# RealPC coming back



## Excalibur (Apr 7, 2003)

Apparently they are coming back.

RealPC



> When Microsoft purchased Virtual PC, we decided it was time to re-release an updated version of Real PC & SoftWindows 98 (and shortly XP etc). We had to discontinue the product as the agreement was with Connectix, not Microsoft. If you would like to update your Real PC to a faster, better and more powerful version, give us 30 days to finish the software and you'll be glad you waited.



Should be an interesting year here.


----------



## Arden (Apr 7, 2003)

http://www.fwb.com/html/realpc.html

Apparently it's not just a rumor.


----------



## Captain Code (Apr 7, 2003)

Cool.  Now the question is, will it be faster than Virtual PC?  I hope so.  If they can make it faster then they will definately sell a lot of copies.


----------



## serpicolugnut (Apr 7, 2003)

This looks like it will be just for OS 8.6-9. No mention of OS X anywhere just yet....


----------



## Stridder44 (Apr 8, 2003)

OS 9 only!!?? You gotta be joking! That's a double edged sword indeed!


----------



## Arden (Apr 8, 2003)

Hey, if I could get the hole out of my Classic environment I'd be using X on my iMac, but I can't and most of what I do requires Classic, so I'm predominantly a 9er.


----------



## fryke (Apr 8, 2003)

Hmm... RealPC and SoftWindows 98 were a bit strange back then. Virtual PC was gaining field fast when it came out.

I personally don't have anything against Microsoft being the new publisher/developer of Virtual PC, as you'll mostly use it for Microsoft software, anyway. It's a good product, and the MacBU isn't known for _bad_ software, actually.


----------



## ApeintheShell (Apr 8, 2003)

now the question is, will these successful products ever emulate a processor besides the out-dated MMX?


----------



## fryke (Apr 8, 2003)

why should they? their aim is not to emulate a processor, emulating a processor is merely a means of transport. the aim is to run software written for Microsoft Windows.


----------



## gwynarion (Apr 8, 2003)

> _Originally posted by fryke _
> *It's a good product, and the MacBU isn't known for _bad_ software, actually. *


Except Internet Explorer...


----------



## NielZ (Apr 9, 2003)

> _Originally posted by gwynarion _
> *Except Internet Explorer... *


 IE isn't 'bad'.
It misses some features that Safari has (tabbed browsing, speed), but it's more compatible with most sites then Safari... (i have some sites that look like crap/crash on Safari & run wonderfull in IE)


----------



## serpicolugnut (Apr 9, 2003)

Are you kidding?

IE is slow, bloated, and full of non compliant HTML hacks. Most of these are in line with IE for Windows, but they still don't adhere to standards. Of course, since MS owns 95% of the market, they can break standards and still claim standard compliancy, but...

I had removed it from my Powerbook, until just recently when I needed to access Macromedia's Exchange site, which doesn't work too well with Safari or Camino, unfortunately....


----------



## abyard (Apr 9, 2003)

off the original topic... but
IE on the mac is awful (from a web developers point of view) it's support of various standards is flakey at the very least, stuff that renders fine on IE5, 5.5 & 6 on Windows just does nothing on Mac IE.
The only reason it's still on my PB is that I still need to do compatability checks with it.

Back on topic now...
Welcome back RealPC 
The competition to MS/Virtual PC can only be a good thing.
OS9 only?
Ah well, I can forgive them for that as they've been out of the game for a while.

I've just bought RealPC v1.0 for girlie's powerbook (five quid on eBay), Windows95 runs like a dog, but that's no surprise.

Quick thought...
Will RealPC run under classic?
If so, fun and games tonight....
 OSX running OS9 classic
 Classic running RealPC
 RealPC running Win95
 Win95 running Virtual PlayStation
tee hee, emulation overload here i come


----------



## gwynarion (Apr 9, 2003)

> _Originally posted by NielZ _
> *IE isn't 'bad'.
> It misses some features that Safari has (tabbed browsing, speed), but it's more compatible with most sites then Safari... (i have some sites that look like crap/crash on Safari & run wonderfull in IE) *


Saying that IE is more compatible with most sites is analogous to saying that infections are more compatible with open wounds than with a healthy body.  IE works better with sites which are badly built.  Other than that I agree with the rest of what Serpicolugnut and Abyard said.  As a web designer I support Win IE because I have to, but I do not support Mac IE.  I always go with the hope that Mac users know enough not to be using that sorry piece of crap.


