apple selling OS X for PCs. That never happened. They released Macs with Intel processors, which is not really the same thing, even though Intel Macs have many parts in common with PCs.

WRT the iPhone, people called it unlikely, not impossible or company-breaking.

Look at Apple's trajectory over the last few years. What have they been doing? They have taken all the complaints that people had about Macs and slowly and surely been knocking them down, one-by-one. Slower than PCs? Doesn't have standard components? Too expensive? No headless, entry-level Mac. Etc., etc. The next standing gripe is that it can't run Windows apps, namely games and whatnot, without a reboot.

Looking at Apple's recent history and recent features like Boot Camp, I'd say running Windows on a Mac right out of the box from *within* OS X seems like a logical next step.

That strategy can only work if their Windows is 100% compatible, and less expensive than Microsoft's. The only way to be 100% compatible is to run a real copy of Windows, and what makes you think Microsoft will license it to Apple for anything less than the full retail price?

And even if the plan works perfectly, it will marginalize all of the non-Windows parts of Mac OS. Software developers (especially the pig-headed ones like Adobe) will discontinue all their Mac products and tell you to run the Windows version.

No, I'm sorry, your plan doesn't help anybody but Microsoft. Turning Mac OS into "yet another Windows clone" will simply tell the customers that they can get the exact same thing for less money by buying a real Windows PC from another vendor.

 

[IJ Reilly]

The rumor about Intel was about Apple selling OS X for PCs. That never happened. They released Macs with Intel processors, which is not really the same thing, even though Intel Macs have many parts in common with PCs.

I think he was probably referencing the long-standing rumor that Apple was building an Intel version of OSX alongside the PPC version, long before they announced an Intel-based Mac platform. So what else has Apple got brewing in the basement? You must admit, it is fun to ponder.

 

[inkswamp]

The rumor about Intel was about Apple selling OS X for PCs. That never happened. They released Macs with Intel processors, which is not really the same thing, even though Intel Macs have many parts in common with PCs.

What's your point? Macs are now PCs. There is no difference between a Mac's hardware now and some cheapo PC with the exception that it's a better quality machine. Both can run Windows. End of story. The PowerPC lost. Macs are now PCs configured to run a particular OS optimally (OS X.)

WRT the iPhone, people called it unlikely, not impossible or company-breaking.

You're splitting hairs. The point is that there were a lot naysayers out there concerning the phone rumors.

That strategy can only work if their Windows is 100% compatible, and less expensive than Microsoft's. The only way to be 100% compatible is to run a real copy of Windows, and what makes you think Microsoft will license it to Apple for anything less than the full retail price?

What if Apple creates a future OS with Parallels-like ability built in where you can buy Windows off-the-shelf, install and run. Microsoft can do squat-all about that. Whatever form it takes, I think running Windows applications in one form or another from within OS X is definitely on the Mac roadmap.

And even if the plan works perfectly, it will marginalize all of the non-Windows parts of Mac OS. Software developers (especially the pig-headed ones like Adobe) will discontinue all their Mac products and tell you to run the Windows version.

People have been hoisting this red flag every time Apple has made the Mac more Windows-friendly, and it turns out to be utterly false every time. The more Windows-friendly the Mac is, the more comfortable people will be trying Macs, and then you'll have more people moving over to the platform and demanding native applications, applications to look and act the way they like, not something that reminds them of Windows. And the more people you have demanding that, the more pressure developers will feel to produce them. People made these same claims about Boot Camp and yet the number of Mac-native apps has never been higher. That theory you just floated has been often repeated but has never panned out.

 

[Dj-Grobe]

I would love to see Windows apps run right in OSX. I'm sure Apple could do it if they wanted to, but they have to have a reason. Leopard with Bootcamp is having it's effect. People are buying Macs. When the bootcamp luster starts to fade a bit, because rebooting or even virtualization have their limits, it could prompt Apple to release such a feature in 10.6 or whatever.

Technically possible, but I'm still left thinking "Why would Apple do this?"

