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

Classic layer, Microsoft .NET

Originally posted by aafuss1
It's inrteresting-the vpc for windows-is at the wwindows xp site. Also after gthgis-maybe MS might build in a classic layer-luke apple does with the next windows.
Click to expand...
Once Microsoft .NET is in full swing, that won't be necessary, as Microsoft .NET is platform-independent (yes it works on PowerPC on Mac OS X), language-independent and therefore backwards compatible. Even more so than Java. Unlike Java (I've only really started using Java at version 1.4.1 so I wouldn't know about previous versions), Microsoft .NET allows you to have a runtime that is fully compatible with the previous versions without choosing which version of the .NET Framework to run a certain program, it's done automatically. Someone who is more familiar with Java, please inform if this is done under Java just as seamlessly. I haven't programmed much on the Java platform, but I am learning Java.

Besides, they technically already have a classic layer-like thing called "Compatibility Layer." For example, if an app didn't work on Windows XP natively, but it did on Windows 95, you can simply right click the executable and tell it to execute under a Windows 95-like environment.
 
this cannot be good i mean in a month they will kill it or raise the price either way it was bad before and worse now. Just buy a cheap PC its probably as good as using VPC.
 
Recently I changed my mind from an earlier post in this thread. I have a few PC's, like 40 or so in a sea of 700+ Macs. This week a WIN2000 Pro system I have running our finacial package took a dive. The MDB was hosed. I couldn't go backwards like VPC, but I did have plenty of backups, but then encountered the famous "DLL dance of death". I guess to make a long story short, I think now that a cheap PC is actually worse than VPC, whereas if you do games get a GOOD PC. I use VPC 5 and it works fine for minor things, and could certainly handle the low-end finance package we use. M$, don't screw up a good thing!
 
when VPC costs more than XP, and macOffice costs more than microsoft office... how is mac os even a "rival" system to m$ now?
 
Originally posted by Les Kern
Recently I changed my mind from an earlier post in this thread. I have a few PC's, like 40 or so in a sea of 700+ Macs. This week a WIN2000 Pro system I have running our finacial package took a dive. The MDB was hosed. I couldn't go backwards like VPC, but I did have plenty of backups, but then encountered the famous "DLL dance of death". I guess to make a long story short, I think now that a cheap PC is actually worse than VPC, whereas if you do games get a GOOD PC. I use VPC 5 and it works fine for minor things, and could certainly handle the low-end finance package we use. M$, don't screw up a good thing!
Click to expand...


if you do alot of games, buy a console for a fraction of the price of the cheapest PCs lol
 
Re: Classic layer, Microsoft .NET

Originally posted by MacCoaster
Unlike Java (I've only really started using Java at version 1.4.1 so I wouldn't know about previous versions), Microsoft .NET allows you to have a runtime that is fully compatible with the previous versions without choosing which version of the .NET Framework to run a certain program, it's done automatically. Someone who is more familiar with Java, please inform if this is done under Java just as seamlessly. I haven't programmed much on the Java platform, but I am learning Java.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you're talking about here. I can run Java 1.0 applications just fine using the Java 1.4.1 JVM. I can also run *some* Java 1.4.1 applications using a Java 1.0 JVM, provided the programmer is careful not to use newer classes and such. A program that compiles on the Java 1.0 compiler will compile on the Java 1.4.1 compiler most (but not all) of the time, although it may emit several "deprecation" (ie, "there's now a better way to do the same thing") warnings.

IMHO, Java has handled a changing spec far more gracefully than most languages (C and C++ in particular ... I mean with C++, between ARM and ANSI the meaning of variables initialized in a for(;; ) loop changed dramatically!)

I would hope that .NET will manage library changes and new concepts as gracefully, but, honestly, .NET hasn't been around long enough to be able to say one way or the other. MS does have a pretty good record in keeping language backward-compatibility (although at times sacrificing standards interoperability in the name of backwards compatibility ... for instance, in the above example VC++ 6.0 continues to use the ARM meaning of for(;; ) loop variables, which makes porting from VC++ to any other modern compiler a bit more difficult).
 