----------



## abyard (Apr 9, 2003)

> _Originally posted by gwynarion _
> *As a web designer I support Win IE because I have to, but I do not support Mac IE.  I always go with the hope that Mac users know enough not to be using that sorry piece of crap. *



lol 

I always take a look at the sites i'm working on in Mac IE so that I can justify my constant whinging to my boss that we should never let a M$ app/os anywhere near a computer*

Ab.

* MSN Messenger is an exception


----------



## Excalibur (Apr 9, 2003)

IE is more old than anything. It has never really been rewritten for about 2-3 years. It was a straight port from the OS9 version, and was left for dead on OSX. Honestly what has been updated since the publice beta? Nothing but security updates. Windows has had 2 full version updates since. 5.5 and now 6.0. Unfortunatly as web developer I have to keep it around to test code in it, even though I personally don't use it for browsing.


----------



## dsnyder (Apr 10, 2003)

> _Originally posted by abyard _
> *off the original topic... but
> IE on the mac is awful (from a web developers point of view) it's support of various standards is flakey at the very least *



Jeffrey Zeldman disagrees:

http://www.alistapart.com/stories/ie5mac/


----------



## abyard (Apr 10, 2003)

> _Originally posted by dsnyder _
> *Jeffrey Zeldman disagrees:
> 
> http://www.alistapart.com/stories/ie5mac/ *



Mr Zeldman heaps praise on IE-Mac for the 1st few pages of his review but on the last page he mentions the DOM and that's where my problems lie.

I don't know when the article was written but I guess it was when web pages were static apart from a few rollovers, the people I write for (Intranets mostly) now demand a user interface that does a bit more.

M$ have a nasty habit of changing what they support (including their own extensions) and I have a nightmare on Windows with IE5.0, 5.5 and 6.0 and the various SP releases between.

I have to support all the Win variants because with locked down desktops (the norm within every company i've worked for) mean that I can't just say "Just download the latest release".
I only test on my Mac (OSX & OS9) because it make me laugh to see how M$ haven't really understood the idea of "Cross Platform Consistency".

Meanwhile back at the thread...
If I run RealPC can I have an ASP compatible web server running (IIS or PWS) that I can connect to from the Mac side?
No use for my work stuff but like I said M$ are a source of amusement for me.

gotta go, I've made a cup of coffee, added to this thread and my W2K machine has just received two new "Critical Updates"


----------



## gwynarion (Apr 10, 2003)

> _Originally posted by dsnyder _
> *Jeffrey Zeldman disagrees:
> 
> http://www.alistapart.com/stories/ie5mac/ *


That article is nearly three years old.  There have been changes to the standards and IE has not eveloved to meet them.  There have also been a number of new browsers released since then that do significantly better.  Finally, I don't always agree with what Zeldman expounds about, and this is one of those times.


----------



## dsnyder (Apr 10, 2003)

> _Originally posted by abyard _
> Meanwhile back at the thread...
> If I run RealPC can I have an ASP compatible web server running (IIS or PWS) that I can connect to from the Mac side?
> No use for my work stuff but like I said M$ are a source of amusement for me.



The info page for SoftWindows (I think it's just RealPC with Window 98 preinstalled) says that it "Shares your MacÕs IP address" ( http://www.fwb.com/html/softwindows98.html ), so one can only assume that you would be able to run IIS and connect to localhost in your Mac browser.  Of course, there isn't any information about installing NT/2000/XP, so it's not clear if there are drivers available for the virtual RealPC hardware.

I'm pretty sure that Virtual PC can do what you want though (you can even give the Virtual PC it's own IP address).


----------



## rhale1 (Apr 11, 2003)

> BUY the OS 9 Version now and
> receive the OS X version free!!!
> Estimated Shipping date: 6/1/03



I for one, loved the way RealPC performed on an old iBook 300 with 64MB of RAM, and I hope they clean up the code, the ui, and make it osx ready (apparently 1 down...).

