RealPC Delayed

[mim]

Re: Optimised for 970?!! I doubt it too.

Originally posted by AidenShaw
I've been trying really hard to think of why one would need 64-bit integers or >4GB of RAM (the only real advantages to 64-bits) in order to emulate a 32-bit x86 CPU.

The emulated machine isn't going to ask for 64-bit operations (outside of double precision floating point which is already supported on the 32-bit PPC, and maybe some SSE2 ops), it isn't going to need >4GB....

I think that calling it a "fantasy" is probably right on.

There'll probably be a new file system, tweeked video system - who knows what else. The 64bit thing aside, why release a program that's probably really really heavily dependent on OSX to get every ounce of speed it needs, when OSX is about to be updated?

Ok, so you're probably right that they aren't delaying software to redesign for 64bit ops. Besides that point, you saying these things is akin to Bill saying "no-one will need more than 640k ram"... in other words "total rubbish". Clever people will always find a way to over-tax all the resourses at their disposal, 64bitness and 4GB memory included, and just possibly they might do it to emulate a different platform.

No more on this subject please. All of us are going to have to 'wait and see' what clever things 64bitness will bring us.

Sorry if that sounds harsh - I don't mean to flame - I'm just a bit fed up with that topic .

 

[iJon]

lets just hope they arent all talk and just getting everyone hyped up. i did find them to hop on the scence pretty quick after the announcment. almost seemed like they had a version working, waiting for that day to come.

iJon

 

[rjwill246]

Re: Lies, Damn Lies, and Product Announcements

Originally posted by bullitB
I think this whole new RealPC is a bunch of vaporware and crap.

I got this story over a week ago from FWB and I would say this product is definitely NOT vapourware and it is not being held up for the 970.
I believe them when they say the continual OS X updates are causing problems and that they need a stable and reasonably longlived version of the OS to make this a viable product. What happens with Panther, only the Almighty knows. I assume it will flunk that one and so the real issue is, when will the program work with any future Mac OS for more than a few weeks? Progress is wonderful, isn't it?

 

[andyduncan]

Re: Re: Optimised for 970?!! I doubt it too.

Originally posted by mim
why release a program that's probably really really heavily dependent on OSX to get every ounce of speed it needs, when OSX is about to be updated?

Maybe it's ready. Maybe Panther isn't. If Apple pushes back WWDC so they can have something to show developers, what makes you think its ready to ship? Jaguar was shown at WWDC in may of '02...

you saying these things is akin to Bill saying "no-one will need more than 640k ram"... in other words "total rubbish".

Not sure how those are related. Bill was (naively) referring to an unknown set of requirements on unknown systems. Aiden is referring to a specific set of requirements related to a known problem: running a 32 bit version of windows in an environment that emulates a 32 bit x86 system.

With regards to 64 bit ints, what do you suggest the RealPC developers stuff into the extra 32 bits that the apps being emulated don't know about? total rubbish?

they might do it to emulate a different platform.

sure, ok, fine. but unless that other platform is 64 bit, being 64 bit-aware offers what advantages?

All of us are going to have to 'wait and see' what clever things 64bitness will bring us.

No we won't. The 970 isn't the first 64 bit chip, its not even the first (or second, or third...) 64bit PowerPC chip. We'll have to wait and see what the exact performance of it is in a given shipping system sure, but 64bitness offers a very specific set of features. And none of those are a magic bullet. No mystery there.

 

[mim]

andyduncan:

Ok, technically, as of today you are right on all points.

And the bit about Jaguar is a very good point indeed.

But I stand by my view that as far as common, 'desktop' application of 64bits is concerned we don't know what the potential extent of it's usefulness is - hence my Bill gates reference. I think many applications may benifit from processing what we consider today as insanley huge numbers - it's just that nobody has applied themselves to the task yet.

One of those applications may involve emulation. I fully agree that the delay of RealPC is not because they're busily inventing new things to do with huge numbers - but I get narky when people dismiss the possibility of this occuring outright. Expand your horizons! We just don't know.

 

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by DeadlyBreakfast
Ok ..I know its off topic but could you please explain the above statement to me please. It makes no sense at all....

This is no longer the case as far as I know (it was ruled illegal). However, for quite a while Microsoft forced OEMs to sign deals where the number of Windows licenses was tied to the number of computers sold, irrespective of which OS was on those computers.

So, if you ordered a Linux PC (or one with no OS installed) from Dell (who never, IIRC, sold a Linux PC in those days ... but substitute other names for "Dell" and you get the picture ...) then Dell would pay MS for one copy of Windows, albeit at a severely discounted rate (OEM copy).

This was ruled an unfair business practice (well ... duh!) and MS was ordered to renegotiate contracts with OEMs which did not include per-machine charges. MS did renegotiate, and again IIRC, they ended up giving more severe discounts the higher the percentage of Windows boxes sold, which hasn't (yet) been ruled illegal ...

