MS Office and Virtual PC 6.1

[MacBytes]

Category: Microsoft
Link: Microsoft's Virtual PC 6.1 (free upgrade from 6.0, paid from 5) available tomorrow (Aug. 12) (http://macslash.org/article.pl?sid=03/08/11/1730201&mode=thread)

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

Approved by Mudbug

[MacRumors]

Previous rumors (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/07/20030715111035.shtml) that Microsoft's Mac Office suite would be revamped should come into being by tomorrow.

Microsoft acquired Virtual PC from Connectix (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/02/20030219155858.shtml) in February 2003. According to statements from the Mac software division of Microsoft, continued development for Virtual PC is promised.

Microsoft's acquistion of Virtual PC should be complete by August 15, 2003

Today, Virtual PC customers received emails from Connectix indicating that Virtual PC 6.1 would launch on August 12th. Virtual PC 6.0 users may upgrade for free, while 5.0 customers will be eligble for upgrade pricing.

August 12th is also the rumored date for Microsoft Office revamp - with a new Professional Microsoft Office being offered for the same retail price ($499) as the current version of Office for Mac. The new Professional Version will include Virtual PC as part of the bundle. Office v. X Standard ($399) and Office v. X Student and Teacher ($149) are also expected.

[Mudbug]

Well, it's nice to see that they'll continue to support the software on the mac, since they had the opportunity and the reasoning to kill it. While I'm quite sure this will make legions of M$ enterprise mac users happy since M$ only apps will work that much better and faster, my only response to this that I can think of is: whoopity do. :)

On the good side, it means that many more reasons for switchers to switch, since windows runs on OSX, and OSX doesn't run on windows.

ha ha. (bully laugh from the Simpsons - pointing :))

[buseman]

Does this mean a "new" office or just same sh** with new wrapping?

[esome]

With MS at the helm, there is a good chance that we'll see some real speed improvement. say what you will about their evil monopolistic practices, but the Mac versions of their software are usually pretty good (I still feel guilty saying that).

[coconn06]

Glad to see M$ is actually doing something useful and not using their monopolistic power to completely overrun Mac users. The $149 student edition is great news, though.

[AppleMatt]

Ohhh I wonder what the 6.1 update will bring?

Looks like I'll be shelling out for a new Office too...

AppleMatt

[djcobb44]

Now $149 for the student and teacher addition plus being able to legally install on up to three personal computers is more like it. I might actually purchase a copy and get rid of my pirated version.

[jaedreth]

That's essentially a price reduction, and a new high end product added.

Wow. Never expected the Spanish Inquisition...

With VPC added, the price of Office is IMHO worth it.

Jaedreth

[Billicus]

Sounds like good news to those of you who use Micro$oft Products.

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by esome
With MS at the helm, there is a good chance that we'll see some real speed improvement. say what you will about their evil monopolistic practices, but the Mac versions of their software are usually pretty good (I still feel guilty saying that).

MS is in a unique position to make VPC as fast as possible. And I might even buy the student edition of Office!

[Powerbook G5]

Yeah....I usually pirate MS software out of spite, but I may actually buy this one... :p

[MrMacMan]

I posted this story.

:p

But yeah I thought it was important.

[daveL]

Originally posted by AppleMatt
Ohhh I wonder what the 6.1 update will bring?

Looks like I'll be shelling out for a new Office too...

AppleMatt
If you mine the archives, you'll find a reference to a statement from MS themsleves that says VPC 6.1 is simply a re-branding release, with MS TMs, license verbage, etc. NO new functionality or improvements (except maybe some spyware :-). You'll have to wait for the release in Q4 to see any change/improvements. Having said that, I'll bet a $ to a donut that you'll have to have 6.1 to upgrade to the next release. MS wants to make sure you register the product with them, you know. I do believe that the Q4 release may actually have some substance. Obviously, MS is in a position to make VPC really shine; let's hope that's what they do. I like the fact that current rev 6 users get free updates, so far.

