Red Box on Intel Mac

fjdouse

fjdouse

UNIX - Live Free or Die
While reading about the leaked OSX/x86 I noticed on a forum that someone was mentioning Red Box.

All the Rhapsody stuff happened during the period I was focussed on Linux on x86 so I missed it all. My only knowledge is what I've read online.

By what I've read, Rhapsody was intended for x86 and PPC having applications which could run in different 'boxes' according to their type above the kernel and services layers. Red Box on Intel would have offered PC compatibility by what I've read.

Anyway..

Can someone elaborate or help me understand all this if I've got it wrong?

What happened to the idea, has it disappeared? Could Red Box be in OSX/x86? Or is that a really stupid question? If so why?

Could this be the mechanism by which Apple implements Windows on Mac?

Help needed, I need to learn more about this. :)
 
Red Box was only a rumour AFAIK. There was "Blue Box" (which evolved into 'Classic' with Mac OS X Client) and "Yellow Box" (Cocoa later on). There was always the _hope_ that Rhapsody on the PC would get a sort of "Classic" for Windows apps. It would quite certainly not be called Red Box nowadays.

Sidenote: Yellow Box was also available for Windows NT and up. Only survivor of that was WebObjects for Windows NT and up. (Is _that_ still available?)
 
And of course this was all a while back, then again, we now KNOW for fact that Apple have been sneeky in compiling their wares for Intel for 5 years, actually OSX for 5 years.

I wonder though, what other aces have they hidden up their sleeves? The way I read it, Rhapsody gave them many technologies, perhaps it's not unreasonable to assume that Red Box has been continually improved on Intel.. just in case?

Looking back it's a period of development I missed out on, much to my deep regret, if I'd known about an Intel Rhapsody, I'd probably have moved heaven and earth to get it. After my PowerMac 5500 (Oh God, how I still miss you! - You know I actually cried for whole night after it died.) literally caught fire, I couldn't afford anything apart from PC hardware, Rhapsody would have been great.
 
Well, let's think about it. Basically, Red Box would be like Virtual PC on an intel/Mac. If Microsoft caters for those who want Windows apps on the Mac, I don't think Apple wants to compete there. Apple shouldn't do _too_ much for Windows in my opinion.

Also, since then, VMware has come, too.

And then, I really think Red Box was only a rumour. At least there was nothing like it, nowhere to be seen, on Rhapsody DR2, which I tested on an AMD K6/200 box back then. Racer X, who's still running RDR2, might be able to tell more (of the same).
 
Hi Guys,

I'm not sure there is much that I can add. Red Box is a subject that (as has been pointed out to me a few times) is conspicuously absent from information I give on Rhapsody and related development projects in the Rhapsody section of my site.

The reason behind this is that I can find no evidence that Apple considered such an idea.

The term Red Box seems to have been one of conjecture based on the fact that it seemed like a logical color for such a thing. Even if Apple had considered a Windows application environment, there is no telling what "color" that box would have been... could have even been green.

There doesn't seem to have been any feeling at Apple that such an environment was needed as part of the operating system structure. Blue Box was a must as Apple had to ease Mac users into the new environment and didn't want to cost them their previous investment in software for the Mac OS.

Blue Box (to the best of my ability to track it down) was a modified version of MAE (Macintosh Application Environment) for AIX. This would be understandable as Apple felt it was under some time pressure and not having to start from scratch is always a good way to get ahead of your schedule (there is strong evidence that Carbon was based largely on the application environment that was started for Copland when Apple found out that developers weren't going to stand for having to rewrite their apps from scratch... sound familiar?).

Honestly, there were enough third party developers making Windows emulators that I would imagine that Apple would have left that area alone believing that some other company like Connectix would fill that gap. And Connectix was fully aware of Rhapsody development, as can be seen when trying to run Virtual PC in either Blue Box or Classic (you get a message saying that Virtual PC can not be run in Blue Box in both cases).


I know that is a lot of information that has nothing to do with Red Box. I have gone searching for it, and looked for any clues to it's possible existence down just about every road I know of for getting Rhapsody information... and I've found nothing.


There was, for a while, speculation that Apple was trying to solve the Blue Box in Rhapsody for Intel problem (as it would have helped clear the initial applications barrier that it faced). I don't think it got much beyond a realization that the PC hardware of the period (1997-1999) wasn't up to the task... and that Apple already had their hands full trying to keep up with the drivers issue (which may have had almost as much weight in Apple dropping Rhapsody for Intel as a public release as the applications barrier did).

