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.
Panther and Windows?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
what's this?
http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/unix_open_source/bochs.html
from apple's web site
"Bochs is a highly portable open source IA-32 (x86) PC emulator written in C++, that runs on most popular platforms. It includes emulation of the Intel x86 CPU, common I/O devices, and a custom BIOS. Currently, bochs can be compiled to emulate a 386, 486 or Pentium CPU. Bochs is capable of running most Operating Systems inside the emulation including Linux, Windows 95, DOS, and recently Windows NT 4. Bochs was written by Kevin Lawton. Bochs can be used in a variety of modes, some which are still in development. The typical use of Bochs is to provide complete x86 PC emulation, including the x86 processor, hardware devices, and memory. This allows you to run OSs and software within the emulator on your workstation, much like you have a machine inside of a machine. For instance, lets say your workstation is a Unix/X11 workstation, but you want to run Win95 applications. Bochs will allow you to run Win 95 and associated software on your Unix/X11 workstation, displaying a window on your workstation, simulating a monitor on a PC."
http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/unix_open_source/bochs.html
from apple's web site
"Bochs is a highly portable open source IA-32 (x86) PC emulator written in C++, that runs on most popular platforms. It includes emulation of the Intel x86 CPU, common I/O devices, and a custom BIOS. Currently, bochs can be compiled to emulate a 386, 486 or Pentium CPU. Bochs is capable of running most Operating Systems inside the emulation including Linux, Windows 95, DOS, and recently Windows NT 4. Bochs was written by Kevin Lawton. Bochs can be used in a variety of modes, some which are still in development. The typical use of Bochs is to provide complete x86 PC emulation, including the x86 processor, hardware devices, and memory. This allows you to run OSs and software within the emulator on your workstation, much like you have a machine inside of a machine. For instance, lets say your workstation is a Unix/X11 workstation, but you want to run Win95 applications. Bochs will allow you to run Win 95 and associated software on your Unix/X11 workstation, displaying a window on your workstation, simulating a monitor on a PC."
Have you actually read the linked page? It reads like the recipe for tiger soup. Darwine is a two-phase project. The first phase is to port Bochs to Darwin/x86 and Xfree86. The second phase is to port to integrate Bochs into the Darwin/PPC port. Darwine has yet to even start.
Off topic
Just a little off-topic question (inspired by the 'new from Microsoft' comments),
Can Microsoft buy-out whoever they want? Eg, if I had a nice little software business going and Microsoft wanted one of my programs to put in their brand spanking new (more colorful) operating system, could they just buy me out? Wouldn't I be able to say "Actually no Billy boy, that's my code"
I know they'd just reverse engineer it then anyway, but still, I'd like to know.
AppleMatt
Just a little off-topic question (inspired by the 'new from Microsoft' comments),
Can Microsoft buy-out whoever they want? Eg, if I had a nice little software business going and Microsoft wanted one of my programs to put in their brand spanking new (more colorful) operating system, could they just buy me out? Wouldn't I be able to say "Actually no Billy boy, that's my code"
I know they'd just reverse engineer it then anyway, but still, I'd like to know.
AppleMatt
Re: Off topic
As far as I know, you'd have to be a corporation in order to be bought out. If your one-man operation were tradeable, then they'd snap you up in a second. In which case, you'd have to do some SERIOUS acts of book-cooking to keep them from being able to afford you.
Otherwise, they just break into your house and steal your code, then blame it on the American secret police.
As far as I know, you'd have to be a corporation in order to be bought out. If your one-man operation were tradeable, then they'd snap you up in a second. In which case, you'd have to do some SERIOUS acts of book-cooking to keep them from being able to afford you.
Otherwise, they just break into your house and steal your code, then blame it on the American secret police.
The 80x86 emulatoy, perhaps, but not Windows too.
You have to pay for that license of Windows. Imagine Panther costing $329 instead of $129!
[yes, I saw the misspelling above ... but then decided I liked it and so it remains
]
Re: Re: Off topic
It's the same deal if you are a sole proprietor, since you own the business outright. The problem here becomes protecting yourself against personal liability if a customer or vendor decide to sue you.
