“One of the best things about the launch of Windows Vista — finally — is that it clears the decks. Now we can look past it to the really interesting operating systems coming in the future, like Apple’s version of OS X that will natively run Windows XP applications. I swear I’m not making this up. But other people may be,” David DeJean writes for InformationWeek.
DeJean writes, “People like Robert X. Cringely, for one. The host of PBS’s NerdTV and online columnist earlier this year published a run of weekly columns on the subject of Apple’s OS strategy post-Vista. Boot Camp had just been announced, so he couldn’t take credit for predicting that one, and some of his forecasting is so far out there it sounds like science-fiction. But some of the other things he said in April have turned out to be pretty prescient. Like, Vista ‘will really be Windows XP SP4 with a new name’ (there’s room for argument, but I’d say the statement is covered by the Cringester’s literary license), and ‘I predict that Apple will settle on 64-bit Intel processors ASAP’ (a process that’s well underway).”
So what does Cringely prognosticate for the Mac crowd?
1. Vista on Macs (virtualized): Cringley says something that is may have been a wild-eyed prediction in April but in December is beginning to sound like a draft press release: that maybe Apple should just buy Parallels, Inc.
2. XP apps on Macs without XP: Leopard will run native Windows XP applications with no copy of XP installed on the machine at all — no virtualization, no emulator software like Wine, but by implementing the Windows API directly in the OS.
MacDailyNews Note: Wine Is Not an Emulator.
3. OS X on PCs: After Apple gets all its hardware to 64-bit Intel processors, it will “announce a product similar to Boot Camp to allow OS X to run on bog-standard 32-bit PC hardware, turning the Boot Camp relationship on its head and trying to sell $99 copies of OS X to 100 million or so Windows owners.”
DeJean writes, “Would I like a version of OS X to install on my PC that will run all my Windows apps and free me from having to ever think about Vista again? Uh, let me think about it. OK, I’ve thought about it. Cash or credit card?”
Full article here.
Related articles:
Run Windows apps on Apple Macs without Microsoft Windows – October 10, 2006
CrossOver Mac runs Windows applications on Mac OS X without Microsoft Windows – August 31, 2006
Apple’s Schiller: No virtualization in Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard, ‘our solution is dual boot’ – July 10, 2006
RUMOR: Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard to feature virtualization, ‘living interface elements’ and more – May 30, 2006
Apple ready to take back market share; may debut Windows virtualization in Mac OS X Leopard – April 21, 2006
Cringely: Apple plans to provide best darned Windows experience anywhere -even better than Microsoft – April 15, 2006
Apple’s Boot Camp is first step towards Mac OS X Leopard’s inevitable support for virtualization – April 11, 2006
Cringely predicts Apple Boot Camp for non-Apple PCs to allow Mac OS X to run on generic x86 boxes – April 07, 2006
RUMOR: Apple’s Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard to include VMWare-like ‘Chameleon’ virtualization software – March 24, 2006
“3. OS X on PCs…”
NOT happening…period.
wow! Make that WOW!!!
…no emulator software like Wine,…
WINE: Wine Is Not an Emulator. The acronym says it all. It does not emulate, but it implements Windows API on the top of UNIX/linux.
Who cares about Vista on a Mac.
The only reason to run any flavor of windows is to run applications which are not available for the Mac, like, e.g., AutoCad. As long as I can do that, Vista brings nothing to the table that we cannot do with OSX. I could as well just use Windows 2000 and run AutoCAD with it.
Of course, the best scenario is to find OSX native alternatives to those few windows-only programs and to dump them like a bag of thrash.
Developers, developers, developers. Oh, the irony.
Apple will not do virtualization, but I could imagine that they have to buy Parallels so that M$ doesn’t grab it first (and kill it). If Apple did buy Parallels, that would be something.
The only thing we know is that things are going very well, and there are a lot of people new and old with their eyes on Apple, eagerly awaiting the next insanely great thing.
Great time to be an Appleite.
OS X on PC’s MAY happen…but not for some time. Not until the Mac gains MAJOR market share in hardware. It would require either NO support from Apple (“I can’t get my printer to work on my Dell running OS X!”)
or an act of God…
what a load of bull, lol, apple have stated no virtualisation – too many head aches, detracts from, it just works. plus osx on pc’s hahahah
OS X on PCs? Why do people continue to speculate on this point?
It’ll NEVER happen.
One of the (many) reasons that the Mac OS has always run so smoothly and predictably (with exceptions, of course) has been that Apple controls the hardware and writes OS code or a relatively limited list of hardware configurations.
Toss OS X into the cesspool of generic PC boxes and it won’t be OS X.
Apple will NEVER allow Mac OS X to run on generic hardware.
Yes indeed! Now THIS is my kind of stuff! Count me as approving and enthused on all of it.
Quote: “Apple will NEVER allow Mac OS X to run on generic hardware.”
True, but I could see them licensing Apple designs to a select few tier1 vendors.
Steve Jobs will not license OSX.
He controls the whole “widget” and will not change from that.
But Window’s APIs on OSX…now we’re talking!
