RealPC to be Updated?

[MacRumors]

MacNN reports (http://www.macnn.com/news/19031) that FWB Software (http://www.fwb.com/) will be resuming development of Real PC -- a PC emulation product for the Mac.

According to the note forwarded by the MacNN reader:

When Microsoft purchased Virtual PC, we decided it was time to re-release an updated version of Real PC & SoftWindows 98 (and shortly XP etc). We had to discontinue the product as the agreement was with Connectix, not Microsoft. If you would like to update your Real PC to a faster, better and more powerful version, give us 30 days to finish the software and you'll be glad you waited." -- FWB



Microsoft acquired (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/02/20030219155858.shtml) Virtual PC from Connectix in February.

[Megaquad]

Now that's a good thing.
I hope emulator will be a lot faster :)

[tgma]

I remember buying RealPC, back in the days when I had a Rex personal organiser, and needed to synchronise it. I could never get it to work satisfactorily on my Powerbook 3400, and found VirtualPC to be much better.

Still good luck to them for returning to support the Mac platform in this way, and hopefully the software will work better this time around.

[Pedro Estarque]

I think MS has a better chance to make the best PC emulation product for obvious reasons, not that they will, however. Competition is always good anyway...

[mcrain]

I'll be happy to have an alternative. VPC was nice, but now that it is owned by the Evil Empire, I think when the time comes, I'll switch again from VPC to RealPC.

[alset]

Thank god. This will keep M$ from letting VPC go all to hell. RealPC was never that great for running Win on a Mac, but at least it'll be an option. Everyone cross your fingers and hope the words "blazing performance" show up in one of their updates.

Dan

[dricci]

I'm glad Microsoft will have some competition on the Mac again.

However, did they say anything about making RealPC Mac OS X native? It'd be kinda pointless to release an OS 9-only product right now.

[macmunch]

Hmm looks like a good year for Mac users not only for the Laptop !

:D :cool:
Little Joke.


Thats very good idea from FWB to continue the RealPC yes it was never very fast but it is a chance to make M$ some fire under there ass !

No, Its better to hope that it is a cocoa App !
I think the the guys from FWB could solve the probs which Connectix never saw like Video implimation (games) or speed ! (faster chip emulation)

It would be a good market for FWB they could make a lots of money there ?

[MacManiac1224]

Does anyone remember the performance of RealPC or Softwindows on their Mac's in the past? Thanks

[Eckslusive]

I'm guessing that RealPC can't run PC games like Age of Mythology...But its just a guess...Can it run games??

[Yujenisis]

I think you folks forget a few things about Microsoft.

Number 1: Microsoft needs Apple...and to a certain but lesser extent Apple needs Microsoft. Apple is Microsoft's only "competition" in the PC industry. Face it.

Number 2: Microsoft wants to make money, and lots of it.

Number 2a: Microsoft *only* makes software for a reason. It doesn't hurt Microsoft at all to possibly canabalize PC sales so that they can sell more software. Thus, the thought that Microsoft will 'discontinue' VirtualPC is silly, if only because Microsoft sees that they can sell MORE copies of Windows to us Mac users-additionally charge more for it because they are also selling the emulator.

Number 3: IF Microsoft discontinues VPC it will 'look' very bad to the rest of the industry and possibly anyone still interested in pursuing anti-trust...it's the same with Microsoft's other software offerings.

Number 4: MacBU, I believe has done a wonderful job with the Macintosh versions of popular Microsoft products. Being someone that switches platforms frequently during the day MacBU's offerings are completely superior to their PC equivilents. It just goes to show you how far a small group of extremely talented people within Microsoft can make all the other parts look bad. I have faith in MacBU even if they do work for Microsoft.

Number 5: Microsoft didn't 'buy' VPC for the sake of buying VPC. What they wanted was Connectix's Virtual Machine technology. They wanted to integrate the ability to run multiple OSes within their Professional server line and also run legacy applications on newer OSes and hardware easily. Getting VirtualPC was just icing on the cake.

Number 6: There is no evidence to support the paranoid and pretty irrational theory that Microsoft 'bought' VirtualPC just to have a Fat Tony to twist Apple's arm. Microsoft stifles the industry, and has caused more destruction to the world than created-but don't always jump to conclusions.

