Link Details

Link 55831 thumbnail
User 111696 avatar

By bloid
via reghardware.co.uk
Published: Dec 04 2007 / 19:18

Is Apple covertly working on a direct Windows application compatibility for Mac OS X? Some observers have suggested that it may well be after it was discovered that Leopard will attempt to load Portable Executable (PE) files when asked and even try to find relevant Windows Dynamic Linked Libraries (DLLs).
  • 7
  • 3
  • 1368
  • 435

Comments

Add your comment
User 236137 avatar

dzonelurker replied ago:

0 votes Vote down Vote up Reply

MS wouldn't allow Apple to do this.

User 29409 avatar

ra17740 replied ago:

0 votes Vote down Vote up Reply

Yes they would, especially if they could make money doing it.

Chances are that Apple would need MS's help to pull this off anyway and Redmond would probably pick up a small fee for each Mac that activated 'Windows compatibility' mode.

Since Apple aren't going to be moving Carbon to 64-bit, that leaves the likes of Adobe and MS in a bit of a pickle. Neither company is going to want to port their applications to Cocoa, so in the future, running Windows apps directly on MacOSX may be the only solution.

User 213320 avatar

bjupton replied ago:

0 votes Vote down Vote up Reply

Didn't Cringely have some idea that Apple had some rights to share in IP created during the 5 year collaboration period that they had when MS invested in them about 10 years ago?

That period included XP.

One thing (another of course being cost) that inhibits Apple on the enterprise is the large number of homegrown apps that require Windows. All the server based stuff is way easier to move. Hell, a ton of it is already on various *nix boxes already.

User 213320 avatar

bjupton replied ago:

0 votes Vote down Vote up Reply

Of course, all that being said, Steve Jobs has other ideas in mind, I think. He's way past this.

Add your comment


Html tags not supported. Reply is editable for 5 minutes. Use [code lang="java|ruby|sql|css|xml"][/code] to post code snippets.

Voters For This Link (7)



Voters Against This Link (3)