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.
RealPC officially discontinued.
- Thread starter MacBytes
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Re: VitualPC still a good choice
Whenever i hear cheap comps, the general misconception is that it means going out and buying an eMachine. Cheap comps, in my opinion, are home built. They are not "cheap" buy any means if you buy GOOD hardware for it.
Buying brand name PSU, Mobo, and ram is not that expensive if you build it yourself. Many PC users will tell you that for the money of a "cheap" 700dollar celeron system, you easily could have built yourself a 3.0ghz P4-C system (probably have to drop from 9800pro to 9600pro to it keep under 700 lol).
Laptops--i agree. You're carrying a laptop so that it is VERY portable--carrying two does just doesn't make any sense. The Drag and Drop you spoke of sounds very convenient--so i guess the convenience of just using only ONE system maybe what all people REALLY need. Serious PC power will require a real PC. But if the app doesn't really require it, i'm sure waiting just a few more seconds with the emulator should be just fine.
Whenever i hear cheap comps, the general misconception is that it means going out and buying an eMachine. Cheap comps, in my opinion, are home built. They are not "cheap" buy any means if you buy GOOD hardware for it.
Buying brand name PSU, Mobo, and ram is not that expensive if you build it yourself. Many PC users will tell you that for the money of a "cheap" 700dollar celeron system, you easily could have built yourself a 3.0ghz P4-C system (probably have to drop from 9800pro to 9600pro to it keep under 700 lol).
Laptops--i agree. You're carrying a laptop so that it is VERY portable--carrying two does just doesn't make any sense. The Drag and Drop you spoke of sounds very convenient--so i guess the convenience of just using only ONE system maybe what all people REALLY need. Serious PC power will require a real PC. But if the app doesn't really require it, i'm sure waiting just a few more seconds with the emulator should be just fine.
Microsoft could only refuse to allow the developers to ship Windows with the VM software, nothing more - RealPC is an x86 emulator NOT a Windows emulator and as such Microsoft cannot block it's development (unless the company were dumb enough to sign away their right to make the software to Connectix, in which case they're screwed).
Another opportunity to dump Office
Microsoft bought the virtual PC/server assets of Connectix because they want to control the market and cut costs. Virtual PC because they can control licensing of the WinOS running on it (more revenue), they can kill Office Mac native (save money by selling PC versions and killing Mac Biz unit), and they can withdraw linux support (a true threat). Virtual Server was really what they were after because of the server licensing deals. They could care less about a couple hundred million dollars of revenue fo Mac native products. It's the enterprise server market which is the cash cow. I think Microsoft's actions fall under violation of the DOJ settlement. They are using their same tactics again: bully competition, buy competition, destroy competition, all with piles of cash that was earned from unfair competition. Who knows why FWB really threw in the towel: MS intimidation, payoff, perhaps? The pattern is clear, once MS runs the show, the competition shrinks.
Since Office has become a defacto standard, the DOJ should force Microsoft to make the file format public domain information so other software developers can read and write to the format perfectly. Since Microsoft is a monopoly they have absolutely no incentive to optimize their VPC product for the G5. You can bet they will make it run just passably to punish us Mac users. Just think: nobody who buys a G5 will be able to run PC programs on it for at least 6 months. Hopefully somebody will reintroduce a $200 Pentium PCI card with software to run on a G5.
Microsoft bought the virtual PC/server assets of Connectix because they want to control the market and cut costs. Virtual PC because they can control licensing of the WinOS running on it (more revenue), they can kill Office Mac native (save money by selling PC versions and killing Mac Biz unit), and they can withdraw linux support (a true threat). Virtual Server was really what they were after because of the server licensing deals. They could care less about a couple hundred million dollars of revenue fo Mac native products. It's the enterprise server market which is the cash cow. I think Microsoft's actions fall under violation of the DOJ settlement. They are using their same tactics again: bully competition, buy competition, destroy competition, all with piles of cash that was earned from unfair competition. Who knows why FWB really threw in the towel: MS intimidation, payoff, perhaps? The pattern is clear, once MS runs the show, the competition shrinks.
Since Office has become a defacto standard, the DOJ should force Microsoft to make the file format public domain information so other software developers can read and write to the format perfectly. Since Microsoft is a monopoly they have absolutely no incentive to optimize their VPC product for the G5. You can bet they will make it run just passably to punish us Mac users. Just think: nobody who buys a G5 will be able to run PC programs on it for at least 6 months. Hopefully somebody will reintroduce a $200 Pentium PCI card with software to run on a G5.
Well, it's official -- the market niche is now open!
A good, quick, G5-compatible emulator that allow Win apps to run on a Mac. If you code it, they will come...since there's a fair number of folks out there who just want to be MS-free.
got venture capital?
A good, quick, G5-compatible emulator that allow Win apps to run on a Mac. If you code it, they will come...since there's a fair number of folks out there who just want to be MS-free.
got venture capital?
What if, gasp, Microsoft has done nothing wrong here and it's simply FWB's old management is the one that screwed Mac users?
