Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Microsoft Acquires Virtual PC from Connectix
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
i think its bad news.... on the upside... microsoft myt acctuly output a great piece of software that masterfuly integrates OSX and Win200x applications... on the downside microsoft myt take this chance to scrap VirtualPc or make it such a terrible program that users will have to decide weather they want a Pc or a Mac. and in all out war, microsoft will probably spin it in favour of their product... since windows has Office Explorer Powerpoint and every other microsoft written program that suddenly dissapear on the mac and apple myt hav their own better versions of these programs.. but they cant write a programs to counter every PC application... no?
Not bad news?
My gut feeling was this sucks, because I want Microsoft to just die a fiery death. Then I realized that this is a win for MS, as they can now sell their crappy OS even to Macusers and switchers, which is good for them. And if it's good for them, they will continue to develop VPC vigorously. If they kill it, it's easier for the OSX users to work around it than to switch to Windows.
However, I've just updated to VPC 6 and I've gotta tell you, even on a dual G4 and OSX, it's pretty lame. After this many upgrades, and OSX native to boot, it's little more than a novelty. It's like going back to dialup after using broadband.
And what the hell are people trying to use on Windows now anyway? With cross-platform database programs and java and SQL, and OSX that connects and shares seamlessly with Windows networks and servers... I just can't understand why the diehards are still thinking that VPC is crucial to the future of the program or their lives.
that's just me.
My gut feeling was this sucks, because I want Microsoft to just die a fiery death. Then I realized that this is a win for MS, as they can now sell their crappy OS even to Macusers and switchers, which is good for them. And if it's good for them, they will continue to develop VPC vigorously. If they kill it, it's easier for the OSX users to work around it than to switch to Windows.
However, I've just updated to VPC 6 and I've gotta tell you, even on a dual G4 and OSX, it's pretty lame. After this many upgrades, and OSX native to boot, it's little more than a novelty. It's like going back to dialup after using broadband.
And what the hell are people trying to use on Windows now anyway? With cross-platform database programs and java and SQL, and OSX that connects and shares seamlessly with Windows networks and servers... I just can't understand why the diehards are still thinking that VPC is crucial to the future of the program or their lives.
that's just me.
DakotaGuy
macrumors 601
First of all I don't know why everyone assumes that Office v.X is dead. I have it and it is a good program. In fact, with Office X, most people like myself does not even need to worry about a clunky emulator, because the only true compatibility problem that I would have is with Office. Now knowing M$, I could see them scratch Office X in favor of an emulated XP with Windows Office, but why? I would assume they will figure out right away what they sell more of and make a better profit off of.
I truly feel that the only reason M$ bought VPC is to continue to make a profit off of Apple people. Believe me, Apple's marketshare might be peanuts to M$, but you know old Billy Boy, he is going to tap every area he can to make some cash.
I agree with the conspiracy people and feel this move is planned to combat Apple's own realise of programs such as Keynote, Safari, and a possible Apple Word or Excel type program. In the future they could put Apple against the wall and say...you keep developing products that are competing against ours, we will pull the plug on a program you really need for excellent compatibility.
Now only time will tell. In one area, VPC could be much improved and maybe someday actually run Windows natively on PPC alongside of OSX, just like Classic works today. This is not all bad. If Windows ran on a Mac just like it does on a PC along with OSX, this would help on the switch campaign. Think about a smooth, fast, fluid Windows, instead of a clunky, slow emulator. Of course, the opposite could happen as well and VPC could be forgotten and after a couple more versions, be dropped. Apple could survive without it and other emulation programs would take over. Who knows where it will go from here.
I truly feel that the only reason M$ bought VPC is to continue to make a profit off of Apple people. Believe me, Apple's marketshare might be peanuts to M$, but you know old Billy Boy, he is going to tap every area he can to make some cash.
I agree with the conspiracy people and feel this move is planned to combat Apple's own realise of programs such as Keynote, Safari, and a possible Apple Word or Excel type program. In the future they could put Apple against the wall and say...you keep developing products that are competing against ours, we will pull the plug on a program you really need for excellent compatibility.