Just simple question to that final line:

They do that, because windows OS is the 90% or more of the world market !!
The impact this have on the industry is really amazing.
The real increase on apple sales is originated in HIGH percent due virtualization and bootcamp and lower prices of apple hardware.

PC users now can buy apple machine and if not stay 100% happy with OSX can use windows on same machine.

I hoppe apple really do this !!
I really dream with direct virtualization inside OSX

I love OSX, is amazing OS, but the software offer for windows is BIG !!! and really more atractive.

Imagine the benefits of any windows user, just need buy apple machine and can inmediatly start use OSX + any windows software !!

OSX can really be the best OS of the world, but is used just for 3% or little more computrs users of the world market !! just only 3% !!

The major problem for any user want start use apple, is price, and software.........Price of apple hardware continue going down in the next months, i think the 2008 can be the year where finally buy apple computer "ceased to be a matter of price" right now for any profesional usage price not is a barrier.

The only barrier is the software (partially fixed now with bootcamp and virtualization like fusion or paralells)


Imagine that software barrier just not exist !!.......imagine just for one second..........sombody think after that windows continue for long time like the OS most widely used on the planet?

I think the answer is simple....... : )

I hoppe Apple take this way.


Sorry for my bad english, my native lang is spanish.

 

[Dj-Grobe]

sounds like we're gonna get some sweet .exe viruses and spyware!!

can't wait

For people think exe be = to virus........lol !! i just can say stay absolutly wrong.

The primary problem with windows, like xp or olders its simple, you stay loged on the system like user,and that users have the same permision like admin/root, any aplication running on that session, have permision for change any file system.......the result of this is catastrofic....and add o that the holes on windows.........you have perfect coctail for disaster.
Windows not really bad OS, its the system more used around the planet and that contribute to find more holes, never forget that please ! and vista is really more secure comparated with xp, xp and olders really have trouble of security due any appz have root permision !

OSX is a unix based system, the permision on any session never is root !! so if sombody write some virus software for osx, the impact of the demage be really low in comparation with windows.

I simpplificated this explain just for people not understand a lot... how and why .... etc etc

RUN exe aplications directly on OSX not mean osx will look plagued by virus ..........and one more thing......virus for pcs, are writed for pcs, lol

Imagine right now you can run any exe on osx directly, and you run exe infected with some virus.......basically that virus not do nothing.......is created for run on windows and modify/patch/delete windows system files, not existent on OSX : )
Same for spyware !! spyare is writed for WINDOWS INTERNET EXPLORER, i use firefox on my pcs, and never have spyware : )

At system level....any virus from pc not do nothing.

Virus from pc, created for demage SYSTEM not take effect on OSX.
Any new virus on exe format need to be coded for demage OSX.....and OSX is really secure OS......not perfect but really secure....

So please just stop with that tweaked ideas about virus or spywraes jijiij


If some virus can affect OSX......can be writed right now, and not need to be EXE from windows, can be coded with Xcode like native OSX appz...... i can write one simple native aplication and when you run delete all your documents in yuor osx......i can attach the aplication on mail and send and put some message like "RUN THIS FUNNY GAME" and when you run all the documents in your OSX just be deleted......ITS POSSIBLE DO ! RIGHT NOW !

Well i not consider that a virus lol......virus should inffect your machine, without your acceptance....and using some hole on the system for install, run, and if possible propagate to other machines......and all this not have relation about if aplication is exe from pc or native appz osx......all this is related to the system structure of the OS and exploitables holes the OS have

Best regards.

 

[Dj-Grobe]

Oh just one more thing !!


Its time to STOP call PC to windows computers !!!

PC= PERSONAL COMPUTER

Any personal computer is a PC, no matter if run windows, osx, linux, or any other.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_computer


So please stop call PCs !!! to windows computers lol.....

All apple machines are x86 compatible, so please is time we start talk correctly and we can AND SHOULD USE:

APPLE PC, OSX PC, WINDOWS PC

CALL MACHINE PC JUST FOR MAKE DIFERENCE IF THAT MACHINE IS X386 COMPATIBLE........THAT IS OLD STORY !!!

All machiens we use like PC, are personal computers, and are x86 compatibles running different OPEARTIVE SYSTEMS !!

