This MacNN thread from FWB notes that RealPC is scheduled for July... and that Microsoft has sent them a Cease and Desist letter. No other details posted.
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 vs Microsoft?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Microsoft cannot stop someone releasing an x86 emulator with say linux or it or just empty. The user can then install whatever they want on there...and if its a bought copy of Microsoft Windows or something else 
then so be it.
Microsoft really have got to stop trying to beat everyone up....I guess since they finished off the US Government it doesn't really matter who they beat up.
then so be it. Microsoft really have got to stop trying to beat everyone up....I guess since they finished off the US Government it doesn't really matter who they beat up.
I had high hopes that MS were just the people to make a future VPC be a really great product, even better than now.
But this makes me want to never upgrade, and just buy RealPC instead.
No doubt they want to make people afraid to buy RPC, for fear that FWB will be sued out of existence and leave them without support. I don't intend to be intimidated.
How crazy is MS? They never worried about RPC before they owned VPC... and even with RPC, they still get to sell the Windows license to many people.
What is their basis for this? RealPC is essentially analogous to a PC-maker, right? They're making an emulated x86 platform instead of a physical one... how can MS expect to control that? RPC could be sold without an OS or with Linux or whatever... it's not directly in MS-related product, unless they bundle Windows--which MS SHOULD be required to sell them if they want it.
So this COULD be two things instead: a) some very specific and minor issue that MS has a problem with, and FWB can solve--rather than an attempt to actually stop the product, or b) a hoax entirely!
EDIT: There is speculation at MacNN that the problem is only with the name of the "PowerWindows" product. Good a theory as any! Name it "PowerWin" and we'll all know what they mean anyway!
But this makes me want to never upgrade, and just buy RealPC instead.
No doubt they want to make people afraid to buy RPC, for fear that FWB will be sued out of existence and leave them without support. I don't intend to be intimidated.
How crazy is MS? They never worried about RPC before they owned VPC... and even with RPC, they still get to sell the Windows license to many people.
What is their basis for this? RealPC is essentially analogous to a PC-maker, right? They're making an emulated x86 platform instead of a physical one... how can MS expect to control that? RPC could be sold without an OS or with Linux or whatever... it's not directly in MS-related product, unless they bundle Windows--which MS SHOULD be required to sell them if they want it.
So this COULD be two things instead: a) some very specific and minor issue that MS has a problem with, and FWB can solve--rather than an attempt to actually stop the product, or b) a hoax entirely!
EDIT: There is speculation at MacNN that the problem is only with the name of the "PowerWindows" product. Good a theory as any! Name it "PowerWin" and we'll all know what they mean anyway!
Originally posted by mj_1903
Microsoft cannot stop someone releasing an x86 emulator with say linux or it or just empty. The user can then install whatever they want on there...and if its a bought copy of Microsoft Windows or something else
You shouldn't but when you have as many lawyers and as much money as Micro$oft, it doesn't matter. Just the threat of filing is enough.
The issue that M$ has with FWB probably revolves around an agreement that FWB made with Connectix to stop selling RealPC and SoftWindows. FWB also referred potential RPC and SW customers to Connectix. The legal uncertainty remaining to be answered is two-fold:
1. When it bought Connectix's emulation products, did M$ also gain ownership of Connectix's agreement with FWB?
2. Can M$, which has been determined to be an illegal monopoly and affirmed to be so on appeal, enforce an agreement which serves to stifle competition for one of its products?
Originally posted by Kurt
You shouldn't but when you have as many lawyers and as much money as Micro$oft, it doesn't matter. Just the threat of filing is enough.
Hmmm, isn't Microsoft copying that from Apple too? Sue people out of business? Let's not forget where we came from. OK?
We've been left in the dark a bit, it'll be interesting to see what MS has actually got against this. FWB's site doesn't say much, just this:
Notice that they say PowerWindows, not RealPC. Will RealPC still exist, or is it being replaced with PowerWindows?
Notice that they say PowerWindows, not RealPC. Will RealPC still exist, or is it being replaced with PowerWindows?
