DiggJoin DiggAbout

Uncovered: Evidence that Mac OS X could run Windows apps soon

arstechnica.com — Don't trash your Boot Camp drive just yet, but Leopard could contain the early signs of running Windows apps in Mac OS X after all. While the evidence is telling, we encourage you not to hold your breath just yet.

made popular 1 year 39 days ago

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community.Take the Tour to learn more.

Related by Keyword BETA!

21 Free Apps For Mac OS X That Are Absolutely Useful

  • 647 diggs
  • Made popular 2 hr 26 min ago
  • 73
  • www.smashingapps.com

Skype 2.8 for Mac to Launch Tuesday... with Screen-Sharing!

  • 874 diggs
  • Made popular 1 day 7 hr ago
  • 59
  • news.cnet.com

In Depth: Mac OS X Snow Leopard 10.6 - the story so far

  • 1470 diggs
  • Made popular 2 days ago
  • 273
  • www.techradar.com

How are these related stories? Tell us!

show profanity settings
expand all
  • supermanred, on 11/30/2007, -8/+29I would love it if I could run Microsoft Streets And Trips without having to install vista on my macbook again. I'm done with VIsta and XP, but there are a few peices of software I bought for windows that I'd love to run in OS X.
    • Popsgg, on 11/30/2007, -12/+58Think about this from a software creators angle. Why spend time writing any applications at all for OS X if it can also run windows applications. Fast-forward 5 years. All applications are written for windows, and Microsoft takes legal action to prevent Apple from running its code. Instantly, Macs with no software. This may kill Apple, or it may force them to become strictly a hardware company.
      • dinostabOMG, on 11/30/2007, -0/+11Like a kind of bizzarro-Sega.
      • hadak, on 11/30/2007, -15/+18I doubt very much that this will happen. Here's why: Apple has a very nice toolkit and framework for creating Cocoa apps. These applications are very powerful (with ease of programming, I might add) and extremely gorgeous. Using Quartz Extreme, OS X applications are lightyears beyond Windows apps in terms of appearance and usability. This solid framework has me convinced that developers won't drop the OS X/Carbon platform, even if you can run Windows apps on your Mac. Think of this as well: should Apple allow you to natively run Windows apps in OS X, wouldn't that make the Mac a more viable platform for ownership? There is no denying that OS X is far more usable than Vista. It runs faster, it's more intuitive, and the drag-and-drop application installation and removal is a Godsend. Of course, my own experience and feelings are mixed in that statement, so take it how you will. Let me say this though. If OS X would, indeed, run Windows apps natively - and at full speed, or perhaps faster than Windows can run them - every computer I run from here on out would be a Mac.
        • daggah, on 11/30/2007, -20/+3But you still have to tolerate Apple's ***** interface design. Ugh.
          • rubbers0ul, on 11/30/2007, -2/+7Have you seen Vista's lately?
          • daggah, on 11/30/2007, -8/+1Sure have, it's unfortunate that they are ripping off all of Apple's most annoying interface design elements. But there are many options that allow you to go back to the old way of doing things.
        • Acqua206, on 12/01/2007, -0/+1What's so unusable about Windows apps? Firefox works, Outlook works, the whole 2007 Office suite works, Photoshop works, azureus works, avast and adaware works. None of the applications are ugly or unusable. Does Mac have more eye candy? Sure. Does a less pretty interface make something less usable, nope. I want to know what version of windows that mac users have used/seen that makes them complain about appearance, Windows 3.1?
          Computers are a damn tool, if you can get your work done and maybe have some entertainment on it, its done its job. Everything doesn't have to be sprinkled with glitter and all sparkly and *****.
      • bigsteve, on 11/30/2007, -0/+4Well, Wine really hasn't stopped people from making apps that work on Linux or other free OSes. Apple may end up just reducing Windows software's functionality slightly, or disabling it in some other way that's still well within the bounds of usability.

        Same story with Parallels and Bootcamp. I'd heard the same argument that it could spell trouble for Apple (though it still may with games, hard to say.) Interesting point nonetheless.
      • McoreD, on 11/30/2007, -1/+6OR: Users think why buy Windows when Mac OS can run both Windows and Mac apps. Fast-forward 5 years. All the users are running Mac OS. Windows have a far less user base.
      • supermanred, on 12/01/2007, -2/+5Your scenario makes no sense really. I can run Windows Apps right now using Parallels (from inside OS X) or reboot into true Windows Xp/Vista. It would just be more handy if OS X could emulate/run windows apps without actually having to install that buggy peice of ***** Windows on my nice working system.

        In 1 year owning a Macbook (which I originally bought to run VISTA because reviews were great for the Macbook and its Vista drivers etc) the following has happened:


        Installed OS X Tiger (Never. Came with system installed)
        Installed OS X Leopard ONCE, the upgrade worked fine and all my apps still work fine, and my wifi is still blazing fast wireless-n

        Installed Windows VISTA (legal store bought copy) 3 Times. (1 install, 1 repair install and a 2nd clean install ) On the last install, when it decided to go into a boot loop and in general piss me off I decided to switch to XP...

        Installed Windows XP ONCE, tried to keep it virus and spyware free through various means and various software packages (I forgot how much work Windows takes to maintain).... then it somehow still got infested, and Internet Exploder exploded...so I nuked XP.

        Seriously, after running OS X you realize that life doesnt have to be done the Windows way, it can actually "just work"...
        • mrBitch, on 12/01/2007, -1/+1I switched 10 months ago, and I had the exact same issues. I only boot into Windows to play TF2 - everything else I use OSX.
        • GawtMilk, on 12/01/2007, -1/+2I installed OSX on my computer, and downloaded all the same programs I have on XP off of TPB. I just didn't like OSX as much.
    • moo083, on 11/30/2007, -0/+10Well, you might be able to do that now. Just download Crossover for Mac. It lets you run Windows apps without Windows installed. Its about $50-$60 and its not perfect, but its pretty good. Worth a shot given the free trial period.
      • Chort, on 11/30/2007, -3/+4DarWINE, free, OSX version of WINE.
        • DarkDx, on 11/30/2007, -3/+1Without 3d support...
        • Breepee, on 11/30/2007, -0/+4I find that Crossover actually works. Plays GTA:SA fine on my MacBook.
        • HouseCentipede, on 11/30/2007, -0/+2Too bad it doesn't do anything yet.
    • toetagger, on 11/30/2007, -1/+1http://www.routebuddy.com/
    • rasterbator, on 11/30/2007, -0/+3… Steven Edwards describes the discovery that Leopard apparently contains an undocumented loader for Portable Executables, a type of file used in 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Windows.
      Does this mean that users are now susceptible to Windows viruses if you run Windows apps on a Mac?
      • bigsteve, on 11/30/2007, -0/+4I'm going to say most likely no on this one, but with a caveat. As OS X is built on Unix, it inherits the Unix security model. The loader / translation layer / whatever will be used to bring Windows APIs to the OS X desktop will most likely be running at the same security level as the user attempting to run Windows binaries.

        The caveat being, unfortunately, is that no OS, open or proprietary, is safe from silly humans who press OK or enter passwords at any prompt without reading or understanding what they're doing. Now, I've run the same Windows XP build on my desktop for going on 4 years, don't use any anti-virus or anti-spyware solution, yet have never been infected with anything. Common sense and a good firewall are your friends.

        In the end, it's most likely that Windows malware, if executed in the environment, wouldn't be able to cause any damage, as there simply wouldn't be Windows system files there to infect. Unless of course Apple requires you to BYO Windows disk so it can build a system root.

        Time will tell. Definitely interesting, though.
      • geminitojanus, on 12/01/2007, -0/+1_NO_.

        What are portable executables? An executable format, just like ELF on (UNIX Name) or like Mach that they're using now.

