RealPC officially discontinued.

[NavyIntel007]

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.

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.

Not only that, but didn't all the Antitrust lawsuits come into play around that time? Without Apple, MS would be in 20 pieces now.

 

[whatever]

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.

With numbers like those I wonder how long it took you to take the disc out and insert it into the drive. Let me guess 2 hours? Then another two hours to figure out that you had the disc upside down...

Come on now.

[Admin edit: He's talking about booting under Bochs emulation ]

Whatever

 

[NavyIntel007]

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

Originally posted by sockgap
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.

Well then if all the PowerPC's have it, show me the article where IBM said they removed it. Because if IBM removed it, we should have known this a long time ago.

I would find it very funny if IBM comes out and says "no, actually all that capability is still there."

 

[whatever]

Originally posted by 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).

I just wanted explain my whole position on Netscape and IE. I always used Netscape (on Windows), it was not until I switched back to a Mac and started using IE did I realize how stupid I was being for being so closed-minded towards Microsoft (yes, I used Netscape and bashed IE), but then when I switched to IE (on a Mac) I ended up switching to IE in Windows too.

It was then that I realized how foolish I was for letting my bias against MS effect my work. In other words I forgot that the software was only the means to the end, but not the end in itself.

 

[Ripcord]

I sent this email to sales@vmware.com:

With the recent announcement of Microsoft's VPC for Macintosh not working with G5, and no plans to support until at least "well into 2004", is VMWare working on a Macintosh version of its Intel emulation software?

It's fairly obvious that Microsoft has very little to gain by supporting this software heavily, and it is likely that this software will eventually evaporate. With the release of the G5 the Macintosh is again a growing platform, and this market should steadily become more available to competitors (and with the announcement that RealPC will have NO OS X version of its emulation software, there are currently no competitors to Microsoft in this space).

My group within (my company) will need at least 15 copies, I'm just wondering if we'll see a solution from VMWare anytime in the forseeable future.

If they haven't already been working on it, porting vmware to Mac would be no small task. However, they're head and shoulders farther along on a stable, mature product than anyone else. It would be very interesting if they suddenly got inundated with requests for a Mac product.

 

[NavyIntel007]

In other news... I just talked to someone in the IRC room that says 6.0.1 works on the G5.

If 6.0 works, why doesn't 6.1 work?

MS strikes again!

 

[eric_n_dfw]

Originally posted by NavyIntel007
In other news... I just talked to someone in the IRC room that says 6.0.1 works on the G5.

If 6.0 works, why doesn't 6.1 work?

MS strikes again!

And we know if you hear it in IRC. It MUST be true!

 

[eric_n_dfw]

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

Originally posted by NavyIntel007
Well then if all the PowerPC's have it, show me the article where IBM said they removed it. Because if IBM removed it, we should have known this a long time ago.

I would find it very funny if IBM comes out and says "no, actually all that capability is still there."

All PPC's before the G5 are based on the 601 family. The G5, 970 chip is based on the POWER family (POWER 4 to be specific) - every article you see on a google search for "big endian" says that "IBM Mainframes" are big endian. Many of modern IBM mainframes use, POWER chips.

The G5 is a PowerPC by name, but it's more of a mini-POWER chip.

 

[xelterran]

i think u can get a decend second hand PC for about $300 or even less.. i dont see the point in using VPC/other.

 

[arn]

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.

WTF? What's with the conspiracy theories?

It seems likely true unless you can come up with documentation that it is not.

Stop with the FUD. As I've said before - people should stop claiming the sky is falling -- when it is not.

arn

 

[ralphh]

Originally posted by whatever
I just wanted explain my whole position on Netscape and IE.

<snip>

It was then that I realized how foolish I was for letting my bias against MS effect my work. In other words I forgot that the software was only the means to the end, but not the end in itself.