I don't think it should be a big concern that Microsoft will 'kill' VirtualPC...and if it does FWB's announcement means we have alternatives. In addition we have Bochs, and the possibility of a variant of WINE being ported. We wont be left for dead, those of us who depend on compatibility and even the ability to sometimes start up Windows on our Macs.

Call me niave if you will. I think some of us are a little too paranoid. Then again, no one knows until it happens. So I can't say anything for sure and either can anybody else.

I am just going by what I know and by what logic and Microsoft's past moves would dictate.

[littlejim]

This is a great thing. Maybe some smart entrepreneur/company will see the potential market for this product and get some serious development dollar behind it.

I'm a potential customer - VPC is no longer an option for me since the takeover.

[MacManiac1224]

Yujenisis, you said there is a possible port of WINE being ported, do you have a link to the site where they would be doing that? Thanks

[phantommaul]

hi my question is short and simple is it fair to expect openGL support from VPC or realPc soon. because i know lots of people not swiching jusk because of lack of games

[yzedf]

How soon until this runs on OS X? What is the point of emulating something new (Windows XP) on older hardware/software platform?

[fixyourthinking]

That was an interesting message from FWB indeed. Sounds like Connectix "paid off" the competition to stop producing and then may have tried to price fix a little. I don't know if that sounds all that legal.

The upper management of Connectix has no rhyme or reason or forethought. First there was the Quickcam, which was actually a nice cam under Connectix, then there was CVGS, the playstation emulator - which should have been developed for Mac OS X then halted (at first that was promised), then the doublers aren't needed under OS X, then Virtual PC.

What assets do they have left?

By the way, for those that asked. Softwindows in my opinion was superior as it didn't emulate hardware, it instead created a software shell for Windows to run full screen. It played games dismally, but everything else including networking and syncing to PC devices was particularly superior.

[AidenShaw]

We had to discontinue the product as the agreement was with Connectix, not Microsoft.

Hmmm. Hope that they've had their lawyers clear this.

The Rules of Aquisition typically include all the contracts and agreements that are associated with the company and products.

Just because the owner of the IP has changed does not mean that contracts concerning the IP are voided. FWB's agreement with Connectix could easily be enforceable by Microsoft....

[melchior]

yeah, it sounds like some weird and a little shady business goes on at connectix... who knows what kind of bizarre agreements they made...

[springscansing]

Originally posted by MacManiac1224
Does anyone remember the performance of RealPC or Softwindows on their Mac's in the past? Thanks

I do. RealPC was about 3x as fast as Virtual PC... that was back when they were all 1.0 though. Still, RealPC kicked ass.

[GetSome681]

Originally posted by Eckslusive
I'm guessing that RealPC can't run PC games like Age of Mythology...But its just a guess...Can it run games??

windows emulation software will probably "never" be able to run intense 3d games...if you want an actual selection of games, then just build a cheap pc to play them on, and use your mac for everything else.

i don't know the cost of virtual pc, but i know that you could build a cheap pc for less than 300, that would work a million times better than vpc or any other emulation software. sure that doesn't work if you have a laptop and need to use windows on the road, but for games it's the perfect solution.

[Frobozz]

Originally posted by littlejim
VPC is no longer an option for me since the takeover.

Why?

I see this as a favorable turn of events for VPC users, myself included. Microsoft will not stop VPC support for monopoly reasons, nor do they have a financial reason to do so. Some other posts have been right on this-- Microsoft's main concern is making money, and they have the highest margins on Software.

VPC could be improved if the people who engineer the OS's it emulates have control over the code. I don't like MS much more than anyone else, but by using any licensed emulator with an OS pack you're ALREADY supporting them with your dollar. Why shoot yourself in the foot?

VPC was bought by Microsoft because even Microsoft couldn't do the OS emulation/switching that VPC does so better than any other program on the planet. VPC may or may not see speed benefits from this acquisition, but it's no less useful or harmful to you than it was prior.

