Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Run Windows Applications Natively in OS X?

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the predictiontastic dept.

mcho writes "Unlike other speculators, who get no spam, Robert X. Cringely offers an intriguing reason behind Apple's recent strategy of Boot Camp. From the article: '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 will be accomplished not by using compatibility middleware like Wine, but rather by Apple implementing the Windows API directly in OS X 10.5.'

42 of 521 comments (clear)

  1. tap, tap, tap, .. there's no place like OS X... by yagu · · Score: 3, Interesting

    He points out one of the difficulties WINE has had keeping applications healthy:

    Wine is great, but it is also a moving target subject to Microsoft meddling. If Wine gets too good, Microsoft can "accidentally" break it at will. But Microsoft can't afford to do that with its own Windows API. The courts will no longer allow checking for a different underlying OS as Redmond did back in the days of DR-DOS. Besides, unless we are strictly talking about Microsoft apps, there isn't even much code involved here that Microsoft CAN meddle in.

    I wonder that his assumption Microsoft can't break its own API in Windows is correct, and suspect (or fear) it isn't. Or, at best, writing to Microsoft's API is only a half truth and is at the core of one of the EU's complaints against Microsoft -- complete API documentation!

    Cringely does confirm third party reports of this suite of software working at Apple, but I wonder for how long? And for what versions? A complete, robust, and current maintenance of what is available for a Windows API is a minefield, and in my opinion, likely to somehow "break" rather quickly.

    I can imagine if Apple somehow has pulled this off and is ready to roll it out publicly they must be bracing for the Microsoft blitzkrieg, because they're going to get it.

    As to whether or not this really is a realistic scenario (Microsoft and Windows Apps running transparently in OS X), please, please, please let it be true! (We can all hope, right?)

    1. Re:tap, tap, tap, .. there's no place like OS X... by Ford+Prefect · · Score: 5, Funny

      He expects Apples magical engineers to just whip out a feature complete copy of the Windows API in just a few months?

      Give me a load of All-Bran or other fibre-rich foodstuffs to work on, and I'm sure I could produce a feature-complete copy of Microsoft Windows in 24 hours or so. Even less, if laxatives are involved.

      --
      Tedious Bloggy Stuff - hooray?
    2. Re:tap, tap, tap, .. there's no place like OS X... by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You might have missed this bit in the article.

      According to Cringely, Apple has had access to XP APIs under an tech sharing agreement between Apple and MS that was forged in 1997. (This was part of the agreement that let MS off the hook for appropriating quicktime technology into their own media products.)

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    3. Re:tap, tap, tap, .. there's no place like OS X... by Jeremi · · Score: 3, Insightful
      As to whether or not this really is a realistic scenario (Microsoft and Windows Apps running transparently in OS X), please, please, please let it be true! (We can all hope, right?)


      I think it will come true, except for the part about "not requiring an installed copy of WinXP". What Cringely is proposing is just silly: he thinks that Apple can essentially write its own implementation of WINE, but somehow won't suffer from all the problems that WINE has. If you think that strategy works well, look at what happened when OS/2 tried it.


      On the other hand, adding a spiffed-out VMWare-style layer would be much easier for Apple to do, would leave most of the maintenance/compatibility problems for Microsoft to deal with, and would be less likely to piss off Microsoft's legions of winged monkeys (since they would still get money from Mac users buying WinXP sales).


      Trying to implement Microsoft's APIs natively is foolish: even if Apple somehow got them to work reliably in a foreign OS (fat chance considering the trouble Microsoft has getting them to work reliably in the native OS), things would break every time Microsoft released another service pack. Apple would spend the rest of their lives chasing Windows compatibility bugs.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
  2. Uhhh... hello. by jonnythan · · Score: 5, Informative

    Wow, Cringely obviously has a clue.

    "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."

    Wine *is* an implementation of the Windows API.

    Cringeworthy is more like it

  3. As usual.... by wiggles · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Cringely is out of his mind.

    1) There is no way in hell Microsoft would document their API to the level necessary to allow Apple to duplicate it.

    2) It's blatantly obvious he doesn't understand precisely what Wine is. Remember: Wine Is Not an Emulator. It's a built-from-scratch implementation of the Windows API.

    Idiot.