I must strongly disagree: there's the issue of supporting an abusive, suffocating monopoly by using their products. I avoid buying their products, or adding momentum to their abuse and monopolization of standards by using even their free stuff.

 

[mvc]

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

Originally posted by whatever
Then another two hours to figure out that you had the disc upside down...

LOL - Do people really do this? I suppose it proves the truth of the saying that noone ever went broke by underestimating the Average User!

But, on topic, VPC is a curse either working or nor working - if its not working, people won't switch and corporates don't buy, if it is working (and if its any good) Developers won't code for OSX.

How is it in Microsofts best interests to keep it slow? They are best served by making it fast so they do not have to write OSX versions of their software but make the same money.

And thats why they are bundling it with Office for Mac. in a couple of versions, when its fast enough, they will simply stop making an OSX version of Office.

Thats also why they are pushing OSX versions of the Office products now, all to squeeze in an extra upgrade cycle before they desert the platform in all but name.

 

[arn]

A few off-topic posts deleted...

You know guys... the anti-microsoft sentiment is cute - it really is....

but there's a point where we can't keep talking about it.

Let's please do away with the conspiracy theories... yeah, it sucks that VPC doesn't work on the G5. Yes, it sucks it may take some time before a patch comes out.

But conspiracy theories get old.... let's not rile people up with irrational arguements.

arn

 

[Ripcord]

Originally posted by eric_n_dfw
And we know if you hear it in IRC. It MUST be true!

Then again, I've heard several people suggest this, but have yet to hear anyone who's tried pre-Microsoft Virtual PC 6 and confirmed that it also doesn't work.

However, Microsoft is known for a lot of things (predatory business tactics, low quality of software, etc), but not generally known for being stupid. This would seem like a very obviously stupid thing to do...

 

[mstecker]

Originally posted by idea_hamster
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?

People "wanting to be MS-free" is a lousy reason to invest loads of money in developing a competing product when there's already a perfectly good product on the market. Honestly, what percentage of people who want VPC won't use it anymore because it's owned by Microsoft? Very few, I'd imagine.

Besides, what did Microsoft ever do to you? Besides continuing to support Office on Macintosh, that is.

 

[Ripcord]

Originally posted by mstecker
People "wanting to be MS-free" is a lousy reason to invest loads of money in developing a competing product when there's already a perfectly good product on the market. Honestly, what percentage of people who want VPC won't use it anymore because it's owned by Microsoft? Very few, I'd imagine.

No, I don't want VPC because it apparently won't run on the system I ordered. And I suspect strongly that MS will make only a half-hearted attempt to resolve this, and we'll continue to see these sorts of problems until VPC for Mac (and PC) evaporate.

The license revenue for potential Windows licenses is nothing compared to VPC's ability to make it easier to break the desktop OS monopoly... Which is the cornerstone of all of their money...

 

[dguisinger]

Ideas

This doesn't seem to hard. From the excepts I have seen, it appears it is a memory interface instruction, handling loads and stores. This is actually very important. It means instead of a word being 11111111 00000000, it is 00000000 11111111.

However, notice its a mode the processor can slip into that makes it transparent, therefore a pair of 3 MOV instructions (or a SWAP if its available) aren't needed.

However the solution is obvious. Instead of swapping bytes when you read or write it......swap them when you LOAD them or SAVE them to/from disk or exchange the bytes with Mac OS X drivers.

For example, at some point VPC must load instructions or data from disk, by emulating a sector read. With endian switching, all it is is a standard
{
f.Read(buffer,512)
}

however that needs to be changed to
{
f.Read(buffer,512);
Byteswap(buffer);
}

Obviously a software byteswap is expensive....but it gets even better. Storing data on a virtual disk on MacOS X? Why not encode the entire disk pre-swapped?? Doing so would mean only new data would need swaps, or communicating with OS X drivers (such as display). That way, while booting VPC there is no byteswapping to load the several hundred MB of Windows that loads at boot. This is much like .NET....MS will save x86 translated bytecode so that the JIT doesn't need to run after the first time!