        What's a thousand million billion times more likely in this case? Apple's switching to COFF so they can build once and run their apps on Mac OS X and Windows without having to support two different executable formats and the incompatibility between them. This is a rather boring and insignificant detail that's being turned up to way too much volume thanks to crappy Ars reporting (a rarity I must state). Their kernel makes it incredibly easy for them to switch formats and loaders, and will make the support problem of having iTunes and Quicktime on Windows that much less of an issue (and possibly pave the way for things like Aperture on Windows).
    • jabberwolf, on 11/30/2007, -2/+1ONLY A FEW?? TRY 100's !! Too bad this is the most extreme of rumors at best. We'll call it a Steve Jobs wet dream.
      • supermanred, on 12/01/2007, -0/+3Uh, no just the streets and trips, everything else there is a mac version, or a better way of doing things. The only exception is of course games, but I game on my 360 now and cant afford to buy 2 800 dollar video cards every 3 months anyways, so Im happy with the Macbook and the 360 for gaming.

  • DefaultGen, on 11/30/2007, -28/+7I don't know much about Macs but weren't they bragging about running windows programs a while ago?
    • krische, on 11/30/2007, -0/+6It is possible to make it seem like you are running windows programs inside of macs, but that is using virtualization software like Parallels Desktop or VMWare Fusion. This are actually running full-fleged windows though, not just the programs.
      • StealthTomato, on 11/30/2007, -2/+1So iisn't this just like Wine or DarWine then?
        • krische, on 11/30/2007, -0/+6From my understanding now, Wine isn't running windows on a virtual machine or emulator. Instead it is imitating the windows API and DLLs without actually running the OS.
        • LeonardNimrod, on 11/30/2007, -0/+2The implantation stated in the title article would be using WINE. Using the Windows APIs without having to install and run Windows.

          Parallels and VMWare require a full install of Windows and then the apps to be run on top of that. There are options to hide all but the application windows which gives the appearance of just running the programs but Windows is still running.
    • bethlagarrison, on 11/30/2007, -0/+3You can also run a full-on version of WIndows on any Intel Mac, you just have to restart to be able to do so.

      It's just a pain if you're switching back and forth a lot - a pain that emlation software inside OSX solves, but only at the cost of performance.

      Which is why this is cool.
    • DMCer, on 11/30/2007, -0/+1DefaultGen is talking about BootCamp, and yes, Macs can run windows. But you can't launch a Windows-only program without rebooting or running emulation software.
      • fyngyrz, on 11/30/2007, -1/+2*Virtualization* software. I can (and do, pretty much have to) run windows apps on my Mac desktop all the time using Parallels. There are some applications where the equivalent functionality simply doesn't exist in the Mac software world. It is a *lot* more convenient to use the app that gets the job done than it is to witch machines, or reboot. I'm not talking about games here, I'm talking about application software.
  • gazzigger, on 11/30/2007, -15/+120Great, here come all the spyware, viruses and other malware to the Mac.
    • jcaino, on 11/30/2007, -12/+7no - but that does bring an interesting point - why can windows run as a more protected/safe environment? oh yea...because it is fundamentally flawed.
      • B1663r, on 11/30/2007, -20/+3I realize this will get dug down, but the main target of malware authors the last six months has been osx...
        • tempusrob, on 11/30/2007, -0/+11Stats or it didn't happen.
        • BlackStrain, on 11/30/2007, -2/+7Say wha? I have yet to have any problems with malware on either of my macs. There has been a lot of COVERAGE of mac malware lately but not much actual malware. The ones that I've been reading about are idiot tests more than malware because you have to install them yourself AND provide your password.
    • cw1242, on 11/30/2007, -4/+5I've run windows all my life, I only recently got a Mac and in fact I'm on bootcamp right now, and I've never once had a problem with viruses or spyware/malware. If you are an unresponisble computer user then, Yes, you will have problems with that sort of stuff. All it takes is some general knowledge about computers and the IQ to know which sites and programs are a possible risk. I've never understood why people use viruses and malware as a crutch for their arguments against windows. My MBP has "beachballed" on me more than my windows partition ever has.
    • sdubois92, on 11/30/2007, -6/+1If OS X could run Windows apps it would be great. OS X wouldnt have any windows code in it, so viruses wouldnt work.
      • spectre_25gt, on 11/30/2007, -0/+8Ok, so how do you think Windows apps would work if the APIs weren't supported?
    • rstarr, on 11/30/2007, -1/+3Linux here I come.
      • sgoogle, on 11/30/2007, -0/+3So you can every you can already do in Mac OS X, AND run Windows apps, yet you would switch to Linux.
        • rstarr, on 11/30/2007, -1/+1I like a stable, good looking, secure OS. Opening Windows apps means the good and the bad things that run in Windows and that was a factor in my switch.
    • supermanred, on 12/01/2007, -0/+2No, the windows partition may get ***** (as mine has on a few occasions) by windows viruses, but OS X remains a UNIX based OS that is solid security-wise, its just built from the ground up to be solid and secure. It is beautiful code. Windows is layer upon layer of crap that bogs your system down and is full of holes and side doors.

      • lochness, on 12/01/2007, -1/+1Yeah.. Apple has such AWESOME coders that they can't even get their OWN operating system to work with their OWN narrow hardware platform.
        And lets not mention the constant security holes in QuickTime (the worst application of its kind anywhere btw), and Safari too.
        You Apple Ignormai have no idea of the *****-torrent that would be unleashed upon your yet-unscrutinised, so called secure OS, if you suddenly woke up tommorow and had 85% market share. And you think Apple treats you guys badly NOW... just wait to see how ARROGANT they are if they ever had that kind of market power... (not that it will EVER happen)
      • toetagger, on 12/01/2007, -0/+2You're a retard.
  • duckyinc, on 11/30/2007, -19/+8I would be better news if mac would be able to be brought on pcs
    • krische, on 11/30/2007, -8/+4Although highly unlikely, it is become alot more possible as standard drivers and plug n play is becoming more dominant.
    • Syphon8, on 11/30/2007, -6/+14OSx86
    • rebotfc, on 11/30/2007, -1/+12It will never happen, Apple is a hardware company they tried this in the nineties and it nearly bankrupted them.
  • skellener, on 11/30/2007, -18/+7The whole point of a Mac is so you DON'T gave to run Windows or any Windows apps. I'm happy to pass on that.
  • danielsamuels, on 11/30/2007, -7/+1What would be the point in Apple creating Boot Camp if users didn't actually need it?
    Would that not be a waste of time?
    • mythicflux, on 11/30/2007, -3/+4They pushed Boot Camp out because of the hype of a number of projects that figured out how to do it. Truth be told for a couple of months after the release of the Intel Macs Apple did nothing to aid people in getting Windows to run on a Mac (their stance was "We won't help or hinder"). Shortly after one of these projects posted instructions for getting Windows to run, Apple announced and released the Boot Camp Beta.

      Additionally Boot Camp may simply be a way to get people used to the idea that Macs can run Windows before beginning a full attack on Windows itself.
      • sgoogle, on 11/30/2007, -0/+1They must have had Boot Camp already in the works, there was no way it could be done with such small lead time.

        Just stick a Beta sticker on it and hope
  • funkydude101, on 11/30/2007, -34/+13Well then it would only be fair if Windows can run Mac apps.... oh wait.... there really aren't any.
    • Wahoo06, on 11/30/2007, -7/+11Wow, talk about an old, tired insult. When's the last time you used a Mac?
      • rpgmaker, on 11/30/2007, -7/+5You're right but it was funny anyways :)
      • hurben, on 12/01/2007, -0/+1I wish I could run CODA on my PC :(
    • screwattackthis, on 11/30/2007, -7/+8You're a troll.
      • StealthTomato, on 11/30/2007, -4/+1...who's got a point. How rare are those?
        • screwattackthis, on 12/01/2007, -0/+1He doesn't have a point. Mac OS X has a very large commercial application base. Sure, they don't have games, but that's not all computers are used for.
    • bethlagarrison, on 11/30/2007, -3/+7Fail
    • clak, on 11/30/2007, -7/+12Oh, let's see, Macs have Final Cut Pro, DVD Studio Pro, Shake, Motion, Soundtrack Pro, Cinema Tools, Compressor, Logic Pro, Main Stage, Studio Instruments, Studio Effects, Aperture, Garage Band, Pages, Keynote, Numbers, NeoOffice, iPhoto, iChat, iWeb, iMovie, iDVD, EyeTV, WireTap Pro, QuickSilver, Stickies, Photo Booth, Front Row, Expose, Spaces, Dashboard, Time Machine. You can't get any of those programs on your PC.