[jaedreth]

But do you see how this is gonna help MS make more $$$?

1) Don't sell VPC as a separate product. It *is* part of Office Pro.

2) Offer lower cost versions of office that *normal* people will buy.

3) Those who *do* buy Office Pro may also buy additional versions of Windows to install on VPC.

$$$$$$$$$

Finally, MS is getting smart about what would motivate a Mac user to depart with his/her cash.

Not that that's necessarily a good thing, come to thing of it...

Jaedreth

[daveL]

Originally posted by jaedreth
But do you see how this is gonna help MS make more $$$?

1) Don't sell VPC as a separate product. It *is* part of Office Pro.

2) Offer lower cost versions of office that *normal* people will buy.

3) Those who *do* buy Office Pro may also buy additional versions of Windows to install on VPC.

$$$$$$$$$

Finally, MS is getting smart about what would motivate a Mac user to depart with his/her cash.

Not that that's necessarily a good thing, come to thing of it...

Jaedreth
As per MS, VPC will continue to be offered as a stand alone product. I seem them monitoring Windows licenses more closely now. I doubt you'll see the cheap PCDOS version from here on out, but I could be wrong.

[jaedreth]

Good to know.

I bet you're right on the DOS part.

However, they are working on Virtual Server, which would *rock* on XServe.

Have an XServe cluster running 10.3 Server and Win Server 2003.

Sweet.

Jaedreth

[Powerbook G5]

Now that would be a selling point. :)

[mac15]

I wonder if they will actually speed up VPC?

[BWhaler]

Originally posted by jaedreth
Good to know.

I bet you're right on the DOS part.

However, they are working on Virtual Server, which would *rock* on XServe.

Have an XServe cluster running 10.3 Server and Win Server 2003.

Sweet.

Jaedreth

Virtual server is dead. It's the whole reason behind the acquisition, and MS would of paid any amount of money to ensure it never sees the light of day.

Exchange server running on Linux? Not a chance in hell.

[daveL]

Originally posted by mac15
I wonder if they will actually speed up VPC?
Well, it seems apparent that MS doesn't want to kill VPC. They are a software company, so they should be HW agnostic. Obviously, they have their hands full just supporting x86. So, I would think they would have every interest in making VPC as fast as possible, since it: a) would lure people to MS software that might not otherwise be interested, and b) mean they don't have to maintain non-x86 versions of their products. I wouldn't be surprised if MS drops Mac-specific software developement and just sells x86 products running on VPC. However, I think they will wait until VPC is improved enough to make MS x86 products run well on the Mac.

Just my take on it. I use VPC 6, when necessary, which isn't very often, these days.

[jaedreth]

Read the entire email on the linked website.

It does specifically state that Virtual Server is still in development for Mac. (Not Linux)

Besides, if Virtual Server ships with Server 2000, and then you have to buy 2003 separately, and of course MS would charge a premium for Virtual Server.

MS only promised continued development for Macintosh.

Jaedreth

[Powerbook G5]

Gotta love MS...always trying to find ways to steal your milk money... :mad:

[el greenerino]

My free trial of Office v.X just ran out so I ordered M$ Word Acedemic for $130 since that's what I mostly use and now I can have all of Office for $150! Man timing is everything...

Anyone know if I can do anything about this like when you could upgrade to Jaguar for $20 if you bought a mac with 10.1 just before the annoucement of Jaguar?

[Nermal]

Contact the place you ordered Word from, explain what's happened, and cancel your order.

[LegionCSUF]

Question to any developers that might be reading: how supposable is it to run Virtual PC (on, say, a current 12" G4 Powerbook, 640MB RAM), run a Windows-based compiler (Visual Studio, or maybe something "lighter"), and develop Windows applications?

I have a PC with a WinXP partition that I can always build milestone builds on, but I'm wondering how possible it is to do the work on a Powerbook through Virtual PC and compile & test builds?

I never expected to be able to do this, but boy it would be a boon for me if it was reasonably possible.

