RealPC officially discontinued.

[MacBytes]

Category: 3rd Party Software
Link: RealPC officially discontinued. (http://www.fwb.com/html/about_realpc.html)

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)

Approved by Mudbug

[AppleMatt]

So what was all that hype about direct hardware access, preview by end of month and what not.

They should either say something and stick to it or not say it at all. This doesn't bring a good name to Mac software. It also means there's (virtualy) one choice now; Microsoft.

AppleMatt

[bennetsaysargh]

argh. this pisses me off. now i have to pay how much, only to realize it's microsoft! argh. i am almost 100% MS free, and i want VPC.
i'll find a 6.0:p

[kiwi_the_iwik]

It just goes to show - you want to run PC software, you might as well just go out and buy a PC...

...It's not as if they're THAT expensive, especially with all the deals you can get for one from the High Street stores.

After all - where VPC will get you out of a tight fix for the occasional file, it will NEVER be able to replace a PC if you want to do high-end graphics and number crunching (aka. games), even if you DO get a G5...

I have VPC 6, and am quite happy, thank you very much, with the ability of opening previously inaccessible files.

If I want to play games, I'll crack open one of the (now) plethora of titles available for the Mac. If there's a game out there that isn't available for the platform, I've plenty of options:

a) petition the game creators to release a port to the Mac,
b) bite the bullet, buy a PC and play it on THAT,
c) get the PS2 version,
d) play something else,
e) read a book, get some sun, get a life... (heh, heh! Yeah, right - as if... ;))

:rolleyes:

[Over Achiever]

Originally posted by kiwi_the_iwik
It just goes to show - you want to run PC software, you might as well just go out and buy a PC...

...It's not as if they're THAT expensive, especially with all the deals you can get for one from the High Street stores.

:rolleyes:
I agree with kiwi_the_iwik. Esp. if you can connect to the PC via RDC, or even if you have the PC connected to a broadband connection, the speeds via that are very impressive. Plus cheap PCs are easy to find. Keep VPC around for the times when you don't have direct access the PC either it be interent or network.

VPC is important, there are many PC apps that I use daily that are PC only, or where the PC version is superior to any Mac version. I'm mainly in the scientific field where programs like PSpice and Scientific Workplace are easy and quick to use.

Oh and on topic, I didn't see RealPC becoming a factor at all...:rolleyes:

[zapp]

I remember reading that Real PC was giving free upgrades to OSX version with the purchase of real PC for OS9. Now they come out and they haven't written any code yet. I know there has to be people out there that ordered real PC with the expectation of getting the OSX version. I am sure there had to be some fine print lawyer mumbo jumbo that released real PC from any lawsuits. But I would expect more from any company. At least they could have written ONE line of code.

[JtheLemur]

So what was all that hype about direct hardware access, preview by end of month and what not.

They should either say something and stick to it or not say it at all. This doesn't bring a good name to Mac software. It also means there's (virtualy) one choice now; Microsoft.


Hmmmm, somebody didn't read the article. There won't be any direct hardware access because there won't be a preview by end of the month because there hasn't been a single line of code written.

If I may paraphrase from The Rice and the Ridiculous:
FWB: "Dude I almost had you."
Connectix: "Almost had me? You never had me! You never had your RealPC!"

Bwahahaha.

[Lord Bodak]

Originally posted by bennetsaysargh
argh. this pisses me off. now i have to pay how much, only to realize it's microsoft! argh. i am almost 100% MS free, and i want VPC.
i'll find a 6.0:p

I'm not sure I see the point in hunting for an MS-free VPC when you're still running a Microsoft product on it...

[ImAlwaysRight]

Haven't you people learned by now? What do they teach you in school ...

JUST SAY NO!!!

to using Windows. :D

[Kid Red]

Originally posted by zapp
I remember reading that Real PC was giving free upgrades to OSX version with the purchase of real PC for OS9. Now they come out and they haven't written any code yet. I know there has to be people out there that ordered real PC with the expectation of getting the OSX version. I am sure there had to be some fine print lawyer mumbo jumbo that released real PC from any lawsuits. But I would expect more from any company. At least they could have written ONE line of code.

Exactly. They are major a s s h o l e s. They'll get theirs, bad karma baby.

[AidenShaw]

According to this post

http://forums.maccentral.com/wwwthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=news030827realpcphp&Number=524455&page=&view=expanded&sb=5&o=&part=&returnto=http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/2003/08/27/realpc/index.php

The PPC970 processor omits a feature that Virtual PC depends upon, and much of it will need to be rewritten to work on a Power Mac G5. The prediction is that it will be "well into 2004" before that's ready...

[network23]

And I'll bet they take their ol' sweet time doing it, too.

Score another point for Microsoft.

[AidenShaw]

Originally posted by network23
And I'll bet they take their ol' sweet time doing it, too.

Score another point for Microsoft.

Right - Bill Gates went to IBM and made sure that IBM would cripple Virtual PC on the PPC970....

This of course was years before Microsoft bought the Connectix Virtual PC software.


Paranoia will destroy 'ya

[Lord Bodak]

Originally posted by Kid Red
Exactly. They are major a s s h o l e s. They'll get theirs, bad karma baby.

http://macdiscussion.com/article_show.php3?article_id_var=241

Didn't anyone read this article yesterday? Obviously the current management was screwed over by the old management, don't hold it against the new people.

[robeddie]

It's just my guess from what I've read about the FWB soap opera... but it sounds like the previous owners... pissed about the pending takeover... ransacked the office and took a bunch of stuff. It has been said by these new owners that there was some sort of 'sabatoge' effort by the previous owners.
I would not be surprised at all if they erased or took all the disks that had all the REALPC osX code.

At any rate... my other question is: Why in the hell did it take these new owners 2 MONTHS to figure out there was not code anyway?

I would think there's only a couple places to look... that should have taken maybe a day or two. For all their up-frontedness (is that a word?) I really wonder about the veracity of these new owners too.

[chazmox]

RealPC made a comment ( I paraphrase ) that development costs and licensing fees were the main impediment to further development.

MS now says that VirtualPC will not be available until well into 2004.

This looks like a two pronged attack by MS against the G5 and any gains it might make in the Enterprise market. The licensing fees that RealPC mentioned are probably to MS. So MS can block users from running Windows on a G5 and make it so that it is the only option for any other Apple product.

MS marketing department, "Yes, that Apple product is fast, but you can't run any real software on it..." Company purchasing guy makes the safe decision and goes with an Intel based product... Nobody ever got fired for choosing MS!

And our Justice Department says that MS is not anti-competitive!

[Bear]

There is always Bochs which is free. General Bochs info is here (http://bochs.sourceforge.net/). Download the Mac OS X version from here (http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/unix_open_source/bochs.html).

[whatever]

This anti-Microsoft rhetoric in the Apple community really needs to come to an end.

If Microsoft refused to make Office and/or Explorer people would be saying it's Microsoft's attempt at killing Apple. And when they announce products or buy a product (such as Virtual PC) people say MS is trying to take over the world.

Microsoft primary goal (as is Apple) is to keep their shareholders happy. Buying Virtual PC allows them to sell more product into a different market and also explore the possibility of porting their OS to other platforms. If there's no money to be made then they'll move on. End of story.

Now if there really is a market out there for an Intel emulator on the PowerPC platform (hardware level) then someone will create it and people will buy it.

Apple and/or IBM know the inner workings of the PowerPC better than anyone else, why don't they just create the emulator themselves. The answer is simple, it works against their overall strategy of making PowerPC native apps.

I've used emulators on the Mac since 1992, SoftPC and Virtual PC. I use it primarly for testing purposes.

[nagromme]

Buying a PC instead of VPC can be a great option--I did it myself--but VPC is a BETTER option in some cases:

* If the cheap PC you bought is cheap for a reason. (My eMachines died 3 times... the 3rd time was out of warranty.)

* If you don't want (or can't fit) another computer (and an ugly one at that) taking up space in your home or your life.

* If you're getting MS Office anyway (VPC with Win XP is just $100 more).

* If you don't use Windows heavily enough/often enough to demand speed.

* If you like the convenience of "waking" VPC instantly for use instead of powering up a PC from scratch; and the convenience of drag-and-drop between platforms with no network needed; and the convenience of having Win and Mac apps side by side on one screen.

* If you are a portable user. Lugging along two laptops is neither economical NOR convenient.

I did get my actual PC working again--I put in a new power supply myself--but the convenience of VPC means I never turn the real thing on. It collects dust. I'm willing to sacrifice speed (VPC IS sluggish!) for the sake of not powering my eTower on. One click on the Dock and I'm in Windows. I find it to be a VERY useful product, and one I hope has a great future even though I wish it was less in MS's hands. (I would have liked an FWB alternative.)

