PDA

View Full Version : RealPC vs Microsoft?




MacRumors
Jun 4, 2003, 08:03 PM
This MacNN thread (http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=162856#post1430039) from FWB notes that RealPC is scheduled for July... and that Microsoft has sent them a Cease and Desist letter. No other details posted.



pgwalsh
Jun 4, 2003, 08:20 PM
Microsatan needs to go away.

Freg3000
Jun 4, 2003, 08:42 PM
Originally posted by applemacdude
whats a cease and desist letter?

It's basically saying that you better stop whatever the hell you are doing before Microsoft finds a way to sue your ass off.

I hope they are able to release RealPC.

Microsoft......how low can you go......

mac15
Jun 4, 2003, 08:44 PM
Well, like someone on Macnn said. Apple should send M$ a letter for trying to copy there music store and just about everything they have copied. I still hope it gets released.

mj_1903
Jun 4, 2003, 08:46 PM
Microsoft cannot stop someone releasing an x86 emulator with say linux or it or just empty. The user can then install whatever they want on there...and if its a bought copy of Microsoft Windows or something else ;) then so be it.

Microsoft really have got to stop trying to beat everyone up....I guess since they finished off the US Government it doesn't really matter who they beat up.

nagromme
Jun 4, 2003, 08:49 PM
I had high hopes that MS were just the people to make a future VPC be a really great product, even better than now.

But this makes me want to never upgrade, and just buy RealPC instead.

No doubt they want to make people afraid to buy RPC, for fear that FWB will be sued out of existence and leave them without support. I don't intend to be intimidated.

How crazy is MS? They never worried about RPC before they owned VPC... and even with RPC, they still get to sell the Windows license to many people.

What is their basis for this? RealPC is essentially analogous to a PC-maker, right? They're making an emulated x86 platform instead of a physical one... how can MS expect to control that? RPC could be sold without an OS or with Linux or whatever... it's not directly in MS-related product, unless they bundle Windows--which MS SHOULD be required to sell them if they want it.

So this COULD be two things instead: a) some very specific and minor issue that MS has a problem with, and FWB can solve--rather than an attempt to actually stop the product, or b) a hoax entirely!

EDIT: There is speculation at MacNN that the problem is only with the name of the "PowerWindows" product. Good a theory as any! Name it "PowerWin" and we'll all know what they mean anyway!

Kurt
Jun 4, 2003, 09:20 PM
Originally posted by mj_1903
Microsoft cannot stop someone releasing an x86 emulator with say linux or it or just empty. The user can then install whatever they want on there...and if its a bought copy of Microsoft Windows or something else ;) then so be it.


You shouldn't but when you have as many lawyers and as much money as Micro$oft, it doesn't matter. Just the threat of filing is enough.:(

MorganX
Jun 4, 2003, 10:27 PM
Originally posted by mac15
Well, like someone on Macnn said. Apple should send M$ a letter for trying to copy there music store and just about everything they have copied. I still hope it gets released.

You mean after all the music stores that existed before the Apple music store finish sending the same letter to Apple?

MisterMe
Jun 4, 2003, 10:27 PM
Originally posted by nagromme
I had high hopes that MS were just the people to make a future VPC be a really great product, even better than now.

But this makes me want to never upgrade, and just buy RealPC instead.

No doubt they want to make people afraid to buy RPC, for fear that FWB will be sued out of existence and leave them without support. I don't intend to be intimidated.

How crazy is MS? They never worried about RPC before they owned VPC... and even with RPC, they still get to sell the Windows license to many people.

What is their basis for this? RealPC is essentially analogous to a PC-maker, right? They're making an emulated x86 platform instead of a physical one... how can MS expect to control that? RPC could be sold without an OS or with Linux or whatever... it's not directly in MS-related product, unless they bundle Windows--which MS SHOULD be required to sell them if they want it.

So this COULD be two things instead: a) some very specific and minor issue that MS has a problem with, and FWB can solve--rather than an attempt to actually stop the product, or b) a hoax entirely!

EDIT: There is speculation at MacNN that the problem is only with the name of the "PowerWindows" product. Good a theory as any! Name it "PowerWin" and we'll all know what they mean anyway! The issue that M$ has with FWB probably revolves around an agreement that FWB made with Connectix to stop selling RealPC and SoftWindows. FWB also referred potential RPC and SW customers to Connectix. The legal uncertainty remaining to be answered is two-fold:

1. When it bought Connectix's emulation products, did M$ also gain ownership of Connectix's agreement with FWB?

2. Can M$, which has been determined to be an illegal monopoly and affirmed to be so on appeal, enforce an agreement which serves to stifle competition for one of its products?

MorganX
Jun 4, 2003, 10:28 PM
Originally posted by Kurt
You shouldn't but when you have as many lawyers and as much money as Micro$oft, it doesn't matter. Just the threat of filing is enough.:(

Hmmm, isn't Microsoft copying that from Apple too? Sue people out of business? Let's not forget where we came from. OK?

MorganX
Jun 4, 2003, 10:29 PM
Originally posted by MisterMe
The issue that M$ has with FWB probably revolves around an agreement that FWB made with Connectix to stop selling RealPC and SoftWindows. FWB also referred potential RPC and SW customers to Connectix. The legal uncertainty remaining to be answered is two-fold:

1. When it bought Connectix's emulation products, did M$ also gain ownership of Connectix's agreement with FWB?

2. Can M$, which has been determined to be an illegal monopoly and affirmed to be so on appeal, enforce an agreement which serves to stifle competition for one of its products?

A voice of reason and reality, thank you.

Nermal
Jun 4, 2003, 10:33 PM
We've been left in the dark a bit, it'll be interesting to see what MS has actually got against this. FWB's site doesn't say much, just this:

FWB has pushed back the release date of its Beta Version of PowerWindows (formerly SoftWindows) to July 1 due to issues relating to Microsoft.

Notice that they say PowerWindows, not RealPC. Will RealPC still exist, or is it being replaced with PowerWindows?

Cappy
Jun 4, 2003, 11:44 PM
Originally posted by nagromme
How crazy is MS? They never worried about RPC before they owned VPC... and even with RPC, they still get to sell the Windows license to many people.

What is their basis for this? RealPC is essentially analogous to a PC-maker, right? They're making an emulated x86 platform instead of a physical one... how can MS expect to control that? RPC could be sold without an OS or with Linux or whatever... it's not directly in MS-related product, unless they bundle Windows--which MS SHOULD be required to sell them if they want it.

Actually MS might be able to make a legal case that the emulator product cannot be advertised in a certain manner as it won't be 100% compatible, could misrepresent the Windows product to customers, or create above average support issues for a Windows product. There are a number of areas that MS *could* go with this if they really wanted to and probably be within their legal means to do so.

Originally posted by nagromme
EDIT: There is speculation at MacNN that the problem is only with the name of the "PowerWindows" product. Good a theory as any! Name it "PowerWin" and we'll all know what they mean anyway!

That could very well be true and frankly I think PowerWin sounds like a better name for it.

Kamu-San
Jun 5, 2003, 02:53 AM
Anyway, a Windoze emulator is baaaaaaad.

Why?
Remember OS/2. It could run Windows 3.1 apps natively. So noone bothered to make OS/2 native apps, but concentrated on making Windows 3.1 apps because those would run on both Windows and OS/2.

So. If you have a really good VPC or RPC then why would software makers bother to make OS X native apps? They'd just concentrate on the Windows version and expect you to use the app in VPC or RPC, degrading a OS X to a platform suitable for running an emulator. Less OS X software, so even more people would ask themselves why they should buy those expensive Macs when all they can do with it is run Windows apps anyway. And then they'll buy a cheaper PC.

What Apple should do is lower the prices of Macs, gain a lot of market share and make the platform more interesting for software makers.

nagromme
Jun 5, 2003, 02:59 AM
Don't worry about Windows emulation harming OS X development. An emulator will never touch the performance of native OS X--much less its features and usability. And the Mac public would not be willing to accept Windows software even if the emulator and Windows OS were free--which they aren't.

They'd be MUCH more likely to accept emulated OS 9 apps than that! And yet we all know, Classic didn't kill OS X development by any means. We want native OS X apps--and software companies have delivered.

Having the OPTION to run the dominant platform's software is a great selling point, though--and often very useful. Windows machines can't run OS X software.

BWhaler
Jun 5, 2003, 03:10 AM
Let's hope Lindows wins their lawsuit, and the name Windows reverts back to being a generic, untrademarked word.

That would hurt M$ is many, many ways. But most importantly, it would disolve 1 of the 2 truly reconizable brands that M$ has. And to make matters worse, the other brand is the name Microsoft, which has countless negative associations with it.

Can you imagine a world where there is an IBM Windows, and Oracle Windows, RedHat Linux Windows, etc., etc. It would be wonderful.

GO LINDOWS...

Kamu-San
Jun 5, 2003, 03:35 AM
Nagromme, I agree, if Windows emulation would still be (a lot) slower than running Windows on a PC, then it wouldn't be a threat to OS X development.

Still, the best thing for Apple to do would still be to lower their prices and gain more market share.

Nebrie
Jun 5, 2003, 03:35 AM
Originally posted by Kamu-San
Anyway, a Windoze emulator is baaaaaaad.

Why?
Remember OS/2. It could run Windows 3.1 apps natively. So noone bothered to make OS/2 native apps, but concentrated on making Windows 3.1 apps because those would run on both Windows and OS/2.

So. If you have a really good VPC or RPC then why would software makers bother to make OS X native apps? They'd just concentrate on the Windows version and expect you to use the app in VPC or RPC, degrading a OS X to a platform suitable for running an emulator. Less OS X software, so even more people would ask themselves why they should buy those expensive Macs when all they can do with it is run Windows apps anyway. And then they'll buy a cheaper PC.

What Apple should do is lower the prices of Macs, gain a lot of market share and make the platform more interesting for software makers.

Um no....
I actually bought and used OS/2 and I can tell you that wasn't the reason why very few apps were developed for it.