Read more: http://www.fwb.com/html/realpc.html


----------



## jade (Apr 12, 2003)

real pc os x estimated arrival date is 6.1.03.....if you purchase for os 9 now you will receive the new version free


----------



## Quicksilver (Apr 14, 2003)

What id really like too see is a super fast emulation of windows programs running on OS X..... you know like the way classic ran on X.......

Even better id like to see it manipulate the windows GUI to a OS X look, im pretty sure this could be done. It would be a project worth the effort. And a true checkmate for Apple.

Mabey that's what the Panther" to end all comparisons" thing is all about as seen on loop rumors. imagine the possibilities with games for eg...


----------



## adambyte (Apr 14, 2003)

Yay! Is anybody else just plain proud that FWB has the guts to take on the big guys? *applauds*

All hail RealPC!

Let's just hope it's fast...


----------



## fryke (Apr 14, 2003)

As Microsoft isn't exactly known for frequent updates, FWB could actually have a chance.

However: MS can win the price war, if they just give you VPC + Windows license for the price of a Windows license... We'll see. ;-)


----------



## johnkershaw (Jun 9, 2003)

Anybody, anywhere, ever manage to get SoftWindows 95 (or RealPC running Win95) to see their Mac's web connection?

My SW98 can see my cable connection just fine, but not SW95. I've just transferred both of them to my new 12" PB and now SW95 can even see my modem to get a dial-up connection! Aargh!


----------



## rhale1 (Jun 9, 2003)

Hmm... Microsoft, Cease and Desist, MS buying VPC... coincidence? How about no.


> Dear FWB customers,
> 
> As you are all aware, FWB is working diligently to update Real PC and Softwindows for OSX. In May, while working on this project, we received a setback in the form of a cease and desist letter from Microsoft.
> 
> ...


----------



## Captain Code (Jun 9, 2003)

FWB's agreement not to produce RealPC was with Connectix and not Microsoft, so I don't see how MS's cease and decist order could hold any ground.


----------



## serpicolugnut (Jun 9, 2003)

> FWB's agreement not to produce RealPC was with Connectix and not Microsoft, so I don't see how MS's cease and decist order could hold any ground.



But by buying Connectix, MS was entitled to all rights and judgments that Connectix held at the time. I can fully understand MS issuing a cease and decist. The only way FWB would be able to bypass the original agreement was if the original agreement had a clause that made it null and void if Connectix was sold to a 3rd party.

I'm no lawyer (although several of my friends are and I play one on TV), but I wouldn't get to psyched for RealPC or Softwindows for OS X. Few survive the wrath of the MS legal team...


----------



## Captain Code (Jun 9, 2003)

> _Originally posted by serpicolugnut _
> *But by buying Connectix, MS was entitled to all rights and judgments that Connectix held at the time. *



MS did NOT buy Connectix, they bought VirtualPC FROM Connectix.

Connectix press release


----------



## Captain Code (Jun 9, 2003)

There's a good quote from an MS employee in that press release:

"Our customers told us they wanted a best-of-breed virtual machine solution that enables them to run their legacy Windows applications, even as they migrate to more modern operating system technology, said Bill Veghte, corporate vice president of the Windows Server Group at Microsoft."

So the guy knows that Windows is crap and says people want to still use their old Windows progs while migrating to the superior MacOSX System. ::ha::


----------



## serpicolugnut (Jun 9, 2003)

> MS did NOT buy Connectix, they bought VirtualPC FROM Connectix.



You are correct. I forgot the terms of the acquisition.

I doubt then that MS will win this one. However, MS can make it impossible for FWB to include Windows, essentially killing SoftWindows. Probably just as well, because to be cost effective, RealPC will need to cost less than VirtualPC, and perform just as good, if not better...


----------



## serpicolugnut (Jun 9, 2003)

> So the guy knows that Windows is crap and says people want to still use their old Windows progs while migrating to the superior MacOSX System.



Actually, he was referring to VirtualPC for Windows, which allows paranoid IT managers to upgrade to new Windows versions while still retaining 100% backwards compatability with progams that might not work right with the new OS.

VPC for Windows was the impetus for the entire purchase. VPC for Mac was just gravy...


