Mac software will run Win apps without Windows

Discussions General
#1

June 30, 2006 – Next month, a company called CodeWeavers will ship Mac OS X software for Intel-powered Macs that will enable users to run Windows XP applications, but without running Windows itself. CrossOver will also be the first solution to run PC games on any Mac.

http://i.n.com.com/i/ne/p/2006/Project-Screenshot_550x344.jpg
Mac OS X running Microsoft Project

http://i.n.com.com/i/ne/p/2006/Visio-Screenshot_550x344.jpg
Mac OS X running Microsoft Visio

CrossOver will run each Windows application will in a Mac OS X Window. There is no Windows desktop or start menu; Windows programs can minimize in the Mac OS X Dock. CrossOver has a Programs menu in the Mac OS X menu bar that lists Windows applications.

Crossover is not a virtualization environment or an emulator. For instance, document files created by Windows applications are stored in Mac folders, not in a virtual disk image or a separate partition.

Jeremy White, CEO of CodeWeavers, said that CrossOver will not run every Windows application, but will focus on a set of tested applications. White said that the 1.0 version will be optimized for Outlook, Project, Visio, and HalfLife 2, but other applications should work. White also said that because CrossOver has support for the Intel Macs native graphics, it will be able to run PC games.

Because CrossOver doesnt require the user to own a copy of Windows XP, the total cost of ownership will be lower than any emulator/virtualization solution, and lower than Apples free Boot Camp solution. CodeWeavers expects to sell CrossOver for US $50, and expects to ship it at the end of July.

CrossOver for Mac OS X is port of the Linux version that CodeWeaver now sells. CrossOver is a commercial version of the open source WINE software for Linux and Unix. White said that CodeWeaver is the leading sponsor of the WINE project. A Mac port of WINE, Darwine, is still in the early stages of development.

http://www.macwindows.com/#630b

#2

Sweet! But isnt any emulator for that matter might slowing down PCs? Been having to convert here and there (from Win native applications to Apple native applications?) Well, Im not fan of emulator but this does look nice incase got few bucks buy Apple in future hehe :smiley: :smiley:

#3

These apps are for the new Intel powered Macs, and they run full speed.

#4

hey, ian… besides having mac to do “windoze emulation”, what other thing can mac do? Does it focus on server technology other than web service that you mention earlier?

#5

Have a look here. - sorry I don’t have th etime to do a full write up now.

#6

check out this one… scroll down or search the line for “Mac OS X”…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison … ng_systems

look at what it is based on! “NeXTSTEP, FreeBSD, Mac OS”

Looks like it is worth while to look into FreeBSD.

#7

[quote=“huasing”]check out this one… scroll down or search the line for “Mac OS X”…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison … ng_systems

look at what it is based on! “NeXTSTEP, FreeBSD, Mac OS”

Looks like it is worth while to look into FreeBSD.[/quote]

BSD is built up from scratch for security by default. Incidentally, do an nmap scan of MiriCommunity.net - it’s hosted on FreeBSD too.

#8

here is my Nmap scan result using [size=150]SYN Stealth (-sS)[/size] !

Starting nmap 3.81 ( http://www.insecure.org/nmap/ ) at 2006-07-10 20:45 EDT
Initiating SYN Stealth Scan against piram.dnsvine.com (202.71.107.4) [1663 ports] at 20:45
Discovered open port 25/tcp on 202.71.107.4
Discovered open port 443/tcp on 202.71.107.4
Discovered open port 80/tcp on 202.71.107.4
Discovered open port 53/tcp on 202.71.107.4
Discovered open port 22/tcp on 202.71.107.4
Discovered open port 21/tcp on 202.71.107.4
Discovered open port 993/tcp on 202.71.107.4
Discovered open port 465/tcp on 202.71.107.4
Discovered open port 995/tcp on 202.71.107.4
Increasing send delay for 202.71.107.4 from 0 to 5 due to 128 out of 426 dropped probes since last increase.
Discovered open port 106/tcp on 202.71.107.4
Increasing send delay for 202.71.107.4 from 5 to 10 due to max_successful_tryno increase to 4
SYN Stealth Scan Timing: About 44.41% done; ETC: 20:46 (0:00:37 remaining)
Discovered open port 143/tcp on 202.71.107.4
Discovered open port 3306/tcp on 202.71.107.4
Discovered open port 8443/tcp on 202.71.107.4
Discovered open port 110/tcp on 202.71.107.4
The SYN Stealth Scan took 84.97s to scan 1663 total ports.
For OSScan assuming port 21 is open, 1 is closed, and neither are firewalled
For OSScan assuming port 21 is open, 1 is closed, and neither are firewalled
For OSScan assuming port 21 is open, 1 is closed, and neither are firewalled
Host piram.dnsvine.com (202.71.107.4) appears to be up … good.
Interesting ports on piram.dnsvine.com (202.71.107.4):
(The 1648 ports scanned but not shown below are in state: closed)
PORT STATE SERVICE
21/tcp open ftp
22/tcp open ssh
25/tcp open smtp
53/tcp open domain
80/tcp open http
106/tcp open pop3pw
110/tcp open pop3
143/tcp open imap
443/tcp open https
465/tcp open smtps
512/tcp filtered exec
993/tcp open imaps
995/tcp open pop3s
3306/tcp open mysql
8443/tcp open https-alt
No exact OS matches for host (If you know what OS is running on it, see http://www.insecure.org/cgi-bin/nmap-submit.cgi).
TCP/IP fingerprint:
SInfo(V=3.81%P=i686-pc-linux-gnu%D=7/10%Tm=44B2F513%O=21%C=1)
TSeq(Class=TR%IPID=I%TS=100HZ)
T1(Resp=Y%DF=Y%W=E000%ACK=S++%Flags=AS%Ops=MNWNNT)
T2(Resp=N)
T3(Resp=N)
T4(Resp=N)
T5(Resp=Y%DF=N%W=0%ACK=S++%Flags=AR%Ops=)
T6(Resp=N)
T7(Resp=N)
PU(Resp=Y%DF=N%TOS=0%IPLEN=38%RIPTL=148%RID=E%RIPCK=F%UCK=F%ULEN=134%DAT=E)

