This entry was posted on Monday, April 24th, 2006 at 5:16 and is filed under Analysis & Commentary, Software. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Site Search:
Monday, April 24, 2006
Let the debate once again begin as well known writer Robert X. Cringely is saying that Leopard is going to straight up run Windows applications like OS/2 use to!
Cringely goes out on a ledge and writes:
I believe that Apple will offer Windows Vista as an option for those big customers who demand it, but I also believe that Apple will offer in OS X 10.5 the ability to run native Windows XP applications with no copy of XP installed on the machine at all.
This is much like IBM did with OS/2 2.0 with its big selling point of being able to run Windows 3.0 applications. There was no need to buy a copy of Windows and install it on OS/2 or pay IBM an extra fee so it could pay for the license of Windows. Nope, OS/2 just straight up executed any Windows 3.0 application as if it were a native OS/2 app when double clicked. Cringely irons it out by saying, “This will be accomplished not by using compatibility middleware like Wine, but rather by Apple implementing the Windows API directly in OS X 10.5.”
Unlike IBM, Apple won’t have to worry about Microsoft changing things to stop OS X from starting Windows applications as Redmond did to all the dismayed OS/2 users when Windows 3.1 applications started turning up. No, because of the anti-trust lawsuit against Microsoft, Bill Gates’ company can no longer check, “For a different underlying OS,” as Cringely continues in his proof of the next Windows app running Mac OS.
Even better, remember that Steve Jobs signed the dotted line with the Evil Empire in 1997 that gave both companies a five-year patent cross-licensing agreement. Many, myself included, figured Microsoft would loot the labs of Cupertino and Jobs would never get that CEO job for sure after Apple fell deeper into its abyss. But take note of the signing date and when Windows XP was release. October 25, 2001 was the date the Luna interface of XP hit desktops around the world which was 10 months before the agreement was to expire. Thus, Apple had full access and rights to the API. Since the agreement allows for the technology to be used, that was developed during the five year covenant, even after expiration of the deal, Apple’s definitely been running Windows API’s in OS X for some time for sure. Remember how long OS X was running on Intel chips? Yup, since 10.0. But if you don’t believe me, then believe Cringely because he has sources who have seen!
I’m told Apple has long had this running in the Cupertino lab — Intel Macs running OS X while mixing Apple and XP applications. This is not a guess or a rumor, this something that has been demonstrated and observed by people who have since reported to me.
So will we see Steve Jobs opening Internet Explorer in OS X at this years WWDC? Will he gleefully show how spyware will be attaching itself to IE’s Browser Help Object (BHO), a favorite trick of malware, and how it won’t even effect OS X? I’m sure he will — heck, I know he will! He’ll cheerfully tell the stunned crowd for the second year in a row that Apple is giving its customers what they want and how only Apple is the company that cares about its customers because it listens to them. I can hear it now, “Why wait for Vista when you can have it now?” Trust me, Leopard will ship before Vista and this alone with the Windows API embedded into the OS will make for wonderful holiday sales for MacIntel hardware. Hoo-hoo-hoo!
April 24th, 2006 at 7:04
One of my buddies said this to me:
“Cringley…
I don’t make a habbit of remember Mac columnists names, but this guy makes stuff up in every article. He’s usually wrong.”
April 24th, 2006 at 7:07
The one fly in this ointment is that this approach would lock Apple into XP technology. While OSX might have all the spiffiness that Vista is promising, this approach would seem to have zero upgrade path. Eventually — inside of a year, actually — the Apple solution would seem passe. That doesn’t seem very Apple-like.
April 24th, 2006 at 7:17
Doesn’t this also mean that all sorts of Windows headaches like viruses/spyware/adware etc. would be able to run/function using this Windows API technology?
April 24th, 2006 at 7:40
And What about next Xcode capable of building OS independent Apps or build Mac And Windows version of App? Or something similar.
Best wishes
Frantisek
April 24th, 2006 at 7:46
“Apple had full access and rights to the API” I think you’re wrong, have you see the agreement between Apple and m$?
“Remember how long OS X was running on Intel chips” If you’re talking about OS X beta, it was just NeXt OS, and it was running on wintel for years before being bought by Apple.
Well, i believe that Apple has it running in their R&D labs, but they will not release it as an Apple packaged software because it will ruin all Mac developers is the same as Apple saying to Adobe: “Hey, stop porting Creative Suite for Mactel, OS X can run the wintel version fine!”.