The apps I run in VPC are not lightweight, either: Flash, Director, D3Edit (3D game editor--yes, usable even with textures and no hardware OpenGL), and misc. apps I make and test for Windows clients.

[Kid Red]

Originally posted by Lord Bodak
http://macdiscussion.com/article_show.php3?article_id_var=241

Didn't anyone read this article yesterday? Obviously the current management was screwed over by the old management, don't hold it against the new people.

Yes, I know it's the old team management, those are the ones I'm referring to :)

[CmdrLaForge]

Originally posted by AidenShaw
According to this post

http://forums.maccentral.com/wwwthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=news030827realpcphp&Number=524455&page=&view=expanded&sb=5&o=&part=&returnto=http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/2003/08/27/realpc/index.php

The PPC970 processor omits a feature that Virtual PC depends upon, and much of it will need to be rewritten to work on a Power Mac G5. The prediction is that it will be "well into 2004" before that's ready...

Yes - thats what I read as well. VPC is not running on the G5..

[Mudbug]

yep - it's official.
This sucks.

so does this mean Microsoft has a monopoly on windows, even on the mac platform? Another monopoly never hurt anyone :rolleyes:

[DeusOmnis]

Originally posted by robeddie
It's just my guess from what I've read about the FWB soap opera... but it sounds like the previous owners... pissed about the pending takeover... ransacked the office and took a bunch of stuff. It has been said by these new owners that there was some sort of 'sabatoge' effort by the previous owners.
I would not be surprised at all if they erased or took all the disks that had all the REALPC osX code.

At any rate... my other question is: Why in the hell did it take these new owners 2 MONTHS to figure out there was not code anyway?

I would think there's only a couple places to look... that should have taken maybe a day or two. For all their up-frontedness (is that a word?) I really wonder about the veracity of these new owners too.


I think there was code, but either the old managment stole it, or the new management is pretending it didnt exist (due to pressure under microsoft).

The new management may just be saying there wasnt any code because microsoft wants them to get rid of RealPC w/o making microsoft looking like a monopoly.

[chazmox]

Originally posted by nagromme
Buying a PC instead of VPC can be a great option--I did it myself--but VPC is a BETTER option in some cases:

* If the cheap PC you bought is cheap for a reason. (My eMachines died 3 times... the 3rd time was out of warranty.)

* If you don't want (or can't fit) another computer (and an ugly one at that) taking up space in your home or your life.

* If you're getting MS Office anyway (VPC with Win XP is just $100 more).

* If you don't use Windows heavily enough/often enough to demand speed.

* If you like the convenience of "waking" VPC instantly for use instead of powering up a PC from scratch; and the convenience of drag-and-drop between platforms with no network needed; and the convenience of having Win and Mac apps side by side on one screen.

* If you are a portable user. Lugging along two laptops is neither economical NOR convenient.

I did get my actual PC working again--I put in a new power supply myself--but the convenience of VPC means I never turn the real thing on. It collects dust. I'm willing to sacrifice speed (VPC IS sluggish!) for the sake of not powering my eTower on. One click on the Dock and I'm in Windows. I find it to be a VERY useful product, and one I hope has a great future even though I wish it was less in MS's hands. (I would have liked an FWB alternative.)

The apps I run in VPC are not lightweight, either: Flash, Director, D3Edit (3D game editor--yes, usable even with textures and no hardware OpenGL), and misc. apps I make and test for Windows clients.

Good summary of all the reasons... you got it all down and got it all right!

[MrMacMan]

Damn.

Damn.

Damn.


Stop lying about your frikken products!

arg, how could they!

[reedm007]

Originally posted by DeusOmnis
I think there was code, but either the old managment stole it, or the new management is pretending it didnt exist (due to pressure under microsoft).

The new management may just be saying there wasnt any code because microsoft wants them to get rid of RealPC w/o making microsoft looking like a monopoly.

If this is the case, I smell a book deal from the previous owners of FWB "exposing" the new owners... :D

[reflex]

Originally posted by Mudbug
so does this mean Microsoft has a monopoly on windows, even on the mac platform?

Of course Microsoft has a monopoly on Windows. They own it. Just like Apple owns MacOS.

[Mav451]

Originally posted by nagromme
Buying a PC instead of VPC can be a great option--I did it myself--but VPC is a BETTER option in some cases:

* If the cheap PC you bought is cheap for a reason. (My eMachines died 3 times... the 3rd time was out of warranty.)

* If you don't want (or can't fit) another computer (and an ugly one at that) taking up space in your home or your life.

* If you're getting MS Office anyway (VPC with Win XP is just $100 more).

* If you don't use Windows heavily enough/often enough to demand speed.

* If you like the convenience of "waking" VPC instantly for use instead of powering up a PC from scratch; and the convenience of drag-and-drop between platforms with no network needed; and the convenience of having Win and Mac apps side by side on one screen.

* If you are a portable user. Lugging along two laptops is neither economical NOR convenient.

I did get my actual PC working again--I put in a new power supply myself--but the convenience of VPC means I never turn the real thing on. It collects dust. I'm willing to sacrifice speed (VPC IS sluggish!) for the sake of not powering my eTower on. One click on the Dock and I'm in Windows. I find it to be a VERY useful product, and one I hope has a great future even though I wish it was less in MS's hands. (I would have liked an FWB alternative.)

The apps I run in VPC are not lightweight, either: Flash, Director, D3Edit (3D game editor--yes, usable even with textures and no hardware OpenGL), and misc. apps I make and test for Windows clients.

Whenever i hear cheap comps, the general misconception is that it means going out and buying an eMachine. Cheap comps, in my opinion, are home built. They are not "cheap" buy any means if you buy GOOD hardware for it.

Buying brand name PSU, Mobo, and ram is not that expensive if you build it yourself. Many PC users will tell you that for the money of a "cheap" 700dollar celeron system, you easily could have built yourself a 3.0ghz P4-C system (probably have to drop from 9800pro to 9600pro to it keep under 700 lol).

Laptops--i agree. You're carrying a laptop so that it is VERY portable--carrying two does just doesn't make any sense. The Drag and Drop you spoke of sounds very convenient--so i guess the convenience of just using only ONE system maybe what all people REALLY need. Serious PC power will require a real PC. But if the app doesn't really require it, i'm sure waiting just a few more seconds with the emulator should be just fine.

[Chimaera]

Microsoft could only refuse to allow the developers to ship Windows with the VM software, nothing more - RealPC is an x86 emulator NOT a Windows emulator and as such Microsoft cannot block it's development (unless the company were dumb enough to sign away their right to make the software to Connectix, in which case they're screwed).

[OSXconvert]

Microsoft bought the virtual PC/server assets of Connectix because they want to control the market and cut costs. Virtual PC because they can control licensing of the WinOS running on it (more revenue), they can kill Office Mac native (save money by selling PC versions and killing Mac Biz unit), and they can withdraw linux support (a true threat). Virtual Server was really what they were after because of the server licensing deals. They could care less about a couple hundred million dollars of revenue fo Mac native products. It's the enterprise server market which is the cash cow. I think Microsoft's actions fall under violation of the DOJ settlement. They are using their same tactics again: bully competition, buy competition, destroy competition, all with piles of cash that was earned from unfair competition. Who knows why FWB really threw in the towel: MS intimidation, payoff, perhaps? The pattern is clear, once MS runs the show, the competition shrinks.

Since Office has become a defacto standard, the DOJ should force Microsoft to make the file format public domain information so other software developers can read and write to the format perfectly. Since Microsoft is a monopoly they have absolutely no incentive to optimize their VPC product for the G5. You can bet they will make it run just passably to punish us Mac users. Just think: nobody who buys a G5 will be able to run PC programs on it for at least 6 months. Hopefully somebody will reintroduce a $200 Pentium PCI card with software to run on a G5.

[Megaquad]

If I remember correctly Microsoft threatened FWB before about Real PC.
They might be involved.

[idea_hamster]

Well, it's official -- the market niche is now open!

A good, quick, G5-compatible emulator that allow Win apps to run on a Mac. If you code it, they will come...since there's a fair number of folks out there who just want to be MS-free.

got venture capital?

[macmax]

Why doesn't Apple develop a Vpc or rpc that really works ok in the next generation of computers??

I mean , an Apple rpc should be better than a microsuck thing.

[eric_n_dfw]

What if, gasp, Microsoft has done nothing wrong here and it's simply FWB's old management is the one that screwed Mac users?