    1. Re:As usual.... by wulfhound · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem is not whether or not it's possible, but whether it's feasible for a development team to do it well enough (for Mac users, who expect much higher standards of such things than Linux users) and in a short enough time frame.

      Personally I think it's doubtful for that reason.

    2. Re:As usual.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      1) There is no way in hell Microsoft would document their API to the level necessary to allow Apple to duplicate it.

      TFA notes a cross-licensing agreement was in place from '97 - 2002 so likely Apple had MS' own docs on the API. Also Cringeley says he has talked with with people who have seen XP apps running directly under OSX, and that this has been going on in the labs for some time.

      2) It's blatantly obvious he doesn't understand precisely what Wine is. Remember: Wine Is Not an Emulator. It's a built-from-scratch implementation of the Windows API.

      The way he put it was that running XP under OSX would not depend on 3rd-party middleware, but would run directly under OSX. He was not saying that WINE is not a Win API inplementation.

    3. Re:As usual.... by MobyDisk · · Score: 3, Funny

      You just disagreed with yourself.

      1) Nobody could duplicate the Windows API.
      2) Wine duplicates the Windows API.

      ???

  4. Moderation by palad1 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Damn, I whish I could mod this story +5, Funny

  5. Unlikely... by tjansen · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The Wine guys worked a decade on cloning the Windows API, and there are still more than enough problems. There is no way Apple can do this. Maybe for specific applications, but implementing Win32 with all the required libraries on top? Never.

  6. It's a nice idea... by AKAImBatman · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...but it isn't going to happen. BootCamp is about advertising. Macs are generally known as Really Nice Hardware(TM). As a result, some people will buy Macs just to install Windows. They may even think, "Hey, I can even try out this Mac OS X thing so that I can *really* make fun of my Mac-lover friends!" Then the users purchase a Mac, try OS X, realize they don't actually NEED Windows, and never use BootCamp at all.

    It's a stroke of genius, actually.

    --
    Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
  7. YHBT! by NutscrapeSucks · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Cringely and Dvorak must be making humongous ad-revenue trolling Mac Fans lately. They're eating it up!

    It's understandable because Apple has made some radical moves lately (Intel, Windows), so the Mac Zealot's universe must seem like it's in total flux. No longer can they confidently predict Apple's next move using their supposed expertise in everything-apple. If Apple will put Windows on Macs, pretty much anything goes!

    Obviously these columnists sense the uncertainly and are having fun stirring things up a bit. Anyway, before you fire off your 1000 word point-by-point response denouncing Cringely, keep in mind he probably wrote this column in 15 minutes while high on cough medicine.

    --
    Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
    1. Re:YHBT! by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 5, Funny
      It is indeed an interesting time to be a Mac user.

      keep in mind he probably wrote this column in 15 minutes while high on cough medicine.

      Actually, he was only able to put down on paper the fantastic visions conjured by his drugged out mind for fifteen minutes before he was interrupted by a person from Porlock. When he was finally able to get back to writing his article, he found that the vivid images had left him, and he was left with only a few fragmentary notes.

      In Cupertino did Kubla Khan[1]
      A stately pleasure-dome decree[2] :
      Where Alph, the sacred river, ran[3]
      Through caverns measureless to man[4]
      Down to a sunless sea.[5]


      [1] Clearly a reference to Steve Jobs
      [2] Jobs announces expansion of Apple campus
      [3] River Alph = 1 Infinite Loop(?)
      [4]Undocumented Windows APIs
      [5]Apparently where WinFS is hiding

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
  8. Classic but for Windows. by anlprb · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I bet it will be a classic like environment, but for windows. Once the data is on the HDD, it is trivial to start up a virtual machine and fool the win partition into thinking that it is booting natively. That is much more likely. That would be the final "Integrated" solution for running windows apps. They proved it could be done workably with OS 9. Now, they just have a separate partition to boot. But this again, is from another whack job on the innerwebinator thingie.

    --

    One Token Ring to Rule them All, One Search Engine to Find Them, One WAN to bring them in, and TCP/IP Bind them...
  9. Re:What's the incentive to write a program for OS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Cool! All of the spyware and viruses can run in OS X too. That would be great.