Now only time will tell. In one area, VPC could be much improved and maybe someday actually run Windows natively on PPC alongside of OSX, just like Classic works today. This is not all bad. If Windows ran on a Mac just like it does on a PC along with OSX, this would help on the switch campaign. Think about a smooth, fast, fluid Windows, instead of a clunky, slow emulator. Of course, the opposite could happen as well and VPC could be forgotten and after a couple more versions, be dropped. Apple could survive without it and other emulation programs would take over. Who knows where it will go from here.
Marklar.
This seems like the prime opportunity for Apple to go full speed ahead with Marklar...
If MS now has their own OS that runs on Apple's hardware, why shouldn't Apple have an OS that runs on non-Apple hardware?
Here's to Apple f---ing up the WinTel market once and for all!
-Rob
This seems like the prime opportunity for Apple to go full speed ahead with Marklar...
If MS now has their own OS that runs on Apple's hardware, why shouldn't Apple have an OS that runs on non-Apple hardware?
Here's to Apple f---ing up the WinTel market once and for all!
-Rob
There goes the Linux compatibility...
It was great being able to have all those OS's at once on a single machine. Now it'll probably only run their stupid Windows. 🙁
How could Connectix do this to us? After so many years???
It was great being able to have all those OS's at once on a single machine. Now it'll probably only run their stupid Windows. 🙁
How could Connectix do this to us? After so many years???
Re: Sorry, topicolo, but emulate OSX/FreeBSD?
I don't think so, Apple doesn't own the PPC. Apple, IBM and Moto jointly mapped out the PPC way back when, but IBM and Moto make and design their own chips so I dont think that Apple would be due a cent.
But that wouldnt enable them to run native OS X apps without Aqua. Besides even though windows has used BSD code in windows (the TCP/IP stack for one) I doubt they'd ever include a full BSD compatible layer to Windows, or replace the NT kernel with a BSD one. (given their hostility towards open source). Anyway win32 on BSD is a horrible thought.
I don't think so, Apple doesn't own the PPC. Apple, IBM and Moto jointly mapped out the PPC way back when, but IBM and Moto make and design their own chips so I dont think that Apple would be due a cent.
But that wouldnt enable them to run native OS X apps without Aqua. Besides even though windows has used BSD code in windows (the TCP/IP stack for one) I doubt they'd ever include a full BSD compatible layer to Windows, or replace the NT kernel with a BSD one. (given their hostility towards open source). Anyway win32 on BSD is a horrible thought.
I bought VPC, turned it on, saw Windows on my Mac, and then shrugged off the feeling of pure ugliness that had overwhelmed me and went back to OS X smiling. Haven't used it, haven't had any reason to. Occasionally I'll turn it on to remind myself why I have always been a Mac user. 🙄
iShater
macrumors 604
OK, before yall freak out, this is from C|net:
[start quote]
"Mac OS X applications (are the) best solution for heavy access to applications (like Office)," said Tim McDonough, director of marketing for Microsoft's Macintosh Business Unit. "Virtual PC just takes that to the next level--you can now be compatible with applications that only run on the PC."
In a statement, Apple praised Microsoft's move.
"Adding Virtual PC to its product portfolio is yet another example of Microsoft's continued commitment to the Mac platform," said Ron Okamoto, Apple's vice president of Worldwide Developer Relations. "Virtual PC has helped people who want to own a Mac but need to run legacy PC applications. We're glad to see Virtual PC go into such good hands."
[end quote]
MS probably sells Windows to Connectix as an OEM, so they don't charge them as much as they do for a retail copy of Windows.
Connectix makes money on the price difference. Now, this extra money is gonna go to MS.
If MS makes VPC better, it will make more users buy it, which means they sell a license for windows as if they sold a PC. It is a win-win situation for the company.
It is in their best interest to make it BETTER not WORSE! And if MS knowledge of integrating their products together is any sign, the VPC designed by MS will run Windows BETTER!!