Like many have said, I believe MS bought VPC for the technology in the Windows version to make it easier to support Win32 on Win64. The Mac version poses no threat to them as every Windows OS running on VPC is another license they got paid for. (excluding piracy, which is probably more rampant on x86 machines anyway)
The Linux version is no more a threat than VMWare and you don't see them going after them. Really, the biggest threat on Linux is Sabma, which allows you to run a Windows PDC/BDC network without Windows NT/2K/2K3 servers.
Like many have said, I believe MS bought VPC for the technology in the Windows version to make it easier to support Win32 on Win64. The Mac version poses no threat to them as every Windows OS running on VPC is another license they got paid for. (excluding piracy, which is probably more rampant on x86 machines anyway)
The Linux version is no more a threat than VMWare and you don't see them going after them. Really, the biggest threat on Linux is Sabma, which allows you to run a Windows PDC/BDC network without Windows NT/2K/2K3 servers.
A: VPC = Virtual PC, RPC == ?? (I think you are referring to someone else's comment about RDC, or Remote Desktop Client - like PC Anywhere/Timbuktu/VNC)
B: An Apple "VPC" is like the rumored "red box", seemless Win32 compatibility layer of OS X that never came to be. I doubt it ever existed as it would make no sense for Apple provide it. If Windows app's run "good enough" on OS X, then why would anyone develop native OS X app's any more? Once all of the big app's are no longer running natively, then there's no reason for users to buy OS X when all of their apps run faster on a Windows PC. Do you think Intuit would spend a dime on Quicken for Mac if the Windows version ran on OS X. (then again, a dime may be all they are spending on Quicken! Sorry, had to get an Inuit dig in there!) What about MS Office? After Effects? Photoshop?
edit - added:
Why, exactly, would an Apple VPC be better at running Windows than a Microsoft version? Microsoft has the ability to hook into the windows code to increase performance and can do a much better job of debugging the thing as they know why Windows acts the way it does. Apple's only advantage is better understanding of OS X and the PPC; that is a big deal, but I think the Mac Biz unit at MS has quite a bit of experience their too.
Apple currently have a very basic "red box" build locked up just like Marklar. They are real, and their time will come.
Remember, the next version of windows is 3 years away - Apple probably have something up their sleeves re the G5 and VPC. IBM would be in a perfect position to add in x86 instructions into the G5, all intel chips are "IBM compatible"...
Remember, the next version of windows is 3 years away - Apple probably have something up their sleeves re the G5 and VPC. IBM would be in a perfect position to add in x86 instructions into the G5, all intel chips are "IBM compatible"...
FWB Refund
I pursued a refund for RealPC from FWB about a month ago when I heard of the shake up in the company. It was well past the 30 day refund period but I simply filed a complaint with Kagi who sold the software. After this I talked to FWB and they said no problem. So I filed with Kagi and after a few days they gave me the refund. I would suggest all folks do this and send the message.
I pursued a refund for RealPC from FWB about a month ago when I heard of the shake up in the company. It was well past the 30 day refund period but I simply filed a complaint with Kagi who sold the software. After this I talked to FWB and they said no problem. So I filed with Kagi and after a few days they gave me the refund. I would suggest all folks do this and send the message.
You know this how? Marklar, is at least believable, but x86 emulation on OS X is a whole other can of worms. Again, why would Apple want to do this? What's the business reason?
Also, "all Intel chips are IBM compatible" is a silly sentence since the IBM PC has always used Intel CPU's
I wonder if VMware (http://www.vmware.com/), which runs on Linux, will become an option for OSX users in the future. As I understand it, it's more of an interface layer (system calls, very little emulation) but coupled with input from Apple + Red Box... who knows?
Re: Anti-Microsoft rhetoric needs to end
The "anti-MS rhetoric" is proven fact. Microsoft wants control of the entire market. ENTIRE MARKET. No linux, unix, MacOS, no choices... only microsoft.
[edit]
Microsoft gives their products away and undercuts in foreign countries to deny the spread of opensource.
MS blames the G5 for not having the "pseudo little-endian" code in the processor. I have never, ever heard of that being in the G4 or the G3. I think it's lies. They don't want you to buy a G5. They don't want you to own a machine that can hold it's own (or sometimes beat) a PC. Why do you think there is NO sync from microsoft for a pocketPC? Because they want to control it all.
The problem takes a year to fix? That's just stupid. Hell they could throw a few bucks at the Bochs project and use that. This attitude is already starting to backfire on them. Europe, China, and India are almost at the point of boycotting Microsoft. They've been warned by the EU to stop playing dirty tricks and yet they are funding SCOs attack on Linux.
If microsoft is such a nice company, never meant any other company harm, how come they do not support reading any other filesystem but their own? Microsoft would probably make more money if they just played nice with everyone but since they keep pissing people off, they are eventually going to run out of steam.
The "anti-MS rhetoric" is proven fact. Microsoft wants control of the entire market. ENTIRE MARKET. No linux, unix, MacOS, no choices... only microsoft.
[edit]
Microsoft gives their products away and undercuts in foreign countries to deny the spread of opensource.
