FWB RealPC?

[Sun Baked]

Yes I can almost see the management leads for the projects being paid off to leave, or MS threatning the company enough that they were removed from the project.

These lines seem like they may be setting themselves up to drop the project and blame the former management of the project for making unwarranted public claims.

 

[MacsRgr8]

Re: who "has" to run VPC?

Originally posted by besson3c
Why fret about VPC or RealPC when you can just use Microsoft Remote Desktop? It's always going to work better than any emulation...

Are you guys not aware that this product exists?

We are talking about a stand alone Mac being able to run Windows software.
VPC 6 w/ Win 2K is OK, but not gr8. On my Dual 1.25 GHz G4 w/ 1 GB RAM it still is painfully slow. RPC with the highly anticipated hardware support of grfx cards sounded like the ideal (at least better) solution.
We were promised a beta last month (or so?), but now there is no evidence of any build ready at all.

I do recall something about an FWB spokesman telling a story about the incredible low-level hardware support of RPC on OS X (hence the hardware support of the grfx cards), but he somehow couldn't comment on how they did it for OS 9 aswell, as he wasn't technical (???). Someone remember exactly?

 

[besson3c]

Re: Re: who "has" to run VPC?

Originally posted by arn
well, you do need a PC on the other end of that software...

arn

Of course, but I don't understand all these people that *need* VPC. A PC is pretty easy to obtain (used, hand-built, whatever). For people that really *need* a PC, this is the only real option unless you are extremely patient.

For those that just don't want to spend the extra money on a PC, do they *really* need one?

If I needed to do a PC for real work, I would most definitely not use VPC.

We need to distinguish *need* from "I want to toy around with a PC on my Mac".

 

[besson3c]

Re: Re: who "has" to run VPC?

Originally posted by MacsRgr8
We are talking about a stand alone Mac being able to run Windows software.

Why? So you can brag to people that you can do this without needing a PC?

It's like owning a Geo and bragging about it being able to go 70 mph.

What is this need? Please enlighten me.

 

[Docrjm]

Re: Re: Re: who "has" to run VPC?

Originally posted by besson3c
Why? So you can brag to people that you can do this without needing a PC?

It's like owning a Geo and bragging about it being able to go 70 mph.

What is this need? Please enlighten me.

Reduces the need for additional desktop clutter. Additionally there are still some internet sites that only accept m$ software from a peecee and not a mac. It really has zero to do with bragging and more to do with OS preference.

 

[besson3c]

Re: Re: Re: Re: who "has" to run VPC?

Originally posted by doc_mac
Reduces the need for additional desktop clutter. Additionally there are still some internet sites that only accept m$ software from a peecee and not a mac. It really has zero to do with bragging and more to do with OS preference.

No offense, but that's very weak.

put the PC in a closet, under a table, whatever... you don't even need a monitor connected to it.

As for internet sites accepting MS software, that's why you would use RDC. Did you misunderstand me?

 

[leenoble]

Through my crystal ball..

..I can see MS shutting down the Mac BU completely and just lumping us with the same shoddy PC applications they supply everyone else.

And then doubling the price of VPC because it will be necessary for us to use it to use any MS applications at all.

And VPC will still be the only app you run that can take down your whole system.

 

[besson3c]

Re: Through my crystal ball..

Originally posted by leenoble

And then doubling the price of VPC because it will be necessary for us to use it to use any MS applications at all.

Or.... we could use Microsoft Remote Desktop... Or.... VNC.

Somebody please enlighten me as to why we need VPC?

 

[jaedreth]

VPC, RealPC

Microsoft doesn't *want* there to be any solution for OS X to run windows apps. However, if there has to be one, Microsoft wants to hold all the cards.

Microsoft may have the vast majority of the market, but Bill still wants to try to convert any mac user he can, even if that means fuddling any solution to have windows operability on a mac.

I would predict that soon Microsoft won't have a macintosh team at all, would discontinue VPC, basically bought to get rid of it, and try to prevent anyone else from making anything similar.

I could be wrong, but I think Murphy will play out here...

Jaedreth

 

[xenocytekron]

Re: Re: Through my crystal ball..

Originally posted by besson3c
Or.... we could use Microsoft Remote Desktop... Or.... VNC.

Somebody please enlighten me as to why we need VPC?

People already have, you're not comprehending. There's no point arguing with you, as you won't listen to reason with this issue.

 

[Abstract]

Because when I go to Australia, and I purchase my laptop, but need to use some sort of PC software, I'll be able to do so with VPC with Win 98 and work at a decent speed. I'm not bringing a PC laptop with me, and no, I'm not buying a PC when I'm there.

Simple. Hmmm....but I wonder what you won't understand. I can already see it coming in your next post.

 

[besson3c]

Re: VPC, RealPC

Originally posted by jaedreth
Microsoft doesn't *want* there to be any solution for OS X to run windows apps. However, if there has to be one, Microsoft wants to hold all the cards.

I believe VNC is open source...

 

[besson3c]

Re: Re: Re: Through my crystal ball..

Originally posted by xenocytekron
People already have, you're not comprehending. There's no point arguing with you, as you won't listen to reason with this issue.

Honestly, all I've heard so far is that it would reduce desktop clutter... is that IT?

The decision:

- more desktop clutter, a fully functioning PC running on your Mac at non-emulated speeds

- less desktop clutter, a hard drive storing a Windows disk image, and a PC that will never be as fast as the above

The choice seems clear for *real* work.

I'm not trying to be arrogant or stubborn here. I just honestly don't understand why there is so much concern over this product.

 

[besson3c]

Originally posted by Abstract
Because when I go to Australia, and I purchase my laptop, but need to use some sort of PC software, I'll be able to do so with VPC with Win 98 and work at a decent speed. I'm not bringing a PC laptop with me, and no, I'm not buying a PC when I'm there.

I can see a use for VPC for very light and occasional Windows work where the expense of a PC isn't justified, and in odd cases like this. What I don't understand is people who *need* to use a VPC for real work and insist on portraying VPC as the only feasible option.

Hey, I'm just asking legitimate questions... no need for the condescending remarks.

 

[JtheLemur]

eeesh. how come whenever I hear the name FWB, I think of PROBLEMS?

This shady sounding situation only reinforces the feeling, too. Argh!

 

[solvs]

besson3c -

Just because you don't need Windows emulation, doesn't mean it's useless. I could give you many reasons why it would be useful, but it looks like several people have already beaten me to it. There are all sorts of reasons to not want PC hardware.

So please stop posting the same thing over and over again.

Especially if you're just trying to increase your post count.

 

[MhzDoesMatter]

Re: Re: Through my crystal ball..

Originally posted by besson3c
Or.... we could use Microsoft Remote Desktop... Or.... VNC.

Somebody please enlighten me as to why we need VPC?

GEEZUS, OK OK. We understand. There is another solution. But your redundant and ineffective posting does nothing to further the discourse going on here. You're trying to hammer home the fact that another option exist, but it's one that doesnt meet the tastes of the people making the choices, so what's the point?

I have a problem with all the necessities of life crap doctors talk about. We don't NEED food. No one NEEDS food. Why not just connect an IV filled with the glucose and nutrients we need to survive. Food is just a toy we like to have to brag to third world countries.

-Hertz

Doesn't seem to hard to understand that people would like to

1. have the convenience of having one box the effectively platform agnostic.

2. Have only one physical system to trouble shoot.

3. Be able to create a new machine if a virtual one breaks.

4. Be able to simultaneously upgrade both systems without purchasing two different items.

5. Be able to gain the functionality of another computer with a install CD, not a tower.

6. Work simultaneously on more than one or even two operating systems (to test software, websites, etc on multiple linux, windows, and mac flavors)

 

[Abstract]

I guess there are some people who should just go out and get a PC. Its not as if VPC comes for free with every Mac. You may as well use that money to buy a PC. For people who require a PC at home or something, why install VPC on a laptop, or even a desktop? Just go to Dell and buy a cheap machine. You may not like it, but its better than VPC. VPC Win 98, which I plan on getting, is quite zippy, but if I needed a PC semi-regularly, and I wasn't moving around alot, then I'd get a cheapo PC. There's no joy in using VPC to run Windows software when you can use Windows to use the software.

However: Personally, I may need VPC or RealPC in my situation, since I'm travelling and will need to be portable. I may not. I'm not sure yet.

Besson does have a point, though. He's still spamming by not editing his posts, and for posting 3 times in a row, but he has a point.

 

[besson3c]

Originally posted by solvs
besson3c -

Just because you don't need Windows emulation, doesn't mean it's useless. I could give you many reasons why it would be useful, but it looks like several people have already beaten me to it. There are all sorts of reasons to not want PC hardware.

So please stop posting the same thing over and over again.

Especially if you're just trying to increase your post count.

Whatever... if you guys aren't up for this conversation, that's cool with me.

My post count? Why on Earth do I need to be concerned with that?

So much I don't understand...

 

[besson3c]

Re: Re: Re: Through my crystal ball..

Originally posted by MhzDoesMatter

Doesn't seem to hard to understand that people would like to

1. have the convenience of having one box the effectively platform agnostic.

2. Have only one physical system to trouble shoot.

3. Be able to create a new machine if a virtual one breaks.

4. Be able to simultaneously upgrade both systems without purchasing two different items.

5. Be able to gain the functionality of another computer with a install CD, not a tower.

6. Work simultaneously on more than one or even two operating systems (to test software, websites, etc on multiple linux, windows, and mac flavors)

Thank you for taking the time to share these points... I hadn't really considered some of these and was waiting to learn about the VPC market and the void it fits.

I understand your arguments about having less hardware to contend with (and not having to deal with PC hardware failures). That sounds like mostly a cost issue and less so of a convenience issue, but it certainly is a legitimate point.

I don't understand #4

Your other points seem rather related to the extra hardware premise...

#6 can be addressed through VMWare. There is a cost associated with the purchase of this software, but it isn't impossible to run multiple Windows OSes on a PC without having to dual boot/partition.

 

[kcmac]

Move on. Nothing to see here. There is no RealPC.

If they have anything at all, I would think they are trying to work a deal with MS so they won't develop it.

I don't see MS as being the bad guy here. Let's see something first, then rush to judgement....

 

[solvs]

Originally posted by besson3c
Whatever... if you guys aren't up for this conversation, that's cool with me.

My post count? Why on Earth do I need to be concerned with that?

So much I don't understand...

Conversation is one thing, but asking the same question over and over again when you already got an answer is another.

Some people don't want another machine, especially a PC, but there are a lot programs that run only on Windows. They can buy a PC, or they can buy VPC for around $200. But it's slow. RealPC was supposed to be faster. And better. And not from Microsoft. FWB had been making promises. Then excuses. Now this.

If you don't care, you don't have to click the link, but others care. Having questions is fine. Saying you don't care and why should we... not so much. That's how it came off.

For what it's worth, sorry about the post count comment.

Back on topic, this news IS disappointing for some. Whether FWB screwed up (or fibbed), or the mighty M$ has struck again, we may never know. Looks like I'll be keeping my crappy HP around for awhile, or building a new El Cheapo. Some of us do need some PC compatibility, but emulation would have been so much easier. And cheaper.

**** I hate Windows.

 

[TmTg]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Through my crystal ball..

Originally posted by besson3c
Honestly, all I've heard so far is that it would reduce desktop clutter... is that IT?

The decision:

- more desktop clutter, a fully functioning PC running on your Mac at non-emulated speeds

- less desktop clutter, a hard drive storing a Windows disk image, and a PC that will never be as fast as the above

The choice seems clear for *real* work.

I'm not trying to be arrogant or stubborn here. I just honestly don't understand why there is so much concern over this product.

For some of us it's not just a matter of desktop clutter. I have VirtualPC running on my desktop G3, and although it's slow as a dog, I can test my website design in IEmac, Safari, IEwindows, Netscape, Mozilla, and all the other floavors out therer on both mac and PC. I can take my laptop over to my dad's house and plug it into his router and troubleshoot his windows network using tools in OS X, Win98, Windows NT, and Win2000. If I need to access my employer's online traning site (which only authenticates windows IE) I can do so in a matter of seconds.

All of this without having to buy any more hardware. In fact, every hardware investment I make in my existing macs improves the performace of my windows setup. I have been looking forward to the release of RealPC not to play PC games, but so that I can seamlessly work on both platforms without a significant slowdown.

And one last reason why I prefer VirtualPC (or RealPC) over having a second wintel box - I am very concerned about the continuing deterioration of the earth's resources, and I see no need to buy another peice of hardware that will just wind up in a landfill leaking toxins in under a decade. I already have a great computer. I don't need another one.


Here's hoping (against hope) that Micro$oft doesn't drive RealPC into the ground.

 

[besson3c]

Originally posted by solvs

If you don't care, you don't have to click the link, but others care. Having questions is fine. Saying you don't care and why should we... not so much. That's how it came off.

I do care, that's why I'm asking these questions...

What came across to me was that VPC or the like was absolutely needed to run mission critical apps where somebody needed a PC for real work, and there was a pressing urgency for this.

I await RealPC anxiously. Having options is a good thing. Not everybody shares my opinion, that's cool.

 

[ginoledesma]

One reason why I use VirtualPC: laptop. Don't expect me to lug another PC laptop just so I can run a Windows app off it.

Other reasons why I use VPC instead of a PC:

- I use some Windows apps infrequently that it does not justify the cost of purchasing a new PC. These are mostly scientific apps which, although would perform better on better hardware, run well enough under VPC.

- VPC has support for multiple OSs without the need for having to reboot all the time to get the OS, much less have to repartition the drive or anything. This is a minor convenience, but for testing software under different OSs, this can be _very useful_. Granted not everyone does this, but like I said, these are the reasons why I use VPC.

- For some people who just need to run Kazaa or KazaaLite, VPC is a blessing. Just fire away and get all the stuff they want they couldn't get using Mac clients. Again, this is _no pressing reason_ why you should get VPC.

Is there a need for VPC? That depends on your needs. If you don't need a PC or Windows, or to run an app that only runs under Windows, then you don't need VPC. Why get VPC over a regular PC? Because its far cheaper if all you need to run is an app occasionally. Why bother getting a PC, having to fuss with all the drivers and such, make it use electricity and all, when you can just run it off your Mac?