Clarification: Virtual PC 2004? [Archive]

jimthorn

Nov 7, 2003, 04:46 PM

Originally posted by ITR 81
Because if they do that means I'll have to get last version which from what I hear crashes a good bit.

I run VPC 6.1 on my Mac at work all day every day and it has never crashed on me ever. Now I'm not saying it's fast, but it does seem as stable as a real PC. :)

I would imagine the Mac version of VPC2004 may be held up so they can implement G5 support, which may take a bit of time.

And you should be able to install any x86-based OS, but VPC2004 may not have wizard support for Linux and other non-Windows OSs. But of course, anyone running Linux should be bright enough to install it without a wizard (and probably wouldn't want to anyway).

the_mole1314

Nov 7, 2003, 04:53 PM

Could someone explain why you would want to emulate Windows on Windows if XP has it built in to emulate old applications?

macFanDave

Nov 7, 2003, 04:54 PM

when they can actually stop anti-competitive behavior?!

Is the Bush Administration so stupid or so corrupt that the MicroShaft purchase of Connectix' Virtual PC assets went unnoticed by the relevant agencies?

It is so obvious that the ability of Mac users to run PC software (albeit sluggishly) takes a chunk out of the PC makers market. Currently, it is a tiny chunk, but MicroShaft's choking off the development of this technology is an illegal practice to benefit their Wintel partners.

We've got to get rid of these crooks!

SiliconAddict

Nov 7, 2003, 05:00 PM

Originally posted by the_mole1314
Could someone explain why you would want to emulate Windows on Windows if XP has it built in to emulate old applications?

Well first off on Windows it wouldn't be emulation. The only emulation you have on VPC is the CPU. XP's method of running older apps is seriously misunderstood. They try and trick an app into seeing XP's environment as DOS, 9x, NT, etc. They don't actually emulate anything. The reason you would want such a thing is pretty simple. XP is good at running older apps. Its far from perfect. To get people to upgrade to XP they will offer VPC allowing users full backward compatibility with their old apps.
There is also a legit reason for software developers. Allowing you to run a 95, 98, ME, NT, 2K, XP environment right there on your desktop and checking for backwards compatibility is a whole heck of a lot easier then either using another box or rebooting into another OS.

daveL

Nov 7, 2003, 05:02 PM

Originally posted by jimthorn
I run VPC 6.1 on my Mac at work all day every day and it has never crashed on me ever. Now I'm not saying it's fast, but it does seem as stable as a real PC. :)

I would imagine the Mac version of VPC2004 may be held up so they can implement G5 support, which may take a bit of time.

And you should be able to install any x86-based OS, but VPC2004 may not have wizard support for Linux and other non-Windows OSs. But of course, anyone running Linux should be bright enough to install it without a wizard (and probably wouldn't want to anyway).
Why run Linux in an x86 emulator when you can run it on native PPC: YellowDog, Mandrake, etc. YellowDog Linux for PPC is nearly identical to RedHat distros for x86.

I don't think the performance improvements that MS is likely to make to VPC would provide much benefit to Linux away.

bitfactory

Nov 7, 2003, 05:12 PM

Originally posted by daveL
I don't think the performance improvements that MS is likely to make...

giggle...giggle...

SiliconAddict

Nov 7, 2003, 05:18 PM

Originally posted by macFanDave
when they can actually stop anti-competitive behavior?!

Is the Bush Administration so stupid or so corrupt that the MicroShaft purchase of Connectix' Virtual PC assets went unnoticed by the relevant agencies?

It is so obvious that the ability of Mac users to run PC software (albeit sluggishly) takes a chunk out of the PC makers market. Currently, it is a tiny chunk, but MicroShaft's choking off the development of this technology is an illegal practice to benefit their Wintel partners.

We've got to get rid of these crooks!

:rolleyes: *sighs* You guys spout out this kind of junk without knowing the background of the REASON they purchased VPC.
The REASON is their server line. No one is migrating from NT or 2K Adv Server because of the apps created around that architecture. MS is in a bind because of this. So along comes VPC that does a dang good job of not just emulating a CPU but running virtual sessions of OS’s.

Any light bulbs going on as to why MS was interested in VPC yet?