  10. Re:What's the incentive to write a program for OS by non0score · · Score: 5, Interesting

    By your reasoning, then why bother writing OSX programs in the first place? The point is that people write programs for OSX because they want to, not because they're somehow stuck with a Mac and can't write something for the PC. This is giving people who use program Y that was never "ported" to the Mac platform (and thus can't switch over) a reason to switch over. Of course, this is also giving a lot of convenience to long-time Mac users who just can't seem to get any games.

    Now, only if I can plug in any PCIE gfx card and be able to get the OSX drivers for them, I'll be all set....

  11. Re:What's the incentive to write a program for OS by gluteus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Because Mac users will treat any Windows apps running on OS X like second class citizens. They'll stomach it, but not for long.

    People credit Apple for how apps are consistently Mac-like and interoperate with each other, but the users are the ultimate enforcers. Any developer who steps out of line is crucified.

  12. Bonzai Buddy!!! Yea! by inertialmatrix · · Score: 3, Funny

    I can not wait to run Bonzai Buddy, not to mention all the _GREAT_ screen savers that are available for download (for free!) off the web!

    yea!

  13. What's the incentive to write a program for OS X by tourvil · · Score: 4, Interesting
    If it can just run X11 apps anyway?

    The answer? Because X11 apps (and likely Windows apps, if they did implement Windows compatibility) look and behave like crap next to Cocoa and Carbon apps. They don't use the menu bar, all the shortcuts use control instead of the command key, etc. There's nothing wrong with those on an X11 system, but switching back and forth between Cocoa and X11 apps can be jarring.

    I doubt Windows compatibility would cause existing Mac developers to drop support. And who knows, Windows-only developers might start considering a Mac port more seriously if a significant portion of their user base started running their apps on a Mac.

  14. Read the &*^%$*&%$ Article by dham340 · · Score: 5, Informative
    For all those who have not read the article and have thrown out issues with apple maintaining and/or duplicating the Windows API:
    Remember Steve Jobs' first days back at Apple in 1997 as Interim-CEO-for-Life? Trying to save the company, Steve got Bill Gates to invest $150 million in Apple and promise to keep Mac Office going for a few more years in exchange for a five-year patent cross-licensing agreement? The idea in everyone's mind, of course, was that Microsoft would grab lots of Apple technology, which they probably did, and it quite specifically ended an Apple patent infringement suit against Microsoft. But I'm told that the exchange wasn't totally one-way, that Apple, in turn, got some legal right to the Windows API. That agreement ran for five years, from August, 1997 to August 2002. Even though it has since expired, the rights it conferred at the time still lie with the respective companies. Whatever Microsoft grabbed from Apple they can still use, they just aren't able to grab anything developed since August 2002. Same for Apple using Microsoft technology like that in Office X. But Windows XP shipped October 25, 2001: 10 months before the agreement expired. I'm told Apple has long had this running in the Cupertino lab -- Intel Macs running OS X while mixing Apple and XP applications. This is not a guess or a rumor, this something that has been demonstrated and observed by people who have since reported to me.
    If true, then Apple has a *legal right* equivelent to that of an owner to use the Windows API. Yes, M$ can change it, but it would have to be prospectively.
  15. Re:What's the incentive to write a program for OS by The+Snowman · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Ideally this would be in a sandbox, similar to a virtual machine. That way all you have to do is kill the VM, and all that crud is gone. Since it's a VM, you can easily make backup copies of the file system -- similar to a restore partition on OEM machines. Set it up the way you want, and when ActiveX rips a hole in Windows or malware slows it to a crawl, it's easy. Kill the VM process, copy the backup partition over.

    Of course some of us can run Windows without malware, viruses, and all that stereotypical garbage. Some of us do have a clue how to administer a Windows computer. I've worked with many operating systems -- DOS, DOS/Windows, Windows NT, Linux, FreeBSD, Solaris, HPUX, and even little Vax. In my experience, none are easier or more difficult to secure with the exception of DOS or DOS-based Windows (96/98/ME), which suck. All it takes is a little training on the security issues and the ability to be proactive with security.

    --
    24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
  16. did you forgot darwine?? by evandrofisico · · Score: 4, Interesting

    there have been a lot of work on that!!! It's called http://darwine.opendarwin.org/ and it's not yet stable...

  17. Don't naysay too loudly... by Nick+Driver · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...because Apple might just have their own implementation of a Windows API ready to go before Vista actually ever ships.