      In Addition to the Mac only apps, we have PC apps like Quark Xpress, Adobe Illustrator, Photoshop, InDesign, After Effects, DreamWeaver, Flash, Acrobat, Word for Mac, Excel for Mac, Powerpoint for Mac, Entourage, Pro Tools, Cubase, Maya, Blender, ArchiCAD, Cinema4D, Lightwave, LightRoom, SketchUp, VectorWorks, Safari, Firefox, iTunes, Quicktime, VLC, Toast, Handbrake, Adium, Google Earth, Skype... the list goes on and on. Most of those programs are in the Applications folder of my Mac by the way and many of them are designed to work better on a Mac.

      So as you can see, we have no programs. /sarcasm
      • B1663r, on 11/30/2007, -9/+1So it looks like Mac's lack the use of Corel tools which means they are second best for page layout nowdays... How sad, it held so much promise. LOL. Too bad Adobe droped the ball and fell behind...
        • sabarsky, on 11/30/2007, -0/+5Dude are you high? Corel? Are you serious? I guess you've never heard of Indesign or Quark which is what the majority of professional design studios and print shops use.
          • B1663r, on 11/30/2007, -4/+1Im am stone cold sober, and you are in denial, and I don't mean a river in Egypt.

            Those are what the Mac centric design studios use. But lets face facts. Print is dead. In another 5 years most of the remaining print houses will be gone. It used to be you went to trade shows and got a four color catalog or brochure from each of the vendor, those days are already over. Small newspapers are going out of business left and right. There are even big newspapers talking ceasing distribution, and the biggest book seller in the world just released a e-book reader.

            My own company is not making a catalog this year because... All our customers use the web now. We get almost no business from our print catalog.

            Sorry about your career ending prematurely, but you are a professional you should have seen it coming.

            And yes, my friend, corel is better than Adobe for those little bits of art that people decorate their websites with. That is why all the web designers use it. (and comic artists, and illustrators, etc etc etc)
          • joehoyle, on 11/30/2007, -1/+2Give me a link to any decent web designer that uses coral over adobe products and then I will believe your comment.
          • Yodacola, on 12/01/2007, -1/+2I do print and web design, and I must say that is one of the most baseless comments I have ever seen.
    • dondara, on 11/30/2007, -4/+5Right, ignore Apple. Keep running windows and don't think about trying anything else out. Remember, you can't play games on a Mac. Thats all that matters. Oh, and they are really expensive and we all know that cheaper things are way better.
      • B1663r, on 11/30/2007, -6/+2Take the three year test. On year one, you buy an iMac for $1500 I buy a much lesser computer and a 22" screen for $500. This year your computer beats the pants off of my computer. However next year I spend a another $500, I get a brand spanking new computer, and my computer is now marginally faster than yours. On year three I buy another $500 computer I get a brand spanking new computer again, and your computer is showing its age which is very significant now, and your computer seems antiqueish and slow compared to mine.

        END OF STORY. FULL STOP.
        • clak, on 11/30/2007, -1/+3Yeah, but you buy Vista or whatever bloatware Microsoft releases next, and your high end machine can barely run it. Meanwhile, I add a stick of memory to my iMac and get a update for OS X, which traditionally run faster with every upgrade, even on older machines. Then I decide to sell my iMac on Ebay and because Mac have such high resell value, I get 70 percent what I initially paid, while no one is willing to buy your POS PC.

          I buy the next version of iMac and we reach parity again, but meanwhile you're downgrading back to XP.
          • B1663r, on 11/30/2007, -2/+1You only get parity the year you buy it. Most of the time I will still have the nicer computer, even though I am buying the bargan basement devices.

            Also, I am looking at ebay and I really hope for your sake you don't expect to get $1000 for your old g5 iMac. 'Gently used' and 'like new' condition they are only worth ~$400. I suspect a heavy use computer is worth even less.
        • daggah, on 11/30/2007, -2/+2That's funny, most tech articles seem to indicate that Vista's performance works just fine for them on any decent computer. A small performance loss in gaming, but that's about it.
    • Hobofuzz, on 11/30/2007, -0/+1There was something called "Yellow Box" that allowed Windows to run OPENSTEP applications.
      However, isn't iTunes a Mac OS application? And Safari?
      Both of those use Yellow Box to run. Apple's simply ported Cocoa to run on the Windows platform. There's the possibility that more and more Mac OS applications will start working on Windows in the future.

  • rupertmorris, on 11/30/2007, -11/+4The get Parallels or VMWare... this story is barking up the wrong tree.
    • lehmon, on 11/30/2007, -2/+3Some apps don't work through Parallels. I want to see full support for all applications.
  • Crazysticks, on 11/30/2007, -14/+8I will never run windows apps on my mac. I have no need to. But that's just me.
    • supermanred, on 12/01/2007, -0/+1Microsoft Streets And Trips plus GPS unit.

      Apple really needs to build a ***** GPS unit into their macbooks, it would give every macbook user even more bragging rights.
  • over90000, on 11/30/2007, -45/+80If there's one thing worse than a Microsoft Monopoly, it's an Apple monopoly.
    • tnoy, on 11/30/2007, -14/+4You think having only one company to buy hardware from would be a problem?
      • funkydude101, on 11/30/2007, -3/+15Was that a joke? Or were you being serious?
      • canthraxp, on 11/30/2007, -2/+7You failed economy 101, didn't you?
        Capitalism = Choice => more than one company =/= Monopoly. So in the end the consumer is screwed.
      • kwilliam, on 12/01/2007, -0/+2Stop digging him down! (Idiots can't recognize perfect sarcasm when they see it.)
        • tnoy, on 12/01/2007, -0/+1Congratulations, you're the only one here who is not a complete ***** moron and didn't need to see a "/sarcasm" tag
        • 1timeuser, on 12/01/2007, -0/+0I laughed when I saw it. :)
    • bethlagarrison, on 11/30/2007, -5/+32You guys really have to make up your mind on this one..

      Is Apple a tiny, insignificant market share? Or is it a dangerous monopoly?
      • over90000, on 11/30/2007, -10/+14I was talking about "ifs". If you think MS is bad, you don't want Apple in their place. MS is like the lesser evil.
    • ScrumFritter, on 11/30/2007, -2/+7Although, this would only mean more choice for the user. Right now we have a restriction of choice as to what software to use.

      Want to run Windows apps but you're on a mac? Tough, you're going to have to buy Windows. Want to run Mac apps (because yes, there ARE a lot of great mac only apps, let's all grow up and be reasonable here) but you're on Windows? Sorry, you're going to have to switch.

      It is absolutely ridiculous that we have to put up with this. You mean we can't run any software we want on any machine we want? Shouldn't we have standards that PREVENT this? But we all just put up with it (probably because the majority of PC users don't see an issue, most of the apps are made for Windows - but that doesn't mean it isn't a real issue). I hope this isn't just wishful thinking on our part, here. Running any app natively on any OS should be the goal of the software industry, but apparently not.
      • over90000, on 11/30/2007, -2/+7Apple is also a hardware maker. Enjoy buying all your hardware from Apple.
        • mathmanjeffy, on 11/30/2007, -3/+1Apple is also a hardware marketer and distributer.

