Windows Applications On Mac, Without Windows

[Mord]

Also @ Hector, how is it you have two "About This Mac" windows open, with 10.4.7 as well as that Leopard test version?

the one in the backround is part of a thread.


i'll test msn 8 tomorrow, but i doubt it will work as it's very integrated with the OS.

 

[zephead]

Wow, it looks like that other guy who admittedly posted fake (but convincing) Leopard screenshots was on to something. But wait...

Note that this does NOT used Microsoft code, but rather is using reverse-engineered stuff (Wine).

Wouldn't this get into some legal trouble with Microsoft and the Windows developers, since in most EULAs, "reverse engineering" is a violation of the EULA?

 

[Xephian]

Most games and apps would probably run like crap at first.

 

[Peace]

Ok..
While I got this installed and running I can say it is most definetly Alpha status.

It runs Excel fine..However it requires X11..
This is a step backwards imho..

I tried installing unsupported apps but it just went thru the installer and stopped.

I'll give it some more intense testing and will know more in a few days but as of right now it's a back-burner type thing for me at least..

It's trying to do the same thing Parallels does without the Windows O/S..


[edit] I might have to stop using this because in order to give them good input I might have to send them crash logs that are covered by my NDA with Apple and I can't do that [/edit]

 

[Lixivial]

Yeah, I sent an email I just kinda wondered how he got the link so fast. I figured out what I downloaded was a linux thing later

Yes, okay. I was giving you the legitimate way of doing it. Being that this all is, essentially, old news there are other ways as well. I don't know if that's how Hector obtained his copy or not.

Note that this does NOT used Microsoft code, but rather is using reverse-engineered stuff (Wine).

Actually, while WINE does reverse-engineer a good portion of the win32 API, not all of it is entirely reverse-engineered. WINE can and does use some native DLLs for certain functions when the built-in ones fail. However, yes, WINE is very capable without any Microsoft code whatsoever.

 

[paj]

There's a chance... just a CHANCE... that people will fear the death of Mac because "there's no need to write Mac apps anymore."

I'm not afraid. People WILL write apps if there's anyone to buy them. Demand means income, and that's what developers seek.

And DEMAND for real Mac apps will hardly go away. Tacking Windows apps (for a price) onto a Mac is a neat option, and one that will bring new users to the platform, but it's not AS GOOD as a native Mac app with the Mac OS X benefits that brings. Nor do a lot of apps run at all.

So people won't "settle" for Windows apps on a large scale, anymore than they'd "settle" for taking OS X off of their Mac and running Windows. We use Mac OS X because it has real advantages. When you need a non OS X app, it's nice to have these options.

Any trickle of people who choose to buy Windows apps for their Mac INSTEAD of an existing Mac app will be more than offset by the increase in Mac sales overall.

The market for Mac native software will grow, not shrink. So I welcome these options.

That's exactly what people said when OS/2 2.1 was released....

 

[longofest]

Actually, while WINE does reverse-engineer a good portion of the win32 API, not all of it is entirely reverse-engineered. WINE can and does use some native DLLs for certain functions when the built-in ones fail. However, yes, WINE is very capable without any Microsoft code whatsoever.

Yeah, Wine can use the Windows DLLs if you have them, but I'm pretty sure CodeWeaver's product is meant to be run without the Windows DLLs (so, pure reverse-engineering and no need for a Windows install).

p.s. Note that the story has been updated, as we got word about the OpenGL and DirectX stuff

 

[dongmin]

I'm assuming whatever works with the open source version of WINE works with Crossover.

A more extensive list of what works on WINE...

 

[springerj]

The one huge win this could bring...

is the ability to actually run IE6.0 on a mac.

There are still, unfortunately, way too many sites that have designed to take use ActiveX or IE's specific scripting features and will not run on anything else. This would provide a work-around. I'd just like it to work without having to shift into a full-on windoze mode.

 

[Peace]

is the ability to actually run IE6.0 on a mac.

There are still, unfortunately, way too many sites that have designed to take use ActiveX or IE's specific scripting features and will not run on anything else. This would provide a work-around. I'd just like it to work without having to shift into a full-on windoze mode.

IE6 runs ok.I'm making this post from IE 6 from CrossOver.

The text rendering has that funky X11 look to it though.I really don't want to bust any bubbles as this is a good step but it does need work.Like I said it is in Alpha so I'll give it some time.

 

[Westside guy]

Under Linux, WINE allows you (if you actually own a copy of Windows) the option of using the actual Windows DLLs rather than their WINE replacements. I'm curious to know if the WINE ports to OS X will allow this as well. It's advantageous because some apps that won't work quite right in WINE normally will work with the real libraries.

 

[balamw]

Under Linux, WINE allows you (if you actually own a copy of Windows) the option of using the actual Windows DLLs rather than their WINE replacements. I'm curious to know if the WINE ports to OS X will allow this as well. It's advantageous because some apps that won't work quite right in WINE normally will work with the real libraries.

Which is particulalrly interesting if you happen to have a Boot Camp install handy... (i.e. all the Windows DLLs on a mountable NTFS partition...).

B

 

[Kingsly]

(my experienced emotions, in a nutshell, whilst reading this article)

 

[bigbossbmb]

on the list of apps, the latest version of Photoshop that is supported is version 7!!!......besides the ability to play games, this doesn't help much

 

[ChrisA]

From alpha testing to a shipping product in a month? Uh-oh.

This software is relatively mature. It's been around for years under linux and a Mac version quickly followed the first Intel Macs. Wine is free but codeweavers sells a version too. The profit supports work on the free Wine. What we have here is the alpha release of the commercial version of the Mac port.