Uptime 28.383 days (since Mon Jun 12 11:35:06 2006)
TCP Sequence Prediction: Class=truly random
Difficulty=9999999 (Good luck!)
IPID Sequence Generation: Incremental

Nmap finished: 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 99.299 seconds
Raw packets sent: 2610 (105KB) | Rcvd: 1742 (80.4KB)

#9

here is my Nmap scan result using [size=150]TCP Connect() (-sT)[/size]!

Starting nmap 3.81 ( http://www.insecure.org/nmap/ ) at 2006-07-10 20:48 EDT
Initiating Connect() Scan against piram.dnsvine.com (202.71.107.4) [1663 ports] at 20:48
Discovered open port 22/tcp on 202.71.107.4
Discovered open port 21/tcp on 202.71.107.4
Discovered open port 80/tcp on 202.71.107.4
Discovered open port 25/tcp on 202.71.107.4
Discovered open port 443/tcp on 202.71.107.4
Discovered open port 53/tcp on 202.71.107.4
Discovered open port 465/tcp on 202.71.107.4
Discovered open port 106/tcp on 202.71.107.4
Discovered open port 993/tcp on 202.71.107.4
Discovered open port 3306/tcp on 202.71.107.4
Discovered open port 110/tcp on 202.71.107.4
Discovered open port 143/tcp on 202.71.107.4
Discovered open port 8443/tcp on 202.71.107.4
Discovered open port 995/tcp on 202.71.107.4
Increasing send delay for 202.71.107.4 from 0 to 5 due to max_successful_tryno increase to 4
The Connect() Scan took 32.20s to scan 1663 total ports.
For OSScan assuming port 21 is open, 1 is closed, and neither are firewalled
For OSScan assuming port 21 is open, 1 is closed, and neither are firewalled
For OSScan assuming port 21 is open, 1 is closed, and neither are firewalled
Host piram.dnsvine.com (202.71.107.4) appears to be up … good.
Interesting ports on piram.dnsvine.com (202.71.107.4):
(The 1648 ports scanned but not shown below are in state: closed)
PORT STATE SERVICE
21/tcp open ftp
22/tcp open ssh
25/tcp open smtp
53/tcp open domain
80/tcp open http
106/tcp open pop3pw
110/tcp open pop3
143/tcp open imap
443/tcp open https
465/tcp open smtps
512/tcp filtered exec
993/tcp open imaps
995/tcp open pop3s
3306/tcp open mysql
8443/tcp open https-alt
No exact OS matches for host (If you know what OS is running on it, see http://www.insecure.org/cgi-bin/nmap-submit.cgi).
TCP/IP fingerprint:
SInfo(V=3.81%P=i686-pc-linux-gnu%D=7/10%Tm=44B2F599%O=21%C=1)
TSeq(Class=TR%TS=100HZ)
T1(Resp=Y%DF=Y%W=E000%ACK=S++%Flags=AS%Ops=MNWNNT)
T2(Resp=N)
T3(Resp=N)
T4(Resp=N)
T5(Resp=Y%DF=N%W=0%ACK=S++%Flags=AR%Ops=)
T6(Resp=N)
T7(Resp=N)
PU(Resp=Y%DF=N%TOS=0%IPLEN=38%RIPTL=148%RID=E%RIPCK=F%UCK=F%ULEN=134%DAT=E)

Uptime 28.385 days (since Mon Jun 12 11:35:06 2006)
TCP Sequence Prediction: Class=truly random
Difficulty=9999999 (Good luck!)
IPID Sequence Generation: Busy server or unknown class

Nmap finished: 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 46.722 seconds
Raw packets sent: 56 (3308B) | Rcvd: 28 (1612B)

#10

from the 2 posts, it seems like my nmap is out-dated therefore it couldn’t identify which distro http://www.miricommunity.net is hosted on.

which version or nmap you last use to scan this host?