You can bet the server version of Longhorn will have VPC software integrated into the OS allowing these apps to easily run on future versions of Windows. Also I’m starting to suspect that Longhorn itself will have sandboxed version of the 9X and NT environments to allow tighter sec on longhorn while allowing backwards compatibility with the hundreds of thousands of apps out there.
Is it possible MS is also screwing apple over? Yes. But to them it’s a side benefit to acquiring VPC.

I'm not so worried about VPC as I am with MS Office. There is always the possibility of someone coming along and creating a another emulator for the Mac. The same can't be said of Office. I fear if Apple's market share starts growing they will Ax Office and like it or not there are people that won't use the Mac without MS Office.

Vanilla

Nov 7, 2003, 05:59 PM

" I fear if Apple's market share starts growing they will Ax Office and like it or not there are people that won't use the Mac without MS Office."

Why would Microsoft decide to kill Office X if more people started buying it?

Ultimately Microsoft is a software house, their interest is surely domination of the software market, irrespective of what hardware platform it resides on, as seen by their exploration into cell phones and the PDA market to name but two.

If I have misunderstood you I apologise in advance but in my opinion you are confusing hardware platforms with software.

Now if Apple decided to market an updated version of AppleWorks that gained in popularity then Microsoft would indeed quite possibly withdraw Office X support in retaliation, but in the meantime I would think they are more than happy with the current situation.

Vanilla

mustang_dvs

Nov 7, 2003, 06:27 PM

Originally posted by Vanilla
Why would Microsoft decide to kill Office X if more people started buying it?

Ultimately Microsoft is a software house, their interest is surely domination of the software market, irrespective of what hardware platform it resides on, as seen by their exploration into cell phones and the PDA market to name but two.

If I have misunderstood you I apologise in advance but in my opinion you are confusing hardware platforms with software.

Now if Apple decided to market an updated version of AppleWorks that gained in popularity then Microsoft would indeed quite possibly withdraw Office X support in retaliation, but in the meantime I would think they are more than happy with the current situation.

Actually, Microsoft is most interested in it's bottom line. If Office 2004 encourages WIntel users to upgrade to XP, then it boosts their bottom line much more than if a Mac user decides to upgrade from Office 2001 to Office v.X.

With the death of IE Mac (praise the lord) and the slow-poke pace of development for WiMP 9 Mac (ugh, again), the only product the Mac Business Unit produces is Office Mac.

Think about it, Microsoft could axe the Mac BU, save on that payroll, and force a number of Mac Office users to either switch to a competing Mac product (which there is none) or switch to Windows, which would ultimately add much more to Redmond's bottom line.

Furthermore, it would put the squeeze on Apple a little more, which Redmond considers a good thing. Apple is eating into it's DRM wrapper WMA licenses, OS hardware licenses and business license sales.

bousozoku

Nov 7, 2003, 06:34 PM

I already saw VPC 2004 on amazon.com's website late last week.

Considering what they're doing on the PC, I'll be surprised if it runs anything but Windows XP. They've already made it difficult to run OS/2, Linux, or Netware with it.

Oh well, is anything a surprise from Microsoft?

SiliconAddict

Nov 7, 2003, 06:56 PM

Originally posted by bousozoku

Oh well, is anything a surprise from Microsoft?

Sadly...no. We can thank the Justice department for that. :rolleyes:

eclipse525

Nov 7, 2003, 07:05 PM

Let's not forget the corporate environments of Mixed Mac & Windows machines. Usually Windows out numbering Mac's in that area. With that said, Mac's HAVE TO use MS Office. Mainly because all the account people OR basically the majority of the company is using it. No choice at that point.

~e

manu chao

Nov 7, 2003, 07:17 PM

Originally posted by daveL
Why run Linux in an x86 emulator when you can run it on native PPC: YellowDog, Mandrake, etc. YellowDog Linux for PPC is nearly identical to RedHat distros for x86.

I don't think the performance improvements that MS is likely to make to VPC would provide much benefit to Linux away.

davel, can you tell me whether Linux apps written and compiled for Linux on Intel/AMD can run on Yellowdog Linux for PPC or whether they have to be recompiled or even modified substantially?

I am asking, since if this would work, one could easily port Mac programs, if OS X would be ported to another processor. (Just curious)

DaMacGuy

Nov 7, 2003, 08:32 PM

From what I understand the reason VPC won't work on the G5 is a technical issue with the G5.

