Mac OS 11 (Wine, etc)



  • Reply 21 of 27
    zoczoc Posts: 77member

    WINE is only a (partial) implementation of the WIN32 API. Using the term "emulation" is not correct.

    If you use the term emulation, then you'll have to say that Mac OS X is a POSIX emulator, because Mac OS X implements the Posix API, and that Mac OS X is a "X Window" emulator, because it ships with an X11 API implementation.

    So "emulation" is not correct.
  • Reply 22 of 27
    dfilerdfiler Posts: 3,420member
    Try as you might, you won't be able to redefine the word "emulate" that narrowly.

    Geeks often try to ignore colloquial usage, or even try to pretend it doesn't exist. That's just burying one's head in the sand.

    Often times, the colloquialism exists because there isn't an alternative for a subset of the word's usage. This is the case with emulate. If one defines it as only real-time translation of machine code, then discussion in other contexts becomes impossible because there is no other appropriate term.

    I am well aware of the distinction you're trying to impose on everyone's usage. It is also obvious that you despise colloquialisms. A more pragmatic approach however is more productive for actual communication between humans. (most of the time) In nearly every aspect of life and the physical world that surrounds us, there are intricacies of language that could be imposed. If you were a meteorologist, weather forecasts would really piss you off.

    Technically, i don't even consider this broader usage of emulate to be colloquial. The line is more grey than that.

    In this instance though, what have you really gained by trying to eliminate a somewhat colloquial usage? Nobody in this thread is confused about what WINE actually is. So instead of discussing the topic at hand, you're busy trying to impose a narrow/strict definition of a term that wasn't causing confusion in the first place.
  • Reply 23 of 27
    mr. memr. me Posts: 3,221member
    Originally Posted by dfiler View Post

    Try as you might, you won't be able to redefine the word "emulate" that narrowly.


    Au contraire. The term emulate is well-understood in reference to computer software. In the context of this thread, emulation explains slow performance due to the translation that is part of its definition. WINE requires no such translation. It is simply a another set of APIs available to applications on the host system. You don't get to redefine words just to win an argument that has run off the road into the weeds.
  • Reply 24 of 27
    dfilerdfiler Posts: 3,420member
    The word emulate far far predates the narrow usage you are trying to make everyone adopt.

    For decades now, it has commonly and correctly been used to refer to the mimicking of software APIs.

    You have quite a crusade on your hands if you want to rewrite the definition to only refer to on the fly machine language translation.
  • Reply 25 of 27
    elronelron Posts: 126member
    Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post

    The reason it (and Crossover, which is based on WINE) is horrible is because it is just a subset of the API, not the whole thing. This means that there are incompatibilities all over the place.

    That's not the only reason there are incompatibilities. Reverse-engineering the Win32 API doesn't just mean implementing the proper interfaces, which is a Herculean task in and of itself. It also means discovering and re-implementing years of workaround, hacks, and strange corner-cases that accumulate in an API as old as Win32. Barring a massive source code leak from MS, WINE will never behave exactly the same way as Windows. It's a losing battle. It gets close enough to allow enthusiasts to run a valuable subset of Windows applications, but it will probably never be "Apple quality" (as we know it today -- Apple quality does seem to be on the decline so it's possible the two will someday meet in the middle).

    Anyway, as some people already mentioned, bundling a "complete" WINE with OS X would probably have a detrimental affect on the native Mac developer community. Then again, if Apple invested the time and effort to complete WINE, that would make Win32 a first-class Mac API, so the definition of native becomes meaningless.

    Virtualization is actually a much more elegant solution to this problem, IMO. Rather than try to re-implement a byzantine API, why not just run an existing implementation in its own sandbox? This has several benefits from Apple's perspective. It makes running Windows programs expensive (because you have to buy a Windows license) and slower than native apps. Both of these create the incentive for developers to make a Mac replacement and for users to buy it. Virtualization also requires little effort from Apple itself. Even if/when they build virtualization into the OS, it would require far less effort than WINE. Finally, it skirts around any legal issues that may arise from participating in WINE (patent violations, unattributed source code, etc.).
  • Reply 26 of 27
    Screw Windows. Gimme a mature iWork that compares favorably with MS Office. I don't want to run Vista on my Macintosh or Windows 7 for that matter.
  • Reply 27 of 27
    Originally Posted by talksense101 View Post

    Screw Windows. Gimme a mature iWork that compares favorably with MS Office. I don't want to run Vista on my Macintosh or Windows 7 for that matter.

    Thats what I'm saying
Sign In or Register to comment.