FWB RealPC?

[MacRumors]

Several readers are reporting similar emails to inquiries about where Real PC for OS X is:


There have been some shift of management lately going on at FWB Software. A couple of the mangement team members responsibled for RealPC are no longer in charge.

The process of handing over is still under way and the new management team has not as yet had a chance to verify the authenticity of the claims made by the previous management. Because of this we have removed the claim from the website whilst we carry out this investigation.

As soon as the story is clear we will make the appropriate press releases to notify the public of the complete story. It is expected that this will be
done during the up coming week.

Yours Sincerely
Mark Hurlow
FWB Software Inc


FWB made some waves (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/04/20030416204315.shtml) with claims of an upcoming revival of Real PC with excellent performance. However, recent reports indicate they may be in a legal exchange (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/06/20030604210310.shtml) with Microsoft.

[crenz]

New management sounds good. Whether the trouble with Microsoft was real or a scam to hide development delays, I hope they'll publish the truth and then focus on finishing development on RealPC for OS X.

[Pancake]

I hope the new management really gets into the whole Real PC idea, I think it would be good for VPC to have some competition to get them moving.

Someone accidently put Rael PC at the end of the thing.

[SignTist]

I fail to see the importance of this application. Could somone please explain why this is such a newsworthy article?



SignTist

[Kid Red]

It's an alternative to Virtual PC. Now the MS owns VPC it's importance is magnifying. The Real PC creators had an agreement with the makers of VPC to stop producing Real PC. Once MS bought VPC, it was believed that the agreement was therefore nullified. We are waiting to see if indeed Real PC will be released and updated or if MS would try and kill it as they try with all competition.

Oh yea, VPC sucks, so this was a glimmer of hope for those that have to run windows at home.

[dongmin]

wow. this smells of a scam, big time.

i knew it was too good to be true. now, all I have is slow-as-molasses VPC, brought to you by your favorite developer Msoft, to run my AutoCAD. (sigh)

[Flowbee]

Originally posted by SignTist
I fail to see the importance of this application. Could somone please explain why this is such a newsworthy article?


RealPC is software similar to VirtualPC which allows you to run windows on a Mac. RealPC had recently announced that thier new verison would run significantly faster than VirtualPC.

This site has a pretty handy search function that you should get familiar with. Searching here or on the web for 'RealPC' would have answered your question very quickly.

[altivec 2003]

Originally posted by dongmin
wow. this smells of a scam, big time.

i knew it was too good to be true. now, all I have is slow-as-molasses VPC, brought to you by your favorite developer Msoft, to run my AutoCAD. (sigh)

Heh, thats too bad :( You might actually be better off just buying a cad program for mac :rolleyes: . I am sure there are some good ones out there

[dongmin]

Originally posted by altivec 2003
Heh, thats too bad :( You might actually be better off just buying a cad program for mac :rolleyes: . I am sure there are some good ones out there
I have one, Vectorworks, which is the best there is for the Mac. But I prefer using AutoCAD and the industry prefers it too.


There was a dicussion a while ago about the delays, and I proposed it was possible that:

1. The old legal agreement (which reeks of anti-competitive fraud to begin with) is still in effect, and FWB was premature in announcing its RealPC plans.

2. There never had any development going on with an OS X version of RPC, but advertised it to make a quick buck selling the existing version.

It's probably both.

[MrMacMan]

Maybe they can stop running a damn scam, they said they should have had a product, I don't care if you have legal troubles, they were already having problems with the beta version never comign.

Comeon give us a real story.

I want to run some very basic games on my mac.

[MacsRgr8]

Originally posted by dongmin


1. The old legal agreement (which reeks of anti-competitive fraud to begin with) is still in effect, and FWB was premature in announcing its RealPC plans.

2. There never had any development going on with an OS X version of RPC, but advertised it to make a quick buck selling the existing version.


Nr. 1 Is possible, but I can't imagine the legal department of FWB being that slow...

Nr. 2 If true, would be outrageous! Are they on the brink of bankrupcy?????

[DeusOmnis]

*sigh* micromonopoly will never let them go.

[MasterX (OSiX)]

I wonder if Apple could scrape together some monopoly lawsuit against MS forcing them to release code for DirectX, then maybe we could see some games on this here mac. the irony is that I know while rewriting MS's software apple's DirectX would run better than the windows version. Ahh altivec my good old friend....

[gopher]

A few months ago there was the promise of RealPC for Mac OS X
being much faster than VirtualPC for Mac OS X, and potentially capable of handling PC 3-d games. Hopefully they will deliver.
If they do, we should finally be able to see what the Mac
is capable of.

[SumDumGuy]

<offtopic>

If you want AutoCAD for OS X, let Autodesk know about it. LINK (http://www.thinksecret.com/news/autocad.html)

</offtopic>

[MasterX (OSiX)]

Didn't the creators of Real PC claim they had some way to bypass emulation and somehow get hardware accelerated 3D to work?

[Kal-EL]

Originally posted by Flowbee
RealPC is software similar to VirtualPC which allows you to run windows on a Mac. RealPC had recently announced that thier new verison would run significantly faster than VirtualPC.

