Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Panther and Windows?

Apple acquires RealPC?

How's this for unfounded speculation and blatant rumormongering:

Heyyy, mebbe this is a hint as to what really happened to FWB's promised but as-yet-undelivered revival of RealPC. If FWB's contractual agreement with Connectix to not market RealPC for Mac were still binding after M$ bought all assets of Connectix (including said agreement), perhaps the language of the agreement still left FWB free to sell that property to Apple, who could then develop and market it themselves...

Erm, naaah... :rolleyes:
 
Yes, very weird mistake. And if it is such, I'm wouldn't be surprised if Apple says something about it being a mistake.

But it would open up a whole new world for macs......then M$ would make *special* code, optimized for PCs that wouldn't work on the Apple Windows version....:rolleyes:

I'll believe it when I see it.

D
 
Looking on the brighter side of things....

At least it may get some corporations to mistakenly take a look at Mac OSX, and see what dunderheads they've been all along for using that wannabe OS named windows.

At least windows is good for use as a gaming console.
 
Re: Looking on the brighter side of things....

Originally posted by tazznb
At least it may get some corporations to mistakenly take a look at Mac OSX, and see what dunderheads they've been all along for using that wannabe OS named windows.
Click to expand...

And them have them walk away after the evaluation saying "the Mac is all BS hype"? No you want to portray the platform accurately, not have this kind of crap floating around and then have someone figure out that it's not true after spending money and time to do the evaluation. That will really leave a bad impression of Apple. Amongst the PC crowd I interact with, Apple already has a reputation for not accurately portraying their capabilities, this kind of stuff just feeds the fire.
 
I don't think it's true and I do think this guy is talking out of his ass.

I also think that Windows-compatibility out of the box would be a major mistake. Rememer OS/2? No? See? Nobody remembers OS/2 (this is actually a Bill Gates quote ROFL!)

OS/2 shot itself in the foot by offering a Win3.1 compatibility. So nobody bothered to develop OS/2 applications, since Win3.1 apps would run as good (actually better) under OS/2.
 
I'm sure it's a mistake.

I doubt people in the know will buy a Mac thinking you can run PC software, then be disappointed when it doesn't. I'm sure they just misread the whole Exchange support thing. They did say Panther was going to be more Windows compatible. There is the whole, Remote Desktop thing, but you can already do that.

And I think the Fox News joke was funny. Have you seen Fox News lately? There's your example (besides, lighten up). CNN sucks sometimes, too. MSNBC REALLY sucks. What, do you work for Fox or something?

If you do, I'm sorry. Not for the comment, I'm just sorry.

THIS JUST IN - CHEECH AND CHONG TO REUNITE! (if you're a Daily Show fan, you'll get it)
 
Apple Will Have to Respond...

Even though Apple's policy is to not comment about rumors or unannounced products, they will have to same something one way or the other about this.

If they statement is false, Apple will have to say so. Otherwise their silence will mean that the statement is true.
 
i really do hope they bring out an emulator that allows you to use the software without having to have the os on your computer as well. a bit like x11. In think apple have the technology to develop a good emultor as they currently have 2 available to mac os X (classic and x11)

personally i dont think it should be free but be less expensive than VPC, as if free the mac os X native software would not be developed. Already many smaller companies havent developed mac osx software especially ISPs eventhough its been out for about 3 years, still upport up2 os9.2.

i also feel that they should integrate a Linux emulator into Panther for free. The reason to grow on attracting the unix base which that they have already attracted through x11.
 
I think someone at Businessweek is going to be really really embarrassed soon.

Even though it has to be a mistake, the prospect of being able to just use Windows software in a Mac would be a great thing to gloat over with PC users who don't like Macs because of lack of games.
 
not necessarily a huge mistake

Why is it so far fetched? Look at http://www.winehq.com/ . It houses a program called WINE ( Wine Is Not an Emulator...yeah, yeah...geeky fun ).

From the website:

"Wine is an Open Source implementation of the Windows API on top of X and Unix....allowing many unmodified Windows binaries to run on x86-based Unixes, including Linux, FreeBSD, and Solaris."

