Clarification: Virtual PC 2004?

I hope this doesn't mean MS is dropping it?

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

$20 that MS screws over Apple by holding it back for a while due to "technical problems" I'm certain MS will eventually release it due to the fact that they make money off of it but that doesn't mean they won't try to screw over apple just a little.

I hear that the new betas won't allow you to install anything but certain versions of Windows on your VPC anymore... not good news.

Maybe Apple should have bought them out instead of MS or maybe Apple or another company could make another version but not directly connected with MS.

Re: I hope this doesn't mean MS is dropping it?

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.

Click to expand...

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).

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

Where are the anti-trust regulators...

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!

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Re: Re: I hope this doesn't mean MS is dropping it?

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).

Click to expand...

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.

Re: Re: Re: I hope this doesn't mean MS is dropping it?

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

Click to expand...

giggle...giggle...

Re: Where are the anti-trust regulators...

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!

Click to expand...

*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.

" 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

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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?

Originally posted by bousozoku


Oh well, is anything a surprise from Microsoft?

Click to expand...

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

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

Re: Re: Re: I hope this doesn't mean MS is dropping it?

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.

Click to expand...

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)

Reason for no VPC 2004 (for a while)

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 ). 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.

Re: Reason for no VPC 2004 (for a while)

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 ). 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.

Click to expand...

hehe, little indian

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

Re: Re: Reason for no VPC 2004 (for a while)

Originally posted by ffakr
hehe, little indian

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

Click to expand...

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...

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.

Click to expand...

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

The X-Box 2 factor & selling Windows on the Mac platform

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.

A question to the CPU experts here

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

Re: A question to the CPU experts here

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

Click to expand...

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.