The YellowBox is it back on the radar?
According to CocoaDev the YellowBox was the name (in Apple Rhapsody ..edit.. now known as OS X) for NeXT's OpenStep libraries which eventually became Cocoa. There used to be a YellowBox for Windows which is still shipping (current?) with WebObjects 4.5 for Windows and allows the compilation and execution of Cocoa code under Windows (with some caveats, beause Cocoa classes have changed a bit since then). Official word is, that the YellowBox for Windows is gone now, though, and Apple revoked any license to develop third-party applications for it.
That's the way it was back in 1998/1999.
Questions always lingered for me (and I'm sure others) as to why Apple killed Yellowbox (quite a few cried Microsoft was to blame - holding Office hostage perhaps?) - I dunno if any of that was true and I kinda doubt it is... The fact remains Apple did in fact pull the plug on it. Maybe it just couldn't at that time worry about juggling support for it and roll out OS X at the same time? Maybe it was due to the fact that Apple was planning on making some pretty heavy changes to Cocoa and trying to do that and keep YellowBox viable was just too difficult? Ah coulda been lots of different things.
Now with Apple moving to Intel and now even providing pseudo support for booting into Windows the idea of YellowBox for Windows seems like such a natural next step (no pun intended... REALLY!).
The question back in 1998 was 'how to get Windows users to want to install YellowBox in the first place... Now it's pretty easy to answer that question. First the easy one... iTunes - make it 'the killer app' for YellowBox and BAM overnight success (provided Apple takes the time to do it right) second potential kill app would be Safari it I'm sure would get it's fair share of people wanting to install it on their Windows box.
Some might say... Well yea but if you develop all the cool OS X apps for Windows then nobody will switch! To that I'd just like to remind everyone that us Mac users didn't exactly choose to use (stick with) the platform due the wealth of software choices. It's the whole experience that keeps us where we are and no matter how many OS X apps get recompiled to run with YellowBox for Windows it won't change the fact that Windows is ... Well Windows is Windows. A virus, popup, worm and spyware infested operating system that gets hacked at every turn.
So... do you think YellowBox is still 'alive and well' hey, perhaps even in the same roped off area at Apple that held the 'keep OS X running on Intel' team? Seems really likely if you ask me..
Your thought?
Dave
That's the way it was back in 1998/1999.
Questions always lingered for me (and I'm sure others) as to why Apple killed Yellowbox (quite a few cried Microsoft was to blame - holding Office hostage perhaps?) - I dunno if any of that was true and I kinda doubt it is... The fact remains Apple did in fact pull the plug on it. Maybe it just couldn't at that time worry about juggling support for it and roll out OS X at the same time? Maybe it was due to the fact that Apple was planning on making some pretty heavy changes to Cocoa and trying to do that and keep YellowBox viable was just too difficult? Ah coulda been lots of different things.
Now with Apple moving to Intel and now even providing pseudo support for booting into Windows the idea of YellowBox for Windows seems like such a natural next step (no pun intended... REALLY!).
The question back in 1998 was 'how to get Windows users to want to install YellowBox in the first place... Now it's pretty easy to answer that question. First the easy one... iTunes - make it 'the killer app' for YellowBox and BAM overnight success (provided Apple takes the time to do it right) second potential kill app would be Safari it I'm sure would get it's fair share of people wanting to install it on their Windows box.
Some might say... Well yea but if you develop all the cool OS X apps for Windows then nobody will switch! To that I'd just like to remind everyone that us Mac users didn't exactly choose to use (stick with) the platform due the wealth of software choices. It's the whole experience that keeps us where we are and no matter how many OS X apps get recompiled to run with YellowBox for Windows it won't change the fact that Windows is ... Well Windows is Windows. A virus, popup, worm and spyware infested operating system that gets hacked at every turn.
So... do you think YellowBox is still 'alive and well' hey, perhaps even in the same roped off area at Apple that held the 'keep OS X running on Intel' team? Seems really likely if you ask me..
Your thought?