 

[egsaxy]

with apple having source code for all of windows (some agreement from a while ago) then their isn't a reason they couldn't start building in windows support i.e. basic underpinning to implement embedded virtualization. Its a smart business move. Like the article over at apple.com under hot news about iona college switching to macs. When you can do everything cool on a mac and run those holdout windows programs then why would you ever need to buy from Dell or to be honest actually own windows? just do it in a way that its slow enough that software will still be written for the mac, but fast enough people will actually use it.

 

[bigandy]

From what I read about this, earlier this morning, there was talk of a tech. writer saying previously that his sources claimed Apple already paid Microsoft for rights to use the entire Windows XP API.

If that's really true, this would require no reverse-engineering at all..... and Apple may be basically sitting on this option right now, just like they sat on a completed Intel port of OS X. They may figure it's not the right time to incorporate Windows into OS X natively, but after MS discontinues XP and tries to force all their users to move to Vista? Then it might be an "ace up their sleeve" to pull out, telling all the people who preferred XP to "come on over to a Mac, as an alternative to a Vista migration"?

I'm sorry, but that's just hilarious.

What's your point? Macs are now PCs. There is no difference between a Mac's hardware now and some cheapo PC with the exception that it's a better quality machine. Both can run Windows. End of story. The PowerPC lost. Macs are now PCs configured to run a particular OS optimally (OS X.)

There is a big difference - EFI and BIOS. Two completely different beasts. The only reason that both can run Windows is because the nice chaps at Apple were kind enough to let out an EFI update which includes emulation of the Basic Input/Output System.

Without this, Macs could not boot Windows. (See previous to the BC Beta, when the only way to get Windows on Macs was to hack open your XP installer disc, and insert an unsupported EFI loader).

Even now, the only actual release of Windows that actually supports EFI out of the box is 2003 Server (Vista's planned suport was dropped sometime in 2006).

They may share components, even major ones such as the processors, but they are not the same. Not by a long shot.

 

[Cleverboy]

Someone's probably already commented on this, but recognizing the Windows executable format is just another facet of Quick Look...

Like zip files, JPEG, MPEG, EPS, etc, etc. Apple has created a wonderful thing in Quicklook allowing it to look at nearly everything that support has been added for. For instance, I was looking over a Windows ICO file the other day. I opened it right up in Preview, and there were all the alternate versions, etc. Great stuff. Why wouldn't Apple add support for Windows EXE? It certainly makes it easier for companies like Parallels and VMWare to do tighter integration with the core OS. Why wasn't this mused upon at the very beginning? Sounds like the most obvious answer.

That said, I wouldn't mind a little Wine with my fruit.

~ CB

 

[pubwvj]

If Apple can support Windows they should support Classic. We have a tremendous number of small business and educational software titles that only run under Classic. It is shameful that Apple abandoned it.

 

[mikesown]

I highly suspect Apple is indeed working on a compatibility layer - but not based on Wine- Wine, as good as it is, is nowhere near good enough for an "average" user who is configuration file-phobic. Instead, I think Apple is going to use the antitrust rulings to force M$ to license them the native, binary, DLLs for the next version of OSX. And then, I think Apple will focus all development efforts towards getting the GUI interfaces perfectly implemented in the native Quartz UI. Using native DLLs, hundreds(thousands?) of engineers, and putting a lot of effort towards this could result in a major change in tide for marketshare. If Apple gets Windows apps to run perfectly in OSX, the Mac platform will suddenly seem a lot more appealing to users. You'd get the best of both worlds: Mac and Windows apps running side-by-side perfectly, on top of a high-performance architecture(Darwin). Things are about to change.

 

[Cleverboy]

I highly suspect Apple is indeed working on a compatibility layer - but not based on Wine- Wine, as good as it is, is nowhere near good enough for an "average" user who is configuration file-phobic. Instead, I think Apple is going to use the antitrust rulings to force M$ to license them the native, binary, DLLs for the next version of OSX. And then, I think Apple will focus all development efforts towards getting the GUI interfaces perfectly implemented in the native Quartz UI. Using native DLLs, hundreds(thousands?) of engineers, and putting a lot of effort towards this could result in a major change in tide for marketshare. If Apple gets Windows apps to run perfectly in OSX, the Mac platform will suddenly seem a lot more appealing to users. You'd get the best of both worlds: Mac and Windows apps running side-by-side perfectly, on top of a high-performance architecture(Darwin). Things are about to change.

