Windows XP API in Mac OS X 10.5

[phor2zero]

Wow!! This is way better than bootcamp!

 

Now for the interesting part: I believe that Apple will offer in OS X 10.5 the ability to run native Windows XP applications with no copy of XP installed on the machine at all. This will be accomplished not by using compatibility middleware like Wine, but rather by Apple implementing the Windows API directly in OS X 10.5.

Windows XP API in Mac OS X 10.5

 

Commentary by Robert Cringely on PBS.org He seems to know what he's talking about. Mac OS X users would be able to install and run any Windows XP application right into OS X at full speed.

[mark7714]

I think they have to (i.e. really should), now that they offer boot camp. You don't want your customers finding they spend more and more time in XP, risking them deciding just to buy a PC in the future. Since the option is already there, try to limit their experience with PC's and PC interfaces (XP/Vista) as much as possible.

[BloodDragon]

guess I'll be buying Mac computers from then on, that just would be perfect, using all the nice looking mac software on a pretty mac computer and being able to play windows games!!

[bluedragon1971]

Cringley has been clueless about Apple for as long as I can remember, even worse than that other clown Dvorak.

 

Apple might put some resources behind the Darwine project and incorporate it, but I doubt that they would start something like this from scratch. He also doesn't seem to understand that Wine IS an implementation of the Windows API, not "middleware" like he claims.

[Colonel]

Very interesting. I hope this would be true. It would help me switch to using all OS X computer much easier. This for sure would be great for Apple's business. But then again, so would be switching to Windoze...

[Proteo]

I'm told Apple has long had this running in the Cupertino lab -- Intel Macs running OS X while mixing Apple and XP applications. This is not a guess or a rumor, this something that has been demonstrated and observed by people who have since reported to me.

 

According to that, it's kind of a fact. I'm still sceptical though.

[Xenokira]

Interesting, it makes sense, but I'm still skeptical. We'l have to see where this goes!

[bluedragon1971]

According to that, it's kind of a fact. I'm still sceptical though.

 

This is not a guess or a rumor, this something that has been demonstrated and observed by people who have since reported to me.

 

Therefore, it is a rumor, since he himself did not personally witness it. In a court of law, that's called hearsay.

[suleiman]

I should point out, bluedragon, with my Civil Procedure exam now less than 24 hours away, that although you are correct regarding Cringley's comments constituting hearsay, they are nonetheless "discoverable" material.

 

Note: discovery is information sought and exchanged by both sides in preparation for trial. The general rule from Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, is that information reasonably calculated to lead to admissibile information may still be discovered, even though that first bit of information itself would not be admissible in a court of law.

 

But you're probably right in that we'll likely never have the person who actualy witnessed it come pouring out with details.