          There, fixed it for ya.
        • kwilliam, on 12/01/2007, -1/+0mathwhoever is right. I think Asus or Quanta actually manufactures the MacBooks. Apple just designs them.
      • MikeCerm, on 11/30/2007, -2/+4We do have a standard, and it's called the x86 PC. You can run any software you want on it software you want on it. It took a long time, but Apple finally came around.

        What do you consider a standard, anyway? 95% of people use Windows. Seems pretty standard to me. 95% of all the software in the world is written for Windows. Do you think that other Apple and Linux should just quit?

        Standards are nice, but so are alternatives.
    • jacenat, on 11/30/2007, -5/+3it's a large step from sub-10% to a monopoly ... i think we have enough time to react .. *yawn*
      • qualish, on 11/30/2007, -3/+4Automatically buried for "*yawn*".
        • MacSuxWindozSux, on 12/01/2007, -1/+1Automatically buried for "*yawn*".
        • 1timeuser, on 12/01/2007, -0/+0Automatically buried for "*yawn*".
    • BuzzFriendly, on 11/30/2007, -2/+2One could argue that locking out the 90+ percent of the computers that are completely able to run your software from running your software without buying your hardware may in fact be a monopoly. Apple doesn't mind facilitating you running Windows on its hardware but forbids you to do that in reverse is a monopoly. Maybe not all in the legal sense but certainly in the real world sense.
    • GreenAlien, on 11/30/2007, -1/+2@ BuzzFriendly

      I don't know about that. I haven't seen Microsoft attempt (or shown interest) in supporting Mac OS X apps in Windows, let alone seen Apple demand Microsoft not do this.
      • BuzzFriendly, on 12/04/2007, -0/+0True but Microsoft doesn't control your hardware. There is no reason I should not be able to legally run OSX on a HP, Dell or a custom box.
  • honesttussey, on 11/30/2007, -1/+4Interesting proposition if this were true. I wonder what it would do to the mac software market? I see it going two ways. Either killing it, software developers stop making OS X apps because they can just develop for windows and have it work on both platforms or this brings in hordes of people which in turn pressure software developers into making native OS X apps. Very fine line you're treading Apple (if this is true).
    • TheLaughingImp, on 11/30/2007, -0/+6A lot of people have been saying the same thing about Parallels and VMWare, but we haven't seen that happen. None of the companies I am aware of wants the headache of adding virtual machines to their tech support so they either just don't support the Mac or they have a Mac version of their app. Having built-in Windows inside OS X will fall under the same tech support shadow.

      This will benefit power users and geeks, so I see your second point being more on target.
    • GreenAlien, on 11/30/2007, -1/+1If a company deliberately decided not to make native Mac apps then:

      1) They would be avoided unless there really is no Mac equivalent,

      2) Their apps would run slower through emulation. Even if it's a WINE-type project presumably there would be a little overhead from sandboxing the apps or from mapping the Windows APIs to native APIs.

      3) The apps wouldn't look anywhere near as nice because none of the Mac OS APIs like Core Animation could be used.
  • tnoy, on 11/30/2007, -14/+78"Why should I buy a Mac?"
    "Because you can run Windows apps!!"
    • screwattackthis, on 11/30/2007, -11/+3And not suffer from so much malware.
      • bethlagarrison, on 11/30/2007, -1/+1"..inside of OSX"
      • raynar, on 11/30/2007, -4/+2Hi, I'm a PC
        And I'm a Mac...with a PC in me...oooh yea...
        • mathmanjeffy, on 11/30/2007, -1/+4It's like gay fanboy porn...
        • marktastic, on 11/30/2007, -0/+0Haha! I don't know why your comment is getting buried.
    • TheUngod, on 11/30/2007, -11/+10If it runs windows apps, it runs windows malware
      • rebotfc, on 11/30/2007, -3/+4Not necessarily, mallware relies on pre-existing windows subsytems and dlls. Furthermore it relies on being able to operate with full r/w permissions.
      • GreenAlien, on 12/01/2007, -0/+4"If it runs windows apps, it runs windows malware"

        Not if it relies on a bug that doesn't exist in Apple's version of the Windows API.

        Plus nothing stopping Apple from making it with better security like those built-in to the Mac OS. Or from sandboxing individual apps.
    • ScrumFritter, on 11/30/2007, -14/+8"Why should I buy a Mac?"
      "Because you have a wider range of software - Windows apps AND Mac apps."
  • bimtott, on 11/30/2007, -2/+25I don't know about running windows apps...
    ...but if games can load, that's definitely a warm fuzzy.
    • TheUngod, on 11/30/2007, -5/+11Until a year down the road when you want to upgrade your video card for newer games...
      • B1663r, on 11/30/2007, -4/+6Or even last years games...
        • B1663r, on 11/30/2007, -2/+7Ok, I'll bite. Someone with bootcamp and the latest greatest Mac Pro please run out and get a copy of splinter cell double agent (one year old) and tell us what the frame rate is. Mmmm kay?
        • logandurand, on 11/30/2007, -0/+1@Above: Probably wouldn't be that bad a frame rate, but the machine would cost thousands.
    • fugazied, on 11/30/2007, -1/+2If macs can run windows games natively, they will probably add 10% to their PC market share. Stability, security, work beast, beautiful OS that could also play games. I'm not sure what effect DX 10 has on gaming now though, could windows games ever run on a mac ?
    • iChainsaw, on 12/01/2007, -0/+1I will ***** my pants if it is able to run my free 3d aquarium screensaver that i downloaded. I still can't get that thing to work :(
  • plizard, on 11/30/2007, -12/+4you know, linux can run windows apps also. what's so new about this?
    • dinostabOMG, on 11/30/2007, -6/+4What's new about it is that OSX can't yet. But yeah, for those of us with the sense to be using Linux, this is a yawn.
      • moo083, on 11/30/2007, -3/+7Try Crossover for Mac. It uses Wine. Just like Linux. Try again. And don't call using Linux common sense. I stand by my statement that one day Linux might be ready for the everyday Joe, but thats not today. Its too hard dealing with compiling apps. Non-computer folk need drag and drop installs or double clicks, no "./configure; make; sudo make install". Or theres the installers that install all the prereqs and then your app, but they don't have everything or the latest software. Linux is awesome for geeks, but its not ready for regular people. Sorry to break the illusion.
        • Stevo23, on 11/30/2007, -1/+6Compiling? When was the last time you used Linux, 1997? Almost any program I would ever need to install I can do from the package manager with two clicks. It's even easier than drag-and-drop, I don't even need to go find the file to download, and every piece of software on my computer is updated automatically from one centralized location. Package manager FTW.
        • StealthTomato, on 11/30/2007, -0/+1I agree. If Windows had some way of using a package manager, it would be that much better off. Problem is, the implementation for the Windows software library would be impossible.
    • duke, on 11/30/2007, -2/+1*****. I tried. It fails.
      • aldenhg, on 11/30/2007, -1/+3... so you suck at one of the most basic Linux operations? With a fresh install of Ubuntu and an internet connection, I can have a computer running Windows programs in two commands. Of course, i'm limited by what WINE works well with, but that's enough for my purposes.
        sudo apt-get install wine
        winecfg
        Done. Boom. Half-Life 2 or Office XP anyone?
        • duke, on 12/01/2007, -1/+1Not so fast, Tinkerbell. Ubuntu wouldn't even recognize by ethernet card. No problem for XP. Kind of tough to download patches and programs when you have no internet connection.