This site has a pretty handy search function that you should get familiar with. Searching here or on the web for 'RealPC' would have answered your question very quickly.

One thing not mentioned in today's posts that had everyone drooling before, was that part of their proposed increase in speed over that of VPC is that they were trying to develop Real PC to not only run everyday applications faster, but make it so that you could play PC games without much lag in speed. Of course this is what today's article is about, the fact that these claims are going to have to be verified by the new folks in charge of the program.

[MrMacMan]

Originally posted by MasterX (OSiX)
Didn't the creators of Real PC claim they had some way to bypass emulation and somehow get hardware accelerated 3D to work?
If they did they must have been frikken geniuses.

If hardware video is true then I will buy this product.

If it is still software based --boo.

[MhzDoesMatter]

Originally posted by dongmin
wow. this smells of a scam, big time.

i knew it was too good to be true. now, all I have is slow-as-molasses VPC, brought to you by your favorite developer Msoft, to run my AutoCAD. (sigh)

You do realize that Microsoft has had nothing to do with the development of VPC thus far, correct?

Originally posted by MrMacMan
Maybe they can stop running a damn scam, they said they should have had a product, I don't care if you have legal troubles, they were already having problems with the beta version never comign.

Comeon give us a real story.

I want to run some very basic games on my mac.

Well now that you've let them know your perspective, I'm sure they'll disregard whatever legal concerns may cause the end of their business and release whatever they have duct taped together so far. Isn't it great when companies set aside that useless quality assurance and lousy business longevity and put the user first?

Originally posted by MasterX (OSiX)

I wonder if Apple could scrape together some monopoly lawsuit against MS forcing them to release code for DirectX, then maybe we could see some games on this here mac. the irony is that I know while rewriting MS's software apple's DirectX would run better than the windows version. Ahh altivec my good old friend....

I pretty much think it's been established that suing Microsoft is not the way to go about anything.


-Hertz

Truth is, no one can really postulate what's going on behind the doors of FWB. Calling it a scam is just as much a foolhardy assumption as claiming them the latest victim of the evil empire. Speculation is great. But is there really a need to get so riled up over it?

[sfoalex]

You guys don't see Microsoft behind this at all? I sure do. This looks to me like Microsoft paid a few people off and in exchange, they walk away and say nothing about anything.

These guys were in beta for crying out loud. Now they are not sure if it will work? Oh come on... You buy that load of ************.. I sure don't...

FWB is the same company that was bought off by Connectix. They even admitted to that after Connectix was sold to Microsoft.

We've been sold out. How much do you want to bet they come back and say it cannot be done. Why did the prior management leave? It doesn't matter, they will make up what ever claim they want. Funny how it works on Sun hardware which is Unix based pretty much they way it would work on OS X and now they retract it will at all?

This is the biggest bunch of bull I have heard in a long time.

[mjtomlin]

I needed a mixed network (windows, linux, Mac OS) a while back ... waited a while for RealPC to hit the streets, but it never did. I ended up buying Virtual PC 6.

[Abstract]

Maybe the deal between the FWB people and VPC is dead, but Microsoft claimed that it isn't dead, and then plan on wrapping FWB in legal battles for a few months/years despite knowing that they'll lose. Is this even plausible, or am I totally in left field somewhere?

Bill Gates is evil. Bill is ruthless. Bill had sex with the devil and produced a creature that is now known as "Martha Stewart".

[besson3c]

Why fret about VPC or RealPC when you can just use Microsoft Remote Desktop? It's always going to work better than any emulation...

Are you guys not aware that this product exists?

[arn]

Originally posted by besson3c
Why fret about VPC or RealPC when you can just use Microsoft Remote Desktop? It's always going to work better than any emulation...

Are you guys not aware that this product exists?

well, you do need a PC on the other end of that software... :)

arn

[nero007]

Originally posted by arn
well, you do need a PC on the other end of that software... :)

arn

And in which case, why not just work on the PC. lol

[Sun Baked]

Yes I can almost see the management leads for the projects being paid off to leave, or MS threatning the company enough that they were removed from the project.

These lines seem like they may be setting themselves up to drop the project and blame the former management of the project for making unwarranted public claims.

[MacsRgr8]

Originally posted by besson3c
Why fret about VPC or RealPC when you can just use Microsoft Remote Desktop? It's always going to work better than any emulation...

Are you guys not aware that this product exists?

We are talking about a stand alone Mac being able to run Windows software.
VPC 6 w/ Win 2K is OK, but not gr8. On my Dual 1.25 GHz G4 w/ 1 GB RAM it still is painfully slow. RPC with the highly anticipated hardware support of grfx cards sounded like the ideal (at least better) solution.
We were promised a beta last month (or so?), but now there is no evidence of any build ready at all.

I do recall something about an FWB spokesman telling a story about the incredible low-level hardware support of RPC on OS X (hence the hardware support of the grfx cards), but he somehow couldn't comment on how they did it for OS 9 aswell, as he wasn't technical (???). Someone remember exactly?