Being incorporated doesn't mean someone can buy you out against the corporations will. It's all a matter of who has controlling interest. If *you* own 51% of the voting shares, and *you* don't want to sell to MS, that's the end of the story. You can tell MS to piss off. Now, that's not to say they may make you a *really* nice offer that you would short sighted to refuse, but that's a different matter.
It's the same deal if you are a sole proprietor, since you own the business outright. The problem here becomes protecting yourself against personal liability if a customer or vendor decide to sue you.
Re: Re: Off topic
That's not true, if you own a controlling share. Also, even if you're not a one-man operation, but an incorporated company, you can still be a privately owned corporation, and then you can simply say 'no' to Billy.
That's not true, if you own a controlling share. Also, even if you're not a one-man operation, but an incorporated company, you can still be a privately owned corporation, and then you can simply say 'no' to Billy.
Re: Off topic
The typical negotiation goes like:
MS: "So we hear you have a cool product."
Dev: "Yeah ... wanna see it? ... wait, you have to sign an NDA first ..."
MS: [shrugs] "We've seen enough. Is it for sale?"
Dev: "No. I don't want to sell it yet."
MS: "Would you like to work for us?"
Dev: "No, really. I like doing my own thing."
MS: "Will you let us 'license' the software on terms that essentially allow us to duplicate it as fast as we can then drop you like a hot potato?"
Dev: "Hmmm ... tempting, and that might bring excitement to my dull life, but I've got customers to think about. So, no. Sorry."
MS: "Whatever. Well, good luck with that."
[two weeks later ...]
MS: "Hey, look at this!"
Dev: "Huh? What's that? ... it looks ... familiar ..."
MS: "It's our brand new Defrobogulator. Guaranteed to do great things, under-budget. And it makes your business move at the speed of light."
Dev: "It sure looks a lot like that product I showed you a few weeks ago."
MS: "What product? You can't expect us to keep track of your piddly projects, can you? Looks like we both saw a need in the market and filled it. Unfortunately, ours is better."
[Defrobogulator crashes noisily to a blue screen of death. Lights flicker in the room.]
Dev: "Better?"
MS: "Absolutely! Ours has a $10 million marketting campaign behind it!"
Dev: "Hmm, I guess I can't compete with that. But I've got terrific word of mouth going."
MS: "Whatever. By the way, yours doesn't work with Windows any more."
Dev: "What?"
MS: "Oh, you'll see. When the next service pack of Windows comes out ... well, don't be surprised to get some unresolvable tech calls!"
The typical negotiation goes like:
MS: "So we hear you have a cool product."
Dev: "Yeah ... wanna see it? ... wait, you have to sign an NDA first ..."
MS: [shrugs] "We've seen enough. Is it for sale?"
Dev: "No. I don't want to sell it yet."
MS: "Would you like to work for us?"
Dev: "No, really. I like doing my own thing."
MS: "Will you let us 'license' the software on terms that essentially allow us to duplicate it as fast as we can then drop you like a hot potato?"
Dev: "Hmmm ... tempting, and that might bring excitement to my dull life, but I've got customers to think about. So, no. Sorry."
MS: "Whatever. Well, good luck with that."
[two weeks later ...]
MS: "Hey, look at this!"
Dev: "Huh? What's that? ... it looks ... familiar ..."
MS: "It's our brand new Defrobogulator. Guaranteed to do great things, under-budget. And it makes your business move at the speed of light."
Dev: "It sure looks a lot like that product I showed you a few weeks ago."
MS: "What product? You can't expect us to keep track of your piddly projects, can you? Looks like we both saw a need in the market and filled it. Unfortunately, ours is better."
[Defrobogulator crashes noisily to a blue screen of death. Lights flicker in the room.]
Dev: "Better?"
MS: "Absolutely! Ours has a $10 million marketting campaign behind it!"
Dev: "Hmm, I guess I can't compete with that. But I've got terrific word of mouth going."
MS: "Whatever. By the way, yours doesn't work with Windows any more."
Dev: "What?"
MS: "Oh, you'll see. When the next service pack of Windows comes out ... well, don't be surprised to get some unresolvable tech calls!"
This post makes me laugh, stupid BusinessWeek journalist, don't believe anything they type or say about Apple.