April 24th, 2006 at 8:26
The coming virtualization is forcing things in this direction. Virtualization means having the ability to run any OS on any machine. I believe this was partly behind the decision to move to Intel. Either Apple leads-or they will be led on a leash. Over the next few years you will be able to run any software on OSX ( and visa versa).
April 24th, 2006 at 8:26
The coming virtualization is forcing things in this direction. Virtualization means having the ability to run any OS on any machine. I believe this was partly behind the decision to move to Intel. Either Apple leads-or they will be led on a leash. Over the next few years you will be able to run any software on OSX ( and visa versa).
April 24th, 2006 at 8:57
Let’s not forget that it was that amazing ability to flawlessly run Windows apps that stifled development and ultimately killed OS/2. Why would anyone develop for two platforms when you can reach the whole target audience by developing for only one?
April 24th, 2006 at 12:27
I am certain Apple will provide a Windows environment, but that’s not all!
Look back to Rhapsody (the precurser to OS X). After Apple bought NeXT, the OpenStep based Rhapsody was running on Intel and it could not only run Windows NT apps without Windows… Rhapsody apps could run on Windows NT using the Yellowbox runtime. In other words, if Apple uses this you will be able to write the code for an app once, then compile for Power PC OS X, Intel OS X, …and Windows!
The original Rhasody architecture was to do the following:
-run native Mac OS 8 (later called “classic” in OS X)
-run OpenStep apps
-run Windows apps natively using the “Red Box” part of the architecture (that is, without using the windows OS).
-allow Windows to run Openstep apps (now OS X) by using the “Yellow Box” which created a run time environment for Windows NT.
This was actually part of the amazing OpenStep technology! In other words, after developers write the app the compiler would have three check boxes… mac OS X Power PC, Mac OS X Intel, — and — Windows! Apple couldn’t do this until now because there is no way Windows could run on a Power PC without some heavy duty emulation. Now they are on Intel it’s good to go. You could bet Intel’s excellent complier engineers are doing some heavy lifting with this :)
Why would they do this? Apple needs to throw the Mac Developers a bone to keep them from jumping ship and just writing Window apps, instead of the expensive proposition of writing for two different platforms. That should make the Mac developers pretty happy, and maybe attract more developers to Mac tools. It is a must to do this for Apple to have the level playing field it wants and keep a supply of native OS X apps coming.
I don’t have any good sites to recommend to find out more, but if you weren’t around during this fascinating era in Apple’s history google rhapsody and “red box”. Back to the future, big time! It will be a wild WILD WWDC again this year!
April 24th, 2006 at 12:45
Don’t you think that that is where this is all heading anyway?
April 24th, 2006 at 12:55
is the same as Apple saying to Adobe: “Hey, stop porting Creative Suite for Mactel, OS X can run the wintel version fine!”.
Exactly!
April 24th, 2006 at 18:59
Apple will never say that–and we hope they don’t stop developing for both platforms–but tell me how you see virtulization effecting this. When any machine can run any OS–do you think that Adobe will still write for both platforms? Apple’s trump card will be to have the ability to run Windows apps without opening the Windows OS–natively under OSX. I know that this can be done, and I believe it’s not that far away until we see it again. The release of Boot Camp must have made Adobe call a quick conference meeting.
April 24th, 2006 at 20:18
If Apple is to be successful in creaming Microsoft, they will have to move very carefully in this area. As has been mentioned above, there is much risk in implementing the Windows API — many software companies would quit porting their apps to the Mac because the Windows API would be enough.
There is a very delicate balance between attracting/keeping users and attracting/keeping developers. Whatever they do will have to achieve both, and that is a very difficult task.
Some people might say the supierior Mac OS API is enough to attract developers, with its awesome features such as Core Data, Core Image, Core Video, etc… My opinion is that these features are enough to attract new developers or small developers, but not big companies like Adobe.
Adobe probably has one codebase for the user interface and the underlying functions, with sophisticated methods of building for both platforms (that are more highly optimized for Windows — boo). To attract Adobe to the Mac OS API, Apple would have to do something like license YellowBox to them.
As I wrote before, it’s a very delicate balance and a tough decision. Apple, be careful please. Maybe you could run Windows apps under an X11-like interface…