Jump to content

Red Box project? (Possibly a project by Apple to run Win software)


  • Please log in to reply
21 replies to this topic

#1
Sentertainment

Sentertainment

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 68 posts
  • Location:Michigan
I just pulled this up, it seems there is speculation about an old (rumored, as far as I know) project called Red Box, the attempt to run Windows Apps on Macs!

Now it seems some speculate it may be back in action as Apple is going Intel!

http://newsvac.newsf...7/0045244.shtml

Whether or not it's true, I'd like to know about the Red Box project and whether it's real or not! :P

#2
chaitanya

chaitanya

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 57 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:India
i'll also like to know about it :P

#3
grabberslasher

grabberslasher

    Ekky ekky ekky ekky p'tang zoom-boing <incoherent mumble&

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 161 posts
Red Box, Yellow Box, Blue Box - all supposed parts of Rhapsody.

Yellow Box became Cocoa
Blue Box became "Classic"
Red Box was never mentioned by Apple at all - has always been a rumour. Whether it's true or not doesn't matter - darwine will give the exact same thing eventually.

#4
DrJgermeister

DrJgermeister

    InsanelyMac Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,028 posts
  • Location:Somewhere in France
  • Interests:Sex, drugs and rock &amp; roll

I just pulled this up, it seems there is speculation about an old (rumored, as far as I know) project called Red Box, the attempt to run Windows Apps on Macs!

Now it seems some speculate it may be back in action as Apple is going Intel!

http://newsvac.newsf...7/0045244.shtml

Whether or not it's true, I'd like to know about the Red Box project and whether it's real or not! :P

This sounds good:
"The strategy, would instantly entitle them to being regarded as the most compatible of any operating system. "

It will run Unix apps and evtL. M$ apps so OSX86 needs just a feature to run Linux apps like Solaris 10 and then it's really the "most compatible of any operating system" :P

Hope this will come soon...

#5
twoodcc

twoodcc

    InsanelyMac Geek

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 126 posts
would be nice

#6
Mr. Bond

Mr. Bond

    The man with the golden gun.

  • Retired
  • 881 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada
Good idea in theory...but really, why bother with this, when we have Darwine? Although it's still not capable of running all your Windows Apps, It does a good job on the ones it can. Plus, the support of the community is an added bonus. As soon as someone gets a fix for a non-working App, it can be added into the CVS. Having the community behind a project like that could ultimatley mean a very robust, and up to date piece of software.

#7
humasect

humasect

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 30 posts

Good idea in theory...but really, why bother with this, when we have Darwine? Although it's still not capable of running all your Windows Apps, It does a good job on the ones it can. Plus, the support of the community is an added bonus. As soon as someone gets a fix for a non-working App, it can be added into the CVS. Having the community behind a project like that could ultimatley mean a very robust, and up to date piece of software.


The OS X kernel has a community. OpenDarwin. It would be the same as this, but Apple themselves would farm code to integrate the system with OS X itself. Drag and drop, etc... not to mention the market points.

-huma

#8
Sentertainment

Sentertainment

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 68 posts
  • Location:Michigan
Huh, I'm a bit interested in Darwine...
I tried Wine, once got it to Install an app, but it never ran.
Since then I tried again, and couldn't even get Wine set up.

Is Darwine just as hard to set up? Also, Wine is not an emulator, it's a re-build on the windows library for linux...is Darwin a rebuild for Darwin?

#9
firebush05

firebush05

    InsanelyMac Geek

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 143 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Colonial Heights, VA

Huh, I'm a bit interested in Darwine...
I tried Wine, once got it to Install an app, but it never ran.
Since then I tried again, and couldn't even get Wine set up.

Is Darwine just as hard to set up? Also, Wine is not an emulator, it's a re-build on the windows library for linux...is Darwin a rebuild for Darwin?


Darwine is very easy to use. Run it one, and everything with PC tags will show the darwine icon. Click the app you want to run (try to run), and dawine automatically takes over and attempts to run said app.

Only problem is it doesn't run much yet.

I'm still looking for a solution to run XP within OSX86! Has anyone had success using VPC, Guest PC, QEMU, etc? I would kill to be able to run windows off my second drive while in OSX... yes..KILL :blink: . So, if you need a hit job, just get XP working on my desktop and you shall have your wish granted :) .

#10
DrJgermeister

DrJgermeister

    InsanelyMac Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,028 posts
  • Location:Somewhere in France
  • Interests:Sex, drugs and rock &amp; roll

Darwine is very easy to use. Run it one, and everything with PC tags will show the darwine icon. Click the app you want to run (try to run), and dawine automatically takes over and attempts to run said app.

Only problem is it doesn't run much yet.

I'm still looking for a solution to run XP within OSX86! Has anyone had success using VPC, Guest PC, QEMU, etc? I would kill to be able to run windows off my second drive while in OSX... yes..KILL :D . So, if you need a hit job, just get XP working on my desktop and you shall have your wish granted :) .


The PPC Version of Bochs & GuestPC are runing in OSX86. Booth are very slow :)
Possible that if you compile Bochs for x86 it will be faster.

#11
firebush05

firebush05

    InsanelyMac Geek

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 143 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Colonial Heights, VA

The PPC Version of Bochs & GuestPC are runing in OSX86. Booth are very slow :)
Possible that if you compile Bochs for x86 it will be faster.


So what is needed to get VPC and Guest PC working? Has anyone tried to port them? Must they be open source?

#12
DrJgermeister

DrJgermeister

    InsanelyMac Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,028 posts
  • Location:Somewhere in France
  • Interests:Sex, drugs and rock &amp; roll

So what is needed to get VPC and Guest PC working? Has anyone tried to port them? Must they be open source?

VPC and GuestPC are not open source so you have to wait that the manufacturer release a x86 version.
Bochs & Qemu are open-source so fell free to compile it :)

P.S: guest PC is based on qemu

#13
Takuro

Takuro

    InsanelyMac Legend

  • Retired
  • 1,162 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York
............................................

#14
mikesown

mikesown

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 75 posts
I can definitly believe this rumor. Look at Marklar, which was the rumored x86 version of osx. No one really thought it would ever get released even if it did exist, and it indeed did at WWDC. I would hardly be surprised if it worked flawlessly like rosetta does now.

The rumor makes sense because apple could tout that their computers can run Windows apps, and, furthermore if they ported a DirectX layer to OSX, they could tout that their computers could run windows games, which is the reason many people, including me, haven't "switched" yet.

To me, a person who has NEVER owned a mac EVER, this is very appealing. I've always wanted to own a Mac, but have been put off by the fact that it won't run Windows applications (at full speed). I've loved apples innovation, used macs at school, and loved their design. If apple does introduce a windows-compatibiltiy layer, i'd become a Mac zealot B). Apple, in my opinion anyway, could have a 90% marketshare on desktop personal computers(no joke!) if they implemented this compatibility layer. Even though the computers are more expensive, apple is renowned for their support, and reliabiltiy, which, I think, would drive most people to Macs.

Anyway, I hope a compatibility layer gets released!

Mike

#15
lilitz

lilitz

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 50 posts

I can definitly believe this rumor. Look at Marklar, which was the rumored x86 version of osx. No one really thought it would ever get released even if it did exist, and it indeed did at WWDC. I would hardly be surprised if it worked flawlessly like rosetta does now.

The rumor makes sense because apple could tout that their computers can run Windows apps, and, furthermore if they ported a DirectX layer to OSX, they could tout that their computers could run windows games, which is the reason many people, including me, haven't "switched" yet.

To me, a person who has NEVER owned a mac EVER, this is very appealing. I've always wanted to own a Mac, but have been put off by the fact that it won't run Windows applications (at full speed). I've loved apples innovation, used macs at school, and loved their design. If apple does introduce a windows-compatibiltiy layer, i'd become a Mac zealot <_<. Apple, in my opinion anyway, could have a 90% marketshare on desktop personal computers(no joke!) if they implemented this compatibility layer. Even though the computers are more expensive, apple is renowned for their support, and reliabiltiy, which, I think, would drive most people to Macs.

Anyway, I hope a compatibility layer gets released!

Mike


They said, They wont do anything to avoid windows instalations on new macs (macintels)... Here's your compatibility issue Hoped B)

#16
khroma

khroma

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Just Joined
  • Pip
  • 2 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Japan
i think red box is an apple's virtualization solution.
imagine switching osx and xp like using fast user switching :)

#17
Mr. Bond

Mr. Bond

    The man with the golden gun.

  • Retired
  • 881 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

i think red box is an apple's virtualization solution.
imagine switching osx and xp like using fast user switching :D


Yes, but one of the ideal things would be a seamless integration. That is, not having to switch between the two environments, but being able to copy/paste, drag/drop stuff seamlessly between the two. That's one of things Darwine has going for it, as things can easily be copied from the host system to the running App.

#18
firebush05

firebush05

    InsanelyMac Geek

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 143 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Colonial Heights, VA

Yes, but one of the ideal things would be a seamless integration. That is, not having to switch between the two environments, but being able to copy/paste, drag/drop stuff seamlessly between the two. That's one of things Darwine has going for it, as things can easily be copied from the host system to the running App.

Wait wait wait.... Is there a Windows program that will run in Darwine where I can drag and drop files into it, and have it copy them on my Windows hard drive? That would be the EASIEST solution to move things back and forth from OSX to Windows, and more convenient than a seperate FAT partition. Hmm.. Ideas anyone? :rolleyes:

#19
TheoCryst

TheoCryst

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 44 posts
This whole running-Windows-apps-through-OS X actually kinda scares me. Think about this from the position of a software developer: if both Macs and PCs can run Win32 apps, but only Macs can run Mac programs, which will you end up coding? What's the point of making two versions if one will run on both platforms? So the amount of programs coded specifically for OS X could drop significantly.

Now think about this as a consumer. You can choose to buy either a Dell running Windows XP/Vista, or a Mactel machine with Tiger/Leopard. In theory, both machines will run the exact same programs. So why are you going to spend almost twice as much for an Apple when a Dell will serve the same purpose? For most people, OS X itself is not enough of a reason to justify the huge price increase. So you buy Windows because its essentially the same as OS X, but cheaper. Bad news for Apple.

Granted, this is a plan that would work exceedingly well in the short-run, and would definitely please people like me (who only don't own a Mac because of software incompatabilities). I'd personally love to see Red Box or, at the very least, Darwine running well on OS X x86 by the time it hits the market. I'm just afraid that it might end up being suicide.

#20
sampson

sampson

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 80 posts
going off past technologies, namely yellowbox it'd be a set of universal frameworks that translate apis into a readable fashion. Somewhat similar in idea to what wine or the win32 api set for os/2 do but also different at the same time. It would work on a ppc due to the fact that the frameworks are tooled for the cpu. if you want more info on yellow box read up on rhapsody.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

© 2014 InsanelyMac  |   News  |   Forum  |   Downloads  |   OSx86 Wiki  |   Mac Netbook  |   PHP hosting by CatN  |   Designed by Ed Gain  |   Logo by irfan  |   Privacy Policy