That should be 'WIndows Not in Emulation". "Wine Is Not an Emulator" is a joke name that came later.
However, that said, it seems that it might well be possible to run WINE under Mac OS X. There is both the DarWINE project, and there is also something that seems even more promising...
Pierre d'Herbemont has spent a lot of time getting Wine to run on MacOS X. Along the way he's gotten his hands wet in assembly language and had to rework a bunch of patches. It seems his work has paid off:
I have some good news. I am able to play with WineMine on Mac OS X
http://stegefin.free.fr/WineMine.jpg
But comctl32 is not working and probably some others dlls, so I still have some work, but this is a good step.
Cheers,
Pierre
PS : I would like to know if the color of winemine are the colors which are supposed to be, thanks.
This is a pretty interesting development for many reasons. First, Wine has only had marginal portability. Most developers use Linux day in and day out. Some folks have worked on Solaris x86 and FreeBSD. Others have worked on Linux ported to other architectures. Now we have it running on a non-x86 processor on a non-Linux platform. Not just any platform, but one that has widespread adoption. It seems a lot of work remains to be done, but in theory a lot of Windows-specific programs could be recompiled with Winelib to run on MacOS X.
Yes Pierre, winemine is that ugly.
To me, this is a very exciting development that I'm pleased to read about. I hope that developments in this direction continue...
You're right, I should've said Privately owned company, and the controlling interest deal.
So I don't know what I'm talking about. Didn't i say that before?
So I don't know what I'm talking about. Didn't i say that before?
You mean GNUstep (http://www.gnustep.org)? OpenStep was what NeXT had, GNUstep is the open source port. It's very usable, I have a moderately complex Cocoa app that was easy to port. The graphics are primitive compared to Quartz, but everything works perfectly except for some OS X features like drawers and sheets.
Reminds me of that Simpsons episode where Homer starts an internet company and Bill Gates comes to buy them out and destroys their living room...sounds just like them...
still wrong
My guess is that this BW is wrong, even with the correction. If you go to the "Mactopia" site, you'll see that Microsoft has started selling Virtual PC on the Mactopia website (as a Connectix channel). So my guess is that when BW says "Mac users will be able to use Windows apps under Panther with additional software from MS" it's really a misunderstood reference to running Virtual PC
My guess is that this BW is wrong, even with the correction. If you go to the "Mactopia" site, you'll see that Microsoft has started selling Virtual PC on the Mactopia website (as a Connectix channel). So my guess is that when BW says "Mac users will be able to use Windows apps under Panther with additional software from MS" it's really a misunderstood reference to running Virtual PC
New emulation software from Microsoft
The exact wording was New emulation software from Microsoft.
This could mean VPC, since it is owned by Microsoft. But the current incarnation of VPC isn't new.
They might have to make a new version of VPC in order to support Panther, that may be what it means.
Or, Microsoft may make *just* emulation software to allow PC *apps* to run in Mac OS X. Now such hardware emulation being added at the framework level (albeit third party) would allow the user to run any version of Windows they wanted (or Linux), as well as run any Windows program sans Windows or Linux, straight from the Apple GUI.
Why would Microsoft do something this radical? Wouldn't it undercut their Operating System sales?
Not for two reasons:
1) They could charge more for this program that VPC because it is a revolution beyond VPC, an integrated seemless emulation.
2) They wouldn't be bundling any OS with it, and thus would make more money.
3) They'd be able to sell a version of windows in addition to it. Right now, VPC comes with a version of windows, and the version of windows you want determines which price you get.
Of course, it *does* leave the possibility of running just Linux and Windows Apps.
Unless Microsoft does something sneaky...
Of course, that's all unbridled speculation. They could just mean the current version of VPC.
Which would be fine if they optimized it for Panther.
But if Microsoft sold a pure emulation package that was seamless, ran in the background as a process, fully configured via system preferences, and was stable enough to run even Server 2000 / 2003 on, then I'm sure sales of the product would be off the charts.
Jaedreth
The exact wording was New emulation software from Microsoft.
This could mean VPC, since it is owned by Microsoft. But the current incarnation of VPC isn't new.