[Frobozz]

Originally posted by phantommaul
hi my question is short and simple is it fair to expect openGL support from VPC or realPc soon. because i know lots of people not swiching jusk because of lack of games

Then I would suggest a cheap-o $500 Dell that you shamefully hide in a closet to play games. Then get a Mac and proudly display that as your main machine for productivity. The alternative is to do what I do... get a PS 2. I have a healthy and great game collection on the Mac. No, not everything is made for the Mac, but most of the good stuff is. Shadowbane is particuarly great.

[Sol]

Connectix seems like a company with great products but dubious business practices. To read that Real PC and SoftWindows were stopped because Connectix made a deal is a slap in the face for anyone who wants to use Windows on Mac hardware. The great thing about SoftWindows was that it implemented a different approach to running Windows on Macs than Virtual PC did. By paying off the competition Connectix did a disservice to its Mac customers and we were left with a single product to choose from... a single product which has hardly grown and developed.

As for Virtual games Station, Connectix gave Mac gamers hope with what was an outstanding piece of software; even G3 iMacs could run PlayStation games at full speed with it. After legal battles with Sony (which Connectix kept winning) the software was finally sold to... Sony. Needless to say, there is no Virtual Games Station for OS X today.

[tjwett]

will Microsoft eventually take the same action against RealPC as Connectix did? perhaps it won't last long.

[old_macpro]

If I remember correctly, the difference between SoftWindows and VPC was that Softwindows used a modified version of Windows. It had some tuning changes to get it to operate correctly on the Mac Hardware (through the emulator).

VPC on the other hand emulated the hardware itself, so that Windows didn't know the difference. I'm not sure about later versions of Softwindows, but it would be interesting to see if Microsoft would continue the license if they were also selling VPC.

[Snowy_River]

I'm really glad to see this for one simple reason. Not because I think that the 'Evil Empire' is planning the demise of VPC. No, I expect they'll keep it up and going, at least for now. I think this is a good thing because it has been my impression that ever since SoftWindows left the market VPC has stagnated. What motive did they have to push their product forward? I felt that VPC 2 runs faster using Win95 on an old 603 based Mac than VPC 5 runs on a new machine running at three times the clock speed, with four times as much memory. It used to be that every new release of VPC they were announcing speed enhancements (usually comparing their improvements not only to the previous version of VPC but also to the latest version of SoftWindows). But, lately, I don't recall seeing a single announcement about 'improved speed'. It's always about 'New Features', which I have to wonder if they aren't just making VPC into another piece of proverbial 'bloatware'.

But now they have competition again. It'll be a good thing...

[aaroncd]

Number 2: Microsoft wants to make money, and lots of it.

Number 2a: Microsoft *only* makes software for a reason. It doesn't hurt Microsoft at all to possibly canabalize PC sales so that they can sell more software. Thus, the thought that Microsoft will 'discontinue' VirtualPC is silly, if only because Microsoft sees that they can sell MORE copies of Windows to us Mac users-additionally charge more for it because they are also selling the emulator.

OK granted they want to make money, but, and this is a big one, M$'s real income meaning the majority of it, comes from server product liscencing. Yes selling Mac prodcuts makes them $, but not like the amounts they make from Windoze products on a per computer basis. The real $ comes from the business software on those computers, so think that they have Windoze itself, some profit $, then Office, more $, then a client seat on the network, lots of $.

Number 4: MacBU, I believe has done a wonderful job with the Macintosh versions of popular Microsoft products. Being someone that switches platforms frequently during the day MacBU's offerings are completely superior to their PC equivilents. It just goes to show you how far a small group of extremely talented people within Microsoft can make all the other parts look bad. I have faith in MacBU even if they do work for Microsoft.

OK they do decent work, and they are doing pretty well, no disagreements with that, what does scare me is that they arent a seperate company, they take orders from above, and its those orders that we should worry about.

Number 6: There is no evidence to support the paranoid and pretty irrational theory that Microsoft 'bought' VirtualPC just to have a Fat Tony to twist Apple's arm. Microsoft stifles the industry, and has caused more destruction to the world than created-but don't always jump to conclusions.

Well no, no evidence per se, just many many years of a track record of lies, deceipt, and business practices that would make Saddam cringe at the evilness.



