# OS X 10.5 "Red Box" to run windows apps natively?



## nietzsche2131 (Sep 1, 2005)

I found this article while digging for some kind of information on "leopard". I can't find a link to leopard having multiple dashboards, yes people you heard that right it might be a reality in june of 2006. There is also "Red Box" which allows mac users to run windows apps natively and within os x. here's hoping something like this might come out of leopard in wwdc 2006! 
 

http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/6110/


----------



## Quicksilver (Sep 1, 2005)

I wonder if Apple will really take this on? in my opinion i believe Apple: "If you build it, they will come" they being the juicy and hungry consumors Apple Computer has always really wanted.

A more detailed story here  ---> 

I liked this "Rather, it would be as a layer that is fully compatible with Windows but visually and functionally indistinguishable to the Mac user."

I've always believed this would be a great strategy for apple as mentioned here in another thread. 



.


----------



## fryke (Sep 1, 2005)

There's also a great danger in it: Developers would probably cease to develop specifically for the Mac. Over time. And maybe not all. But still.

Also: There's already a _product_ that will run on intel Macs that accomplishes this pretty much (although not so cleanly, probably): http://haligon.blogspot.com/2005/08/crossover-plugin-etc-and-intel-macs.html

But also: Never forget that "Red Box" was a "guess" back in Rhapsody days rather than a rumour with even so much as a source. (Well, probably someone mentioned "insider sources"...) And if it was a guess back then, it's not much more than a rumour now. It would certainly be technically feasible, but the question really is whether it's worth it. On intel Macs, you'll have several options anyway:

- Microsoft/Macromedia/Adobe apps run natively on intel Macs. No need for any kind of special layer.
- You can probably dual-boot to Windows for those apps that are not ported to Mac OS X/intel.
- Crossover Plugin lets Windows apps run under Mac OS X/intel.
- Darwine achieves much of the same.
- Microsoft will quite probably make Virtual PC for Mac OS X/intel, so you can run Windows in a virtual machine.
- VMware might do the same.

So: Why invest development costs to achieve this? I rather see Apple invest that money in marketing - or even better: OS X directly. Apple is one of the top five computer makers (again!), and of those the only one which makes the desktop operating system themselves. They're very well surviving - even more than that. I think 'Red Box' would rather seem like a "we give up"-strategy.


----------



## MisterMe (Sep 1, 2005)

There is no need to once again revive the June 23, 2005 revival of an even older rumor. There will be multiple ways to run Windows applications on Mactel. These will include WINE, Bochs, and Virtual PC. It would be a total waste for Apple to use its resources to support Windows applications. Please, please, please let the Red Box rumor stay dead.


----------



## kainjow (Sep 1, 2005)

Original article is here: http://www.osopinion.com/modules.ph...=article&sid=4759&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

on os*opinion*.com 

I would be extremely surprised if Apple did something like this. Why developer for Mac anymore? It'd just kill Apple.


----------



## Quicksilver (Sep 2, 2005)

Your are right. I see your point. Though i have to say that "Post Production's" "Crackpot Thoery" recently post another valid point in the "Is this Video A Hoax? Sony Vaio dual boots Tiger and XP! post about the possibility of apple taking some serious market share action, after all this would be what the shareholders would want right?

1) If Apple somehow ran a layer of windows to run windows app's throught apples interface including games, etc it would have to gain more consumers, right?

2) If Apple heavily promoted OSX with its developer tools eventually there would be more MAC based apps in due course. Other major developers may be forced to update there source in order to reach an OSX optimised or functionality standard. 

This is somthing that could be potentially far down the track and is based on speculation and idea. but in theory could be a way for apple to really gain a fair deal of market share with the desktop and/or OS.


----------



## Quicksilver (Sep 2, 2005)

Your right. I see your point. Though i have to say that "Post Production's" "Crackpot Thoery" recently post another valid point in the "Is this Video A Hoax? Sony Vaio dual boots Tiger and XP!" post about the possibility of apple taking some serious market share action, after all this would be what the shareholders would want right?