          Again, no problem with XP. Even people who "suck" (as you put it) can run it without error or circumstance, which is why Linux still fails.
          • aldenhg, on 12/01/2007, -1/+1So download that needed packages in XP, burn them and some instructions to a CD and do what you need to. It's never as hard as people think and well worth the effort.
  • adrianc1982, on 11/30/2007, -14/+6why would we want to run .exe files, thats the whole point of coming to OSX getting rid of buggy software and viruses. Parallels plus Boot Camp will do.
    • over90000, on 11/30/2007, -2/+9So why do you need Parallels or Bootcamp if you don't want to run .exe's?
    • specialK16, on 12/01/2007, -0/+1Oh you mac fanboys; according to you windows apps are all buggy huh?
  • Interestingness, on 11/30/2007, -9/+1Fear the reaper, I read something just like this on another blog, http://Thunkdifferent.com
  • eclipse007, on 11/30/2007, -2/+5Most inaccurate title possible, there's a much much higher chance that PE support in Leopard is related to EFI, how the hell did you come up with that title?!
    • sgoogle, on 11/30/2007, -1/+2Using info and suggestions from the article maybe?
  • MacTyler, on 11/30/2007, -13/+22god these comments are making no sense. Apparently none of yall have ever used a mac. While I am sitting here typing on a MBP there are plenty of things I would like to do, such as run portal without rebooting into my Vista boot camp partition. And no this isn't the same thing as vmware or parallels. I saw one comment on here "Why should I buy a Mac? Because you can run Windows apps!!" that is stupid. If it already runs mac os and its apps, why not add in capability for windows apps too.It has nothing to do with buying a mac TO run windows apps, just an added feature. But I am sure I will get dugg down in the rest of the anti-mac ant-windows moron crowd. oh well.
    • SlimFastForYou, on 11/30/2007, -1/+3Dugg down for "But I am sure I will get dugg down .. moron crowd"
    • GreenAlien, on 12/01/2007, -0/+1"Dugg down for "But I am sure I will get dugg down .. moron crowd""

      I dug him up for making a valid point. No need to be offended unless you consider yourself "anti-mac" or "anti-windows"
      • SlimFastForYou, on 12/01/2007, -0/+2I do it too every now and then, but really I dislike "I will get dugg down" sentences. I was going to digg him up until he said that.
  • 1timeuser, on 11/30/2007, -4/+33Finally, mac users will get to enjoy Space Cadets Pinball 3D.
  • flipmeat, on 11/30/2007, -2/+16The item being pointed to is probably code from Intel for the EFI system. The DLL loader would likely get used in Boot Camp mode, but not in Mac OS X. Most likely nothing going on here. Plus, Cringely is third in nuttiness next to Rob Enderle and John Dvorak, the Brazil nut and coconut of punditry.
    • Bhima, on 11/30/2007, -1/+2yeah, but it's a funny entertaining sort of nuttiness
    • Protoss, on 11/30/2007, -0/+6How is the DLL Loader used in 'Boot Camp Mode'? Boot Camp is just a boot loader, and was in Tiger too, but there was no DLL Loader.
      • m1ss1ontomars, on 11/30/2007, -0/+1A better question might be: "What exactly is 'Boot Camp mode'?"
      • flipmeat, on 11/30/2007, -0/+1I was only referring to using boot camp itself, I certainly don't want to start another rumor!
      • j4200, on 12/01/2007, -0/+1Right
    • B1663r, on 11/30/2007, -0/+3I disagree Cringely is on the other side of roughly drafted in nuttyness, only not a partisan.
    • sgoogle, on 11/30/2007, -1/+2Then why is it so different in 10.4, which had (albeit partial) EFI support
      The Source link (Symbols to Suppress) makes me wonder if Apple are trying to hide this
    • colincornaby, on 12/01/2007, -0/+2If you knew anything about computers, you'd know that your comment makes no sense. EFI doesn't use Windows executables, and OS X has nothing to do with Boot Camp (the bootloader for Boot Camp is in the firmware, not OS X). I would not suggest the parent comment be digged up.
  • hadak, on 11/30/2007, -2/+5All we need is OS X to run Windows apps...then natively support all linux apps. *salivate*
    • B1663r, on 11/30/2007, -4/+6Then no one will ever write a mac app again....
    • GreenAlien, on 12/01/2007, -0/+3"Then no one will ever write a mac app again...."

      Of course they will. The Mac API is the best available. If there is a Windows app, A linux app, or a Mac app with Core Animation and native look 'n' feel I know which one I'd buy.
    • iChainsaw, on 12/01/2007, -1/+1who would want to use linux programs?
      • KungFuJesus, on 12/01/2007, -0/+2amarok > itunes

        there's an example of a time where i'd like to run a linux app
        • hadak, on 12/01/2007, -0/+1Exactly what I was thinking. Good for us, KDE is releasing their KDE4 apps for Windows and OS x
  • WhoDoneIt, on 11/30/2007, -0/+2Since I left college I hadn't been able to afford a good Mac for doing my print design. I was forced to build a PC. That was years ago. But when you've spent all that money and built up a nice PC software collection, it would be quite costly for me to switch back to Mac right now. I would love to have a Mac again to design on and something like this would be perfect for me.
    • rebotfc, on 11/30/2007, -2/+2give OSx86 a try. If you have an Intel CPU its fairly straightforward.
    • B1663r, on 11/30/2007, -7/+6You are suffering from the nostalgia effect. It is not as good as you remember it...
    • jabberwolf, on 11/30/2007, -1/+1Why bother? You can run SLI cards ( and not just for dual monitors) for graphic and Cad Design. That and most design programs work much faster because they support Windows 64 while only have 32 bit program for Mac. Look up autodesk, maya, etc...
  • custerfluck, on 11/30/2007, -18/+13Why not? Leopard seems to crash just as well as Windows.
    • gansito87, on 12/01/2007, -1/+3OMG, I thought I was the only one who had Leopard fail on them time after time. I'm currently on hold with AppleCare, looking for some justice.

      There's no way I'm settling for a 3-week old laptop failing on me.
  • JasonCox, on 11/30/2007, -3/+6Yeah, thats not ever going to happen, you know, courts and all.

    .NET maybe, but not other native apps.
    • fraggle35, on 11/30/2007, -0/+3Actually Apple can legally implement this, can't remember the details but they own some of the rights to the Windows api.
    • sirhomer, on 11/30/2007, -0/+2Kinda of how Microsoft silthered out of anti-trust court? I'm sure Apple will be fine.
    • colincornaby, on 12/01/2007, -0/+2Microsoft signed a patent sharing agreement with Apple. Apple has rights to anything patented as part of Win32. Not to mention... this has already been done by WINE...
  • GideonBlaze, on 11/30/2007, -13/+10Everytime I go near a Windows machine I feel like I do when I step into my dysfunctional cousin's house. You know that feeling? You step in the door -- hear those arched voices, kids mouthing off, parents sniping at each other -- and you take a deep breath, plaster on a courteous smile and proceed with the holiday. Soon enough, a kid breaks something or throws himself into the middle of a conversation with some pointless, I'm-the-center-of-the-universe performance. Someone's gotten too drunk and is spouting offensive opinions or jokes. And all you can think about is getting back home where things are calm and you can get on with your life.

    I can't decide which I hate more, Windows or holidays with my cousins. But, the thought of inviting them over to my home and inviting that chaos is truly stomach churning. Know what I mean?
    • NicklessNick, on 11/30/2007, -5/+3My sentiments exactly.
    • geekee, on 11/30/2007, -4/+7You must be really stupid if you can't figure out how to use Windows.
    • daggah, on 11/30/2007, -3/+2Stupid Apple fanboy.
      • NicklessNick, on 12/02/2007, -0/+0Another absurd comment by the typical Microsoft knuckle-dragger ...
    • shernshiou, on 11/30/2007, -1/+2apple fanboy. boooo
  • Atomike, on 11/30/2007, -8/+7Like almost everyone under 90, I enjoy games occasionally. This article doesn't mean anything to 95% of the population, since Macs are proprietary monopoly boxes that can't use quality graphics cards.
    • postalblowfish7, on 11/30/2007, -4/+4yeah, my 512 meg ATIx1900 really sucks.



      oh wait...
      • daggah, on 11/30/2007, -2/+5Actually your ATi X1900 DOES really suck. It sucked this time LAST year.
    • m1ss1ontomars, on 11/30/2007, -1/+1Well unless you make the computer yourself, you'll end up with a proprietary box. I'm not sure about iMacs, but the Pro lines of desktop Macs have had upgradable graphics cards for quite some time now.
      • logandurand, on 11/30/2007, -0/+1The problem is that I want to be able to upgrade any machine, not just the one at the top of the product line.
  • SmokeMeAKipper, on 11/30/2007, -4/+10John Dvorak was right, Apple will run windows. Who'd a thought.
  • strickla, on 11/30/2007, -3/+0Robert Cringely had some interesting articles on this subject in April of 2006:
    http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2006/pulpit_200 ...
    http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2006/pulpit_200 ...
    http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2006/pulpit_200 ...
  • clak, on 11/30/2007, -6/+14I don't know why Mac users allow the Microsoft clones to say we don't have programs. Here's a quick list of Mac programs you can't get for your PC.

