RealPC officially discontinued.

[Kid Red]

Re: Re: Re: Anti-Microsoft rhetoric needs to end

Originally posted by whatever


MS is not trying to create a mononly, they're just trying to create the best products that they can.

Whatever

You lost all credibility with me there. 10,000 bugs in was it 95 or 98? Then each OS release afterwards were merely bug fixes? Trying to put out a new OS mainly to make money, make it slightly buggy then release a bug fix for most of them, make more money, etc.

If M$ put out a flawless OS they'd go broke because a majority of home users WOULD NEVER upgrade. So M$ forces companies to upgrade.

Is MS to blame for Netscape's failure? No, I would call it greed.

I just don't get this double standard.

Netscape was #1, yet you think M$ beat them out fairly? Ah no. This is fact, M$ threatened Apple to make IE default and drop Netscape. They also screwed with others related to Netscape.

This isn't rhetoric. It's moaning over the facts. M$ is a money hungry, greedy, power mongering filth, and it will bite them in the ass sooner or later.

 

[mattmack]

Originally posted by Bear
There is always Bochs which is free. General Bochs info is here. Download the Mac OS X version from here.

How welldoes this preform as far as running the Apps (ie Games)

 

[reedm007]

Originally posted by grabberslasher
Wine allows windows x86 programs to run on other x86 platforms. So an add-on processor card for mac os x could work.

Who says it wouldn't? I don't think anyone is arguing that if you slap an intel processor card in a Mac it could theoretically run Windows apps...

I'm not saying they will do it, I doubt they will ever do it, but it is possible.

Well, but you kind of actually were implying the will do it... Just a few posts earlier you said:

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"...

So here you imply that Apple will implement something. In fact, you imply that IBM will add x86 instructions to the G5, which is something altogether different than an add-on processor card. And what does "all intel chips are IBM compatible" mean? Intel doesn't make chips based on any IBM instruction set. So to that, you respond:

Which means that IBM has access to using Intel chips in their computers which could possibly mean intel chips alongside 970s in a PowerMac.

Of course IBM has access to using Intel chips. Anyone does. Apple could buy Intel chips today and start shipping x86 boxes. There's nothing special about IBM's relationship with Intel. Plus, IBM microprocessor unit has virtually no relation to consumer desktop/laptop products, which use Intel chips. Furthermore, the fact that IBM's personal computer unit ships machines with Intel processors doesn't suggest by any stretch of the imagination that, simply because Apple uses an IBM-fabbed processor, Apple will use intel chips too.

I don't mean to pick on you, but your reasoning doesn't exactly keep on a straight path, and it kind of voids your initial comments about what Apple is "currently doing", and I frankly can't believe you'd have any insider knowledge...

 

[3.1416]

Re: Re: Anti-Microsoft rhetoric needs to end

Originally posted by NavyIntel007
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.

PowerPCs up to the G4 do in fact have a little-endian compatibility mode that VPC uses. I hadn't heard that the G5 removed that capability, but if so it's reasonable that an update would be required.

Hell they could throw a few bucks at the Bochs project and use that.

Bochs is slow. Really, really slow.

 

[whatever]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Anti-Microsoft rhetoric needs to end

Originally posted by Kid Red
You lost all credibility with me there. 10,000 bugs in was it 95 or 98? Then each OS release afterwards were merely bug fixes? Trying to put out a new OS mainly to make money, make it slightly buggy then release a bug fix for most of them, make more money, etc.

If M$ put out a flawless OS they'd go broke because a majority of home users WOULD NEVER upgrade. So M$ forces companies to upgrade.



Netscape was #1, yet you think M$ beat them out fairly? Ah no. This is fact, M$ threatened Apple to make IE default and drop Netscape. They also screwed with others related to Netscape.

This isn't rhetoric. It's moaning over the facts. M$ is a money hungry, greedy, power mongering filth, and it will bite them in the ass sooner or later.

Netscape allowed themselves to be bought out by AOL, who in turned destroyed them. Why did Netscape allow this to happen? MONEY! Alot of people made a lot of money off of that deal.

Netscape is a perfect example of being first to market does not make you best.

As far as MS telling Apple to make IE the default browser. Didn't MS bail Apple out and give them a large infusion of money which helped Apple return to greatness? Netscape could have developed a great Mac browser, but they never did.

I'm not saying the MS makes a great OS, is it buggy. Yes. Is Mac OS X buggy? Yes. Is Linux buggy? Yes. Do you see a pattern? Microsoft does not force people to upgrade to newer versions of their OS. They do stop supporting them, but they don't hold a gun to peoples heads, now do they. Do you really think there is a meeting before every OS release at MS where they discuss which bugs they're going to put in the OS to force customers into buying the next upgrade?

