MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

It seems that Apple didn't have a choice except to somehow support booting Windows.

What effect would the virtualized Windows have on the OS X performance once it is inundated with spyware and adware?

The ultimate solution would as states so many times before, to be able to run windowsapps in mac os x.
Correct me if i'm wrong but wouldn't it be easier to emulate the windows32 api than to emulate a whole computer..that way it would leave a smaller memoryfootprint and you would be able to run your windows programs just like you run ppc code under rosetta?

(and if you do correct me, don't just state that it wouldn't provide some info pretty please)

http://openosx.com/wintel/ - wasnt this 1st though?

This is a better idea then boot, re-boot, boot, re-boot of the Apple solution; which as the auther says is just not practical.

"I'm also skeptical that drivers written for Windows XP will work seamlessly on this unfamiliar hardware platform."

I thought Apple solved this problem by buringing you a disk of XP drivers during the Boot Camp installation process. Am I confused? Also, what's unfamiliar about the hardware platform? Aren't all the internals the same as every beige box? Does XP somehow know there's an Apple logo on the outside?

Now I can run Windows but have the the great hardware and design of Apple. I so wish the Cube had been an Intel, it would have looked great on the credenza.

This is just the first step. I have no doubt "switching" between the two OS's will come later. But Apple need's to take the time to do it right so virus attacks on one OS does not effect the other.

Security first!

Hey, all you tech heads out there, I pose a question?

Is it possible for Apple to eventaully have windoze available on the MAc like user switching and also have the UNIX bottom line protect it from Viruse's.

If apple can do that and offer all the protection we have as OS X users and give the Windoze world the same experience would they then not control the computing world???????

Food for thought, is it possible?

Leo

littleman - macs use efi instead of bios to run os on computer and as far as i know they still make there own motherboards not the standard intel ones that beige boxes use.

Emil, I agree implementing Windows 32 API would be the best solution for the users. However, it probably is not right solution for Apple in long term. Win32 API on OSX may give some dual platforms application developers, like Adobe, an execuse to stop developing for OSX. Better solution for Apple may be license Cocoa for Windows to the application developer, so they stop developing application using Win32 API (I'm not sure if Apple has kept a copy of Cocoa for Windows up to date or not).

VM solution should run almost as fast as native Windows on Intel Mac. It just require more memory (hard disk and RAM).

I actually think the drivers will work better with the Mac since most things do. Hence why the initial tests show Windows is "blazing" on the Mac....

I think the point being missed here, is that this is not a finished product. Maybe the first step is a dual boot, and the next step is a windows environment a la classic? Everyone seems to be going off on how bad a dual boot is, but let's just calm down and see what Apple has in store. Come on folks, relax.

Both environments are important.

Making computer dual boot, turns Apple into a high end hardware vendor to all companies that use wintel. Also provides an entrypoint into the OS X environment for potential "switchers" including both companies and individuals

Virtual environment is good for Mac users that need to run an occasional windows application without having to shutdown their primary operating system.

Great news for computer users. Not sure how it will play out for Apple. It will be interesting to see. Apparently many analysts think its a good thing.

-jl

I smell a rat!

Is it possible that Apple has done a deal with M$ and this is why they are recompiling VISTA to make it fully compatible with Apple hardware and the new Intel technology. M$ don't care where they sell Windoze as long as they sell, sell, sell. Remember they are strictly a software company.

Apple might just be the vehicle for them to make the break from the backward compatabilty bullshit they have been stuck with. They already have a plethora of systems for every dog, why not make their corporate special available for the Mac only and nothing to do with BIOS.

Stranger things have happened.

If gamers are the first audience for windows apps on a mac, regardless of whether the technology employed is Virtualization, Emulation or Dual Booting... none of it will be worthwhile unless and until the performance is within 5% of native OS X.

If the target audience is business users... Dual Booting will not do the trick regardless of performance. Virtualization or Emulation will be the name of the game for them as long as performance is within 10% of what they are used to from their Dell.

I have no need to run windows games on a mac, WoW is already universal binary and runs fantastically well on the MacBook Pro. But there is ONE single bussiness app that I have a Dell laptop for. If I could run that seamlessly, at least as fast as the Dell laptop does, I would not care whether it were Virtualization or Emulation. I'd pay for that to get rid of the Dell.