    Final Cut Pro, DVD Studio Pro, Shake, Motion, Soundtrack Pro, Cinema Tools, Compressor, Logic Pro, Main Stage, Studio Instruments, Studio Effects, Aperture, Garage Band, Pages, Keynote, Numbers, NeoOffice, iPhoto, iChat, iWeb, iCal, iMovie, iDVD, EyeTV, WireTap Pro, QuickSilver, Stickies, Photo Booth, Front Row, Expose, Spaces, Dashboard, Time Machine.

    In Addition to the Mac only apps, we have PC apps like Quark Xpress, Avid, Adobe Illustrator, Photoshop, InDesign, After Effects, DreamWeaver, Flash, Acrobat, Word for Mac, Excel for Mac, Powerpoint for Mac, Entourage, Pro Tools, Cubase, Maya, Blender, ArchiCAD, Cinema4D, Lightwave, LightRoom, SketchUp, VectorWorks, Safari, Firefox, iTunes, Quicktime, VLC, Toast, Handbrake, Adium, Google Earth, Skype... the list goes on and on.

    And if by some crazy chance, there is a program or game I can't get for Mac, I can create a partition using Boot Camp and run Windows or Linux natively (that's right, natively. Boot Camp is a partitioner, not a virtual machine). I play CounterStrike on my new iMac 24" and that thing blows away any setup I had when I was a PC user.

    So as you can see, Macs have more programs than PCs, if you take in account that we can run Mac only apps as well as anything on Windows or Linux.
    • Paramour, on 11/30/2007, -5/+6I'll enjoy gaming on my $1200 setup. You enjoy Source on your $2500 dollar setup.
      • clak, on 11/30/2007, -6/+3Actually, I work as a Final Cut Pro editor too, so the machine is not a glorified gaming machine. I also have a G5. But whatever, dude, I look forward to fragging your ass on my $2500 dollar setup.
        • daggah, on 11/30/2007, -4/+3Yes, the size of your bank account is definitely related to your gaming skill.

          Oh, and by the way, my $1500 gaming computer runs most games at full detail settings on 1920x1200. Could a $1500 Mac do that? LOL. $200 8800 GT on the way as an upgrade for my system, as well.
        • daggah, on 11/30/2007, -6/+2Oh, and if anyone's wondering, I picked up my 8800 GT from Dell for $208. I think they raised the price though. Having to wait a few weeks for them to get it in stock was worth it to me considering the amount saved.
        • clak, on 11/30/2007, -3/+4Will you get a 70 percent return on your initial investment whenever you decide to sell you POS PC on Ebay? There's a higher resell value on Macs, haven't you heard? And just so you know, I was a PC user for ten years. I sold my last PC 2 years ago for $400. I put $1500 into it. Not even half what I paid. Mac are just a better value in the long run and I haven't had to swap out any hardware in the four years I've had my G5. It's pretty solid.

          And oh yes, my iMac runs natively at 1900x1200, no problem.
        • clak, on 11/30/2007, -3/+2Oh, I also would like to add, you save a little money on your POS PC in the short term, but then you get reamed on software. Microsoft charges you $450 for Microsoft Office. Even if you go on Amazon and order it, you're paying at least $350. And if you build your own computer, you have to pay at least $200 for Vista Home Basic or as much as $400 for Ultimate.

          No one is disputing that Macs cost more, but what we pay in hardware, is balanced out by what we pay for software. iWork will cost you $79. OS X will cost you $129. iLife comes free with most Macs now. I got it for free with my new iMac.
        • daggah, on 11/30/2007, -4/+2I don't care how much money I get back for my system later on. You pay to play.

          Your iMac won't be running any modern games at 1920x1200 on full detail settings any time soon.

          iWork, iLife, who the ***** cares. I use OpenOffice, and I bought the OEM version of XP and the upgrade version of Vista Premium. The money isn't a concern for me, the performance is. Your ***** iMac can't even handle CURRENT games at 1920x1200 without turning settings down, much less anything in the next year or so.
        • daggah, on 11/30/2007, -4/+2The *best* video card you can get in an iMac is a 256 meg Radeon 2600 Pro. That's not enough video memory for gaming at 1920x1200, and it'll get its butt handed back to it by any good gaming card on the market right now. That bottleneck alone is enough to make the $1,500 (cheapest iMac available with the 2600 Pro) iMac vastly inferior in gaming to a similarly priced gaming PC.
        • clak, on 11/30/2007, -2/+3You don't know what you're talking about. You can put any video card with PCI Express into a Mac Pro. It has four slots internally. In fact, whenever Apple releases their next version, the Mac Pro is definitely going to be my next computer. Now the card you put inside might not be officially supported by Apple, but that doesn't mean you can't access it when you boot up into your Windows partition.

          Now with my iMac, that's another story. I haven't had problems running any games I have from my old PC (primarily CounterStrike Source and GTA, all versions). Of course, I'm kind of behind the times right now. The only new game I really want to play is Orange Box collection from Valve. I'm a big Half-life fan from way back.
        • clak, on 11/30/2007, -2/+3Oh and one more thing, I missed the "iMac" part of your last comment. I thought you were saying that the Radeon was maxed out at the Radeon 2600 on all models. Although I don't know what games you're referring to, my favorite games right now run at 1920x1200, no problem. I get 164 FPS when running the video stress test in Counter-Strike: Source and at least 60 FPS minimum in game.

          Anyway, I'm going to give my iMac to my sister when I finally upgrade my G5 to a Mac Pro early next year. I'm waiting for a Mac Pro model with the new Intel processors to come out. You can also create a RAID internally now, due to a new card Apple just released. I expect it to be introduced at the next MacWorld. I really shouldn't be playing games with my work comp, but I just can't help myself. I guarantee you I won't have any trouble running all of the new games.
        • logandurand, on 12/01/2007, -2/+1@clak: Why should I have to buy Apple's most expensive machine just so I can use the card I want? Most non-Apple x86 machines accept any standard video card, without me having to shell out thousands of dollars to do so. Apple knows that few people have that kind of money, so they don't mind letting you use your own cards. Here's the real challenge: See if Apple will let you modify your mid- or low-end Mac.

          Also, who the hell doesn't get 60+ FPS in CS:S these days? That's a 2004 game, which didn't even take full advantage of the Source Engine.
        • iChainsaw, on 12/01/2007, -1/+3Who the ***** cares about resolution? I play halo ce at the lowest resolution and lowest graphic settings and i kick ass at that game. Just like you said the price of the computer doesn't make your skill better, how pretty the game looks does not relate to game skill.
    • clak, on 11/30/2007, -2/+2Will you get a 70 percent return on your initial investment whenever you decide to sell your POS PC on Ebay? There's a higher resell value on Macs, haven't you heard? And just so you know, I was a PC user for ten years. I sold my last PC 2 years ago for $400. I put $1500 into it. Not even half what I paid. Mac are just a better value in the long run and I haven't had to swap out any hardware in the four years I've had my G5. It's pretty solid.