Dave
Comments
I think however that if the next version of xcode has yellow box support for windows the game has changed.
Developers would then do a click the box and a true universal app could be created.
This would cause many developers to switch to xcode to develop.
In a reasonable amount of time most developers are developing for the mac platform and Apple has WAY more leverage over MS.
They could then release their office killer with spreadsheet app (numbers).
Pardon my non techie understanding of the particulars.
Again, I think your assessment is spot on.
Originally posted by TednDi
I think however that if the next version of xcode has yellow box support for windows the game has changed.
Developers would then do a click the box and a true universal app could be created.
This would cause many developers to switch to xcode to develop.
In a reasonable amount of time most developers are developing for the mac platform and Apple has WAY more leverage over MS.
They could then release their office killer with spreadsheet app (numbers).
Pardon my non techie understanding of the particulars.
Again, I think your assessment is spot on.
And I think your assessment of his assessment is spot on.
One-click compile to sell to every computer in the universe? What developer wouldn't switch to that (I know, rhetorical question)?
However, as much as I like java, I too hope that yellow box is still alive
Originally posted by lundy
And I think your assessment of his assessment is spot on.
One-click compile to sell to every computer in the universe? What developer wouldn't switch to that (I know, rhetorical question)?
Yes, what developer wouldn't switch to that...in a perfect world where the sun is shining, the birds are singing and everyone is happy (and smart).
But the sad reality is that, it's not always a sunny day, the birds are often annoying when they sing, and a lot of people are miserable idiots.
Who wouldn't buy a Mac mini!? It's cheap, it runs OS X *and* Windows. It's tiny and embodies everything the future of computing should be...yet, 98% of the world won't buy a Mac mini.
Same with Xcode...gcc 5.4 could produce the fastest code on the planet and offer the best coding environment ever and produce Universal Binaries that span BeOS to Windows...and yet there would be lots of people that still wouldn't use it and still code Windows-only apps. It's pretty fucking dumb but that's how things work in the real life.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
Who wouldn't buy a Mac mini!? It's cheap, it runs OS X *and* Windows. It's tiny and embodies everything the future of computing should be...yet, 98% of the world won't buy a Mac mini.
As much as I want, no NEED, no LUST for, a Core Duo Mac and can't wait for the Pro machines to arrive and don't really want an iMac or Laptop right now. I've finally came to a no-sale conclusion I'll give you the only two reasons I wont by a mini.
1 - On board graphics
2 - Crippled Core Duo - Apple disabled the part needed for the best form of virtualization. Yes the software will still work (in hardware emulation mode) but it isn't nearly as good/fast as using the stuff Intel put on the CPU.
I was almost okay with #1 since I'm by no means a gamer by any stretch tho I do like to play Halo online whenever I feel 'the need to kill'
Sure you can cry cost savings for on board graphics and I'd give Apple 'a pass' but I don't see it as anything other than being nasty for crippling a perfectly good CPU (without a really GOOD reason).
**EDIT**
Perhaps a glimmer of hope (found on the Parallels support forum) written by daveschroeder someone NOT connected Parallels (so who knows..) but all the same when this all shakes out I hope I was wrong about #2
I've just been talking with an engineer at Apple, and the thinking right now is that it is unintentional and is a bug. I have passed his contact information on to the Parallels team.
Linky: http://forum.parallels.com/thread85.html
Now, to try and get things back on topic since I realize I'm derailing my own thread... and I HATE it when others do it...
The other main reasons for Windows developers not to want to come to Cocoa would be.
Warning I'm treading where I don't belong so some or all of this might be somewhat wrong and or exaggerated.
1 - Existing source code but then doesn't MS want to force everyone to use C#? If that is the case those developers are going to have to switch anyway so some portion of them MAY consider Apple provided options if Yellowbox existed.
