FWB RealPC?

[ginoledesma]

Oh, and something on RealPC.

I've never really liked the product (ever since it was released as SoftWindows under Insignia). It was slow (even when compared to VPC), did not run certain apps well (probably due to emulation), and crashed often on my Mac.

But as its the only (major) alternative to VPC right now...

Emulation.net lists the following as other PC emulators, although on a much lower scale:
MacBochs
BlueLabel
PCx

 

[Fender2112]

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

Originally posted by MhzDoesMatter

-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)

I have a feeling that this is a small percentage of people: Assuming 10% of Mac users have such need. That's 10% of 5% or one half of one percent of all computer users. Then again 0.5% x 100 million = 500,000

Products like VirtualPC and RealPC will never meet the demands of this group. Software emulation will always suffer a speed penalty.

There used to be a product called OrangePC that was a PCI card will an Intel chip on it. I felt this was the best solution for folks that had a big need for working in both environments. It was never as fast as a true PC but was much better that software emulation. I wonder whatever happen to OrangePC?

 

[MhzDoesMatter]

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

Originally posted by besson3c
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...

Well the hardware premise is really the issue since the comparison you made was to purchasing new hardware.

As for point #4, when using a VPC on Mac setup, when I install new a new hard drive in my Mac, the upgrade is basically an upgrade to both systems, since the VPC "PC image" dynamically grows to me space needs. The image can be moved to the new drive, allowing it to take advantage of the free space, less disk fragmentation, and possible speed boost (depending on drive specifications).

VPC also utilizes the same system ram. So with more ram installed in the mac system, more can be allocated to each virtual machine, improving performance.

Most of my points are both issues of cost and convenience. If I'm really lazy, and don't feel like troubleshooting the PC, I just trash it and start again. That's the most convenient and gratifying aspect of VPC


-Hertz.

 

[Fender2112]

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...

Because, the more posts you have the better VPC performs

I'm on your side with this one. If you need to run a few simple Windows programs, emulation is fine. If you want to play Windows games, get a PC. Current games push the limits of the hardware. Software emulation can't even begin to meet the needs of a PC gamer.

It would be interesting to compile a list of PC programs that Mac users feel they need because there is no Mac equivalent. (Arn can we do this?)

I'm done babbling for now

 

[Fender2112]

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

Originally posted by MhzDoesMatter

Most of my points are both issues of cost and convenience. If I'm really lazy, and don't feel like troubleshooting the PC, I just trash it and start again. That's the most convenient and gratifying aspect of VPC


-Hertz.

That conjured up a funny visual

 

[besson3c]

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

Originally posted by MhzDoesMatter
Well the hardware premise is really the issue since the comparison you made was to purchasing new hardware.

As for point #4, when using a VPC on Mac setup, when I install new a new hard drive in my Mac, the upgrade is basically an upgrade to both systems, since the VPC "PC image" dynamically grows to me space needs. The image can be moved to the new drive, allowing it to take advantage of the free space, less disk fragmentation, and possible speed boost (depending on drive specifications).

VPC also utilizes the same system ram. So with more ram installed in the mac system, more can be allocated to each virtual machine, improving performance.

Most of my points are both issues of cost and convenience. If I'm really lazy, and don't feel like troubleshooting the PC, I just trash it and start again. That's the most convenient and gratifying aspect of VPC


-Hertz.

Another pro to VPC: you can copy and paste across platforms...

 

[Macadamias]

Current alternatives to VPC

Originally posted by ginoledesma
Oh, and something on RealPC.

I've never really liked the product (ever since it was released as SoftWindows under Insignia). It was slow (even when compared to VPC), did not run certain apps well (probably due to emulation), and crashed often on my Mac.

But as its the only (major) alternative to VPC right now...

Emulation.net lists the following as other PC emulators, although on a much lower scale:
MacBochs
BlueLabel
PCx

MacBochs: OpenOSX.com has put out a OS X port of Boch 2.0.2 called WinTel. However, they seem a bit slow in development and by all reports, the emulation speed is pretty slow. This is partly due to the Boch Project's need of better hardware models for the C++ code.

Blue Label: I have tried this, it is horrendously slow and will frequently lock up. They are unresponsive in support and have little ongoing development. The program also runs only in OS 9. (Will not work in classic mode)

PCx: I haven't heard of this one. However emulation.net states that it only has VGA video support and not sound. So it is very limited on what it can accomplish. It also is only available for OS 9.


Really, there has been little competition to speak of since Real PC originally ceded the market to VPC. The original Real PC emulator for OS 9 and before wasn't quite as good and they couldn't keep up. However their plans for OS X were to use a UNIX based emulator that had promise of a much greater speed boost and higher level of development since it was a solution for UNIX systems as well. Since VPC was only just ported to OS X with little optimization for the platform, this was promising. Really the best way to run VPC right now is by rebooting into OS 9. And MS has not shown that they will continue development for it yet. Any healthy competitor would be highly welcome.