      Oh, I also would like to add, you save a little money on your POS PC in the short term, but then you get reamed on software. Microsoft charges you $450 for Microsoft Office. Even if you go on Amazon and order it, you're paying at least $350. And if you build your own computer, you have to pay at least $200 for Vista Home Basic or as much as $400 for Ultimate.

      No one is disputing that Macs cost more, but what we pay in hardware, is balanced out by what we pay for software. iWork will cost you $79. OS X will cost you $129. iLife comes free with most Macs now. I got it for free with my new iMac.
      • daggah, on 11/30/2007, -3/+3Pay to play. Gaming computers are built/bought to play, not to resell. They're not investments. (They're similar to tuned cars. No one's car ever goes up in value when aftermarket parts are added.)
      • logandurand, on 12/01/2007, -1/+1Ignoring why you would ever want to sell an old computer, you can't possibly expect computer equipment to be worth much after a year or two. Moore's law at work.

        Also, no one's forcing you to use Windows Vista or Office. XP and OpenOffice work fine for me. I won't deny that Microsoft charges to much, but at least I have a choice in the matter.
    • BuzzFriendly, on 11/30/2007, -0/+2All that software and you still need Windows. Now don't that just beat all?
      Don't get me wrong I would not give up my Mac but I wish they would get with the program on video cards. The selection is rather pitiful considering what is available on the market.
    • jabberwolf, on 11/30/2007, -5/+2Great and now you simply have to pay more money for lesser hardware, lesser compatability with 1000s of PC apps and forums that support tweaking of those programs.

      You get graphics cards that cannot do SLI or Crossfire thus MAC being slower for graphics applications. You get lesser software because developers are sick of dealing with Apple Nazis. EG Autodesk basically making everything for Windows 64 bit and leaving the 32 bit programs for OSX.

      Oh and upgrading your OS every 1-2 years over 6-7 years costing more then the most expensive release of Vista after XP that had no upgrade purchases needed for 6-7 years. Making OSX up-to-date 600+ from release to present.

      It's amazing how mactards ignore the most glaring of facts.
      • iChainsaw, on 12/01/2007, -0/+2from your comment i draw that you are a software developer, you are a graphic artist, and you know nothing about OSX. I have never heard that waiting 6-7 years for a ***** operating system update is a feature. You don't have to update to leopard you know, i usually skip every other release. And in your argument where "you have to be up to date on OSX", you would have to own an ibook generation computer with OS10.1 and then keep it till now. OR, lets just live in the real world for a minute; if i have osx.1 and i upgrade to the latest version, i only have to buy the most recent OSX release...not every single one of them.

        it's amazing how some people make such moot arguements.
    • kriswa, on 03/14/2008, -0/+0lesser hardware is true, if you look at value for money, but with OSX on Intel, anyone can build a cheap hackintosh on standard PC hardware, and buy OSX for it at a fraction of the price of (legit) Windows. not only that, but OSX is infinitely more stable and reliable (thank the Apple Nazis I guess) than Vista... at least until some serious Mac malware is released.

      True there are less programs, but if you evaluate the proportion of software that is truly usable and worthwhile.. the field really narrows substantially, (just look on Download.com -- for every thousand Windows programs, there's typically only one or two that work properly and are worth the money you pay for them).
      while OSX has it's share of trash, the vast majority of top selling applications (written decades ago before Microsoft Windows had the lions' share of the computer market), and are available for both OSX and Windows.

      there are notable exceptions, one being everything that comes out of Autodesk's shining hole -- they seek to dominate the graphics industry by acquisition of all their biggest competitors, in the process ensuring all future applications run only in Windows (to what agenda ?) -- and they are succeeding at that whilst making the most widely pirated applications (whoever said piracy costs the software industry ?)...

      while it's a pity it's not yet supported on OSX, SLI / Crossfire are of dubious value to performance in anything other games playing / development, and even then it's little more than a penny-saving gimmick.

      from the several dozen Mac users I know, upgrading the OS seems to generally only be done when they decide to replace their well-worn computer with a new one. conversely, Windows users are often so keen to upgrade from their current despised Windows version they conveniently forget that a hardware upgrade is almost guaranteed to be needed as well, and then suffer the monstrous slowdowns, incompatibility and instability that follow as a result. the Microsoft-Intel-Autodesk deviant love-triangle has always forced us to upgrade OS/hardware/software all at once, rather than as needed, thanks to their inseparable nature.

      regretably, in my industry, we have no alternative but to use AutoCAD or Revit, (along with Office / CS3 / etc), (Vectorworks / ArchiCAD are only niche products outside of europe) which forces us all to stick with Windows. I and a growing majority of my peers would switch to greener pastures in a heartbeat if we could -- XP was pretty nasty, but Vista is nothing but a 'World of Pain' -- Linux / OSX / anything else ?
  • aliguana, on 11/30/2007, -7/+2if OSX starts running Windows apps, then Windows will start running Mac apps, then Apple will release OSX to compete directly with Windows, and there will be an OS war to end them all. All that will be left will be Google OS. Probably.
    • aldenhg, on 11/30/2007, -0/+4Nope. If Apple were to release OSX as a beige box install-on-whatever-you-want OS they'd lose their biggest source of income: hardware margins. they'd have to charge Vista-esqe prices to turn the kind of profit they're used to and they'd lose all control over what their OS was used on, making it harder to make sure that it "Just Works" (TM). The only reason they're able to guarantee that it'll work perfectly is because they know what every single computer it's going to be installed on has under the hood and they can test literally every possible combination.
      There's nothing to be gained in releasing OSX into the beige box market.
      • PhillyMJS, on 12/01/2007, -0/+3Thank God someone else gets it! I've been posting this sort of thing for years, to counter every 'cheap hardware' jackass that whines about not being able to buy OS X for his homebuilt, generic *****.
        • KurtangleTN, on 12/01/2007, -0/+0I don't think people would be so pissed if Apple had some choice, instead of their entire lineup consisting of "Glorified Laptop-Glorfied Laptop-Actual desktop, blade server, laptop, laptop" Not only are laptop parts more expensive, their obviously less expandable, and less powerful, and this is coming from a guy who just bought an iMac about a month ago, and I love it, but I'd love a customized tower (From Apple too) even more.
          • aldenhg, on 12/01/2007, -0/+1You fail to realize that most people don't ever want to open their computer for anything. You and I (let's call ourselves "Power Users" to make us feel better about being nerds) may not mind popping open the right side of our case to put in a sound/video/tv/firewire/whatever card, but the average person takes their computer at face value and doesn't consider expansion an option.
    • iChainsaw, on 12/01/2007, -0/+2and then you will be baked and then there will be cake.
  • signal15, on 11/30/2007, -0/+3So if it tries to launch a windows binary and looks for DLL's... what would happen if you put those DLL's in place? Would it launch the app?
    • sirhomer, on 11/30/2007, -0/+1It will fail when one of those DLLs make a non-standard syscall (call to the kernel). But you got the idea.
    • geminitojanus, on 12/01/2007, -0/+1Theoretically yes. Practically, no way in hell. The kernels are far too dissimilar.

      This is an executable format people, not a compatibility layer, not anything else. It's like the difference between an MP4 container and an MKV container; they both can hold the exact same data, but they're laid out completely different, so one playback unit can't read the other without support. By adding COFF to OS X, it makes it easier for them to port to other OSes, including making Cocoa available on Windows (or really, any future OS). There's nothing here to indicate Apple's trying to support running Windows Apps, likely the inverse, making Apple's apps better on Windows.

      There's still a lot left to do to get to the point of truly Universal Binaries though; they've still got to make GCC emit COFF (MingW does, but it's undermaintained, and I'm not sure they have any support for the kind of lazy binding Apple's used to date), they've still got to have libraries available, etc.

      So in reality, non-story. Interesting, but no details means nothing to go on really. It could just be investigative, it could be a whole platform shift, it could be the end of the world or the Spanish Inquisition. But until we know, it's boring. Wait for the next developer's event to know.
  • ramenite, on 11/30/2007, -0/+7Ok, this is a non story...let's go over some OSX history.....