[lazyrighteye]

Hey Mudbug,
Said bully's name would be Nelson... ha ha.

[Golem]

Originally posted by BWhaler
Virtual server is dead. It's the whole reason behind the acquisition, and MS would of paid any amount of money to ensure it never sees the light of day.


Why would they bother with this if that was true?

Email by Microsoft

Virtual Server:
Microsoft is approaching final stages of development with plans
to ship Virtual Server in Q1 2004. If you would like to
participate in the Virtual Server Customer Preview, you can find
more information at:

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/trial/virtualserver.mspx


As for my windows licence I still use the windows 98 that came with a pos PC I owned 5 years ago. Ended up binning the pc and keeping the os cd's

[daveL]

Originally posted by LegionCSUF
Question to any developers that might be reading: how supposable is it to run Virtual PC (on, say, a current 12" G4 Powerbook, 640MB RAM), run a Windows-based compiler (Visual Studio, or maybe something "lighter"), and develop Windows applications?

I have a PC with a WinXP partition that I can always build milestone builds on, but I'm wondering how possible it is to do the work on a Powerbook through Virtual PC and compile & test builds?

I never expected to be able to do this, but boy it would be a boon for me if it was reasonably possible.
You can do it. It will be slower than my TiBook, since you don't have L3 cache, which benefits VPC. I guess you're maxed out on RAM, so nothing you can do there. Just realise it's *not* going to be as fast as a PC. Software builds, if they are big ones, will take longer, no doubt. I think it's really a tradeoff between time and portability. With VPC, you have everything on one, small, portable. Any other solution requires another system. To me, the price in performance for PC apps under VPC is well worth the convenience and portability I gain.

[MisterMe]

Originally posted by BWhaler
Virtual server is dead. It's the whole reason behind the acquisition, and MS would of paid any amount of money to ensure it never sees the light of day.

Exchange server running on Linux? Not a chance in hell. You are correct that Virtual Server was the whole reason behind the acquisition. However, you are dead wrong about M$'s intentions. M$ bought Virtual Server because it needs Virtual Server, not to kill it

Virtual Server is a partial solution to a serious M$ problem. The problem is that its enterprise customers don't trust M$ products. It is common for businesses to wait one or more generations to implement a particular mission-critical M$ software title. That is because they feel that they have to use M$, but the want other poor saps to iron out the bugs before entrusting their businesses to the software. In the current economy, this has taken a major hit on M$ sales.

M$ feels that Virtual Server may save the day. With it, businesses can implement the latest M$ software on more or more virtual machines, which are in turn hosted by an OS that the customer trusts. In this way, the customer "gets the advantage of" the latest M$ offering, while protected by the security blanket of an OS that he trusts. After the customer is satisfied that its new software has been thoroughly field-tested, then he can move it from the virtual machines to the hardware.

The bottom line is that M$ bought Virtual Server because it feels that VS will help it sell more crappy M$ software.

[NavyIntel007]

I think legally, Microsoft would have a really hard time explaining to the E.U. (since the U.S. justice department has their heads up their asses) how buying Virtual PC and killing it is not a bad business practice. It would basically be buying a product and killing it to destroy a competitor.

On the other hand, Microsoft would be stupid NOT to continue development. After all, it sells windows licenses to mac users. My fear is that it becomes bloatware like the rest of their software. With this plan, because Virtual PC is slow, people will assume their macs are slow and may go out and buy PC's. I think this is really Microsoft putting a short leash on Apple saying "gain too much marketshare, and we'll pull the plug."

I think that Real PC (I think that's the name of the other MS emulator) should donate their code to the FSF and opensource it. MS won't let them sell it anyway so why not? That way we can ensure emulation will be availible no matter what Microsoft decides to do.

I personally have no need for Virtual PC. If I needed windows that bad, I'd probably just buy a cheap PC.

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by NavyIntel007
I think legally, Microsoft would have a really hard time explaining to the E.U. (since the U.S. justice department has their heads up their asses) how buying Virtual PC and killing it is not a bad business practice. It would basically be buying a product and killing it to destroy a competitor.