-- BLINK -- Aw come on... you're not serious are you? Apple has absolutely NO interest in licensing the MacOS to run on other machines. I'm sure Microsoft has NO interest in losing marketshare to Apple either (other than what is useful in gaining more footing when arguing issues over its relative lack of healthy competition). If the recent hubaloo over how the latest EA games are being "ported" are any indictation... most people think that having developers NOT consider native Mac app development due to the ability to "port" things without really porting them, can't be a GOOD thing at all. The OS NEEDS native apps to move forward.

~ CB

 

[mikesown]

-- BLINK -- Aw come on... you're not serious are you? Apple has absolutely NO interest in licensing the MacOS to run on other machines. I'm sure Microsoft has NO interest in losing marketshare to Apple either (other than what is useful in gaining more footing when arguing issues over its relative lack of healthy competition). If the recent hubaloo over how the latest EA games are being "ported" are any indictation... most people think that having developers NOT consider native Mac app development due to the ability to "port" things without really porting them, can't be a GOOD thing at all. The OS NEEDS native apps to move forward.

~ CB

M$ doesn't want to license their DLLs, obviously. However, Apple may be able to force M$ to do so, because of the antitrust ruling.

Also, native apps are better than win32 apps on OSX, no question. However, there are a lot more win32 apps, and most switchers will first ask the question "Can I still run my old applications which I spent money on?" Once Apple gains significant(>20%) marketshare, THEN they can focus on getting more native apps out. However, their focus right now should be solely increasing marketshare, which comes with more applications on the platform. The easiest way to do this is to implement a very high quality compatibility layer to allow thousands(tens of thousands, probably) of windows applications to run on Mac OSX.

 

[IJ Reilly]

M$ doesn't want to license their DLLs, obviously. However, Apple may be able to force M$ to do so, because of the antitrust ruling.

Microsoft is not being required to license Windows code as a part of the antitrust settlements. What they are being required to do is open up their entire application programming interface for Windows to third-party developers, which is quite a different thing.

 

[Cleverboy]

The easiest way to do this is to implement a very high quality compatibility layer to allow thousands(tens of thousands, probably) of windows applications to run on Mac OSX.

Today I ran Darwine on my new iMac for the first time. I purchased an SEO program last year on my Windows computer called SEO Elite. Windows only. It was impressive to double click on the EXE file and run the software inside of Leopard... analyze backlinks to my website "Freewho.com", and begin considering a new link campaign. --So, I agree with you... it would be nice to have more applications supported in such a fashion... transparently. I'll be using Darwine more often in the future and testing out a number of legacy apps from my old computer. If some development dollars were poured into Darwine, it'd probably get SCARY good. I've yet to look into some font issues, but I was able to run a surprising amount of apps without tweaks, virtualization or emulation (which is highly cool).

--That said, I look at Apple with a mix of suspicion and impatience. I have a hard time believing that they'll: A.) Create a Windows compatibility layer for OS X (like Darwine), or B.) Create a DVR solution and/or add it to Apple TV/iTunes. Anti-trust won't be "forcing" Microsoft to do ANYTHING for Apple. They don't have that kind of relationship... moreover, I can't see Microsoft being forced to license its property in a way it chooses not to. Either take the entire product or don't. The most Europe has been able to get them to do, is adopt an open document format for its Office products.

Microsoft is not being required to license Windows code as a part of the antitrust settlements. What they are being required to do is open up their entire application programming interface for Windows to third-party developers, which is quite a different thing.

Exactly.

~ CB

 

[FX120]

I am sure Microsoft would be more than happy to license Windows API's to Apple.

Seriously. They get to sell a copy of Windows to people who otherwise might not have bought it, at the same time shutting down development for their competitors platform.