MW="nation"... Windows machiNations are no match for the Mac Nation.

andy,

As far as I know, some PCs do come with EFI capabilities, even though XP (and someday Vista) don't use them. Also, don't at least some PC manufacturers design their own boards, at least on some of their systems?

I guess my main point is that the sentence I quoted sounds a lot like FUD to me.

I think Apple's ultimate end game is to make the Mac the platform for developers. Rather than make a direct frontal assault on Fortress Microsoft, Apple is taking a more crafty approach to undermine the enemy from the inside out.

That is, I actually give credence to the MacOSRumors rumor about the revival of Yellow Box. I don't think it's any coincidence that Apple decided to coin the term "Universal Binary" because I think they truly mean "universal."

That is, if a developer switches to Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard and Xcode, they will be able to create, in one stroke, an application that runs on PPC Macs, Intel Macs, and Windows. No more of this archaic mess of maintaining dual code base. In the future, Apple intends nothing less than this: all software development will be based on the Mac.

The obvious benefit is that there will always (more or less) be a native Mac version of all software. Furthermore, developers would be using Apple's set of APIs (and thus bypassing Win32 APIs) that would install separately on a Windows machine, just like the whole QuickTime package is installed when people install iTunes. The only exception to this would be games, which rely on DirectX APIs.

I mean, think about it. Adobe is already working on migrating all their Mac software to Xcode. What if in August, Apple announces that "Hey, with another click of this new button here, that Mac Photoshop you have on Xcode there can produce a highly optimized Windows Photoshop."

Adobe will look at the tens of millions of dollars they spend doing Windows programming, look at Xcode which can produce both Mac and Windows versions easily and simultaneously, and guess what do you think will happen?

Revolution in the Valley, indeed.

On the other hand, the approach used by Apple is the same used by just about every Linux distribution, and is only a first stab.

Also, I can't imagine it will be long before you will have the option to boot into OS X, Windows XP, or Ubuntu/Red Hat/Debian, etc. Maybe a fourth option for people that want straight BSD, etc.

OpJ,

Exactly - the Mac is gaining the reputation of being the ULTIMATE tool for power users and alpha geeks. That's the main point of Boot Camp.

And all this whining about "Meh - virtualization is better." It sounds like the typical elitist Slashdot reaction to the iPod introduction, i.e. "Meh. $399. No wireless. Lame." Can you say, "missing the point?"

Truly, people seem to want everything, all at once, for free. Umm, how about noting the fact that Boot Camp was released at all (in beta form) and that it remains to be seen how exactly Boot Camp will be integrated into Leopard in August?

It sounds like this guy will be getting a intel mac soon if this VMware does everything he would like. And the cost of $49.00 is very good.

NewType:

This particular Yellow Box scenario has been repeated by a few people, but I think it's flawed.

Where's the money? To sell a few more units to developers (major minority there)? Considering how many designers and hackers are already on board with OS X, there's not much room for growth.

And real windows shops will *never* switch over to Xcode. If you're on board with Visual Studio, .Net, SQLServer and all that rot, Xcode will never cut it, nor provide properly integrated windows code.

And I think we can count MS out for switching.

Which leaves Adobe. So in your plan Apple is going to do all of this to save Adobe some pain? Nah. Adobe will get their ports done, lagging a bit as usual.

Same for all the zillions of little crap VB monkeys who've churned out the little specialized apps over the years that a few people rely on.

I'm just not seeing any monetary or strategic advantage in what you're proposing.


*If* Apple is working on Cocoa/Carbon/YellowBox for windows, I would have to presume it's mostly for their own internal purposes, to make iTunes easier to maintain, or to release new apps for Windows. Which could be a distinct possibility.

And if that happens, my guess it would be something analogous to iTunes/iPod. A gadget to sell to the masses, with some accompanying software that must be able to run on Windows.

Actually the REBOOT problem will be taken care of when you use the Windows session. I mean come on, how long can you actually run Windows WITHOUT having to REBOOT for one reason or another!