Like many have said, I believe MS bought VPC for the technology in the Windows version to make it easier to support Win32 on Win64. The Mac version poses no threat to them as every Windows OS running on VPC is another license they got paid for. (excluding piracy, which is probably more rampant on x86 machines anyway)

The Linux version is no more a threat than VMWare and you don't see them going after them. Really, the biggest threat on Linux is Sabma, which allows you to run a Windows PDC/BDC network without Windows NT/2K/2K3 servers.

[eric_n_dfw]

Originally posted by macmax
Why doesn't Apple develop a Vpc or rpc that really works ok in the next generation of computers??

I mean , an Apple rpc should be better than a microsuck thing. A: VPC = Virtual PC, RPC == ?? (I think you are referring to someone else's comment about RDC, or Remote Desktop Client - like PC Anywhere/Timbuktu/VNC)

B: An Apple "VPC" is like the rumored "red box", seemless Win32 compatibility layer of OS X that never came to be. I doubt it ever existed as it would make no sense for Apple provide it. If Windows app's run "good enough" on OS X, then why would anyone develop native OS X app's any more? Once all of the big app's are no longer running natively, then there's no reason for users to buy OS X when all of their apps run faster on a Windows PC. Do you think Intuit would spend a dime on Quicken for Mac if the Windows version ran on OS X. (then again, a dime may be all they are spending on Quicken! Sorry, had to get an Inuit dig in there!) What about MS Office? After Effects? Photoshop?


edit - added:
Why, exactly, would an Apple VPC be better at running Windows than a Microsoft version? Microsoft has the ability to hook into the windows code to increase performance and can do a much better job of debugging the thing as they know why Windows acts the way it does. Apple's only advantage is better understanding of OS X and the PPC; that is a big deal, but I think the Mac Biz unit at MS has quite a bit of experience their too.

[grabberslasher]

Apple currently have a very basic "red box" build locked up just like Marklar. They are real, and their time will come.
Remember, the next version of windows is 3 years away - Apple probably have something up their sleeves re the G5 and VPC. IBM would be in a perfect position to add in x86 instructions into the G5, all intel chips are "IBM compatible"...

[failsafe1]

I pursued a refund for RealPC from FWB about a month ago when I heard of the shake up in the company. It was well past the 30 day refund period but I simply filed a complaint with Kagi who sold the software. After this I talked to FWB and they said no problem. So I filed with Kagi and after a few days they gave me the refund. I would suggest all folks do this and send the message.

[eric_n_dfw]

Originally posted by grabberslasher
Apple currently have a very basic "red box" build locked up just like Marklar. They are real, and their time will come.
Remember, the next version of windows is 3 years away - Apple probably have something up their sleeves re the G5 and VPC. IBM would be in a perfect position to add in x86 instructions into the G5, all intel chips are "IBM compatible"... You know this how? Marklar, is at least believable, but x86 emulation on OS X is a whole other can of worms. Again, why would Apple want to do this? What's the business reason?

Also, "all Intel chips are IBM compatible" is a silly sentence since the IBM PC has always used Intel CPU's :rolleyes:

[davei]

I wonder if VMware (http://www.vmware.com/), which runs on Linux, will become an option for OSX users in the future. As I understand it, it's more of an interface layer (system calls, very little emulation) but coupled with input from Apple + Red Box... who knows?

[macmax]

i just wanted to know why it can't be done.

[NavyIntel007]

Originally posted by whatever
This anti-Microsoft rhetoric in the Apple community really needs to come to an end.

If Microsoft refused to make Office and/or Explorer people would be saying it's Microsoft's attempt at killing Apple. And when they announce products or buy a product (such as Virtual PC) people say MS is trying to take over the world.

Microsoft primary goal (as is Apple) is to keep their shareholders happy. Buying Virtual PC allows them to sell more product into a different market and also explore the possibility of porting their OS to other platforms. If there's no money to be made then they'll move on. End of story.

Now if there really is a market out there for an Intel emulator on the PowerPC platform (hardware level) then someone will create it and people will buy it.

Apple and/or IBM know the inner workings of the PowerPC better than anyone else, why don't they just create the emulator themselves. The answer is simple, it works against their overall strategy of making PowerPC native apps.

I've used emulators on the Mac since 1992, SoftPC and Virtual PC. I use it primarly for testing purposes.

The "anti-MS rhetoric" is proven fact. Microsoft wants control of the entire market. ENTIRE MARKET. No linux, unix, MacOS, no choices... only microsoft.

[edit]

Microsoft gives their products away and undercuts in foreign countries to deny the spread of opensource.

MS blames the G5 for not having the "pseudo little-endian" code in the processor. I have never, ever heard of that being in the G4 or the G3. I think it's lies. They don't want you to buy a G5. They don't want you to own a machine that can hold it's own (or sometimes beat) a PC. Why do you think there is NO sync from microsoft for a pocketPC? Because they want to control it all.

The problem takes a year to fix? That's just stupid. Hell they could throw a few bucks at the Bochs project and use that. This attitude is already starting to backfire on them. Europe, China, and India are almost at the point of boycotting Microsoft. They've been warned by the EU to stop playing dirty tricks and yet they are funding SCOs attack on Linux.

If microsoft is such a nice company, never meant any other company harm, how come they do not support reading any other filesystem but their own? Microsoft would probably make more money if they just played nice with everyone but since they keep pissing people off, they are eventually going to run out of steam.

[NavyIntel007]

Originally posted by eric_n_dfw
You know this how? Marklar, is at least believable, but x86 emulation on OS X is a whole other can of worms. Again, why would Apple want to do this? What's the business reason?

Also, "all Intel chips are IBM compatible" is a silly sentence since the IBM PC has always used Intel CPU's :rolleyes:

Maybe all along we've had this Marklar thing wrong. Perhaps Apple plans on selling an intel cpu on a PCIX slot for use with Virtual PC or some other type of emulator. For any other reason, I don't think Marklar will ever see the light of day. The G5 is very fast... to not using windows, most current mac users and many switchers will probably say "so what?"

[grabberslasher]

Originally posted by eric_n_dfw
You know this how? Marklar, is at least believable, but x86 emulation on OS X is a whole other can of worms. Again, why would Apple want to do this? What's the business reason?

Also, "all Intel chips are IBM compatible" is a silly sentence since the IBM PC has always used Intel CPU's :rolleyes:

Which means that IBM has access to using Intel chips in their computers which could possibly mean intel chips alongside 970s in a PowerMac. Which could mean that the Apple "Red Box" wouldn't have to emulate anything. It could theoretically run windows or linux x86 apps on a Mac.

Not likely? Look at WINE for linux.

[MacsRgr8]

LOL...

I started a similar thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=36273) before this was on MacRumors' frontpage...

I was wondering where the replies were :)

[whatever]

Originally posted by OSXconvert
Since Office has become a defacto standard, the DOJ should force Microsoft to make the file format public domain information so other software developers can read and write to the format perfectly.

No, no, no. What are you crazy! Microsoft created those file formats and they should be protected. Do you think Apple should hand over Quicktime?

File formats come and go. Ten years ago (maybe 15) if you said that Word or Excel would be the top formats for their application types people would look at you funny. WordPerfect and Lotus 1-2-3 were the top guns. Then Microsoft came out with a better product and the rest is history. Of course now MS is stuck with being backward compatible and that is a whole different problem.

Whatever

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by DeusOmnis
I think there was code, but either the old managment stole it, or the new management is pretending it didnt exist (due to pressure under microsoft).

The new management may just be saying there wasnt any code because microsoft wants them to get rid of RealPC w/o making microsoft looking like a monopoly.


I'm glad that I'm not the only one who thought of this...

Two months to figure out that there was no code? Please. There must have been more going on behind the scenes than this.

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by grabberslasher
Which means that IBM has access to using Intel chips in their computers which could possibly mean intel chips alongside 970s in a PowerMac. Which could mean that the Apple "Red Box" wouldn't have to emulate anything. It could theoretically run windows or linux x86 apps on a Mac.

Not likely? Look at WINE for linux.

I seriously doubt we'll see an Intel chip built into the PowerMac. Maybe as an add-on PCI board, but not built in. It just doesn't make sense.

And what does WINE have to do with anything? WINE is simply providing Windows APIs under Linux so that Windows apps can run. There is currently an open source project to build a WINE + emulator that will run on OS X, called DarWINE, to enable us to run Windows apps rootless. Who knows, maybe that will be the future of emulation on the Mac...

[whatever]

Originally posted by NavyIntel007
The "anti-MS rhetoric" is proven fact. Microsoft wants control of the entire market. ENTIRE MARKET. No linux, unix, MacOS, no choices... only microsoft.

