Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

timb

macrumors regular
Jun 6, 2003
249
0
Ok guys, lets get the facts straight.
You can't "emulate windows", you could emulate the windows enviroment, this very well may be what SoftWindows does, Think of WINE on *NIX, You know what WINE stands for? WINE IS NOT AN EMULATOR, its recursive. :) Now, how WINE works is that it contains common windows DLLs and a registry structure, it executes the binaries, and hookes into them, directing them to the propper DLLs and registry keys. (This is a dumbed down version, but you get the idea.)

There is some other software, and I'm tired atm and can't think of the name, but pretty much it lets you install other operating systems inside of windows or linux, and it just redirects any calls to the CPU in its protected mode, so it doesn't really emulate anything (Other than video, network and sound.), so its fairly fast.

Now, RPC and VPC work by actully EMULATING, pretending to be (read: taking x86 instructions and translating them into PPC instructions) a x86 CPU.

Now the first two types of "emulators" wouldn't work on OS X right now, becuase of the fact that they would require a x86 CPU in your Mac. SoftWindows, was in fact, a combination of the third and first types of emulators I described. I may be wrong on how SoftWindows works, but my descriptions of the three types of "emulators" are dead on.

-Tim
 

Snowy_River

macrumors 68030
Jul 17, 2002
2,520
0
Corvallis, OR
Originally posted by timb
... You know what WINE stands for? WINE IS NOT AN EMULATOR, its recursive. :)

Actually, I believe this is an apocraphal acronym for WINE. I believe that WINE properly stands for "WIndows Not in Emulation", and "WINE Is Not an Emulator" was a joke that cropped up later.


There is some other software, and I'm tired atm and can't think of the name, but pretty much it lets you install other operating systems inside of windows or linux, and it just redirects any calls to the CPU in its protected mode, so it doesn't really emulate anything (Other than video, network and sound.), so its fairly fast.

Yes, and this is also how MOL (Mac On Linux) works under PPC Linux. MOL won't work on a Linux system running on an x86 chip, just as WINE won't work on a Linux system running on a PPC chip.


Now, RPC and VPC work by actully EMULATING, pretending to be (read: taking x86 instructions and translating them into PPC instructions) a x86 CPU.

...

-Tim

Well put and exactly right.
 

timb

macrumors regular
Jun 6, 2003
249
0
Snowy:
In fact I think you are right about what WINE stands for, I just like giving people the "not an emulator" spiel becuase it boggles their minds for a few min, and then the argue with you. :)
 

MisterMe

macrumors G4
Jul 17, 2002
10,709
69
USA
Originally posted by timb
Ok guys, lets get the facts straight.
You can't "emulate windows", you could emulate the windows enviroment, this very well may be what SoftWindows does, Think of WINE on *NIX, You know what WINE stands for? WINE IS NOT AN EMULATOR, its recursive. :) Now, how WINE works is that it contains common windows DLLs and a registry structure, it executes the binaries, and hookes into them, directing them to the propper DLLs and registry keys. (This is a dumbed down version, but you get the idea.)

There is some other software, and I'm tired atm and can't think of the name, but pretty much it lets you install other operating systems inside of windows or linux, and it just redirects any calls to the CPU in its protected mode, so it doesn't really emulate anything (Other than video, network and sound.), so its fairly fast.

Now, RPC and VPC work by actully EMULATING, pretending to be (read: taking x86 instructions and translating them into PPC instructions) a x86 CPU.

Now the first two types of "emulators" wouldn't work on OS X right now, becuase of the fact that they would require a x86 CPU in your Mac. SoftWindows, was in fact, a combination of the third and first types of emulators I described. I may be wrong on how SoftWindows works, but my descriptions of the three types of "emulators" are dead on.

-Tim
SoftWindows includes a copy of M$ Windows. (The SoftWindows disk image could be used by FWBs x86 coprocessor card for the Mac.) The bundled copy of Windows can be commercially upgraded to a new version if you desire to do so. IIRC, WINE is no part M$ software. It is an open source set of APIs that allow you to run Windows software on x86 hardware.

SoftWindows has a complete x86 emulator. Afterall, it can execute any M$-DOS application that I have ever seen. The difference as I understand it is that SoftWindows intercepts certain Windows system calls to be executed by the host system natively. VPC and presumeably RPC have hooks to the host systems IO--video, audio, networking, mice, keyboards, etc. However, they don't make special provisions for Windows system calls. Everything except IO is interpreted and executed by the x86 emulator. The result is a leaner and hopefully faster emulator. However, the very fact that all x86 code is interpreted by VPC goes a long way toward explaining why I have never seen a substantial difference in performance between my copies of SoftWindows and VPC.
 

iJon

macrumors 604
Feb 7, 2002
6,586
229
well if i was microsoft i just wouldnt license windows to them, that would hurt a great deal.

iJon
 

Majin Buu

macrumors newbie
May 27, 2003
9
0
Originally posted by iJon
well if i was microsoft i just wouldnt license windows to them, that would hurt a great deal.

iJon

All MS wants is FWB not to use the name SoftWindows. FWB is using this as an excuse of their product delay. They are now trying to pull this "Microsoft is bullying us, so plese help us out."

Say... Real PC has nothing to do with MS, how come that one is delayed too?

SoftWindow is identical to Real PC expect that SoftWindows includes Windows, and Real PC includes a copy of DOS (IBM DOS).