 

[bigandy]

If Apple can support Windows they should support Classic. We have a tremendous number of small business and educational software titles that only run under Classic. It is shameful that Apple abandoned it.

SheepShaver.

In my view, Apple dropped Classic at the right time. I mean, it's been what, six years since it was a current release platform?

Plus, if you need Classic that desperately you can pick up, for example, a G3 iMac that'll run it fine. Can't deal with the bulk on your desk? VNC, hello.

 

[inkswamp]

I am sure Microsoft would be more than happy to license Windows API's to Apple.

Seriously. They get to sell a copy of Windows to people who otherwise might not have bought it, at the same time shutting down development for their competitors platform.

That would be a maintenance nightmare for Apple. Not only would they have to stay on top of any little change to the Windows API but they would also have to field complaints and support calls for running Windows applications. I doubt that's going to happen.

On the other hand, it would be feasible for Apple to create a compatibility layer, something like Parallels or Classic, where a full install of the OS could run within OS X. That would explain why OS X would be parsing Windows files which is the very same reason OS X once parsed applications and files for information about Classic--to let the user know that running this file requires launching Windows. OS X will need to know what an exe file is, alert the user and know how to pass it off to the Windows environment. That was exactly how it worked with Classic.

In that kind of scenario, Apple does not have to offer support for Windows. It's still Windows and therefore it's still Microsoft who must support any problems with it. Also, Apple does not have to update this environment each time the Windows API changes because you're running a full copy of Windows. They need only update the environment to ensure that it can run the OS.

 

[Virgil-TB2]

your wrong

Almost every major feature in Tiger and Leopard were either stolen or bought from existing developers. Dashboard, coverflow, spaces (virtue desktops). I'm sure Apple could have just let these developers keep at it, but it didn't.

This is a great mischaracterisation of the truth.

Even if we ignore your bad grammar and bad spelling, you are unwarranted in casting Apple's software development in such a negative light. "Stolen" is a particularly loaded term, implying not only that they copied the ideas, but that they did not recompense the originators of those ideas.

This is patently false.

"Virtual Desktops" (note the spelling), have indeed been done before, but no one owns the idea and no one is being "stolen" from. Coverflow was indeed thought up by someone who did not at that time work for Apple, but the idea was immediately seen by Apple as revolutionary (when others did not see anything in it at all), and was purchased by Apple from that developer. There is nothing wrong with this at all, despite your attempts to frame it as such by placing it in the same sentence, right next to the "stolen" word.

You also (deceptively) fail to mention those major features like Time Machine, that don't fit into your jaded "stolen and/or borrowed" categories.

I could go on and on about other categories and features of both OS's that prove why you are wrong, but it's just not worth it. You seem to be both too dim to understand such arguments, as well as too uninformed to really put up a good argument in the first place.

 

[Cleverboy]

SheepShaver.
In my view, Apple dropped Classic at the right time. I mean, it's been what, six years since it was a current release platform?

Here's the thing... I still have a Miracle Piano keyboard, made by Software Toolworks. I have a USB to serial adapter that some desperate part of me wants to use. If it doesn't work out, no biggie, it goes to my neice who my sister swares would be more than happy to have it. I have too many "extra Macs" I need to unload. With a little more memory, I want my iMac to be the *command central* my Windows computer could never dream to be... doing away with all my PCs, Macs, and ideally my lurking Amigas. The idea that Apple dropped support for something like Classic flies in the face of that happy dream of the universal archive of my computing history. --I mean, I have programs I wrote on my Commodore 128 in 128 basic that auto-booted from a floppy, I think I'm pretty much ok with not being able to fetch those (although I'd love to nab my code and a video of it running). I know... It's terrible.

Plus, if you need Classic that desperately you can pick up, for example, a G3 iMac that'll run it fine. Can't deal with the bulk on your desk? VNC, hello.

Less computers! Less! Less energy consumption. I'm running my PC through VNC right now, and although Microsoft's remote desktop client is *EXCELLENT* (moreso than VNC) I don't really like this solution that has a whole other machine running in the background.