  18. That would actually be the major reason not to by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 5, Interesting

    IBM had that problem with OS/2. It ran Windows apps just fine, there were very few that didn't work jsut as intended... Which lead to nobody making native OS/2 apps. I mean if you can write it once and it'll run on both OSes, why bother with a port? Sure it would work BETTER if it was a native app, but it worked well enough.

    I think Apple would face a similar problem. Not all apps would stop porting, of course, apps that have a healthy market like Photoshop would keep porting, but I think many would. You'd never see another game port, and any app that wasn't really core-market kind of app for Apple would likely stop porting. You have to figure you aren't really going to lose any sales since it does run, and there are few people using it in the first place, so why bother?

    Now maybe Apple decides they don't care. Maybe they want to implement the Windows APIs and just use those. Maybe they figure the other features of the OS are enough to keep epopel buying. However I gaurentee they are smart enough to know that if they implement the Windows API natively in OS-X, that most apps will just use that and not bother to port.

    1. Re:That would actually be the major reason not to by IntlHarvester · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You'd never see another game port, and any app that wasn't really core-market kind of app for Apple would likely stop porting.

      One could argue that Apple sees only a very small percentage of game and "non-core" ports anyway, so they wouldn't be losing very much.

      (There's a wishful-thinking at work in the Mac community that eventually major software houses will come around, but the reality is that most desktop apps are just too tied to Windows for that to happen.)

      I always disliked the impression that OS/2 failed because of WinAPI support. To the extent OS/2 succeeded, it was because it was sold as a "Better Windows Than Windows". And OS/2 was reasonably successful with a marketshare about the size of Apple's.

      There's many more reasons one can find for OS/2 ultimate destruction. It wasn't a very technically sound design -- IBM spent zillons on a expensive Mach-based rewrite that failed. It was largely mismarketed by IBM first targetting "enterprise" customers, and then oddly "consumers". And the touted features like the object-desktop were ugly and poorly executed.

      --
      Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
    2. Re:That would actually be the major reason not to by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The reason OS/2 failed because of Win API support was because it chained them to a no-win cycle. They HAD to continue to support the Win API because there were almost no native apps. However supporting it was a bitch both in terms of time spent on implementation and in terms of design concessions. They finally decided to stop with Win32 and OS/2 dies shortly thereafter.

      At this point, Apple has people porting to OS-X. Not a ton, but enough. If they add Win32 support, I think the number porting will fall significantly. The problem is they then become chained to the MS API. If MS releases a changed API, they have to scramble to implement it as well.

      It also means that bugs and such come over. Thought your computer was protected against spyware? Sorry, no longer, it can execute Windows programs, and they don't bother to set the Evil Bit to allow you to ignore them, You get the good with the bad.

      I think that would take away a major percieved advantage Macs have. The one thing that more people who claim to want to switch, or actually do switch, bitch about than any other in my experience is spyware and viruses. They see them as MS's fault and want them ot stop. They've been promised the Mac does not have those, which is true at this point.

      Well, if all of a sudden all the Windows malware runs on a Mac, you are back to where you started. It is again incumbent on the user not to do stupid stuff, rather than having a protection because the bad code just won't execute.

  19. "The Windows API" by ValentineMSmith · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I was really amused at the way he mentioned "the Windows API" like it was half a dozen export functions from some 3rd party dll. If he'd ever gone to MSDN (or had installed any version of Visual Studio with the appropriate documentation), he'd know that attempting simply to implement enough of the core Win32 API to be useful would be virtually impossible. This isn't even counting some of the add-on systems like COM and Direct X. And it's not counting the fact that this implementation would not need to be "documentation compatible", but bug-for-bug compatible with its Windows counterpart.

    There have been at least three projects that I know of (Wine, OS/2 Warp 4, and ReactOS) that have tried to do implementations of the Win32 API. OS/2s implementation never truly got off the ground (and was neither able to run native Win32 code, nor was it even reasonably complete). Wine and ReactOS have both been fighting a Sisyphean battle with Microsoft throughout the life of their projects.

    Then, you need to add in the fact that Apple has historically been very jealous of their user experience. I don't expect that Apple would ever release something like this unless and until it was impossible to distinguish a Win32 application from a native app.

    Don't get me wrong: I'd love to see it (it would provide justification that I could use on the spouse for upgrading our G4 MiniMac). I just think that Cringely needs to put down crack pipe and slowly back away.