The previous generations of PowerPC processors (601, 603, 604, G3, G4) all have the ability to switch the 'little indian' (it's a mathmatical term which I can't remember correctly - flame away :rolleyes: ). From what I read the PowerPC usually has this off, while Intel based processors have this on (or its the otherway around). But the PowerPC can switch it on and off as needed.

One of the original designers of the PowerPC (from either IBM or Moto, I can't remember) moved to Connectix and helped develop VirtualPC since he knew the inside scoop on the PPC.

But the G5 doesn't have the ability to switch this setting. It doesn't help that VPC is written at very low level, so whenever there's a major change in the architecture there are 'issues'.

I think Connectix get's the "Best Screwed MS" award for this year. They knew a major architechture change was coming, they knew MS wanted their virtual desktop to compete against Citrix and others. MS bought VPC for one reason, but inherited all the flack they're going to get for seemingly killing (or delaying) a Mac version of VPC.

For the meat of the technical issues I mentioned go ask an Ars Technica geek, sorry. :cool:

ffakr

Nov 7, 2003, 11:46 PM

Originally posted by DaMacGuy
From what I understand the reason VPC won't work on the G5 is a technical issue with the G5.

The previous generations of PowerPC processors (601, 603, 604, G3, G4) all have the ability to switch the 'little indian' (it's a mathmatical term which I can't remember correctly - flame away :rolleyes: ). From what I read the PowerPC usually has this off, while Intel based processors have this on (or its the otherway around). But the PowerPC can switch it on and off as needed.

hehe, little indian
:D
That's hilarious. I'm not flaming though, it's hard to find info on endian issues unless you take a programming class. It's still hilarious though.. ;)

x86 processors are little endian. It refers to their byte order, think of it as reading left to right or right to left.

A lot of RISC chips (including the PPC) are big endian, the opposite of x86 PCs. The first PPCs had a special mode called psuedo-little endian mode which sped up emulation quite a bit. Unfortunately the G5 does not support pseudo-little endian mode so it has to do it the hard way. I assume they'll have to put everything into buffers and do a bit flip on them. ick.

big-endian from webopedia (http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/b/big_endian.html)

ZildjianKX

Nov 8, 2003, 12:22 AM

Originally posted by ffakr
hehe, little indian
:D
That's hilarious. I'm not flaming though, it's hard to find info on endian issues unless you take a programming class. It's still hilarious though.. ;)

x86 processors are little endian. It refers to their byte order, think of it as reading left to right or right to left.

A lot of RISC chips (including the PPC) are big endian, the opposite of x86 PCs. The first PPCs had a special mode called psuedo-little endian mode which sped up emulation quite a bit. Unfortunately the G5 does not support pseudo-little endian mode so it has to do it the hard way. I assume they'll have to put everything into buffers and do a bit flip on them. ick.

big-endian from webopedia (http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/b/big_endian.html)

Damn, beat me to it.

I was always taught in my computer architecture classes that PPC chips are both big and little endian, but in retrospect they were probably referring to the little endian support that the G5s are lacking.

Its going to be a horrendous mess re-writing the code for it... but on the up side if they write it correctly, there might be a huge speed increase... on the downside it might get slower and there could be a G5 only version...

Vanilla

Nov 8, 2003, 03:34 AM

Originally posted by mustang_dvs
Actually, Microsoft is most interested in it's bottom line. If Office 2004 encourages WIntel users to upgrade to XP, then it boosts their bottom line much more than if a Mac user decides to upgrade from Office 2001 to Office v.X.

With the death of IE Mac (praise the lord) and the slow-poke pace of development for WiMP 9 Mac (ugh, again), the only product the Mac Business Unit produces is Office Mac.

Think about it, Microsoft could axe the Mac BU, save on that payroll, and force a number of Mac Office users to either switch to a competing Mac product (which there is none) or switch to Windows, which would ultimately add much more to Redmond's bottom line.

Furthermore, it would put the squeeze on Apple a little more, which Redmond considers a good thing. Apple is eating into it's DRM wrapper WMA licenses, OS hardware licenses and business license sales.

So in summary you are saying that Microsoft perceive the PC market as having more profit potential than the Mac environment, hence there is a possibility they will switch resources away from Office v.X and into the Office 2004. Possibly, but I don't buy it for two reasons:

1. The Mac environment provides a perfect opportunity to test out new functionality prior to launching in the main PC market. The current Office v.X is an example of this (e.g. the transparency control in PowerPoint). If Apple market share remains depressed priority will naturally be increasingly focused on the PC market with an Office v.X version upgrade cycle significantly less than the PC version, though they will continue with Mactopia as i/revenue is revenue and ii/as I said before, Apple market is a good niche testing ground.