As for why such emulation programs are needed, there is one point that hasn't been mentioned yet. It's a security blanket. Switchers to the Mac from the PC world many times need the security of knowing that they can use their old programs if they can't find a replacement in the Mac market. Especially for business users, this is significant and can affect the initial sale of the Mac. Keeping a PC around for this reason still means creating and maintaining a network to synch all of the needed files across separate machines. It also means that you have no access to the PC programs if you are in the field (portable users).

Just my 5 cents and personal experience.
I currently have a copy of VPC on my PowerBook. I got it for the odd emergency. Haven't really had much use for it yet but it's nice to have the option in this PC centric world.

 

[tomchan79]

no info on fwb website about new version

Hi, I notice that there's no info on the FWB website about a new version of realpc, and no mention that you can upgrade to the os x version if you buy the current version.

Also, someone had posted a link to http://www.fwb.com/html/powerwindows.html metioning that there was info about the new product there, but that link doesn't seem to be working.

In the past, was there info about an os x version of realpc on FWB's webiste?

Thanks,

Tom

 

[PowerBook User]

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

Originally posted by Fender2112

There used to be a product called OrangePC that was a PCI card will an Intel chip on it. I felt this was the best solution for folks that had a big need for working in both environments. It was never as fast as a true PC but was much better that software emulation. I wonder whatever happen to OrangePC?

Apple also had these PC compatibility cards. I think someone (Apple, OrangePC, etc.) should make them again. It could really improve performance. The only problem is the Power Mac is the only Mac with PCI slots.

 

[PowerBook User]

Originally posted by Fender2112

It would be interesting to compile a list of PC programs that Mac users feel they need because there is no Mac equivalent. (Arn can we do this?)

I think that's a good idea.

I hope FWB actually releases RealPC that is close to as good as it sounds. It would be great if we could have 3D hardware acceleration.

 

[hexor]

Re: no info on fwb website about new version

Originally posted by tomchan79
Hi, I notice that there's no info on the FWB website about a new version of realpc, and no mention that you can upgrade to the os x version if you buy the current version.

Also, someone had posted a link to http://www.fwb.com/html/powerwindows.html metioning that there was info about the new product there, but that link doesn't seem to be working.

In the past, was there info about an os x version of realpc on FWB's webiste?

Yes it was there maybe a week or two ago how purchasers of the current version will be able to upgrade for free to the OS X version.

Look at:
http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cach...ealpc.html+fwb+realpc+mac+os+x&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

 

[bigjohn]

I didn't backread all the posts, but I wanted to get it down for the record that if it came down to 2 systems on my mac, I'd like the first to be OS X (obviously), and I'd love the 2nd to be Linux. I think it'd be easier for developers that way and maybe we can blur the line between Mac products and PC products by allowing for a Linux alternative (like for Autocad, ArcView, etc).

RealPC, VirtualPC, it matters not. For the price of some of these emulators, you're better off building your own PC to run your Windows apps.

 

[pcfixer]

What about all the folks who purchased RealPC in the last few months?

I purchased the v1.1 product as a pre-order of the OSX product because of the offer of a free upgrade and I'm sure that I was not the only customer of FWB to do so. If it doesn turn out that there was some kind of mistake made by managment or they have discontinued development then I sincerely do hope they do the right thing and off some kind of rebate.

Only time will tell though....

On the subject of switchers and their software: I dumped all my Windows systems a year ago and never looked back until I was transfered into a Network Design group. Now every document I recieve is a Visio file. I've tried several "compatible" products but they all have issues with the Visio format and require me to go back to a Windows box to modify them or create new ones. The ability to play a few Windows games also was a factor in my decision to buy RealPC.

 

[The Grimace]

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.

How about those of us that are mobile yet need access to a PC? For myself, I work on the road (forester), prefer Mac products, but must use MS. Why? ActiveSync. A lot of this type of work now requires the use of a handheld device, and ALL of them use either DOS or WinCE. At the end of the day, I need to download from the handheld, convert to an Access file type (which ActiveSync does automatically), open Access, and do a quick edit. Now, since I live out of a trailer for periods of time, and since AC 110 isn't always available, and space is a premium, the VNC solution is not a viable one for me.
I am currently working on my own set of software, which I hope to be able to run under Linux on a Zaurus, but until then I need a PC emulator.
I'm sure that there are others in similar situations, where a second, dedicated computer simply isn't an option.

(tig)

 

[The Grimace]

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

Originally posted by TmTg
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.

An excellent point, and one that I overlooked. Well spoken. If for no other reason, this one is enough for me.

(tig)

 

[The Grimace]

Originally posted by Fender2112
[BIt would be interesting to compile a list of PC programs that Mac users feel they need because there is no Mac equivalent. (Arn can we do this?)[/B]

Access. Oh, how I'm feelin' the need...

(tig)

 

[MattG]

Originally posted by The Grimace
Access. Oh, how I'm feelin' the need...

(tig)

Yeah that's a good call...that's pretty much the only program my school requires that I need my PC for!

 

[MacCoaster]

For Access, couldn't one use Apple's subsidiary FileMaker's FileMaker Pro? I've been told it's one of Mac OS X's best database applications. I'm not quite familiar with this application, but I've heard of it and from what I hear, it can do OBDC and some other datasources so it probably could access MS SQL servers, Oracle servers, MySQL servers, etc. fine if you need to do that kind of work.

 

[jaedreth]

Filemaker Pro

Yes, it *can*, however, when interfacing with non-Filemaker servers, it is slow, unstable, and prone to crash. And I'm not saying that's filemaker's fault.

At my old job we used to use it as a back up to our main system, but now our backup is web based.

Jaedreth

 

[Phil Of Mac]

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 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.

Uh, no. Connectix had a licensing deal with Microsoft to license Windows for Virtual PC. All Microsoft had to do was not license Windows to Connectix in order to prevent Virtual PC from existing!

Microsoft's permission was needed, and granted, for Virtual PC to exist in the first place. Every copy of Virtual PC (at least with Windows on it, the Linux version was different) is another sale of Microsoft Windows.

Originally posted by dongmin
2. There never had any development going on with an OS X version of RPC, but advertised it to make a quick buck selling the existing version.

It's probably both.

Uh, no. Announcing an OS X version of RealPC would lessen sales of the existing version as people choose to instead wait for the OS X version. The Osbourne effect.

 

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by altivec 2003
Heh, thats too bad You might actually be better off just buying a cad program for mac . I am sure there are some good ones out there

From what little I do know, AutoCAD is as much a standard as Adobe Photoshop or QuarkXPress was prior to the release of InDesign. Saying "Buy a CAD program for Mac" is like saying "Use GraphicConverter for image editing and PageMaker for desktop publishing".

 

[MisterMe]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
From what little I do know, AutoCAD is as much a standard as Adobe Photoshop or QuarkXPress was prior to the release of InDesign. Saying "Buy a CAD program for Mac" is like saying "Use GraphicConverter for image editing and PageMaker for desktop publishing".

Your own statement reveals that standards change. PageMaker was the standard before QuarkXPress. InDesign is now a standard. As for CAD, it really isn't so much AutoCAD that is the standard so much as it is the AutoCAD libraries. As an application, AutoCAD sucks. The wealth of libraries available for this application, however, makes moving to something else prohibitive. There is an opening for an enterprising company to develop a CAD program that is compatible with AutoCAD's libraries but with the Macintosh's ease of use.

 

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by MisterMe
Your own statement reveals that standards change. PageMaker was the standard before QuarkXPress. InDesign is now a standard. As for CAD, it really isn't so much AutoCAD that is the standard so much as it is the AutoCAD libraries. As an application, AutoCAD sucks. The wealth of libraries available for this application, however, makes moving to something else prohibitive. There is an opening for an enterprising company to develop a CAD program that is compatible with AutoCAD's libraries but with the Macintosh's ease of use.

Good insight. I'm sure that the CAD standard can and will change. I'm also sure that that's a worthier goal than Real PC. I mean, replace AutoCAD and port enough games, and there's no reason to use a PC anymore!

 

[Nermal]

From FWB's website: (my emphasis)

The new management is investigating the claims recently made by the previous management as to the status of this product. They will endeavour to update the public as soon as possible on the true status of the project and wish to continue development.

I hope they're telling the truth here!

 

[grahamtriggs]

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

Originally posted by The Grimace
How about those of us that are mobile yet need access to a PC? For myself, I work on the road (forester), prefer Mac products, but must use MS. Why? ActiveSync. A lot of this type of work now requires the use of a handheld device, and ALL of them use either DOS or WinCE. At the end of the day, I need to download from the handheld, convert to an Access file type (which ActiveSync does automatically), open Access, and do a quick edit.

I'm sorry, but either you have more specific requirements than you've listed, or you enjoy making life difficult for yourself...

"requires the use of a handheld" - ever heard of a little company called Palm? Devices work great with a Mac - why the need for a PocketPC? And if you have to have a PocketPC, why not use Missing Sync to hook it up with a Mac?

Having experienced ActiveSync, I would hardly call it a purchasing decision in favour of PCs... in fact, if I *had* to use a handheld device, ActiveSync would be enough to make me switch to Mac, if that was what it took to avoid using it (and if I hadn't already switched, of course!!)