Microsoft gives their products away and undercuts in foreign countries to deny the spread of opensource.

MS blames the G5 for not having the "pseudo little-endian" code in the processor. I have never, ever heard of that being in the G4 or the G3. I think it's lies. They don't want you to buy a G5. They don't want you to own a machine that can hold it's own (or sometimes beat) a PC. Why do you think there is NO sync from microsoft for a pocketPC? Because they want to control it all.

The problem takes a year to fix? That's just stupid. Hell they could throw a few bucks at the Bochs project and use that. This attitude is already starting to backfire on them. Europe, China, and India are almost at the point of boycotting Microsoft. They've been warned by the EU to stop playing dirty tricks and yet they are funding SCOs attack on Linux.

If microsoft is such a nice company, never meant any other company harm, how come they do not support reading any other filesystem but their own? Microsoft would probably make more money if they just played nice with everyone but since they keep pissing people off, they are eventually going to run out of steam.

Alright let's say that the G5 is the endall/beall of CPUs and Apple sells a Gadzillion of these machines and MS decides to release an OS which can be loaded onto it. What would you say then? The name of the game is Business and profitability.

MS is not trying to create a mononly, they're just trying to create the best products that they can. Is MS to blame for Netscape's failure? No, I would call it greed. I have no complaints with Apple creating apps to run on their OS (iTunes, Safari, Final Cut, etc..) so why should we criticize MS.

I just don't get this double standard.

Whatever

[mattmack]

Originally posted by whatever


MS is not trying to create a mononly, they're just trying to create the best products that they can. I have no complaints with Apple creating apps to run on their OS (iTunes, Safari, Final Cut, etc..) so why should we criticize MS.

I just don't get this double standard.

Whatever
Creating apps is one thing. Buying companies and disbanding their product because they compete with you is a creating a monopoly

[grabberslasher]

What does WINE have to do with anything? WINE is simply providing Windows APIs under Linux so that Windows apps can run.

Wine allows windows x86 programs to run on other x86 platforms. So an add-on processor card for mac os x could work.

I'm not saying they will do it, I doubt they will ever do it, but it is possible.

[Kid Red]

Originally posted by whatever


MS is not trying to create a mononly, they're just trying to create the best products that they can.

Whatever

You lost all credibility with me there. 10,000 bugs in was it 95 or 98? Then each OS release afterwards were merely bug fixes? Trying to put out a new OS mainly to make money, make it slightly buggy then release a bug fix for most of them, make more money, etc.

If M$ put out a flawless OS they'd go broke because a majority of home users WOULD NEVER upgrade. So M$ forces companies to upgrade.

Is MS to blame for Netscape's failure? No, I would call it greed.

I just don't get this double standard.

Netscape was #1, yet you think M$ beat them out fairly? Ah no. This is fact, M$ threatened Apple to make IE default and drop Netscape. They also screwed with others related to Netscape.

This isn't rhetoric. It's moaning over the facts. M$ is a money hungry, greedy, power mongering filth, and it will bite them in the ass sooner or later.

[mattmack]

Originally posted by Bear
There is always Bochs which is free. General Bochs info is here (http://bochs.sourceforge.net/). Download the Mac OS X version from here (http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/unix_open_source/bochs.html). How welldoes this preform as far as running the Apps (ie Games)

[reedm007]

Originally posted by grabberslasher
Wine allows windows x86 programs to run on other x86 platforms. So an add-on processor card for mac os x could work.

Who says it wouldn't? I don't think anyone is arguing that if you slap an intel processor card in a Mac it could theoretically run Windows apps...

I'm not saying they will do it, I doubt they will ever do it, but it is possible.

Well, but you kind of actually were implying the will do it... Just a few posts earlier you said:

Apple currently have a very basic "red box" build locked up just like Marklar. They are real, and their time will come. Remember, the next version of windows is 3 years away - Apple probably have something up their sleeves re the G5 and VPC. IBM would be in a perfect position to add in x86 instructions into the G5, all intel chips are "IBM compatible"...

So here you imply that Apple will implement something. In fact, you imply that IBM will add x86 instructions to the G5, which is something altogether different than an add-on processor card. And what does "all intel chips are IBM compatible" mean? Intel doesn't make chips based on any IBM instruction set. So to that, you respond:

Which means that IBM has access to using Intel chips in their computers which could possibly mean intel chips alongside 970s in a PowerMac.

Of course IBM has access to using Intel chips. Anyone does. Apple could buy Intel chips today and start shipping x86 boxes. There's nothing special about IBM's relationship with Intel. Plus, IBM microprocessor unit has virtually no relation to consumer desktop/laptop products, which use Intel chips. Furthermore, the fact that IBM's personal computer unit ships machines with Intel processors doesn't suggest by any stretch of the imagination that, simply because Apple uses an IBM-fabbed processor, Apple will use intel chips too.

I don't mean to pick on you, but your reasoning doesn't exactly keep on a straight path, and it kind of voids your initial comments about what Apple is "currently doing", and I frankly can't believe you'd have any insider knowledge...

[3.1416]

Originally posted by NavyIntel007
MS blames the G5 for not having the "pseudo little-endian" code in the processor. I have never, ever heard of that being in the G4 or the G3. I think it's lies.

PowerPCs up to the G4 do in fact have a little-endian compatibility mode that VPC uses. I hadn't heard that the G5 removed that capability, but if so it's reasonable that an update would be required.

Hell they could throw a few bucks at the Bochs project and use that.

Bochs is slow. Really, really slow.

[whatever]

Originally posted by Kid Red
You lost all credibility with me there. 10,000 bugs in was it 95 or 98? Then each OS release afterwards were merely bug fixes? Trying to put out a new OS mainly to make money, make it slightly buggy then release a bug fix for most of them, make more money, etc.

If M$ put out a flawless OS they'd go broke because a majority of home users WOULD NEVER upgrade. So M$ forces companies to upgrade.



Netscape was #1, yet you think M$ beat them out fairly? Ah no. This is fact, M$ threatened Apple to make IE default and drop Netscape. They also screwed with others related to Netscape.

This isn't rhetoric. It's moaning over the facts. M$ is a money hungry, greedy, power mongering filth, and it will bite them in the ass sooner or later.

Netscape allowed themselves to be bought out by AOL, who in turned destroyed them. Why did Netscape allow this to happen? MONEY! Alot of people made a lot of money off of that deal.

Netscape is a perfect example of being first to market does not make you best.

As far as MS telling Apple to make IE the default browser. Didn't MS bail Apple out and give them a large infusion of money which helped Apple return to greatness? Netscape could have developed a great Mac browser, but they never did.

I'm not saying the MS makes a great OS, is it buggy. Yes. Is Mac OS X buggy? Yes. Is Linux buggy? Yes. Do you see a pattern? Microsoft does not force people to upgrade to newer versions of their OS. They do stop supporting them, but they don't hold a gun to peoples heads, now do they. Do you really think there is a meeting before every OS release at MS where they discuss which bugs they're going to put in the OS to force customers into buying the next upgrade?

[OSXconvert]

Originally posted by whatever
No, no, no. What are you crazy! Microsoft created those file formats and they should be protected. Do you think Apple should hand over Quicktime?


I don't think companies should be required to share proprietary formats, unless they have become the de facto standard and run the industry. Without a doubt, Microsoft Office in general, and Microsoft Word in particular are the standards for the computer industry. You cannot exchange word processor files with colleagues unless you use Word format. There really is no choice. They got to be the standard by leveraging the monopoly on their OS by bundling office software for cheap prices, thus undercutting Wordperfect and others, just as they did with their browser. Even when Wordperfect was king, they were never in such a dominant position as Microsoft's Word is today. In those days, there was actually innovation in wordprocessor software; now, there are few features that merit an upgrade except for the reason that you must because the OS has been upgraded and many new bugs have been fixed.

The industry is already mature enough to warrant federal oversight to ensure fair competition and the public's best interest. Open standards are the best way to ensure industry-wide adoption and competition. Because Apple has such a small market share, they need to protect their intellectual property, for now. I don't know what kind of revenue they make on Quicktime, but I would suspect that giving it away might be better for the standard than keeping it proprietary. Think what would have happened to the imaging industry if TIFF, GIF and JPEG had been proprietary. Think what MP3 did for the music creation. Without corporate monopoly control, sound and image creation and transfer have flourished, with thousands of applications seamlessly supporting the standards.

[tek]

Originally posted by 3.1416
PowerPCs up to the G4 do in fact have a little-endian compatibility mode that VPC uses. I hadn't heard that the G5 removed that capability, but if so it's reasonable that an update would be required.