1) If Apple somehow ran a layer of windows to run windows app's throught apples interface including games, etc it would have to gain more consumers, right?

2) If Apple heavily promoted OSX with its developer tools eventually there would be more MAC based apps in due course. Other major developers may be forced to update there source in order to reach an OSX optimised or functionality standard. 

This is somthing that could be potentially far down the track and is based on speculation and idea. but in theory could be a way for apple to really gain a fair deal of market share with the desktop and/or OS.

.


----------



## fryke (Sep 2, 2005)

Hm. I'm not sure if people get this, but in the short (!) time before Vista ships, Apple can't turn the tides completely. They might be able to reach 5% market share again, maybe even 6 or 7 - but you can't turn this around in about a year. (Post Production's post was about acting before Vista's released...)

And if Apple still has less than 10% of the desktop market, developers are highly unlikely to drop Windows support and move to Apple's development tools entirely, even if it's "fun".

The Red Box would end up like Carbon, i.e. it would become a long term supported environment, co-existing with Carbon and Cocoa - and there'd be the real danger of it becoming the real focus of software developers, since that way, they'd gain compatibility with Mac OS _and_ Windows.

Let's just see it as it is: Microsoft is glad as long as Apple has less than about 8% of the market. Linux is their real threat, and Apple probably gets linux people over to Mac OS X as much as it gets Windows people to switch. If Apple becomes too big, Microsoft "turns a little less friendly". First by maybe getting slower with their Office for Mac development. Just imagine: Apple brings out Mac OS X 10.6, and Microsoft's Office 2006 isn't fully compatible. Microsoft could release a patch even before 10.6 is released, but maybe they'll wait a month. Or two. Or they say that Office 2008 for the Mac is merely three months away. Which turns into six months. And Apple delivers new machines with OS X 10.6 only... Effectively, MS would damage Apple's sales critically.
Believe me: MS likes Apple. Small.


----------



## Quicksilver (Sep 4, 2005)

I see what you mean.


----------



## TommyWillB (Sep 4, 2005)

Couldn't there just as easily be a "Purple" box to run Linux in?

Seems like thre are two things:

1) The hardcware level thing to make normal Windows/Linux recognize MacTel hardware as Intel (Sufficient for a dual boot or VirtualPC-type thing)

2) Some sort of software in an OS X "box" to make Windows/Linux programs run within OS X's Aqua interfact, like Classic does now.

Please remind me which of these Rosetta does?


----------



## fryke (Sep 5, 2005)

Rosetta emulates PowerPC code on intel machines.


----------



## Mikuro (Sep 5, 2005)

Quicksilver said:
			
		

> I liked this "Rather, it would be as a layer that is fully compatible with Windows but visually and functionally indistinguishable to the Mac user."


I just can't believe that. Apple couldn't even do that for OS 9 apps. Don't you think doing it with Windows apps would be a bazillion times harder?


----------



## fryke (Sep 5, 2005)

The question is whether they even _wanted_ to do it for Classic's applications. They could've simply used an Aqua theme on the Classic apps: And suddenly they'd have looked better. They could even have gone so far as to actually _change_ Classic (i.e. the Mac OS) so far as that it'd have matched Mac OS X' look more closely.

Theoretically, it'd be possible to have Windows apps look like Mac OS X apps. But it'd be a hack. For anybody who tries to achieve Windows compatibility on Mac OS X, I hope they'll give apps Windows' look, but rootless, i.e. apps would open in their own windows, not in a container window like it happens with VPC (where actually the full Windows OS is simply inside a window).

So: My idea would pretty much be like Classic - only for Windows apps. The solutions talked about in this thread (besides the 'rumoured' Red Box) would go in this direction, I suppose.