OS/2 was a complete disaster. IBM spent billions marketing it instead of trying to fix it's many problems. First problem: Installation took 4 hours and is not for the faint of heart. The OS was slow, extremely slow. Unless you were extremely good with computers, you did not have a chance at learning how to use this. OS/2 wouldn't even run on many of IBM's own computers. Without an actual user base, no one developed for it. THAT is the reason, not the fact that it could do Win 3.1 apps. By the time IBM released OS/2 Warp, Microsoft had Windows 95, and OS/2 couldn't run Windows 95 apps. Windows 3.1 compatibility was always, practically irrelevant. It's the same story as the Mac, it's all about marketshare.

Sun Baked
Jun 5, 2003, 04:11 AM
Victor's Secret won their Supreme Court lawsuit, which is bad news for everyone else bringing a Federal Trademark Dilution Act lawsuit.

They slapped Victoria's Secret around and said come back when you have proof that the customers are morons and would actually think that Victor's Secret sex shop is really a Victoria's Secret Lingerie shop, and you have no proof you lost any money.

---

If MS is selling a copy of Windows every time a copy of Real PC is sold...

You do the math.

And are the customers buying Windows morons, OK MS has got you there -- maybe there is a chance they'd win. :p

Kamu-San
Jun 5, 2003, 05:11 AM
Nebrie, ok.

Even more arguments for increased market share.:D

Chimaera
Jun 5, 2003, 05:37 AM
Doesn't say anything about RealPC, just Softwindows, and seeing as its supplying a no longer supported OS I'm not suprised MS are a little pissed about it.

The only grounds MS could have for taking on RealPC is if this supposed agreement between Connectix and FWB was put down in writing (and if money changed hands over it) - If there was some form of contract promising no further development of RealPC then basically FWB would be screwed as MS could enforce that.

One thing a lot of you fail to realise is MS have absolutely no need to kill VPC on mac, and just because they bought it doesn't automatically mean its gonna suck either - People buying VPC = more money to MS regardless of what OS they actually run on it - I have VPC running Linux and DOS 6.2.2 - neither of which is a revenue stream to MS - but my buying the application IS, and if they do can VPC someone else will come up with a x86 emu instead and they loose an (admittedly tiny) stream of cash that it doesn't hurt them to keep open.

Personally I'm highly sceptical about FWB's claims of speed - I personally suspect its going to end up being more or less the same speed of emulation as VPC at best.

hvfsl
Jun 5, 2003, 08:11 AM
I think Apple should buy Realpc and then they could code it better so it should be run faster on Macs. It would be a bit like the x11 app they have. Then M$ would have a hard time stopping Apple from making it.

pellucidity
Jun 5, 2003, 08:53 AM
Originally posted by Chimaera


One thing a lot of you fail to realise is MS have absolutely no need to kill VPC on mac, and just because they bought it doesn't automatically mean its gonna suck either - People buying VPC = more money to MS regardless of what OS they actually run on it - I have VPC running Linux and DOS 6.2.2 - neither of which is a revenue stream to MS - but my buying the application IS, and if they do can VPC someone else will come up with a x86 emu instead and they loose an (admittedly tiny) stream of cash that it doesn't hurt them to keep open.

Remember that M$ bought the emulation products primarily to kill VPC linux on x86, not Windows on PPC.

Chimaera
Jun 5, 2003, 10:01 AM
Actully I was under the impression they bought it for the VM technology, something to do with helping compatability down the line with NT apps on 2003 server if I remember rightly.

MS gains nothing by buying VPC just to bury it - something else will come along always.

Stopping VPC for the purpose of stopping peole using Linux makes no sense - its not exactly hard to dualboot into linux and windows after all, all running linux on VPC achieves is a little less hassle - so killing that would achieve nothing either.

Snowy_River
Jun 5, 2003, 10:45 AM
Originally posted by nagromme
EDIT: There is speculation at MacNN that the problem is only with the name of the "PowerWindows" product. Good a theory as any! Name it "PowerWin" and we'll all know what they mean anyway!

Ooo! Ooo! How about, instead of 'PowerWindows' . . . 'PowerPC'! Oh... wait... I guess that won't work...

:p

Snowy_River
Jun 5, 2003, 10:50 AM
Originally posted by Kamu-San
Nagromme, I agree, if Windows emulation would still be (a lot) slower than running Windows on a PC, then it wouldn't be a threat to OS X development.

Still, the best thing for Apple to do would still be to lower their prices and gain more market share.

From a practical stand point, the only way for Apple to lower prices is to cut their profit margin (which isn't that substantial) or use cheaper parts. On the one hand, they might gain greater market share, but they'd loose money, which is never a good thing, especially in a weak economy. On the other hand, the reliability of their machines would go down, cost of maintenance would go up, and people would be less inclined to buy them, so market share wouldn't increase. The gripping hand is that Apple's prices are fair for the quality of computer that they are putting out. Yes, the processors may be overpriced for the performance, but we must remain hopeful that the 970 will put an end to that with lower cost and higher performance.