Bochs is slow. Really, really slow.

yes... 14 hours to install win2k, 6 hours to boot it.

or only 5 hours to install win98, which then only takes 1 hour to boot.

and xp... well.. over 24 hours to install and probably that long to boot.

[gothamac]

"It will be in the next (full) version of Virtual PC," a Microsoft representative said Wednesday, adding that a new edition of Virtual PC is expected within a year. In addition, the representative said the release is due at about the same time as the launch of Office 11, the next version of Office for the Mac. Earlier this month, Microsoft said it was working on Office 11 but would not comment on when it might be ready.

Good timing. I can see it now. Office 11 only runs on mac via Virtual PC.

[panphage]

Originally posted by whatever
Netscape allowed themselves to be bought out by AOL, who in turned destroyed them. Why did Netscape allow this to happen? MONEY! Alot of people made a lot of money off of that deal.

Netscape is a perfect example of being first to market does not make you best.

As far as MS telling Apple to make IE the default browser. Didn't MS bail Apple out and give them a large infusion of money which helped Apple return to greatness? Netscape could have developed a great Mac browser, but they never did.


Your facts are a bit twisted. Netscape was in fact the best browser on the market. Netscape lost the browser war long before AOL stepped in, they lost when MS bundled IE into the OS and forced computer sellers to show an IE icon on the desktop and fobade them showing an Netscape icon. MS used it's monopoly power to marginalize a superior product. This is what the entire monopoly case was about, and the findings were that MS indeed did misuse monopoly power to stifle competition.

MS did not bail apple out. They settled out of court to stop apple suing them over stealing the Mac GUI. Apple has now, and always has had, a monstrous reserve of cash, just like MS. They never needed any sort of bailout. They were on the ropes, but this MS money was a settlement for a legal proceeding, not an investment.

[eric_n_dfw]

Originally posted by mattmack
Creating apps is one thing. Buying companies and disbanding their product because they compete with you is a creating a monopoly You know, Apple pretty much did that with iDVD.

[edit] ... and iTunes.

[Mav451]

Originally posted by tek
yes... 14 hours to install win2k, 6 hours to boot it.

or only 5 hours to install win98, which then only takes 1 hour to boot.

and xp... well.. over 24 hours to install and probably that long to boot.

are u joking? XP took me about maybe 1.5 hours to fully install (clean hard disk of course).

30 mins partitioning by 80 :)

browsers? I use mozilla firebird. I dont' know what most Mac OS X people use though.

[Over Achiever]

Originally posted by gothamac
Good timing. I can see it now. Office 11 only runs on mac via Virtual PC.
Whatever gave you that silly conclusion? Seriously, the anti-microsoft sentiment shown here is laughable. I know it's only the vocal few, but still...

Office 11 is developed by a separate Mac division. Why would that work only on virtual PC? Hmm? It's built for OS 9/X...it's not a "pure port" of the windows program per se.

Office 11 only works via Virtual PC...well then why not just have one Office product, save costs?

Foolish paranoia...

[panphage]

Originally posted by OSXconvert
Think what would have happened to the imaging industry if TIFF, GIF and JPEG had been proprietary.

But GIF IS proprietary. The compression algorithm is patented by compuserve, and they make everyone who includes the algorithm in a product pay them a liscensing fee.

[eric_n_dfw]

Originally posted by NavyIntel007
The "anti-MS rhetoric" is proven fact. Microsoft wants control of the entire market. ENTIRE MARKET. No linux, unix, MacOS, no choices... only microsoft.

Microsoft gives their products away and undercuts in foreign countries to deny the spread of opensource.I'm no MS lover, in fact, I try to have as little of that company's products on my systems as possible. We're going to get way off topic here with monopoly talk and especially rep/dem conservative/liberal views on the MS lawsuit(s).

Personally, I do not believe they are a monopoly. I DO believe they have acted anti-competitevly in the past and should be punished for it (and have for many of the things they've done) Many here are too young to rember the smack down they got for the whole "you have to package MS Office with your PC's or you can't have Windows 3.x" days.


Originally posted by NavyIntel007
MS blames the G5 for not having the "pseudo little-endian" code in the processor. I have never, ever heard of that being in the G4 or the G3. I think it's lies.
I think that is true - I'll look for the info later (after work ;) )

Originally posted by NavyIntel007
Why do you think there is NO sync from microsoft for a pocketPC?Probably because there's not enough $$$ in it for the effort - even with sync software, most of us MacHeads are loyal to Palm for supporting us early on and they know it. If OS X had 10% share or so, you'd see it; if not from MS, then from someone.

Originally posted by NavyIntel007
The problem takes a year to fix? That's just stupid.No, a major overhaul and massive testing would have to be done to handle such a low-level change. From what I've heard, much of Connectex's VPC code is highly tuned assembler - stuff that only the best bit-nerds can work on. It's a very large undertakign.

Originally posted by NavyIntel007
If microsoft is such a nice company, never meant any other company harm,
Now, I wouldn't go that far! But then again, I wouldn't say that about Apple either!
Originally posted by NavyIntel007

... how come they do not support reading any other filesystem but their own? Microsoft would probably make more money if they just played nice with everyone but since they keep pissing people off, they are eventually going to run out of steam. Are you saying they should read Linux ext2/3 partitions? Or Mac HFS/HFS+? What possible business reason would they have for that? They do support AppleTalk, NetWare and NFS networking.

Linux supports HFS because some geeks wanted it to - and - because it runs on Macs. It supports FAT32 for similar reasons. (NTFS support is still spotty afaik)

Mac supports FAT16 (does it support FAT32?) because it makes it easy to read MS-DOS floppy's.

[edit]BTW, NT supported HPFS (the OS/2 file system), I don't know if it still does though.

[MacCoaster]

Originally posted by panphage
Your facts are a bit twisted. Netscape was in fact the best browser on the market. Netscape lost the browser war long before AOL stepped in, they lost when MS bundled IE into the OS and forced computer sellers to show an IE icon on the desktop and fobade them showing an Netscape icon. MS used it's monopoly power to marginalize a superior product. This is what the entire monopoly case was about, and the findings were that MS indeed did misuse monopoly power to stifle competition.
Right, it was the world's best browser so they took forever to do version 5. Becuase there were no real updates to 4.x [you gotta admit, it wasn't the best because looking at it--it's a POS], while MS released 4.x, 5.x, and now 6.x. Another mistake by Netscape and AOL--overengineering Mozilla also let IE dominate the market.

[sonyrules]

http://news.com.com/2100-1042_3-5068747.html?tag=fd_top

According to this artical, its going to be awhile before a fix is out, Thats microsoft for you

[eric_n_dfw]

For those who are wondering what a big/little endian is: http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/b/big_endian.html

[kiwi]

I seem to remember FWB also saying that RPC project ws stalled due to an MS cease and desist order (right after MS bought VPC from Connectix).
If that is true, MS strategy regarding PC emulation on the Mac is clear.

So who knows which FWB management to believe? The previous one promising a Real PC for OS X or the one now saying nothing was ever developed?

Did Microsoft push for a "regime change" over at FWB?

[MacCoaster]

Originally posted by sonyrules
http://news.com.com/2100-1042_3-5068747.html?tag=fd_top

According to this artical, its going to be awhile before a fix is out, Thats microsoft for you
No, that's what programming in low level assembly does to you, especially when you use VERY specific PowerPC features that are nonexistant on the PowerPC 970s.

Assembly isn't the world's easiest language, ya know. :)

[eric_n_dfw]

Originally posted by kiwi
I seem to remember FWB also saying that RPC project ws stalled due to an MS cease and desist order (right after MS bought VPC from Connectix).
Ahhhh - now I know what the "RPC" comment way earlier today was about. Sorry (whoever you were) when I assumed you meant remote desktop client. RPC == RealPC. :eek:

[AidenShaw]

Originally posted by sonyrules
According to this artical, its going to be awhile before a fix is out, Thats microsoft for you

Right, Apple changes to a new processor that doesn't support a critical feature needed by VPC - so it's Microsoft's fault that a product that Microsoft purchased only a few weeks ago has been broken.

Paranoia.

As to the claim that "pseudo little-endian" is a lie, read this:

http://www.mactech.com/articles/mactech/Vol.10/10.08/PowerPcArchitecture/

Now, the 601 can operate in a pseudo little-endian format. On disk, it looks neither like true big nor true little-endian. Why? Without going into too much detail, the 601 can make memory appear to the processor as true little-endian by playing with the addresses of load/stores, but without reversing any bytes.