Why would they need to buy it first? Microsoft signed a licensing agreement with Connectix to allow the thing in the first place. If they wanted to kill it, they should have just not signed the agreement!

[fpnc]

I read a post from a VPC user today that said he had talked to a technical support representative at Microsoft who said that VPC was not compatible with the PowerMac G5. That report may or many not be true, but it wouldn't surprise me at all that VPC would not run on the G5 given the many architectural changes in the hardware. In any case, it will be interesting to see how long it takes Microsoft to update VPC for the G5. My guess is -- don't hold your breath (it may be a long time).

[AidenShaw]

Originally posted by MisterMe
With it [Virtual Server], businesses can implement the latest M$ software on more or more virtual machines, which are in turn hosted by an OS that the customer trusts. In this way, the customer "gets the advantage of" the latest M$ offering, while protected by the security blanket of an OS that he trusts.


This is meant to work the other way - the customer runs the latest Windows system (with the latest hardware support) on the hardware.

Applications which need older versions can be run inside the virtual machines with the older O/S versions.

It's not that people don't trust the new software - it's that for some reason or other some of their important software hasn't been updated to the new features.

But the key thing is the "Virtual Server on x86, not PPC" idea - any VPC sales to Mac users is a bonus to the MacBU. Running Virtual Server on top of Windows Server 2003 is the primary mission.

Check out http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/trial/virtualserver.mspx

[LegionCSUF]

Originally posted by daveL
You can do it. It will be slower than my TiBook, since you don't have L3 cache, which benefits VPC. I guess you're maxed out on RAM, so nothing you can do there. Just realise it's *not* going to be as fast as a PC. Software builds, if they are big ones, will take longer, no doubt. I think it's really a tradeoff between time and portability. With VPC, you have everything on one, small, portable. Any other solution requires another system. To me, the price in performance for PC apps under VPC is well worth the convenience and portability I gain.

Well, my requirements for use are being fast enough to use the UI, and building successfully. I don't like typing and having a huge delay in onscreen response, or clicking a menu and waiting for something to happen. Can I deal with longer build times? Sure, no biggie. I don't have a PC laptop, so what's faster: building through VPC or not doing it at all when not at my desktop (and booted into Windows, which my desktop usually is not)?

Sounds like I will give it a shot. I wanted VPC anyway for smaller apps, and I already have Visual Studio, so doesn't hurt to try.

[greenstork]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Why would they need to buy it first? Microsoft signed a licensing agreement with Connectix to allow the thing in the first place. If they wanted to kill it, they should have just not signed the agreement!

I couldn't agree more. All this talk about MS wanting to kill VPC is frankly just nonsense. There is a market for a Windows emulator on a Mac. If MS doesn't own the software, someone else will step in to fill that niche. It's basic supply and demand and MS wants a hand in it to not only control it (can you say spyware) but to profit from it as well.

There will always be some sort of PC emulator software for the Mac as long as 95% of PC's are Wintel boxes. The demand will always be there for a product like this.

[MrMacMan]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Why would they need to buy it first? Microsoft signed a licensing agreement with Connectix to allow the thing in the first place. If they wanted to kill it, they should have just not signed the agreement!

yeah but they were making money off the agreement.

Alone with having to ship a windows CD w/ VPC they also had to pay a fee!



Anyway this better have speed improvements or someone will be hurting... um it should be out for the east coast already... wtf.

:mad:

[jaxbrokenheart]

did anyone check out http://www.microsoft.com/mac/ recently?
on the front page, it says "Free training when you purchase Microsoft Office v. X for Mac from June 15 to August 31."
why would anyone purchase Office X after office 11 comes out? they could call this Office v. X (version 2) or something and the X would just show that it's for OS X. i guess we'll find out soon enough.