[besson3c]

Originally posted by arn
well, you do need a PC on the other end of that software... :)

arn

Of course, but I don't understand all these people that *need* VPC. A PC is pretty easy to obtain (used, hand-built, whatever). For people that really *need* a PC, this is the only real option unless you are extremely patient.

For those that just don't want to spend the extra money on a PC, do they *really* need one?

If I needed to do a PC for real work, I would most definitely not use VPC.

We need to distinguish *need* from "I want to toy around with a PC on my Mac".

[besson3c]

Originally posted by MacsRgr8
We are talking about a stand alone Mac being able to run Windows software.

Why? So you can brag to people that you can do this without needing a PC?

It's like owning a Geo and bragging about it being able to go 70 mph.

What is this need? Please enlighten me.

[Docrjm]

Originally posted by besson3c
Why? So you can brag to people that you can do this without needing a PC?

It's like owning a Geo and bragging about it being able to go 70 mph.

What is this need? Please enlighten me.
Reduces the need for additional desktop clutter. Additionally there are still some internet sites that only accept m$ software from a peecee and not a mac. It really has zero to do with bragging and more to do with OS preference.

[besson3c]

Originally posted by doc_mac
Reduces the need for additional desktop clutter. Additionally there are still some internet sites that only accept m$ software from a peecee and not a mac. It really has zero to do with bragging and more to do with OS preference.

No offense, but that's very weak.

put the PC in a closet, under a table, whatever... you don't even need a monitor connected to it.

As for internet sites accepting MS software, that's why you would use RDC. Did you misunderstand me?

[leenoble]

..I can see MS shutting down the Mac BU completely and just lumping us with the same shoddy PC applications they supply everyone else.

And then doubling the price of VPC because it will be necessary for us to use it to use any MS applications at all.

And VPC will still be the only app you run that can take down your whole system.:rolleyes:

[besson3c]

Originally posted by leenoble

And then doubling the price of VPC because it will be necessary for us to use it to use any MS applications at all.



Or.... we could use Microsoft Remote Desktop... Or.... VNC.

Somebody please enlighten me as to why we need VPC?

[jaedreth]

Microsoft doesn't *want* there to be any solution for OS X to run windows apps. However, if there has to be one, Microsoft wants to hold all the cards.

Microsoft may have the vast majority of the market, but Bill still wants to try to convert any mac user he can, even if that means fuddling any solution to have windows operability on a mac.

I would predict that soon Microsoft won't have a macintosh team at all, would discontinue VPC, basically bought to get rid of it, and try to prevent anyone else from making anything similar.

I could be wrong, but I think Murphy will play out here...

Jaedreth

[xenocytekron]

Originally posted by besson3c
Or.... we could use Microsoft Remote Desktop... Or.... VNC.

Somebody please enlighten me as to why we need VPC?

People already have, you're not comprehending. There's no point arguing with you, as you won't listen to reason with this issue.

[Abstract]

Because when I go to Australia, and I purchase my laptop, but need to use some sort of PC software, I'll be able to do so with VPC with Win 98 and work at a decent speed. I'm not bringing a PC laptop with me, and no, I'm not buying a PC when I'm there.

Simple. ;) Hmmm....but I wonder what you won't understand. I can already see it coming in your next post.

[besson3c]

Originally posted by jaedreth
Microsoft doesn't *want* there to be any solution for OS X to run windows apps. However, if there has to be one, Microsoft wants to hold all the cards.


I believe VNC is open source...

[besson3c]

Originally posted by xenocytekron
People already have, you're not comprehending. There's no point arguing with you, as you won't listen to reason with this issue.

Honestly, all I've heard so far is that it would reduce desktop clutter... is that IT?

The decision:

- more desktop clutter, a fully functioning PC running on your Mac at non-emulated speeds

- less desktop clutter, a hard drive storing a Windows disk image, and a PC that will never be as fast as the above

The choice seems clear for *real* work.

I'm not trying to be arrogant or stubborn here. I just honestly don't understand why there is so much concern over this product.

[besson3c]

Originally posted by Abstract
Because when I go to Australia, and I purchase my laptop, but need to use some sort of PC software, I'll be able to do so with VPC with Win 98 and work at a decent speed. I'm not bringing a PC laptop with me, and no, I'm not buying a PC when I'm there.



I can see a use for VPC for very light and occasional Windows work where the expense of a PC isn't justified, and in odd cases like this. What I don't understand is people who *need* to use a VPC for real work and insist on portraying VPC as the only feasible option.

Hey, I'm just asking legitimate questions... no need for the condescending remarks.

[JtheLemur]

eeesh. how come whenever I hear the name FWB, I think of PROBLEMS?

This shady sounding situation only reinforces the feeling, too. Argh!

[solvs]

besson3c -

Just because you don't need Windows emulation, doesn't mean it's useless. I could give you many reasons why it would be useful, but it looks like several people have already beaten me to it. There are all sorts of reasons to not want PC hardware.

So please stop posting the same thing over and over again.

Especially if you're just trying to increase your post count.

[MhzDoesMatter]

Originally posted by besson3c
Or.... we could use Microsoft Remote Desktop... Or.... VNC.

Somebody please enlighten me as to why we need VPC?