 

[andyduncan]

Originally posted by mim
but I get narky when people dismiss the possibility of this occuring outright. Expand your horizons! We just don't know.

Oh I fully agree. And I wont speak for Aiden, but I don't think his post was dismissing the importance of 64bit computing in anything other than 32bit emulation. I too get narky, however, when people insist that 64bit is some mystical fix-all for every situation, when in fact it is not. Ars has many great articles, one of which is on 64bit computing and x86-64 but it is applicable to the PowerPC situation as well, the executive summary being that 64bits aren't always twice as good as 32.

At work we have our macs maxed out with 2gigs of ram, and its entirely foreseeable that we would need more than 4 gigs in the next couple years. I consider our implementation to be pretty average.

As far as what we could do with 64 bit ints there's a ton of stuff. The problem of larger color spaces comes to mind (24bit color is woefully inadequate in a number of situations, and growing). Of course you could do floating point color too... but thats a whole 'nother thread...

 

[Raiwong]

Well the old reallpc was very good at playing games and nothing else. I wish this runs games and is crap at everything else I don't care. It might not be as fast , but heck if I can get my mac running half a PC speed for games i'd be a happy man.

I don't have any apps to use on PCs, its just the games. COMON REALPC bring on the game compatability. Just half the speed or graphics card emulation can give us access to alot of PC games, maybe not the newest but still alot.

 

[hvfsl]

Real PC will almost certainly have access to the Macs video cards instead of emulating it. It was able to do this with the voodoo1/2 but for some reason VPC or RPC have not upgraded this feature for the new graphics cards. In the past (back in 1998) I could run all the latest PC games on my G3 Mac with a 3dfx card. We wont be able to run half life 2 on RPC if it supports the Mac graphics card, but we should be able to play games like battlefield 1942 on high end Macs. (only requires P3 450)

 

[mikekerrnew]

Last time I tried to go mac only (3 years ago) I found it didn't work because some USB devices didn't seem to work in emulation. I think I tried SoftWindows and VPC.

Does anyone know if the latest version of VPC works with a Visioneer Paperport sheetfeed scanner? It's the last "legacy" programme I need the PC for...

 

[GregA]

Microsofts VPC

Originally posted by dongmin
Having used VPC for a while now, I can't imagine the RealPC having some secret to the universe that let's them make a dramatic improvement over VPC.

How can RealPC compete against VPC now that Microsoft owns it? MS will rewrite bits of Windows on VPC to be native Mac code. Make the graphics use Quartz Extreme, integrate their Media player straight from Mac, all the explorer windows can be native - and most other parts of Windows too. They'll emulate anything left (AND the apps you install of course). They'll even get rid of the Windows desktop and make each app run in its own Mac window.

MS can dump lots of Windows code - like the filesystem can just use the Mac's. In the end MS won't have a "Windows XP on Virtual x86 hardware" - they'll have a "Windows Application Support for MacOS" product.

Which would you then buy - MS or RealPC?

 

[kcmac]

I said RealPC would surprise me if it comes out.

MS making VPC run better? And anytime soon? Now that would be a real shocker. Can't believe that this would be high on the MS priority list.

I ain't holding my breath...

 

[AidenShaw]

Not likely in total...but bits maybe

Originally posted by GregAussie
MS will rewrite bits of Windows on VPC to be native Mac code. ... Make the graphics use Quartz Extreme, integrate their Media player ... the explorer windows can be native ... MS can dump lots of Windows code - like the filesystem

I find this really unlikely - the "VPC using Mac market" is just too small for them to undertake such a major rewrite of Windows code.

In addition, this could be a nightmare for applications - if the filesystem doesn't act like the native filesystem, or the graphics isn't exactly the same, or if COM and OLE and similar inter-application APIs don't work between different windows....

Microsoft will probably make some small, isolated tweaks to help things work better.

For example, when VMware emulates a Windows O/S on a Windows box, it can get much higher graphics performance by using a special VMware video driver.

To Windows, it seems like a normal video driver, so no applications are affected. Underneath, however, the video driver is able to talk more directly to the host video driver, bypassing layers of emulation. No changes to Windows, just a driver.
____________________

So, what if Microsoft made a special DirectX module that was able to "reach" through VPC and directly talk to Quartz, OpenGL or the DirectX hardware support? What if that meant that framerates on VPC games was close to that of PCs with the same video card?

That would certainly change the gaming experience on the Mac!
____________________

Maybe this is what you meant by "rewrite bits of Windows", but some of your examples didn't seem quite practical.

For another example, a filesystem redirector could access the native filesystems rather transparently - using standard Windows components and tools. No need to rewrite the Windows filesystem....