Snowy_River
Jun 5, 2003, 10:53 AM
Originally posted by Chimaera
Personally I'm highly sceptical about FWB's claims of speed - I personally suspect its going to end up being more or less the same speed of emulation as VPC at best.

Well, whether it outperforms VPC or not, I'll likely switch over. I stopped by the store just the other day and I saw the prices that are on the VPC boxes now. I was astonished. For a VPC 5 -> VPC 6 upgrade the price was $99! I only paid $149 for a full version of VPC 5. And for a full version of VPC 6 the price was $259.

I presume that this is MS's influence, but regardless, I don't think I'll be buying a new version of VPC any time soon...

Kid Red
Jun 5, 2003, 11:39 AM
Originally posted by Nermal
We've been left in the dark a bit, it'll be interesting to see what MS has actually got against this. FWB's site doesn't say much, just this:



Notice that they say PowerWindows, not RealPC. Will RealPC still exist, or is it being replaced with PowerWindows?

Did you read the forum at the link above?

The fulfillment of this purchase is through Kagi. They don't like Safari, and prefer Netscape 6 or higher and IE 5.x or better. They say they support any HTML,but in practice, the download links sometimes fail.
If you haven't gotten it, email fwb off their website and they will give you an alternate FTP site to download it.

The release of Real PC and the software formerly known as Softwindows, now PowerWindows is now scheduled for July... Microsoft sent us a Cease and Desist letter. One must be careful when scrutinized by their attorneys.

Kid Red
Jun 5, 2003, 11:41 AM
Originally posted by Snowy_River
Well, whether it outperforms VPC or not, I'll likely switch over. I stopped by the store just the other day and I saw the prices that are on the VPC boxes now. I was astonished. For a VPC 5 -> VPC 6 upgrade the price was $99! I only paid $149 for a full version of VPC 5. And for a full version of VPC 6 the price was $259.

I presume that this is MS's influence, but regardless, I don't think I'll be buying a new version of VPC any time soon...

No, they were $250 for version 4 when I got it w 98, you must've gotten a lesser OS. The newer the OS the price changes IIRC.

But I'm with you, no more VPC once an alternative comes out, and I think I can stick with v6 without upgrading for a while. Especially when I can run it on a 970 in a few months :)

brittrossiter
Jun 5, 2003, 12:06 PM
Originally posted by Chimaera
...

The only grounds MS could have for taking on RealPC is if this supposed agreement between Connectix and FWB was put down in writing (and if money changed hands over it) - If there was some form of contract promising no further development of RealPC then basically FWB would be screwed as MS could enforce that. ...

That sort of agreement would be very much Against The Law (specifically, the Sherman Antitrust Act). Connectix and FWB could not contract between themselves for one or the other to kill a particular product line any more than they could contract to fix prices or carve up markets for themselves.

Sayer
Jun 5, 2003, 12:46 PM
For the guy who said Apple's profit margins are not substantial.

On page 27 of Apple's Form 10-K (Annual Report):

Gross Margin percentage:

2002 - 28%
2001 - 23%
2000 - 27%

Apple's profit margins as a whole are nearly 28% of the purchase price of Mac products.

Thats for the whole YEAR.

Looking further we find that gross margins were:

31% in the First Quarter and went down to 26% in the Fourth Quarter.

The company cites reasons for decreases in margins as being due to a "rise in component costs [...] and aggressive pricing..."

So to say that Apple's profit margins are insubstantial is just flat out wrong. Apple's margins are the envy of the industry.

Gateway's margins ARE insubstantial as they are selling just barely above cost on most of their computer products. So much so that Gateway is now selling plasma TVs and such to actually make money in their many dozens of retail stores.

If you don't know, don't comment. It leaves people with a false impression of Apple Computer, Inc. that is then used as the basis for purchasing decisions or ultimately leads to changing the stock price (I am a shareholder).

MisterMe
Jun 5, 2003, 01:03 PM
Originally posted by pellucidity
Remember that M$ bought the emulation products primarily to kill VPC linux on x86, not Windows on PPC. That's just plain wrong. M$ bought Connectix's emulation products for its Virtual Server technology. Virtual Server is still in beta, but the Redmond company sees it as part of its salvation. M$ faces a serious problem. Its customers don't trust its products. Enterprise customers are refusing to upgrade to M$'s newest operatings systems until they are confident that most of the bugs have been squashed. It is fairly common for Windows shops to lag two versions of Windows behind the latest version. When you are a monopoly starving for revenue growth, that is a prescription for disaster. Virtual Server will allow potential customers to employ M$'s lastest offerings on virtual machines until they are confident that they can be trusted with their mission-critical applications.

Look at it like this: Your trusted system is Windows 2000. M$ wants to sell you Windows 2003 Server. You tell them that you just upgraded from Windows NT and are not ready to trust your applications to an unreliable system. M$ suggests that you buy Virtual Server. You can run VS under Win 2000, which you trust. However, VS will allow you to gain access to all the nefty new features of Win 2003 without risking your entire operation.

reedm007
Jun 5, 2003, 01:33 PM
Originally posted by Sayer
For the guy who said Apple's profit margins are not substantial.