#11

[quote=“huasing”]from the 2 posts, it seems like my nmap is out-dated therefore it couldn’t identify which distro http://www.miricommunity.net is hosted on.

which version or nmap you last use to scan this host?[/quote]

I’m getting the same thing now too. I last checked it a month ago. They must’ve done something during that last disruption.

EDIT: Btw, I’m still using 3.70 :stuck_out_tongue:

#12

result from nmap 4 :o
the verbose result shows more this time… 8)

Starting Nmap 4.01 ( http://www.insecure.org/nmap/ ) at 2006-07-14 00:32 EDT
DNS resolution of 1 IPs took 0.07s. Mode: Async [#: 2, OK: 1, NX: 0, DR: 0, SF: 0, TR: 1, CN: 0]
Initiating SYN Stealth Scan against piram.dnsvine.com (202.71.107.4) [1672 ports] at 00:32
Discovered open port 80/tcp on 202.71.107.4
Discovered open port 443/tcp on 202.71.107.4
Discovered open port 53/tcp on 202.71.107.4
Discovered open port 25/tcp on 202.71.107.4
Discovered open port 21/tcp on 202.71.107.4
Discovered open port 22/tcp on 202.71.107.4
Discovered open port 465/tcp on 202.71.107.4
Discovered open port 995/tcp on 202.71.107.4
Discovered open port 106/tcp on 202.71.107.4
Discovered open port 993/tcp on 202.71.107.4
Discovered open port 3306/tcp on 202.71.107.4
Discovered open port 110/tcp on 202.71.107.4
Discovered open port 8443/tcp on 202.71.107.4
Discovered open port 143/tcp on 202.71.107.4
The SYN Stealth Scan took 15.87s to scan 1672 total ports.
Initiating service scan against 14 services on piram.dnsvine.com (202.71.107.4) at 00:33
The service scan took 34.92s to scan 14 services on 1 host.
For OSScan assuming port 21 is open, 1 is closed, and neither are firewalled
For OSScan assuming port 21 is open, 1 is closed, and neither are firewalled
For OSScan assuming port 21 is open, 1 is closed, and neither are firewalled
Host piram.dnsvine.com (202.71.107.4) appears to be up … good.
Interesting ports on piram.dnsvine.com (202.71.107.4):
(The 1657 ports scanned but not shown below are in state: closed)
PORT STATE SERVICE VERSION
21/tcp open ftp ProFTPD 1.2.9
22/tcp open ssh OpenSSH 3.5p1 [size=150]FreeBSD[/size]-20030924 (protocol 1.99)
25/tcp open smtp qmail smtpd
53/tcp open domain
80/tcp open http Apache httpd 1.3.31
106/tcp open pop3pw poppassd
110/tcp open pop3 Courier pop3d
143/tcp open imap Courier Imapd (released 2004)
443/tcp open ssl OpenSSL
465/tcp open ssl OpenSSL
512/tcp filtered exec
993/tcp open ssl OpenSSL
995/tcp open ssl OpenSSL
3306/tcp open mysql MySQL 3.23.58
8443/tcp open http Apache httpd 1.3.31 (([size=150]FreeBSD[/size]) mod_ssl/2.8.18 OpenSSL/0.9.7d PHP/4.3.10)
No exact OS matches for host (If you know what OS is running on it, see http://www.insecure.org/cgi-bin/nmap-submit.cgi).
TCP/IP fingerprint:
SInfo(V=4.01%P=i686-pc-linux-gnu%D=7/14%Tm=44B71EB4%O=21%C=1)
TSeq(Class=TR%IPID=I%TS=100HZ)
T1(Resp=Y%DF=Y%W=E000%ACK=S++%Flags=AS%Ops=MNWNNT)
T2(Resp=N)
T3(Resp=N)
T4(Resp=N)
T5(Resp=Y%DF=N%W=0%ACK=S++%Flags=AR%Ops=)
T6(Resp=N)
T7(Resp=N)
PU(Resp=Y%DF=N%TOS=0%IPLEN=38%RIPTL=148%RID=E%RIPCK=F%UCK=F%ULEN=134%DAT=E)

Uptime 31.541 days (since Mon Jun 12 11:35:16 2006)
TCP Sequence Prediction: Class=truly random
Difficulty=9999999 (Good luck!)
IPID Sequence Generation: Incremental
Service Info: OS: Unix

Nmap finished: 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 63.187 seconds
Raw packets sent: 1893 (85KB) | Rcvd: 1749 (80.9KB)

#13

[quote=“huasing”]result from nmap 4 :o
the verbose result shows more this time… 8)
[/quote]

Turns out i was confusing the other machine to do the check which had the more updated version. Yup, version 4. When i redid the check was on another machine with old version. sorry for the confusion.

Wow, you’re comprehensive eh.

#14

[quote=“ian”]
Wow, you’re comprehensive eh.[/quote]

:lol: :lol: haha you mean “persistent”, right? :lol: :lol: