Microsoft Acquires Virtual PC from Connectix

[MacRumors]

MacCentral reports (http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/0302/19.macbu.php) that Microsoft has acquired Virtual PC from Connectix:

According to a statement by the director of marketing and business for the Macintosh Business Unit (of Microsoft):

"What this means for Mac users is that Microsoft's Macintosh Business Unit (MacBU) will be responsible for supporting and shipping all current versions of Virtual PC and development for all future versions of the product"

According to the article, the MacBU will work to make Virtual PC work even better both with Windows and Mac OS X



The goal for the MacBU is to have seamless compatibility between Windows and Mac OS X, according to McDonough.

[Clockwork]

I believe this is a very smart move indeed by Microsoft. They now have control over an application which was advertised to alot of switchers. I am looking forward to see if Microsoft will exploit or enrich this piece of software.
If they can make the damn thing move faster then good. The best thing would be if the made it invisible, so that you could just run x86 apps directly from OSX without the whole Windows interface. Don't know if that would work though...

[DHagan4755]

Bye-bye Virtual PC.

[Das]

Well, if there is a positive side, at least it's that VPC will get even better...I hope...Hopefully better gaming performance if that's not being too optimistic.

[jeremy.king]

But given Connectix's experience with the Mac platform and now officially working for Microsoft, does this mean that Windows could at some point in the far future be ported to run natively on Mac hardware???

Call me a conspiracist, but I don't like the fact that the one tool for us who need to run windows software on our macs, is now owned by microsoft...

"If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em" Bill Gates

[J@ffa]

Eek. This could turn into a major situation... I'm fairly sure VPC is pretty important to Apple, and to go around pissing Microsoft off after this isn't the best move in the world...

[pimentoLoaf]

VPC allows for drag-'n'-dropping of PC files into os9/x and vice-versa; with the addition of MacLink Plus Deluxe (and I don't remember the name of the PC version), one can truly translate files between os's.

MS won't cancel the product.

[smegdude]

its quite obvious that m$ are gonna kill off vpc, why would they support a product who's whole use is to run their OS on a rival system?
if they do make it better then i can pretty much guarantee that m$ will be charging much more for their new OS's, makeing it more economical just to buy a new pc.

RIP VPC

[nighthawk]

If MS EOL's VPC, that might be the BEST thing that can happen!

The Apple would get involved and port WINE to run native to OSX, and without the NEED to buy WindowsXP OS, we have Windows compatiblity. Who knows, Apple might decide to do that anyways even if MS did continue the project. It would be a definite key selling point to OSX 10.3 or 10.4.


On the other hand, MS could port/update their WindowsXP OS code to the PowerPC, with an emulator only for application calls which would speed up the VPC tremdously.

Either way, I see it as an advantage.

[rainman::|:|]

well, at least we got a mostly decent OS X version of VPC before it dies. this is pretty sad-- i have a few predictions as to what MS will do here, and none of them are good.

pnw

[Clockwork]

to go around pissing Microsoft off
This does'nt necesserily meen that Microsoft are pissed off at Apple's business tactics.
As the article stated they are first and foremost interested in Connectix Virtual Server.

[nanosound]

Why would MS want to kill it off? You are actually purchasing a licensed version of Windoze. That's all the better for them. I think they will improve a piece of crap product that Cntx was charging us a bundle for, like the upgrade to 6.

[yzedf]

VPC 6 runs so frickin slow... it is just a waste of time. (reference is 800MHz iBook w/ 640MB RAM running VPC 6 w/ XP Pro) If I want to run a windows program that bad, get a used celeron/duron system and use that, assuming you don't have access to a PC in some other manner. Difference in price isn't all that big.

[G4scott]

m$ fights back.

Apple, it's time for you to open the gates of hell upon microsoft, and unleash the fury that is what you have hidden from us that will surely defeat microsoft...

One OS to rule them all
One OS to find them
One OS to bring them all
And in the darkness bind them

[backspinner]

bye bye new appleworks

it apple makes microsoft angry, MS will stop virtual pc and we won't be able to fill in the electronic tax form, to name just an important example for me

[Stelliform]

Originally posted by nighthawk


Either way, I see it as an advantage.

But what if they kill it outright? Wine will take at least a year to get up to snuff. It would be a setback to apple.

[springscansing]

I do not really understand virtual PC. It runs so damn slow. For under 300 bucks, you can get an Athlon 900mhz system, 256 RAM, 60GBHD, 10/100 ethernet, DVD-ROM, and a geforce4mx 64MB graphics card.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3401785793&category=4317

Right there. Same price as Virtual PC, and KICKS ITS ASS in every way possible.

1 hour left... someone better jump on it.

Please, someone explain to me why Virtual PC is good.

Connectix's Playstation emulator was also stupid. 50 bucks for the program, 40 bucks for two controllers... just buy a damn playstation already! Even Steve Jobs said that.

And RAMdoubler was slow as hell and terrible... speed doubler didn't double much...

I personally could care less about Connectix. Someone prove me wrong.

[utilizer]

Originally posted by nanosound
Why would MS want to kill it off? You are actually purchasing a licensed version of Windoze. That's all the better for them. I think they will improve a piece of crap product that Cntx was charging us a bundle for, like the upgrade to 6.

Windows and Mac joint developers: it's imperative that you continue to develop a Macintosh version of your software now. A Windows version just won't cut it nowadays. We see this in Intuit's Quickbooks, which I say kudos to them! This is the reason why Microsoft is making this move today.

MY PREDICTION:

The IBM 970 will clobber any x86 offerring out there later on this year. M$ knows this. People are pretty content with the computers they have now. They are sufficient enough for the day to day tasks. PROFESSIONALS that need to work FASTER will be buying the Macs b/c they will be siginificantly faster at tasks. Microsoft loses market share.

By making such a move, they will then develop a Virtual PC version for Windows that runs Mac programs, therefore launching their own true switch campaign. The Virtual PC for Mac will be killed and most likely, Virtual PC for Windows will be built into the system as some sort of component, much like Classic is in OS X.
You can run iTunes, iCal, etc.

I sure hope I'm wrong but this could be the time for Apple to get the "virtual carbon paper" out and start copying the major Windows programs that come out only for Windows, and not for the Mac platform in the future, thereby making their own unique program.










Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

[alset]

They will slow development, release it with bugs, then kill the whole program. We're screwed.

Dan

[backspinner]

I thought that WINE works only on x86 linux platform? It's only a software interface and not a processor emulator.

On another note: the Mac is not a rivaling platform for microsoft as long as you talk hardware. OS X is a competing platform. Microsoft would be happy to sell it's OS to mac people. oh well.

[eric_n_dfw]

In the prior thread, a couple of people mentioned WINE and a derivitive product called Crossover Office.

Per the WINE FAQ:
3.1. Under what hardware platform(s) and operating system(s) will Wine(Lib) run?

Wine is being developed specifically to run on the Intel x86 class of CPUs under certain UNIXes that run on the x86 platform.

NetBSD, OpenBSD, Unixware, and SCO OpenServer 5 worked at one time, but Wine now requires kernel-level threads which are not currently available (or understood by the Wine team) in those platforms.
It would be quite a herculean effort to get WINE to work on non-x86 hardware and even then, the Windows .exe files are not compiled for it so I don't even think it would work.

Wine is not an emulator - it's akin in the mac os classic mode in OS X. No emulation is being done as the PPC hardware already exists.

I hope we see better/faster VPC versions from MS since they can now write direct hooks into the win32 code if they wanted to.

[Clockwork]

it apple makes microsoft angry, MS will stop virtual pc and we won't be able to fill in the electronic tax form

wtf?!? Is the Dutch electronic-tax form a Windows only application? Don't you people have laws to prevent things like that? Then I definetly would not fill in my tax form...

[etoiles]

Originally posted by Das
Well, if there is a positive side, at least it's that VPC will get even better...

LOL :D :D :D
hey man, it was bought by MICROSOFT !

[b3uk]

Ha! Maybe M$ actually think that they'll be able to persuade people to switch platforms when they see how *wonderful* XP is!

[Stelliform]

Originally posted by nanosound
Why would MS want to kill it off? You are actually purchasing a licensed version of Windoze. That's all the better for them. I think they will improve a piece of crap product that Cntx was charging us a bundle for, like the upgrade to 6.

But you are purchasing a cheaper version of windows. From my pricing, up to $100 cheaper than a full version of windows.

[beatle888]

Originally posted by kingjr3

"If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em" Bill Gates


OH MY GOD :D did he really SAY THAT?


anyway, when i first read the rumor i was a
little nervous. however after thinking about it,
virtual pc is a tool microsoft can use to sell more
software titles. it might be within their interest
to keep vpc alive and well. who knows what will
happen between these two companies.

[timbloom]

Yeah, microsoft allready gets their money from the fact if you buy VPC, you ARE buying an official copy of windows. They will probably make it so you can only run microsoft OS's. I don't see why microsoft would do this, other than to kindof stall the switcher threat from apple. Since now they would be able to pull a vital product from the switcher market at any time.
Apple will just have to counter this move by either making making VPC useless, or coming up will some brilliant idea

[totally_fly]

they did a good job with Office.. (not with MSN Messenger) maybe they can make this app better.. it wasnt great to start with..

[achmafooma]

Okay ... Apple realizes that it can risk losing office for Mac and go after MS with stuff like Keynote and Safari.

So MS grabs up something else to keep Apple in line. Would Apple risk losing VPC?

Aside from the price, Office X for Mac isn't that bad. I don't think MS will kill VPC just yet, in fact I think they'll make it better - dare I say, they'll make it indespensible for people like me who want to test their sites and/or software on multiple platforms in one computer.

A smart strategic move for MS, bad news for Apple. It's a twisted chess game, each team vying for control of the board. Apple was, I think still is, gaining a leg up and so MS is trying to make it cost them dearly.

Fun to watch.

I'm convinced VPC won't die, not right away, they haven't even killed Office yet when they could've really hurt Apple at any time by doing that.

[mbcastleman]

We who use VPC are toast. I use it every day- visio, crm software...

I will tell you why they did it... because no one bought Office and they are pissed off.

Seriously, M$ knows that Apple will always have 3-7% market share...At the end of the day... Many of those 3-7% will have a copy of VPC which is more expensive that XP on a Pentium. Their margins should be decent and they can really say that all machines run windows... Guess they can port it over to linux fairly easily...

Who knows....I think it is a bad thing...

[aafuss1]

If this is true, then I'd specuulate MS would try tomatch apple'ds classic mode, bu includnmg a subset of VPPC fesatures. Byt it's not quite offical-as normally MS would issue a PR afterwards.

[jaykk]

I am sure M$ is going to continue VPC. We will be so depended on this that M$ can charge whatever they want if you want to fill out your tax etc, as previous poster mentioned. What is the incentive of developers to create a Mac Software if it runs on a emulation mode. So we may have to run more and more software on emulation, and all the money belong to M$. What else is new?

I think M$ really thinks that they can make money selling Mac software, beacause Win maket is getting saturated. This tell me that M$ have more faith in Mac than some mac users, and Mac OS X is the best os ever. And the reverse-switch ads are coming soon too.

[Rustus Maximus]

utilizer is correct...they aren't going to kill this program. Remember that Microcrud is a SOFTWARE company, they don't care where their crudware runs, as long as it's purchased and limping along on someone's machine.

They see the future coming in the 970 (and 980, 990 ;) ) and they want to insure that they will be a part of that game.

Fret not! And as was stated above:

Originally posted by yzedf

VPC 6 runs so frickin slow... it is just a waste of time. (reference is 800MHz iBook w/ 640MB RAM running VPC 6 w/ XP Pro) If I want to run a windows program that bad, get a used celeron/duron system and use that, assuming you don't have access to a PC in some other manner. Difference in price isn't all that big.

[MorganX]

Originally posted by utilizer
The IBM 970 will clobber any x86 offerring out there later on this year.

Pure speculation. More likely with will put the Mac in the same class with current top of the line PCs. "If" it is used. The Power5 is pretty expensive, you may lose a lot getting it down to a resonable desktop CPU price point.

Anyway, VPC is so slow it's ridiculous. I've used it. PC Switchers, already have a PC they can keep if they need it. I just don't think MS is after VPC.

If VPC disappeared tomorrow very few would care, IMO.

[Bytore]

We can still use Bochs and run just about any OS you want (slowly of course)....

http://bochs.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/topper.pl?name=See+All+Releases&url=http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.phpqmrkgroup_ideq12580

[MorganX]

If I was going to join the conspiracy theorists, I'd say Microsoft is PO'd by Keynote, Safari, and the number of switchers and will stop developing Office X.

Microsoft will sell only Office for Windows and guarantee its compatibility with VPC. But no more native Office for Mac. This way they won't have to worry about .Net on Mac.

If Microsoft does this, they've written off the Mac, and this would just be a PR gesture to stave off monopoly accusations. We've made sure that Office 2004 will run on a Mac with VPC but it's no longer viable for us to develop a native version for Mac OS.

[bignumbers]

Of course VPC is now dead. It'll die a slow, painful death whether M$ wants it to or not. But they probably do want it dead.

M$ does make a few bucks from Mac users, thanks for VPC (Windows license) and Office X. But they'd make more if we bought a Wintel machine where everyone buys Windows and Office and all the other crap.

I hope this would get some updates into SoftWindows or Blue Label but now they're making a product competing with M$'s VPC. M$ now has a monopoly on Wintel emulation on Macs.

(I can't blame M$ for buying the product line, and I doubt VPC/Mac played into their reasoning. Running a virual machine on any OS is a nifty thing, and I'm sure they'll find uses for it under Windows.)

It's also sad to see the end of Connectix. M$ only acquired the VPC assets, but that's their only current product...

[reedm007]

Think about it:

MS wants to continue VPC. They don't CARE about the hardware, remember? They're a software company. The more licenses of MS software they sell, the better.

Think about it: if VPC is so good it integrates into the OS like X11, Mac users will all run out and buy it.

Think about that. If that happens, MS's market share just shot up to, oh, about 99.9%. Because Mac users will ALL be running Windows too!!!

A rather scary thought IMHO. And the problem also is, if VPC gets better, and more integrated, a lot of developers might say "screw developing for Macs, they can just run it in VPC". And then slowly MS takes over the entire OS as we have to use VPC even more and eventually we'll all give up on Macs and move to PCs because there will be so little software...

Ahhh!!!

(of course, this is a worst-case scenario... :) )

[edenwaith]

Originally posted by b3uk
Ha! Maybe M$ actually think that they'll be able to persuade people to switch platforms when they see how *wonderful* XP is!

You're trying to make me puke, right? Tell me that next time I have food poisoning.

And does anyone else expect a bunch of Teletubbies to suddenly start hopping around the screen on a machine running XP?

[timbloom]

Originally posted by Rustus Maximus
they aren't going to kill this program. Remember that Microcrud is a SOFTWARE company, they don't care where their crudware runs, as long as it's purchased and limping along on someone's machine.