Well, that is both what I know and my best educated guesses on the subject.

Sorry I couldn't provide more on Red Box.
 
Thanks very much RacerX for the information, I appreciate it. Ok, so that chap who mentioned it in the other forum I was looking at, was referring to something which may not exist, oh well.

Fascinating stuff, this Rhapsody, I wish I'd been more aware of it at the time, I was too focussed on Linux and running a business. :-(

Thanks again!
 
fjdouse said:
While reading about the leaked OSX/x86 I noticed on a forum that someone was mentioning Red Box.

All the Rhapsody stuff happened during the period I was focussed on Linux on x86 so I missed it all. My only knowledge is what I've read online.

By what I've read, Rhapsody was intended for x86 and PPC having applications which could run in different 'boxes' according to their type above the kernel and services layers. Red Box on Intel would have offered PC compatibility by what I've read.

Anyway..

Can someone elaborate or help me understand all this if I've got it wrong?

What happened to the idea, has it disappeared? Could Red Box be in OSX/x86? Or is that a really stupid question? If so why?

Could this be the mechanism by which Apple implements Windows on Mac?

Help needed, I need to learn more about this. :)
Click to expand...
The Red Box was a rumor. Like you said, it was supposed to be the Windows-compatibility environment on the Intel version of Rhapsody. However, Apple altered Rhapsody to become MacOS X. It released only the PPC version of MacOS X as a commercial product. It never acknowledged the existence of the Red Box.

You can rest assured that there will be ample commercial and freeware options for running Windows apps under MacOS X/86. These include Virtual PC, Bochs, WINE, and others. Apple has promised us that the PPC and Intel versions of its OS will behave the same. If it included Windows support as a standard part of MacOS X, Apple would have to support it on the PPC. The Windows environment would be slow (on the PPC), compete with third-party solutions, and work at cross-purposes to MacOS X software development.
 
I'm not bothered about Windows compatibility to be honest, but with the expectation that Intel Macs will be dual bootable with Windows, being able to run such an offensive OS under the OSX desktop in a VM is far preferable, where it cannot do any harm.

I myself would like to run some other x86 OSes on the Mac, Solaris and Linux for example. But dual booting is time consuming and inconvenient, for example, a web developer just wanting to quickly check a page for compatibility under IE which is running off a Mac Apache server. Having done dual boots with a number of UNIX-type OSes on my old Linux boxes, I found VMware to be a godsend. I don't hold much confidence in *Microsoft's* VirtualPC, Bochs is pointless as it will emulate the CPU even where the host and guest are the same architecture - unless it's change since my last underwhelming experience of it, and as a former Linux (guru? no, that's not a title one gives oneself) nut, WINE was just a non-starter for me.

If RedBox was real, it would have been interesting. I'm very interested what the options will be on day one, can't see VirtualPC working in Rosetta (and emulating a G3 - to run an application - to emulate a Pentium - is a monumental waste of time), but if another developer out there has OS X/x86 and can verify that, I'd be grateful. Dual booting EVEN IF (God forbid) it is an option, is not very desirable, it causes the "Dual Boot Blues" where eventually you get sick of it, especially if you have to do it every half-hour or so! To be able to do some testing in Solaris and/or Linux AND OS X at the same time would be heaven, I've not had the patience to spend 8 hours installing Solaris 10 in VPC. :)
 
fjdouse said:
.... I'm very interested what the options will be on day one, can't see VirtualPC working in Rosetta (and emulating a G3 - to run an application - to emulate a Pentium - is a monumental waste of time), but if another developer out there has OS X/x86 and can verify that, I'd be grateful. ....
Click to expand...
You can expect Virtual PC for MacOS X/86 to be very much like Virtual PC for Windows.
 
I doubt that Apple will allow you to have dual bootable for mac and window. In past time that Window NT have PowerPC supported on IBM based. We couldnt make Window NT work on any Mac based. As I know Apple blocked it. None of us had successful to installed the Window NT on PowerPC. Only VPC can..

Now Apple will use Intel. I doubt again because Apple is going to design own logic board to use Intel. Therefore it will not work with any windows period. Window cannot adjust to make it work with Apple's logic board only Linux and BSD can due to open source.
 
There's no need to "doubt" whether Apple would allow that. Phil Schiller said they wouldn't prevent it. Point defied.
Also, dual-booting is NOT the subject of this thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top