<snip>

Apple's profit margins as a whole are nearly 28% of the purchase price of Mac products.

<snip>

Gateway's margins ARE insubstantial as they are selling just barely above cost on most of their computer products. So much so that Gateway is now selling plasma TVs and such to actually make money in their many dozens of retail stores.

If you don't know, don't comment. It leaves people with a false impression of Apple Computer, Inc. that is then used as the basis for purchasing decisions or ultimately leads to changing the stock price (I am a shareholder).

First of all, I hope nobody on these boards would ever base a purchasing decision on a MacRumors message forum, but that's just me.. :)

But you have good points. Difference here is, vs. other hardwae companies, is the r&d, the free software, etc. 28% profit margins rapidly become a lot smaller when you realize all the other costs that Gateway, eMachines, etc. don't have to deal with, because they simply repackage boxes and provide support. In terms of raw component costs, you're right, Apple's profit margins are a lot higher than most, but it's the reason Macs are Macs still and not just faceless hardware boxes. :)

31% in the First Quarter and went down to 26% in the Fourth Quarter

That's impressive if you ask me, as a 5% profit margin decrease can have a major impact on profits. People on these boards who throw out "sell for $500" prices need to re-think what that actually means for profitability and sustainability. When you quarterly profits are as low as they are for Apple right now, even a 5% decrease in profit margins could have a huge impact on overall profits, but it does indicate price drops.

One thing you probably should have added is that these profit margins are for the consumer space, and don't include education or governmental discounts. Also, profit margins vary drastically by product. The $999 iBook, for example, has an extremely low profit margin (lowe than the numbers you quoted by quite a bit), whereas the 17" PowerBook is rather high.

macdong
Jun 5, 2003, 01:47 PM
Originally posted by Snowy_River
Ooo! Ooo! How about, instead of 'PowerWindows' . . . 'PowerPC'! Oh... wait... I guess that won't work...

:p

or we can name it PoweredWindows.
get it??
windows that is "powered"?
ok, you don't get it... :rolleyes:

bignumbers
Jun 5, 2003, 01:57 PM
If I go back in my memory banks to when VPC came out (and SoftWindows had already been around) I remember the difference was that VPC was a raw hardware emulator, while SoftWindows was written specifically to emulate Windows. You could easily run most x86 OS's on VPC, but due to the Windows ties in SW this flexibility wasn't there or wasn't as far-reaching.

It's possible this recent legal stuff is related to however SoftWindows (and now RealWindows or whatever) includes tie-ins into the Windows OS. If it were truly generic (like VPC) it wouldn't be an issue.

Another piece of the puzzle - what was the agreement between Connectix and FWB? Why did that agreement exist? Was FWB accused of something illegal, or did FWB get out of the emulation business of its own accord and sell certain rights (and sign a non-complete) to Connectix?

MacsRgr8
Jun 5, 2003, 02:34 PM
Hey, wasn't PowerWindows a little Control Panel in OS 8-9 to make Finder-windows translucent?
If ya had a pretty fast Mac these effects were awsome :)

XnavxeMiyyep
Jun 5, 2003, 03:01 PM
If Apple wants to make money, they should release a headless iMac G4 for $300 to $400 less than it's equivelents with monitors.

nagromme
Jun 5, 2003, 03:12 PM
I'm guessing that Apple has the cash reserves to withstand lower margins on certain products--even a basic $499-$599 headless Mac--while maintaining their R&D. It would be a good long-term move, helping with market share, and Apple has been willing to spend money for the long term before.

And I'm guessing that Apple is already in 100% agreement with the above, and WILL be offering both better price/performance (like a 970 for little or no cost increase over G4 towers) AND a low-end headless Mac.

The timing, however, I leave to them. A big play for marketshare might do well to include several elements all at the SAME time:

* 970s

* Panther

* New low-end headless Mac

* Huge marketing campaign

I don't see Apple delaying 970s for the sake of Panther (although Panther might still be first, wth 970s in the fall). But I could see the reasoning behind waiting for Panther before selling a new headless model. It would make it an even better product, received that much better by the press in comparison to Windows boxes.

And if they don't all happen at once, I still think they are coming--just a matter of time.

Snowy_River
Jun 5, 2003, 07:07 PM
Originally posted by nagromme
I'm guessing that Apple has the cash reserves to withstand lower margins on certain products--even a basic $499-$599 headless Mac--while maintaining their R&D. It would be a good long-term move, helping with market share, and Apple has been willing to spend money for the long term before.
...

Okay, maybe I'm just misunderstanding, but are you suggesting that Apple use its cash reserves to subsidize selling computers at a loss? How is that good in the long term?

Majin Buu
Jun 5, 2003, 07:31 PM
Originally posted by bignumbers

It's possible this recent legal stuff is related to however SoftWindows (and now RealWindows or whatever) includes tie-ins into the Windows OS. If it were truly generic (like VPC) it wouldn't be an issue.

Another piece of the puzzle - what was the agreement between Connectix and FWB? Why did that agreement exist? Was FWB accused of something illegal, or did FWB get out of the emulation business of its own accord and sell certain rights (and sign a non-complete) to Connectix?