2 - API comfort, here I'm going way out on the limb but I imagine Microsoft over the years have proved TONS of different APIs to make things easier for their developers (haphazardly I'd be willing to bet) and to that end Apple doesn't really play that way. Apple is much more thoughtful when it comes to API changes and additions. Sure they listen to their development community but I have a feeling that they aren't as quick to add an API as Microsoft would be (hey I could be totally wrong so correct me if I'm wrong)
3 - Application integration. Unless YellowBox does some 'really neat tricks' tying into Microsoft applications and services (as provided by the Windows API) will not be available in YellowBox - Using the ability to play Windows media files from within your app, using the Explorer HTML handler to display web pages (and no using QuickTime and Safari stuff is NOT the same) plus tons of other things that I just don't know about (not being a Windows developer)
So while YellowBox *could* be amazing - Apple would have to firstly been maintaining it for all these years AND secondly, doing their level best to link into the 70% 80%? 90% of most used Windows APIs and provide a way to use them (just they way Microsoft wrote them bugs and all - cause thats what the potential developers are expecting).
Dave
Originally posted by kim kap sol
and yet there would be lots of people that still wouldn't use it and still code Windows-only apps. It's pretty fucking dumb but that's how things work in the real life.
I know - that's why I said it was a rhetorical question.
They always talk about the "Mac Cult" - that's nothing compared to the stubbornness of these Windows developers. But all it would take is for a few of them to start clicking to make their "write once run anywhere" binaries and if the others start to see their customer base erode because their apps won't run on a Mac, well that will be a glorious day.
1 - Existing source code but then doesn't MS want to force everyone to use C#? If that is the case those developers are going to have to switch anyway so some portion of them MAY consider Apple provided options if Yellowbox existed.
Yep. Good point.
2 - API comfort, here I'm going way out on the limb but I imagine Microsoft over the years have proved TONS of different APIs to make things easier for their developers (haphazardly I'd be willing to bet) and to that end Apple doesn't really play that way. Apple is much more thoughtful when it comes to API changes and additions. Sure they listen to their development community but I have a feeling that they aren't as quick to add an API as Microsoft would be (hey I could be totally wrong so correct me if I'm wrong)
I don't know anything about the Windows API, but it's hard for me to believe that NextStep is very far away, if at all, from offering the same functionality. It's HUGE. Now of course if you want DirectX and WMA/WMV, well... but those are proprietary things and having OpenGL and QuickTime which are both cross-platform should make a developer want to go that way. I said should... it all depends on what happens to the Mac marketshare.
3 - Application integration. Unless YellowBox does some 'really neat tricks' tying into Microsoft applications and services (as provided by the Windows API) will not be available in YellowBox - Using the ability to play Windows media files from within your app,
Well, see, that's the reason for junking WMA proprietary stuff and going to a universal crossplatform solution. Again, it all depends on the market share.
It's a chicken and egg problem, no doubt about that; but so was the iTMS and iPod - each needed the other to take off - the deadly embrace - and that is what Jobs is good at, breaking the logjam.
Jobs may release Yellow Box at some point, but only if and when the time is right. I don't think it's right yet... and may well not be any time soon.
1. It's real nice for Mac developers, but it greatly lessens the uniqueness of the OS X platform. Right now, there's a slew of small, great applications that only work on OS X (Delicious Library, Adium, NNW, etc). Allowing them to all work on Windows just makes for one less reason to use a Mac.
Ultimately, Apple releasing Yellow Box is tantamount to saying, ok, nice work fellas, but basically, Apple will be ultimate producer of software that differentiates the Mac from PCs running Windows. You guys go do whatever you want.
2. Very few Windows developers will move to Cocoa on OS X to release universal apps for both Mac and Windows. XCode is still in its infancy, and frankly, compared to MS's very good developer tools, it's not nearly as mature or polished yet. (Aside: programming for the crusty, legacy-bound Win APIs has been a bitch, no argument, but MS's focus on developers has also always been top notch -- one of the ingredients of their success.) Large apps have huge code bases they have to maintain, and moving to a new IDE (let alone a new IDE on a new platform) is a huge transition. So there better be a truly radical payoff.
Originally posted by Hobbes
I do think Yellow Box has been maintained at Apple, but it's well under lock and key, bubbling away in an internal Apple lab (sitting right next to the now empty spot of that Dell running OS X for Intel for the past 5 years, no doubt).