For my use the virtualization is much better, I need to run the Windows version of Quicken and maybe a couple of other Windows only apps, just like VPC would allow.

Randolph,

As a software developer, I would LOVE to see YellowBox come back. If I could take my Cocoa app and focus on Mac development plus get the bonus of Windows users as well: Perfect!

Apple would do this not just for Adobe, but for the promotion of XCode and "Mac First" development. Build it on a Mac using our Foundation Classes (the best libraries on any platform--thank you NeXT!) and create the best Macintosh AND Windows applications with one click.

This means that all the coolest new applications come out on the Mac no later than Windows. It's a win-win for developers and users.

>If I knew I could install a software layer like VMWare or Virtual PC and toggle instantly between the Windows environment and the Mac OS, with the ability to share data files and a Clipboard, I’d be sorely tempted to buy an Intel-based Mac," Bott writes. "Want to take bets on how soon it will happen?"<

Want to take bets on how soon Apple buys Parallels, Inc. and integrates that solution into OSX? That's why Steve Jobs keeps $9 billion in his sock drawer. If I'm the guys at Parallels, I'm picking out my new Jag right now.

I doubt Yellow Box was ever dropped from Apple's development, considering it preceeded Cocoa. Just like intel version of OSX, they probably are still keeping it alive as an option.

As MS did to Apple with their VisualStudio for MacOS, Apple can do same to MS with Yellow Box / Cocoa. Get the developers off Win32 API and get them over to Cocoa. Hopefully Apple does better job than MS did with single code tree multiple platform application development platform.

Caruso: "Want to take bets on how soon Apple buys Parallels, Inc. and integrates that solution into OSX"

I think Apple already has a VM solution running. They can support VM at Mach kernel level (MkLinux group claimed one time they run two version of linux on Mach to test new version. The older version was running, so they can use the debugger). If Parallels, Inc. becomes popular solution, they will probably put their version with Leopard.

Kevin:

OK, I'll grant that there might be some strategic advantage for Apple, but I still don't see it being very profitable.

So Apple helps out 3rd party developers such as yourself to... port your apps to windows? Out of charity because there's not enough software for windows? To make sure that there are zero Mac-only apps?

I know YOU would LOVE it, I'm just saying I don't see the business logic.

Well, truly, there is no grand conspiracy, IMHO, to answer anyone who thinks this is about a behind the scenes M$/Apple deal that we don't know about.

It is more likely that Apple wants to accommodate M$ windows, to sell more hardware, to gain more of the market, to eventually win out the "greatest" title (though I'd say they've already earned it). In short, this brings more people into the Apple fold.

It is smart for Apple to not bother with virtualization. Let the public mind know that Windows works fine on a Mac. The word is now out! That is such a huge, huge leap. It is staggering. That is going to hit the public hard. Apple can let third parties make it easier, but for now it's just possible (and better even) for Windows on a Mac.

Man.

What an amazing leap. Apple will only gain. I can't wait to tell my friends on PCs, but I won't even have to.

This Bott guy is right on. It's difficult to predict how Boot Camp will affect the future development and sales of Macs and OSX, but I think we can all agree that put on the same system, people will have a side-by-side comparison of the 2 OSes, and we all know what any sensible person would choose. I see this as a nose-to-nose battle between OSX and Windows, right on the same system. It's a bold strategy to both bridge the paradigms and settle once and for all which OS is superior. I hope it sells Macs like crazy, but I sincerly hope a virtualization solution with comparable performance is right around the bend. That would appease Macheads and the inevitable needs of Mac buyers who THOUGHT they still wanted Windows until they tried OSX. Going to be an amazing year unless it backfires. I have a good feeling it will work and be the biggest thing since Apple started making iTunes for Windows. The former stategy of attracting switchers based on comparison-contrast marketing (the little there was) just wasn't working. Humans do what's convenient, not what's sensible. We all know that.

Do you guys want some cheese with all that whine? What is the big deal about dual booting? It's not like we're talking an hour process here. IT"S BETA!!! Who knows what we'll eventually have as a solution. Besides, the dual boot and partitions protect the OSX side from those nasty Windows things that float around the www.

We already have a MacBookPro set-up with this solution, XP is blazingly fast on a Mac.