No... SoftWindows is a tradematk of MicroSoft. I believe all MS wants is for FWB to stop using the name. RealPC has nothing to do with Microsoft, so Real PC development should not be affected. I suspect there are other factors delaying the product.

FWB got out of this emulation business because it was losing big time money on the two products--RealPC and SoftWindows were the two products that destroyed Hard Disk Toolkit, CDT, etc. and almost bankrupted the company.

MrMacMan
Jun 5, 2003, 07:45 PM
Use another name and make a shell product, don't let any OS come with it, let the people get there own version of windows or 'reccomend' and OS to run on.

M$ is making this a real hassel.

DeusOmnis
Jun 5, 2003, 08:16 PM
I'm almost positive that Microsoft will not have a way of stopping RealPC or a similar product by FWB (they may have to change their name or something).

DeusOmnis
Jun 5, 2003, 08:18 PM
I believe the letter is about the deal that FWB had with connectix, however. FWB had agreed to stop making Softwindows/RealPC so that VirtualPC would have no competition. Apparently Microsoft believes the deal still holds.

DeusOmnis
Jun 5, 2003, 08:19 PM
One last post by me...

Also, did you notice that ms waited a really long time to do this? I'm guessing to make FWB use up resources on RealPC before having to shut it down, lol.

MisterMe
Jun 5, 2003, 09:40 PM
Originally posted by Majin Buu
No... SoftWindows is a tradematk of MicroSoft. I believe all MS wants is for FWB to stop using the name. RealPC has nothing to do with Microsoft, so Real PC development should not be affected. I suspect there are other factors delaying the product.
.... SoftWindows is most certainly not a trademark of Microsoft and never has been. In the mid '90's, however, M$ licensed the technology from Insignia Solutions for incorporation into non-Intel versions of Windows NT.

Majin Buu
Jun 5, 2003, 11:12 PM
Originally posted by MisterMe
SoftWindows is most certainly not a trademark of Microsoft and never has been. In the mid '90's, however, M$ licensed the technology from Insignia Solutions for incorporation into non-Intel versions of Windows NT.

According to FWB Software. SoftWindows is a trademark of Micr0soft!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Go the following page: http://www.fwb.com/html/press_at_fwb.html

Scroll all the way down to the bottom...

And read the part that says:

Note to Editors: EVM, Embedded Virtual Machine and RealPC are trademarks of Insignia Solutions, Inc. Sun, Java, Embedded Java and Personal Java are trademarks of Sun Microsystems, Inc. SoftWindows is a trademark of Microsoft Corporation, and is used by Insignia Solutions under license from owner. Windows is a registered trademark of Microsoft Corporation.

By the way, someone at FWB got lazy and copied that forward-looking statements from a 1998 Insignia's press release.

Majin Buu
Jun 6, 2003, 01:25 AM
No, FWB never had a formal agreement with Connectix. I can't figure out why FWB would claim this, but the only agreement was that a while back FWB approached Connectix and said "we're discontinuing SoftWindows/RealPC, can we refer customers to you?" And Connectix said, "Sure!". That was the only agreement. There was never anything more than that.

Huked on Fonick
Jun 6, 2003, 03:16 AM
i think pretty sure that vpc emulates the hardware where as realpc emulates windows and makes its able to run on a powerpc. I am not sure but ibeleve this to be true. I also beleve this is why its faster.

Chimaera
Jun 6, 2003, 08:52 AM
Originally posted by Huked on Fonick
i think pretty sure that vpc emulates the hardware where as realpc emulates windows and makes its able to run on a powerpc. I am not sure but ibeleve this to be true. I also beleve this is why its faster.

Nope, RealPC is a x86 emulator, its entiurely possible softwindows is a Windows emulator, which would explain some of Microsofts ire towards it, although my impression was that softwindows was basically a simplified version of realpc bundled with win98


brittrossiter> I'm from the UK, I know very little about US antitrust laws (except the MS vs DoJ thing making the whole system look like a joke).

The Shadow
Jun 6, 2003, 07:17 PM
PowerMac
PowerBook
PowerPC

PowerMate...? Alright, you use it with your power[Mac], I get that

PowerWindows...?

...relevant and as original as we've come to expect.

timb
Jun 7, 2003, 01:32 AM
Ok guys, lets get the facts straight.
You can't "emulate windows", you could emulate the windows enviroment, this very well may be what SoftWindows does, Think of WINE on *NIX, You know what WINE stands for? WINE IS NOT AN EMULATOR, its recursive. :) Now, how WINE works is that it contains common windows DLLs and a registry structure, it executes the binaries, and hookes into them, directing them to the propper DLLs and registry keys. (This is a dumbed down version, but you get the idea.)

There is some other software, and I'm tired atm and can't think of the name, but pretty much it lets you install other operating systems inside of windows or linux, and it just redirects any calls to the CPU in its protected mode, so it doesn't really emulate anything (Other than video, network and sound.), so its fairly fast.

Now, RPC and VPC work by actully EMULATING, pretending to be (read: taking x86 instructions and translating them into PPC instructions) a x86 CPU.