Actually I could see it if they limited it to 32 bit or somehting, so if you want a “real mac” you still need to buy a “real mac”
no matter what we need a cheaper mac.. the mini is too much $$$
It will all happen on Mac Hardware, or, it will not happen at all!
Apple will not sell a couple of hundred dollars of software to run on a $900 dollar PC, when they can offer all the crappy PC software will run on a $1500 Mac. Best of both worlds for the consumer and Apple get to sell more Macs.
Hey tt, you must be a poor bugger if you cannot afford a mini?
Go get another job for a few weeks and save up.
> …But Window’s APIs on OSX…
The ultimate irony … running Windows apps better’n Windows can. That would make one very large company break a lot of chairs.
Windows APIs built-in to OS X?
Yes, so we can get all the Windows viruses and spyware
Yes, so developers can write applications for Windows with all their UI crappiness, and not OS X and claim “but it runs on Macs”
Yes, so we can crash just like the rest of them
I don’t believe it will happen. Between Boot Camp, Parallels, and the upcoming VMWare packages, we have enough Windows compatibility to offer. Win APIs would be a very bad thing for OS X.
>> DeJean writes, “Would I like a version of OS X to install on my PC that will run all my Windows apps and free me from having to ever think about Vista again? Uh, let me think about it. OK, I’ve thought about it. Cash or credit card?” <<
Why don’t you just BUY A MAC? Schmuck.
Give the PC users Tiger after Leopard comes out. Keep them at least 1 release behind. It may not help Mac sales, but it would certainly help revenue, and people would be more likely to consider a Mac for the next purchase. It would also be very damaging to Microsoft.
Numbers 2 and 3 will NEVER happen. 2, because OSX would immediately become susceptible to all the windows spyware and malware. Also Apple doesn’t want to give developers an excuse not to develop native OSX applications. So 2 is out of the question. As for 3, well, Apple is Apple precisely because OSX only runs on their hardware. Apple is working hard to make their hardware more affordable for average joes, With time, there will be no reason anyone will want to run OSX on dells and gateways and hps, because everyone will be using macs anyway.
As for 1, I get the sneaky feeling that Parallels really is a spin off of technology Apple had already developed, but they had their hands full and decided to sell it off to a company that could devote more time to developing the product into a mature, stable, easy to use product. And I think the results are impressive. Also, it makes sense to not put all your eggs in one basket, by having a third party developer, you relieve some of the heavy lifting Apple has currently got to go through to prepare all the products they have in the pipeline, especially regarding Leopard.
Anyway, these are just my thoughts.
Am I the only one that gets irrationally annoyed at the circular logic used in naming Linux software?
Wine In Not and Emulator… W.I.N.E.
So why not call it FINE, or TINE? It would have the exact same effect.
The claim LINUX stands for Linux Is Not UniX has always seemed equally preposterous, especially given the name of its creator.
Have I been missing something all these years, or are Linux people really that strange?
-c
MW: ‘single’ (and loving it)
Quote: “As for 1, I get the sneaky feeling that Parallels really is a spin off of technology Apple had already developed, but they had their hands full and decided to sell it off to a company that could devote more time to developing the product into a mature, stable, easy to use product. And I think the results are impressive. Also, it makes sense to not put all your eggs in one basket, by having a third party developer, you relieve some of the heavy lifting Apple has currently got to go through to prepare all the products they have in the pipeline, especially regarding Leopard.
Anyway, these are just my thoughts.”
I agree. Parallels came out of the gate too fast to not have had some serious help from Apple. However, someone posted a message here that frightened me – Apple should buy Parallels before Microsoft does (and kills it). My career relies on two applications that do not run on Macs, but for the past 2 years and 1 month I am a die hard Mac user. So, Parallels was a life saver for me. I can still use my Mac 100% of the time and run those two applications that are critical to my job. If it wasn’t for Parallels I would have to either carry two laptops or stay with Windows <shudder!>
Hey, MacDan2004,
Before you start lugging around a windows box along with your Mac, how about trying Bootcamp? That will always be there, regardless of what happens to Parallels. It’s working fine for me…
Does that mean I can play Flight Simulator on my Mac?*!
Purleaze say yesss…
“OS X on PCs? Why do people continue to speculate on this point?”
Well let’s see there, maybe it’s because people said the same exact thing about OS X on Intel? Only a fool would rule out this possibility. I, for one, think it would be awesome. And I honestly doubt Apple would miss out on much of their hardware sales. I’d still buy Apple machines.
Bootcamp just shows the versatility that has allowed Windows to become such a big thing. And the Windows API for anything other then Windows? Sure. Just don’t expect Direct X. It is the reason Windows has survived to this point. It is the only suitable gaming rig, especially since you can’t mod a mac. Microsoft is learning from its mistakes, but you can count on this: YOU WILL NEVER RUN DIRECT X ON ANYTHING OTHER THEN WINDOWS LEGALLY, JUST AS MACS WILL NEVER BE ON CUSTOM HARDWARE!!!
Computers are good at all three, but a Mac is best at making content, Linux best at serving it, and Windows best at viewing it, last I checked. Bootcamp allows me to get past the crippled video editing Windows has, while letting me game. Vista may change that, as Microsoft is working hard to cover serving and making content (C#, XNA, ect.) While the other big two are working on viewing content.