This is a point that people really need to realize. future and current Apple products are really raising the bar and bringing in switchers to our market. Microsoft wants more of a chunk.

Just because you bought a mac does not hurt ms. It is that you didn't buy their OS or any of their programs.

If they make it more compatible, they can market their products to Mac users easier without porting each and every one of them.

So now the tech support battle ends between microsoft and connectix. Now I can tell everybody that has a problem with it to just call microsoft. VPC is a tech-support nightmare.

[timbloom]

Originally posted by reedm007
...a lot of developers might say "screw developing for Macs, they can just run it in VPC". And then slowly MS takes over the entire OS as we have to use VPC even more and eventually we'll all give up on Macs and move to PCs because there will be so little software...

Ahhh!!!

(of course, this is a worst-case scenario... :) )

Ok, now I going to start having nightmares, thanks.

[Sun Baked]

Now is the time to start a poll to see by how much the price of VPC will balloon, and when.

I can see at least a price increase to $199 or $299 for the upgrades, and $399 to $499 price points for the full whack versions.

[Mr. MacPhisto]

Originally posted by smegdude
its quite obvious that m$ are gonna kill off vpc, why would they support a product who's whole use is to run their OS on a rival system?
if they do make it better then i can pretty much guarantee that m$ will be charging much more for their new OS's, makeing it more economical just to buy a new pc.

RIP VPC

I doubt it. My feeling is that MS sees it as a market to exploit. They'll expand their dominance if they're able to sell Windows to parts of the 11% or so portion of the computer market.

I think it is a move to attempt to counter Apple if they decide to play rough over the next few years. Of course, Apple could counter with their own virtual machine that runs a licensed copy of windows - just like they could have an Office app that could read and write the MS format. I just think MS sees a market. Remember, VPC also lets Windows users run other versions of windows inside the booted version of Windows they are running. That could be technology MS wants too.

If the MBU is given free reign, though, then I think we'll see dramatic improvements to VPC for the Mac.

[garyhoare]

This is nothing less than a shot fired across the Apple's bow.

[edenwaith]

Originally posted by kingjr3

"If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em" Bill Gates

That's what it seems. There was Bungie who developed Mac games...bought out. When was Halo SUPPOSED to have come out? About 2...3 years ago? Now here is Connectix....or there it was. Time for a new PC emulator to be created.

I tend to use VPC for Chessmaster and some old DOS games, which it seems to run fine for the most part. But my 400 Mhz G4 PowerMac can't run much that requires anything over 66-100 MHZ...maybe even slower. I certainly know it can't run games requiring 200+Mhz at all. Just not playable.

Thanks a lot U.S. government for letting this monopoly continue on terrorizing the world.

I am no longer proud to live in this warmongering, monopolistic country.

[GeneR]

I think M$ wants to have VPC in its back pocket so it can continue to keep Apple in check. If they just "happen" to slow down the release of new versions of VPC and the timeline for Mac-oriented products just "happen" to lag behind that of their windows counterparts, we're back to square one again.

Let's face it: M$ is going to continue to innovate its own Windows OS and the last thing they want is to allow Apple to become the end-all-be-all solution to OS issues. I mean: if, on an Apple, you can run the lastest OSX AND the latest Windows, then you're sitting pretty, right? Even if Windoze is really slow on the Mac, you have "options" to move back and forth between OSs at any time.

Now say, M$ comes out with WindowsFU. ;) Okay, now WindowsFU on VPC just "happens" to come out six months, no... a year and a half after WindowsFU comes out on PC. Meanwhile, AGAIN we have Apple people twiddling their thumbs wondering when we can use the PC programs ourselves. Well, I wonder...gee, whiz, whatdayathinkofthat? "Oh golly, Miss Molly! Could that happen?"

And if you you say "no" to that last question, I would worry for your sanity... (and mine! :D)

Hmmm. I think I'm going to have to make a T-shirt with that on it now: "WindowsFU"... (a lot of scratching of the chin on that one... hmmm.
;) )

[Kid Red]

Originally posted by timbloom
This is a point that people really need to realize. future and current Apple products are really raising the bar and bringing in switchers to our market. Microsoft wants more of a chunk.

Just because you bought a mac does not hurt ms. It is that you didn't buy their OS or any of their programs.

If they make it more compatible, they can market their products to Mac users easier without porting each and every one of them.

So now the tech support battle ends between microsoft and connectix. Now I can tell everybody that has a problem with it to just call microsoft. VPC is a tech-support nightmare.

I was nervous about aquisition but you rational is interesting. M$ buys VPC to ensure growth. As more peopl switch there will always be some who need windows apps, so by owning VPC M$ guaratees income, both my VPC itself and MS apps. Maybe they'll go ruthless and sell VPC for $300 with no OS.

[dswoodley]

With ownership of VPC, what sense will it make for Microsoft to continue developing, marketing, and supporting parallel products for both platforms (yes, including Office)? In my opinion very little.

Not that I care, pretty much everything I need is non-MS. I know many Mac users are in a different boat, which really sucks.

I think the only way developers wil come back to the Mac Platform is when Apple's share is back in double-digits...sigh

[Dont Hurt Me]

I would like to know how much stock microsoft owns of apple computer. If you look at everything the giant monopoly has been doing it is buying anything remotely apple. Take a look virtual pc,bungie(Halo) Blizzard in the works, Destineer who is in microsofts pockets buys Macplay, If Microsoft doesnt buy out apple it will own all those companies that sell mac software. Monopoly,monopoly,monopoly. I think one day apple may be a microsoft company one way or another get the drift.

[Moxiemike]

how about XP Classic?

:D

option to install with any new version of Mac OS.....

[MorganX]

Originally posted by GeneR
Let's face it: M$ is going to continue to innovate its own Windows OS and the last thing they want is to allow Apple to become the end-all-be-all solution to OS issues.

Perhaps it's something of a white flag. MS is not about to compete with Apple or OS X's design. Thoughts of buying Macromedia Flash was as close as they've come to thinking about competing with Aqua, though GDI+ is already in Windows 2000/XP.

Maybe they've accepted there are many PC users who want a Mac now and there's nothing they're going to do about it and want to improve VPC so there's no sudden demand for native VISIO or more online banking institutions supported in the Mac Quicken, etc. If VPC becomes super fast, they may lose users but they won't lose developers. They may even make it run more games with great sound, not game developers don't need to bother with native Mac versions.

VPC is a double-edge sword. Either way MS only has so much to lose on their side...

[edenwaith]

Also, M$ might be able to make more money off of selling copies of VPC by selling the licenses of Windows that go with it. They might make more money from those licenses than they would from OEMs who are selling licenses at a reduced price.

Now, let's stretch our imaginations until they nearly break, and the MBU is being good and faithful to the Mac community and does a great job with it...well, wonderful, but I think we can all agree that the price will shoot up even more. When I bought VPC (DOS), it cost $50. The upgrade to 3.0 cost nearly that much, and the upgrade to VPC 5 was somewhere around $80. If Connectix was raising prices that high, what will M$ do to them? Ugh.

Time for a new PC emulator to be written.

Not only is there the threat that M$ might kill or screw up VPC, but there is another reason why this is all bad. Over the years, M$ has been getting bigger and bigger and bigger, constantly buying out companies and products. But in this process, it has become so large, that it never excels in any one area. Pretty much all of their products are some bad knock-off of someone else's ideas. Apple is also having some of these problems, but no where to the extreme levels of M$. Apple isn't trying to be a TV-news company (MSNBC), they aren't trying to publish games, they aren't trying to create a game console.

[iJon]

i think this will be good. microsoft will do anything to make a buck or two. i dont think they will stop development just because it runs on windows as well. They are doing exactly what they want to do, putting a nice copy of windows on your mac. personally i really dont know what will happen with this software, but i think it will be ok.

iJon

[yzedf]

Originally posted by MorganX
This way they won't have to worry about .Net on Mac.

Or on the PC.

Microsoft is changing the name.

[MorganX]

[i]If Connectix was raising prices that high, what will M$ do to them? Ugh.

Time for a new PC emulator to be written. [/B]

Here's one for you, FREE. Since native development for Mac Office will be ceased, Microsoft will offer Mac users a free VPC license with an Office XP purchase.

[reedm007]

So if MS ships VPC fully integrated into the Mac OS, so great that Mac users come to rely on it, expect it, heck, even get it bundled with the OS, MS only stands to gain.

PLUS, what if they have a $99/VPC price + windows license, they'd technically make more money off Mac users than PC users. And then, if the switchers campaign is ever a success, (ESPECIALLY ex-PC users who might want that security of having PC programs), they'll make more money on PC users switching than they would if they kept using a PC.

It sounds like MS doesn't really have anything to lose?

[sparks9]

Great! Microsoft will probably improve the programme. Microsoft must be the best maker of Windows-related programmes, I think.

[drastik]

If this gets ugly, I wonder...

If this is M$ positioning to drop the big bomb on Apple, might MArklar be Apples response. I think OS X on x86 is a terrible idea as x86 chips suck ass, and thecheapo hardware is completely unreliable. Still, MArklar is probably Apple's back up plan. Sure, we would lose the wonderful hardware, but OS X wuld grab market share like nothing else, half the reason people have for not switching is price, MArklar would solve that one.

[Topsnack]

this is less about vpc and more about virtual server. People should do a little more reading instead of always assuming its a mac vs microsoft.

[topicolo]

What most of you guys don't realize is that there is a version of VirtualPC for Windows!!! Sure, it doesn't emulate the powerpc, but what if it did?

Can you imagine microsoft integrating a powerpc emulating virtualPC into the next version of windows? They would pull off a switch thing, but in the opposite direction! This can't be good news.

[Das]

Let's see, MS can sell more copies of its windows os AND get another couple of hundred more by selling it with an emulator so that it can spread its already long tentacles into another OS? What exactly would MS have against that? All they end up doing is making more money! Shat, sorry to break it to you, but MS isn’t some maniacal humanized villain looking to trump Apple at its every move. Apple’s done more pot shots at it than MS has ever done. MS looks only to make money and you can bet yer arse that if it can make a grip of cash on a legal MS emulator, it’s going to go after it.

They aren't going to cancel it, but I'm expecting XP to be the only OS available and that it will cost a bloody fortune. Maybe XP will finally run well instead of its crash happy emulated version now. Oh, and you can probably kiss your upgrades goodbye.

On the other hand, if they do cancel it, it's instant Kazaalite so you won't even feel guilty about warezing it, because it's a dead product.

[arn]

What might be bad is that Microsoft may integrate VPC and Windows to the point where VPC won't run any other OS's as it currently does.

The advantage to this will be better Windows performance...

and I could see "VPC" itself disappearing, and simply it becoming "Windows for Mac".

arn

[edenwaith]

Originally posted by MorganX
Here's one for you, FREE. Since native development for Mac Office will be ceased, Microsoft will offer Mac users a free VPC license with an Office XP purchase.

Once again -- ugh. Having to emulate everything would be just as bad as running everything in Classic mode. Start up the emulator, slowly plod through the program...not nearly as enjoyable as a native version, especially under a PC emulation. Classic actually tends to do okay...not perfect, but okay. VPC really cuts the performance, however. On my 500 MHz iBook and my 400 MHz PowerMac, I can run Summoner under Classic just fine. But a game like Diablo II was slowed down and the opening movie to Quake III was pretty choppy in Classic mode (fortunately, both of those games are OS X native, now).

But under VPC? I think the system clocks in around 67MHz...okay for older DOS games, but dead in the water for any games made in the past 4 to 5 years.

[reedm007]

So some of these posts got me thinking...

This could quite possibly be the biggest marketing genius thing to do ever.

Picture MS ads to Mac users: "You like to be different, and that's so cool. But sometimes, you need that security that the program you need will run. Introducing Windows for Mac."

Since MS doesn't stand to lose here really, they could even do their own switcher ads to the Mac: "There are a lot of great reasons to switch to a Mac, and we respect you thinking 'oustide the box'. But you'll quickly find that not all of the software you're used to having will run on your new Mac. Introducing Windows for Mac. 'Switch without worries.'".

And voila, MS can make money off of everyone. In fact, if they can get people to switch back and forth all the time... ;)

[Bateman]

:shivers:

suddenly the world seems cold...


Windows for Mac, produced by MS...

[paulc]

It's going to be killed. Maybe not outright, and maybe not for a number of months, but VPC/Mac is history.

Redmond does NOT want you running winblowz on a Mac. No matter the revenue stream from the OS license; people running winblowz on Macs don't buy a lot of peecee software. Those running winblowz on intel hardware DO buy lots of apps. Which helps to cement their monopoly. THAT is FAR more important to Redmond that any license fees from a crappy of winblowz sold to VPC-using Mac owners.

It's really a shame that Redmond is completely able to subvert our government; if they didn't have such a lock on Washington, they'd get enjoined right quick for this move.

[bbarnhart]

I think this has more to do with Microsoft wanting to get into the virtual server market and really, the virtual anything market. I'm thinking that all of the conspiracy theories with Keynote, Safari, Mac Office etc is going to far.

[edenwaith]

Originally posted by Das


They aren't going to cancel it, but I'm expecting XP to be the only OS available and that it will cost a bloody fortune.

Yet another thing I considered. They might stop offering Dos and Win9x versions, and only offer WinXP, instead. If so, then VPC 5 looks to be my last copy of VPC I'll ever have.

[bretm]

Originally posted by smegdude
its quite obvious that m$ are gonna kill off vpc, why would they support a product who's whole use is to run their OS on a rival system?
if they do make it better then i can pretty much guarantee that m$ will be charging much more for their new OS's, makeing it more economical just to buy a new pc.

RIP VPC

Because it's not a rival system. Microsoft makes software for the most part. Not hardware. Every time someone buys VPC it comes with a full version of Windoze. Microsoft could care less what platform it's running on. As long as it's running. And if people are switching to macs, they'll sell it to the mac users.

[GeneR]

Originally posted by topicolo
What most of you guys don't realize is that there is a version of VirtualPC for Windows!!! Sure, it doesn't emulate the powerpc, but what if it did?

Can you imagine microsoft integrating a powerpc emulating virtualPC into the next version of windows? They would pull off a switch thing, but in the opposite direction! This can't be good news.

QUESTION #1: Wouldn't M$ need to get a license from Apple to make a PowerPC emulator?

QUESTION #2: Emulate FreeBSD? Wouldn't it be easier to simply load FreeBSD onto the PC itself and create their own desktop?

I would hope this never happens, but you never know.

:(

[Dunepilot]

Originally posted by springscansing
I do not really understand virtual PC. It runs so damn slow. For under 300 bucks, you can get an Athlon 900mhz system, 256 RAM, 60GBHD, 10/100 ethernet, DVD-ROM, and a geforce4mx 64MB graphics card.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3401785793&category=4317

Right there. Same price as Virtual PC, and KICKS ITS ASS in every way possible.

1 hour left... someone better jump on it.

Please, someone explain to me why Virtual PC is good.

Connectix's Playstation emulator was also stupid. 50 bucks for the program, 40 bucks for two controllers... just buy a damn playstation already! Even Steve Jobs said that.

And RAMdoubler was slow as hell and terrible... speed doubler didn't double much...

I personally could care less about Connectix. Someone prove me wrong.

I agree with you about the performance/price
ratio of VPC versus a real PC, having tried VPC on a new iMac with 768Mb and still found it slow as $ht.

BUT, the playstation emulator was anything but
stupid. I had it running 3 and a half years ago on my Lombard G3 Powerbook and it was a really really good product. At the time it was the
only way you could effectively have a portable
playstation, and it's still better than Sony's offering with that little LCD (Powerbook 14").

It was/still is a really great feat of emulation, and a great way to access more games on the Mac. If Jobs said that about VGS, then he was being an idiot. Any way to show consumers that the Mac can be a multi-purpose games machine is a sure-fire way to create Switchers. I'm sad sony did away with VGS:(

[-hh]

Originally posted by garyhoare
This is nothing less than a shot fired across the Apple's bow.

My initial thoughts were "We're Doomed!".


But then something waaaaay back in my brain started to Niggle a little bit...


By any chance was Connectix working on a Virtual PC that would run under Linux?


If so, this could be a preemptive move against Linux (regardless of the implications to Apple).


-hh

[sparkleytone]

Originally posted by topicolo
What most of you guys don't realize is that there is a version of VirtualPC for Windows!!! Sure, it doesn't emulate the powerpc, but what if it did?

Can you imagine microsoft integrating a powerpc emulating virtualPC into the next version of windows? They would pull off a switch thing, but in the opposite direction! This can't be good news.

it is against the EULA of OS X to run it on anything but Apple hardware. Unless Microsoft asks really nice, it won't happen.

Also, there are good arguments for both sides of this argument. It may be killed, and it may get better.

If Microsoft sees every Mac user as a potential $800 for Office and Windows, what do they have to lose? Nothing, and lots of dough to gain. Mac users, in general, legally buy software as a greater % than PC users.

On the other hand, if Microsoft sees OS X and the Macintosh as competition, they'll kill it off.

I guess we will have to wait and see.

[GeneR]

Originally posted by Moxiemike
how about XP Classic?

:D

option to install with any new version of Mac OS.....

Oh boy. Sounds like the Coca Cola/Pepsi war when you use that word, Moxiemike.

How about:

XP Diet (Same lame OS, but with half the calories?)
XP Classic (For those who wanted XP New but really prefer the old stuff)
WindowsFU (A soy-based OS that really screws you in the end)

Too much time on my hands... :D
Okay, okay, back to work...

[Topsnack]

please go to the following article, http://news.com.com/2100-1001-985149.html?tag=fd_top
Notice the points about easier migration to the upcoming windows server. microsoft is also responding to the latest efforts of companies like ibm that have servers that run multiple operating systems.

[GeneR]

Originally posted by -hh
My initial thoughts were "We're Doomed!".


But then something waaaaay back in my brain started to Niggle a little bit...


By any chance was Connectix working on a Virtual PC that would run under Linux?


If so, this could be a preemptive move against Linux (regardless of the implications to Apple).


-hh

Makes sense to me. But what do I know? (ANSWER: Absolutely nothing. :D)

[guv]

i think its bad news.... on the upside... microsoft myt acctuly output a great piece of software that masterfuly integrates OSX and Win200x applications... on the downside microsoft myt take this chance to scrap VirtualPc or make it such a terrible program that users will have to decide weather they want a Pc or a Mac. and in all out war, microsoft will probably spin it in favour of their product... since windows has Office Explorer Powerpoint and every other microsoft written program that suddenly dissapear on the mac and apple myt hav their own better versions of these programs.. but they cant write a programs to counter every PC application... no?

[paulhorne]

My gut feeling was this sucks, because I want Microsoft to just die a fiery death. Then I realized that this is a win for MS, as they can now sell their crappy OS even to Macusers and switchers, which is good for them. And if it's good for them, they will continue to develop VPC vigorously. If they kill it, it's easier for the OSX users to work around it than to switch to Windows.

However, I've just updated to VPC 6 and I've gotta tell you, even on a dual G4 and OSX, it's pretty lame. After this many upgrades, and OSX native to boot, it's little more than a novelty. It's like going back to dialup after using broadband.

And what the hell are people trying to use on Windows now anyway? With cross-platform database programs and java and SQL, and OSX that connects and shares seamlessly with Windows networks and servers... I just can't understand why the diehards are still thinking that VPC is crucial to the future of the program or their lives.

that's just me.

[PaisanoMan]

Originally posted by Stelliform
But what if they kill it outright? Wine will take at least a year to get up to snuff. It would be a setback to apple.

You forget that Wine, by nature, only runs on x86 platforms. It is NOT an emulator.

[DakotaGuy]

First of all I don't know why everyone assumes that Office v.X is dead. I have it and it is a good program. In fact, with Office X, most people like myself does not even need to worry about a clunky emulator, because the only true compatibility problem that I would have is with Office. Now knowing M$, I could see them scratch Office X in favor of an emulated XP with Windows Office, but why? I would assume they will figure out right away what they sell more of and make a better profit off of.

I truly feel that the only reason M$ bought VPC is to continue to make a profit off of Apple people. Believe me, Apple's marketshare might be peanuts to M$, but you know old Billy Boy, he is going to tap every area he can to make some cash.

I agree with the conspiracy people and feel this move is planned to combat Apple's own realise of programs such as Keynote, Safari, and a possible Apple Word or Excel type program. In the future they could put Apple against the wall and say...you keep developing products that are competing against ours, we will pull the plug on a program you really need for excellent compatibility.

Now only time will tell. In one area, VPC could be much improved and maybe someday actually run Windows natively on PPC alongside of OSX, just like Classic works today. This is not all bad. If Windows ran on a Mac just like it does on a PC along with OSX, this would help on the switch campaign. Think about a smooth, fast, fluid Windows, instead of a clunky, slow emulator. Of course, the opposite could happen as well and VPC could be forgotten and after a couple more versions, be dropped. Apple could survive without it and other emulation programs would take over. Who knows where it will go from here.

[robMaurizi]

This seems like the prime opportunity for Apple to go full speed ahead with Marklar...

If MS now has their own OS that runs on Apple's hardware, why shouldn't Apple have an OS that runs on non-Apple hardware?

Here's to Apple f---ing up the WinTel market once and for all!

-Rob

[ronrubin]

There goes the Linux compatibility...

It was great being able to have all those OS's at once on a single machine. Now it'll probably only run their stupid Windows. :(

How could Connectix do this to us? After so many years???

[Zaid]

Originally posted by GeneR
QUESTION #1: Wouldn't M$ need to get a license from Apple to make a PowerPC emulator?


I don't think so, Apple doesn't own the PPC. Apple, IBM and Moto jointly mapped out the PPC way back when, but IBM and Moto make and design their own chips so I dont think that Apple would be due a cent.


QUESTION #2: Emulate FreeBSD? Wouldn't it be easier to simply load FreeBSD onto the PC itself and create their own desktop?


But that wouldnt enable them to run native OS X apps without Aqua. Besides even though windows has used BSD code in windows (the TCP/IP stack for one) I doubt they'd ever include a full BSD compatible layer to Windows, or replace the NT kernel with a BSD one. (given their hostility towards open source). Anyway win32 on BSD is a horrible thought.

[aharon]

I bought VPC, turned it on, saw Windows on my Mac, and then shrugged off the feeling of pure ugliness that had overwhelmed me and went back to OS X smiling. Haven't used it, haven't had any reason to. Occasionally I'll turn it on to remind myself why I have always been a Mac user. :rolleyes:

[DakotaGuy]

You know...if you took everything that has been said on here...and put it in the blender...let it run for a couple of mins. you would end up with this...

A Mac that runs Windows

and

A PC that runs Mac

How's that for the joke of the day!

[iShater]

OK, before yall freak out, this is from C|net:

[start quote]

"Mac OS X applications (are the) best solution for heavy access to applications (like Office)," said Tim McDonough, director of marketing for Microsoft's Macintosh Business Unit. "Virtual PC just takes that to the next level--you can now be compatible with applications that only run on the PC."

In a statement, Apple praised Microsoft's move.

"Adding Virtual PC to its product portfolio is yet another example of Microsoft's continued commitment to the Mac platform," said Ron Okamoto, Apple's vice president of Worldwide Developer Relations. "Virtual PC has helped people who want to own a Mac but need to run legacy PC applications. We're glad to see Virtual PC go into such good hands."

[end quote]

MS probably sells Windows to Connectix as an OEM, so they don't charge them as much as they do for a retail copy of Windows.

Connectix makes money on the price difference. Now, this extra money is gonna go to MS.

If MS makes VPC better, it will make more users buy it, which means they sell a license for windows as if they sold a PC. It is a win-win situation for the company.

It is in their best interest to make it BETTER not WORSE! And if MS knowledge of integrating their products together is any sign, the VPC designed by MS will run Windows BETTER!!

I say this would have been a scary thought if MS didn't have a financial stake here, but we are talking about 1 million VPC users, that is around 1 million Windows licenses, more people that would keep upgrading VPC and using it if they felt it was worth it.

MS now will be able to say, %99.99 of all computers run Windows

:D

So, even though it might seem bad, there is hope that this will be a great step forward.

[backspinner]

Originally posted by paulhorne
And what the hell are people trying to use on Windows now anyway? With cross-platform database programs and java and SQL, and OSX that connects and shares seamlessly with Windows networks and servers... I just can't understand why the diehards are still thinking that VPC is crucial to the future of the program or their lives.
- dutch electronic tax form
- microcontroller development
- technical calculation tools
- sports and training programs
- games for children
- ...

[Ocelot]

Not that I condone this in anyway, but If I was in charge of this division I'd be working on porting Windows XP over to PPC.

Yes- I know it may sound bad, but it makes perfect sense. Microsoft likes making OSes, and in turn sells a lot of them. What would be really interesting is if they allowed you to dual boot in to XP- or perhaps had an extension within OS X (like classic) that allowed you to run windows programs within OS X.

I doubt that's what they have planned, but it makes sense to me, it would allow them to decrease support for the mac and save money. So say you wanted MSN Messenger- they would say: buy XP for PPC, or if you want Office: buy XP for PPC.

This would allow them to cut back staff within the MAC BU, (and yes I believe that would be bad) but it's also more cost effective.

Well this all works in theory- we will see what they have planned...

[MacCoaster]

Jesus Christ.

So many people assume Microsoft is evil and buying companies is evil if it's Microsoft.

Microsoft is simply pursuing its interest, especially in Connectix's Virtual Server products. They will be able to squeeze all the performance out of the products for Windows guest operating systems.

They could bring DirectX to VirtualPC. Wouldn't you like that, play PC-only, DirectX-only games under Windows. I know a popular one: RollerCoaster Tycoon and its successors.

I think VirtualPC under Connectix's management was crap and didnt improve much over the years, because people have the *NEED* for basic application support under Mac OS and they're able to squeeze all the bucks from Mac users who were willing to spend on VirtualPC. When the hell were gaming support coming? I think Microsoft will embrace and extend Connectix, but not destroy it.

I congratulate Microsoft. They're on a roll onto better products. It will only mean competition will rise amongst Virtual computing computers, especially with VMware.

Yes, this is not an excuse to not port applications to Mac OS X, but what about old things no longer supported. My school's network runs on an ANCIENT version of Netware and uses ANCIENT software and they simply cannot afford new stuff. Public schools suck.

This might be a great thing, since I do a lot of .NET development, and I won't stop developing for .NET, I love the technology. Run Visual Studio .NET smoothly under one session and turn on IIS under Windows XP to test ASP.NET applications from Windows browsers inside, from Mac OS X browsers, and so on. This is a better excuse for me to actually purchase the 17" PowerBook.

I don't think Microsoft is stupid enough to abandon VirtualPC. They said they wouldn't abandon it. I'm not sure if I'm going to take their word for it in the long run, but in the short run, Microsoft is definitely NOT abandoning the Macintosh platform.

And oh, I expect Microsoft's next Office for Macintosh to support the new file formats suggested by Office 11 Windows. I got my copy of the Office 11 beta for Windows today along with Windows Server 2003 RC, Exchange Server 2003, and other stuff. I like the new file formats, it's really true XML, not some bastardized XML as people would love it to be so they can blame Microsoft for incompatible things. It's human readable and as a result, very easy to produce compatible applications. So I doubt killing Office Mac and requiring people to use Office 11 Windows under Mac under VirtualPC would be feasible for Microsoft.

[OSXconvert]

It's crazy to assume that MS will enhance the product without a hefty price, not just in dollars, but in control. The first thing they will do is kill the virtual machines feature or cripple its performance even more. After all, many windows users run virtual linux machines with VPC. I think we should be very suspicious about their motivations. They have finally admitted that they view linux as a threat and I doubt they are too enthusiastic about allowing users to run competitive OSes within their OS. I also think this may border on violating their settlement with the DOJ on anticompetitive business practices.

[iShater]

Originally posted by MacCoaster
Jesus Christ.

So many people assume Microsoft is evil and buying companies is evil if it's Microsoft.

Microsoft is simply pursuing its interest, especially in Connectix's Virtual Server products. They will be able to squeeze all the performance out of the products for Windows guest operating systems.

They could bring DirectX to VirtualPC. Wouldn't you like that, play PC-only, DirectX-only games under Windows. I know a popular one: RollerCoaster Tycoon and its successors.


I 100% agree! I was just thinking about DirectX :D *drooooooool*

besides, imagine how GLAD a MS Windows developer would be when they are told : "ok, we need to optimize our code to run under this virtual machine. Oh yeah, only one video card/sound card/ethernet card/etc. that you need to worry about". :)

[achmafooma]

Originally posted by ronrubin
How could Connectix do this to us? After so many years???
I don't mean to attack you personally, so please don't take it that way, but as a VPC 5 and now VPC 6 user I've heard nothing but really mean things said about VPC in the Mac community.

"It's so slow", "It's a load of crap", etc., etc., etc. Yeah it's not the world fastest program, it's an EMULATION ENVIRONMENT running a complex and buggy OS (Windows) in most cases.

My only point is that with all the hatred and mean things said about VPC over the years, it's no surprise to me that Connectix was willing (maybe even anxious) to dump it. I remember distinctly thinking in the VPC 5 days, "With all this stuff people are saying, they aren't going to even bother making this thing anymore after a while."

It's a good program, considering what it does - especially VPC 6 in 10.2.3+ - and we Mac users have done a pretty thorough job of bashing it into oblivion over the years.

So we'll see what MS does... but I don't blame Connectix for dropping such a widely criticized and ridiculed program.

[nighthawk]

Originally posted by eric_n_dfw
In the prior thread, a couple of people mentioned WINE and a derivitive product called Crossover Office.

Per the WINE FAQ:

It would be quite a herculean effort to get WINE to work on non-x86 hardware and even then, the Windows .exe files are not compiled for it so I don't even think it would work.

Wine is not an emulator - it's akin in the mac os classic mode in OS X. No emulation is being done as the PPC hardware already exists.

I hope we see better/faster VPC versions from MS since they can now write direct hooks into the win32 code if they wanted to.

No, it is not an emulator, but a MS library manager/converter. WINE would still need to be emulated, but the XP operating system would not need to be. One of the primary functions of WINE is translating DirectX functions to OpenGL equivent functions which would be run native in a Mac WINE port. This could mean that games even in emulation mode would be FAR faster than VPC. The more WINE libraries that could be ported over to PowerPC, the better.

However, if Apple did take on this project, they would not optimize it to a level that would interfere with developers writing for Mac based applications. If their emulator is too efficient, then developers would only develop Windows applications and trust in the macintosh emulators to "make-it-work" in OSX.

[Les Kern]

I've been using VPC since it's inception, and use 6 now. But know what? It can go away and I won't really care. The point about sub-$300 PC's is powerful. But what do I know.

[sparks9]

Originally posted by alset
They will slow development, release it with bugs, then kill the whole program. We're screwed.

Dan

You are screwed if you can't use VPC??? Hehe... :D

[timbloom]

Originally posted by GeneR

Now say, M$ comes out with WindowsFU. ;) Okay, now WindowsFU on VPC just "happens" to come out six months, no... a year and a half after WindowsFU comes out on PC. Meanwhile, AGAIN we have Apple people twiddling their thumbs wondering when we can use the PC programs ourselves. Well, I wonder...gee, whiz, whatdayathinkofthat? "Oh golly, Miss Molly! Could that happen?"


You don't need a seperate version of VPC to run different OS's, Basically what it does it emulates the hardware. To put it into perspective: you dont nessicarily need to upgrade your pc every time windows gets updated. I could go out right now and buy a bare ms-dos version of VPC, then install an owned copy of Windows XP or whatever else suits me.
Just to correct any misunderstanding.

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by smegdude
its quite obvious that m$ are gonna kill off vpc, why would they support a product who's whole use is to run their OS on a rival system?
if they do make it better then i can pretty much guarantee that m$ will be charging much more for their new OS's, makeing it more economical just to buy a new pc.

RIP VPC

Well. First, VirtualPC is great for Microsoft. Microsoft really doesn't give two shakes if you are running Windows on an Intel processor or on a PPC processor pretending to be an Intel processor. Either way, it is a sale to MS. If that were all that was involved, MS would keep VirtualPC out and a viable solution for as long as possible.

HOWEVER, this DOES give MS a huge leverage point against Apple. MS and Apple both know that VirtualPC is vital software (far moreso than Office!) to a huge swathe of folks out there running Macs. If they can't run VPC, then they have to dump their Macs and switch to Intel software. Not a "win" for Microsoft, but a definite loss for Apple. Granted, some of these folks will try that much harder to go Mac-only and thus avoid dumping Apple, and that's lost Windows sales to MS, but the demand for VirtualPC is extraordinarily hard, and so the number of people that would dump Windows if VPC were to dissapear would be inconsequential to MS.

So, MS has a huge upper hand in "bargaining". That having been said, Apple can either let MS lord this over them in perpetuity, or stand up to MS now while the antitrust issue is still hot, and maybe force MS's hand in regards to VPC. MS would be stupid to kill VPC before the various anti-trust suits are all tied up.

IMHO, I'm somewhat surprised the FTC allowed this purchase to go through, considering the history of Microsoft and the importance of Connectix' product to MS's only viable competition. Of course, I'm inclined to chalk most of that up to just ignorance on the part of the parties charged to review the case.

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by nighthawk
If MS EOL's VPC, that might be the BEST thing that can happen!

The Apple would get involved and port WINE to run native to OSX, and without the NEED to buy WindowsXP OS, we have Windows compatiblity. Who knows, Apple might decide to do that anyways even if MS did continue the project. It would be a definite key selling point to OSX 10.3 or 10.4.


WINE is a Windows emulator, not an x86 processor emulator!

Unless I'm missing a vital fact about WINE, it will not, ever, run on PPC because there just aren't that many PPC-based Windows executables out there to use such a beast!

Anybody know of any competition to Virtual PC? I've only ever heard of the one package to do this sort of thing (x86 emulation on PPC) ...

[MacRETARD]

Microsoft wants the virtual server technology to include in future versions, or a unique version of windows. They want to allow you to run many virtual copies of NT on top of one server to better manage resources. This is something connectix is doing now along with VMware. Sun is also supposed to release a lower end version of this software. They already support it in a different fashion on their higher end servers.

[timbloom]

Microsoft WILL NOT kill VPC for Mac.

It would be just stupid of them to do so. They would be losing sales.

everyone NEEDS to understand, microsoft does not care if you are running a mac or a pc box. They just want to sell you stuff. If VPC works well, they will sell more copies of windows. If you buy VPC, normally you are buying a bundled copy of windows, therefore, they just made some money. If they kill it, they would lose possible income, how dumb would that be to do?! If microsoft had a monopoly on the hardware aspect of PC's, then it would make some sense for them to kill it, but they don't.

[GutBomb]

MS didn't buy virtualpc so they could kill a program a small percentage of the market uses. they bought the company because they saw some technology they could use for server virtualization and things like that. The reason they bought virtualpc has nothing to do with the mac or mac users running virtualpc on their macs.

Virtual PC allows you to turn a computer into more than one computer. virtual servers in the most real (virtual? real? i'm getting confused) sense.

When are you going to get it through your heads that Microsoft is not out to kill Apple. And apple is not out to kill microsoft. Microsoft is not going to discontinue products like office because they are "pissed off" that apple has made keynote. They are making a profit on office and will continue developing it until it is no longer profitable. not because of emotions like anger.

[reyesmac]

WHY would MS need to make Mac Only programs anymore? Most of their programs are free anyway (the ones available on the mac). They can tell anyone that needs an MS program to BUY VPC instead of downloading the free media player/program for the Mac. I think this is bad news.

[utilizer]

Oblivious is the word for most of you on this forum!

Anyone that thinks this is a good thing for Apple is mistaken. I'll sum it up this way:

M$ is to DOJ
Bush is to UN

Who's more dominant? Who has the bigger stick?

What I said earlier still applies in the long run, not the short run. But when the 970 matures, it will be one hell of a processor and hard for M$ to ignore that they'll be losing out in the graphics/video/audio markets. This is also a move similar to the one that Apple made with regards to buying out Emagic. The day they bought they said they would be making versions for Windows. Then, they changed course, but that's Apple, they can do that. Microsoft is doesn't have that advantageous position where it can execute actions like that; the consequences are too severe.

Eventually, you will see VPC for Mac running in a Windows environment, in other words on a Windows machine. Hell, they can afford to even put in there for free basically. And Mac OS X cost so much less. Remember though: Apple has the final say so when it comes to licensing their system, so in that, I think we can be rest assured that we'll have VPC on the Mac platform only for the time being. Linux is out though, guarranteed.

If, and when, Apple DOES license out Mac OS X for M$ for their development of VPC running OS X on Windows, it will signal to me that Apple has decided that it would be beneficial for them to market an x86 version of OS X (marklar). The 'ole doomsday scenario!

[barkmonster]

There used to be something called "RealPC". It was a retail product but I think virtualPC took over the emulation market for windows on the mac long ago and whoever made it just stopped updating it and stopped selling it.

If you go to emulation.net (http://emulation.net/) you can get a PC emulator called Blue Label. Even though it sounds like a brand of super strength lager and runs slow, it's free so maybe worth using if the worst comes to the worst and VirtualPC is scrapped.

I can think of a terrible situation though.

Picture this.

Windows XP Mac Edition.

with one of the those "built for OS X" logos on 1 side and the huge garish windows logo on the other.

How ashamed would you feel buying that ?

:p

[jgracia]

I vote to MS stop developing for OS X and instead they will outperform virtual PC an sell Office for Macintosh under Virtual PC....

[benuker]

They will slow development, release it with bugs, then kill the whole program. We're screwed.

I totally agree. We are screwed. This ia a real Risk! match wich is going on: mac and Microsoft are trying their best to cut or control important key positions to win the game.
Microsoft will never give mac a competitive product to allow them to make more people switch to Mac.
Micorsoft recently buyed blizzard, too. No more good games for us from them, guys.

...who's gonna win the game? The Giant or Goliath?

We can just sit down and watch.

[carl]

I can see Marklar vs. VPC fight down the road. We all win here.

[MacCoaster]

Again, it's not the Mac market that Microsoft is concerned about.

Won't you guys get it. Microsoft is growing in the server markets and this will allow them to extend their server technology.

They have said they will maintain VirtualPC for Mac OS X. Maybe actually add some REAL features to it unlike what Connectix did.

This won't be the end of VirtualPC. Get it right.

benuker, actually, even when Microsoft bought Bungee, they still are going to release Halo for Mac OS X. There have been press releases about it. Get your facts straight.

Microsoft will win the game, because the game is about server virtualization.

[dethl]

Apple still holds a major key if M$ ever wanted to do OS X emulation on the PC: the OSX licence. Apple will never sell licences to M$ since they could just market Marklar. Though I doubt that will happen anyway.

If they can make VPC better, then more power to them, but I'm still staying on a mac. Although they could crap it up more than it is now and use it as a way of switching mac users over to Windows.

What would be nice if they used VPC and integrated it with XP so that all of its programs would run without a lot of problems (I hear Win 95 and 98 programs don't run all that well on XP)

[GutBomb]

seriously, if MS "crapped up" virtual PC would that get you to switch to Windows? get real. No one is going to switch to windows because MS makes virtualpc suck. People are going to find alternative applications, and it may be a shot in the arm to developers to make more software to fill the void.

[macphoria]

Now that Apple is coming up with all these apps that used to come from MS (Safari vs Explorer, Keynote vs PowerPoint, etc) MS is coming up with dirty tricks to hold Apple back. Maybe MS will add Must-Register-Online-To-Activate feature on Virtual PC. Yeah, that will be just great.

[Eric-C]

If MS wants to compete with Apple's latest software, creating hassles, such as the online registration requirement is NOT the way to go. Although that is a bad example since it's only there to protect against piracy, something that shouldn't be done regardless what OS.

Since MS is a software company, as many have correctly stressed, it is only in their best interest to make their revenue go up by creating a better product, not passively hurting Apple.

[Dunepilot]

Originally posted by barkmonster
There used to be something called "RealPC". It was a retail product but I think virtualPC took over the emulation market for windows on the mac long ago and whoever made it just stopped updating it and stopped selling it.



Wasn't it also from Connectix? I think it was DOS-only version of Virtual PC, primarily for playing games (in the days when windows users had to run games from DOS. The poor buggers:D )

I remember that you could install a copy of Windows over the DOS you got with Real PC, so you could create a similar setup to Virtual PC if you wanted.

[weev]

If M$ plan to phase out VP for Mac (as many of us suspect, not phase out but take it out back and shoot it) , then this is a great opportunity for someone else to develop the product. Maybe even Apple!

Imagine a virtual windose app bundled with each new Mac. Switching would be beyond easy!

And I don't see M$ doing Windows for Mac, and even so, they would have to pay Cupertino for a license, surely!

Still, it looks kinda monopolisitc, don't it....

[mpest]

Originally posted by GutBomb

When are you going to get it through your heads that Microsoft is not out to kill Apple. And apple is not out to kill microsoft. Microsoft is not going to discontinue products like office because they are "pissed off" that apple has made keynote. They are making a profit on office and will continue developing it until it is no longer profitable. not because of emotions like anger.

You forget there are big egos involved. I'm not saying I think they would cancel it, Gates just likes having Jobs by the ba*ls

[pimentoLoaf]

One interesting question: will VPC w/PC-DOS be replaced with MS-DOS?

[MacCoaster]

Originally posted by weev
Still, it looks kinda monopolisitc, don't it....
Not at all. Microsoft has nothing in the Virtual Server market. They want to be involved, so they buy Connectix.

[praetorian_x]

Guys, Guys!

For f**ks sake, calm down. This isn't a move against Apple. This is a move against VMWare. Microsoft really could give two ****** about the 3% (and shrinking) of the P.C. market that uses Macs. (Sure, they will support Office for it, becuase it is moderately profitable and, the real reason, it keeps the DOJ off thier back.)

VMWare is making a killing right now selling their product as a server-consolidation strategy: Run 1 giant IBM boxen (with linux on it) and you can run 10 or 100 windows "servers" on top of it, for outlook, active directory, or whatever. You avoid server sprawl, achieve greater resource utilization and you get rock solid hardware. Plus VMWare lets you "hot migrate" the server between different virtual servers. Basically, they own that space, it is insanely profitable, and it pisses MS off.

This has nothing to do with apple. It might have some negative side effects (though I bet the second they discontinue it you will be able to find it in a heartbeat on P2P networks, just like with OfficeX), but I doubt it. Apple is just too small (and visible) a fish for MS to squish.

Cheers,
prat

[ultrafiel]

So big deal VPC is now owned by MS. They'll improve it most likely as they have the source code for their operating systems. Does Apple care? No, they should like it. Apple makes more money on hardware than anything else. If more people switch because of VPC then more people buy Apple products. win/win. Sure OSX is far and ahead of XP, but "Windows on Mac" wouldn't matter that much.

[NanoDoc]

Originally posted by springscansing
I do not really understand virtual PC. It runs so damn slow. For under 300 bucks, you can get an Athlon 900mhz system, 256 RAM, 60GBHD, 10/100 ethernet, DVD-ROM, and a geforce4mx 64MB graphics card.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3401785793&category=4317

Right there. Same price as Virtual PC, and KICKS ITS ASS in every way possible.

1 hour left... someone better jump on it.

Please, someone explain to me why Virtual PC is good.

Connectix's Playstation emulator was also stupid. 50 bucks for the program, 40 bucks for two controllers... just buy a damn playstation already! Even Steve Jobs said that.

And RAMdoubler was slow as hell and terrible... speed doubler didn't double much...

I personally could care less about Connectix. Someone prove me wrong.

I must a few comments here though to incredible stupidity of so many posters tonight. What are you thinking about in saying that VPC is dead? Huhh.. What...Did you even read the article that you are posting to? It clearly states that the MacBU at MacroHell, I mean Microsoft, will continue development. And why in the heck would they not continue? This gives them more of a piece of the overall computer industry pie. Since they now know that they can win any antitrust suit and actually come out ahead. Also, think of it from this perspective, MS sells the OS to Connectix for close to cost, but Connectix sells it to us at retail. Connectix makes the profit, but now MS will make the profit. I could sit here and ramble on about several other reasons as to why they would want to keep this product, but I am sure you get the point.

CMH

[blueBomber]

i don't know if someone has mentioned this or not, but...

MS now has control of the emulator and the source code for windows. If they really poured some serious work into this, we could end up with a very well done new piece of software.

just my 2 cents...

[Mr. MacPhisto]

Originally posted by Ocelot
Not that I condone this in anyway, but If I was in charge of this division I'd be working on porting Windows XP over to PPC.

Yes- I know it may sound bad, but it makes perfect sense. Microsoft likes making OSes, and in turn sells a lot of them. What would be really interesting is if they allowed you to dual boot in to XP- or perhaps had an extension within OS X (like classic) that allowed you to run windows programs within OS X.

I doubt that's what they have planned, but it makes sense to me, it would allow them to decrease support for the mac and save money. So say you wanted MSN Messenger- they would say: buy XP for PPC, or if you want Office: buy XP for PPC.

This would allow them to cut back staff within the MAC BU, (and yes I believe that would be bad) but it's also more cost effective.

Well this all works in theory- we will see what they have planned...

Not sure if they could do this because of how Apple builds machines. The OS only starts up because of the ROM Apple uses, which is proprietary, I believe. Meaning, if MS cannot alter the ROM, or use code proprietary to it, then they likely can't get the OS to boot.

[reyesmac]

I hate MS, but if they make virtual pc work with any pc video card or pci card on a mac, they have my money, or at the very least, I will download and use it.

[MacCoaster]

Originally posted by Mr. MacPhisto
Not sure if they could do this because of how Apple builds machines. The OS only starts up because of the ROM Apple uses, which is proprietary, I believe. Meaning, if MS cannot alter the ROM, or use code proprietary to it, then they likely can't get the OS to boot.
You're not a PowerPC Linux user, so allow me to educate you so you might understand this a bit better. OpenFirmware isn't exactly proprietary--it's a standard. There are 100% Linux Macs with not a trace of Mac OS and that is possible with OpenFirmware.

It doesn't matter about the ROM, what matters is the boot code and you CAN alter that. For example, it doesn't matter what BIOS a PC uses, all can use GRUB, NTOSLDR, etc. Linux distributions have proven that.

Besides, they wouldn't port it to PowerPC. They have a strong installed base on x86, why waste money to port it if it ain't broke. ;)

[SBG88]

This is good news for fans of VPC. Right now the product is barely usable. C'mon, how psyched can you get with a PII emulation running windows. Personally, I think they could only make it better. If they don't who cares the product sucks now as it is.

[eric_n_dfw]

Originally posted by nighthawk
No, it is not an emulator, but a MS library manager/converter. WINE would still need to be emulated, but the XP operating system would not need to be. One of the primary functions of WINE is translating DirectX functions to OpenGL equivent functions which would be run native in a Mac WINE port. This could mean that games even in emulation mode would be FAR faster than VPC. The more WINE libraries that could be ported over to PowerPC, the better.

However, if Apple did take on this project, they would not optimize it to a level that would interfere with developers writing for Mac based applications. If their emulator is too efficient, then developers would only develop Windows applications and trust in the macintosh emulators to "make-it-work" in OSX.
But Windows executables are compiled for x86 instruction sets - how are you going to to handle that without an x86 emulator?

[Phil Of Mac]

WINE Is Not an Emulator!

(Hence the acronym.)

[joker2]

Originally posted by Dunepilot
Wasn't it also from Connectix?

Actually... RealPC and SoftWindows were from FWB... but they discontinued it some time ago.
( http://www.fwb.com/ lists it as discontinued, teases with a "special offer" from Connectix, and then gives you no way to get to the special offer.)

RealPC was adequate for running a few applications that I needed for school such as Access 2000 and a few other windows-only programs. Granted, on a 350 MHz iMac it was slow, but I could get my assignments done without having to go into the lab.


emulation.net's review:
http://emulation.net/windoze/realpc/

[Awimoway]

The MS apologists have got this nearly all wrong.

While it MAY be true that MS's primary motivation foor the purchase is to improve their OS emulation on servers, sticking it Apple is clearly icing on the cake.

And here's where a lot of the posts really get it wrong. MS doesn't want to sell licenses to Mac users because they know that only a fraction actually do so. They want to kill Apple. Yes, Apple does scare them. OS X whips XP's hindquarters and they know it and they know many consumers will realize it when they see it. The Apple Store strategy scares them because it's making inroads. Maybe not sizable inroads, but MS didn't get where it is by failing to see what lay in store for them down the road. This is a shot across Apple's bow in response to Apple's shots, i.e. Keynote and Safari.

[MacCoaster]

Originally posted by Awimoway
The MS apologists have got this nearly all wrong.

While it MAY be true that MS's primary motivation foor the purchase is to improve their OS emulation on servers, sticking it Apple is clearly icing on the cake.

And here's where a lot of the posts really get it wrong. MS doesn't want to sell licenses to Mac users because they know that only a fraction actually do so. They want to kill Apple. Yes, Apple does scare them. OS X whips XP's hindquarters and they know it and they know many consumers will realize it when they see it. The Apple Store strategy scares them because it's making inroads. Maybe not sizable inroads, but MS didn't get where it is by failing to see what lay in store for them down the road. This is a shot across Apple's bow in response to Apple's shots, i.e. Keynote and Safari.
No, you're the one who got it wrong.

Microsoft still supports the Mac platform very well. They won't be stopping Virtual PC at all, not even intentionally as a conspiracy theory. Otherwise, FTC wouldn't allow Microsoft to buy Connectix.

Besides, they would earn a much higher profit margin on Virtual PC now, and especially on Windows Server products. That's their goal. Apple and Virtual PC on Mac OS X is *NOTHING* to Microsoft, they can continue it because it will prove profitable. Why kill revenue sources. I wouldn't.

Again, primary goal is the Windows Server. Believe it or not, Windows Servers are growing, not dying, as they prove to be cheaper than UNIX solutions. We are not talking about your average Linux web server that serves several tiny sites. I'm talking about real enterprise servers.

Just think about it, over 50% of the top 1000 corporations run Microsoft Servers, while only 18% run Apache. The rest are some weird Netscape Java servers or others. Those servers are ACTUALLY doing something, rather than most servers on Netcraft are sitting around doing nothing (just check the top 50 uptimes for servers (http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/today/top.avg.html), one is actually Windows, several are BSDs, but what are they doing--NOTHING!). Microsoft wants to extend their market further with virtualization [Like WHO doesn't want to further their business to earn more money. Please, tell me, name one for-profit company who WANTS to lose money!]. (source (http://www.port80software.com/servermask/top1000webservers/)) and (source #2 (http://www.netcraft.com/surveys/analysis/https/2001/Jan/CMatch/cnt_all.html))

This is a good move for Microsoft. You Mac people might benefit--possibly Windows acceleration, DirectX implementation, etc. Be happy if Microsoft improves Virtual PC to that kind of a milestone.

Edit: Found link for top 50 uptimes and a spelling error.

[ryan]

Originally posted by MacCoaster
No, you're the one who got it wrong.

Microsoft still supports the Mac platform very well. They won't be stopping Virtual PC at all, not even intentionally as a conspiracy theory. Otherwise, FTC wouldn't allow Microsoft to buy Connectix.

Besides, they would earn a much higher profit margin on Virtual PC now, and especially on Windows Server products. That's their goal. Apple and Virtual PC on Mac OS X is *NOTHING* to Microsoft, they can continue it because it will prove profitable. Why kill revenue sources. I wouldn't.

Again, primary goal is the Windows Server. Believe it or not, Windows Servers are growing, not dying, as they prove to be cheaper than UNIX solutions. We are not talking about your average Linux web server that serves several tiny sites. I'm talking about real enterprise servers.

Just think about it, over 50% of the top 1000 corporations run Microsoft Servers, while only 18% run Apache. The rest are some weird Netscape Java servers or others. Those servers are ACTUALLY doing something, rather than most servers on Netcraft are sitting around doing nothing (just check the top 50 uptime for servers, one is actually Windows, several are BSDs, but what are they doing--NOTHING!). Microsoft wants to extend their market further with virtualization [Like WHO doesn't want to further their business to earn more money. Please, tell me, name one for-profit company who WANTS to lose money!]. (source (http://www.port80software.com/servermask/top1000webservers/)) and (source #2 (http://www.netcraft.com/surveys/analysis/https/2001/Jan/CMatch/cnt_all.html))

This is a good move for Microsoft. You Mac people might benefit--possibly Windows acceleration, DirectX implementation, etc. Be happy if Microsoft improves Virtual PC to that kind of a milestone.
Your Port80Software source is questionable since they're in the IIS support business. As for netcraft look here (http://www.netcraft.com/survey/)

[i_am_a_cow]

Originally posted by benuker
Micorsoft recently buyed blizzard, too. No more good games for us from them, guys.

WHEW. You had me worried for a second, but thankfully your wrong about blizzard. I've been worried about a Micro***** blizzard buyout to, but I just checked the blizzard site today, and:

Originally posted at http://www.blizzard.com/inblizz/profile.shtml (http://)
Blizzard Entertainment is a division of Vivendi Universal Publishing, the publishing division of the world's second largest communications group, Vivendi Universal. Vivendi Universal is listed on the French stock exchange (#12777) and also the New York Stock Exchange under ticker symbol 'V'.

don't scare me like that again :D

[ryan]

I think arn is right. We probably won't see VPC killed off but we will see its ability to run OSes other than Windows disappear.

A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away there was a rumor of a "Red Box" that was to be in Apple's next generation OS, Rhapsody. This "Red Box" was suppose to an x86 emulation layer that was going to sit next to the "Yellow Box," a classic "emulator" for MacOS 7/8 apps. Apple has a talented bunch of developers who, given the task, could write an x86 emulator for OSX, lets hope that Mr. Jobs gives those marching orders.

[MacCoaster]

Originally posted by ryan
Your Port80Software source is questionable since they're in the IIS support business. As for netcraft look here (http://www.netcraft.com/survey/)
Must I reiterate:

Most servers are doing NOTHING, default install servers.

Show me proof that MOST of those Apache sites are DOING something like actually serving up REAL enterprise web applications.

Have you even bothered to look at the top 50 uptime servers. They aren't huge database backends, huge web application backends, etc. And have you even bothered to look at the SSL server pages. 49% Servers running Microsoft. SSL means serious business apps. I would expect most e-commerce sites to have SSL. Appears that they like Microsoft better.

Please, research on actual data representing what is actually being done, rather than use overgeneralizations. Remember, Netcraft counts each website as a separate server. Yes, Apache can do many times more sites per machine than Windows with IIS, but most people don't care because Windows with IIS is designed to be a dedicated server platform running mission critical stuff.

[nighthawk]

Originally posted by eric_n_dfw
But Windows executables are compiled for x86 instruction sets - how are you going to to handle that without an x86 emulator?

I NEVER said that WINE is an emulator. I was just suggesting that if Apple put the resources into building Windows support into the MacOS (like Windows File Sharing is now), then they would develop their OWN emulator, and use libraries like WINE to emulate WINDOWS. If Apple were to do this, Microsoft WOULD NOT GET ANY MONEY.

That is what I would do. Yes, WINE would be emulated, but XP would not be, the libraries take care of that. A decent emulator and optimized WINE-like libraries might have a much greater performace than VPC ever had.

[alset]

Originally posted by MacCoaster

Microsoft still supports the Mac platform very well. They won't be stopping Virtual PC at all, not even intentionally as a conspiracy theory. Otherwise, FTC wouldn't allow Microsoft to buy Connectix.

Edit: Found link for top 50 uptimes and a spelling error.

Microsoft only develops for Mac because Mac is still around. If they own the market they can make all the same cash off of you while developing only for their own platform.

Also, how often have you seen our government succesfully shut down any of the M$ monoply tactics?

Dan

[Sol]

At best this could mean hardware accelareted Windows on the Mac. At worst it would mean a PPC version of Windows to replace OS X.

[MacCoaster]

Originally posted by alset
Microsoft only develops for Mac because Mac is still around. If they own the market they can make all the same cash off of you while developing only for their own platform.

Also, how often have you seen our government succesfully shut down any of the M$ monoply tactics?

Dan
Yes, that is true, and is especially true for most Mac development. Microsoft is earning MORE money by increasing the number of their revenue streams.

What's wrong with maximizing profits. Jeez, people are so jealous of Microsoft's success. That's the whole point of running a friggin' company--to earn money. Yeah, gee, the CEO of X would want to lose so much money buy letting others profit from their market. :rolleyes:

BTW, to counter your point about the government, how many times have you seen OUR government's servants (in Microsoft's case, the judge) be so biased against a particular company (Microsoft) that he was thrown out of a certain case. That happened to Microsoft (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/business/DailyNews/Jackson_010629.html). Nice to see democracy at work!

[pimentoLoaf]

Stick a website URL into:

http://uptime.netcraft.com/

and I think you'll find quite a number of MS operators.

[kiwi_the_iwik]

I've read all the way through this thread now, and have seen that a few people have mentioned Marklar. I'm sure that this will now be implemented down the road sometime.

However, it seems at first that there are a few possibilities:

? *CON* ? Muck-rosoft is intent on destroying any chance of "switchers" easily moving from the PC-based world to OSX, by killing off any method of running old programs that they may own.

i.e. - Making things difficult makes things look so much more unattractive...

? *PRO* ? The program gets an injection of speed, with Direct-X being written into the code - utilising the graphics card in the Mac by offloading graphics-intensive operations to the card instead of using precious processing power.

? *PRO* ? Apple unleashes Marklar on an unsuspecting PC world - attacking Microsoft's client base head-on; promising a stable Operating System based on Unix, an impressive list of software titles, security that rivals its opposition (Dept. of Homeland Security cannot access OSX - Microsoft signed an agreement with DHS to create "back-doors" in their OS so the government can "snoop" through your PC, whereas Apple did NOT...), and the ability to work in a clean, useful and uncluttered environment.



Apple, of course, would win with Marklar. They INSTANTLY have a huge prospective market base in a PC community, as well as being able to keep their existing Mac client base.

Imagine if the great unwashed leapt onto Marklar, arms outstretched? Maybe you'd get more switchers:

"...God - if their software's this good, imagine what their hardware is like?!?..."

People have forgotten that Microsoft is a software company. It's how they made their money. Apple is already established in the computing community, renowned for its quality hardware products. Even if they diversified into an Operating System product for PC's, they couldnt lose. The program's already been written, and just needs to be marketed. Any profits from the sale of the OS would go directly back into the company - namely its R&D division - to produce bigger and better computers and peripherals.

Not only would that happen, but also software companies will then produce more titles for OSX to satisfy the new users.

Personally, I don't care whether VPC is discontinued. I have a working version of VPC 5 with Windows 98SE in the (unlikely) eventuality that I may need to access a PC-only web page, run a simple PC-based program, or view a PC-made document (even though it's slow). Everything I need to survive in the computer world can be handled quite nicely by my G4 Cube.

Once you've had Mac, you'll never go back...

;)

[caveman_uk]

Windows with IIS is designed to be a dedicated server platform running mission critical stuff.

Quite frankly that's crap. It's only usable with a ton of patches.. If that's a well 'designed' platform I'm a martian.

[chewbaccapits]

Just a side note...this HAS to be most NEGATIVE thread ever!!!


Rating (37 Positives; 234 Negatives)

[frogmella]

I think the output all depends on just how much M$ intends to ignore the DoJ trial settlement. Option A is that they play nice and improve upon VPC/Windoze interaction, including making a bundled version of XP with parts that are PPC-native.

(One thing that is definite either way is that we will no longer be able to buy VPC without XP,and only XP, bundled. M$ hates the sale of 'bare' PCs, and PCs with older Windoze versions, enough to allow the equivalent here.)

Option B is that they just kill off VPC (and make use of the VirtualServer technology) in order to go after the 5% Mac users, and try to prevent any more switchers.

I don't see this as being a huge problem for current VPC users: provided Apple doesn't break the operation of an existing VPC install, and the user doesn't upgrade their Windows install, they should still get along together. There might become a healthy market in second-hand copies of VPC.

What I would love to see in the longer term is the return of a competitor: SoftPC/SoftWindows, BlueLabel or Bochs. They all had potential, and with the help of the Open Source movement might reach even higher levels of performance than VirtualPC.

What would be truly wonderful would be that any of these PC emulators could be integrated with the Wine project to create a PPC native windowing environment with full x86 emulation - this would be THE ultimate Windoze emulator.

Anyone know what happened to the IP of Connectix's competitors?

Anyone know any Mac or OSS hackers looking for a project to to work on?
http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=12580

[Trimix]

What a smart move by MS. They bought an interesting item (no matter how good or bad it is from a technical point) and can now apply pressure if and when needed.
Do not understand why Apple did not move first - a critical error and serious flaw in Apple's strategy. Instead of insulating themselves from attacks they left their flank wide open and MS just drove right into it.
Excellent tactics by MS, sad day for the rest of us.
For it is perception that counts, and MS has just become the gatekeeper to the portability of all sort of programs.
Truly, a gatekeeper from hell :-))

[moby1]

Originally posted by nanosound
Why would MS want to kill it off? You are actually purchasing a licensed version of Windoze.

Now Microsoft can sell a Windows licence AND Office with every Mac sold. What do they care if your running Windows on a Dell or an Apple machine as long as you've paid for the license.

[yumpin yiminy]

here is the deal you all seem to be missing:
VPC emulates hardware, not Windows, but hardware.
Sure, MS might optimize a version of Windows to run better through VPC but it would have to completely bypass making and translating calls intended for Pentium Class processors, and all the rest of the hardware.
If MS releases a crippled, or specialized, version of Windows it might benefit Mac users in the form of a speed boost. But, to expect Direct X--which allows games to play directly off of the hardware, bypassing windows for the most part, in a DOS-like way....ain't happening. Sure, i might eat my words some day some way, but, there is no point in trying. You'd still need a special version of Direct X written especially for the PPC/Apple mobo. Billy and his boys could have done that without buying a company like Connectix.
But, like a few posters thankfully noted, the VPC assets MS bought are for the virtual server product which MS is going to integrate into Windows. So, the company will improve their flagship product first and foremost and will still increase their bottom line (likely) with VPC for the mac.
Will it mean the end of a special mac version of office, whew! who knows. it is possible if MS can make the needed improvements to the emulator so that part of the conspiracy theory does seem possible. If the MacBU does focus on soley on optimizing VPC, it would stream line their jobs quite a bit, wouldn't it? But, technically speaking, it seems like MS would be better off doing something Connectix said it was going to do: bundle the app with a PCI hardware card. Like the old Orange PC product, but with the software making calls to the PPCinfrastructre and offloading some tasks to the processor. Heck, they could even do a system on a chip, if Windows didn't need to be fixed every 3 months.
otherwise, the paranoid notions that this is pay back for Apple doing whatever minor things they have done (in comparison to the recycled crap MS gives the folks who make it a monopoly) can't possibly be spooking Bill Gates that much.

At the end of the day, however this goes down, one of the biggest boons to MS, is that all our base will belong to them. The next version of the product may not run pre-XP/2000 systems. So, they will get to reinforce their DRM and product activation to force you to pay for Windows and all of the other non-freeware. So, it is win/win for MS.

[moby1]

Originally posted by ryan
I think arn is right. We probably won't see VPC killed off but we will see its ability to run OSes other than Windows disappear.

Linux is Microsoft's worst enemy. I doubt I'll be able to run Red Hat on my PowerBook next year...

[hvfsl]

About Mac OS X on x86, this would be very good for software developers. It would be a lot easier to make apps for both Windows and Mac OS and if Apple integrated something like WINE into MAC OS on x86, they we would all be able to run Windows apps much like we can run X11 apps on a Mac now.

[365]

Does the purchase of Connectix not add weight to the anti-trust prosecution teams argument. VirtualPC is not a Windows emulator, it's a PC emulator which is used by many people to run Linux and BSD etc.. By buying this company Microsoft now potentially controls nearly 100% of the desktop market.

[Bear]

Originally posted by moby1
Linux is Microsoft's worst enemy. I doubt I'll be able to run Red Hat on my PowerBook next year...
As long as you don't update VirtualPC, you might be okay. Then again it depends if OS X version 10.3 breaks VirtualPC or not.

Of course, at this point updating VirtualPC will be giving money to Microsoft.

[bignumbers]

I think this is bad for Apple and Mac users in the long run. See previous post. Some other possibilities:

-M$ integrates VPC/Windows with the Aqua interface, making it semi-indistinguishable from the appearance of native Mac apps.

-Assuming the above, M$ stops development of Mac Office, saying you can just buy Windows Office. Looks great, runs slow.

-M$ integrates VPC essentially into the MacOS (using strong-arm tactics with Apple), so in addition to the Apple logo, we all see a M$ logo at startup if VPC is installed. (This is unlikely but a terrifying thought!)

My general concern is that VPC is of STRATEGIC importance to Apple. Yeah it runs slow, etc, but the fact the product exists helps sell Macs. I can't tell you how many Macs I've installed because an IT department said ok due to VPC's existence. What's the other strategic program? Office! Who owns both? M$!

Someone else said it first, but I'll repeat. Apple should have bought VPC. Would have sounded stupid at the time, but better than M$ controlling it.

[Eric-C]

I disagree. I think MS *knows* that if they do those "strategic" things, people will simply not buy it. Anyway, I don't see what's so horrible about MS making a OSX look as long as they keep it in VPC. I'd rather look at that then XP anyway.

The point is, MS will operate in its best interest. Its best interest is not to scare Mac users.

Scare Mac Users = Loss of Revenue

Is it just me or does it seem like there is a phobia about Apple losing its identity or MS "copying Apple." Ah.. MS; you people just love to hate them huh...

[atomwork]

i don't think Microsoft will kill this app. Bill is a large stockholder of Apple and its clear for me that his apps sell good to. So why not supporting a small company (remember: Apple has only 5% marketshare). He wins both ways!

[deejemon]

*

[Shrek]

One thing to point out: There is no news of this on the Connectix website. I wonder if that means that it's all just a fluke. I certainly HOPE SO!!! :( :mad: :eek: :rolleyes:

[deejemon]

*

[macmax]

there goes vpc, now it will stop working .

Can't Apple make some kind of app that would work like vpc, but only faster?

[oldMac]

Virtual PC is not just a "Windows on Mac" product. There is also VirtualPC for Windows which allows you to run multiple OS versions (Windows NT, Win 98, OS/2, etc) on the same machine simultaneously.

It makes a lot of sense that Microsoft would want to acquire this and integrate it with terminal services so that they can build great big boxes that can serve many clients and serve using many OS's at the same time. This is an important feature for the "big iron" market.

I'm sure that VirtualPC for the Mac being part of the deal was just an afterthought. I would expect one more version of that (mostly branding-changes) to come out for the Mac and then probably "bye-bye". I don't think that Connectix has been selling many copies of it lately.

On another note... I doubt that Connectix (the company) has been acquired by Microsoft. I say this because Connectix has always been a very closed company. They like to do things their own way without a lot of outside involvement and have resisted acquisition in the past.

[oldMac]

Sorry for the double-post, but here's my theory...

If, as rumored, Microsoft really plans to build a new OS from the ground up, they will need a way to provide backwards compatibility. One of the big problems with Windows bloat has always been that Microsoft has insisted in adding lots of new features while still maintaining backwards compatibility.

The old model allowed them to do this by building a monolithic OS where features were hacked on top of older features and new "compatibility" APIs where added on as well.

Slowly, MS has been moving to a model with a nice, clean kernel/hardware compatibility layer with a still-cluttered API on top of it. Perhaps the VPC acquisition is an attempt to "isolate" the current API to provide compatibility while building a new one for next-generation apps.

VPC for Windows might give them a nice technology to do that.

[-hh]

Originally posted by MacCoaster
Jesus Christ.

So many people assume Microsoft is evil and buying companies is evil if it's Microsoft.

I personally consider a Convicted Monopoly to be a reasonable definition of "Marketplace Evil" until it is destroyed. YMMV.

Microsoft is simply pursuing its interest....

Yup. And it looks like an effort to extend their Monopoly to me.

They could bring DirectX to VirtualPC. Wouldn't you like that, play PC-only, DirectX-only games under Windows.

Since I don't give a hoot about most games, "no."

Particularly since the last thing consumers need is YA proprietary standard to be forced upon us.


Yes, this is not an excuse to not port applications to Mac OS X, but what about old things no longer supported.

The Lawyers will be sure to point it out as an excuse for Microsoft to do whatever they want in regards to OS X: afterall, they're not legally obligated to provide the best solution.

I don't think Microsoft is stupid enough to abandon VirtualPC. They said they wouldn't abandon it. I'm not sure if I'm going to take their word for it in the long run, but in the short run, Microsoft is definitely NOT abandoning the Macintosh platform.

Microsoft has a long history of hamstringing the Mac platform while simultaneously claiming to support it. My workplace evidence is the lack of MS-Access in Office, as well as bad or non-existant versions of MS-Outlook.

For example, did you know that the .PST files are incompatible between PC & Mac and that the *only* way to convert the file is to upload them back to your server on the Mac side and pull them down on the PC side? Talk about a royal pain in the toosh.


I got my copy of the Office 11 beta for Windows today along with Windows Server 2003 RC, Exchange Server 2003, and other stuff. I like the new file formats, it's really true XML, not some bastardized XML as people would love it to be so they can blame Microsoft for incompatible things.

True XML for now...but has the file interface standard been published and locked down? If not, Microsoft has left the door open for their usual proprietary trickery down the road. I'll bet a keg of beer that even if there's a Mac Office v.XI that supports the current XML version, that there will be proprietary XML coding added within two PC-side revisions that will result in the file format no longer being "clean" non-proprietary XML that's readable on the non-PC side of the house.

And if its anything like the crap HTML file conversion within the existing MS-Office Apps, its code is rediculous bloated. The classic example that I usually edit out is the font definion that's repeated for every single damn line. Its been my experience that a fast hand edit will reduce the size of a MS-Word created webpage by ~100%.


-hh

[Sun Baked]

The chances of the products being killed are slim, if MS views VPC as another profit center for the MacBU.

However MS's view of what is needed for minimum profit may be different than Connectix's view -- and you need to take into account the puchase price of the product.

So basically depending on what profit the MacBU needs to make, expected future R&D, and purchase costs -- the price may change.

[DharvaBinky]

Originally posted by smegdude
its quite obvious that m$ are gonna kill off vpc, why would they support a product who's whole use is to run their OS on a rival system?
if they do make it better then i can pretty much guarantee that m$ will be charging much more for their new OS's, makeing it more economical just to buy a new pc.

RIP VPC

No no no... remember.. Microsoft is a *SOFTWARE* company. (except for xbox and stuff). They *sell* their software to anyone with $140... they don't care what box its one, and this includes VirtualPC users... which comes with a copy of their OS. Now, they'll get a little extra cash kick from the emulator as well as from the OS. Remember, MS used to write windows to run on Dec Alpha systems, and the write for Itanium now, why not go ahead and write for PPC.

Why... I think they'll struggle their hardest to make virtualPC as good as possible and try to lure some antiswitchers to leave macs for Windows 100%...

:)

Dharvabinky

[Eric-C]

Calling Microsoft a monopoly is not just a matter of popularity.

First of all, a monopoly, to an economists viewpoint, is a company that can shoot up its prices and expect profit. If you look at the price of windows, it has gone progressively down since Win98. It's no longer worth it to pay all that money for something that people take for granted. Why do you think there is anti-piracy included with every version of XP?

Second Microsoft has an obligation by most companies to stay open. It is not the other way around. If Microsoft went out of business tomorrow, do you think the whole world would suddenly switch to OSX? Of course not! If anything, people, inlcuding Apple, would crack Windows open and continue it through compatibility.

It's not like Microsoft is the only choice. The fact that companies choose Microsoft programs as a standard automatically perpetuates the life of Microsoft whether they like it or not. The simple fact is, if the Mac OS had been chosen as the standard, Apple would be in the same position as Microsoft, with all ad hominem aside.

If you consider these circumstances to be "evil" then I don't see how you could ever imagine an operating system that doesn't have the potential to be "evil." It all comes down to the economic standard. Standards are put in place so that people can communicate. "Apple does not communicate well with Windows, therefore since most people use Windows, I will switch to Windows." That seems perfectly logical to me. If you don't agree, then try starting a business with 10% market compatiblity and see how much money you make. I think it's strange that some people expect complete compatibility when they are using an operating system that is competing with the software that they are using.

As for VPC, Microsoft has the opportunity to make a profit off of people who need it. I believe that they have a better potential to make VPC better, especially if they don't need to worry about copyright issues. Since VPC is not only a Mac program, it IS in their best interest AND Mac VPC user's best interest for Microsoft to obtain it. As long as people depend on Microsoft products on OSX, people are going to buy VPC. Since VPC is Windows anyway I don't see why people are so upset that Microsoft, the company that knows Windows best is in control of their own emulator.

[eric_n_dfw]

Originally posted by nighthawk
I NEVER said that WINE is an emulator. I was just suggesting that if Apple put the resources into building Windows support into the MacOS (like Windows File Sharing is now), then they would develop their OWN emulator, and use libraries like WINE to emulate WINDOWS. If Apple were to do this, Microsoft WOULD NOT GET ANY MONEY.

That is what I would do. Yes, WINE would be emulated, but XP would not be, the libraries take care of that. A decent emulator and optimized WINE-like libraries might have a much greater performace than VPC ever had.
My appologies - I didn't think of it that way. This brings back memories of the rumored "Red Box" mode that people speculated Rhapsody could have - where win32 apps would run like the "Blue Box" mac os classic apps do.

I still doubt this would ever happen, not unless the Bochs project was adopted by Apple or something.

[DavPeanut]

This could be a good thing. We might see VPC running faster because it will be based on a real version of windows instead of a version that was changed so that it could be used by another company.

[eric_n_dfw]

For those of you who are worried about MS selling a version of Windows for PPC, I think you can relax.