The result is a fast, simulated little-endian world, but it's not true little-endian in memory - numbers do not have reversed bytes, but their starting addresses are changed. It's not the case that the in-memory data are instantly ready for exchange with real PCs.

However, this scheme helps make the 601 ready to speedily emulate a PC. Getting full data compatibility still requires moving fields and explicit byte-reversal during I/O - already slow, so less noticeable.


So a PowerPC feature since the G1 days (IIRC G1 would be 601, right?) has suddenly disappeared....

Microsoft's plan for world domination operates in strange and mysterious ways, indeed.

[geephore]

I think that with all the stuff Apple's probably learned while working on Darwin/x86, it will only be a matter of time before Apple comes out with a Windows emulator with the same type of functionality as Classic. Of course this is just speculation. I have heard rebuttals of this theory based on the idea that people will stop writing apps for the mac and just write for windows because it's on there and they wouldn't need to port it. I think that's poppycock. Did people only write for Classic because it theoretically (and probably factually) has a wider user base than OS X? No. OS X is a better development environment.

As for the browser wars, Safari has quickly and succinctly kicked other Mac browsers out of the running. Besides, it isn't what this thread is about, so stop arguing, children. ;)

[elmimmo]

My completely offtopic 2 cents, since so people seems to be happy to throw theirs.

Mozilla is an amazing piece of software. Netscape 4.x was a rotten ****ty standard-screwing (which is far worse than non-compliant) browser that should have never existed. IE 4 and 5 kicked N4's butt at understanding and trying to properly render standards (which does not mean at all it was brilliant at that either).

The only good thing of N4 was its speed, but my copy of Simpletext was pretty fast too. It wasn't very web standards compliant either.

N4 lived for so long because users usually do not know that the page they are visiting is or is not supposed to be rendered the way their browser is doing it, unless everything starts to collapse very obviously. Not only was Netscape 4 an absolute headache to code for compared to IE, but filled the web with applescript resizing hacks to patch its awful css support (gosh, even IE3 introduced a bit of css support without screwing all up in the meantime).

Netscape<5 = ****ty **** and whoever that says the opposite has not written a simple page that pretended to render properly in that so-called browser. Did MS win because of monopoly? Whatever as long as we got rid of that Netscrap.

[sockgap]

Originally posted by NavyIntel007
MS blames the G5 for not having the "pseudo little-endian" code in the processor. I have never, ever heard of that being in the G4 or the G3. I think it's lies.

http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Hardware/DeviceManagers/pci_srvcs/pci_cards_drivers/PCI_BOOK.24e.html


Jeez do some research before sending out accusations.

I typed "powerpc little endian" into Google and the very top hit was the above page on Apple's own web site, confirming that some PowerPC chips do have this feature.

[mod. edit - Personal insults are not allowed.]

[NavyIntel007]

Originally posted by whatever
Alright let's say that the G5 is the endall/beall of CPUs and Apple sells a Gadzillion of these machines and MS decides to release an OS which can be loaded onto it. What would you say then? The name of the game is Business and profitability.

MS is not trying to create a mononly, they're just trying to create the best products that they can. Is MS to blame for Netscape's failure? No, I would call it greed. I have no complaints with Apple creating apps to run on their OS (iTunes, Safari, Final Cut, etc..) so why should we criticize MS.

I just don't get this double standard.

Whatever

Sure, if MS was going to release a patch to make this software work. But guess what, they aren't! They are waiting until their next VPC release to even allow it. Suppose the G6 has some other differences that make it incompatible with VPC... will MS do the same thing? Probably.

Think if Connectix did not sell out to MS... There would be a patch or updated release (because MS didn't really do anything to it) much sooner than MS with less employees and less money.

A company like MS should be hiring the best and brightest programmers from around the world. If that is the case, how is it that it takes a year to make VPC work with the G5? My theory... they had it working... Does seriously anyone remember there being PowerPC "little-endian emulation"? I've never heard of that. MS is figuring, they're probably in trouble if this G5 turns out to be superfast and superstable. So lets sit on the VPC for a while so that maybe switchers will opt out of buying one and buy a PC.

Arn... do a poll to see how many people would be swayed from buying a G5 now that we know VPC doesn't work.

[NavyIntel007]

Originally posted by panphage
Your facts are a bit twisted. Netscape was in fact the best browser on the market. Netscape lost the browser war long before AOL stepped in, they lost when MS bundled IE into the OS and forced computer sellers to show an IE icon on the desktop and fobade them showing an Netscape icon. MS used it's monopoly power to marginalize a superior product. This is what the entire monopoly case was about, and the findings were that MS indeed did misuse monopoly power to stifle competition.

MS did not bail apple out. They settled out of court to stop apple suing them over stealing the Mac GUI. Apple has now, and always has had, a monstrous reserve of cash, just like MS. They never needed any sort of bailout. They were on the ropes, but this MS money was a settlement for a legal proceeding, not an investment.

Not only that, but didn't all the Antitrust lawsuits come into play around that time? Without Apple, MS would be in 20 pieces now.

[whatever]

Originally posted by tek
yes... 14 hours to install win2k, 6 hours to boot it.

or only 5 hours to install win98, which then only takes 1 hour to boot.

and xp... well.. over 24 hours to install and probably that long to boot.

With numbers like those I wonder how long it took you to take the disc out and insert it into the drive. Let me guess 2 hours? Then another two hours to figure out that you had the disc upside down...

Come on now.

[Admin edit: He's talking about booting under Bochs emulation ]

Whatever

[NavyIntel007]

Originally posted by sockgap
http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Hardware/DeviceManagers/pci_srvcs/pci_cards_drivers/PCI_BOOK.24e.html


Jeez do some research before sending out accusations.

I typed "powerpc little endian" into Google and the very top hit was the above page on Apple's own web site, confirming that some PowerPC chips do have this feature.

Well then if all the PowerPC's have it, show me the article where IBM said they removed it. Because if IBM removed it, we should have known this a long time ago.

I would find it very funny if IBM comes out and says "no, actually all that capability is still there."

[whatever]

Originally posted by elmimmo
My completely offtopic 2 cents, since so people seems to be happy to throw theirs.

Mozilla is an amazing piece of software. Netscape 4.x was a rotten ****ty standard-screwing (which is far worse than non-compliant) browser that should have never existed. IE 4 and 5 kicked N4's butt at understanding and trying to properly render standards (which does not mean at all it was brilliant at that either).
I just wanted explain my whole position on Netscape and IE. I always used Netscape (on Windows), it was not until I switched back to a Mac and started using IE did I realize how stupid I was being for being so closed-minded towards Microsoft (yes, I used Netscape and bashed IE), but then when I switched to IE (on a Mac) I ended up switching to IE in Windows too.

It was then that I realized how foolish I was for letting my bias against MS effect my work. In other words I forgot that the software was only the means to the end, but not the end in itself.

[Ripcord]

I sent this email to sales@vmware.com:

With the recent announcement of Microsoft's VPC for Macintosh not working with G5, and no plans to support until at least "well into 2004", is VMWare working on a Macintosh version of its Intel emulation software?

It's fairly obvious that Microsoft has very little to gain by supporting this software heavily, and it is likely that this software will eventually evaporate. With the release of the G5 the Macintosh is again a growing platform, and this market should steadily become more available to competitors (and with the announcement that RealPC will have NO OS X version of its emulation software, there are currently no competitors to Microsoft in this space).

My group within (my company) will need at least 15 copies, I'm just wondering if we'll see a solution from VMWare anytime in the forseeable future.

If they haven't already been working on it, porting vmware to Mac would be no small task. However, they're head and shoulders farther along on a stable, mature product than anyone else. It would be very interesting if they suddenly got inundated with requests for a Mac product.

[NavyIntel007]

In other news... I just talked to someone in the IRC room that says 6.0.1 works on the G5.

If 6.0 works, why doesn't 6.1 work?

MS strikes again!

[eric_n_dfw]

Originally posted by NavyIntel007
In other news... I just talked to someone in the IRC room that says 6.0.1 works on the G5.

If 6.0 works, why doesn't 6.1 work?

MS strikes again! And we know if you hear it in IRC. It MUST be true! :D :D :rolleyes:

[eric_n_dfw]

Originally posted by NavyIntel007
Well then if all the PowerPC's have it, show me the article where IBM said they removed it. Because if IBM removed it, we should have known this a long time ago.

I would find it very funny if IBM comes out and says "no, actually all that capability is still there." All PPC's before the G5 are based on the 601 family. The G5, 970 chip is based on the POWER family (POWER 4 to be specific) - every article you see on a google search for "big endian" says that "IBM Mainframes" are big endian. Many of modern IBM mainframes use, POWER chips.