If Apple created a built in x86 emulator and included WINE, windows apps could run in Mac OSX....or maybe they're talking about VirtualPC. Either way, they can run their windows apps in OSX....they didn't say run natively.
 
"will let corporations run Windows applications on their Macs."

1. A stock Mac will run Microsoft Office if you install it. It does not come in a truly stock Mac.

2. A stock Mac will run MANY windows applicatos if you install Virtual PC or the like. It does not come in a truly stock Mac.

3. A stock Mac will communicate with Microsoft networks now better than ever. It does come in a truly stock Mac.

I have heard several previous windows zealots who have switched to Macs state it runs windows better than wintel hardware. Not surprising considering the tight integration of hardware, software, plugs/outlets and extensions.

So therefore technically the article is correct and maybe the solution to switchers is to have them simply switch from cheap knock-off wintel hardware to kick-ass IBM-Apple hardware and retain the windows they have become accustomed to, as a mere application on a vastly superior primary desktop.

Microsoft gets paid (sometimes twice), so they should be well in favor of it.

Rocketman
 
We should encourage this "mistake"

Yes, it is an obvious mistake. But it is actually TRUE!

IF you are working on a network that has at least one box running XP Professional and

IF you are running Jaguar

you can download the very impressive and FREE Microsoft Remote Desktop Connection app and control the XP box from your mac. I have this setup in my office and it is surprisingly effective. I can run windows apps on my mac without an emulator. Very slick.

So although the sense of the BizWeek article -- that Panther will be set up to inherently run windoze apps -- is an obvious mistake, the reality is that on the networks which may swing over to macs, which are already probably running at least 1 windoze box, you will be able to run these apps on your mac, if you have the proper configuration.
 
No games...

Originally posted by yoshi1013
I think someone at Businessweek is going to be really really embarrassed soon.

Even though it has to be a mistake, the prospect of being able to just use Windows software in a Mac would be a great thing to gloat over with PC users who don't like Macs because of lack of games.
Click to expand...

Don't expect Wintel games to be running on a Panther G5 anytime soon... Games are just too much hardware dependent and are way too slow in emulation environments. If a x86 emulator should indeed make its way into the Mac OS, expect to run business applications, control applications for special hardware (egg. lab-systems, production machines, etc.) and that kind of stuff. Heck, if you want to play games, go and get a PlayStation! ;)
 
Re: How is that funny?

Originally posted by adzoox
... Supposedly Panther will integrate seamlessly into NT and Windows networks using a different abstraction of TCP/IP/Rendezvous Hybrid and will finally drop ALL Appletalk code. ...
Click to expand...

Won't this make it difficult for Panther to communicate with Mac OS 9 machines on the same LAN? I sure hope that's not true.

I thought I'd heard that X Window support was going to be fully integrated. This would allow X Window applications to be run... which is close (syntactically if not semantically) to the original quote, and something that would make a lot of people happy.
 
Confused

The writer was obviously confused. Not the first time a BusinessWeek article got the specifics wrong. It will most likely be corrected by the end of the day (if BW has any pride in their reporting). This is how stupid rumors.... which are the basis for almost 75% of Mac sites reporting on the net, get started.
 
This is what happens when you don't fully research a topic. I'm pretty sure we covered that in High School journalism.

Those who say this is "technically true" would probably be really ticked off if you were windows users and actually looked at macs to run all of your specialized software and found out the hoops you'd have to jump through. I'd think Apple was a hack company for making those claims (even though the fact that they weren't made by Apple is "technically true")
 
Assuming there is a little "truth" ...
WINE makes more sense than VirtualPC.
WINE does not require a Windoze License to run a "windows" program.
VirtualPC does. I don't think Apple would actively help sell more Windoze licenses.
 
Re: not necessarily a huge mistake

Originally posted by uberska
Why is it so far fetched? Look at http://www.winehq.com/ . It houses a program called WINE ( Wine Is Not an Emulator...yeah, yeah...geeky fun ).

From the website:

"Wine is an Open Source implementation of the Windows API on top of X and Unix....allowing many unmodified Windows binaries to run on x86-based Unixes, including Linux, FreeBSD, and Solaris."