Jobs may release Yellow Box at some point, but only if and when the time is right. I don't think it's right yet... and may well not be any time soon.
1. It's real nice for Mac developers, but it greatly lessens the uniqueness of the OS X platform. Right now, there's a slew of small, great applications that only work on OS X (Delicious Library, Adium, NNW, etc). Allowing them to all work on Windows just makes for one less reason to use a Mac.
Ultimately, Apple releasing Yellow Box is tantamount to saying, ok, nice work fellas, but basically, Apple will be ultimate producer of software that differentiates the Mac from PCs running Windows. You guys go do whatever you want.
2. Very few Windows developers will move to Cocoa on OS X to release universal apps for both Mac and Windows. XCode is still in its infancy, and frankly, compared to MS's very good developer tools, it's not nearly as mature or polished yet. (Aside: programming for the crusty, legacy-bound Win APIs has been a bitch, no argument, but MS's focus on developers has also always been top notch -- one of the ingredients of their success.) Large apps have huge code bases they have to maintain, and moving to a new IDE (let alone a new IDE on a new platform) is a huge transition. So there better be a truly radical payoff.
I agree. Releasing Yellow Bow will only make matters worse for Apple...Windows users will suddenly get access to what makes Macs a Mac...and OS X users will get, well, nothing since hardly anyone will move their codebase to Cocoa and there are already too many institutions that get paid by Microsoft to teach C# and .NET, etc. Hardly anyone will take the time to learn Cocoa and Obj-C by themself.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
I agree. Releasing Yellow Bow will only make matters worse for Apple...Windows users will suddenly get access to what makes Macs a Mac...
I don't agree...
Sure to a certain extent 'Delicious Library' makes using OS X more enjoyable but do you really think having it available on Windows is going to magically make Windows suck less? I sure don't.
I'm willing to bet for most of us it's the OS itself and its rock solid hardware integration that keeps us coming back and after reading comments from recent windows switchers, not to many were extolling the virtues of the OS X software library nearly as much as they were simply in awe of the OS itself (despite the lesser amount of software available for it)
Then again who knows I could be wrong (it's not like thats never happened before)
Originally posted by kim kap sol
...since hardly anyone will move their codebase to Cocoa and there are already too many institutions that get paid by Microsoft to teach C# and .NET, etc. Hardly anyone will take the time to learn Cocoa and Obj-C by themself..
Now on this point... I'm unfortunately in full agreement. No matter how hard you try it ain't easy to stop an 800 pound gorilla. Especially one with years and years of forward motion behind it.
So... maybe a real programmer can chime in (I 'hack about' in Cocoa but would never dare to use the title programmer to describe what I do) on this possibility.
What would it take for Apple to adopt/embrace C#, .NET, both or either?? I know Xcode 'supports' Applescript, C, C++, Objective C, Objective C++, Java and I think you can even do stuff with Perl and still call Cocoa APIs (maybe I'm wrong about that last one). Would tacking on C# be all that difficult? ESPECIALLY if Apple made some deal with Intel to use their compiler... No doubt Intels compiler does C# (and I'm sure quite well).
Finally what would the long time Mac developers think of the move... Would it be a total shock or an 'okay cool Xcode just got more flexible') cause lets face it I don't think it would be fair to add any additional shot to the current Mac developers... They really need a breather.
Ah on Wikipedia I found this so I'm guessing it should be doable (C# support that is).
Xcode includes GNU Compiler Collection (GCC), and can compile C, C++, Objective C++, Java, AppleScript, and Objective C source code with a variety of programming models, including but not limited to Cocoa, Carbon, and Java. Third parties have added support for GNU Pascal [1], Free Pascal [2] and Ada [3].
Google *IS* your friend: http://www.mono-project.com/Main_Page as well as http://www.mono-project.com/CocoaSharp - "Cocoa# is an effort to bring Mono and the Mac OS X Cocoa toolkits together in a two way bridge, allowing Mac developers that leverage the Mono runtime libraries, while retaining a native Mac look and feel. This bridge will also allow Mono based applications to have access to the Cocoa libraries directly."