Call me niave if you will. I think some of us are a little too paranoid. Then again, no one knows until it happens. So I can't say anything for sure and either can anybody else.

I am just going by what I know and by what logic and Microsoft's past moves would dictate. [/B]
Well M$'s past moves are the scary part, and logic from a conventional point of view doesnt really apply to M$. And remember you aren't paranoid if they are after you.

Aaron

[McKs]

Originally posted by aaroncd
Well no, no evidence per se, just many many years of a track record of lies, deceipt, and business practices that would make Saddam cringe at the evilness.

microsoft bought connectix's Virtual Machine Technology. They wanted this because it allows MS server 2003 and up (that nobody in serverland is upgrading too) to run older MS OSes, like NT. They hope that admins will migrate their working box+NT install to a virtual machine on a 2003 box. This way they wil sell more licenses, and they hope more people will start adopting their .net crap.
An an unfortunate side efect for MS (and for us? time wil tell), they also got VPC with this deal, because it shares the VM technology/patents.

[bignumbers]

Anyone remember Word 6? It sucked, so Corel updated WordPerfect (was it even Corel at that point?). People bought WordPerfect. Microsoft didn't like someone else getting money, so they turned Word into a good app with Word 98. Everyone bought Word, nobody bought WordPerfect, and Corel stopped updating it.

I think that could happen here. Before today, M$ had no reason to do a good job with VPC for Mac. They were the only option. If the new RealPC is any good, M$ won't want to lose money, and they'll make VPC into something better than RealPC.

In the end, M$ will make sure they get our money.

[coolsoldier]

When I got my first Mac, I looked into RealPC and VPC. I eventually decided on RealPC, and was satisfied with it until I migrated to OS X. I switched to Virtual PC 5, which I tried under both 9 and X, and was never satisfied with. Now I use VPC 6. Acceptable, still not exceptional.

One thing I remember about RealPC was the ability to use emulated 3dfx & 3dfx2 cards. (you had to actually have a 3dfx card to use them) The performance was not great, but games would actually run on it. For most tasks, it was slightly slower but more consistent than Virtual PC, but seemed to emulate peripherals better than VPC.

[Judogi]

Originally posted by phantommaul
hi my question is short and simple is it fair to expect openGL support from VPC or realPc soon. because i know lots of people not swiching jusk because of lack of games

Actually, I don't think many of you would remember one of the best features of RealPC... Voodoo support! RealPC could utilize one or two PCI voodoo cards for Glide support in PC games. This was where RealPC shined over VPC, but VPC had much better compatibility with most other Windows apps. I can't personally vouch for Softwindows - I don't know if FWB kept this feature after they bought out Insignia Solutions. But I know that RealPC supported it and it ran well on my 7600 with a 12mb Voodoo2 card. Obviously, my PC still ran faster with the same cards installed, but the Voodoo support allowed RealPC to play games that other emulators couldn't touch. In fact, the sales pitch for RealPC (while it was still Insignia) was "Run PC games shockingly fast on your Power Mac." 'nuff said. I hope FWB will keep this feature or possibly add support for a second PCI video card just for PC games.

[eric_n_dfw]

My first version of VPC (2.x I believe) supported 3Dfx cards too - not that I ever used it.

Here's a web site review saying VPC 2 was better than the then current RealPC:

http://emulation.net/windoze/comparison/

(and we all know that if it's on the web it must be true!!! ;) )

[MacsRgr8]

Originally posted by MacManiac1224
Does anyone remember the performance of RealPC or Softwindows on their Mac's in the past? Thanks

Yes, on a 6100 / 66 and 5400 / 180.
OK, it was a long time ago, but back then I compared Real PC 1.0.4 and VPC 2.0... both running Wondiws 95. I remember preferring Real PC, as it seemd a bit quicker than VPC. After VPC 2.1 came with Windows 98 pre-installed, I never used Real PC again.
I can assure you I will definitely give Real PC a chance!

[MacsRgr8]

Originally posted by bignumbers

In the end, M$ will make sure they get our money.