If Apple created a built in x86 emulator and included WINE, windows apps could run in Mac OSX....or maybe they're talking about VirtualPC. Either way, they can run their windows apps in OSX....they didn't say run natively.
Click to expand...

Wine runs well because it sits ontop of an intel processor. Wine with an x86 emulator would be like running VirtualPC...

I AM interested to see how VPC runs on a dual 2ghz G5, however....
 
Originally posted by Tim Flynn
I don't think Apple would actively help sell more Windoze licenses.
Click to expand...

To the contrary, when MS bundles VPC with Office, Apple will gladly promote the daylights out of that product.

Under that scenario, everybody (but Intel) wins.
 
No thankyou.

This is obviously an error, but here's why I don't even want it to be true.

First, it would go against a prime tenet of the switch campaign: "with an Apple, you have all the software you need." Erm, well, actually we were wrong about that and we're going to make it so that you can finally run the software you need on a Mac.

Second, and this point has been made a few times already, if Windows applications will run on a Mac, why bother developing Mac applications?

Third, and I'm trying not to automatically diss Microsoft here, but once Windows apps get onto the Mac en masse, that does give MS some say in the hardware they need to support their software, even if it's third party. A PC game will only run using a certain video card? Apple will then have to support that card. When Apple loses control over its software, it pretty much loses control over the hardware too. And while it's not necessarily a bad thing to have a broad support for many different configurations, one of the reasons that the Mac/OS X platform is so stable is that Apple knows pretty much what's running on it.

The biggest argument on the "pro" side of this seems to be that the greater number of PC games will woo people into buying a Windows-supporting Mac. Well, I don't think so. If you're a big PC gamer, you'll already have a PC, and the relative expense of upgrading to a Mac isn't going to get you into the Apple Store anytime soon.

Matt
 
Re: No thankyou.

Originally posted by slightly
First, it would go against a prime tenet of the switch campaign: "with an Apple, you have all the software you need." Erm, well, actually we were wrong about that and we're going to make it so that you can finally run the software you need on a Mac.

Second, and this point has been made a few times already, if Windows applications will run on a Mac, why bother developing Mac applications?
Click to expand...

Let's not forget, this piece ran in Business Week and is obviously about Apple's attempt to woo business customers. The switch campaign was directed primarily at consumers, and the "prime tenet" was true: for consumers, Apple does have all the software needed.

But that is simply not the case in many business environments. For any given field (outside of the creative endeavors) there is always the potential that no good mac alternative exists (for example, Sage has stopped OSX development for Timeslips, and there is no good bankruptcy software for OSX).

If a business can add the mac's reliability and ease of use to existing windows only software, that will be a major boon for them.

But I see a different scenario than the "if windows runs on macs, why make mac software?" problem. If more and more people are buying macs because they can get windows software to run, developers will see Apple gain market share and then refocus their efforts on that market.

Also, the more macs appear in the business world, the more likely that the other 95% will be exposed to macs, also growing market share without specific consideration of the ability or not to run windows software.
 
What he might mean...

I wonder if he's twisted all the Windows integration OS X has now. There's SAMBA to access Windows file systems (though that's an old feature) and possibly the Exchange server support and Word doc reading (using Textedit) we're starting to hear about in Panther.

So if Mail.app & iCal talks to Exchange, you can see files on your Windows LAN with SMB, Textedit reads docs, and Keynote makes and reads Powerpoint, the Mac is close to running seamlessly on a traditionally Windows-specific network. Other than the obvious Excel hurdle (I know I know, Appleworks kinda does it), you've got the whole suite.

So perhaps that's what they've mistakenly referred to... that out of the box Macs now handle a Microsoft world?
 
WINE and OS X

1. Wine is already running on OS X (in a limited fashion and under X11):
see http://www.winehq.com/site?issue=179#MacOS X Success

2. If the rumors about Apple using more integration with X 11 are true, then #1 is even better. And if these people had support from Apple...

3. See also (from the FAQ):"Then there's what everyone has been waiting for: 'I want to be able to run my x86 Windows applications on any processor architecture I like. That's the most complex one. Again the prerequisite is that Winelib works on this architecture, which will definitely happen someday. Then 'all that is needed' is to integrate an x86 emulator with Wine (and also change Wine's name :)."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back