Now the first two types of "emulators" wouldn't work on OS X right now, becuase of the fact that they would require a x86 CPU in your Mac. SoftWindows, was in fact, a combination of the third and first types of emulators I described. I may be wrong on how SoftWindows works, but my descriptions of the three types of "emulators" are dead on.

-Tim

Snowy_River
Jun 7, 2003, 01:52 AM
Originally posted by timb
... You know what WINE stands for? WINE IS NOT AN EMULATOR, its recursive. :)

Actually, I believe this is an apocraphal acronym for WINE. I believe that WINE properly stands for "WIndows Not in Emulation", and "WINE Is Not an Emulator" was a joke that cropped up later.


There is some other software, and I'm tired atm and can't think of the name, but pretty much it lets you install other operating systems inside of windows or linux, and it just redirects any calls to the CPU in its protected mode, so it doesn't really emulate anything (Other than video, network and sound.), so its fairly fast.

Yes, and this is also how MOL (Mac On Linux) works under PPC Linux. MOL won't work on a Linux system running on an x86 chip, just as WINE won't work on a Linux system running on a PPC chip.


Now, RPC and VPC work by actully EMULATING, pretending to be (read: taking x86 instructions and translating them into PPC instructions) a x86 CPU.

...

-Tim

Well put and exactly right.

timb
Jun 7, 2003, 02:05 AM
Snowy:
In fact I think you are right about what WINE stands for, I just like giving people the "not an emulator" spiel becuase it boggles their minds for a few min, and then the argue with you. :-)

MisterMe
Jun 7, 2003, 09:09 AM
Originally posted by timb
Ok guys, lets get the facts straight.
You can't "emulate windows", you could emulate the windows enviroment, this very well may be what SoftWindows does, Think of WINE on *NIX, You know what WINE stands for? WINE IS NOT AN EMULATOR, its recursive. :) Now, how WINE works is that it contains common windows DLLs and a registry structure, it executes the binaries, and hookes into them, directing them to the propper DLLs and registry keys. (This is a dumbed down version, but you get the idea.)

There is some other software, and I'm tired atm and can't think of the name, but pretty much it lets you install other operating systems inside of windows or linux, and it just redirects any calls to the CPU in its protected mode, so it doesn't really emulate anything (Other than video, network and sound.), so its fairly fast.

Now, RPC and VPC work by actully EMULATING, pretending to be (read: taking x86 instructions and translating them into PPC instructions) a x86 CPU.

Now the first two types of "emulators" wouldn't work on OS X right now, becuase of the fact that they would require a x86 CPU in your Mac. SoftWindows, was in fact, a combination of the third and first types of emulators I described. I may be wrong on how SoftWindows works, but my descriptions of the three types of "emulators" are dead on.

-Tim SoftWindows includes a copy of M$ Windows. (The SoftWindows disk image could be used by FWBs x86 coprocessor card for the Mac.) The bundled copy of Windows can be commercially upgraded to a new version if you desire to do so. IIRC, WINE is no part M$ software. It is an open source set of APIs that allow you to run Windows software on x86 hardware.

SoftWindows has a complete x86 emulator. Afterall, it can execute any M$-DOS application that I have ever seen. The difference as I understand it is that SoftWindows intercepts certain Windows system calls to be executed by the host system natively. VPC and presumeably RPC have hooks to the host systems IO--video, audio, networking, mice, keyboards, etc. However, they don't make special provisions for Windows system calls. Everything except IO is interpreted and executed by the x86 emulator. The result is a leaner and hopefully faster emulator. However, the very fact that all x86 code is interpreted by VPC goes a long way toward explaining why I have never seen a substantial difference in performance between my copies of SoftWindows and VPC.

iJon
Jun 7, 2003, 05:18 PM
well if i was microsoft i just wouldnt license windows to them, that would hurt a great deal.

iJon

Majin Buu
Jun 7, 2003, 06:37 PM
Originally posted by iJon
well if i was microsoft i just wouldnt license windows to them, that would hurt a great deal.

iJon

All MS wants is FWB not to use the name SoftWindows. FWB is using this as an excuse of their product delay. They are now trying to pull this "Microsoft is bullying us, so plese help us out."

Say... Real PC has nothing to do with MS, how come that one is delayed too?

SoftWindow is identical to Real PC expect that SoftWindows includes Windows, and Real PC includes a copy of DOS (IBM DOS).

As to the agreement with Connectix, someone (obviously from Connectix) posted a message in MaCNN -- FWB never had a formal agreement with Connectix. I can't figure out why FWB would claim this, but the only agreement was that a while back FWB approached Connectix and said "we're discontinuing SoftWindows/RealPC, can we refer customers to you?" And Connectix said, "Sure!". That was the only agreement. There was never anything more than that.

iJon
Jun 7, 2003, 07:26 PM
Originally posted by Majin Buu
All MS wants is FWB not to use the name SoftWindows. FWB is using this as an excuse of their product delay. They are now trying to pull this "Microsoft is bullying us, so plese help us out."