MS blames the G5 for not having the "pseudo little-endian" code in the processor. I have never, ever heard of that being in the G4 or the G3. I think it's lies. They don't want you to buy a G5. They don't want you to own a machine that can hold it's own (or sometimes beat) a PC. Why do you think there is NO sync from microsoft for a pocketPC? Because they want to control it all.
The problem takes a year to fix? That's just stupid. Hell they could throw a few bucks at the Bochs project and use that. This attitude is already starting to backfire on them. Europe, China, and India are almost at the point of boycotting Microsoft. They've been warned by the EU to stop playing dirty tricks and yet they are funding SCOs attack on Linux.
If microsoft is such a nice company, never meant any other company harm, how come they do not support reading any other filesystem but their own? Microsoft would probably make more money if they just played nice with everyone but since they keep pissing people off, they are eventually going to run out of steam.
Originally posted by eric_n_dfw
You know this how? Marklar, is at least believable, but x86 emulation on OS X is a whole other can of worms. Again, why would Apple want to do this? What's the business reason?
Also, "all Intel chips are IBM compatible" is a silly sentence since the IBM PC has always used Intel CPU's
Maybe all along we've had this Marklar thing wrong. Perhaps Apple plans on selling an intel cpu on a PCIX slot for use with Virtual PC or some other type of emulator. For any other reason, I don't think Marklar will ever see the light of day. The G5 is very fast... to not using windows, most current mac users and many switchers will probably say "so what?"
Originally posted by eric_n_dfw
You know this how? Marklar, is at least believable, but x86 emulation on OS X is a whole other can of worms. Again, why would Apple want to do this? What's the business reason?
Also, "all Intel chips are IBM compatible" is a silly sentence since the IBM PC has always used Intel CPU's
Which means that IBM has access to using Intel chips in their computers which could possibly mean intel chips alongside 970s in a PowerMac. Which could mean that the Apple "Red Box" wouldn't have to emulate anything. It could theoretically run windows or linux x86 apps on a Mac.
Not likely? Look at WINE for linux.
LOL...
I started a similar thread before this was on MacRumors' frontpage...
I was wondering where the replies were
I started a similar thread before this was on MacRumors' frontpage...
I was wondering where the replies were
Re: Another opportunity to dump Office
No, no, no. What are you crazy! Microsoft created those file formats and they should be protected. Do you think Apple should hand over Quicktime?
File formats come and go. Ten years ago (maybe 15) if you said that Word or Excel would be the top formats for their application types people would look at you funny. WordPerfect and Lotus 1-2-3 were the top guns. Then Microsoft came out with a better product and the rest is history. Of course now MS is stuck with being backward compatible and that is a whole different problem.
Whatever
No, no, no. What are you crazy! Microsoft created those file formats and they should be protected. Do you think Apple should hand over Quicktime?
File formats come and go. Ten years ago (maybe 15) if you said that Word or Excel would be the top formats for their application types people would look at you funny. WordPerfect and Lotus 1-2-3 were the top guns. Then Microsoft came out with a better product and the rest is history. Of course now MS is stuck with being backward compatible and that is a whole different problem.
Whatever
Re: Re: The Old Owners Probably did write code...
I'm glad that I'm not the only one who thought of this...
Two months to figure out that there was no code? Please. There must have been more going on behind the scenes than this.
I'm glad that I'm not the only one who thought of this...
Two months to figure out that there was no code? Please. There must have been more going on behind the scenes than this.
I seriously doubt we'll see an Intel chip built into the PowerMac. Maybe as an add-on PCI board, but not built in. It just doesn't make sense.
And what does WINE have to do with anything? WINE is simply providing Windows APIs under Linux so that Windows apps can run. There is currently an open source project to build a WINE + emulator that will run on OS X, called DarWINE, to enable us to run Windows apps rootless. Who knows, maybe that will be the future of emulation on the Mac...
Re: Re: Anti-Microsoft rhetoric needs to end
Alright let's say that the G5 is the endall/beall of CPUs and Apple sells a Gadzillion of these machines and MS decides to release an OS which can be loaded onto it. What would you say then? The name of the game is Business and profitability.
MS is not trying to create a mononly, they're just trying to create the best products that they can. Is MS to blame for Netscape's failure? No, I would call it greed. I have no complaints with Apple creating apps to run on their OS (iTunes, Safari, Final Cut, etc..) so why should we criticize MS.
I just don't get this double standard.
Whatever
Alright let's say that the G5 is the endall/beall of CPUs and Apple sells a Gadzillion of these machines and MS decides to release an OS which can be loaded onto it. What would you say then? The name of the game is Business and profitability.
MS is not trying to create a mononly, they're just trying to create the best products that they can. Is MS to blame for Netscape's failure? No, I would call it greed. I have no complaints with Apple creating apps to run on their OS (iTunes, Safari, Final Cut, etc..) so why should we criticize MS.
I just don't get this double standard.
Whatever
Re: Re: Re: Anti-Microsoft rhetoric needs to end
Creating apps is one thing. Buying companies and disbanding their product because they compete with you is a creating a monopoly
Wine allows windows x86 programs to run on other x86 platforms. So an add-on processor card for mac os x could work.
I'm not saying they will do it, I doubt they will ever do it, but it is possible.