 

[OSXconvert]

Re: Re: Another opportunity to dump Office

Originally posted by 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?

I don't think companies should be required to share proprietary formats, unless they have become the de facto standard and run the industry. Without a doubt, Microsoft Office in general, and Microsoft Word in particular are the standards for the computer industry. You cannot exchange word processor files with colleagues unless you use Word format. There really is no choice. They got to be the standard by leveraging the monopoly on their OS by bundling office software for cheap prices, thus undercutting Wordperfect and others, just as they did with their browser. Even when Wordperfect was king, they were never in such a dominant position as Microsoft's Word is today. In those days, there was actually innovation in wordprocessor software; now, there are few features that merit an upgrade except for the reason that you must because the OS has been upgraded and many new bugs have been fixed.

The industry is already mature enough to warrant federal oversight to ensure fair competition and the public's best interest. Open standards are the best way to ensure industry-wide adoption and competition. Because Apple has such a small market share, they need to protect their intellectual property, for now. I don't know what kind of revenue they make on Quicktime, but I would suspect that giving it away might be better for the standard than keeping it proprietary. Think what would have happened to the imaging industry if TIFF, GIF and JPEG had been proprietary. Think what MP3 did for the music creation. Without corporate monopoly control, sound and image creation and transfer have flourished, with thousands of applications seamlessly supporting the standards.

 

[tek]

Re: Re: Re: Anti-Microsoft rhetoric needs to end

Originally posted by 3.1416
PowerPCs up to the G4 do in fact have a little-endian compatibility mode that VPC uses. I hadn't heard that the G5 removed that capability, but if so it's reasonable that an update would be required.



Bochs is slow. Really, really slow.

yes... 14 hours to install win2k, 6 hours to boot it.

or only 5 hours to install win98, which then only takes 1 hour to boot.

and xp... well.. over 24 hours to install and probably that long to boot.

 

[gothamac]

From ZDNET

"It will be in the next (full) version of Virtual PC," a Microsoft representative said Wednesday, adding that a new edition of Virtual PC is expected within a year. In addition, the representative said the release is due at about the same time as the launch of Office 11, the next version of Office for the Mac. Earlier this month, Microsoft said it was working on Office 11 but would not comment on when it might be ready.

Good timing. I can see it now. Office 11 only runs on mac via Virtual PC.

 

[panphage]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Anti-Microsoft rhetoric needs to end

Originally posted by whatever
Netscape allowed themselves to be bought out by AOL, who in turned destroyed them. Why did Netscape allow this to happen? MONEY! Alot of people made a lot of money off of that deal.

Netscape is a perfect example of being first to market does not make you best.

As far as MS telling Apple to make IE the default browser. Didn't MS bail Apple out and give them a large infusion of money which helped Apple return to greatness? Netscape could have developed a great Mac browser, but they never did.

Your facts are a bit twisted. Netscape was in fact the best browser on the market. Netscape lost the browser war long before AOL stepped in, they lost when MS bundled IE into the OS and forced computer sellers to show an IE icon on the desktop and fobade them showing an Netscape icon. MS used it's monopoly power to marginalize a superior product. This is what the entire monopoly case was about, and the findings were that MS indeed did misuse monopoly power to stifle competition.

MS did not bail apple out. They settled out of court to stop apple suing them over stealing the Mac GUI. Apple has now, and always has had, a monstrous reserve of cash, just like MS. They never needed any sort of bailout. They were on the ropes, but this MS money was a settlement for a legal proceeding, not an investment.

 

[eric_n_dfw]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Anti-Microsoft rhetoric needs to end

Originally posted by mattmack
Creating apps is one thing. Buying companies and disbanding their product because they compete with you is a creating a monopoly

You know, Apple pretty much did that with iDVD.

[edit] ... and iTunes.

 

[Mav451]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Anti-Microsoft rhetoric needs to end

Originally posted by tek
yes... 14 hours to install win2k, 6 hours to boot it.

or only 5 hours to install win98, which then only takes 1 hour to boot.

and xp... well.. over 24 hours to install and probably that long to boot.

are u joking? XP took me about maybe 1.5 hours to fully install (clean hard disk of course).

30 mins partitioning by 80

browsers? I use mozilla firebird. I dont' know what most Mac OS X people use though.

 

[Over Achiever]

Re: From ZDNET

Originally posted by gothamac
Good timing. I can see it now. Office 11 only runs on mac via Virtual PC.

Whatever gave you that silly conclusion? Seriously, the anti-microsoft sentiment shown here is laughable. I know it's only the vocal few, but still...

Office 11 is developed by a separate Mac division. Why would that work only on virtual PC? Hmm? It's built for OS 9/X...it's not a "pure port" of the windows program per se.