Actually MS might be able to make a legal case that the emulator product cannot be advertised in a certain manner as it won't be 100% compatible, could misrepresent the Windows product to customers, or create above average support issues for a Windows product. There are a number of areas that MS *could* go with this if they really wanted to and probably be within their legal means to do so.
That could very well be true and frankly I think PowerWin sounds like a better name for it.
Anyway, a Windoze emulator is baaaaaaad.
Why?
Remember OS/2. It could run Windows 3.1 apps natively. So noone bothered to make OS/2 native apps, but concentrated on making Windows 3.1 apps because those would run on both Windows and OS/2.
So. If you have a really good VPC or RPC then why would software makers bother to make OS X native apps? They'd just concentrate on the Windows version and expect you to use the app in VPC or RPC, degrading a OS X to a platform suitable for running an emulator. Less OS X software, so even more people would ask themselves why they should buy those expensive Macs when all they can do with it is run Windows apps anyway. And then they'll buy a cheaper PC.
What Apple should do is lower the prices of Macs, gain a lot of market share and make the platform more interesting for software makers.
Why?
Remember OS/2. It could run Windows 3.1 apps natively. So noone bothered to make OS/2 native apps, but concentrated on making Windows 3.1 apps because those would run on both Windows and OS/2.
So. If you have a really good VPC or RPC then why would software makers bother to make OS X native apps? They'd just concentrate on the Windows version and expect you to use the app in VPC or RPC, degrading a OS X to a platform suitable for running an emulator. Less OS X software, so even more people would ask themselves why they should buy those expensive Macs when all they can do with it is run Windows apps anyway. And then they'll buy a cheaper PC.
What Apple should do is lower the prices of Macs, gain a lot of market share and make the platform more interesting for software makers.
Don't worry about Windows emulation harming OS X development. An emulator will never touch the performance of native OS X--much less its features and usability. And the Mac public would not be willing to accept Windows software even if the emulator and Windows OS were free--which they aren't.
They'd be MUCH more likely to accept emulated OS 9 apps than that! And yet we all know, Classic didn't kill OS X development by any means. We want native OS X apps--and software companies have delivered.
Having the OPTION to run the dominant platform's software is a great selling point, though--and often very useful. Windows machines can't run OS X software.
They'd be MUCH more likely to accept emulated OS 9 apps than that! And yet we all know, Classic didn't kill OS X development by any means. We want native OS X apps--and software companies have delivered.
Having the OPTION to run the dominant platform's software is a great selling point, though--and often very useful. Windows machines can't run OS X software.
Let's hope Lindows wins their lawsuit, and the name Windows reverts back to being a generic, untrademarked word.
That would hurt M$ is many, many ways. But most importantly, it would disolve 1 of the 2 truly reconizable brands that M$ has. And to make matters worse, the other brand is the name Microsoft, which has countless negative associations with it.
Can you imagine a world where there is an IBM Windows, and Oracle Windows, RedHat Linux Windows, etc., etc. It would be wonderful.
GO LINDOWS...
That would hurt M$ is many, many ways. But most importantly, it would disolve 1 of the 2 truly reconizable brands that M$ has. And to make matters worse, the other brand is the name Microsoft, which has countless negative associations with it.
Can you imagine a world where there is an IBM Windows, and Oracle Windows, RedHat Linux Windows, etc., etc. It would be wonderful.
GO LINDOWS...
Nagromme, I agree, if Windows emulation would still be (a lot) slower than running Windows on a PC, then it wouldn't be a threat to OS X development.
Still, the best thing for Apple to do would still be to lower their prices and gain more market share.
Still, the best thing for Apple to do would still be to lower their prices and gain more market share.
Um no....
I actually bought and used OS/2 and I can tell you that wasn't the reason why very few apps were developed for it.
OS/2 was a complete disaster. IBM spent billions marketing it instead of trying to fix it's many problems. First problem: Installation took 4 hours and is not for the faint of heart. The OS was slow, extremely slow. Unless you were extremely good with computers, you did not have a chance at learning how to use this. OS/2 wouldn't even run on many of IBM's own computers. Without an actual user base, no one developed for it. THAT is the reason, not the fact that it could do Win 3.1 apps. By the time IBM released OS/2 Warp, Microsoft had Windows 95, and OS/2 couldn't run Windows 95 apps. Windows 3.1 compatibility was always, practically irrelevant. It's the same story as the Mac, it's all about marketshare.