GEEZUS, OK OK. We understand. There is another solution. But your redundant and ineffective posting does nothing to further the discourse going on here. You're trying to hammer home the fact that another option exist, but it's one that doesnt meet the tastes of the people making the choices, so what's the point?

I have a problem with all the necessities of life crap doctors talk about. We don't NEED food. No one NEEDS food. Why not just connect an IV filled with the glucose and nutrients we need to survive. Food is just a toy we like to have to brag to third world countries.

-Hertz

Doesn't seem to hard to understand that people would like to

1. have the convenience of having one box the effectively platform agnostic.

2. Have only one physical system to trouble shoot.

3. Be able to create a new machine if a virtual one breaks.

4. Be able to simultaneously upgrade both systems without purchasing two different items.

5. Be able to gain the functionality of another computer with a install CD, not a tower.

6. Work simultaneously on more than one or even two operating systems (to test software, websites, etc on multiple linux, windows, and mac flavors)

[Abstract]

I guess there are some people who should just go out and get a PC. Its not as if VPC comes for free with every Mac. You may as well use that money to buy a PC. For people who require a PC at home or something, why install VPC on a laptop, or even a desktop? Just go to Dell and buy a cheap machine. You may not like it, but its better than VPC. VPC Win 98, which I plan on getting, is quite zippy, but if I needed a PC semi-regularly, and I wasn't moving around alot, then I'd get a cheapo PC. There's no joy in using VPC to run Windows software when you can use Windows to use the software.

However: Personally, I may need VPC or RealPC in my situation, since I'm travelling and will need to be portable. I may not. I'm not sure yet.

Besson does have a point, though. He's still spamming by not editing his posts, and for posting 3 times in a row, but he has a point.

[besson3c]

Originally posted by solvs
besson3c -

Just because you don't need Windows emulation, doesn't mean it's useless. I could give you many reasons why it would be useful, but it looks like several people have already beaten me to it. There are all sorts of reasons to not want PC hardware.

So please stop posting the same thing over and over again.

Especially if you're just trying to increase your post count.

Whatever... if you guys aren't up for this conversation, that's cool with me.

My post count? Why on Earth do I need to be concerned with that?

So much I don't understand...

[besson3c]

Originally posted by MhzDoesMatter

Doesn't seem to hard to understand that people would like to

1. have the convenience of having one box the effectively platform agnostic.

2. Have only one physical system to trouble shoot.

3. Be able to create a new machine if a virtual one breaks.

4. Be able to simultaneously upgrade both systems without purchasing two different items.

5. Be able to gain the functionality of another computer with a install CD, not a tower.

6. Work simultaneously on more than one or even two operating systems (to test software, websites, etc on multiple linux, windows, and mac flavors)

Thank you for taking the time to share these points... I hadn't really considered some of these and was waiting to learn about the VPC market and the void it fits.

I understand your arguments about having less hardware to contend with (and not having to deal with PC hardware failures). That sounds like mostly a cost issue and less so of a convenience issue, but it certainly is a legitimate point.

I don't understand #4

Your other points seem rather related to the extra hardware premise...

#6 can be addressed through VMWare. There is a cost associated with the purchase of this software, but it isn't impossible to run multiple Windows OSes on a PC without having to dual boot/partition.

[kcmac]

Move on. Nothing to see here. There is no RealPC.

If they have anything at all, I would think they are trying to work a deal with MS so they won't develop it.

I don't see MS as being the bad guy here. Let's see something first, then rush to judgement....:D

[solvs]

Originally posted by besson3c
Whatever... if you guys aren't up for this conversation, that's cool with me.

My post count? Why on Earth do I need to be concerned with that?

So much I don't understand...

Conversation is one thing, but asking the same question over and over again when you already got an answer is another.

Some people don't want another machine, especially a PC, but there are a lot programs that run only on Windows. They can buy a PC, or they can buy VPC for around $200. But it's slow. RealPC was supposed to be faster. And better. And not from Microsoft. FWB had been making promises. Then excuses. Now this.

If you don't care, you don't have to click the link, but others care. Having questions is fine. Saying you don't care and why should we... not so much. That's how it came off.

For what it's worth, sorry about the post count comment.

Back on topic, this news IS disappointing for some. Whether FWB screwed up (or fibbed), or the mighty M$ has struck again, we may never know. Looks like I'll be keeping my crappy HP around for awhile, or building a new El Cheapo. Some of us do need some PC compatibility, but emulation would have been so much easier. And cheaper.

**** I hate Windows.

[TmTg]

Originally posted by besson3c
Honestly, all I've heard so far is that it would reduce desktop clutter... is that IT?

The decision:

- more desktop clutter, a fully functioning PC running on your Mac at non-emulated speeds

- less desktop clutter, a hard drive storing a Windows disk image, and a PC that will never be as fast as the above

The choice seems clear for *real* work.

I'm not trying to be arrogant or stubborn here. I just honestly don't understand why there is so much concern over this product.