Linux and mac OSX are enough alike that I imagine the port from Linux to OSX was not a huge effort

 

[celebrian23]

on the list of apps, the latest version of Photoshop that is supported is version 7!!!......besides the ability to play games, this doesn't help much

Most of the versions are so old. I wouldn't use this technology- I can't deal with non-up to date versions of software I need.

 

[blueflame]

is this a free download we can test now? I would be interested to see how it runs
andreas

 

[Core Trio]

Im sorry, this just doesnt sound like a good idea to me.

 

[devman]

This is good news. I ran Crossover under Linux for a few years before I switched to OS X. For that special app that you must run that is Windows only this can be a great solution. It is different to vmware and parallels - not better, just different and what will appeal will depend on your needs. What I love about crossover is that I'm not running a copy of windows at all. That means I have NONE of the never-ending maintenance hassles of real windows etc.

In Australia a problem app is quicken/quickbooks. There is no OS X version.

Sure, I can run quickbooks now under parallels, but I must have a real copy of windows running that must be maintained just like a real copy of windows. I don't want that. If crossover works like it did for me on linux it is my dream solution - quickbooks will launch and run in just another window - no windows desktop, start menu, task bar, etc.

 

[wmmk]

Don't know about you but I don't have half a grand to blow on a second copy of office, Photoshop, etc.

yes, but he's trying to make a point. whether you buy the mac or windows version is up to you.

 

[fblack]

I agree completely...

There's a chance... just a CHANCE... that people will fear the death of Mac because "there's no need to write Mac apps anymore."

I'm not afraid. People WILL write apps if there's anyone to buy them. Demand means income, and that's what developers seek.

And DEMAND for real Mac apps will hardly go away. Tacking Windows apps (for a price) onto a Mac is a neat option, and one that will bring new users to the platform, but it's not AS GOOD as a native Mac app with the Mac OS X benefits that brings. Nor do a lot of apps run at all.

So people won't "settle" for Windows apps on a large scale, anymore than they'd "settle" for taking OS X off of their Mac and running Windows. We use Mac OS X because it has real advantages. When you need a non OS X app, it's nice to have these options.

Any trickle of people who choose to buy Windows apps for their Mac INSTEAD of an existing Mac app will be more than offset by the increase in Mac sales overall.

The market for Mac native software will grow, not shrink. So I welcome these options.

I agree completely. People have complained in the past when a game or app is ported to mac that it often is clunky and does not take advantage of the mac OS feel or features. I've used same apps on XP and mac and the windows versions are often ugly at best and counterintuitive at worst. The look, the feel, how we interface with the app is critical. I'll take the ease of use of iphoto, itunes and safari over internet explorer and the junky photo and music software that came with my dell. I think people will use these new options-bootcamp, wine,etc-because of a need to use specific software not because they love the windows experience.

Options are good and if it grows the mac market, we will have more mac native software.

 

[mcarnes]

For what I use, all the best software in OS X is written by Apple or Adobe anyway, and I don't see either of them giving up on Mac versions (especially Apple ). So I see this news as nothing but a good thing.

Bring it on.

 

[suzerain]

Internet Exploder

This could be a useful way for Windows-hating Web developers (like myself, for example) to run Internet Exploder to test apps. Exploder 6.x is one of the 'officially supported' apps...

I'm using Parallels, but unfortunately IE in Windows under Parallels can't see the local domains I have hosted in Apache under OS X, and perhaps this solution would just patch through to the OS X networking stack, which would allow it to see 'fake' domains I have set up in /etc/hosts.

Anyway...nice to have all these options developing...

 

[qtip919]

For what I use, all the best software in OS X is written by Apple or Adobe anyway, and I don't see either of them giving up on Mac versions (especially Apple ). So I see this news as nothing but a good thing.

Bring it on.

Totally Agree...

here's the reason I bought a mac:

1. iPhoto
2. iMovie
3. iDVD
4. Final Cut

I did not buy a computer for the operating system, and only geeks do something like this. Real people (Im talking about 90% of the world's population) buy a computer for specific tasks...writing a paper, browsing porn sites, etc.

thanks, and goodnight

 

[nagromme]

That's exactly what people said when OS/2 2.1 was released....

I hereby contend that the current state of the Mac and Windows platforms is very, VERY different from the state of the OS/2 and Windows platforms at that time.

There is really no comparing the two situations. Doing so sounds good at first glance but this situation is not that one. The similarities one might note are all affected by the pile of differences.

Some examples: Mac OS X has an established consumer user base with significant public mindshare, developer support, and history. (You think too few people know about the Mac... go out on the street and ask random passersby if they ever heard of OS/2 It is also, across the board, fully mature, complete for a huge range of tasks, and in fact often a more productive environment than Windows. And it's tied to some great hardware. And it's not marketed in the way OS/2 was, nor to the same people. And Windows is currently in a situation to be vulnerable to defectors, more than the reverse. And Mac OS has highly polished end-to-end experience that Windows apps break. And Mac OS has a passionate user base that WILL resist non-native apps. (Look at the heated objections people had to running even Classic Mac apps instead of carbon ports!) And the Mac has a huge library of top-shelf, heavily-relied-upon, big-name, profitable native apps already long established.

The list could go on, but bottom line: OS/2 tells us very little about the future of Mac OS. OS/2 was vulnerable in ways that just don't make sense with the Mac platform.

(O/T but I'm reminded of people saying that Apple will lose the marketshare lead with iPod because they lost the marketshare lead with the Mac... when they never HAD a lead with the Mac )