EDIT: nevermind, i see that macrumors was just saying that it's a discount on office x, not an upgrade to office

[SiliconAddict]

A couple thoughts and questions. The first pertains to upgrades. Does anyone know if I contacted MS if I could somehow trade in or upgrade my copy of Office XP Special Edition to Office v.X or whatever next version is coming down the pipe? I REALLY don’t wanna shell out more cash on a full blow copy of office if I don’t have to.

Secondly with Virtual PC MS has Apple on a leash with this thing. It’s the whole damned if you do damned if you don’t. Tell me what possible repercussions could occur if Apple’s market share somehow starts climbing again? 5%? 10%? The cash cow, read Windows, ALWAYS overrides secondary software like Office and VPC for Mac. If MS feels threatened they could pull an Internet Exploder with VPC or even Office. This was why I was always an advo for breaking up MS but that’s another discussion.
I’m sorry but I think it was critically stupid on the part of Apple for not actively perusing the purchase of VPC from Connectix. This app is the life blood for anyone who wants to switch and not flush the software investment they made in Windows software. I personally have several thousand in Windows software that I do not want to leave behind.

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by SiliconAddict
Secondly with Virtual PC MS has Apple on a leash with this thing. It’s the whole damned if you do damned if you don’t. Tell me what possible repercussions could occur if Apple’s market share somehow starts climbing again? 5%? 10%? The cash cow, read Windows, ALWAYS overrides secondary software like Office and VPC for Mac.

Each sale of VPC is also one sale of Windows, thus negating your argument.

[mvc]

Originally posted by daveL
I wouldn't be surprised if MS drops Mac-specific software developement and just sells x86 products running on VPC.
Isn't this the real longterm purpose of this whole VPC move - sell what is effectively the entire windows package, with office, explorer et al, all running in XP, with OSX an invisible background app????

Microsoft makes exactly as much money off you as they would if you bought a PC, your computing experience is actually worse as its all an emulation, and the office trolls out there need never even be aware that a whole other superior OS is lurking behind.

And this is good for the Mac exactly how?
Isn't this potentially a giant step backwards for Mac Software?

[abdul]

one thing i want to find out is why is everyone raving on about open-source. i think it obvious that it is a good alternative and cheaper but come-on they take a lot longer to add features.

the opensource programmes that i think are just crap after however many years of people helping to make it. Bochs emulator, this is well slow after all this time. a student at manchester university managed to make a emulator that emulates any os on any chip at about 70% of its speed but no major company (ms/ conn/fwb) still run slower programmes.
also the opensource community which has been working on it for absolutely ages since different os came about still havent got a programme that even emulates at 1/2 the speed.

i was which other opensource emualtor is any good onmac osx

[hokka]

Originally posted by mvc
Isn't this the real longterm purpose of this whole VPC move - sell what is effectively the entire windows package, with office, explorer et al, all running in XP, with OSX an invisible background app????

Microsoft makes exactly as much money off you as they would if you bought a PC, your computing experience is actually worse as its all an emulation, and the office trolls out there need never even be aware that a whole other superior OS is lurking behind.

And this is good for the Mac exactly how?
Isn't this potentially a giant step backwards for Mac Software?

I second that! The only app that crashes on my mac is Office (thank god to OSX it doesn't drag everything else down with it) - if they can't even make one of their flagship software work properly then how am I to esuppose to trust their emulation efforts?

[Ambrose Chapel]

well how about that...M$ actually followed up on that customer survey think secret wrote about awhile back. i wonder if the timing is just to clear out inventory before v11 comes out

[GregA]

I agree with those who said MS will make VPC faster and faster.

There must be a way for them to rewrite parts of Windows to run as native Mac binaries. They'll just pick the bottlenecks and rewrite them.

If MS wanted they could integrate the desktop too.

As a sidenote - has anyone used IE 5.5's remote access to Windows XP Professional? If so how about connecting to XP on VPC? Is it faster this way than a standard VPC screen?