For some of us it's not just a matter of desktop clutter. I have VirtualPC running on my desktop G3, and although it's slow as a dog, I can test my website design in IEmac, Safari, IEwindows, Netscape, Mozilla, and all the other floavors out therer on both mac and PC. I can take my laptop over to my dad's house and plug it into his router and troubleshoot his windows network using tools in OS X, Win98, Windows NT, and Win2000. If I need to access my employer's online traning site (which only authenticates windows IE) I can do so in a matter of seconds.

All of this without having to buy any more hardware. In fact, every hardware investment I make in my existing macs improves the performace of my windows setup. I have been looking forward to the release of RealPC not to play PC games, but so that I can seamlessly work on both platforms without a significant slowdown.

And one last reason why I prefer VirtualPC (or RealPC) over having a second wintel box - I am very concerned about the continuing deterioration of the earth's resources, and I see no need to buy another peice of hardware that will just wind up in a landfill leaking toxins in under a decade. I already have a great computer. I don't need another one.


Here's hoping (against hope) that Micro$oft doesn't drive RealPC into the ground.

[besson3c]

Originally posted by solvs

If you don't care, you don't have to click the link, but others care. Having questions is fine. Saying you don't care and why should we... not so much. That's how it came off.


I do care, that's why I'm asking these questions...

What came across to me was that VPC or the like was absolutely needed to run mission critical apps where somebody needed a PC for real work, and there was a pressing urgency for this.

I await RealPC anxiously. Having options is a good thing. Not everybody shares my opinion, that's cool.

[ginoledesma]

One reason why I use VirtualPC: laptop. Don't expect me to lug another PC laptop just so I can run a Windows app off it.

Other reasons why I use VPC instead of a PC:

- I use some Windows apps infrequently that it does not justify the cost of purchasing a new PC. These are mostly scientific apps which, although would perform better on better hardware, run well enough under VPC.

- VPC has support for multiple OSs without the need for having to reboot all the time to get the OS, much less have to repartition the drive or anything. This is a minor convenience, but for testing software under different OSs, this can be _very useful_. Granted not everyone does this, but like I said, these are the reasons why I use VPC.

- For some people who just need to run Kazaa or KazaaLite, VPC is a blessing. Just fire away and get all the stuff they want they couldn't get using Mac clients. Again, this is _no pressing reason_ why you should get VPC.

Is there a need for VPC? That depends on your needs. If you don't need a PC or Windows, or to run an app that only runs under Windows, then you don't need VPC. Why get VPC over a regular PC? Because its far cheaper if all you need to run is an app occasionally. Why bother getting a PC, having to fuss with all the drivers and such, make it use electricity and all, when you can just run it off your Mac?

[ginoledesma]

Oh, and something on RealPC.

I've never really liked the product (ever since it was released as SoftWindows under Insignia). It was slow (even when compared to VPC), did not run certain apps well (probably due to emulation), and crashed often on my Mac.

But as its the only (major) alternative to VPC right now...

Emulation.net (http://www.emulation.net/windoze/) lists the following as other PC emulators, although on a much lower scale:
MacBochs (http://bochs.sourceforge.net/)
BlueLabel (http://www.lismoresoft.com/)
PCx (http://www.geocities.com/jlfenton65/Programs/PCx1.1b5.sit.hqx)

[Fender2112]

Originally posted by MhzDoesMatter

-Hertz

Doesn't seem to hard to understand that people would like to

1. have the convenience of having one box the effectively platform agnostic.

2. Have only one physical system to trouble shoot.

3. Be able to create a new machine if a virtual one breaks.

4. Be able to simultaneously upgrade both systems without purchasing two different items.

5. Be able to gain the functionality of another computer with a install CD, not a tower.

6. Work simultaneously on more than one or even two operating systems (to test software, websites, etc on multiple linux, windows, and mac flavors)

I have a feeling that this is a small percentage of people: Assuming 10% of Mac users have such need. That's 10% of 5% or one half of one percent of all computer users. Then again 0.5% x 100 million = 500,000 :)

Products like VirtualPC and RealPC will never meet the demands of this group. Software emulation will always suffer a speed penalty.

There used to be a product called OrangePC that was a PCI card will an Intel chip on it. I felt this was the best solution for folks that had a big need for working in both environments. It was never as fast as a true PC but was much better that software emulation. I wonder whatever happen to OrangePC?

[MhzDoesMatter]

Originally posted by besson3c
Thank you for taking the time to share these points... I hadn't really considered some of these and was waiting to learn about the VPC market and the void it fits.

I understand your arguments about having less hardware to contend with (and not having to deal with PC hardware failures). That sounds like mostly a cost issue and less so of a convenience issue, but it certainly is a legitimate point.

I don't understand #4

Your other points seem rather related to the extra hardware premise...


Well the hardware premise is really the issue since the comparison you made was to purchasing new hardware.

As for point #4, when using a VPC on Mac setup, when I install new a new hard drive in my Mac, the upgrade is basically an upgrade to both systems, since the VPC "PC image" dynamically grows to me space needs. The image can be moved to the new drive, allowing it to take advantage of the free space, less disk fragmentation, and possible speed boost (depending on drive specifications).

VPC also utilizes the same system ram. So with more ram installed in the mac system, more can be allocated to each virtual machine, improving performance.