They might have to make a new version of VPC in order to support Panther, that may be what it means.
Or, Microsoft may make *just* emulation software to allow PC *apps* to run in Mac OS X. Now such hardware emulation being added at the framework level (albeit third party) would allow the user to run any version of Windows they wanted (or Linux), as well as run any Windows program sans Windows or Linux, straight from the Apple GUI.
Why would Microsoft do something this radical? Wouldn't it undercut their Operating System sales?
Not for two reasons:
1) They could charge more for this program that VPC because it is a revolution beyond VPC, an integrated seemless emulation.
2) They wouldn't be bundling any OS with it, and thus would make more money.
3) They'd be able to sell a version of windows in addition to it. Right now, VPC comes with a version of windows, and the version of windows you want determines which price you get.
Of course, it *does* leave the possibility of running just Linux and Windows Apps.
Unless Microsoft does something sneaky...
Of course, that's all unbridled speculation. They could just mean the current version of VPC.
Which would be fine if they optimized it for Panther.
But if Microsoft sold a pure emulation package that was seamless, ran in the background as a process, fully configured via system preferences, and was stable enough to run even Server 2000 / 2003 on, then I'm sure sales of the product would be off the charts.
Jaedreth
The revised press release is an obvious reference to MS-VPC. I don't understand where the speculation part comes from in these posts. The "new" part is MS marketing-speak, and it means "we own it now". There will be a VPC 6.1 release this month that, according to MS themselves, is simply a re-branding (copyrights, license, etc.) of the existing release.
I wager (before I get a ton of crap from everyone "wager" means "this is my opinion") that MS cripples the product in two ways: 1) you will not be able to buy it with PCDOS anymore; if you buy the stand-alone version that is still available, you'll *have* to buy a version of Windows, and 2) you will not be able to run Linux. The upside is that MS may improve the performance, since it's in their best interest to do so.
I wager (before I get a ton of crap from everyone "wager" means "this is my opinion") that MS cripples the product in two ways: 1) you will not be able to buy it with PCDOS anymore; if you buy the stand-alone version that is still available, you'll *have* to buy a version of Windows, and 2) you will not be able to run Linux. The upside is that MS may improve the performance, since it's in their best interest to do so.
Sorry for the double post, but I forget something. jaedreth: No way is MS going to release an x86 emulation package that doesn't include a Windows OS. They will use VPC to shove Windows down your throat as far as possible. MS wants to ensure that you get the "Windows experience", not just allow you to run their apps.
DaveL
No, they're not likely to do that. Even though they have the *potential* to make more revenue (one buys the emulator, the os, and the office separate), they also have the potential to make a lot less revenue (just buy the emulator and run linux).
And I have said before on earlier discussions of MS's aquisition of VPC, that it will likely either suck rotten eggs, or be severely crippled. In that, I am in full agreement.
One can hope. But then again you can hope in one hand...
Jaedreth
No, they're not likely to do that. Even though they have the *potential* to make more revenue (one buys the emulator, the os, and the office separate), they also have the potential to make a lot less revenue (just buy the emulator and run linux).
And I have said before on earlier discussions of MS's aquisition of VPC, that it will likely either suck rotten eggs, or be severely crippled. In that, I am in full agreement.
One can hope. But then again you can hope in one hand...
Jaedreth
Re: x86 emulation by Apple?
On another note, the censorship around here has gotten ridiculous.
Chris
Just to clarify, this is not going to be the standard Office package. It has been talked about as a "Pro" package that might cost $100 more than the base package of Office.
On another note, the censorship around here has gotten ridiculous.
Chris
<i>That's a major plus, considering that nearly all companies use Windows.</i>
Way to go out on a limb there BusinessWeek.
Isn't this the publication that actually honest-to-g*d pronounced Apple DEAD back in the 90s? Printed an issue of the magazine that was basically a eulogy?
Sorry if these points have been addressed, I haven't read the entire thread.
Way to go out on a limb there BusinessWeek.
Isn't this the publication that actually honest-to-g*d pronounced Apple DEAD back in the 90s? Printed an issue of the magazine that was basically a eulogy?
Sorry if these points have been addressed, I haven't read the entire thread.