Greg

[ima_pseudonym]

Not sure if it is new with this version or has been around since os x, but did anyone else notice that the graphics on the box have changed from being interlocking pieces of a puzzle, top some sort of multiplying amoeba like blobs?

If we get this thing is it going to start spawning new microsoft software at an exponentially increasing rate and rapidly take over our machines?

I just wanted some productivity apps that fit together nicely, not Malthusian space blobs!

http://www4.macnn.com/macnn/nimages/ms_0812_office_sm.gif

[the future]

I'm always amazed what a big deal VPC seems to be for a lot of people. I don't see the point of it at all, and certainly not as long as it's so horribly, so unbelievably, so frustratingly *slow*. If you really need to run x86 software, get a cheap PC box as a second computer and that's that. But don't forget to hide it when expecting guests...

[Lord Bodak]

Originally posted by the future
I'm always amazed what a big deal VPC seems to be for a lot of people. I don't see the point of it at all, and certainly not as long as it's so horribly, so unbelievably, so frustratingly *slow*. If you really need to run x86 software, get a cheap PC box as a second computer and that's that. But don't forget to hide it when expecting guests...

I think the majority of it is for office situations. MS Access is a big thing in our office, and so if I needed to work from home with a Mac, I would need VPC.

The other key is that some people aren't ready to switch 100% right away. Heck, I've been running Linux as my desktop for 4 years and I have yet to find a mail program I like as much as Eudora-- thankfully Eudora runs well under Wine.

(And when I get my PowerBook I'll be switching to a Mac mail app-- any advice on how to convert years of Eudora Light mail to a standard format?) :D

[mkaake]

Originally posted by jaedreth
That's essentially a price reduction, and a new high end product added.

Wow. Never expected the Spanish Inquisition...

With VPC added, the price of Office is IMHO worth it.

Jaedreth

NOBODY EXPECTS THE SPANSIH INQUISITION!!!!!



:o)



149 student for 3 computers? it is enough to get most to give up pirated versions...

in fact, i think i might go out and pick up a copy in a little while...

matt

[daveL]

Originally posted by the future
I'm always amazed what a big deal VPC seems to be for a lot of people. I don't see the point of it at all, and certainly not as long as it's so horribly, so unbelievably, so frustratingly *slow*. If you really need to run x86 software, get a cheap PC box as a second computer and that's that. But don't forget to hide it when expecting guests...
Hard to carry a cheap PC box on an airplane :)

[Abstract]

As long as I can still get the Win 98 version of VPC, I'm happy. That's the fastest version, and so lets hope MS leaves that as an option for me.

[daveL]

Originally posted by ima_pseudonym
Not sure if it is new with this version or has been around since os x, but did anyone else notice that the graphics on the box have changed from being interlocking pieces of a puzzle, top some sort of multiplying amoeba like blobs?

If we get this thing is it going to start spawning new microsoft software at an exponentially increasing rate and rapidly take over our machines?

I just wanted some productivity apps that fit together nicely, not Malthusian space blobs!

http://www4.macnn.com/macnn/nimages/ms_0812_office_sm.gif
This is the first release of VPC as a MS product, thus the packaging change. Prior releases were issued by Connectix. MS bought VPC and VS from Connectix last Feb. or so.

[kenaustus]

I can't get away from it - I run a proprietary business app under VPC on my laptop when traveling overseas. Have both 98 and XP and 98 does run faster. It also helps a market for Access, which I also need for that one app, as well as other possible MS apps.

As for MS dropping it, I doubt that very much. I have a feeling that MS will make more off of selling us VPC with Windows than they do selling a copy of Windows to Dell. It can be a nice cash flow for them.

I also think that MS will be working on a version for Panther and will be able to speed it up more than a little. They will probably limit the versions available to XP, with 98 possible.

VPC does have some problems that MS can address without too much effort. Now VPC can't capture the PC card slot on the PB, there are problems getting a USB to serial adapter to work (helpful in the medical field) and even when you have a gig of memory you can only allot half of it to VPC. The issue for me is that MS can call in-house programmers for issues that MBU are having problems with.