Most of my points are both issues of cost and convenience. If I'm really lazy, and don't feel like troubleshooting the PC, I just trash it and start again. That's the most convenient and gratifying aspect of VPC


-Hertz.

[Fender2112]

Originally posted by besson3c
Whatever... if you guys aren't up for this conversation, that's cool with me.

My post count? Why on Earth do I need to be concerned with that?

So much I don't understand...

Because, the more posts you have the better VPC performs ;)

I'm on your side with this one. If you need to run a few simple Windows programs, emulation is fine. If you want to play Windows games, get a PC. Current games push the limits of the hardware. Software emulation can't even begin to meet the needs of a PC gamer.

It would be interesting to compile a list of PC programs that Mac users feel they need because there is no Mac equivalent. (Arn can we do this?)

I'm done babbling for now ;)

[Fender2112]

Originally posted by MhzDoesMatter

Most of my points are both issues of cost and convenience. If I'm really lazy, and don't feel like troubleshooting the PC, I just trash it and start again. That's the most convenient and gratifying aspect of VPC


-Hertz.

That conjured up a funny visual :)

[besson3c]

Originally posted by MhzDoesMatter
Well the hardware premise is really the issue since the comparison you made was to purchasing new hardware.

As for point #4, when using a VPC on Mac setup, when I install new a new hard drive in my Mac, the upgrade is basically an upgrade to both systems, since the VPC "PC image" dynamically grows to me space needs. The image can be moved to the new drive, allowing it to take advantage of the free space, less disk fragmentation, and possible speed boost (depending on drive specifications).

VPC also utilizes the same system ram. So with more ram installed in the mac system, more can be allocated to each virtual machine, improving performance.

Most of my points are both issues of cost and convenience. If I'm really lazy, and don't feel like troubleshooting the PC, I just trash it and start again. That's the most convenient and gratifying aspect of VPC


-Hertz.

Another pro to VPC: you can copy and paste across platforms...

[Macadamias]

Originally posted by ginoledesma
Oh, and something on RealPC.

I've never really liked the product (ever since it was released as SoftWindows under Insignia). It was slow (even when compared to VPC), did not run certain apps well (probably due to emulation), and crashed often on my Mac.

But as its the only (major) alternative to VPC right now...

Emulation.net (http://www.emulation.net/windoze/) lists the following as other PC emulators, although on a much lower scale:
MacBochs (http://bochs.sourceforge.net/)
BlueLabel (http://www.lismoresoft.com/)
PCx (http://www.geocities.com/jlfenton65/Programs/PCx1.1b5.sit.hqx)

MacBochs: OpenOSX.com has put out a OS X port of Boch 2.0.2 called WinTel. However, they seem a bit slow in development and by all reports, the emulation speed is pretty slow. This is partly due to the Boch Project's need of better hardware models for the C++ code.

Blue Label: I have tried this, it is horrendously slow and will frequently lock up. They are unresponsive in support and have little ongoing development. The program also runs only in OS 9. (Will not work in classic mode)

PCx: I haven't heard of this one. However emulation.net states that it only has VGA video support and not sound. So it is very limited on what it can accomplish. It also is only available for OS 9.


Really, there has been little competition to speak of since Real PC originally ceded the market to VPC. The original Real PC emulator for OS 9 and before wasn't quite as good and they couldn't keep up. However their plans for OS X were to use a UNIX based emulator that had promise of a much greater speed boost and higher level of development since it was a solution for UNIX systems as well. Since VPC was only just ported to OS X with little optimization for the platform, this was promising. Really the best way to run VPC right now is by rebooting into OS 9. And MS has not shown that they will continue development for it yet. Any healthy competitor would be highly welcome.

As for why such emulation programs are needed, there is one point that hasn't been mentioned yet. It's a security blanket. Switchers to the Mac from the PC world many times need the security of knowing that they can use their old programs if they can't find a replacement in the Mac market. Especially for business users, this is significant and can affect the initial sale of the Mac. Keeping a PC around for this reason still means creating and maintaining a network to synch all of the needed files across separate machines. It also means that you have no access to the PC programs if you are in the field (portable users).

Just my 5 cents and personal experience.
I currently have a copy of VPC on my PowerBook. I got it for the odd emergency. Haven't really had much use for it yet but it's nice to have the option in this PC centric world. ;)

[tomchan79]

Hi, I notice that there's no info on the FWB website about a new version of realpc, and no mention that you can upgrade to the os x version if you buy the current version.

Also, someone had posted a link to http://www.fwb.com/html/powerwindows.html metioning that there was info about the new product there, but that link doesn't seem to be working.

In the past, was there info about an os x version of realpc on FWB's webiste?

Thanks,

Tom

[PowerBook User]

Originally posted by Fender2112

There used to be a product called OrangePC that was a PCI card will an Intel chip on it. I felt this was the best solution for folks that had a big need for working in both environments. It was never as fast as a true PC but was much better that software emulation. I wonder whatever happen to OrangePC?
Apple also had these PC compatibility cards. I think someone (Apple, OrangePC, etc.) should make them again. It could really improve performance. The only problem is the Power Mac is the only Mac with PCI slots.