----------



## kainjow (Sep 5, 2005)

I think it'd be a huge waste of Apple's time to do something like this. It'd be much better to focus on Mac developers and helping Windows developers learn about Mac programming, so to get them to port their apps over. There aren't that many programs anymore that don't have an equivalent on the Mac.


----------



## Quicksilver (Sep 5, 2005)

Mikuro said:
			
		

> I just can't believe that. Apple couldn't even do that for OS 9 apps. Don't you think doing it with Windows apps would be a bazillion times harder?



Could be. But has anyone really tried? i guess in any case the only people who could really try is Apple, from the very core.


----------



## Quicksilver (Sep 5, 2005)

kainjow said:
			
		

> I think it'd be a huge waste of Apple's time to do something like this. It'd be much better to focus on Mac developers and helping Windows developers learn about Mac programming, so to get them to port their apps over. There aren't that many programs anymore that don't have an equivalent on the Mac.




In Apple computers point of view, yes you are right and i see how it could become messy. However, from many consumors point of view's the main question is "will my applications i have and that i spent 100's or even 1,000's of dollars on work on that machine?". and what about all my games, etc?.

Or how about saying.

Yeah it's not a problem. Just install them all once you get home.

.


----------



## kainjow (Sep 5, 2005)

"Will all the viruses on my computer run on my new Mac?"

"Sure, no problem. You'll have missing data in no time!"


----------



## Quicksilver (Sep 5, 2005)

kainjow said:
			
		

> "Will all the viruses on my computer run on my new Mac?"
> 
> "Sure, no problem. You'll have missing data in no time!"




Yep. Thats about 95% of computer users suposedly do prefer. And going very steady too.

Don't get me wrong kainjow. im a hard core mac user myself. Somtimes i like to show people the other side of the coin.  


.


----------



## RacerX (Sep 5, 2005)

Quicksilver said:
			
		

> Yep. Thats about 95% of computer users suposedly do prefer. And going very steady too.
> 
> Don't get me wrong kainjow. im a hard core mac user myself. Somtimes i like to show people the other side of the coin.


Then try not to skew the data... 95% of people who buy new computers every quarter are buying Windows PCs. Most of those people are counted at least once a year and no one is counting how many of the 95% actually remove Windows to replace it with something else.

By contrast, Mac users are often only counted once every three years.

Macs make up about 15% of the installed computers in the US, with Linux/BSD making up somewhere between 8% to 10%. That would leave Windows with about 75%.

Now to say that even those 75% _prefer_ Windows is a fallacy. Many of those people have never tried or seen anything else, and have no idea that alternatives are available.


And as long as I'm posting in yet another _Red Box_ thread... At the time of the rumors of _Red Box_, it couldn't have been anything more than a _VirtualPC-_like environment at the time as Blue Box was little more than _VirtualMac_.

Blue Box runs within it's own display window (you can not see any of the Yellow Box environment while in Blue Box) and the whole environment is running off a disk image. So it is very much like VirtualPC is when running in full screen mode.

And Frankly, that was why the idea that Apple was working on this was so far fetched. Connectix was working with Apple during Rhapsody to try to port VirtualPC. But Apple had no plans for a _Red Box_ environment (they had their hands full with too many other issues at the time to take on something as pointless as this).

 

Besides, the term _Red Box_ was coined outside of Apple. I can't imagine any one at Apple pick red for an application environment. Purple or green would have been more likely choices.

Why people buy into this stuff...


----------



## TommyWillB (Sep 5, 2005)

kainjow said:
			
		

> "Will all the viruses on my computer run on my new Mac?"
> 
> "Sure, no problem. You'll have missing data in no time!"


Okay, so this related to the question I've been having...

What file system would they use to run the Windows Red Box?

Would it be HFS+, Fat32, or NTFS?

I'm asking in connection to the virus question because I think it'd be wise to have Windows MORE isolated than Classic is today. One way to acheive this isolation is to limit Windows to accessing a dedicated NTFS partition. (OS X of course would be able to access both.)