----------



## MisterMe (Jun 9, 2003)

> _Originally posted by serpicolugnut _
> *Actually, he was referring to VirtualPC for Windows, which allows paranoid IT managers to upgrade to new Windows versions while still retaining 100% backwards compatability with progams that might not work right with the new OS.
> 
> VPC for Windows was the impetus for the entire purchase. VPC for Mac was just gravy... *


You are almost right. It is Virtual Server that M$ really wanted. Virtual Server is still in beta. Think of it as VPC for Windows for the enterprise. You have the rest about right. Virtual Server will allow M$'s victims--I mean "customers"--to deploy M$'s new systems which they don't trust on virtual machines hosted by M$'s old systems which they do trust.


----------



## hulkaros (Jun 11, 2003)

Here is a "nice" update about RealPC straight from their site:
*Dear FWB customers,

As you are all aware, FWB is working diligently to update Real PC and Softwindows for OSX. In May, while working on this project, we received a setback in the form of a cease and desist letter from Microsoft.

We are working to resolve the issues with Microsoft, and this has caused some delay, much to our frustration.  We are committed to having a beta for you to test for us and help us optimize, this summer._ We think we have only lost a few weeks of time to this issue.

FWB appreciates your continued patience and support.*

And here is the link to that site:
http://www.fwb.com/html/powerwindows.html

I hope that they will resolve their issues and give the Mac users what they want and how they want it: Windows on Mac


----------



## boi (Jun 11, 2003)

it'd be nice to run windows _apps_ on macosx as opposed to the entire operating system. i'm a compsci major, but i haven't gotten into OS development classes yet (i'm a junior), but i see this as an item that would definitely boost speed. just emulate the back-end without the operating system.

such a program would take eons to write, though, i would assume.


----------



## mfsri (Jun 11, 2003)

> _Originally posted by boi _
> *it'd be nice to run windows _apps_ on macosx as opposed to the entire operating system. *



10.3 ?


----------



## Captain Code (Jun 11, 2003)

> _Originally posted by boi _
> *it'd be nice to run windows _apps_ on macosx as opposed to the entire operating system. i'm a compsci major, but i haven't gotten into OS development classes yet (i'm a junior), but i see this as an item that would definitely boost speed. just emulate the back-end without the operating system. *



The back end is the operating system.


----------



## Arden (Jun 12, 2003)

M$ selling VPC makes sense because they can bundle whatever version of Windoze the customer wants at no real cost, and they can adjust it to work perfectly with that version of Windoze.  However, I hope someone, like FWB, can successfully sell a competitor, because that would encourage M$ to watch how they play the market (unless they buy that as well, of course).


----------



## pyroboy (Jun 14, 2003)

What ever happened to the Yellow Box in Darwin/OSX? You know, the part that was supposed to run Windows apps natively?

There is another solution out there worth checking out. Bochs is open-source software that functions as a Windows emulator on Unix machines.

http://bochs.sourceforge.net/

From the Web site:


> Bochs is a highly portable open source IA-32 (x86) PC emulator written in C++, that runs on most popular platforms. It includes emulation of the Intel x86 CPU, common I/O devices, and a custom BIOS. Currently, bochs can be compiled to emulate a 386, 486 or Pentium CPU. Bochs is capable of running most Operating Systems inside the emulation including Linux, Windows® 95, DOS, and recently Windows® NT 4.


----------



## MisterMe (Jun 14, 2003)

> _Originally posted by pyroboy _
> *What ever happened to the Yellow Box in Darwin/OSX? You know, the part that was supposed to run Windows apps natively?
> 
> There is another solution out there worth checking out. Bochs is open-source software that functions as a Windows emulator on Unix machines.
> ...


You are confused. The Yellow Box originated as OpenSTEP and evolved into what we know today as Cocoa. The Blue Box is now known as Classic. You are thinking about the Red Box which was supposed to run Windows apps under Rhapsody. However, the Red Box was a rumor. That is all it ever was. Part of your confusion may stem from the fact that the Yellow Box was highly portable. Before Rhapsody morphed into MacOS X, Apple planned to have the Yellow Box running as a standalone OS with the Blue Box providing the Mac-compatibility environment, as an environment hosted by the traditional Mac OS, and as an environment hosted by Windows NT on Intel hardware. Because NeXT had already ported OpenSTEP to WinNT, Yellow Box on NT would have really just been an upgrade to OpenSTEP on NT.