[PowerBook User]

Originally posted by Fender2112

It would be interesting to compile a list of PC programs that Mac users feel they need because there is no Mac equivalent. (Arn can we do this?)
I think that's a good idea.

I hope FWB actually releases RealPC that is close to as good as it sounds. It would be great if we could have 3D hardware acceleration.

[hexor]

Originally posted by tomchan79
Hi, I notice that there's no info on the FWB website about a new version of realpc, and no mention that you can upgrade to the os x version if you buy the current version.

Also, someone had posted a link to http://www.fwb.com/html/powerwindows.html metioning that there was info about the new product there, but that link doesn't seem to be working.

In the past, was there info about an os x version of realpc on FWB's webiste?

Yes it was there maybe a week or two ago how purchasers of the current version will be able to upgrade for free to the OS X version.

Look at:
http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:x4SCDQqM1o8J:www.fwb.com/html/realpc.html+fwb+realpc+mac+os+x&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

[bigjohn]

I didn't backread all the posts, but I wanted to get it down for the record that if it came down to 2 systems on my mac, I'd like the first to be OS X (obviously), and I'd love the 2nd to be Linux. I think it'd be easier for developers that way and maybe we can blur the line between Mac products and PC products by allowing for a Linux alternative (like for Autocad, ArcView, etc).

RealPC, VirtualPC, it matters not. For the price of some of these emulators, you're better off building your own PC to run your Windows apps.

[pcfixer]

I purchased the v1.1 product as a pre-order of the OSX product because of the offer of a free upgrade and I'm sure that I was not the only customer of FWB to do so. If it doesn turn out that there was some kind of mistake made by managment or they have discontinued development then I sincerely do hope they do the right thing and off some kind of rebate.

Only time will tell though....

On the subject of switchers and their software: I dumped all my Windows systems a year ago and never looked back until I was transfered into a Network Design group. Now every document I recieve is a Visio file. I've tried several "compatible" products but they all have issues with the Visio format and require me to go back to a Windows box to modify them or create new ones. The ability to play a few Windows games also was a factor in my decision to buy RealPC.

[The Grimace]

Originally posted by besson3c
Honestly, all I've heard so far is that it would reduce desktop clutter... is that IT?

The decision:

- more desktop clutter, a fully functioning PC running on your Mac at non-emulated speeds

- less desktop clutter, a hard drive storing a Windows disk image, and a PC that will never be as fast as the above

The choice seems clear for *real* work.



How about those of us that are mobile yet need access to a PC? For myself, I work on the road (forester), prefer Mac products, but must use MS. Why? ActiveSync. A lot of this type of work now requires the use of a handheld device, and ALL of them use either DOS or WinCE. At the end of the day, I need to download from the handheld, convert to an Access file type (which ActiveSync does automatically), open Access, and do a quick edit. Now, since I live out of a trailer for periods of time, and since AC 110 isn't always available, and space is a premium, the VNC solution is not a viable one for me.
I am currently working on my own set of software, which I hope to be able to run under Linux on a Zaurus, but until then I need a PC emulator.
I'm sure that there are others in similar situations, where a second, dedicated computer simply isn't an option.

(tig)

[The Grimace]

Originally posted by TmTg
And one last reason why I prefer VirtualPC (or RealPC) over having a second wintel box - I am very concerned about the continuing deterioration of the earth's resources, and I see no need to buy another peice of hardware that will just wind up in a landfill leaking toxins in under a decade. I already have a great computer. I don't need another one.

An excellent point, and one that I overlooked. Well spoken. If for no other reason, this one is enough for me.

(tig)

[The Grimace]

Originally posted by Fender2112
[BIt would be interesting to compile a list of PC programs that Mac users feel they need because there is no Mac equivalent. (Arn can we do this?)[/B]

Access. Oh, how I'm feelin' the need...

(tig)

[MattG]

Originally posted by The Grimace
Access. Oh, how I'm feelin' the need...

(tig) Yeah that's a good call...that's pretty much the only program my school requires that I need my PC for!

[MacCoaster]

For Access, couldn't one use Apple's subsidiary FileMaker's FileMaker Pro? I've been told it's one of Mac OS X's best database applications. I'm not quite familiar with this application, but I've heard of it and from what I hear, it can do OBDC and some other datasources so it probably could access MS SQL servers, Oracle servers, MySQL servers, etc. fine if you need to do that kind of work.

[jaedreth]

Yes, it *can*, however, when interfacing with non-Filemaker servers, it is slow, unstable, and prone to crash. And I'm not saying that's filemaker's fault.

At my old job we used to use it as a back up to our main system, but now our backup is web based.

Jaedreth

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by jaedreth
Microsoft doesn't *want* there to be any solution for OS X to run windows apps. However, if there has to be one, Microsoft wants to hold all the cards.

I would predict that soon Microsoft won't have a macintosh team at all, would discontinue VPC, basically bought to get rid of it, and try to prevent anyone else from making anything similar.


Uh, no. Connectix had a licensing deal with Microsoft to license Windows for Virtual PC. All Microsoft had to do was not license Windows to Connectix in order to prevent Virtual PC from existing!