Office 11 only works via Virtual PC...well then why not just have one Office product, save costs?

Foolish paranoia...

 

[panphage]

Re: Re: Re: Another opportunity to dump Office

Originally posted by OSXconvert
Think what would have happened to the imaging industry if TIFF, GIF and JPEG had been proprietary.

But GIF IS proprietary. The compression algorithm is patented by compuserve, and they make everyone who includes the algorithm in a product pay them a liscensing fee.

 

[eric_n_dfw]

Re: Re: Anti-Microsoft rhetoric needs to end

Originally posted by NavyIntel007
The "anti-MS rhetoric" is proven fact. Microsoft wants control of the entire market. ENTIRE MARKET. No linux, unix, MacOS, no choices... only microsoft.

Microsoft gives their products away and undercuts in foreign countries to deny the spread of opensource.

I'm no MS lover, in fact, I try to have as little of that company's products on my systems as possible. We're going to get way off topic here with monopoly talk and especially rep/dem conservative/liberal views on the MS lawsuit(s).

Personally, I do not believe they are a monopoly. I DO believe they have acted anti-competitevly in the past and should be punished for it (and have for many of the things they've done) Many here are too young to rember the smack down they got for the whole "you have to package MS Office with your PC's or you can't have Windows 3.x" days.

Originally posted by NavyIntel007
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.

I think that is true - I'll look for the info later (after work )

Originally posted by NavyIntel007
Why do you think there is NO sync from microsoft for a pocketPC?

Probably because there's not enough $$$ in it for the effort - even with sync software, most of us MacHeads are loyal to Palm for supporting us early on and they know it. If OS X had 10% share or so, you'd see it; if not from MS, then from someone.

Originally posted by NavyIntel007
The problem takes a year to fix? That's just stupid.

No, a major overhaul and massive testing would have to be done to handle such a low-level change. From what I've heard, much of Connectex's VPC code is highly tuned assembler - stuff that only the best bit-nerds can work on. It's a very large undertakign.

Originally posted by NavyIntel007
If microsoft is such a nice company, never meant any other company harm,

Now, I wouldn't go that far! But then again, I wouldn't say that about Apple either!

Originally posted by NavyIntel007

... 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.

Are you saying they should read Linux ext2/3 partitions? Or Mac HFS/HFS+? What possible business reason would they have for that? They do support AppleTalk, NetWare and NFS networking.

Linux supports HFS because some geeks wanted it to - and - because it runs on Macs. It supports FAT32 for similar reasons. (NTFS support is still spotty afaik)

Mac supports FAT16 (does it support FAT32?) because it makes it easy to read MS-DOS floppy's.

[edit]BTW, NT supported HPFS (the OS/2 file system), I don't know if it still does though.

 

[MacCoaster]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Anti-Microsoft rhetoric needs to end

Originally posted by panphage
Your facts are a bit twisted. Netscape was in fact the best browser on the market. Netscape lost the browser war long before AOL stepped in, they lost when MS bundled IE into the OS and forced computer sellers to show an IE icon on the desktop and fobade them showing an Netscape icon. MS used it's monopoly power to marginalize a superior product. This is what the entire monopoly case was about, and the findings were that MS indeed did misuse monopoly power to stifle competition.

Right, it was the world's best browser so they took forever to do version 5. Becuase there were no real updates to 4.x [you gotta admit, it wasn't the best because looking at it--it's a POS], while MS released 4.x, 5.x, and now 6.x. Another mistake by Netscape and AOL--overengineering Mozilla also let IE dominate the market.

 

[sonyrules]

Virtual PC

http://news.com.com/2100-1042_3-5068747.html?tag=fd_top

According to this artical, its going to be awhile before a fix is out, Thats microsoft for you

 

[eric_n_dfw]

What the hell is an endian?

For those who are wondering what a big/little endian is: http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/b/big_endian.html

 

[kiwi]

I seem to remember FWB also saying that RPC project ws stalled due to an MS cease and desist order (right after MS bought VPC from Connectix).
If that is true, MS strategy regarding PC emulation on the Mac is clear.

So who knows which FWB management to believe? The previous one promising a Real PC for OS X or the one now saying nothing was ever developed?

Did Microsoft push for a "regime change" over at FWB?

 

[MacCoaster]

Re: Virtual PC

Originally posted by sonyrules
http://news.com.com/2100-1042_3-5068747.html?tag=fd_top

According to this artical, its going to be awhile before a fix is out, Thats microsoft for you

No, that's what programming in low level assembly does to you, especially when you use VERY specific PowerPC features that are nonexistant on the PowerPC 970s.

Assembly isn't the world's easiest language, ya know.