P.S. I did NOT know about Sheep Shaver. Sounded familiar, but this is GREAT! Can't wait to install it. Gracias.

~ CB

 

[inkswamp]

This is a great mischaracterisation of the truth.

Even if we ignore your bad grammar and bad spelling, you are unwarranted in casting Apple's software development in such a negative light. "Stolen" is a particularly loaded term, implying not only that they copied the ideas, but that they did not recompense the originators of those ideas.

This is patently false.

"Virtual Desktops" (note the spelling), have indeed been done before, but no one owns the idea and no one is being "stolen" from. Coverflow was indeed thought up by someone who did not at that time work for Apple, but the idea was immediately seen by Apple as revolutionary (when others did not see anything in it at all), and was purchased by Apple from that developer. There is nothing wrong with this at all, despite your attempts to frame it as such by placing it in the same sentence, right next to the "stolen" word.

You also (deceptively) fail to mention those major features like Time Machine, that don't fit into your jaded "stolen and/or borrowed" categories.

I could go on and on about other categories and features of both OS's that prove why you are wrong, but it's just not worth it. You seem to be both too dim to understand such arguments, as well as too uninformed to really put up a good argument in the first place.

All of what you wrote is the truth. And as far as Dashboard being a rip-off of someone else's idea, that's cherry-picking the facts. Yes, Apple picked up some of the ideas of Dashboard from a previous developer but when you look at the bigger picture and remember that Apple was the original creator of the desktop accessories concept, then it doesn't seem quite so sinister. Apple created the concept of desktop accessories, Konfabulator did their version of it as Javascript widgets, and Apple took that idea and placed it in its own layer adding a few bells and whistles.

It's funny how many ideas Apple has originated that have been subject to widespread "stealing" by countless other companies out there, and nobody says a thing about that. And yet when Apple turns around and does the same, people scream about how terrible Apple is. Double-standard? I think so.

 

[John Musbach]

An interesting observation was noted on the Wine mailing list. As it turns out, new in Leopard is the ability to load and understand Windows Portable Executable (PE) files which is the common format for Windows applications and libaries. Understandably, the author raises a number of questions about the discovery:

This, of course, leads some people to the most dramatic conclusion: that Apple may be integrating Windows virtualization into Mac OS X itself. Of course, rumors of this possibility had been circulating for the months prior to Leopard's official release.

One developer we contacted about this thought it was very unlikely and felt that this parsing of PE files may simply be the product of Apple's ongoing work with Safari and iTunes for Windows. He also noted that simply parsing PE files is a far step from being able to actually run Windows applications.

Article Link

I certainly would enjoy this feature, it'd mean no having to pay for Parallels or VMware or having to reboot into Windows (BootCamp) whenever there's a need to occasionally use a windows program. Hopefully if this does happen it'll also include Direct X support...

 

[diamond.g]

I certainly would enjoy this feature, it'd mean no having to pay for Parallels or VMware or having to reboot into Windows (BootCamp) whenever there's a need to occasionally use a windows program. Hopefully if this does happen it'll also include Direct X support...

It would be cool to have Direct X support.

I would find it interesting if Apple could provide support for running Windows programs and not charge extra for it. To include a part of Windows in Mac OS X had to have costed Apple lots of money, and Apple doesn't strike me as the kind of company to give something away like that for free. Plus who handles support when the Windows programs cause issues? I am sure MS wont touch it with a ten foot pole, and I doubt Apple wants to get into that business.

 

[IJ Reilly]

In my view, Apple dropped Classic at the right time. I mean, it's been what, six years since it was a current release platform?

I don't know if there was a "right" time for Apple to drop Classic. I have less problem with them having done it when they did, than I do with them having done so without any warning or announcement. The continued access to Classic for all these years was a real luxury. Now that it's gone, my bill for switching over to Leopard is more than doubled due to the loss of Classic, and I'll still be left without access to quite a bit of old data which can be accessed only with abandoned software. In order to do that, I probably will have to leave my Cube as-is, never to be upgraded to Leopard, and buy a new Mac. So forget doubled cost -- more like ten times cost. So it's a real issue for many of us.