 

[andyduncan]

Re: Microsofts VPC

Originally posted by GregAussie
MS will rewrite bits of Windows on VPC to be native Mac code. Make the graphics use Quartz Extreme, integrate their Media player straight from Mac, all the explorer windows can be native - and most other parts of Windows too. They'll emulate anything left (AND the apps you install of course). They'll even get rid of the Windows desktop and make each app run in its own Mac window...

Oh look. A flying pig.

Remember, this is the company that wrote an interpreter (emulator) so they could run large portions of the x86 code in mac word 6 without re-writing it. Of course, maybe that means they have lots of emulator experience

 

[zephc]

Re: Microsofts VPC

Originally posted by GregAussie
How can RealPC compete against VPC now that Microsoft owns it? MS will rewrite bits of Windows on VPC to be native Mac code. Make the graphics use Quartz Extreme, integrate their Media player straight from Mac, all the explorer windows can be native - and most other parts of Windows too. They'll emulate anything left (AND the apps you install of course). They'll even get rid of the Windows desktop and make each app run in its own Mac window.

MS can dump lots of Windows code - like the filesystem can just use the Mac's. In the end MS won't have a "Windows XP on Virtual x86 hardware" - they'll have a "Windows Application Support for MacOS" product.

Which would you then buy - MS or RealPC?

not likely. If they choose to do anything other than straight instruction emulation, they will use dynamic recompilation, which you find in your better video game console emulators (like N64 emulators).

Also, according to the RealPC folks, they will include actual video card support, rather than the wishy-washy vid card "support" VPC has (which is all emulated, IIRC)

 

[Raiwong]

Didn't someboy announce that connectix is not going to develope virtual pc anymore after microsoft bought them.

I trust RealPC more, they have made games work before and I believe they can again, not placing my coins in MS they look like they want to kill off any potential competition when the 970 comes out, so connectix cannot optimize the program for 64 bit.

If RealPC charges say $300+ i'll sitll go for it. I'm sure there is a potential MS might be generous and develope a super emulation, but the chances is slim thats not their monopolistic move

 

[MisterMe]

Re: Re: What!

Originally posted by stompy
Anybody here ever run SoftPC ? Now that was slow. (RealPC doesn't share any ancestery with SoftPC, does it?)

The Mac version of SoftPC was 680x0-native. For DOS applications, it had acceptable performance at the time. Insignia sold a version with Windows called SoftPC for Windows. It was a dog. SoftPC was not a Mac-exclusive emulator. Insignia once mistakenly sent me a copy of SoftPC for NeXTSTEP for Intel Processors. Yes, that is the real name. The advent of the PowerPC gave life to SoftWindows. Apple sold a PowerMac/SoftWindows bundle for people who wanted to run Windows on the Mac. Your old SoftPC disk image worked just fine with SoftWindows.

Microsoft licensed SoftWindows for incorporation into non-Intel ports of Windows NT.

I have stated this before and I will state it again. Connectix stole the march on Insignia when word spread through the Mac community that Virtual PC was faster than SoftWindows because it emulated PC hardware rather than trying to emulate the software. I like VPC, but I never found it faster than SoftWindows. You could use an off-the-shelf Windows updater to update the version of Windows on your SoftWindows disk image. So the technical superiority of VPC was also lost on me. Maybe SoftWindows could not run Linux or other non-M$ operating systems, I don't know. My point in all of this is that I expect RealPC to be a good product. If, however, you are expecting better performance than VPC, you will be sorely disappointed.

 

[Marble]

The emulation business has got to be the single greatest pool of vaporware in computer programming history (I dunno). Just look at people's attempts to emulate the PPC on Windows (which is still little more than a fantasy - we can run Morrowind in VPC better than they can run Ambrosia software's little game Mars Rising). A PPC emulator for Windows hasn't materialized since the conception of the processing unit.
I can hope and brag about this to people all I like, but it seems like this has got to be one topic that is really easy to exploit.
Does PPC linux have a functional Windows emulator? I know they can emulate Mac OS X really well..

 

[MisterMe]

Originally posted by Marble
The emulation business has got to be the single greatest pool of vaporware in computer programming history (I dunno). Just look at people's attempts to emulate the PPC on Windows (which is still little more than a fantasy - we can run Morrowind in VPC better than they can run Ambrosia software's little game Mars Rising). A PPC emulator for Windows hasn't materialized since the conception of the processing unit.
I can hope and brag about this to people all I like, but it seems like this has got to be one topic that is really easy to exploit.
Does PPC linux have a functional Windows emulator? I know they can emulate Mac OS X really well..

I agree. I am fit to be tied everytime I read people on this forum and others lamenting the poor performance of the PowerPC and the superior performance of x86. You can emulate x86 on PPC, but you cannot emulate PPC on x86. This fact alone should go a long way toward placing the performance crown where it belongs. On the Linux platform, there is no PPC-optimized x86 emulator. There is, however, an opensource cross-platfrom x86 emulator called Bochs that is available here. It works but it is not nearly as smooth as the commercial emulators.