I will make sure, they're not getting mine... :)

[yumpin yiminy]

i've used both real pc and vpc.
only ran win95 and DOS games on real pc and there weren't any problems doing so. other than the fact that directx games didn't run worth a try, it worked fairly well. but by the time i got vpc with win98 that is when the redraw problems, video refresh gunk became painfully obvious. and by then i just used a windows machine for best performance for windows apps.
i never bothered with the FWB updated realPC, but, if they can improve it, best of fortunes to them.

[madforrit]

Good ol' RealPC. I got it for my PowerCenter Pro210. I even still remember the box...the B&W photo of that guy with his hair sticking up...remember that???
The only PC game I tried to play on it was NBA Live97...yeah I was dying to be able to play EA sports games on my mac....it ran ok but frame rates were just too slow to really enjoy the game. *sniff*
Oh yeah, and I never did get the sound to work...

[iJon]

sounds like they are pretty confident that it will be good. they said 30 days, sounds to me like they have had it done for a while, just waiting for an occasion to come up to release it.

iJon

[matznentosh]

Originally posted by old_macpro
If I remember correctly, the difference between SoftWindows and VPC was that Softwindows used a modified version of Windows. It had some tuning changes to get it to operate correctly on the Mac Hardware (through the emulator).

VPC on the other hand emulated the hardware itself, so that Windows didn't know the difference. I'm not sure about later versions of Softwindows, but it would be interesting to see if Microsoft would continue the license if they were also selling VPC.

The difference between RealPC and VPC was that VPC emulates the underlying hardware, allowing any Intel compatible operating system work on it - I suppose Linux would work on VPC (is there such a version now?). RealPC only mimics the operating system itself. At the time that was still Windows 95.

I wonder how much new code would be required to get RealPC updated to XP and to run within OS X?

[ipiloot]

They still think about PC hardware and PC software.

I believe, that time comes when OSX will contain w32 module to run w32 apps in native mode.

I think that Avie has done a great job as Apples software general.

[awulf]

Virtual PC is very weird with games. I have a game called Skunny Kart and that works at full speed on a 486/DX2 but in Virtual PC 6 the game runs as slow as a slow 286 would run it (since the min specs is a 286). I have a another game called Worms Armageddon, it works at full speed but the mouse goes crazy in the game. I also have two other games called Streets of Sim City and Sim Copter, which run perfectly under VPC.

[Yujenisis]

Originally posted by MacManiac1224
Yujenisis, you said there is a possible port of WINE being ported, do you have a link to the site where they would be doing that? Thanks

There isn't a link. But it is GPL software so the potential is always there. Don't get your hopes up.

Personally, I don't think it's likely (As WINE is for x86 emulation, and they would have to do a lot of work to get it to run on RISC). But it could be done, I just doubt you would get people who would be willing to do it and continue updating it for free. If you want to play games you absolutely have to get a PC. Unfortunate as it may be. It is a reality. Unless the current state of Mac gaming is fine for you, then you can just keep doing what you are doing.

Either that or you can take the plunge into console gaming to fufill your gaming desires.

[davegoody]

Hmmmmmm. If you have a PC AND a Mac, you should download the Remote Desktop Client for the Mac (OSX only I think). Put in the IP address of your PC as the "server" and ensure that it is running terminal services (or WinXP) and voila ! - hey presto you will have a login screen for your PC - log in as usual and you have a FULL SPEED PC running in a window on your Mac. This works for me (though I do not run any games so can't comment on the speed - a fast network connection would help here !) :p :p

[eric_n_dfw]

WINE is not an emulator - an implementation of it on a PPC hardare platform is feasable but would require the Window's applications you want to run to be ported to PPC as well.

This has been talked about a lot here in the past. (here's one 200+ message thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=20499))

Before posting anything else about WINE, we all would do well to read their FAQ (http://www.winehq.com/?page=faq) .

Trivial info: WINE is a recursive acronym (like GNU) for:
Wine
Is
Not an
Emulator.
(source: http://sourceforge.net/projects/wine/ )

[DeltaTee]

I first remember running RealPC (or SoftWindows) on my Original LC. It was so fast that I could hunt and peck faster than DOS edit. Now that is raw power!