----------



## symphonix (Sep 5, 2005)

> I think it'd be a huge waste of Apple's time to do something like this. It'd be much better to focus on Mac developers and helping Windows developers learn about Mac programming, so to get them to port their apps over. There aren't that many programs anymore that don't have an equivalent on the Mac.



Hear hear!  If Apple were to integrate Windows support into Mac OS X, then that would mean they would suddenly be supporting a huge range of software compatibility issues which would completely demolish the service levels they achieve at their helpdesks. People would be calling Apple because "Pygmysoft Merchant Analyser for Windows 2000 edition" doesn't run properly in Mac OS X.

By leaving the emulation up to third parties like Microsoft, they would avoid a huge support nightmare.


----------



## Quicksilver (Sep 6, 2005)

RacerX said:
			
		

> Then try not to skew the data... 95% of people who buy new computers every quarter are buying Windows PCs. Most of those people are counted at least once a year and no one is counting how many of the 95% actually remove Windows to replace it with something else.
> 
> By contrast, Mac users are often only counted once every three years.
> 
> ...





Dude! I was simply just making a point. And i can also see your point. I don't really know what the ratio of what operating system is what and where and at the end of the day as a customer i don't really care about that. All i know is that Windows has the largest share. And the most customers, and those customers would most probably really like to have a go of Apple products and OS X If they can simply run there existing application/licences/files on that one Apple machine.

Think of it like this: some users may use a video editing product like Ulead or some other windows based software they would like to use on an Apple but can't afford to take the risk in buying one and then don't like it. I find that difficult, but many people im sure feel this as a reason enough not to buy.

Now lets say that a customer starts to explore their Apple while having the ability to still use his/her Ulead video editing software. And they see iMovie. The customer starts to explore what iMovie can do in the comfort of their own home. I'm sure in many cases customers would instantly like the program and then transition over to iMovie, as it is a much more user friendly application.

After the user is well into using iMovie the user may delete/uninstall Ulead from their system. I don't know how this process would go but its somthing along those lines. 

What do you think?


----------



## fryke (Sep 6, 2005)

I don't think video editing software would work well in this rumoured Red Box for one. But more importantly: 'Real' video editors don't let go of their old software and jump to iMovie that quickly. And Final Cut Express doesn't come pre-installed. Neither does MS Office or Adobe or Macromedia graphics/internet software.


----------



## RacerX (Sep 6, 2005)

Quicksilver said:
			
		

> What do you think?


Here is the problem... as I see it.

Part of the reason I don't use Windows is the applications. Windows applications are crippled because they *are* _Windows applications_.

For example... Photoshop.

This was originally a Mac application (and was Mac only until version 2.5). And on the Mac version you open Photoshop and you get your palette and maybe the image window of the image you wanted to work on. If you were working on a web page or page layout in another app, you can still see the other app in the back ground.

Try the same thing on Windows. Photoshop opens by opening a big gray window that takes over the entire desktop. No other applications, no desktop, you are now *in* Photoshop.


Now the reason I point that out is that all Windows apps are going to run like Windows apps on a Mac in this _Red Box_. Which is going to make a consumer wonder why they switched at all.

Macs are better... only when they are better. 

Why is Mac OS X better than Mac OS 9? If you ask people who only use Carbon apps, they aren't really going to know because Carbon apps (and Carbon developers) don't actually take advantage of most of the advanced features of Mac OS X.

Most the people I know are completely oblivious to many of the incredible things about Mac OS X because they mainly use Carbon apps.

And now you are suggesting that Apple should include an application environment that is, well, worse than Carbon?

If the Mac is better, then lets keep them better. Adding the ability to run Windows apps is going to lead to one thing for sure... the end of Mac apps. And once we don't have Mac apps, we don't have a platform anymore.

Just ask some OS/2 Warp user what they think about being able to run Windows apps in their OS. Because when developers saw that they didn't need to make OS/2 apps any more... they stop making them.




