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

nietzsche2131

Registered
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

Find a golden apple.
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

Moderator
Staff member
Mod
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

Registered
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.
 

Quicksilver

Find a golden apple.
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

Find a golden apple.
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

Moderator
Staff member
Mod
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.
 

TommyWillB

Registered
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?
 

Mikuro

Crotchety UI Nitpicker
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

Moderator
Staff member
Mod
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

Registered
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

Find a golden apple.
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

Find a golden apple.
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

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

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

Quicksilver

Find a golden apple.
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!" :rolleyes:

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

Old Rhapsody User
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).

:rolleyes:

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... :confused:
 

TommyWillB

Registered
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!" :rolleyes:
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.)
 
Top