This byteswap issue isn't that big..atleast not as big as they want you to think, because its implimented transparently. Since its transparently, there are no instructions called at every swap in their instruction code. It can be handled at their higher level code where it interfaces with Mac OS X.

So I've got to say....MS's note about a year is bull, it could possibly be hacked into VPC.

 

[saint.duo]

It exists, works well, and is locked up tighter than fort knox at Apple along with marklar and anything else they may cook up in a random day.

You're reasoning behind Apple not releasing it is exactly WHY we'll never see it. Why develop Mac native apps when PC apps run fast enough on Mac hardware?

Personally, I want a copy for myself.

Originally posted by eric_n_dfw 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?

 

[SeaFox]

Re: Another opportunity to dump Office

Originally posted by OSXconvert
Just think: nobody who buys a G5 will be able to run PC programs on it for at least 6 months.

You know, you just hit on something right there. We have this doomsday scenario running around of MS axing the MacBU and just making Mac users run Office under their VPC product.

But they can't do that now.

With VPC G5 incompatable, MS can't discontinue MacOffice, because then there will be no way to run Office on a G5! Besides the loss in Office sales of any sort to Mac users, they will have taken the standard in office productivity apps and made it incompatable with every platform but their own. An incompatability they would be responsible for having discontinued MacOffice before solving the problems with VPC, the only major Windows-on-Mac emulation program available.

How does that sound for unfair marketing practices?

 

[SeaFox]

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. 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.

Uh, JPEG is a proprietary format, now. It wasn't when it first came out, but the rights algorithms were bought a few years ago by some group. They started to try charging people licensing fees for it and threatening lawsuits. I think only one ISP actually paid them. Everyone else called their bluff since the format had been in use free for so long.

MP3 is also a proprietary format. But other encoding engines written open source or in such a way to avoid copyrighted material have emerged.

 

[Sun Baked]

Just the owner (new or old?) taking direct control of a company.

Seems that VPC isn't the only program getting the axe, they seem to have returned a few programs they were reselling to the copyright holders.

www.fwb.com/html/about_fwb_changes.html

If you look at the scanned pages Mark Hurlow (President) and Marko Kostyrko (CEO) were the people holding and/or controlling the stock they used to take over the company.

Something definitely was happening behind the scenes.

 

[judith]

You know, tell me that in the future no Photoshop will exist for the Mac platform, and I'll effin' freak, but no "MS/windows applications" Who really cares??
Mac apps are far superior. Yeah, there was IE for Mac, but NOW there is Safari - Who even dares open the IE app anymore, Why would you need to? (come-on give me one good reason) I don't understand why 'no VPC' is a loss?? I'm so confused! You all make it sound like living with a G5, and without MS would hurt somehow?
Sure sounds dreamy to me...

 

[elmimmo]

Originally posted by ralphh
I avoid buying their products, or adding momentum to their abuse and monopolization of standards by using even their free stuff.

Even if that leaves you with the only option to use a load of crap? (which is not the case nowadays in the browser front, but was when only IE or N were there).

That is an option. Mine is to use whatever is best.

 

[hvfsl]

Does anyone know if realpc works (the old version) in classic mode on the G5 since I don't think it has any G3/4 optimisations.

 

[eric_n_dfw]

Originally posted by saint.duo
It exists, works well, and is locked up tighter than fort knox at Apple along with marklar and anything else they may cook up in a random day.

You're reasoning behind Apple not releasing it is exactly WHY we'll never see it. Why develop Mac native apps when PC apps run fast enough on Mac hardware?

Personally, I want a copy for myself.

So, why would Apple have invested the time and money in developing the mythical "Red-box" if they never intended on releasing it?

The only windows compatibility mode that I would beleive exists is in Marklar, and I'd venture to bet that it would be WINE based. Or at least it would work a lot like WINE.