They already did that - NT 4.0 IS (was) available for PPC (and Alpha too). In fact, take a look at the install CD (if you have one) and you'll find directorys like: x86, PPC, Alpha. (There may be one more, it's been a while since I've installed NT 4)

The problem with PPC NT (and Alpha NT for that matter) was that nobody wanted to re-compile and tune their applications for the other platforms. Alpha NT seemed to have minimal success in some speciallized markets (I think NewTek made a version Lightwave for it) but it's dead tech' now.

As others have said here, MS is not scared of OS X anywhere near as much as Linux. Linux (and BSD) are eating into their high margin server sales like starving beavers on a log cabin. :)

MS has much bigger fish to fry.

[deejemon]

*

[ryan]

Originally posted by MacCoaster
Must I reiterate:

Most servers are doing NOTHING, default install servers.

Show me proof that MOST of those Apache sites are DOING something like actually serving up REAL enterprise web applications.

Have you even bothered to look at the top 50 uptime servers. They aren't huge database backends, huge web application backends, etc. And have you even bothered to look at the SSL server pages. 49% Servers running Microsoft. SSL means serious business apps. I would expect most e-commerce sites to have SSL. Appears that they like Microsoft better.

Please, research on actual data representing what is actually being done, rather than use overgeneralizations. Remember, Netcraft counts each website as a separate server. Yes, Apache can do many times more sites per machine than Windows with IIS, but most people don't care because Windows with IIS is designed to be a dedicated server platform running mission critical stuff.
Guess I must have hit a nerve.

Show me statistics that prove that these IIS servers are doing any real work as well. Pick some know high traffic sites (that don't make their living off of Wintel, i.e. Dell), Amazon, CNN, Slashdot and see what they're running; usually its Linux/Apache.

As for your notion that all these Apache servers aren't doing anything... look here (http://www.netcraft.com/Survey/Reports/current/graphs.html) and notice how prominent Apache is in "Totals for Active Servers Across All Domains"

[eric_n_dfw]

Here's an interesting link, I'd venture to guess this is Apple's preferred way to get Windows app's to run on OS X:

http://developer.apple.com/macosx/win32porting/

[pseudobrit]

1. People seem to forget that there was never a problem with Microsoft having a monopoly in the Intel OS market, the problem was when they illegally abused their position to destroy potential competitors and annihilate companies in separate fields of the computer industry.

2. Apple is a hardware manufacturer. Their competition are Dell, HPCompaq, Gateway, etc. They do not make an OS to rival MS.

3. When they talk of "Windows Switchers," they're talking about Intel switchers. It doesn't matter what OS you run that Mac with, so long as you buy the hardware. Notice Apple doesn't even try to make their OS available to Intel machines or clones, but here is MS buying up an emulator for their own platform.

4. It would benefit MS to develop and exploit VPC to the extent that every PC sold with a Windows license is less profit for MS than every copy of MSVPC+WinXP sold with a Mac.

5. MS has a history of not playing nice with opportunities like this. I'm afraid.

[jettredmont]

Which would be better for the Mac:

1) Connectix just dumps VirtualPC for lack of venture funding.

2) Microsoft funds VirtualPC indefinitely.

After having some time to think about it, I think this is actually the better of the two options (Connectix is in financial trouble and was looking fro venture funding for VPC ... which likely wouldn't have been very forthcoming).

[sedarby]

Actually the end of VPC shouldn't affect most switchers since they already have a PC. This would only affect people wanting to run PC programs on their Mac. Sorry but no emulator beats the real thing especially at the price they charge.

[MacCoaster]

Originally posted by ryan
Guess I must have hit a nerve.

Show me statistics that prove that these IIS servers are doing any real work as well. Pick some know high traffic sites (that don't make their living off of Wintel, i.e. Dell), Amazon, CNN, Slashdot and see what they're running; usually its Linux/Apache.

As for your notion that all these Apache servers aren't doing anything... look here (http://www.netcraft.com/Survey/Reports/current/graphs.html) and notice how prominent Apache is in "Totals for Active Servers Across All Domains"
Have you looked at my first source (http://www.port80software.com/servermask/top1000webservers/)? Over 500 servers out of 1,000 tested of the top 1,000 are Microsoft-IIS.

Results are constant with Netcraft's SSL survey.

"Totals for Active Servers Across All Domains" means ABSOLUTELY nothing. They don't have explanatory graphs with definitions or actual listing of numbers. They need to do so to make people interpret it correctly.

Active just might mean active as in up and running, NOT as in up and running enterprise level software.

[Winston Smith]

Woah this is a hot one! Seems to me that comments on the lines of Microsoft are just a software company hit the mark.
The more software Bill gates can have running on more platforms the bigger his bank balance gets.
Personaly I try to avoid it as its the only stuff my OS9 system crashes under.

Whats to say Apple won't release its own emulation software:p

[MacHack]

Originally posted by springscansing
I do not really understand virtual PC. It runs so damn slow. For under 300 bucks, you can get an Athlon 900mhz system, 256 RAM, 60GBHD, 10/100 ethernet, DVD-ROM, and a geforce4mx 64MB graphics card.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3401785793&category=4317

Right there. Same price as Virtual PC, and KICKS ITS ASS in every way possible.

1 hour left... someone better jump on it.

Please, someone explain to me why Virtual PC is good.

Connectix's Playstation emulator was also stupid. 50 bucks for the program, 40 bucks for two controllers... just buy a damn playstation already! Even Steve Jobs said that.

And RAMdoubler was slow as hell and terrible... speed doubler didn't double much...

I personally could care less about Connectix. Someone prove me wrong.

Products that don't make sense because they're not as good as an alternative... PERFECT FIT FOR MICROSOFT!!!

[Bregalad]

The reason why MS made this purchase is to get into the virtual server market. They recognized that Connectix had a great product under development and wanted to get control of it before someone else did. Mac users seem to have missed this point completely.

Virtual PC for Mac just happened to be part of the deal. It's also a nice acquisition for MS, but they wouldn't have bothered buying assets from Connectix if that was the only product involved.

I believe that MS won't discontinue Virtual PC for Mac because it will help them to keep selling software to Mac users. Remember, MS wants to make money selling to every computer user, not just those running Windows. It's all about market dominance.

They also won't go to the effort of recoding it as a Windows only application because it would be too much work and because selling an x86 virtual machine will actually generate more profit than selling a product that only runs Windows. Here's why...

By keeping VPC as a hardware emulator the copy of Windows bundled with VPC can be exactly the same as the product they sell for hardware PCs. There's nothing a company likes more than zero development costs. The real kicker though is this one. If you want to run something other than Windows in Virtual PC, you'll still have to buy a copy of Windows because it'll be bundled with VPC.

Selling to your enemies is a feat few can pull off, but this move virtually guarantees that MS will be successful. Selling Windows to Linux users... I can imagine the grin on Gates' face already.

[Str8edgepunker]

By taking control IMHO of one of the most important piceces of software for mac, Microsoft has clearly crossed the line. Seems like retribution for keynote to me, don't you think? I don't know. well, hopefully microsoft virtual pc 7 will be better. Hopefully.

[welborn]

If they ditch the multiple-OS possibilities and make it a pure virtual XP environment, they could surely make a lot of things faster.

Also, imagine launching it like your X11 or Classic environment and running Windows rootlessly. Then you could launch Windows programs and treat them like everything else.

There is definitely possibilities.

Of course, I'm still one of those wacky OS X-on-X86 supporters, and think that Apple should then ship with an improved Wine.

Hardware-wise, Apple could put multiple 970s in the big expensive machines, and have a line of the coolest-looking X86-based machines ever.

"They may say I'm a dreamer. But I'm not the only one. Maybe someday you will join us , and the world will live as one ..." :)

[pimentoLoaf]

What M$ could do that's one better than WinXP atop an emulator, is to write a native g3/g4 WinXP -- assuming that Apple intends to deliver an Intel-native MacOS X sometime soon.

[NoVi]

Originally posted by Shrek
One thing to point out: There is no news of this on the Connectix website. I wonder if that means that it's all just a fluke. I certainly HOPE SO!!! :( :mad: :eek: :rolleyes:

Now there is:
http://www.connectix.com/about/acquisition_win.html

Virtual Machine Solutions
Virtual PC for Mac provides seamless integration of Windows on the Macintosh platform, enabling Mac OS customers to run Windows-based applications, access PC networks, use Windows-only Internet applications and share files with PC-based colleagues. Virtual PC for Mac will join the Macintosh Business Unit’s mix of award-winning Mac products, such as Office v. X, Entourage™ X and Internet Explorer for Mac.

“Adding Virtual PC to its product portfolio is yet another example of Microsoft’s continued commitment to the Mac platform,” said Ron Okamoto, vice president of Worldwide Developer Relations at Apple Computer Inc. “For years, Virtual PC has helped people who want to own a Mac but need to run legacy PC applications. We’re glad to see Virtual PC go into such good hands.”

[pseudobrit]

Apple releasing an x86 version of OSX would be a poison pill. It might take a nice chunk of market share away from MS, but it would be the end of Apple's profits, since Apple makes its huge profits on huge profit margins on hardware.

Which is why speculation on this project have pegged it specifically as a poison pill -- that Apple would use only if it were sinking already.

[welborn]

Why do people keep saying OS X on Intel would be a bad idea? Microsoft makes more money on software in a month than Apple makes on everything combined in a year!

Apple could still sell well-integrated X86 hardware and high-end PPC servers and workstations.

What is the down part of this?

[Shrek]

If M$ ends up paying little attention to VPC and doesn't keep the product quality up to standards (like taking away Linux support), customers will eventually hate them for it and that will lead even more M$ customers to look for alternatives. The odds of a new alternative showing up in the near future is good; the odds of an existing alternative (like VMware (http://www.vmware.com/)) adding Mac support to their product in response to this nonsense is very good. ;)

[edenwaith]

Originally posted by welborn
Why do people keep saying OS X on Intel would be a bad idea? Microsoft makes more money on software in a month than Apple makes on everything combined in a year!

Apple could still sell well-integrated X86 hardware and high-end PPC servers and workstations.

What is the down part of this?

OS X on PC hardware would be a double-edged sword. On one side, there would probably be less incentive to buy Apple hardware if the OS can be run on cheaper PC hardware. However, the dangerous part about bringing OS X over to PC hardware is making sure it can work will the umpteen-billion drivers and configurations out there. About the only possible way I can see OS X successfully coming over to PCs is if Apple licenses OS X to several larger OEMs (Dell, Gateway, HP, etc.), so they only need to worry about those few, specific configurations, instead of getting bundled up in the mess of hardware conflicts and incompatibilities which Linux and Windows have to face.

[Phil Of Mac]

Guys, guys, guys...

Virtual PC is not going away. If Microsoft wanted to kill VPC, they would have done it a long time ago, and they wouldn't have needed to buy it first. MS licensed Windows to Connectix. If they wanted to kill VPC, they could have just stopped licensing Windows to Connectix.

(Well, unless you seriously think people want to buy $300 just to run Lee-nooks when they could just buy LinuxPPC or Yellow Dog Linux.)

[Phil Of Mac]

This post intentionally left blank.

[PyroTurtle]

ok, i havne't read everything....
but wouldn't it be kinda funny if M$ took this purchace, took the VGS code and put it on the XBox ;) or maybe use the cntx team to make a PS emulator so people could play all games on their XBox? i woulnd't like it...
i'd love a PS2 or XBox emulator for my DP tower....

sorry if someone already mentioned it....i havne't had time to read the whole list of posts....

[kiwi_the_iwik]

This is hillarious...

A lot of you are saying that now you'll lose the ability to run Windows or Linux applications on your Mac.


NEWSFLASH:

Connectix Virtual PC made it to VERSION 6!

THAT build ain't going away. Only future versions may be in jeopardy. As long as you have a decent working copy of VPC6, you should be laughing - it works fine as is (unless, of course, you want to play games...)

:)


Anyway - even if VPC does get dropped by Microsoft, I can't see the PC emulation market dying off. Someone else will pick up the ball and run with it.

[dragonnsho]

I heard from a friend that FWB updated its website today to say they are thinking about releasing Real PC again...
I would bet that if we want to keep M$ free as much as possible, if we asked, they'd probably release it again!
I had real PC and it was faster and better than Connectix under 9... I haven't used either in forever though.. I live in osX now..
What do you guys think of that?

[MacViolinist]

Originally posted by pseudobrit

2. Apple is a hardware manufacturer. Their competition are Dell, HPCompaq, Gateway, etc. They do not make an OS to rival MS.

Do you mean by that that Apple does not make an OS as good as Microsoft's or that Apple doesn't make one as frequently purchased? I don't know what other people's feelings are on this topic, but I use win 95, 98, 2000pro and XPpro on a daily basis. I will also point out that in my opinion Mac OS X jag kicks their collective asses.

To get myself back on topic, I would like to ask if anyone knows of a product that Connectix has sold to another company which was not subsequently canceled by the purchasing company.

macViolinist

[frogmella]

Originally posted by atomwork
i don't think Microsoft will kill this app. Bill is a large stockholder of Apple and its clear for me that his apps sell good to. So why not supporting a small company (remember: Apple has only 5% marketshare). He wins both ways!

This is the oldest and most oft-repeated rumour about Apple, and I hear it so many times from my Windoze friends that I get sick of it.

FACT: M$ bought $150m worth of NON-VOTING stock in Apple - a company that at the time was worth around $5b i.e. a 3% stake. Not long after, they sold this stock for a nice tidy profit. So M$ only ever had a tiny indirect control over Apple, and now has NONE.

Consider yourself corrected.

[yumpin yiminy]

Frogmella....
Thankyouthankyou. I get sick of reading that line, too. It sucks even worse when the media spreads the past as the present.
Thanks for correctin'.


Originally posted by MacViolinist
...

To get myself back on topic, I would like to ask if anyone knows of a product that Connectix has sold to another company which was not subsequently canceled by the purchasing company.

macViolinist
this is the only product line i recall them selling prior to the CVG and VPC..... CVS was the only product that was bought and disappeared. ... I think it is MS' track record of "embrace and destroy" that people are focusing on too much. Which as it goes, is sorta what Apple did with a lot of 3rd party system extensions and utilities, even prior to Watson and Sherlock 3...
anyhow, your answer:


From Connectix's Support pages....

Issue:

Problems with QuickCam, Quick Clip, VideoPhone, or Digital Radar?

Solution:

If your question is regarding a QuickCam product (this includes VideoPhone and Digital Radar), please contact Logitech. With the sale of the QuickCam product line to Logitech Inc., support for these products has been transferred to Logitech.

For the latest information and troubleshooting steps, or to contact Logitech Customer Support for the QuickCam products, please refer to: www.logitech.com

http://www.logitech.com




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product: Other (specify below)
Category: General Info
Article ID: 4179
Created: 3/22/1999
Modified: 1/5/2002

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[MacViolinist]

[QUOTE] originally spoken by yumpin yiminy
CVS was the only product that was bought and disappeared.

