Comments on: Leopard to Run Windows Apps via API Just Like OS/2 Did

By: Roy

Roy — Tue, 25 Apr 2006 04:18:30 +0000

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…

By: Randy

Randy — Tue, 25 Apr 2006 02:59:35 +0000

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.

By: nak

nak — Mon, 24 Apr 2006 20:55:34 +0000

is the same as Apple saying to Adobe: “Hey, stop porting Creative Suite for Mactel, OS X can run the wintel version fine!”.

Exactly!

By: Randy

Randy — Mon, 24 Apr 2006 20:45:33 +0000

Don’t you think that that is where this is all heading anyway?

By: dave60607

dave60607 — Mon, 24 Apr 2006 20:27:15 +0000

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!

By: Bogey

Bogey — Mon, 24 Apr 2006 16:57:04 +0000

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?

By: Randy

Randy — Mon, 24 Apr 2006 16:26:26 +0000

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).

By: Randy

Randy — Mon, 24 Apr 2006 16:26:09 +0000

By: wilson

wilson — Mon, 24 Apr 2006 15:46:40 +0000

“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!”.

By: Aladin

Aladin — Mon, 24 Apr 2006 15:40:24 +0000

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