    Back in the mid-90's when Apple first got NextStep to be the new OS, they had this really ambitious roadmap that looked something like this. OSX was going to be released on PPC and x86 and sold to anyone that wanted it(no lock to Apple machines). What was the NS API was called Yellowbox, which most people now know as Cocoa. They also had this idea they were going to port Cocoa to everything under the sun, so Cocoa could be an API that was portable. You can still see hints of this in various parts of the API, but it was canned.

    On the PPC side, they also had something called "Bluebox", This was a way to run OS9 applications inside the new OS. OSX/PPC know this as "Classic". They dumped it when they moved to Intel, and as early as 10.3 it wasn't even installed by default anymore.

    On the x86 side, they had a similar thing called "Redbox". This was basically a "Classic for Windows". Idea was current PPC users would use Bluebox to run all their old applications(that were OS9 based), and x86 users would use Redbox to run all their old Windows applications.

    Well, when OSX/x86 got canned, Redbox went with it. Now they were still developing all this stuff in the meantime, but I'm sure getting Redbox to work with anything above Win98 wasn't a big priority. RB probably didn't even work all that well to begin with, being stopped before it really started.

    But there are probably still pieces of RB still in OSX/x86, and that's what you're seeing here with the loading of the executables. If Apple is going to bring back a "Classic for Windows" in maybe 10.6, that's always up for debate. Technically it's possible, and work has already been done on it. This story is a non-starter. It's pieces of old code coming back up to the surface with the release of the x86 version of OSX.
    • schoate09, on 11/30/2007, -0/+3But none of this was in Tiger, ATTA.
    • sgoogle, on 11/30/2007, -0/+1Not in Tiger, so why would old code be added for Leopard
  • DaleoftheUK, on 11/30/2007, -4/+2NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!
  • duke, on 11/30/2007, -2/+6If I could buy a Mac for a reasonable price and know that I could run Windows apps reliably if I needed to (not that I would prefer to, necessarily - just have the option), I would buy a Mac in a heartbeat.

    Failing that, if I knew that I could have the option of running Windows apps reliably in a Linux box, I would run Linux in a heartbeat.

    Please do not talk to me about Wine. Wine = Fail.

    XP is the only OS I know of that runs Windows apps reliably, so I run XP.
    • superkendall, on 11/30/2007, -0/+2The talk about Parallels, or VMWare Fusion - both work fantastically today, and have many features to make Windows applications appear to be integrated with the rest of the Mac system.

      I've tried the Codeweavers stuff for the Mac but it was a lot sketchier for me (as you said), but using a VM for Windows works fantastically.
  • hobbitaussie, on 11/30/2007, -1/+2Parsing a file format does not make running executables any closer. As someone else said elsewhere, this is like 0.5% of the way to running Windows software.
  • FlakeCannon, on 11/30/2007, -0/+1Can't wait for macworld 2008. And one more thing....
  • digitalpencil, on 11/30/2007, -0/+1I don't like the idea of being able to run executables, native in OS/X.. At least if Boot Camp/Parallels screw up it's not going to screw my OS/X partition as well. For now i'm happy with parallels full screen in one space and OS/X in another.
    If only they could sort out fast switching in boot camp...
  • kevinlamb, on 11/30/2007, -0/+0Just what we need.....MacSurfer going to 99 pages.
  • blueZhift, on 11/30/2007, -0/+3Naahhh! Running Windows apps in OS X "natively" would be a bad move. We already saw something like this back in the day with OS/2. OS/2 ran Windows apps (until Windows 95 came out), some would say, better than Windows itself. But that did nothing to promote the creation of native OS/2 applications. Some would say that this actually helped kill OS/2. So I doubt Apple will be going that route anytime soon.
    • jchrisf79, on 11/30/2007, -0/+0You are right about OS/2 and how it could be the same situation for Apple IF they allow Windows apps to run natively on OSX. The question is though, what will Apple do about it? I personally think that the are more upsides from a marketing stand-point to them making Windows apps run natively on OSX then the downside you mention, so Apple will find a solution for it. Not too sure what that solution would be. Ideas?
    • kriswa, on 03/14/2008, -0/+0spot on with OS/2, except that IBM pushed OS/2 too far as a software rather than hardware platform -- apple has always focused on hardware first -- the OS is secondary, so native apple apps will always keep coming as long as there is a performance / usability advantage over the X86-native version.
  • yourfavweapn, on 11/30/2007, -0/+7am i the only one that has heard of using unity mode in vmware fusion? Aside from not playing games, you can run absolutely any windows application side by side with mac os x and have it appear as a window in OSX without having to flip between operating systems or dual boot. As a web developer being able to run Internet Exploder for testing and have it's window in OSX is very very convenient. Plus, you can transfer files back and forth between the two operating systems which kicks massive ass.
    • spectre_25gt, on 11/30/2007, -0/+3My experience with it hasn't been great so far, but I really haven't gotten a huge amount of time in with it yet. Fusion is pretty new, as well. I think they'll get the bugs worked out soon enough.

      Personally I think VMs are definitely the way to go. Let one OS run apps for another natively and you've got twice the chances for security holes, etc.
  • .Steven, on 11/30/2007, -6/+1Um... No.
    Windows = Native.
    Anything else = Virtualisation at best.
    Don't be stupid, this is not happening.
    • sirhomer, on 11/30/2007, -0/+5You have no clue what you are talking about.
  • solidus636, on 11/30/2007, -0/+1So, when are we going to be able to run Mac apps on windows?....
  • 000dom000, on 11/30/2007, -1/+1ok, I thought mac could do everything.
  • sirhomer, on 11/30/2007, -0/+4Apple should help develop Wine.
  • smrekar, on 12/01/2007, -0/+1wow a machine that runs windows apps and has a decent resale value in a couple of years. Is there anything it can't do?
  • casualwarfare, on 12/01/2007, -1/+1The only thing I really miss about Windows is MS Paint :(
    • kriswa, on 03/14/2008, -0/+0I'm sure you're joking -- Paint is the same piece of ***** that came out with Windows 3.0 (possibly earlier), all Microsoft has really added since then is additional file type support.
  • poonaka, on 12/01/2007, -0/+1wish they'd fix the wifi issues first
  • joeanon, on 12/01/2007, -2/+2There is nothing preventing malware on the Mac other than it has only a 10% market share.

    It has the same basic lack of security and stop gap measures of sharing admin rights with users on demand.
    In the end, there is very little different in the security concepts of Linux, Mac of MS. Linux and Mac's main advantage is undeniably not being popular enough to warrant malware developers. Their actual code is a far second on statistically preventing malware vs the probability of being attacked. Just look at the exploit patches Mac and Linux have plenty of potential exploits they are just not being used and the most popular identity theft schemes such as phishing are complete cross platform since they rely on HUMAN ERROR not code as the main weak point.

    Other than security Linux and Mac have little to offer and I argue most of their security comes from their vastly lower probability of being attacked. Beyond that it's just a choice of which icons you like better and giving up the ability to play most games.
    • mrBitch, on 12/01/2007, -0/+1*****, I dug you up by mistake. You obviously know absolutely nothing about Unix based OS, and even less about Windows.
  • ZephyrNinety, on 12/01/2007, -1/+3What applications do you really want to run that aren't on a Mac or have an equivalent anyways?

    Windows for games.
    Linux for customization and servers.
    Mac for everything else.

    They're all good at what they do, personally, I say use all three.
  • Fl4sh, on 12/01/2007, -0/+1If I wanted to run Window's apps, I wouldn't have spent $2500 on a computer. And If I need to run a Windows app, I have Boot Camp, Parallels Desktop, and my family computer which is running Windows XP. I don't need OS X to run Windows apps. I need OS X to run Mac apps.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 59 of 59 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.