The G5 is a PowerPC by name, but it's more of a mini-POWER chip.

[xelterran]

i think u can get a decend second hand PC for about $300 or even less.. i dont see the point in using VPC/other.

[arn]

Originally posted by NavyIntel007

MS blames the G5 for not having the "pseudo little-endian" code in the processor. I have never, ever heard of that being in the G4 or the G3. I think it's lies.

WTF? What's with the conspiracy theories?

It seems likely true unless you can come up with documentation that it is not.

Stop with the FUD. As I've said before - people should stop claiming the sky is falling -- when it is not.

arn

[ralphh]

Originally posted by whatever
I just wanted explain my whole position on Netscape and IE.

<snip>

It was then that I realized how foolish I was for letting my bias against MS effect my work. In other words I forgot that the software was only the means to the end, but not the end in itself.

I must strongly disagree: there's the issue of supporting an abusive, suffocating monopoly by using their products. I avoid buying their products, or adding momentum to their abuse and monopolization of standards by using even their free stuff.

[mvc]

Originally posted by whatever
Then another two hours to figure out that you had the disc upside down...


LOL - Do people really do this? I suppose it proves the truth of the saying that noone ever went broke by underestimating the Average User!

But, on topic, VPC is a curse either working or nor working - if its not working, people won't switch and corporates don't buy, if it is working (and if its any good) Developers won't code for OSX.

How is it in Microsofts best interests to keep it slow? They are best served by making it fast so they do not have to write OSX versions of their software but make the same money.

And thats why they are bundling it with Office for Mac. in a couple of versions, when its fast enough, they will simply stop making an OSX version of Office.

Thats also why they are pushing OSX versions of the Office products now, all to squeeze in an extra upgrade cycle before they desert the platform in all but name.

[arn]

A few off-topic posts deleted...

You know guys... the anti-microsoft sentiment is cute - it really is....

but there's a point where we can't keep talking about it. :)

Let's please do away with the conspiracy theories... yeah, it sucks that VPC doesn't work on the G5. Yes, it sucks it may take some time before a patch comes out.

But conspiracy theories get old.... let's not rile people up with irrational arguements.

arn

[Ripcord]

Originally posted by eric_n_dfw
And we know if you hear it in IRC. It MUST be true! :D :D :rolleyes:

Then again, I've heard several people suggest this, but have yet to hear anyone who's tried pre-Microsoft Virtual PC 6 and confirmed that it also doesn't work.

However, Microsoft is known for a lot of things (predatory business tactics, low quality of software, etc), but not generally known for being stupid. This would seem like a very obviously stupid thing to do...

[mstecker]

Originally posted by idea_hamster
Well, it's official -- the market niche is now open!

A good, quick, G5-compatible emulator that allow Win apps to run on a Mac. If you code it, they will come...since there's a fair number of folks out there who just want to be MS-free.

got venture capital?

People "wanting to be MS-free" is a lousy reason to invest loads of money in developing a competing product when there's already a perfectly good product on the market. Honestly, what percentage of people who want VPC won't use it anymore because it's owned by Microsoft? Very few, I'd imagine.

Besides, what did Microsoft ever do to you? Besides continuing to support Office on Macintosh, that is.

[Ripcord]

Originally posted by mstecker
People "wanting to be MS-free" is a lousy reason to invest loads of money in developing a competing product when there's already a perfectly good product on the market. Honestly, what percentage of people who want VPC won't use it anymore because it's owned by Microsoft? Very few, I'd imagine.

No, I don't want VPC because it apparently won't run on the system I ordered. And I suspect strongly that MS will make only a half-hearted attempt to resolve this, and we'll continue to see these sorts of problems until VPC for Mac (and PC) evaporate.

The license revenue for potential Windows licenses is nothing compared to VPC's ability to make it easier to break the desktop OS monopoly... Which is the cornerstone of all of their money...

[dguisinger]

This doesn't seem to hard. From the excepts I have seen, it appears it is a memory interface instruction, handling loads and stores. This is actually very important. It means instead of a word being 11111111 00000000, it is 00000000 11111111.

However, notice its a mode the processor can slip into that makes it transparent, therefore a pair of 3 MOV instructions (or a SWAP if its available) aren't needed.

However the solution is obvious. Instead of swapping bytes when you read or write it......swap them when you LOAD them or SAVE them to/from disk or exchange the bytes with Mac OS X drivers.

For example, at some point VPC must load instructions or data from disk, by emulating a sector read. With endian switching, all it is is a standard
{
f.Read(buffer,512)
}

however that needs to be changed to
{
f.Read(buffer,512);
Byteswap(buffer);
}

Obviously a software byteswap is expensive....but it gets even better. Storing data on a virtual disk on MacOS X? Why not encode the entire disk pre-swapped?? Doing so would mean only new data would need swaps, or communicating with OS X drivers (such as display). That way, while booting VPC there is no byteswapping to load the several hundred MB of Windows that loads at boot. This is much like .NET....MS will save x86 translated bytecode so that the JIT doesn't need to run after the first time!

This byteswap issue isn't that big..atleast not as big as they want you to think, because its implimented transparently. Since its transparently, there are no instructions called at every swap in their instruction code. It can be handled at their higher level code where it interfaces with Mac OS X.

So I've got to say....MS's note about a year is bull, it could possibly be hacked into VPC.

[saint.duo]

It exists, works well, and is locked up tighter than fort knox at Apple along with marklar and anything else they may cook up in a random day.

You're reasoning behind Apple not releasing it is exactly WHY we'll never see it. Why develop Mac native apps when PC apps run fast enough on Mac hardware?

Personally, I want a copy for myself. ;)

Originally posted by eric_n_dfw B: An Apple "VPC" is like the rumored "red box", seemless Win32 compatibility layer of OS X that never came to be. I doubt it ever existed as it would make no sense for Apple provide it. If Windows app's run "good enough" on OS X, then why would anyone develop native OS X app's any more? Once all of the big app's are no longer running natively, then there's no reason for users to buy OS X when all of their apps run faster on a Windows PC. Do you think Intuit would spend a dime on Quicken for Mac if the Windows version ran on OS X. (then again, a dime may be all they are spending on Quicken! Sorry, had to get an Inuit dig in there!) What about MS Office? After Effects? Photoshop?

[SeaFox]

Originally posted by OSXconvert
Just think: nobody who buys a G5 will be able to run PC programs on it for at least 6 months.

You know, you just hit on something right there. We have this doomsday scenario running around of MS axing the MacBU and just making Mac users run Office under their VPC product.

But they can't do that now.

With VPC G5 incompatable, MS can't discontinue MacOffice, because then there will be no way to run Office on a G5! Besides the loss in Office sales of any sort to Mac users, they will have taken the standard in office productivity apps and made it incompatable with every platform but their own. An incompatability they would be responsible for having discontinued MacOffice before solving the problems with VPC, the only major Windows-on-Mac emulation program available.

How does that sound for unfair marketing practices?

[SeaFox]

Originally posted by OSXconvert
Think what would have happened to the imaging industry if TIFF, GIF and JPEG had been proprietary. Think what MP3 did for the music creation. Without corporate monopoly control, sound and image creation and transfer have flourished, with thousands of applications seamlessly supporting the standards.

Uh, JPEG is a proprietary format, now. It wasn't when it first came out, but the rights algorithms were bought a few years ago by some group. They started to try charging people licensing fees for it and threatening lawsuits. I think only one ISP actually paid them. Everyone else called their bluff since the format had been in use free for so long.

MP3 is also a proprietary format. But other encoding engines written open source or in such a way to avoid copyrighted material have emerged.

[Sun Baked]

Just the owner (new or old?) taking direct control of a company.

Seems that VPC isn't the only program getting the axe, they seem to have returned a few programs they were reselling to the copyright holders.

www.fwb.com/html/about_fwb_changes.html

If you look at the scanned pages Mark Hurlow (President) and Marko Kostyrko (CEO) were the people holding and/or controlling the stock they used to take over the company.

Something definitely was happening behind the scenes.

[judith]

You know, tell me that in the future no Photoshop will exist for the Mac platform, and I'll effin' freak, but no "MS/windows applications" Who really cares??
Mac apps are far superior. Yeah, there was IE for Mac, but NOW there is Safari - Who even dares open the IE app anymore, Why would you need to? (come-on give me one good reason) I don't understand why 'no VPC' is a loss?? I'm so confused!:confused: You all make it sound like living with a G5, and without MS would hurt somehow?
Sure sounds dreamy to me...

[elmimmo]

Originally posted by ralphh
I avoid buying their products, or adding momentum to their abuse and monopolization of standards by using even their free stuff.