I am not familiar with CVS. However;
i am assuming that you are talking about Connectix Virtual Gamestation here, aka: CVG or CVGS. CVG was not just simply bought by someone and then disapeared. CVG/S was purchased by Sony and then intentionally discontinued.

If you are only able to think of 2 apps that connectix has sold in it's history (I really was hoping for more) and both of them were emulators of one kind or another and have been sold to the company that controls the OS or Hardware being emulated and so far 50% of those companies have canceled the product immediately after the purchase, I just wonder what we have in store for us.......


-macviolinist

[PyroTurtle]

cntx said that sony basically came in and said stop or we'll sue you for all you're worth, then take the company, then we'll go to work on your families....well, maybe not ALL of that, but you get the jist...
something about mac users no longer buying and play stations....weird how emulators will do that....

[Spock]

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/news/bulletins/vmnews.mspx This may have already ben posted but I posted it again.

[gaijinjim]

M$ has done it again.

Well, I can't believe this happened, but I'm not surprised. Apple has bought companies as well.

But what does it matter anymore? What software (besides internally developed) is there that isn't available for Mac either as a port or as a different software title?

OpenOffice is replacing M$ Office. Apple apparently is coming out with its own version.

Crap, I'm from Seattle (Redmond, WA is a suburb of Seattle) and have acquaintences that work at M$. Half of them use Macs at home!!!!!

What is so special about M$??? Maybe the fact that they don't follow W3C standards?

Honestly, there was nothing in my previous job and there is nothing in my current company that I can't do without a Windows machine. Half of the time the software that I need to use is already included in the Mac OS X. Not to mention the fact that it supports the latest techonogies.

As far as upgrading to VPC6, it isn't going to happen. When I first started using VPC3, it was to emulate W98, now with VPC5 it's almost all Red Hat Linux. Why upgrade? M$ isn't going to support any linux version. If they did I would be very surprised. However, there is the rumor that M$ will be selling Linux software within two years.

All I can say is who cares. IF THE SOFTWARE ISN'T INCLUDED WITH YOUR MAC, GO AND FIND IT!! THE SOFTWARE THAT YOU NEED IS OUT THERE!!!

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by MacViolinist
Do you mean by that that Apple does not make an OS as good as Microsoft's or that Apple doesn't make one as frequently purchased? I don't know what other people's feelings are on this topic, but I use win 95, 98, 2000pro and XPpro on a daily basis. I will also point out that in my opinion Mac OS X jag kicks their collective asses.

Apple does not make an OS to run on Intel iron. Therefore, MS and Apple are not competing. Also, if Apple were to introduce X for Intel, the clones would destroy their hardware sales and M$ would use their huge amounts of capital to lower the price of Windows and eat Apple alive.

No hardware profits + small share of the Intel OS market with little profit (if any) = dead Apple.

OSX is obviously superior to XP, but in order for Apple to survive, it cannot compete in the same arena with MS.

An OS is a natural monopoly market. Who wants ten, twenty OS standards out there to have to program for? I like the fact that Apple is only 5% of the market. It would be healthier if it were about 10%, but the fact that MS remains the monopoly means that Apple is free to be different, and NEEDS to be different.

[yumpin yiminy]

Originally posted by MacViolinist
[QUOTE] originally spoken by yumpin yiminy
CVS was the only product that was bought and disappeared.

I am not familiar with CVS. However;
i am assuming that you are talking about Connectix Virtual Gamestation here, aka: CVG or CVGS. CVG was not just simply bought by someone and then disapeared. CVG/S was purchased by Sony and then intentionally discontinued.

If you are only able to think of 2 apps that connectix has sold in it's history (I really was hoping for more) and both of them were emulators of one kind or another and have been sold to the company that controls the OS or Hardware being emulated and so far 50% of those companies have canceled the product immediately after the purchase, I just wonder what we have in store for us.......


-macviolinist
I confused the initials for that playstation emulator ever since i bought a copy after the intitial lawsuit/injunction threat by Sony. Tacky packaging is all I can say. But hey, what ever. that was the past that no longer matters to this intstance.....

my thing is that it doesn't really matter what the precendent is. sony was *suing* to stop production of the virtual game system. microsoft has been *making money* off of virtual pc for quite sometime now. There is a noticable difference between the two scenarios.
most of the software connectix has made is for os 9 or earlier and quite often was making up for hardware upgrades being expensive. Ram Doubler, Speed Doubler, etc were the types of products that they could not really sell off nor can they expect much from in the terms of future sales. The Web cam technology and the cams --Connectix's only true hardware venture, IIRC, is still kicking under the ownership of Logitech.
To jump on the notion that the world is going to end now that Microsoft owns VPC is just ridiculous.
Quite frankly most of the posters on this particular thread come across as very self-centered as if somehow this decision on the part of Connectix directly impacts their lives moreso than any other thing in this ever-changing world. Guess what? it is a drop in the bucket.
Microsoft will still make the product, if you buy it.
Like I said before, they will force you to upgrade to XP or better instead of other older or competing OSs, like before. They can't really make it all that much better as a product, but, they can make it usable enough that any user will be pleased with the performance. Heck, this might, just might be the shinining moment for MS to use Virtual PC to truly and easily provide more of this .NET service to mac users. But, hey. The world is going to end, why speculate on potential positives, right?
Quite frankly, having used Real PC and Virtual PC the convenience is nice, but so is the convenience of being MS free and just using a mac to do anything even when it comes to delivering files to a PC user. Until then if I need to use a PC, I use a real PC (wintel variety).
Quite frankly, I'm in the camp that more Mac development of really great applications, easily found and readily known is the best way to counteract the dirth of PC only productivity or time wasting applications on the Macintosh. That should be paramount, instead of whining about how another program *might* be discontinued.
Support your developers, peeps. Become your developers! And everything will be alright.

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by ryan
A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away there was a rumor of a "Red Box" that was to be in Apple's next generation OS, Rhapsody. This "Red Box" was suppose to an x86 emulation layer that was going to sit next to the "Yellow Box," a classic "emulator" for MacOS 7/8 apps. Apple has a talented bunch of developers who, given the task, could write an x86 emulator for OSX, lets hope that Mr. Jobs gives those marching orders.

A couple of corrections: The classic "emulator" was referred to as "Blue Box" in Rhapsody. "Yellow Box" was the new, native environment. Also, Rhapsody was designed to be cross-platform (much the way MacOS X is), and "Red Box" was the equivalent of "Blue Box" for the Intel version of Rahpsody, except that instead of providing Mac backward compatibility, Red Box provided Windows backward compatibility.

[aafuss1]

It's offical-Mcrosoft's Offical Connextix assests acquisation PR:

http://microsoft.com/presspass/press/2003/Feb03/02-19PartitionPR.asp

It's inrteresting-the vpc for windows-is at the wwindows xp site. Also after gthgis-maybe MS might build in a classic layer-luke apple does with the next windows.

[MacCoaster]

Originally posted by aafuss1
It's inrteresting-the vpc for windows-is at the wwindows xp site. Also after gthgis-maybe MS might build in a classic layer-luke apple does with the next windows.
Once Microsoft .NET is in full swing, that won't be necessary, as Microsoft .NET is platform-independent (yes it works on PowerPC on Mac OS X), language-independent and therefore backwards compatible. Even more so than Java. Unlike Java (I've only really started using Java at version 1.4.1 so I wouldn't know about previous versions), Microsoft .NET allows you to have a runtime that is fully compatible with the previous versions without choosing which version of the .NET Framework to run a certain program, it's done automatically. Someone who is more familiar with Java, please inform if this is done under Java just as seamlessly. I haven't programmed much on the Java platform, but I am learning Java.

Besides, they technically already have a classic layer-like thing called "Compatibility Layer." For example, if an app didn't work on Windows XP natively, but it did on Windows 95, you can simply right click the executable and tell it to execute under a Windows 95-like environment.

[Kwyjibo]

this cannot be good i mean in a month they will kill it or raise the price either way it was bad before and worse now. Just buy a cheap PC its probably as good as using VPC.

[MacCoaster]

Originally posted by Kwyjibo
this cannot be good i mean in a month they will kill it or raise the price either way it was bad before and worse now. Just buy a cheap PC its probably as good as using VPC.
Did you EVEN read about these stuff? They are NOT killing VPC.

Raising prices, I doubt it. But could happen.

[Les Kern]

Recently I changed my mind from an earlier post in this thread. I have a few PC's, like 40 or so in a sea of 700+ Macs. This week a WIN2000 Pro system I have running our finacial package took a dive. The MDB was hosed. I couldn't go backwards like VPC, but I did have plenty of backups, but then encountered the famous "DLL dance of death". I guess to make a long story short, I think now that a cheap PC is actually worse than VPC, whereas if you do games get a GOOD PC. I use VPC 5 and it works fine for minor things, and could certainly handle the low-end finance package we use. M$, don't screw up a good thing!

[ThoughtKriminal]

when VPC costs more than XP, and macOffice costs more than microsoft office... how is mac os even a "rival" system to m$ now?

[ThoughtKriminal]

Originally posted by Les Kern
Recently I changed my mind from an earlier post in this thread. I have a few PC's, like 40 or so in a sea of 700+ Macs. This week a WIN2000 Pro system I have running our finacial package took a dive. The MDB was hosed. I couldn't go backwards like VPC, but I did have plenty of backups, but then encountered the famous "DLL dance of death". I guess to make a long story short, I think now that a cheap PC is actually worse than VPC, whereas if you do games get a GOOD PC. I use VPC 5 and it works fine for minor things, and could certainly handle the low-end finance package we use. M$, don't screw up a good thing!


if you do alot of games, buy a console for a fraction of the price of the cheapest PCs lol

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by MacCoaster
Unlike Java (I've only really started using Java at version 1.4.1 so I wouldn't know about previous versions), Microsoft .NET allows you to have a runtime that is fully compatible with the previous versions without choosing which version of the .NET Framework to run a certain program, it's done automatically. Someone who is more familiar with Java, please inform if this is done under Java just as seamlessly. I haven't programmed much on the Java platform, but I am learning Java.

I'm not sure what you're talking about here. I can run Java 1.0 applications just fine using the Java 1.4.1 JVM. I can also run *some* Java 1.4.1 applications using a Java 1.0 JVM, provided the programmer is careful not to use newer classes and such. A program that compiles on the Java 1.0 compiler will compile on the Java 1.4.1 compiler most (but not all) of the time, although it may emit several "deprecation" (ie, "there's now a better way to do the same thing") warnings.

IMHO, Java has handled a changing spec far more gracefully than most languages (C and C++ in particular ... I mean with C++, between ARM and ANSI the meaning of variables initialized in a for(;; ) loop changed dramatically!)

I would hope that .NET will manage library changes and new concepts as gracefully, but, honestly, .NET hasn't been around long enough to be able to say one way or the other. MS does have a pretty good record in keeping language backward-compatibility (although at times sacrificing standards interoperability in the name of backwards compatibility ... for instance, in the above example VC++ 6.0 continues to use the ARM meaning of for(;; ) loop variables, which makes porting from VC++ to any other modern compiler a bit more difficult).

[MacCoaster]

Originally posted by jettredmont
I'm not sure what you're talking about here. I can run Java 1.0 applications just fine using the Java 1.4.1 JVM. I can also run *some* Java 1.4.1 applications using a Java 1.0 JVM, provided the programmer is careful not to use newer classes and such. A program that compiles on the Java 1.0 compiler will compile on the Java 1.4.1 compiler most (but not all) of the time, although it may emit several "deprecation" (ie, "there's now a better way to do the same thing") warnings.
So I don't need to have the JVM 1.0 to run Java 1.0 programs? What if the Java specs deprecated a class or something that was valid in 1.0, but is invalid in 1.4. Will Java 1.0 programs using those classes still run on the 1.4 version of JVM? Or if I require those specific deprecated classes, due to unavailabilty of source code and so on, will I be required to run the 1.0 JVM side by side with 1.4?

IIRC, Java 1.4.1 is really Java 2.0 version 1.4.1, like Mac OS X (10) 10.2. What about the true 1.0 version of Java 1?
I would hope that .NET will manage library changes and new concepts as gracefully, but, honestly, .NET hasn't been around long enough to be able to say one way or the other. MS does have a pretty good record in keeping language backward-compatibility (although at times sacrificing standards interoperability in the name of backwards compatibility ... for instance, in the above example VC++ 6.0 continues to use the ARM meaning of for(;; ) loop variables, which makes porting from VC++ to any other modern compiler a bit more difficult).
Microsoft .NET has already been proved for that. They're working on Microsoft .NET 1.1 already and is getting close to completion on version 1.1. I ran their beta versions of Microsoft .NET 1.1 without no problems. Runs very smoothly with 1.0 binaries.

Regarding the for(;;) loop in VC++, that is supposed to be fixed for Microsoft Visual Studio .NET 2003 (which, btw, uses .NET 1.1, so it's also Microsoft .NET 1.1 that is getting this), as far as I know. Microsoft .NET 1.1 is aimed for something like 99%, or even 100% if at the end they're able to do this, compliance with the ANSI C++ standard. That percentage is really AMAZING. Not even GNU C++ stuff are 100% adhering to the ANSI standard.

[macfreek57]

Originally posted by MacCoaster
They are NOT killing VPC.

Raising prices, I doubt it. But could happen.

why would you doubt that MS would jack up prices? don't they do that on every single program they sell?
example of MS tight as$ product dealings:
over-paranoid serial numbers and product packaging


i was happy that i at least got the opportunity to buy VPC before i had to send money to microsoft

[MacCoaster]

Originally posted by macfreek57
why would you doubt that MS would jack up prices? don't they do that on every single program they sell?
example of MS tight as$ product dealings:
over-paranoid serial numbers and product packaging
Your last sentence has NOTHING to do with jacking up prices. :rolleyes: serial numbers? OH NO! There are MILLIONS of other companies using serial numbers. OOHHHHH NOOOO... world's gonna end. :rolleyes:

And no, Microsoft doesn't jack up their prices for every single program. If they did, mind to prove it? For example:

Windows Me => Windows XP Home, same price.
Windows 2000 Professional => Windows XP Professional, same price.

And Microsoft is dropping prices. Windows Server 2003 Web Server will be cheaper than Windows Server 2003 Standard, when you only need a Web Server.

[macfreek57]

Originally posted by MacCoaster
Your last sentence has NOTHING to do with jacking up prices. :rolleyes: serial numbers? OH NO! There are MILLIONS of other companies using serial numbers. OOHHHHH NOOOO... world's gonna end. :rolleyes:

And no, Microsoft doesn't jack up their prices for every single program. If they did, mind to prove it? For example:

Windows Me => Windows XP Home, same price.
Windows 2000 Professional => Windows XP Professional, same price.

And Microsoft is dropping prices. Windows Server 2003 Web Server will be cheaper than Windows Server 2003 Standard, when you only need a Web Server.

jacking up their prices as in the prices as they are are too high. i guess it's a matter of opinion. my comments were in no way hostile. sorry if they came out that way
and i'll leave the oem comments alone as they are