The project while not enormously active appears to be alive and an ongoing.
So if these guys can do it... Apple surly can (if they wanted / needed to).
Dave
Originally posted by DaveGee
Sure to a certain extent 'Delicious Library' makes using OS X more enjoyable but do you really think having it available on Windows is going to magically make Windows suck less? I sure don't.]
Sure, a little less, and it makes OS X a little less special.
I don't know how many Macs Delicious Library sells (oh, and by the way, if there was ever an UI that's next in line to steamrolled over and absorbed by Apple into the mothership, it's that one) but by Wil Shipley's account it's at least a few.
Anyway, it could be done, should it exist, but right now unclear what the benefit to Apple would be.
Compile in x code and get all of the current OS X Apple features, but if you click the box you get windows.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
Same with Xcode...gcc 5.4 could produce the fastest code on the planet and offer the best coding environment ever and produce Universal Binaries that span BeOS to Windows...and yet there would be lots of people that still wouldn't use it and still code Windows-only apps. It's pretty fucking dumb but that's how things work in the real life.
Except that GCC 4.5 is a GNU app, and as such, it exists on almost every significant platform out there - OS X is just one of them. Switching to OS X for GCC is like switching to Windows for iTunes.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
Same with Xcode...gcc 5.4 could produce the fastest code on the planet and offer the best coding environment ever and produce Universal Binaries that span BeOS to Windows...and yet there would be lots of people that still wouldn't use it and still code Windows-only apps. It's pretty fucking dumb but that's how things work in the real life.
I think the Intel compilers are a bit better then gcc.
There's very little downside, assuming the Windows binary was an option. Apple may not release all its apps for Windows, but if developers have it as an option many would relish the chance. I know I would.
Originally posted by Xool
Making Universal XCode apps also run in Windows is a huge win for developers and users. It means that coders can spend less time targeting their app for various platforms and that a user's app will always be available. This also helps switchers because their same apps and data can run on any OS.
There's very little downside, assuming the Windows binary was an option. Apple may not release all its apps for Windows, but if developers have it as an option many would relish the chance. I know I would.
Apple could also then pull a M$ and truly optimize the code to run faster on Apple boxes. This would entice switchers to use the mac as it would be fastest for those apps developed by yellow box methods.
Developers would still develop using yellow box as it would save them countless hours of porting time. Time=money.
Apple might then also offer more bells and whistles on the os x side of the compile. The windows side will be stable (in a windows sort of way) but perhaps not as elegant.
Lastly, and I apologize if I am repeating myself, If Apple gets the MS developers (cue monkey boy) to mainly using yellow box, then Apple will have huge leverage against MS.
All in all, it is shaping up to be an interesting couple of years ahead.
It reminds me why 1984 wasn't like 1984, but 2006 will be yet another round of innovation. Let's see if Apple can out compete MS this time.
What if Apple makes a Windows version of Xcode and Interface builder?
Writing macosx code on a windows box. With some support to translate windows code to cocoa, and a nice way to connect .Net/Mono to it.
That would be a nice way to quickly port apps to macosx, with the look and feel of it. Not just a stupid port of windows/linux/unix...
Another step for Xcode could be "game porting"
A new app for the interface "Game Builder" and a almost perfect code switch
for Open GL and Direct X. This could push the mac game market now you can switch between macosx and windows on Intel machnes
Originally posted by rtamesis
RealBasic already offers developers the ability to compile applications for Mac, Windows and Linux from the same code, yet I don't see a big increase in applications being written for the Mac by Windows developers who often just ignore the Mac platform completely. The reverse may not be true, though, with Mac developers using Realbasic to quickly create Windows versions of their apps with a few clicks. I think Yellow Box, like RealBasic will help Mac developers by providing them with a greater audience for their applications to sell to, but it's not going to accelerate the development of Mac versions of important Windows applications.
RealBasic