Even if that leaves you with the only option to use a load of crap? (which is not the case nowadays in the browser front, but was when only IE or N were there).

That is an option. Mine is to use whatever is best.

[hvfsl]

Does anyone know if realpc works (the old version) in classic mode on the G5 since I don't think it has any G3/4 optimisations.

[eric_n_dfw]

Originally posted by saint.duo
It exists, works well, and is locked up tighter than fort knox at Apple along with marklar and anything else they may cook up in a random day.

You're reasoning behind Apple not releasing it is exactly WHY we'll never see it. Why develop Mac native apps when PC apps run fast enough on Mac hardware?

Personally, I want a copy for myself. ;) So, why would Apple have invested the time and money in developing the mythical "Red-box" if they never intended on releasing it?

The only windows compatibility mode that I would beleive exists is in Marklar, and I'd venture to bet that it would be WINE based. Or at least it would work a lot like WINE.

[eric_n_dfw]

dguisinger had an interesting (and suprisingly "on topic" :) ) post. I think the caching of "byte-swapped" data has potential, but it introduces a lot of complexity when you send a file to another PC or even to the Mac. Do you swap the bytes back whenever you put it on the network? WHat about when you mount the virtual drive from OS X?

Also, is x86 little-endian bytewise or bitwise? (or both?)

If it's bitwise (which I think it is), now we're talking about much more complexity than simple swapping bytes. I haven't done assembler in years and my C bitwise operations are a bit rusty; does anyone know if there is hardware support for doing a big -> little endian bit conversion in 1 cycle? And even if there is, you're looking at as much as double the clock cycles on non-converted memory.

[Sun Baked]

Originally posted by hvfsl
Does anyone know if realpc works (the old version) in classic mode on the G5 since I don't think it has any G3/4 optimisations. It's not a classic vs. OS X problem -- there is either a CPU mode that VPC takes advantage of, or a CPU instruction that it's using.

Look's like the endian shift between the PC and Mac is thrust back out front, at least as far as VPC is concerned.

[OSXconvert]

Originally posted by SeaFox
Uh, JPEG is a proprietary format, now. It wasn't when it first came out, but the rights algorithms were bought a few years ago by some group. They started to try charging people licensing fees for it and threatening lawsuits. I think only one ISP actually paid them. Everyone else called their bluff since the format had been in use free for so long.

MP3 is also a proprietary format. But other encoding engines written open source or in such a way to avoid copyrighted material have emerged.

You make some good points, SeaFox, but my point is still valid. That even though the formats are proprietary, the licensing scheme is either very equitable and/or the standard is open enough so other developers can read and write to it seamlessly. Word has a similar level of penetration as JPEG does--just about everybody uses it--and many competing developers have tried to reverse engineer the file format to decent levels of compatibility. But you cannot trade files back and forth, making edits and expect the formatting data to be consistent.

When you have such a large monopoly like Microsoft does and the deep pockets to squash any competitor then the public's interest is harmed. Control the standards and software infrastructure and you are the gatekeeper. Remember when Corel had an office suite for Linux? They were one of the first big players to step up to the plate. Microsoft bought it out. They were very smart: marginalize the platform by keeping it un-user-friendly. I know this subject seems to be becoming another rant on Microsoft--it's a very easy target--but I think it's important to discuss this. Let's face facts: any platform that does not have a totally seamless communication with Microsoft Office cannot be a viable platform for business. As Mac users, we hate the monopoly, but we also have to play by it. Microsoft clearly views VPC as a way to kill the Mac Business Unit: consolidate all software development to Wintel and sell VPC and Windows licenses for use on other platforms. It's a smart business move and further handicaps other platforms.

[eric_n_dfw]

Originally posted by OSXconvert
Remember when Corel had an office suite for Linux? They were one of the first big players to step up to the plate. Microsoft bought it out.As I remember it, Corel Office (which consisted of WordPerfect, Lotus 123 and some other packages) was killed by other means. My wife's (then girl-friend's) Acer 486sx machine came with it. That's when MicroSoft started telling vendors that they basically had to package MS Office with machines or else they would pull their Windows 3.x licenses (or charge a lot more for them). The DOJ slapped them down for it, but the damage had already been done. WP and Lotus never recovered. (This, IMO, is much worse that the silly browser wars of the late 90's)

BTW, it's being said here that JPEG is owned by someone. Are you sure you don't mean GIF? I had not heard about any JPEG ownership, but GIF licensing issues have been around for years (going back to when CompuServe owned GIF, Unisys owns it now I think) This is why PNG is big on Linux - and hopefully soon on Mac and Windows.

[ClimbingTheLog]

Do some research, people. Try Google.

The pseudo little-endian mode was in all the PowerPC's but it sucked until the G3.

VPC4 was the first version to use it, and required a G3 or G4 processor.

So, Virtual PC 1,2,and 3 all had byte-swapping code in them, and they worked just fine. If Microsoft wanted to, they could dust off the source-code CD for version 3 and have a perfectly fine byteswapper already done for VPC.
If I were then, I'd take a couple days and altivec-enhance it first.

This is all in Connectix press releases.

[eric_n_dfw]

Originally posted by ClimbingTheLog
Do some research, people. Try Google.

The pseudo little-endian mode was in all the PowerPC's but it sucked until the G3.

VPC4 was the first version to use it, and required a G3 or G4 processor.

So, Virtual PC 1,2,and 3 all had byte-swapping code in them, and they worked just fine. If Microsoft wanted to, they could dust off the source-code CD for version 3 and have a perfectly fine byteswapper already done for VPC.
If I were then, I'd take a couple days and altivec-enhance it first.

This is all in Connectix press releases. I'd venture to guess that the code from version 3 is sufficiently different for 4,5 and 6 that just "dusting it off" is a bit pie-in-the-sky.

As I've said MS couldn't give a crap about VPC for Mac, they bought it forthe tech in VPC for Windows. Connectix probably knew that the 970 would lack this little-endian mode and sold the whole kit and caboodle to avoid having to deal with it. (can you blame them?)

MS *will* probably implement the same kind of bit swapping that VPC 3 had. Connectix probably could have done the same in less time --- because they gave a damn! But MS will probably not put a lot of resources behind it.

Hell, maybe the 980 chip will have this mode (anyone out there know?) and they'll wait for it to come out -- effectively screwing all of the early G5 adopters.

[mattmack]

Originally posted by eric_n_dfw
You know, Apple pretty much did that with iDVD.

[edit] ... and iTunes. Buying the company and utilizing the technology is one thing. Buying the company to no longer support the product just because they are your competion is another (peoplesoft v. Oracle)

[SeaFox]

Originally posted by OSXconvert
You make some good points, SeaFox, but my point is still valid. That even though the formats are proprietary, the licensing scheme is either very equitable and/or the standard is open enough so other developers can read and write to it seamlessly.

I dunno. I remember all those early mp3 encoders. Lots of the writers were in hot water for not obtaining premission to write mp3 software based around Faunhoffer's format. They had to stop distributing the software. But the products still write decent mp3 files today. Most don't work simply because of not being updated for compatability with new OS versions. But unlinke mp3 (or most audio formats), Word's format is still being updated and changed. And working with older versions is a hassle sometimes. Like everytime Word offers to update a Word 6 file to Word 97 format when you make changes.

Word has a similar level of penetration as JPEG does--just about everybody uses it--and many competing developers have tried to reverse engineer the file format to decent levels of compatibility. But you cannot trade files back and forth, making edits and expect the formatting data to be consistent.

One of the few reasons I use MS Word even though I prefer Appleworks.

Remember when Corel had an office suite for Linux? They were one of the first big players to step up to the plate.

I think Corel's decision to release an Office suite for Linux had much to do with the fact they had their own Linux distro.

[Rower_CPU]

Browser/GIF/PNG discussion here (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=36847)

[prodco]

anyone tried this yet?....

http://www.openosx.com/wintel/index.html

I'm surprised it hasn't made the front page.

It seems much faster than VPC on a dual G4 be interested to see what the G5 optimisations are

[prodco]

doesn't microsoft have a 20% stake in Apple anyway that they bought way back when, meaning all the conspiracy-theory on Microsoft would be a little counter productive?

just my english 2pence worth

[Chealion]

Prodco - WinTel is just Bochs with a wrapping and a price tag. And from all reports Bochs is dog gone slow.

[ClimbingTheLog]

Originally posted by prodco
doesn't microsoft have a 20% stake in Apple anyway that they bought way back when, meaning all the conspiracy-theory on Microsoft would be a little counter productive?

just my english 2pence worth

That question is wrong in so many ways. Go look it up on Google.