Comments on: Will OSX eventually run Windows applications?

By: LeKoos

LeKoos — Sat, 13 May 2006 20:19:46 +0000

My bet has always been that Apple will make their OS work on all PC machines. Sure they make a nice portion of revenue from ‘hardware’ but selling the Apple OSX to the broad PC market would mushroom the revenues for Apple. Selling a disk for $179- lot of profit in there. What’s stopping this? What is Gates position with Apple these days? I remember he slipped Apple $150m for stock back in ’97. Not that many people “Switch” computers but they’d switch out discs for less than $200 to obtain a stable operating system.

By: Salvatore Saieva

Salvatore Saieva — Fri, 14 Apr 2006 14:25:14 +0000

Does the fact that Avie Tevanian (chief developer of the Mach kernel/OS and Apple’s Chief Software Architect) has left Apple support the theory that Apple may be switching to the Windows OS?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=19&entry_id=3821

Regards,

Sal.

By: Alex

Alex — Wed, 05 Apr 2006 20:00:32 +0000

BootCamp still doesn’t mean Apple is switching to Windows. That will never happen as long as Steve is the CEO of Apple.

By: Branden Tarlow

Branden Tarlow — Wed, 05 Apr 2006 14:23:02 +0000

Dvorak, you’re a genius. Windows in the MACBOOK Pro will rock. I hope that you will play back clips of your detractors from previous TWIT episodes.

By: Josh Hickman

Josh Hickman — Sun, 02 Apr 2006 17:04:25 +0000

Dvorak, I gotta say, you are taking way too much heat for this. Whether it is true or not, it kinda makes sense, so whats the problem?

By: James Hill

James Hill — Sat, 01 Apr 2006 22:08:53 +0000

I’ve made the move to Mac myself, and for less than $3000 I’m running a top-of-the-line MacBook Pro with Office and all of the other software I need. While I should wait a few more months to write this in stone, after one month of use I am more productive at the office and at home with this computer.

I grant you that a platform shift isn’t cheap, but over time the costs of moving are the same as the costs of keeping up to date on your existing platform.

As for the ability to run Windows applications, it will be a good for getting people over to the platform, but it doesn’t hold much of a draw for me… unless I could run multiple OSes VMware style at the same time.

By: Mike Voice

Mike Voice — Sat, 01 Apr 2006 19:07:21 +0000

Since OS X is UNIX/Linux/BSD based, can’t OS X “ALREADY” run windows apps using WINE?

I think so. “Darwine”… WINE for Darwin & MacOS X

http://sourceforge.net/projects/darwine/

By: FARTaLOT

FARTaLOT — Sat, 01 Apr 2006 06:55:49 +0000

Few points to make:

The Macs run windows XP and SOME APPS faster is simply because they aren’t bogged down with device drivers, bloated registry, and apps installed scattered across the hard drive.

Every time I install a fresh copy of Windows it always boots up fast, launches apps quickly, and shuts down with out a hiccup.. UNTIL I start installing drivers and everything.

By the way. Since these Macs are now PC/Intel hardware, why can’t one just download chipset drivers from Intel and use that on the Windows Mac?

Now back to the original topic…
Since OS X is UNIX/Linux/BSD based, can’t OS X “ALREADY” run windows apps using WINE?

By: Mr. Fusion

Mr. Fusion — Sat, 01 Apr 2006 05:10:00 +0000

Would you say the same thing in a few years when your software versions are out of date and need updating?

Updating most software is a gimmick. If it works, then use it. I still use Adobe PhotoDeluxe 3.0 and Office 2000. I know some people that are quite happy using Windows 98.

I have a copy of Photoshop, but haven’t even opened it in a year. I find PhotoDeluxe has all the tools I need to do 97% of my photo editing. It is smaller, faster and easier to use. The only downfall is it is poor at “red eye” removal. I got it as a freebie with a digital camera in 1999.

I seldom use MS Office, preferring Open Office because it is open source. I keep it mostly because sometimes documents lose some formatting trying to save them a .DOC. I also like the Photo Editor that comes with MS Office as an image viewer. Why pay hundreds for Office XP when Office 2000 or even Office 97 can do everything I need? Or even better, Open Office.

By: lisa

lisa — Sat, 01 Apr 2006 05:07:31 +0000

This must be ajoke he ??

http://devsingh.blogsome.com/

Leopard is the real Vista with .Live as an integral part?

By: Mr. Fusion

Mr. Fusion — Sat, 01 Apr 2006 04:53:53 +0000

Will OSX eventually run Windows applications

I believe they will. Simply because there are just so many applications out there. Earlier this evening when I read about Google’s raising $2 Billion an idea just came to me. Google will take over Apple’s computer division.

Jobs will keep the iPod division for himself and open it up to all formats and steal the whole market. They are making more money with the iPod then as profit on computers. This would also satisfy France, Denmark, and any other countries looking at anti trust measures.

Google will turn the OSX into a free OS or very inexpensive. If people can run OSX on an x86 processor then their machines should be able to use this instead of M$ Vista. Apple / Google would still be selling machines and software.

Probably, many software vendors might end up writing slightly different versions of their software to run optimally on both platforms. Or, Windows could be run from within OSX when needed. I think Google would try to avoid having to pay M$ any license fees.

But as a disclaimer, I’m noted more for my looks then for my brains.

By: Hey Mac

Hey Mac — Sat, 01 Apr 2006 02:24:11 +0000

The fallacy about Macs has always been that they are more expensive. That is only true if your time and sanity is worth absolutely nothing. Getting all those abundant and cheap peripherals to actually work, continually having to run updates, the cost and pain of virus protection, having to repeatedly reinstall a corrupt OS, parts of programs that mysteriously disappear, and who knows what else… I hear the screams of anguish every few days, as I sit relaxed in front of my Mac.

If someone offered me $1000 and any Windows PC for my Mac, I wouldn’t take it…. unless I could immediately sell it for enough to buy a newer Mac of course.

By: John Wofford

John Wofford — Sat, 01 Apr 2006 02:15:26 +0000

This whole Mac VS Wintel thing is irrevelant; I don’t care what the thing smells like when you open it up, or whose name is slapped across the innards, as long as it does the job it’s supposed to do. We are still pushing the digital envelope way past any original expectations, the miracle is that it all (computers, internet, applications, media, etc) works as well as it does. Kind of like jetliners, it’s not the miracle of flight, it’s that it happens thousands of times every day. A routine miracle, if that’s not too oxymoronic.

By: Mike Voice

Mike Voice — Sat, 01 Apr 2006 00:38:27 +0000

#13 You would either have to install Windows within the virtual environment (read as buy a legal copy of Windows) or Apple would have to license the Windows APIs.

A third option may become available – but its usefulness may be limited to a small number of “productivity” programs.

When Apple announced the switch to Intel processors, Code Weavers announced they would be porting their “CrossOver Office” software to MacIntels.

http://www.codeweavers.com/

It won’t help the gameplayers, but it will let people who already have Office, Photoshop, etc for PC run them on a Mac – without installing Windows.

By: Alex

Alex — Sat, 01 Apr 2006 00:12:14 +0000

I doubt Apple will ever license the Mac OS to run on other hardware. Apple makes a significant part of its income from hardware sales and the last time they licensed the Mac OS they lost hardware sales. Unless they figure out a way to expand the market share without cannibalizing their hardware sales, they are unlikely to ever let Mac OS run on other machines.