    --
    Karma: Chameleon - mostly influenced by bad '80s New Wave music
    1. Re:"The Windows API" by Arandir · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I completely agree. I think a much more mundane prediction is far more likely: you will be able to install Windows on a separate partition and run apps off of it via a virtualization layer.

      --
      A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
  20. True by geekoid · · Score: 4, Funny

    WHat we need is a multi-billion dollar organization with knowledge of the Windows API and developers on staff...oh. wait.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  21. Sleeping with Dvorak by everphilski · · Score: 4, Funny

    Sounds like Cringely has been sleeping with Dvorak too long. You know how when couples are with each other for a long time they begin to sound and act like each other...

  22. Re:WINE is an OS component by Qzukk · · Score: 4, Interesting

    WINE becomes an OS component as soon as one Linux distro vendor bundles WINE

    So apache an OS component, because all of the distribution vendors bundle it with linux?

    Does that mean AOL is a component of windows, because dell bundles a 6 month trial on most of their machines?

    --
    If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
  23. Wine vs Windows API by dokebi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A lot of comment so far correctly point out that WINE is is an implementation of the Windows API, but they miss Cringely's point that Apple licensed the Windows API. The whole shebang. So unlike the WINE development team, OSX-XP project team doesn't have to reverse engineer undocumented and cryptic API's. Anyone who remembers IBM's OS2 knows that IBM licensed the Windows API, and included it into OS2, and could run all Windows programs. OS2 failed because of lack of consumer appeal (eye-candy), not because of lack of compatibility.
    I imagine Apple could pull a better OS2 than IBM. Security, stability plus consumer appeal plus Windows compatibility.

    Even if all this is speculation, it probably gives Messrs Dell and Gates nightmares.

    --
    In Soviet Russia, articles before post read *you*!
  24. Win APIs not sufficiently documented.... by Been+on+TV · · Score: 3, Informative

    Microsoft has an ongoing issue with the EU where Microsoft is unable (unwilling) to produce documentation on their APIs to a standard that anyone can sensibly write code that interfaces with it. If the state of affairs are as shoddy as Microsoft gives the impression of, even Steve Jobs's RDS cannot reliably help Apple engineers re-implement the full Windows API.

    The EU is treathening to fine Microsoft $2,7 mill a day for the inability to produce said documentation.

    --
    The future is in beta
  25. Safe Browsing by buckhead_buddy · · Score: 4, Funny
    Recipe to avoid the "BRITNETSPEERZNAKED.JPG" viral threats:
    • Switch browsers from IE to Firefox
    • Switch Operating Systems from Windows to Mac
    • Switch Preferences from Women to Men
    That leaves you in one of the smallest possible target audiences for... well... just about anything :-)
    1. Re:Safe Browsing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Your third point is redundant (see second point).

  26. How this would work by joshv · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I doubt Jobs is looking to support running every Win32 binary under the sun - for that you can dual boot. If something like what Cringely describes were to take place, OS X would implement only a subset of the win32 API, but with graphical widgets having an OS X look and feel and perhaps some win32'ish extensions that provide access to OS X specific functionality (spotlight, etc...) This 'subset' API would be different enough that there would be very little likelihood that an unmodified binary would run out of the box on top of this compatibility layer.

    But with a recompile and some refactoring, I bet most windows programs could run quite will under this compatibity layer. What those would do is open up the Mac platform as a viable target for Windows software developers. Recompile under OS X, fix the few quirks, or work around the APIs that aren't present, and bingo, you've got a mac app. With a few IFDEFs you might even be able to support both Mac and Windows versions with the same code base. Software makers like Quicken might find this a very attractive option.

  27. Re:What's the incentive to write a program for OS by bsartist · · Score: 3, Interesting

    More importantly, if they could carry over their non-UI logic with just a recompile via some sort of Carbon-style XCode project mechanism (that would import, say, VC and VC++ projects) and then redo the UI via the Interface Builder (but be able to access NIB data via Win32 widget calls) then the barrier to porting to OS X would pretty much go away.

    You can do most of that right now, if your model classes (assuming MVC design) are in C++. Just use controllers written in Objective-C++ to talk to your C++ models and Objective-C views. The only thing missing from what you're describing is importing VC projects, but that's just an inconvenience, not a show-stopper - it's not exactly rocket surgery to create a new project and add your model files to it.

