Sidebar Sidebar
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

Re: Re: Crossover Office / WINE

Originally posted by nighthawk
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.
Click to expand...
But Windows executables are compiled for x86 instruction sets - how are you going to to handle that without an x86 emulator?
 
Originally posted by Dunepilot
Wasn't it also from Connectix?
Click to expand...

Actually... RealPC and SoftWindows were from FWB... but they discontinued it some time ago.
( http://www.fwb.com/ lists it as discontinued, teases with a "special offer" from Connectix, and then gives you no way to get to the special offer.)

RealPC was adequate for running a few applications that I needed for school such as Access 2000 and a few other windows-only programs. Granted, on a 350 MHz iMac it was slow, but I could get my assignments done without having to go into the lab.


emulation.net's review:
http://emulation.net/windoze/realpc/
 
The MS apologists have got this nearly all wrong.

While it MAY be true that MS's primary motivation foor the purchase is to improve their OS emulation on servers, sticking it Apple is clearly icing on the cake.

And here's where a lot of the posts really get it wrong. MS doesn't want to sell licenses to Mac users because they know that only a fraction actually do so. They want to kill Apple. Yes, Apple does scare them. OS X whips XP's hindquarters and they know it and they know many consumers will realize it when they see it. The Apple Store strategy scares them because it's making inroads. Maybe not sizable inroads, but MS didn't get where it is by failing to see what lay in store for them down the road. This is a shot across Apple's bow in response to Apple's shots, i.e. Keynote and Safari.
 
Originally posted by Awimoway
The MS apologists have got this nearly all wrong.

While it MAY be true that MS's primary motivation foor the purchase is to improve their OS emulation on servers, sticking it Apple is clearly icing on the cake.

And here's where a lot of the posts really get it wrong. MS doesn't want to sell licenses to Mac users because they know that only a fraction actually do so. They want to kill Apple. Yes, Apple does scare them. OS X whips XP's hindquarters and they know it and they know many consumers will realize it when they see it. The Apple Store strategy scares them because it's making inroads. Maybe not sizable inroads, but MS didn't get where it is by failing to see what lay in store for them down the road. This is a shot across Apple's bow in response to Apple's shots, i.e. Keynote and Safari.
Click to expand...
No, you're the one who got it wrong.

Microsoft still supports the Mac platform very well. They won't be stopping Virtual PC at all, not even intentionally as a conspiracy theory. Otherwise, FTC wouldn't allow Microsoft to buy Connectix.

Besides, they would earn a much higher profit margin on Virtual PC now, and especially on Windows Server products. That's their goal. Apple and Virtual PC on Mac OS X is *NOTHING* to Microsoft, they can continue it because it will prove profitable. Why kill revenue sources. I wouldn't.

Again, primary goal is the Windows Server. Believe it or not, Windows Servers are growing, not dying, as they prove to be cheaper than UNIX solutions. We are not talking about your average Linux web server that serves several tiny sites. I'm talking about real enterprise servers.

Just think about it, over 50% of the top 1000 corporations run Microsoft Servers, while only 18% run Apache. The rest are some weird Netscape Java servers or others. Those servers are ACTUALLY doing something, rather than most servers on Netcraft are sitting around doing nothing (just check the top 50 uptimes for servers, one is actually Windows, several are BSDs, but what are they doing--NOTHING!). Microsoft wants to extend their market further with virtualization [Like WHO doesn't want to further their business to earn more money. Please, tell me, name one for-profit company who WANTS to lose money!]. (source) and (source #2)

This is a good move for Microsoft. You Mac people might benefit--possibly Windows acceleration, DirectX implementation, etc. Be happy if Microsoft improves Virtual PC to that kind of a milestone.

Edit: Found link for top 50 uptimes and a spelling error.
 
Originally posted by MacCoaster
No, you're the one who got it wrong.

Microsoft still supports the Mac platform very well. They won't be stopping Virtual PC at all, not even intentionally as a conspiracy theory. Otherwise, FTC wouldn't allow Microsoft to buy Connectix.

Besides, they would earn a much higher profit margin on Virtual PC now, and especially on Windows Server products. That's their goal. Apple and Virtual PC on Mac OS X is *NOTHING* to Microsoft, they can continue it because it will prove profitable. Why kill revenue sources. I wouldn't.

Again, primary goal is the Windows Server. Believe it or not, Windows Servers are growing, not dying, as they prove to be cheaper than UNIX solutions. We are not talking about your average Linux web server that serves several tiny sites. I'm talking about real enterprise servers.

Just think about it, over 50% of the top 1000 corporations run Microsoft Servers, while only 18% run Apache. The rest are some weird Netscape Java servers or others. Those servers are ACTUALLY doing something, rather than most servers on Netcraft are sitting around doing nothing (just check the top 50 uptime for servers, one is actually Windows, several are BSDs, but what are they doing--NOTHING!). Microsoft wants to extend their market further with virtualization [Like WHO doesn't want to further their business to earn more money. Please, tell me, name one for-profit company who WANTS to lose money!]. (source) and (source #2)

This is a good move for Microsoft. You Mac people might benefit--possibly Windows acceleration, DirectX implementation, etc. Be happy if Microsoft improves Virtual PC to that kind of a milestone.
Click to expand...
Your Port80Software source is questionable since they're in the IIS support business. As for netcraft look here
 
thankfully, your wrong

Originally posted by benuker
Micorsoft recently buyed blizzard, too. No more good games for us from them, guys.
Click to expand...

WHEW. You had me worried for a second, but thankfully your wrong about blizzard. I've been worried about a Micro$hit blizzard buyout to, but I just checked the blizzard site today, and:

Originally posted at http://www.blizzard.com/inblizz/profile.shtml
Blizzard Entertainment is a division of Vivendi Universal Publishing, the publishing division of the world's second largest communications group, Vivendi Universal. Vivendi Universal is listed on the French stock exchange (#12777) and also the New York Stock Exchange under ticker symbol 'V'.
Click to expand...

don't scare me like that again :D
 
I think arn is right. We probably won't see VPC killed off but we will see its ability to run OSes other than Windows disappear.

A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away there was a rumor of a "Red Box" that was to be in Apple's next generation OS, Rhapsody. This "Red Box" was suppose to an x86 emulation layer that was going to sit next to the "Yellow Box," a classic "emulator" for MacOS 7/8 apps. Apple has a talented bunch of developers who, given the task, could write an x86 emulator for OSX, lets hope that Mr. Jobs gives those marching orders.
 
Originally posted by ryan
Your Port80Software source is questionable since they're in the IIS support business. As for netcraft look here
Click to expand...
Must I reiterate:

Most servers are doing NOTHING, default install servers.

Show me proof that MOST of those Apache sites are DOING something like actually serving up REAL enterprise web applications.

Have you even bothered to look at the top 50 uptime servers. They aren't huge database backends, huge web application backends, etc. And have you even bothered to look at the SSL server pages. 49% Servers running Microsoft. SSL means serious business apps. I would expect most e-commerce sites to have SSL. Appears that they like Microsoft better.

Please, research on actual data representing what is actually being done, rather than use overgeneralizations. Remember, Netcraft counts each website as a separate server. Yes, Apache can do many times more sites per machine than Windows with IIS, but most people don't care because Windows with IIS is designed to be a dedicated server platform running mission critical stuff.
 
Re: Re: Re: Crossover Office / WINE

Originally posted by eric_n_dfw
But Windows executables are compiled for x86 instruction sets - how are you going to to handle that without an x86 emulator?
Click to expand...

I NEVER said that WINE is an emulator. I was just suggesting that if Apple put the resources into building Windows support into the MacOS (like Windows File Sharing is now), then they would develop their OWN emulator, and use libraries like WINE to emulate WINDOWS. If Apple were to do this, Microsoft WOULD NOT GET ANY MONEY.

That is what I would do. Yes, WINE would be emulated, but XP would not be, the libraries take care of that. A decent emulator and optimized WINE-like libraries might have a much greater performace than VPC ever had.
 
Originally posted by MacCoaster

Microsoft still supports the Mac platform very well. They won't be stopping Virtual PC at all, not even intentionally as a conspiracy theory. Otherwise, FTC wouldn't allow Microsoft to buy Connectix.

Edit: Found link for top 50 uptimes and a spelling error.
Click to expand...

Microsoft only develops for Mac because Mac is still around. If they own the market they can make all the same cash off of you while developing only for their own platform.

Also, how often have you seen our government succesfully shut down any of the M$ monoply tactics?

Dan
 
Best case/Worst case scenarios

At best this could mean hardware accelareted Windows on the Mac. At worst it would mean a PPC version of Windows to replace OS X.
 
Originally posted by alset
Microsoft only develops for Mac because Mac is still around. If they own the market they can make all the same cash off of you while developing only for their own platform.

Also, how often have you seen our government succesfully shut down any of the M$ monoply tactics?

Dan
Click to expand...
Yes, that is true, and is especially true for most Mac development. Microsoft is earning MORE money by increasing the number of their revenue streams.

What's wrong with maximizing profits. Jeez, people are so jealous of Microsoft's success. That's the whole point of running a friggin' company--to earn money. Yeah, gee, the CEO of X would want to lose so much money buy letting others profit from their market. :rolleyes:

BTW, to counter your point about the government, how many times have you seen OUR government's servants (in Microsoft's case, the judge) be so biased against a particular company (Microsoft) that he was thrown out of a certain case. That happened to Microsoft. Nice to see democracy at work!
 
I've read all the way through this thread now, and have seen that a few people have mentioned Marklar. I'm sure that this will now be implemented down the road sometime.

However, it seems at first that there are a few possibilities:

? *CON* ? Muck-rosoft is intent on destroying any chance of "switchers" easily moving from the PC-based world to OSX, by killing off any method of running old programs that they may own.

i.e. - Making things difficult makes things look so much more unattractive...

? *PRO* ? The program gets an injection of speed, with Direct-X being written into the code - utilising the graphics card in the Mac by offloading graphics-intensive operations to the card instead of using precious processing power.

? *PRO* ? Apple unleashes Marklar on an unsuspecting PC world - attacking Microsoft's client base head-on; promising a stable Operating System based on Unix, an impressive list of software titles, security that rivals its opposition (Dept. of Homeland Security cannot access OSX - Microsoft signed an agreement with DHS to create "back-doors" in their OS so the government can "snoop" through your PC, whereas Apple did NOT...), and the ability to work in a clean, useful and uncluttered environment.



Apple, of course, would win with Marklar. They INSTANTLY have a huge prospective market base in a PC community, as well as being able to keep their existing Mac client base.

Imagine if the great unwashed leapt onto Marklar, arms outstretched? Maybe you'd get more switchers:

"...God - if their software's this good, imagine what their hardware is like?!?..."

People have forgotten that Microsoft is a software company. It's how they made their money. Apple is already established in the computing community, renowned for its quality hardware products. Even if they diversified into an Operating System product for PC's, they couldnt lose. The program's already been written, and just needs to be marketed. Any profits from the sale of the OS would go directly back into the company - namely its R&D division - to produce bigger and better computers and peripherals.

Not only would that happen, but also software companies will then produce more titles for OSX to satisfy the new users.

Personally, I don't care whether VPC is discontinued. I have a working version of VPC 5 with Windows 98SE in the (unlikely) eventuality that I may need to access a PC-only web page, run a simple PC-based program, or view a PC-made document (even though it's slow). Everything I need to survive in the computer world can be handled quite nicely by my G4 Cube.

Once you've had Mac, you'll never go back...

;)
 
I think the output all depends on just how much M$ intends to ignore the DoJ trial settlement. Option A is that they play nice and improve upon VPC/Windoze interaction, including making a bundled version of XP with parts that are PPC-native.

(One thing that is definite either way is that we will no longer be able to buy VPC without XP,and only XP, bundled. M$ hates the sale of 'bare' PCs, and PCs with older Windoze versions, enough to allow the equivalent here.)

Option B is that they just kill off VPC (and make use of the VirtualServer technology) in order to go after the 5% Mac users, and try to prevent any more switchers.

I don't see this as being a huge problem for current VPC users: provided Apple doesn't break the operation of an existing VPC install, and the user doesn't upgrade their Windows install, they should still get along together. There might become a healthy market in second-hand copies of VPC.

What I would love to see in the longer term is the return of a competitor: SoftPC/SoftWindows, BlueLabel or Bochs. They all had potential, and with the help of the Open Source movement might reach even higher levels of performance than VirtualPC.

What would be truly wonderful would be that any of these PC emulators could be integrated with the Wine project to create a PPC native windowing environment with full x86 emulation - this would be THE ultimate Windoze emulator.

Anyone know what happened to the IP of Connectix's competitors?

Anyone know any Mac or OSS hackers looking for a project to to work on?
http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=12580
 
What a smart move by MS. They bought an interesting item (no matter how good or bad it is from a technical point) and can now apply pressure if and when needed.
Do not understand why Apple did not move first - a critical error and serious flaw in Apple's strategy. Instead of insulating themselves from attacks they left their flank wide open and MS just drove right into it.
Excellent tactics by MS, sad day for the rest of us.
For it is perception that counts, and MS has just become the gatekeeper to the portability of all sort of programs.
Truly, a gatekeeper from hell :))
 
Exactly.

Originally posted by nanosound
Why would MS want to kill it off? You are actually purchasing a licensed version of Windoze.
Click to expand...

Now Microsoft can sell a Windows licence AND Office with every Mac sold. What do they care if your running Windows on a Dell or an Apple machine as long as you've paid for the license.
 
here is the deal you all seem to be missing:
VPC emulates hardware, not Windows, but hardware.
Sure, MS might optimize a version of Windows to run better through VPC but it would have to completely bypass making and translating calls intended for Pentium Class processors, and all the rest of the hardware.
If MS releases a crippled, or specialized, version of Windows it might benefit Mac users in the form of a speed boost. But, to expect Direct X--which allows games to play directly off of the hardware, bypassing windows for the most part, in a DOS-like way....ain't happening. Sure, i might eat my words some day some way, but, there is no point in trying. You'd still need a special version of Direct X written especially for the PPC/Apple mobo. Billy and his boys could have done that without buying a company like Connectix.
But, like a few posters thankfully noted, the VPC assets MS bought are for the virtual server product which MS is going to integrate into Windows. So, the company will improve their flagship product first and foremost and will still increase their bottom line (likely) with VPC for the mac.
Will it mean the end of a special mac version of office, whew! who knows. it is possible if MS can make the needed improvements to the emulator so that part of the conspiracy theory does seem possible. If the MacBU does focus on soley on optimizing VPC, it would stream line their jobs quite a bit, wouldn't it? But, technically speaking, it seems like MS would be better off doing something Connectix said it was going to do: bundle the app with a PCI hardware card. Like the old Orange PC product, but with the software making calls to the PPCinfrastructre and offloading some tasks to the processor. Heck, they could even do a system on a chip, if Windows didn't need to be fixed every 3 months.
otherwise, the paranoid notions that this is pay back for Apple doing whatever minor things they have done (in comparison to the recycled crap MS gives the folks who make it a monopoly) can't possibly be spooking Bill Gates that much.

At the end of the day, however this goes down, one of the biggest boons to MS, is that all our base will belong to them. The next version of the product may not run pre-XP/2000 systems. So, they will get to reinforce their DRM and product activation to force you to pay for Windows and all of the other non-freeware. So, it is win/win for MS.
 
Yep.

Originally posted by ryan
I think arn is right. We probably won't see VPC killed off but we will see its ability to run OSes other than Windows disappear.
Click to expand...

Linux is Microsoft's worst enemy. I doubt I'll be able to run Red Hat on my PowerBook next year...
 
About Mac OS X on x86, this would be very good for software developers. It would be a lot easier to make apps for both Windows and Mac OS and if Apple integrated something like WINE into MAC OS on x86, they we would all be able to run Windows apps much like we can run X11 apps on a Mac now.
 
Anti-trust?

Does the purchase of Connectix not add weight to the anti-trust prosecution teams argument. VirtualPC is not a Windows emulator, it's a PC emulator which is used by many people to run Linux and BSD etc.. By buying this company Microsoft now potentially controls nearly 100% of the desktop market.
 
Re: Yep.

Originally posted by moby1
Linux is Microsoft's worst enemy. I doubt I'll be able to run Red Hat on my PowerBook next year...
Click to expand...
As long as you don't update VirtualPC, you might be okay. Then again it depends if OS X version 10.3 breaks VirtualPC or not.

Of course, at this point updating VirtualPC will be giving money to Microsoft.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back