Got a tip for us? Share it...

Leopard Recognizes Windows Executable Format, Virtualization in the Works?

An interesting observation was noted on the Wine mailing list. As it turns out, new in Leopard is the ability to load and understand Windows Portable Executable (PE) files which is the common format for Windows applications and libaries. Understandably, the author raises a number of questions about the discovery:

So this leads to the question. Whats going on? Is this a hold over from EFI which is PE by default? Why would the OS need to load the EFI files? Maybe just for easy of development and testing? Or is something else going on? Is Apple going to be adding a win32 compatibility layer to OS X? Is having a loader of any use to us?


This, of course, leads some to the most dramatic conclusion: that Apple may be integrating Windows virtualization into Mac OS X itself. Of course, rumors of this possibility had been circulating for the months prior to Leopard's official release.

One developer we had contacted about this finding thought it was very unlikely and felt that this parsing of PE files may simply be the product of Apple's ongoing work with Safari and iTunes for Windows. He also noted that simply parsing PE files is a far step from being able to actually run Windows applications.

Top Rated Comments

(View all)

55 months ago
Great now we're back to WWDC 2006 rumors on Leopard.
Rating: 0 Positives / 0 Negatives
55 months ago
This sounds interesting, the iTunes excuse doesn't seem to fly after all iTunes for Windows was around hell of a long time before Leopard. Wonder what it could mean, probably nothing.
Rating: 0 Positives / 0 Negatives
55 months ago
I don't really think I like the sound of that.
Rating: 0 Positives / 0 Negatives
55 months ago
so what does this mean? does it mean i can install windows apps on leopard??? i doubt it does, but i sure hope so, b/c then i can run games w00t (maybe not, but still i'm excited)
Rating: 0 Positives / 0 Negatives
55 months ago

I don't really think I like the sound of that.


Neither do I. Apple has already stated that Bootcamp could hurt Mac built apps. I doubt they would allow windows apps to run on OS X. That could doom the Mac app industry.
Rating: 0 Positives / 0 Negatives
55 months ago
Sounds like OS/2 to me...

I don't think it is a good idea for Apple to go down that route at all. The idea is to get people away from Windows not invite UI problems.
Rating: 0 Positives / 0 Negatives
55 months ago

This sounds interesting, the iTunes excuse doesn't seem to fly after all iTunes for Windows was around hell of a long time before Leopard. Wonder what it could mean, probably nothing.


That iTunes on windows was around long before Leopard adds to the suggestion it is related to that work. It could simply be that now they are working off of a more unified code base and Leopard was where that unification became apparent.

I also agree that it means nothing. `file` on a ia32 UNIX/Linux can tell you a file is a PPC or ia64 executable but that doesn't mean someone is working on something in the kernel to let a ia32 execute a PPC or ia64 binary.

EDIT: hit a tab when I didn't mean to.
Rating: 0 Positives / 0 Negatives
55 months ago
Wild speculation:
Could be the first step toward introducing native support for the supposedly platform-independent .NET runtime (or the open-source Mono equivalent).

While not strictly speaking Win32 binaries (or even i386 binaries of any sort for that matter), applications built for .NET are also wrapped up using the PE file format by default .
Rating: 0 Positives / 0 Negatives
55 months ago

That iTunes on windows was around long before Leopard adds to the suggestion it is related to that work. It could simply be that now they are working off of a more unified code base and Leopard was where that unification became apparent.

I also agree that it means nothing. `file.




Windows support was added 16/10/2003, Tiger was released 29/04/2005. Why didn't they unify the code based back with Tiger. Not saying you are wrong but it seems a little out but then again this is Apple.
Rating: 0 Positives / 0 Negatives
55 months ago
Whilst I'm keen not to read too much into this, I would certainly be concerned about the future of mac apps if this becamwe a reality.
Rating: 0 Positives / 0 Negatives

[ Read All Comments ]