 

[eric_n_dfw]

Originally posted by kiwi
I seem to remember FWB also saying that RPC project ws stalled due to an MS cease and desist order (right after MS bought VPC from Connectix).

Ahhhh - now I know what the "RPC" comment way earlier today was about. Sorry (whoever you were) when I assumed you meant remote desktop client. RPC == RealPC.

 

[AidenShaw]

not a "story"

Originally posted by sonyrules
According to this artical, its going to be awhile before a fix is out, Thats microsoft for you

Right, Apple changes to a new processor that doesn't support a critical feature needed by VPC - so it's Microsoft's fault that a product that Microsoft purchased only a few weeks ago has been broken.

Paranoia.

As to the claim that "pseudo little-endian" is a lie, read this:

http://www.mactech.com/articles/mactech/Vol.10/10.08/PowerPcArchitecture/

Now, the 601 can operate in a pseudo little-endian format. On disk, it looks neither like true big nor true little-endian. Why? Without going into too much detail, the 601 can make memory appear to the processor as true little-endian by playing with the addresses of load/stores, but without reversing any bytes.

The result is a fast, simulated little-endian world, but it's not true little-endian in memory - numbers do not have reversed bytes, but their starting addresses are changed. It's not the case that the in-memory data are instantly ready for exchange with real PCs.

However, this scheme helps make the 601 ready to speedily emulate a PC. Getting full data compatibility still requires moving fields and explicit byte-reversal during I/O - already slow, so less noticeable.


So a PowerPC feature since the G1 days (IIRC G1 would be 601, right?) has suddenly disappeared....

Microsoft's plan for world domination operates in strange and mysterious ways, indeed.

 

[geephore]

I think that with all the stuff Apple's probably learned while working on Darwin/x86, it will only be a matter of time before Apple comes out with a Windows emulator with the same type of functionality as Classic. Of course this is just speculation. I have heard rebuttals of this theory based on the idea that people will stop writing apps for the mac and just write for windows because it's on there and they wouldn't need to port it. I think that's poppycock. Did people only write for Classic because it theoretically (and probably factually) has a wider user base than OS X? No. OS X is a better development environment.

As for the browser wars, Safari has quickly and succinctly kicked other Mac browsers out of the running. Besides, it isn't what this thread is about, so stop arguing, children.

 

[elmimmo]

My completely offtopic 2 cents, since so people seems to be happy to throw theirs.

Mozilla is an amazing piece of software. Netscape 4.x was a rotten ****ty standard-screwing (which is far worse than non-compliant) browser that should have never existed. IE 4 and 5 kicked N4's butt at understanding and trying to properly render standards (which does not mean at all it was brilliant at that either).

The only good thing of N4 was its speed, but my copy of Simpletext was pretty fast too. It wasn't very web standards compliant either.

N4 lived for so long because users usually do not know that the page they are visiting is or is not supposed to be rendered the way their browser is doing it, unless everything starts to collapse very obviously. Not only was Netscape 4 an absolute headache to code for compared to IE, but filled the web with applescript resizing hacks to patch its awful css support (gosh, even IE3 introduced a bit of css support without screwing all up in the meantime).

Netscape<5 = ****ty **** and whoever that says the opposite has not written a simple page that pretended to render properly in that so-called browser. Did MS win because of monopoly? Whatever as long as we got rid of that Netscrap.

 

[sockgap]

Re: Re: Anti-Microsoft rhetoric needs to end

Originally posted by NavyIntel007
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.

http://developer.apple.com/document...pci_srvcs/pci_cards_drivers/PCI_BOOK.24e.html


Jeez do some research before sending out accusations.

I typed "powerpc little endian" into Google and the very top hit was the above page on Apple's own web site, confirming that some PowerPC chips do have this feature.

[mod. edit - Personal insults are not allowed.]

 

[NavyIntel007]

Re: Re: Re: Anti-Microsoft rhetoric needs to end

Originally posted by 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

Sure, if MS was going to release a patch to make this software work. But guess what, they aren't! They are waiting until their next VPC release to even allow it. Suppose the G6 has some other differences that make it incompatible with VPC... will MS do the same thing? Probably.

Think if Connectix did not sell out to MS... There would be a patch or updated release (because MS didn't really do anything to it) much sooner than MS with less employees and less money.

A company like MS should be hiring the best and brightest programmers from around the world. If that is the case, how is it that it takes a year to make VPC work with the G5? My theory... they had it working... Does seriously anyone remember there being PowerPC "little-endian emulation"? I've never heard of that. MS is figuring, they're probably in trouble if this G5 turns out to be superfast and superstable. So lets sit on the VPC for a while so that maybe switchers will opt out of buying one and buy a PC.

Arn... do a poll to see how many people would be swayed from buying a G5 now that we know VPC doesn't work.