2. Frankly all sales from wherever it comes from is good revenue. If conversely Office v.X sales increased due to an improving Apple market share as increasing numbers of Win users switched and saught their familier Office apps, then surely it would be bizarre for Microsoft to kill this burgeoning revenue stream in a fit of pique? Particularly as Office v.X professional comes bundled with VPC (and hence a windows licence) Microsoft are in my opinion regarding Mactopia as a means of protecting & potentially expanding their revenue streams.

In my opinion the only scenario I could see for a change in attitude in the current climate would be if Apple produces a competitive product (perhaps by upgrading AppleWorks). Ceasing development of Office v.X in retaliation would not be a surprise, as happened with IE when Safari was launched.

They would do this because the Apple market is significant enough to maintain a niche presence but not large enough to warrant any effort to counter a competitive presence.

Interestingly, IF Apple market share significantly expanded, causing a majority of Office revenue to come from the Apple Market, any competitor (e.g. AppleWorks) would be aggressively countered through pricing/increased functionality etc. to ensure Microsoft maintained their market dominance in the Apple market.

As an Apple fan I look forward to this last scenario being realistically considered by Microsoft.

Vanilla

Sol

Nov 8, 2003, 03:40 AM

Now this may be a little naive on my part but I hope that the X-Box 2 PPC deal will lead to an optimised x86 emulator for OS X, assuming that backwards compatibility will be a feature of the console.

I think Microsoft has a lot to gain from a good x86 emulator on the Mac. For one, they can sell more Windows clients that way. They can also stop developing Office X and focus on the Windows version.

AhmedFaisal

Nov 8, 2003, 10:33 AM

Didn't Transmeta develop a technology called code morphing that allowed the Crusoe to work with any kind of code with almost no loss of processing power? If so, wouldn't that make Transmeta a perfect takeover candidate for the IBM Microprocessor Unit? Transmeta is almost dead anyways so I'd rather see them taken over by IBM than by Intel cuz Intel would probably just lock up the technology so no one gets a chance to eat into their marketshare by making code compatible CPUs.
Regards,

Ahmed

kherdin

Nov 8, 2003, 12:16 PM

Originally posted by AhmedFaisal
Didn't Transmeta develop a technology called code morphing that allowed the Crusoe to work with any kind of code with almost no loss of processing power? If so, wouldn't that make Transmeta a perfect takeover candidate for the IBM Microprocessor Unit? Transmeta is almost dead anyways so I'd rather see them taken over by IBM than by Intel cuz Intel would probably just lock up the technology so no one gets a chance to eat into their marketshare by making code compatible CPUs.
Regards,

Ahmed

Yes, Transmeta has such a technology. However, to note, this technology is designed to only emulate the x86 architecture ON their own chips.

They did this to basically be able to make their chips simpler, with fewer instructions, so some of the more complex x86 ones would be done in "software" mode with the simpler native instructions. As a result, their chips can have fewer transistors, and thus dissipating less heat.

The fact that they designed this so centric to x86 emulation on their platform means that it would be almost impossible to port to another platform, which was not designed to use this emulation. Although the opposite was always speculated/rumored of this technology, it has been stated publicly by Transmeta that that's not how it works.

daveL

Nov 8, 2003, 01:55 PM

Originally posted by manu chao
davel, can you tell me whether Linux apps written and compiled for Linux on Intel/AMD can run on Yellowdog Linux for PPC or whether they have to be recompiled or even modified substantially?

I am asking, since if this would work, one could easily port Mac programs, if OS X would be ported to another processor. (Just curious)
For obvious reasons, x86 Linux software will not run unaltered on PPC. Linux software for PPC has to be re-compiled for that platform, although it's a pretty straightforward process. There are mechanisms similar to Fink that automate most of the build process. YellowDog is actually authorized to sell Mac hardware with YellowDog Linux pre-installed. There's also MOL (Mac on Linux), which allows you to run OS X on top of Linux, either in a X11 window or full screen, with near native performance.

ffakr

Nov 8, 2003, 04:17 PM

Originally posted by kherdin
Yes, Transmeta has such a technology. However, to note, this technology is designed to only emulate the x86 architecture ON their own chips.

They did this to basically be able to make their chips simpler, with fewer instructions, so some of the more complex x86 ones would be done in "software" mode with the simpler native instructions. As a result, their chips can have fewer transistors, and thus dissipating less heat.

The fact that they designed this so centric to x86 emulation on their platform means that it would be almost impossible to port to another platform, which was not designed to use this emulation. Although the opposite was always speculated/rumored of this technology, it has been stated publicly by Transmeta that that's not how it works.

actually, this isn't accurate. The design isn't x86 centric at all.
Transmeta chips are VLIW processors, just like the Itanium. From an architectural or ISA standpoint, they don't look ANYTHING like x86 processors. I'm not sure about the first versions, but the upcomming transmeta processors will be 256bit cpus (VLIW means very long instructional words, where RISC is _supposed_ to have simple instructions, and CISC is supposed to have more complex instructions, VLIW is supposed to have very complex instructions)

Anywho... there is a software layer that translates x86 machine code to the Transmeta VLIW architecture. This is what they brought Linus Torvalds in for.
Transmeta could just as easily run PPC code on one of their chips, they just need to design a new software layer.

Personally, I'd love to see IBM work with transmeta to make PPC compatable chips that ran super cool. I'd be nice to add to the arsenal. Transmeta certainly isn't doing too well in the x86 markets. Intel keeps the super low power pentium3s around to compete.
Imagine a dual processor Transmeta notebook from Apple, one which could switch to x86 support on one of the CPUs when you opened your Windows Emulator. :-) THAT would kick ass.

manu chao

Nov 8, 2003, 06:09 PM

Originally posted by ffakr

Personally, I'd love to see IBM work with transmeta to make PPC compatable chips that ran super cool. I'd be nice to add to the arsenal. Transmeta certainly isn't doing too well in the x86 markets. Intel keeps the super low power pentium3s around to compete.
Imagine a dual processor Transmeta notebook from Apple, one which could switch to x86 support on one of the CPUs when you opened your Windows Emulator. :-) THAT would kick ass.

That would be cool indeed, the question is whether a Transmeta chip would be faster than a 7447. If Transmeta is competing with PIIIs this would confirm what I have heard that they are rather a bit slower than Pentiums.

macrumors12345

Nov 8, 2003, 08:08 PM

Originally posted by SiliconAddict
The same can't be said of Office. I fear if Apple's market share starts growing they will Ax Office and like it or not there are people that won't use the Mac without MS Office.

Yeah, I occasionally worry about this too. The people who say "MSFT is only interested in making more sales, so they wouldn't cut it" don't have it right. Well, they have it half-right - MSFT's end goal *is* to make as much profit as they can, but they are willing to take a long term view on this. They are not stupid, and they realize that by far their most valuable asset is their monopoly position, so reinforcing this position is always their first priority (you can't abuse it if you don't have it!). Contrast this too Apple's pricing strategy in the 80's and early 90's, which made a ton of short-term profit but ultimately turned out to be a bad idea (because they ultimately lost market share, and MSFT gained it, which over the long term has allowed MSFT to gouge far more profit than Apple ever did).

However, if Apple actually gained significant market share (haha, that will be the day...I'm a Mac user, but I'm still realistic!), it would present MSFT with a very interesting dilemma, and I'm not sure how they would react. Remember, the revenue is not so important, keeping the monopoly position is. But, the thing is, they actually have 2 monopolies - one in the OS mkt and one in the office productivity software mkt. Dropping Office for Mac would reinforce their monopoly in the OS market but weaken their monopoly in the office productivity software market (since it would open up opportunities for another office package to establish itself on the Macintosh platform, and then that package could try to seriously undercut MSFT on price on the Windows platform...sorta like Star Office, but more successfully). So which monopoly would be more important to MSFT? I'm not actually sure. I think the Office monopoly may actually generate more revenue (but maybe not, I don't know), but the OS monopoly is nice because it lets you screw over other software developers whenever you feel like it (which is quite often, in MSFT's case). So it's not clear to me. Back in the good old days when the DOJ was not in bed with the MSFT executives, one of the remedies suggested was to split MSFT into three companies (Windows, Office, and everything else). Some ppl speculated that if that happened, Gates would actually choose to go to the Office company rather than the Windows company!

ffakr

Nov 9, 2003, 12:34 AM

Originally posted by manu chao
That would be cool indeed, the question is whether a Transmeta chip would be faster than a 7447. If Transmeta is competing with PIIIs this would confirm what I have heard that they are rather a bit slower than Pentiums.

The transmeta chips have been about as fast as PIIIs at similar clocks, but they can be difficult to bench since they only run as fast as they need to for a given task.

For a lot of tasks, a 1GHz Transmeta chip probably wouldn't be quite as fast as a 7447, but they run so cool that it wouldn't be a big deal putting two of them in a big notebook (that is if they can function in smp configs).
I think the real bonus here would be a laptop that could run x86 and PPC code at the same time. :-)

The upcomming chip is supposed to be much faster than previous Transmeta chips. Transmeta Efficeon (http://www.transmeta.com/efficeon/)

Vanilla

Nov 9, 2003, 04:19 AM

Originally posted by macrumors12345
However, if Apple actually gained significant market share (haha, that will be the day...I'm a Mac user, but I'm still realistic!), it would present MSFT with a very interesting dilemma, and I'm not sure how they would react. Remember, the revenue is not so important, keeping the monopoly position is. But, the thing is, they actually have 2 monopolies - one in the OS mkt and one in the office productivity software mkt.

Doesn't the current professional version of Office v.X contain an integrated version of VPC and hence a Windows Licence? In which case surely if your scenario (which I touched on in an earlier posting) ever came true (please [insert your personal diety preference]) then I guess Microsoft would insist that all versions of Office v.X contained VPC, ensuring that the Windows OS maintained its market presence.

Bottom line is I feel that Microsoft's primary aim is to secure software dominance, irrespective of OS platform.

Vanilla

SiliconAddict

Nov 9, 2003, 05:37 AM

Originally posted by manu chao
That would be cool indeed, the question is whether a Transmeta chip would be faster than a 7447. If Transmeta is competing with PIIIs this would confirm what I have heard that they are rather a bit slower than Pentiums.

The older Transmeta chips performance sucked badly. If you've ever had a chance to play with one you will notice that simply opening up an application on even a 1Ghz chip takes a noticeable amount of time. Once the app is open and running speed is decent. Its all in the design of the chip. However the new Astro (Its been renamed to something else due to legal problems because of the Jetson's dog. :rolleyes: ) chip is suppose to be substantially better then the previous gen. I've yet to see benchmarks on it. But AFAIK the chip hasn't even shipped yet even though they have been pounding their chests stating how they are going to blow away the Pentium M. (Shades of Moto there.) Until a final product ships its just grandstanding at this point.

PS- Just remembered the new name. Efficeon. Sounds like a transformer.
:D

SiliconAddict

Nov 9, 2003, 06:00 AM

Originally posted by Vanilla
Doesn't the current professional version of Office v.X contain an integrated version of VPC and hence a Windows Licence? In which case surely if your scenario (which I touched on in an earlier posting) ever came true (please [insert your personal diety preference]) then I guess Microsoft would insist that all versions of Office v.X contained VPC, ensuring that the Windows OS maintained its market presence.

Bottom line is I feel that Microsoft's primary aim is to secure software dominance, irrespective of OS platform.

Vanilla

Well VPC doesn't = Windows license. Going to www.microsoft.com/mac I think its just the VPC software itself not a lic and not a copy of Windows.

As macrumors12345 alluded to it all depends on where their priorities are. IF they see protecting the Windows monopoly as their first and most important goal they will consider sales of Office as secondary and in addition to that since Office for Mac represents a fairly small % of their profits they very well could take that hit if it means recouping market share.
Also consider this. Remember just because a person switches to a Mac doesn’t mean they are going to buy Office and VPC. If enough users don’t purchase these apps there is no real reason to support the Mac.
Finally one last consideration. IMHO Microsoft is the most paranoid company on this planet. IF they see even a potential threat to them they will go after it like a pack of wolves. Witness the browser war. Witness the XBOX. (Do you think MS really wanted to get into the gaming biz? It’s because of the potential of the settop computer taking over one day.) My point is they are predatory and proactive in nature when it comes to protecting their monopoly. They won’t sit around idly and twiddle their thumbs while apple eats away at their market share. If push comes to shove they will kill VPC and Office for Mac.
Yes, admitly this is all speculation at this point and I’m playing devils advocate but it’s a possibility I wouldn’t rule out. At any rate until Apple has a drastic surge in switchers I wouldn’t really worry about MS doing such a thing for now. Get back to me in 2 years when more sec holes have been found, where it’s been 2 years since MS released an OS update. Where Apple may have released 1 or even 2 updates to OS X and where their market share has grown. That will be the time we see where MS’s priorities lie. Windows or Office.