MS sees a market and I think the MBU guys are going to work hard to make it a better and faster app. I sure hope so!

[ima_pseudonym]

Originally posted by daveL
This is the first release of VPC as a MS product, thus the packaging change. Prior releases were issued by Connectix. MS bought VPC and VS from Connectix last Feb. or so.

I meant the ms office box, which used to use puzzle pieces for each of the components (word, excel, etc.).

[daveL]

Originally posted by ima_pseudonym
I meant the ms office box, which used to use puzzle pieces for each of the components (word, excel, etc.).
Oh, sorry, I misunderstood (duh).

[SiliconAddict]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Each sale of VPC is also one sale of Windows, thus negating your argument.

Hardly. That argument doesn’t work either. You are assuming that every switcher will use VPC. (In my case it’s true.) If users start switching to Mac without plunking down the cash for VPC, and a license for Windows, that is a lost sales opportunity for Microsoft. It all depends on how well VPC sells down the road.
If sales of Mac's start creeping up without additional sales in VPC and sales of windows decreases Microsoft could simply pull the plug on VPC and Office and possibly force those who are dependant on VPC and Office to reconsider. Even more so in a business environment.

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by the future
I'm always amazed what a big deal VPC seems to be for a lot of people. I don't see the point of it at all, and certainly not as long as it's so horribly, so unbelievably, so frustratingly *slow*. If you really need to run x86 software, get a cheap PC box as a second computer and that's that. But don't forget to hide it when expecting guests...

Portability. Travel. Dorms. Reasons like that.

$150 for VPC with MS Office included is another good reason.

Originally posted by Lord Bodak
(And when I get my PowerBook I'll be switching to a Mac mail app-- any advice on how to convert years of Eudora Light mail to a standard format?) :D

Mac OS X Mail imports Eudora. I don't know if that's compatible with Eudora Light, but it's worth a shot.

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by SiliconAddict
Hardly. That argument doesn’t work either. You are assuming that every switcher will use VPC. (In my case it’s true.) If users start switching to Mac without plunking down the cash for VPC, and a license for Windows, that is a lost sales opportunity for Microsoft. It all depends on how well VPC sells down the road.
If sales of Mac's start creeping up without additional sales in VPC and sales of windows decreases Microsoft could simply pull the plug on VPC and Office and possibly force those who are dependant on VPC and Office to reconsider. Even more so in a business environment.

They wouldn't gain anything that way. Instead of VPC, people would buy PC's. It's a sale of Windows either way, so no gain for Microsoft. People who don't need to run Windows software still aren't going to buy Windows in any form if Microsoft cancells VPC.

If people switch to Mac and don't buy VPC, then Microsoft won't make any more money by cancelling VPC.

[LegionCSUF]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Mac OS X Mail imports Eudora. I don't know if that's compatible with Eudora Light, but it's worth a shot.

As of the 5.0 product line, Eudora Light and Eudora (Pro) have been the same program. The only difference has been that Light crippled some features. Light becomes Pro with the entering of a registration key. (You can also use Pro's features for free in Ad mode, where you gotta deal with advertisements in the program window).

There should be no difference at all in file formats. Perhaps there was in the past (although I still don't think so), but not any longer.

My Eudora Light/Pro email has made it over years of different Eudora versions and now resides in Ximian Evolution. Hopefully when I get my PowerBook, it can go to OS X's Mail app.

[tychay]

Originally posted by NavyIntel007
On the other hand, Microsoft would be stupid NOT to continue development. After all, it sells windows licenses to mac users

Not to pick on you personally, but some people need to get out of their Mac-centric shell. The number of Windows licenses sold to Mac users VirtualPC represents is piddly compared to the number of licenses they get for enterprise-class virtual machines.

To understand what Microsoft's intent is with Virtual PC, you need to take a hard look at VMware (http://www.vmware.com/). This started out as a pretty good emulator to allow Linux users to run Windows without reboot. Now it is used by enterprises for server consolidation (http://www.vmware.com/solutions/consolidation.html) (this allows you to run many different applications which may have different hardware/software requirements on a single physical machine), software development and testing (http://www.vmware.com/solutions/devtest.html) (you can test many different configurations of OS/drivers/applications without hundreds of machines), disaster recovery and high availability (http://www.vmware.com/solutions/availability.html) (basically this means you can run a single server with a drive array to provision all your other machines with whatever OS it needs, you also have the ability to "roll back" a computer to any OS or saved machine state), security (http://www.vmware.com/solutions/security.html) (since each virtual machine runs independently (and you'll be running your enterprise apps in separate virtual machines), a security hole found in one does not grant access to another app), training (http://www.vmware.com/solutions/training.html) (basically this is a situation where you need to roll back client machines to the same sane state after users have done a hands-on instruction), sales demos (http://www.vmware.com/solutions/demos.html) (if you need to show an interaction between a number of clients and servers, you can do so on a single machine running multiple virtual machines), and help desk/tech support (http://www.vmware.com/solutions/techsupport.html) (the tech support version of development/testing).

Now realize that when Microsoft acquired VirtualPC (http://www.connectix.com/about/acquisition_mac.html), Connectix already had Virtual PC running on Windows (http://www.connectix.com/products/vpc5w.html) and you have a simple case of "let's bootstrap our code process via acquisition so that we can leverage our monopoly to take over a lucrative market." The Mac support comes along for the ride, but it's kid stuff.

I think that Real PC (I think that's the name of the other MS emulator) should donate their code to the FSF and opensource it. MS won't let them sell it anyway so why not?...

Yes, you are thinking of Real PC (http://www.fwb.com/html/realpc.html) which still has yet to make a Mac OS X compatible version (http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/2003/06/10/fwb/). At first guess, it'll take a lot more work than it seems because VirtualPC emulated the machine while SoftWindows started as a Windows emulator. It's obvious now where the money is.

I doubt that the open source world needs the SoftWindows codebase. If you don't know already, there is already Bochs (http://bochs.sourceforge.net/) which runs on x86 and PPC and on many operating systems (including Mac). I'd imagine the codebase is much cleaner, by virtue of its late start.

I personally have no need for Virtual PC. If I needed windows that bad, I'd probably just buy a cheap PC.

If you look at the above applications of VMWare, you'll see that the latest VirtualPC on the Mac can do any of those (but in some cases, it wouldn't be advisable).

If you were a web developer like me, you'd think differently. Last year, I purchased Extreme Programming for Web Projects (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/textbooks/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?userid=2T15REQD9F&isbn=0201794276) for a friend--if you don't know what XP is (the real XP), it's a very popular programming practice. The book, part of a series started by the creator of XP, tries to apply this process to web programming. In it they recommend (many times throughout the book, actually), that everyone in the company standardize on the Windows platform for all web development (even for graphics work and even when deploying on J2EE in Linux).

Anyone who has used Virtual PC realizes that their arguments reek of ignorance. In fact, according to their arguments, Mac OS X with Virtual PC would represent the superior platform to develop on: As a web developer, a single programmer on a single Mac notebook can develop J2EE, PHP, (or even ASP.NET) for deployment on Linux, MacOS X, (or even Windows) tested on nearly every version of Windows on nearly every browser (including obscure ones like Safari, Konquerer, OmniWeb, etc). A web developer can use only-on-Windows cell phone emulators for WAP and use the infinitely-superior-because-it-is-free-and-programmable CVS for version control while at the same time doing it all from their Mac OS X dock.

(Any Mac owner (as well as numerous studies) can further refute the need to standardize on any single platform.)

Yes, I own a number of "cheap PC"s. Heck, just last week I cannibalized one to repair a Intel 810 mobo that shorted out for a friend. But for some of us, being able to carry about 20 "cheap PC"s on our shoulder and run any of them at a moments notice (concurrently) can be a real boon.

:)

Take care,

terry