Re: Re: Classic layer, Microsoft .NET

Originally posted by jettredmont
I'm not sure what you're talking about here. I can run Java 1.0 applications just fine using the Java 1.4.1 JVM. I can also run *some* Java 1.4.1 applications using a Java 1.0 JVM, provided the programmer is careful not to use newer classes and such. A program that compiles on the Java 1.0 compiler will compile on the Java 1.4.1 compiler most (but not all) of the time, although it may emit several "deprecation" (ie, "there's now a better way to do the same thing") warnings.
Click to expand...
So I don't need to have the JVM 1.0 to run Java 1.0 programs? What if the Java specs deprecated a class or something that was valid in 1.0, but is invalid in 1.4. Will Java 1.0 programs using those classes still run on the 1.4 version of JVM? Or if I require those specific deprecated classes, due to unavailabilty of source code and so on, will I be required to run the 1.0 JVM side by side with 1.4?

IIRC, Java 1.4.1 is really Java 2.0 version 1.4.1, like Mac OS X (10) 10.2. What about the true 1.0 version of Java 1?
I would hope that .NET will manage library changes and new concepts as gracefully, but, honestly, .NET hasn't been around long enough to be able to say one way or the other. MS does have a pretty good record in keeping language backward-compatibility (although at times sacrificing standards interoperability in the name of backwards compatibility ... for instance, in the above example VC++ 6.0 continues to use the ARM meaning of for(;; ) loop variables, which makes porting from VC++ to any other modern compiler a bit more difficult).
Click to expand...
Microsoft .NET has already been proved for that. They're working on Microsoft .NET 1.1 already and is getting close to completion on version 1.1. I ran their beta versions of Microsoft .NET 1.1 without no problems. Runs very smoothly with 1.0 binaries.

Regarding the for(;;) loop in VC++, that is supposed to be fixed for Microsoft Visual Studio .NET 2003 (which, btw, uses .NET 1.1, so it's also Microsoft .NET 1.1 that is getting this), as far as I know. Microsoft .NET 1.1 is aimed for something like 99%, or even 100% if at the end they're able to do this, compliance with the ANSI C++ standard. That percentage is really AMAZING. Not even GNU C++ stuff are 100% adhering to the ANSI standard.
 
Originally posted by MacCoaster
They are NOT killing VPC.

Raising prices, I doubt it. But could happen.
Click to expand...

why would you doubt that MS would jack up prices? don't they do that on every single program they sell?
example of MS tight as$ product dealings:
over-paranoid serial numbers and product packaging


i was happy that i at least got the opportunity to buy VPC before i had to send money to microsoft
 
Originally posted by macfreek57
why would you doubt that MS would jack up prices? don't they do that on every single program they sell?
example of MS tight as$ product dealings:
over-paranoid serial numbers and product packaging
Click to expand...
Your last sentence has NOTHING to do with jacking up prices. :rolleyes: serial numbers? OH NO! There are MILLIONS of other companies using serial numbers. OOHHHHH NOOOO... world's gonna end. :rolleyes:

And no, Microsoft doesn't jack up their prices for every single program. If they did, mind to prove it? For example:

Windows Me => Windows XP Home, same price.
Windows 2000 Professional => Windows XP Professional, same price.

And Microsoft is dropping prices. Windows Server 2003 Web Server will be cheaper than Windows Server 2003 Standard, when you only need a Web Server.
 
Originally posted by MacCoaster
Your last sentence has NOTHING to do with jacking up prices. :rolleyes: serial numbers? OH NO! There are MILLIONS of other companies using serial numbers. OOHHHHH NOOOO... world's gonna end. :rolleyes:

And no, Microsoft doesn't jack up their prices for every single program. If they did, mind to prove it? For example:

Windows Me => Windows XP Home, same price.
Windows 2000 Professional => Windows XP Professional, same price.

And Microsoft is dropping prices. Windows Server 2003 Web Server will be cheaper than Windows Server 2003 Standard, when you only need a Web Server.
Click to expand...

jacking up their prices as in the prices as they are are too high. i guess it's a matter of opinion. my comments were in no way hostile. sorry if they came out that way
and i'll leave the oem comments alone as they are
 
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