Chris1127

Nov 9, 2003, 09:49 AM

Originally posted by SiliconAddict
Well VPC doesn't = Windows license. Going to www.microsoft.com/mac I think its just the VPC software itself not a lic and not a copy of Windows.

While it's true that VPC != Windows license, Vanilla specifically mentioned Office v. X Pro. From Microsoft's Office v. X Pro page (http://www.microsoft.com/mac/products/officex/howtobuy/howtobuy.aspx?pid=professional), the Pro version includes VPC 6.1 and WinXP Pro. However, the other versions of Office don't include VPC.

Just a bit of clarification. ;)

Vanilla

Nov 9, 2003, 12:02 PM

Originally posted by SiliconAddict
Well VPC doesn't = Windows license. Going to www.microsoft.com/mac I think its just the VPC software itself not a lic and not a copy of Windows.

Well as Chris1127 says, I was talking in terms of the current Professional version of Office v.X which does indeed include a windows licence, but I appreciate there are other flavours.

IF (huge if) Apple did gain significant market share Microsoft would also be receiving a roughly commensurate increase in revenue from Office v.X, as to date it is the key application for Word processing/spreadsheet work/presentation work, particularly for users operating in a mixed environment. Therefore in terms of Office sales Microsoft would be happy.

However in terms of OS sales they may well be a little concerned as more people switched to Apple. Therefore it would surely be a natural move to incorporate VPC/XP in all flavours of Office v.X. Thus they ensure they continue to enjoy increasing sales of their premier software application while securing their OS market share. This also provides a conduit for their other apps (Project, Money etc.) into the Apple market.

I just feel that talk of Microsoft pulling out of the Apple market if a/ Apple has the temerity of doing well or b/Apple doesnt do well at all is a little too black and white.

As I have detailed previously (and of course its only my opinion) I feel Microsoft is in a win-win (scuse the pun) situation regardless of what happens to Apple and satisifies the anti-monopoly authorities to boot.

Vanilla

ahunter3

Nov 10, 2003, 03:31 PM

If I were a Microsoft decision-maker, I would not (have) looked at Connectix VirtualPC and said, "Oh no, this is scary, a means of running our Microsoft operating systems on Mac hardware in emulation". And, in fact, Microsoft did not go off to purchase the product line from Connectix when this was all that VPC was up to.

I think it was the release of VPC for Windows that got them thinking. "Hmm, run Windows XP or 2000 Server as a process in a window of another PC operating system...today that 'other operating system' is one of ours, but is there a 'Virtual PC for Linux' right around the corner?"

Imagine people, geeks, corporations, etc., buying Intel PCs and installing Linux as the primary OS and running VPC for the running of any Windows-only apps. Doesn't this look a lot more scary from a Microsoft perspective than people buying Apple Macintosh computers and running VPC to run Windows-only apps? The Mac + MacOS is competition, but of less current worry to Microsoft than a free OS that will run on the same hardware as Windows.

sccaldwell

Nov 10, 2003, 06:55 PM

I fully expect that if/when Micro$oft releases a version of VPC for the G5, it will either (a) only support XP and higher, or (b) make it much harder to run anything but XP and higher.

Why?

I'd bet that many people running VPC/Mac are using "illegal" installtions of Windows....illegal because either (a) it's a copy that they *do* have legally licensed, but they also have it installed a physical PC, or (b) they "got a copy of Windows 95/98/2000/Me from a friend" to install under VPC.

As I understand it, Windows XP has something in it that helps Micro$oft track licensed versions of XP, and detect duplicate installations of the same license key (all via their online registration process). I know they've done something similar with recent versions of MS Office under Windows.

Allowing or "encouraging" only use of Windows XP (and higher) would help force users of Virtual PC to *also* pay for a Windows license, whereas now I'd guess that a lot of people are either double-using a legal license (which is illegal), or "got a copy from work [or a friend]."

Craig