As to the agreement with Connectix, someone (obviously from Connectix) posted a message in MaCNN -- FWB never had a formal agreement with Connectix. I can't figure out why FWB would claim this, but the only agreement was that a while back FWB approached Connectix and said "we're discontinuing SoftWindows/RealPC, can we refer customers to you?" And Connectix said, "Sure!". That was the only agreement. There was never anything more than that.
 

iJon

macrumors 604
Feb 7, 2002
6,586
229
Originally posted by Majin Buu
All MS wants is FWB not to use the name SoftWindows. FWB is using this as an excuse of their product delay. They are now trying to pull this "Microsoft is bullying us, so plese help us out."

Say... Real PC has nothing to do with MS, how come that one is delayed too?

SoftWindow is identical to Real PC expect that SoftWindows includes Windows, and Real PC includes a copy of DOS (IBM DOS).

As to the agreement with Connectix, someone (obviously from Connectix) posted a message in MaCNN -- FWB never had a formal agreement with Connectix. I can't figure out why FWB would claim this, but the only agreement was that a while back FWB approached Connectix and said "we're discontinuing SoftWindows/RealPC, can we refer customers to you?" And Connectix said, "Sure!". That was the only agreement. There was never anything more than that.
makes sense, they get everyone hyped up and then the keep delaying. something went wrong or they never had it in the first place.

iJon
 

andyduncan

macrumors regular
Jan 21, 2003
172
0
Originally posted by Chimaera
my impression was that softwindows was basically a simplified version of realpc bundled with win98

No, it was, in fact, some weird, red-headed stepchild of frankenwindows.

Actually thats not nice. It was a really cool idea, here's how I remember it:

<Innacurate mode>Instead of emulating x86 hardware, they were emulating windows. They were intercepting system calls and mapping some of them directly. It wasn't running a full version of windows, like VPC was, so it traded some compatibility for speed. RealPC was sort of the same idea, except it did it just for dos, which was fine for games and stuff</Innacurate mode>

What that could mean though is that they'd need more cooperation from microsoft than say, someone who went out and wrote an i386 emulator. But I don't know that for sure.
 

joker2

macrumors 6502a
Feb 19, 2003
747
2
DC area
Originally posted by Majin Buu
All MS wants is FWB not to use the name SoftWindows. FWB is using this as an excuse of their product delay. They are now trying to pull this "Microsoft is bullying us, so plese help us out."

Say... Real PC has nothing to do with MS, how come that one is delayed too?

http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/2003/06/10/fwb/

Story from Maccentral basically reiterating the above, and the reason RealPC was delayed was they were taking all references to SoftWindows out.
 

macnews

macrumors 6502a
May 12, 2003
602
5
Idaho
I have used Virtual PC but not RealPC. VirtualPC always seemed slow, is RealPC any better? Think MS owning VirtualPC will make a difference. Sorry if a little off topic.
 

MisterMe

macrumors G4
Jul 17, 2002
10,709
69
USA
Originally posted by macnews
I have used Virtual PC but not RealPC. VirtualPC always seemed slow, is RealPC any better? Think MS owning VirtualPC will make a difference. Sorry if a little off topic.
There may be minor speed boosts here and there. Speed differences won't be enough to make you choose RPC over VPC or vice versa. RPC and VPC are both highly optimized. If you don't believe that, check out Lismore Software's Blue Label PowerEmulator and the open source Bochs emulator. VPC is currently at VPC 6.02. I expect VPC 7.0 to remain a decent product. However, M$ never met a feature it didn't like. For that reason and others, I expect VPC 8.0 to be a bloody mess. Think the Word 6.0 of emulators.
 

macnews

macrumors 6502a
May 12, 2003
602
5
Idaho
Thanks MisterMe!

Looks like VPC may be the only way to get the latest version of IE for the mac now. Hmmm, glad I really don't need VPC or IE.
 

PubGuy

macrumors member
Jan 7, 2002
73
3
Well, no Public beta on June 1.
No Public beta on July 1.
No screen shots of RealPC running OS X native.
No "preview" section on FWB's web site showing RealPC for OS X (or even Solaris for that matter.
Now web site says Public Beta "late summer".

Are they playing with us here?
Do they really have a product?
There should be an Alpha version ready that they could show, even if it still contained references to Microsoft. How about some screen shots...shouldn't be too hard...how about preliminary performance tests based on the alpha code?

How come NOBODY seems to have seen this new version in any form? There isn't even any references to the Solaris version on their web site that the OS X version was supposedly based off of.

Anybody know anything??? :confused:
 
Re: another emulator?

Originally posted by dandy1
Has anyone checked this out? Price seems right.

http://openosx.com/wintel/
That is simply a repackaged Bochs for PPC. It's not worth it, Bochs is the SLOWEST possible emulator. It's not designed for end user experience, it is designed for operating system developers debugging operating systems. It's not for the faint of the heart!
 

MisterMe

macrumors G4
Jul 17, 2002
10,709
69
USA
Originally posted by Lanbrown
This wouldn't work for most of the Apple lineup, but would for the PowerMac ort any PCI card based system:
http://www.sun.com/desktop/products/sunpci/
All that would be required is software.
Wow! A PC on an expansion card. Who would have ever thought of that?

Well, how about FWB. It sold such cards years before it bought SoftWindows and Real PC. And then there's Apple. Apple sold such cards for years. In other words:

Been there. Done that. Got the T-shirt.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.