I say this would have been a scary thought if MS didn't have a financial stake here, but we are talking about 1 million VPC users, that is around 1 million Windows licenses, more people that would keep upgrading VPC and using it if they felt it was worth it.
MS now will be able to say, %99.99 of all computers run Windows
😀
So, even though it might seem bad, there is hope that this will be a great step forward.
[start quote]
"Mac OS X applications (are the) best solution for heavy access to applications (like Office)," said Tim McDonough, director of marketing for Microsoft's Macintosh Business Unit. "Virtual PC just takes that to the next level--you can now be compatible with applications that only run on the PC."
In a statement, Apple praised Microsoft's move.
"Adding Virtual PC to its product portfolio is yet another example of Microsoft's continued commitment to the Mac platform," said Ron Okamoto, Apple's vice president of Worldwide Developer Relations. "Virtual PC has helped people who want to own a Mac but need to run legacy PC applications. We're glad to see Virtual PC go into such good hands."
[end quote]
MS probably sells Windows to Connectix as an OEM, so they don't charge them as much as they do for a retail copy of Windows.
Connectix makes money on the price difference. Now, this extra money is gonna go to MS.
If MS makes VPC better, it will make more users buy it, which means they sell a license for windows as if they sold a PC. It is a win-win situation for the company.
It is in their best interest to make it BETTER not WORSE! And if MS knowledge of integrating their products together is any sign, the VPC designed by MS will run Windows BETTER!!
I say this would have been a scary thought if MS didn't have a financial stake here, but we are talking about 1 million VPC users, that is around 1 million Windows licenses, more people that would keep upgrading VPC and using it if they felt it was worth it.
MS now will be able to say, %99.99 of all computers run Windows
😀
So, even though it might seem bad, there is hope that this will be a great step forward.
Re: Not bad news?
- microcontroller development
- technical calculation tools
- sports and training programs
- games for children
- ...
- dutch electronic tax form
- microcontroller development
- technical calculation tools
- sports and training programs
- games for children
- ...
If I were the Mac BU...
Not that I condone this in anyway, but If I was in charge of this division I'd be working on porting Windows XP over to PPC.
Yes- I know it may sound bad, but it makes perfect sense. Microsoft likes making OSes, and in turn sells a lot of them. What would be really interesting is if they allowed you to dual boot in to XP- or perhaps had an extension within OS X (like classic) that allowed you to run windows programs within OS X.
I doubt that's what they have planned, but it makes sense to me, it would allow them to decrease support for the mac and save money. So say you wanted MSN Messenger- they would say: buy XP for PPC, or if you want Office: buy XP for PPC.
This would allow them to cut back staff within the MAC BU, (and yes I believe that would be bad) but it's also more cost effective.
Well this all works in theory- we will see what they have planned...
Not that I condone this in anyway, but If I was in charge of this division I'd be working on porting Windows XP over to PPC.
Yes- I know it may sound bad, but it makes perfect sense. Microsoft likes making OSes, and in turn sells a lot of them. What would be really interesting is if they allowed you to dual boot in to XP- or perhaps had an extension within OS X (like classic) that allowed you to run windows programs within OS X.
I doubt that's what they have planned, but it makes sense to me, it would allow them to decrease support for the mac and save money. So say you wanted MSN Messenger- they would say: buy XP for PPC, or if you want Office: buy XP for PPC.
This would allow them to cut back staff within the MAC BU, (and yes I believe that would be bad) but it's also more cost effective.
Well this all works in theory- we will see what they have planned...
MacCoaster
macrumors 6502a
Jesus Christ.
So many people assume Microsoft is evil and buying companies is evil if it's Microsoft.
Microsoft is simply pursuing its interest, especially in Connectix's Virtual Server products. They will be able to squeeze all the performance out of the products for Windows guest operating systems.
They could bring DirectX to VirtualPC. Wouldn't you like that, play PC-only, DirectX-only games under Windows. I know a popular one: RollerCoaster Tycoon and its successors.
I think VirtualPC under Connectix's management was crap and didnt improve much over the years, because people have the *NEED* for basic application support under Mac OS and they're able to squeeze all the bucks from Mac users who were willing to spend on VirtualPC. When the hell were gaming support coming? I think Microsoft will embrace and extend Connectix, but not destroy it.
I congratulate Microsoft. They're on a roll onto better products. It will only mean competition will rise amongst Virtual computing computers, especially with VMware.
Yes, this is not an excuse to not port applications to Mac OS X, but what about old things no longer supported. My school's network runs on an ANCIENT version of Netware and uses ANCIENT software and they simply cannot afford new stuff. Public schools suck.
This might be a great thing, since I do a lot of .NET development, and I won't stop developing for .NET, I love the technology. Run Visual Studio .NET smoothly under one session and turn on IIS under Windows XP to test ASP.NET applications from Windows browsers inside, from Mac OS X browsers, and so on. This is a better excuse for me to actually purchase the 17" PowerBook.
I don't think Microsoft is stupid enough to abandon VirtualPC. They said they wouldn't abandon it. I'm not sure if I'm going to take their word for it in the long run, but in the short run, Microsoft is definitely NOT abandoning the Macintosh platform.
And oh, I expect Microsoft's next Office for Macintosh to support the new file formats suggested by Office 11 Windows. I got my copy of the Office 11 beta for Windows today along with Windows Server 2003 RC, Exchange Server 2003, and other stuff. I like the new file formats, it's really true XML, not some bastardized XML as people would love it to be so they can blame Microsoft for incompatible things. It's human readable and as a result, very easy to produce compatible applications. So I doubt killing Office Mac and requiring people to use Office 11 Windows under Mac under VirtualPC would be feasible for Microsoft.
So many people assume Microsoft is evil and buying companies is evil if it's Microsoft.
Microsoft is simply pursuing its interest, especially in Connectix's Virtual Server products. They will be able to squeeze all the performance out of the products for Windows guest operating systems.
They could bring DirectX to VirtualPC. Wouldn't you like that, play PC-only, DirectX-only games under Windows. I know a popular one: RollerCoaster Tycoon and its successors.
I think VirtualPC under Connectix's management was crap and didnt improve much over the years, because people have the *NEED* for basic application support under Mac OS and they're able to squeeze all the bucks from Mac users who were willing to spend on VirtualPC. When the hell were gaming support coming? I think Microsoft will embrace and extend Connectix, but not destroy it.
I congratulate Microsoft. They're on a roll onto better products. It will only mean competition will rise amongst Virtual computing computers, especially with VMware.
Yes, this is not an excuse to not port applications to Mac OS X, but what about old things no longer supported. My school's network runs on an ANCIENT version of Netware and uses ANCIENT software and they simply cannot afford new stuff. Public schools suck.
This might be a great thing, since I do a lot of .NET development, and I won't stop developing for .NET, I love the technology. Run Visual Studio .NET smoothly under one session and turn on IIS under Windows XP to test ASP.NET applications from Windows browsers inside, from Mac OS X browsers, and so on. This is a better excuse for me to actually purchase the 17" PowerBook.
I don't think Microsoft is stupid enough to abandon VirtualPC. They said they wouldn't abandon it. I'm not sure if I'm going to take their word for it in the long run, but in the short run, Microsoft is definitely NOT abandoning the Macintosh platform.
And oh, I expect Microsoft's next Office for Macintosh to support the new file formats suggested by Office 11 Windows. I got my copy of the Office 11 beta for Windows today along with Windows Server 2003 RC, Exchange Server 2003, and other stuff. I like the new file formats, it's really true XML, not some bastardized XML as people would love it to be so they can blame Microsoft for incompatible things. It's human readable and as a result, very easy to produce compatible applications. So I doubt killing Office Mac and requiring people to use Office 11 Windows under Mac under VirtualPC would be feasible for Microsoft.
Very bad news for the computer industry
It's crazy to assume that MS will enhance the product without a hefty price, not just in dollars, but in control. The first thing they will do is kill the virtual machines feature or cripple its performance even more. After all, many windows users run virtual linux machines with VPC. I think we should be very suspicious about their motivations. They have finally admitted that they view linux as a threat and I doubt they are too enthusiastic about allowing users to run competitive OSes within their OS. I also think this may border on violating their settlement with the DOJ on anticompetitive business practices.
It's crazy to assume that MS will enhance the product without a hefty price, not just in dollars, but in control. The first thing they will do is kill the virtual machines feature or cripple its performance even more. After all, many windows users run virtual linux machines with VPC. I think we should be very suspicious about their motivations. They have finally admitted that they view linux as a threat and I doubt they are too enthusiastic about allowing users to run competitive OSes within their OS. I also think this may border on violating their settlement with the DOJ on anticompetitive business practices.
iShater
macrumors 604
I 100% agree! I was just thinking about DirectX 😀 *drooooooool*
besides, imagine how GLAD a MS Windows developer would be when they are told : "ok, we need to optimize our code to run under this virtual machine. Oh yeah, only one video card/sound card/ethernet card/etc. that you need to worry about". 🙂
uhhh....
"It's so slow", "It's a load of crap", etc., etc., etc. Yeah it's not the world fastest program, it's an EMULATION ENVIRONMENT running a complex and buggy OS (Windows) in most cases.
My only point is that with all the hatred and mean things said about VPC over the years, it's no surprise to me that Connectix was willing (maybe even anxious) to dump it. I remember distinctly thinking in the VPC 5 days, "With all this stuff people are saying, they aren't going to even bother making this thing anymore after a while."
It's a good program, considering what it does - especially VPC 6 in 10.2.3+ - and we Mac users have done a pretty thorough job of bashing it into oblivion over the years.
So we'll see what MS does... but I don't blame Connectix for dropping such a widely criticized and ridiculed program.
I don't mean to attack you personally, so please don't take it that way, but as a VPC 5 and now VPC 6 user I've heard nothing but really mean things said about VPC in the Mac community.
"It's so slow", "It's a load of crap", etc., etc., etc. Yeah it's not the world fastest program, it's an EMULATION ENVIRONMENT running a complex and buggy OS (Windows) in most cases.
My only point is that with all the hatred and mean things said about VPC over the years, it's no surprise to me that Connectix was willing (maybe even anxious) to dump it. I remember distinctly thinking in the VPC 5 days, "With all this stuff people are saying, they aren't going to even bother making this thing anymore after a while."
It's a good program, considering what it does - especially VPC 6 in 10.2.3+ - and we Mac users have done a pretty thorough job of bashing it into oblivion over the years.
So we'll see what MS does... but I don't blame Connectix for dropping such a widely criticized and ridiculed program.
Re: Crossover Office / WINE
No, it is not an emulator, but a MS library manager/converter. WINE would still need to be emulated, but the XP operating system would not need to be. One of the primary functions of WINE is translating DirectX functions to OpenGL equivent functions which would be run native in a Mac WINE port. This could mean that games even in emulation mode would be FAR faster than VPC. The more WINE libraries that could be ported over to PowerPC, the better.
However, if Apple did take on this project, they would not optimize it to a level that would interfere with developers writing for Mac based applications. If their emulator is too efficient, then developers would only develop Windows applications and trust in the macintosh emulators to "make-it-work" in OSX.
No, it is not an emulator, but a MS library manager/converter. WINE would still need to be emulated, but the XP operating system would not need to be. One of the primary functions of WINE is translating DirectX functions to OpenGL equivent functions which would be run native in a Mac WINE port. This could mean that games even in emulation mode would be FAR faster than VPC. The more WINE libraries that could be ported over to PowerPC, the better.
However, if Apple did take on this project, they would not optimize it to a level that would interfere with developers writing for Mac based applications. If their emulator is too efficient, then developers would only develop Windows applications and trust in the macintosh emulators to "make-it-work" in OSX.
timbloom
macrumors 6502a
Re: I dunno... Sounds like the prelude to WindowsFU...
You don't need a seperate version of VPC to run different OS's, Basically what it does it emulates the hardware. To put it into perspective: you dont nessicarily need to upgrade your pc every time windows gets updated. I could go out right now and buy a bare ms-dos version of VPC, then install an owned copy of Windows XP or whatever else suits me.
Just to correct any misunderstanding.
You don't need a seperate version of VPC to run different OS's, Basically what it does it emulates the hardware. To put it into perspective: you dont nessicarily need to upgrade your pc every time windows gets updated. I could go out right now and buy a bare ms-dos version of VPC, then install an owned copy of Windows XP or whatever else suits me.
Just to correct any misunderstanding.
Well. First, VirtualPC is great for Microsoft. Microsoft really doesn't give two shakes if you are running Windows on an Intel processor or on a PPC processor pretending to be an Intel processor. Either way, it is a sale to MS. If that were all that was involved, MS would keep VirtualPC out and a viable solution for as long as possible.
HOWEVER, this DOES give MS a huge leverage point against Apple. MS and Apple both know that VirtualPC is vital software (far moreso than Office!) to a huge swathe of folks out there running Macs. If they can't run VPC, then they have to dump their Macs and switch to Intel software. Not a "win" for Microsoft, but a definite loss for Apple. Granted, some of these folks will try that much harder to go Mac-only and thus avoid dumping Apple, and that's lost Windows sales to MS, but the demand for VirtualPC is extraordinarily hard, and so the number of people that would dump Windows if VPC were to dissapear would be inconsequential to MS.
So, MS has a huge upper hand in "bargaining". That having been said, Apple can either let MS lord this over them in perpetuity, or stand up to MS now while the antitrust issue is still hot, and maybe force MS's hand in regards to VPC. MS would be stupid to kill VPC before the various anti-trust suits are all tied up.
IMHO, I'm somewhat surprised the FTC allowed this purchase to go through, considering the history of Microsoft and the importance of Connectix' product to MS's only viable competition. Of course, I'm inclined to chalk most of that up to just ignorance on the part of the parties charged to review the case.
WINE is a Windows emulator, not an x86 processor emulator!
Unless I'm missing a vital fact about WINE, it will not, ever, run on PPC because there just aren't that many PPC-based Windows executables out there to use such a beast!
Anybody know of any competition to Virtual PC? I've only ever heard of the one package to do this sort of thing (x86 emulation on PPC) ...
This has little to do with the mac
Microsoft wants the virtual server technology to include in future versions, or a unique version of windows. They want to allow you to run many virtual copies of NT on top of one server to better manage resources. This is something connectix is doing now along with VMware. Sun is also supposed to release a lower end version of this software. They already support it in a different fashion on their higher end servers.
Microsoft wants the virtual server technology to include in future versions, or a unique version of windows. They want to allow you to run many virtual copies of NT on top of one server to better manage resources. This is something connectix is doing now along with VMware. Sun is also supposed to release a lower end version of this software. They already support it in a different fashion on their higher end servers.
timbloom
macrumors 6502a
Microsoft WILL NOT kill VPC for Mac.
It would be just stupid of them to do so. They would be losing sales.
everyone NEEDS to understand, microsoft does not care if you are running a mac or a pc box. They just want to sell you stuff. If VPC works well, they will sell more copies of windows. If you buy VPC, normally you are buying a bundled copy of windows, therefore, they just made some money. If they kill it, they would lose possible income, how dumb would that be to do?! If microsoft had a monopoly on the hardware aspect of PC's, then it would make some sense for them to kill it, but they don't.
It would be just stupid of them to do so. They would be losing sales.
everyone NEEDS to understand, microsoft does not care if you are running a mac or a pc box. They just want to sell you stuff. If VPC works well, they will sell more copies of windows. If you buy VPC, normally you are buying a bundled copy of windows, therefore, they just made some money. If they kill it, they would lose possible income, how dumb would that be to do?! If microsoft had a monopoly on the hardware aspect of PC's, then it would make some sense for them to kill it, but they don't.