Say... Real PC has nothing to do with MS, how come that one is delayed too?

SoftWindow is identical to Real PC expect that SoftWindows includes Windows, and Real PC includes a copy of DOS (IBM DOS).

As to the agreement with Connectix, someone (obviously from Connectix) posted a message in MaCNN -- FWB never had a formal agreement with Connectix. I can't figure out why FWB would claim this, but the only agreement was that a while back FWB approached Connectix and said "we're discontinuing SoftWindows/RealPC, can we refer customers to you?" And Connectix said, "Sure!". That was the only agreement. There was never anything more than that.
makes sense, they get everyone hyped up and then the keep delaying. something went wrong or they never had it in the first place.

iJon

andyduncan
Jun 9, 2003, 02:58 PM
Originally posted by Chimaera
my impression was that softwindows was basically a simplified version of realpc bundled with win98


No, it was, in fact, some weird, red-headed stepchild of frankenwindows.

Actually thats not nice. It was a really cool idea, here's how I remember it:

<Innacurate mode>Instead of emulating x86 hardware, they were emulating windows. They were intercepting system calls and mapping some of them directly. It wasn't running a full version of windows, like VPC was, so it traded some compatibility for speed. RealPC was sort of the same idea, except it did it just for dos, which was fine for games and stuff</Innacurate mode>

What that could mean though is that they'd need more cooperation from microsoft than say, someone who went out and wrote an i386 emulator. But I don't know that for sure.

joker2
Jun 10, 2003, 07:21 PM
Originally posted by Majin Buu
All MS wants is FWB not to use the name SoftWindows. FWB is using this as an excuse of their product delay. They are now trying to pull this "Microsoft is bullying us, so plese help us out."

Say... Real PC has nothing to do with MS, how come that one is delayed too?


http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/2003/06/10/fwb/

Story from Maccentral basically reiterating the above, and the reason RealPC was delayed was they were taking all references to SoftWindows out.

macnews
Jun 11, 2003, 02:20 AM
I have used Virtual PC but not RealPC. VirtualPC always seemed slow, is RealPC any better? Think MS owning VirtualPC will make a difference. Sorry if a little off topic.

MisterMe
Jun 11, 2003, 07:41 AM
Originally posted by macnews
I have used Virtual PC but not RealPC. VirtualPC always seemed slow, is RealPC any better? Think MS owning VirtualPC will make a difference. Sorry if a little off topic. There may be minor speed boosts here and there. Speed differences won't be enough to make you choose RPC over VPC or vice versa. RPC and VPC are both highly optimized. If you don't believe that, check out Lismore Software's Blue Label PowerEmulator (http://www.lismoresoft.com/) and the open source Bochs (http://bochs.sourceforge.net/) emulator. VPC is currently at VPC 6.02. I expect VPC 7.0 to remain a decent product. However, M$ never met a feature it didn't like. For that reason and others, I expect VPC 8.0 to be a bloody mess. Think the Word 6.0 of emulators.

macnews
Jun 13, 2003, 02:21 PM
Thanks MisterMe!

Looks like VPC may be the only way to get the latest version of IE for the mac now. Hmmm, glad I really don't need VPC or IE.

dandy1
Jul 3, 2003, 07:22 PM
Has anyone checked this out? Price seems right.

http://openosx.com/wintel/

PubGuy
Jul 5, 2003, 11:45 AM
Well, no Public beta on June 1.
No Public beta on July 1.
No screen shots of RealPC running OS X native.
No "preview" section on FWB's web site showing RealPC for OS X (or even Solaris for that matter.
Now web site says Public Beta "late summer".

Are they playing with us here?
Do they really have a product?
There should be an Alpha version ready that they could show, even if it still contained references to Microsoft. How about some screen shots...shouldn't be too hard...how about preliminary performance tests based on the alpha code?

How come NOBODY seems to have seen this new version in any form? There isn't even any references to the Solaris version on their web site that the OS X version was supposedly based off of.

Anybody know anything??? :confused:

MacCoaster
Jul 9, 2003, 08:50 AM
Originally posted by dandy1
Has anyone checked this out? Price seems right.

http://openosx.com/wintel/
That is simply a repackaged Bochs for PPC. It's not worth it, Bochs is the SLOWEST possible emulator. It's not designed for end user experience, it is designed for operating system developers debugging operating systems. It's not for the faint of the heart!

Lanbrown
Jul 14, 2003, 08:44 AM
This wouldn't work for most of the Apple lineup, but would for the PowerMac ort any PCI card based system:
http://www.sun.com/desktop/products/sunpci/
All that would be required is software.

MisterMe
Jul 14, 2003, 05:49 PM
Originally posted by Lanbrown
This wouldn't work for most of the Apple lineup, but would for the PowerMac ort any PCI card based system:
http://www.sun.com/desktop/products/sunpci/
All that would be required is software. Wow! A PC on an expansion card. Who would have ever thought of that?

Well, how about FWB. It sold such cards years before it bought SoftWindows and Real PC. And then there's Apple. Apple sold such cards for years. In other words:

Been there. Done that. Got the T-shirt.