    --
    Lost: Sig, white with black letters. No collar. Reward if found!
  28. Re:CarbTime by bsartist · · Score: 3, Informative

    Back when QuickTime for Windows was first introduced, Apple found that it was less effort to port the subset of the Mac Toolbox that QT depends on, than it would be to port QT to the Win32 API. That "subset" was so large that they had to actively discourage developers from using it as a porting tool to get their non-QT apps running on Windows.

    Fast-forward some years. When Apple needed an updated and portable version of the classic Toolbox, they started with the portable Toolbox subset that they'd already ported to Windows to support QT.

    --
    Lost: Sig, white with black letters. No collar. Reward if found!
  29. Re:What's the incentive to write a program for OS by squiggleslash · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Well, this kind of argument goes on forever, usually with silly references to OS/2, and I think it's worth giving some examples of operating systems that have had substantial subsystems designed to give compatability with other operating systems that, nonetheless, achieved great success, and for which the bulk of apps written were "native". Note, in the below, while often the "other" operating system has a similar name, it generally has an entirely different API, look, feel, and smell (well, ok, I don't know about the last one.)

    1. Windows 3.0 - compatible with MSDOS (earlier versions had some compatability too but it wasn't as solid
    2. Windows 95 - compatible with Windows 3.x and DOS
    3. Windows XP - compatible with Windows 95, 3.x, and DOS
    4. Mac OS X - compatible with Mac OS 9. Also able to run many X11/Unix apps with just a recompile
    Other people can probably come up with other examples of operating systems that, in their time, were successful, and had substantial back-compatibility with platforms that you generally wanted to obsolete, not support.

    Anyone thinking "Hey, Windows is Windows right?" should note that Windows 3.x and Windows 95 couldn't have had more different looks and feels, and their APIs were only superficially similar. Win32, 95's base API, was 32-bit, worked with flat, 32 bit, addressing, and provided access to something resembling a sane file system. "Win16", the pseudonym of the Windows 1/2/3.x APIs, by comparison required programs be written to use segmented memory. Filenames were UPPERCASE and had eight characters, a period, and three more after that. The GUIs were marginally similar in terms of widget layout, indeed a Win16 application was grating when you saw it up against native 32 bit applications.

    The real question is: Is Apple prepared to get this operating system out to the mass market, should they consider including Red Box in Leopard? If they don't, then with a 3-5% marketshare, there's a serious risk that programmers will rely upon Red Box to get their critical, we're-the-only-people-who-do-this, applications to OS X users, and not care too much about complaints from Mac OS X users about the ugliness of the GUIs. Native Mac programs will still exist, especially if Apple re-releases an updated version of their OpenStep/WebObjects for Windows development tools, incorporating the software into Xcode. But they'll remain the minority, and the divide between Mac apps and Windows apps will, if anything intensify.

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  30. Noooo! by porneL · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That would suck. Apple has pretty good interface guidlines. "Preferences" is 3rd option in App menu. It's not Tools->Prefs, View->Options, File->Properties, View->Customize, Edit->Configuration, etc.

    DarWINE is fine, but I don't want Windows app and their (un)usability officialy made "native" for OS X.

  31. Why bother? by bogie · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The big thing about Crossover office is....Office. Apple already has office for OS X. Look at the supported apps page http://www.codeweavers.com/products/cxoffice/suppo rted_apps/ 50 whole apps are supported. Many of them only work partially. You know what? Most of those already have versions for OS X that work 100%. Photoshop. itunes, Quicken, Notes, etc the list goes on. Maybe there is some special win32 only app that would really help if it was ported to OS X, but going by that list I just don't see it.

    Here is the deal, codeweavers have been working their asses off to get win32 apps to run on linux. Thus far they have barely scratched the surface and can only run like .005% of Windows apps. In fact they are falling behind. How does that possibly help Apple? It doesn't.

    The only thing Codeweavers brings to the table for Apple is possibly the ability to help devs port apps to OS X X86. My guess is that if most vendors are not making their apps available on OS X it sure as hell isn't due to difficulty in porting but rather has more to do with the limited ROI of making apps for OS X in the firstplace.

    --
    If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch