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

More theories

I think this is bad for Apple and Mac users in the long run. See previous post. Some other possibilities:

-M$ integrates VPC/Windows with the Aqua interface, making it semi-indistinguishable from the appearance of native Mac apps.

-Assuming the above, M$ stops development of Mac Office, saying you can just buy Windows Office. Looks great, runs slow.

-M$ integrates VPC essentially into the MacOS (using strong-arm tactics with Apple), so in addition to the Apple logo, we all see a M$ logo at startup if VPC is installed. (This is unlikely but a terrifying thought!)

My general concern is that VPC is of STRATEGIC importance to Apple. Yeah it runs slow, etc, but the fact the product exists helps sell Macs. I can't tell you how many Macs I've installed because an IT department said ok due to VPC's existence. What's the other strategic program? Office! Who owns both? M$!

Someone else said it first, but I'll repeat. Apple should have bought VPC. Would have sounded stupid at the time, but better than M$ controlling it.
 
I disagree. I think MS *knows* that if they do those "strategic" things, people will simply not buy it. Anyway, I don't see what's so horrible about MS making a OSX look as long as they keep it in VPC. I'd rather look at that then XP anyway.

The point is, MS will operate in its best interest. Its best interest is not to scare Mac users.

Scare Mac Users = Loss of Revenue

Is it just me or does it seem like there is a phobia about Apple losing its identity or MS "copying Apple." Ah.. MS; you people just love to hate them huh...
 
no too bad

i don't think Microsoft will kill this app. Bill is a large stockholder of Apple and its clear for me that his apps sell good to. So why not supporting a small company (remember: Apple has only 5% marketshare). He wins both ways!
 
there goes vpc, now it will stop working .

Can't Apple make some kind of app that would work like vpc, but only faster?
 
Microsoft wanted VPC for Windows, not for the Mac

Virtual PC is not just a "Windows on Mac" product. There is also VirtualPC for Windows which allows you to run multiple OS versions (Windows NT, Win 98, OS/2, etc) on the same machine simultaneously.

It makes a lot of sense that Microsoft would want to acquire this and integrate it with terminal services so that they can build great big boxes that can serve many clients and serve using many OS's at the same time. This is an important feature for the "big iron" market.

I'm sure that VirtualPC for the Mac being part of the deal was just an afterthought. I would expect one more version of that (mostly branding-changes) to come out for the Mac and then probably "bye-bye". I don't think that Connectix has been selling many copies of it lately.

On another note... I doubt that Connectix (the company) has been acquired by Microsoft. I say this because Connectix has always been a very closed company. They like to do things their own way without a lot of outside involvement and have resisted acquisition in the past.
 
The *REAL REASON* that Microsoft acquired VPC

Sorry for the double-post, but here's my theory...

If, as rumored, Microsoft really plans to build a new OS from the ground up, they will need a way to provide backwards compatibility. One of the big problems with Windows bloat has always been that Microsoft has insisted in adding lots of new features while still maintaining backwards compatibility.

The old model allowed them to do this by building a monolithic OS where features were hacked on top of older features and new "compatibility" APIs where added on as well.

Slowly, MS has been moving to a model with a nice, clean kernel/hardware compatibility layer with a still-cluttered API on top of it. Perhaps the VPC acquisition is an attempt to "isolate" the current API to provide compatibility while building a new one for next-generation apps.

VPC for Windows might give them a nice technology to do that.
 
Originally posted by MacCoaster
Jesus Christ.

So many people assume Microsoft is evil and buying companies is evil if it's Microsoft.
Click to expand...

I personally consider a Convicted Monopoly to be a reasonable definition of "Marketplace Evil" until it is destroyed. YMMV.

Microsoft is simply pursuing its interest....
Click to expand...

Yup. And it looks like an effort to extend their Monopoly to me.

They could bring DirectX to VirtualPC. Wouldn't you like that, play PC-only, DirectX-only games under Windows.
Click to expand...

Since I don't give a hoot about most games, "no."

Particularly since the last thing consumers need is YA proprietary standard to be forced upon us.


Yes, this is not an excuse to not port applications to Mac OS X, but what about old things no longer supported.
Click to expand...

The Lawyers will be sure to point it out as an excuse for Microsoft to do whatever they want in regards to OS X: afterall, they're not legally obligated to provide the best solution.

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.
Click to expand...

Microsoft has a long history of hamstringing the Mac platform while simultaneously claiming to support it. My workplace evidence is the lack of MS-Access in Office, as well as bad or non-existant versions of MS-Outlook.

For example, did you know that the .PST files are incompatible between PC & Mac and that the *only* way to convert the file is to upload them back to your server on the Mac side and pull them down on the PC side? Talk about a royal pain in the toosh.


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.
Click to expand...

True XML for now...but has the file interface standard been published and locked down? If not, Microsoft has left the door open for their usual proprietary trickery down the road. I'll bet a keg of beer that even if there's a Mac Office v.XI that supports the current XML version, that there will be proprietary XML coding added within two PC-side revisions that will result in the file format no longer being "clean" non-proprietary XML that's readable on the non-PC side of the house.

And if its anything like the crap HTML file conversion within the existing MS-Office Apps, its code is rediculous bloated. The classic example that I usually edit out is the font definion that's repeated for every single damn line. Its been my experience that a fast hand edit will reduce the size of a MS-Word created webpage by ~100%.


-hh
 
The chances of the products being killed are slim, if MS views VPC as another profit center for the MacBU.

However MS's view of what is needed for minimum profit may be different than Connectix's view -- and you need to take into account the puchase price of the product.

So basically depending on what profit the MacBU needs to make, expected future R&D, and purchase costs -- the price may change.
 
Originally posted by smegdude
its quite obvious that m$ are gonna kill off vpc, why would they support a product who's whole use is to run their OS on a rival system?
if they do make it better then i can pretty much guarantee that m$ will be charging much more for their new OS's, makeing it more economical just to buy a new pc.

RIP VPC
Click to expand...

No no no... remember.. Microsoft is a *SOFTWARE* company. (except for xbox and stuff). They *sell* their software to anyone with $140... they don't care what box its one, and this includes VirtualPC users... which comes with a copy of their OS. Now, they'll get a little extra cash kick from the emulator as well as from the OS. Remember, MS used to write windows to run on Dec Alpha systems, and the write for Itanium now, why not go ahead and write for PPC.

Why... I think they'll struggle their hardest to make virtualPC as good as possible and try to lure some antiswitchers to leave macs for Windows 100%...

:)

Dharvabinky
 
Calling Microsoft a monopoly is not just a matter of popularity.

First of all, a monopoly, to an economists viewpoint, is a company that can shoot up its prices and expect profit. If you look at the price of windows, it has gone progressively down since Win98. It's no longer worth it to pay all that money for something that people take for granted. Why do you think there is anti-piracy included with every version of XP?

Second Microsoft has an obligation by most companies to stay open. It is not the other way around. If Microsoft went out of business tomorrow, do you think the whole world would suddenly switch to OSX? Of course not! If anything, people, inlcuding Apple, would crack Windows open and continue it through compatibility.

It's not like Microsoft is the only choice. The fact that companies choose Microsoft programs as a standard automatically perpetuates the life of Microsoft whether they like it or not. The simple fact is, if the Mac OS had been chosen as the standard, Apple would be in the same position as Microsoft, with all ad hominem aside.

If you consider these circumstances to be "evil" then I don't see how you could ever imagine an operating system that doesn't have the potential to be "evil." It all comes down to the economic standard. Standards are put in place so that people can communicate. "Apple does not communicate well with Windows, therefore since most people use Windows, I will switch to Windows." That seems perfectly logical to me. If you don't agree, then try starting a business with 10% market compatiblity and see how much money you make. I think it's strange that some people expect complete compatibility when they are using an operating system that is competing with the software that they are using.

As for VPC, Microsoft has the opportunity to make a profit off of people who need it. I believe that they have a better potential to make VPC better, especially if they don't need to worry about copyright issues. Since VPC is not only a Mac program, it IS in their best interest AND Mac VPC user's best interest for Microsoft to obtain it. As long as people depend on Microsoft products on OSX, people are going to buy VPC. Since VPC is Windows anyway I don't see why people are so upset that Microsoft, the company that knows Windows best is in control of their own emulator.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Crossover Office / WINE

Originally posted by nighthawk
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.
Click to expand...
My appologies - I didn't think of it that way. This brings back memories of the rumored "Red Box" mode that people speculated Rhapsody could have - where win32 apps would run like the "Blue Box" mac os classic apps do.

I still doubt this would ever happen, not unless the Bochs project was adopted by Apple or something.
 
This could be a good thing. We might see VPC running faster because it will be based on a real version of windows instead of a version that was changed so that it could be used by another company.
 
Windows on PPC

For those of you who are worried about MS selling a version of Windows for PPC, I think you can relax.

They already did that - NT 4.0 IS (was) available for PPC (and Alpha too). In fact, take a look at the install CD (if you have one) and you'll find directorys like: x86, PPC, Alpha. (There may be one more, it's been a while since I've installed NT 4)

The problem with PPC NT (and Alpha NT for that matter) was that nobody wanted to re-compile and tune their applications for the other platforms. Alpha NT seemed to have minimal success in some speciallized markets (I think NewTek made a version Lightwave for it) but it's dead tech' now.

As others have said here, MS is not scared of OS X anywhere near as much as Linux. Linux (and BSD) are eating into their high margin server sales like starving beavers on a log cabin. :)

MS has much bigger fish to fry.
 
Originally posted by MacCoaster
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.
Click to expand...
Guess I must have hit a nerve.

Show me statistics that prove that these IIS servers are doing any real work as well. Pick some know high traffic sites (that don't make their living off of Wintel, i.e. Dell), Amazon, CNN, Slashdot and see what they're running; usually its Linux/Apache.

As for your notion that all these Apache servers aren't doing anything... look here and notice how prominent Apache is in "Totals for Active Servers Across All Domains"
 
1. People seem to forget that there was never a problem with Microsoft having a monopoly in the Intel OS market, the problem was when they illegally abused their position to destroy potential competitors and annihilate companies in separate fields of the computer industry.

2. Apple is a hardware manufacturer. Their competition are Dell, HPCompaq, Gateway, etc. They do not make an OS to rival MS.

3. When they talk of "Windows Switchers," they're talking about Intel switchers. It doesn't matter what OS you run that Mac with, so long as you buy the hardware. Notice Apple doesn't even try to make their OS available to Intel machines or clones, but here is MS buying up an emulator for their own platform.

4. It would benefit MS to develop and exploit VPC to the extent that every PC sold with a Windows license is less profit for MS than every copy of MSVPC+WinXP sold with a Mac.

5. MS has a history of not playing nice with opportunities like this. I'm afraid.
 
Question

Which would be better for the Mac:

1) Connectix just dumps VirtualPC for lack of venture funding.

2) Microsoft funds VirtualPC indefinitely.

After having some time to think about it, I think this is actually the better of the two options (Connectix is in financial trouble and was looking fro venture funding for VPC ... which likely wouldn't have been very forthcoming).
 
Actually the end of VPC shouldn't affect most switchers since they already have a PC. This would only affect people wanting to run PC programs on their Mac. Sorry but no emulator beats the real thing especially at the price they charge.
 
Originally posted by ryan
Guess I must have hit a nerve.

Show me statistics that prove that these IIS servers are doing any real work as well. Pick some know high traffic sites (that don't make their living off of Wintel, i.e. Dell), Amazon, CNN, Slashdot and see what they're running; usually its Linux/Apache.

As for your notion that all these Apache servers aren't doing anything... look here and notice how prominent Apache is in "Totals for Active Servers Across All Domains"
Click to expand...
Have you looked at my first source (http://www.port80software.com/servermask/top1000webservers/)? Over 500 servers out of 1,000 tested of the top 1,000 are Microsoft-IIS.

Results are constant with Netcraft's SSL survey.

"Totals for Active Servers Across All Domains" means ABSOLUTELY nothing. They don't have explanatory graphs with definitions or actual listing of numbers. They need to do so to make people interpret it correctly.

Active just might mean active as in up and running, NOT as in up and running enterprise level software.
 
Woah this is a hot one! Seems to me that comments on the lines of Microsoft are just a software company hit the mark.
The more software Bill gates can have running on more platforms the bigger his bank balance gets.
Personaly I try to avoid it as its the only stuff my OS9 system crashes under.

Whats to say Apple won't release its own emulation software:p
 
A Perfect Fit for Microsoft

Originally posted by springscansing
I do not really understand virtual PC. It runs so damn slow. For under 300 bucks, you can get an Athlon 900mhz system, 256 RAM, 60GBHD, 10/100 ethernet, DVD-ROM, and a geforce4mx 64MB graphics card.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3401785793&category=4317

Right there. Same price as Virtual PC, and KICKS ITS ASS in every way possible.

1 hour left... someone better jump on it.

Please, someone explain to me why Virtual PC is good.

Connectix's Playstation emulator was also stupid. 50 bucks for the program, 40 bucks for two controllers... just buy a damn playstation already! Even Steve Jobs said that.

And RAMdoubler was slow as hell and terrible... speed doubler didn't double much...

I personally could care less about Connectix. Someone prove me wrong.
Click to expand...

Products that don't make sense because they're not as good as an alternative... PERFECT FIT FOR 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