Victor's Secret won their Supreme Court lawsuit, which is bad news for everyone else bringing a Federal Trademark Dilution Act lawsuit.
They slapped Victoria's Secret around and said come back when you have proof that the customers are morons and would actually think that Victor's Secret sex shop is really a Victoria's Secret Lingerie shop, and you have no proof you lost any money.
---
If MS is selling a copy of Windows every time a copy of Real PC is sold...
You do the math.
And are the customers buying Windows morons, OK MS has got you there -- maybe there is a chance they'd win.
They slapped Victoria's Secret around and said come back when you have proof that the customers are morons and would actually think that Victor's Secret sex shop is really a Victoria's Secret Lingerie shop, and you have no proof you lost any money.
---
If MS is selling a copy of Windows every time a copy of Real PC is sold...
You do the math.
And are the customers buying Windows morons, OK MS has got you there -- maybe there is a chance they'd win.
Doesn't say anything about RealPC, just Softwindows, and seeing as its supplying a no longer supported OS I'm not suprised MS are a little pissed about it.
The only grounds MS could have for taking on RealPC is if this supposed agreement between Connectix and FWB was put down in writing (and if money changed hands over it) - If there was some form of contract promising no further development of RealPC then basically FWB would be screwed as MS could enforce that.
One thing a lot of you fail to realise is MS have absolutely no need to kill VPC on mac, and just because they bought it doesn't automatically mean its gonna suck either - People buying VPC = more money to MS regardless of what OS they actually run on it - I have VPC running Linux and DOS 6.2.2 - neither of which is a revenue stream to MS - but my buying the application IS, and if they do can VPC someone else will come up with a x86 emu instead and they loose an (admittedly tiny) stream of cash that it doesn't hurt them to keep open.
Personally I'm highly sceptical about FWB's claims of speed - I personally suspect its going to end up being more or less the same speed of emulation as VPC at best.
The only grounds MS could have for taking on RealPC is if this supposed agreement between Connectix and FWB was put down in writing (and if money changed hands over it) - If there was some form of contract promising no further development of RealPC then basically FWB would be screwed as MS could enforce that.
One thing a lot of you fail to realise is MS have absolutely no need to kill VPC on mac, and just because they bought it doesn't automatically mean its gonna suck either - People buying VPC = more money to MS regardless of what OS they actually run on it - I have VPC running Linux and DOS 6.2.2 - neither of which is a revenue stream to MS - but my buying the application IS, and if they do can VPC someone else will come up with a x86 emu instead and they loose an (admittedly tiny) stream of cash that it doesn't hurt them to keep open.
Personally I'm highly sceptical about FWB's claims of speed - I personally suspect its going to end up being more or less the same speed of emulation as VPC at best.
I think Apple should buy Realpc and then they could code it better so it should be run faster on Macs. It would be a bit like the x11 app they have. Then M$ would have a hard time stopping Apple from making it.
Remember that M$ bought the emulation products primarily to kill VPC linux on x86, not Windows on PPC.
Actully I was under the impression they bought it for the VM technology, something to do with helping compatability down the line with NT apps on 2003 server if I remember rightly.
MS gains nothing by buying VPC just to bury it - something else will come along always.
Stopping VPC for the purpose of stopping peole using Linux makes no sense - its not exactly hard to dualboot into linux and windows after all, all running linux on VPC achieves is a little less hassle - so killing that would achieve nothing either.
MS gains nothing by buying VPC just to bury it - something else will come along always.
Stopping VPC for the purpose of stopping peole using Linux makes no sense - its not exactly hard to dualboot into linux and windows after all, all running linux on VPC achieves is a little less hassle - so killing that would achieve nothing either.
Ooo! Ooo! How about, instead of 'PowerWindows' . . . 'PowerPC'! Oh... wait... I guess that won't work...