Microsoft's permission was needed, and granted, for Virtual PC to exist in the first place. Every copy of Virtual PC (at least with Windows on it, the Linux version was different) is another sale of Microsoft Windows.

Originally posted by dongmin
2. There never had any development going on with an OS X version of RPC, but advertised it to make a quick buck selling the existing version.

It's probably both.

Uh, no. Announcing an OS X version of RealPC would lessen sales of the existing version as people choose to instead wait for the OS X version. The Osbourne effect.

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by altivec 2003
Heh, thats too bad :( You might actually be better off just buying a cad program for mac :rolleyes: . I am sure there are some good ones out there

From what little I do know, AutoCAD is as much a standard as Adobe Photoshop or QuarkXPress was prior to the release of InDesign. Saying "Buy a CAD program for Mac" is like saying "Use GraphicConverter for image editing and PageMaker for desktop publishing".

[MisterMe]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
From what little I do know, AutoCAD is as much a standard as Adobe Photoshop or QuarkXPress was prior to the release of InDesign. Saying "Buy a CAD program for Mac" is like saying "Use GraphicConverter for image editing and PageMaker for desktop publishing". Your own statement reveals that standards change. PageMaker was the standard before QuarkXPress. InDesign is now a standard. As for CAD, it really isn't so much AutoCAD that is the standard so much as it is the AutoCAD libraries. As an application, AutoCAD sucks. The wealth of libraries available for this application, however, makes moving to something else prohibitive. There is an opening for an enterprising company to develop a CAD program that is compatible with AutoCAD's libraries but with the Macintosh's ease of use.

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by MisterMe
Your own statement reveals that standards change. PageMaker was the standard before QuarkXPress. InDesign is now a standard. As for CAD, it really isn't so much AutoCAD that is the standard so much as it is the AutoCAD libraries. As an application, AutoCAD sucks. The wealth of libraries available for this application, however, makes moving to something else prohibitive. There is an opening for an enterprising company to develop a CAD program that is compatible with AutoCAD's libraries but with the Macintosh's ease of use.

Good insight. I'm sure that the CAD standard can and will change. I'm also sure that that's a worthier goal than Real PC. I mean, replace AutoCAD and port enough games, and there's no reason to use a PC anymore!

[Nermal]

From FWB's website: (my emphasis)

The new management is investigating the claims recently made by the previous management as to the status of this product. They will endeavour to update the public as soon as possible on the true status of the project and wish to continue development.

I hope they're telling the truth here!

[grahamtriggs]

Originally posted by The Grimace
How about those of us that are mobile yet need access to a PC? For myself, I work on the road (forester), prefer Mac products, but must use MS. Why? ActiveSync. A lot of this type of work now requires the use of a handheld device, and ALL of them use either DOS or WinCE. At the end of the day, I need to download from the handheld, convert to an Access file type (which ActiveSync does automatically), open Access, and do a quick edit.

I'm sorry, but either you have more specific requirements than you've listed, or you enjoy making life difficult for yourself...

"requires the use of a handheld" - ever heard of a little company called Palm? Devices work great with a Mac - why the need for a PocketPC? And if you have to have a PocketPC, why not use Missing Sync to hook it up with a Mac?

Having experienced ActiveSync, I would hardly call it a purchasing decision in favour of PCs... in fact, if I *had* to use a handheld device, ActiveSync would be enough to make me switch to Mac, if that was what it took to avoid using it (and if I hadn't already switched, of course!!)

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by The Grimace
...
I am currently working on my own set of software, which I hope to be able to run under Linux on a Zaurus, but until then I need a PC emulator.
...
(tig)


If you can run it under Linux, then why not compile it for OS X? Most Linux apps compile fine for OS X under X11. Then you avoid emulation and Windows altogether...

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac

Uh, no. Announcing an OS X version of RealPC would lessen sales of the existing version as people choose to instead wait for the OS X version. The Osbourne effect.

Well, unless they advertized that if you bought the older version now, then you'd get an upgrade to the new version for free...

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
From what little I do know, AutoCAD is as much a standard as Adobe Photoshop or QuarkXPress was prior to the release of InDesign. Saying "Buy a CAD program for Mac" is like saying "Use GraphicConverter for image editing and PageMaker for desktop publishing".

As has already been indicated, this is really not true. AutoCAD is no longer as much of a standard as it used to be, and more and more people are moving away from it. AutoDesk is well aware of this, and they have their own new software offerings that are designed to replace AutoCAD at the high-end of various disciplines.

AutoCAD's hold on the market is based primarily on their proprietary file format. However, many other companies work to reverse-engineer it.

For what it's worth, VectorWorks is, in my opinion, an outstanding CAD package. And it's completely cross platform.

[failsafe1]

I called FWB last week after sending emails to all the addresses listed on the FWB page. I spoke with Mark about a refund for RealPC since it seems the OSX version will not be coming out anytime soon. I had purchased this a few months ago but he was agreeable. I had to go to the Kagi page where I purchased it and sent an email with the pertinant info. A few days later I received a note from Kagi saying my refund was credited to my account. I would encourage everyone who purchased RealPC for the OSX version to do the same.