Personally... I think anything to do with Windows is a bad idea. I thing Macs running Windows is a bad idea (mainly because if a Mac can run Windows, then any version of Mac OS X for that Mac is going to be able to be run on a PC designed for Windows) and I think running Windows apps side by side with Mac apps is a bad idea.

I have no problem with VirtualPC (or the like), or even WINE (as it'll be stuck in X11 anyways), as they can not be used as replacement application environments on a Mac.

If you want to get an idea what a Windows app would be like running in a hypothetical _Red Box_, install an early version (pre-1.0) of NeoOffice. Oddly enough, Mac users (who's systems I installed it on) didn't like it while former Windows users felt right at home. And of course, none of the advanced abilities of Mac OS X worked.


----------



## TommyWillB (Sep 6, 2005)

RacerX is my hero...

When he speaks, the coulds of darkness and confusion part to reveal the clarity of light.

So that's it. "Anything to do with Windows is a bad idea". Let's just leave it at that!


----------



## fryke (Sep 6, 2005)

Gotta agree with most of RacerX' longish post. But be careful in the details, please...

RacerX said (in parantheses): "mainly because if a Mac can run Windows, then any version of Mac OS X for that Mac is going to be able to be run on a PC designed for Windows"

Only if all of Apple's precautions against piracy are hacked at all times.


----------



## RacerX (Sep 6, 2005)

fryke said:
			
		

> Only if all of Apple's precautions against piracy are hacked at all times.


If Apple makes a PC compatible Mac, then any OS that can run on it will be easy to hack to run on a PC compatible system.

Why should Apple *not* use a Windows compatible design? Because a version of Mac OS X for non-PC compatible hardware couldn't be hacked... it would have to be recompiled... something only Apple could do.

Windows NT 4.0 for PowerPC couldn't run on Macs. Why? Because the hardware design wasn't compatible.

Windows NT 4.0 for MIPS couldn't run on SGIs. Why? Because the hardware design wasn't compatible.

NEXTSTEP for 68K couldn't run on Macs. Why? Because the hardware design wasn't compatible.

The Mac OS for 68k couldn't run on NeXT systems. Why? Because the hardware design wasn't compatible.

In all those cases, the processor compatibility of the operating system made no difference at all.

If Apple doesn't make hardware that is compatible with Windows (the one thing that is true about *all* PCs), then Mac OS X for Apple hardware is *only* going to run on Apple hardware.

Is that enough detail? (I know I've posted that somewhere before, but I couldn't find it to link to it.)




> Gotta agree with most of RacerX' longish post.


Okay... when was I ever known for _short_ posts?  

There are very few people who have known me as long as you, and you know that I can go on, and on, and on, and on... and on...

and on...

 

Well, you get the picture.


----------



## fryke (Sep 6, 2005)

Hehe...  ... Well, then I have to go into a little more detail myself. Apple can make Mac OS X depend on several hardware parts that are not needed to boot Windows. This way, Mac OS X wouldn't run on a "similar" PC. Yet: Windows could still be booted on such a machine, if the Windows installer simply ignores those parts. (We're on speculation field, in my opinion, anyway.)

An intel Mac will still have industry-compatible RAM, slots, ports etc. Now it'll even have the "PC" processor. Let's say people will have about the same energy to make Windows run on those Macs that they have to make Mac OS X run on 'other' PCs. (They've by now managed to make it run on AMD processors, for example.) They might run into some problems, but if you end up with Windows XP on an intel Mac that has some unidentified hardware in the device manager, that's still "running Windows". That's why I wanted to disagree there. If Mac OS X doesn't run on PCs does by no means mean that Windows won't work on Macs. It all depends on what _exactly_ the reasons are. Historical examples are not proof, they're merely examples.


----------



## Quicksilver (Sep 7, 2005)

RacerX said:
			
		

> Okay... when was I ever known for _short_ posts?



RacerX, I don't know how you do it. LOL.   

.


----------