----------



## Arden (Jun 14, 2003)

The Yellow Box probably got taped shut.


----------



## pyroboy (Jun 15, 2003)

The red box was more than a rumor. Apple put out information on it. There are some good reasons why it never saw the light of day. I mean really, why would developers write programs for Cocoa when they could just port Windows apps? I know many reasons why, but that's the kind of decisions Apple would wisely avoid by never releasing such a product. 

Look at all the furor over Adobe and their Windows only programs people have ranted about. I'm talking about software that never made it to the Mac.

Back to my other point, what about bochs? Surely an open source Windows emulator beats out Virtual PC or Soft Windows any day.


----------



## Arden (Jun 15, 2003)

It really depends on how well it functions.  You could say the same thing about Linux:  surely an open source, free operating system with tons of extras is preferrable to Mac or Windows... yet sales of both remain high.


----------



## MisterMe (Jun 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by pyroboy _
> *The red box was more than a rumor. Apple put out information on it. There are some good reasons why it never saw the light of day. I mean really, why would developers write programs for Cocoa when they could just port Windows apps? I know many reasons why, but that's the kind of decisions Apple would wisely avoid by never releasing such a product.
> 
> Look at all the furor over Adobe and their Windows only programs people have ranted about. I'm talking about software that never made it to the Mac.
> ...


Two things:

1. Would you be so kind as to give us any reference that you might have to Apple's information on the Red Box?

2. Having actually used Virtual PC, SoftWindows, and Bochs, I can assure you that Bochs beats neither of the other two. The major reason is simple. Bochs is neither a Macintosh or PPC application. It is a Macintosh/PPC port of generic code. Someone in the open source may decide to write an x86 emulator for PPC that rivals VPC and SoftWindows in performance. As of now, however, Bochs is not it.


----------



## Arden (Jun 16, 2003)

That's exactly what I was referring to.  Just because there's an alternative does not mean it's the best alternative.  Macromedia Freehand is an alternative to Adobe Photoshop, but if you had to choose one, which would you pick?4


----------



## pyroboy (Jun 16, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MisterMe _
> *Two things:
> 
> 1. Would you be so kind as to give us any reference that you might have to Apple's information on the Red Box?
> ...



Dearheart, you really need to relax. Are you afraid someone might think you're no longer king geek or something? Calm down, this is all supposed to be pleasant discussion. No need to throw down your +4 Gauntlet of Oracle knowlege. It is no match against my +50 Helm of Not Giving a Shit anyway.

Since Boch is an open source product, it would be hard to believe that it is as mature of a product as either Virtual PC or SoftWindows. Both applications have been around for a long time and both had well funded engineering departments behind them. 

Still, Bochs exists, so there is another alternative. That's my point. It may not be as good, but it could get as good.


----------



## pyroboy (Jun 16, 2003)

> _Originally posted by arden _
> *That's exactly what I was referring to.  Just because there's an alternative does not mean it's the best alternative.  Macromedia Freehand is an alternative to Adobe Photoshop, but if you had to choose one, which would you pick?4 *



I'd choose FreeHand for vector based images and Photoshop for graphic based images. If I had to make a movie poster, edit headshots, I'd most likely choose PhotoShop. If I was designing a flyer, a creative book, maps, some types of logos, I'd choose Freehand. 

Both are wonderful tools that can do the job of the other, but each is still far better at it's core functionality and worth owning.


----------



## Arden (Jun 16, 2003)

Crap, I fucked up that analogy!  I should have compared Freehand to Illustrator.  I thought there was a Macromedia-made competitor for Photoshop; I can't remember what it might be.  So, to redo the analogy above, Freehand is an alternative to Illustrator; but when it comes down to the wire, are you going to go with one of those, or Joe Shmoe's open source crapware?

Besides, you need to lighten up, Pyroboy.  MisterMe was simply stating that, from experience, he can testify that bochs is not superior to either VPC or SW.  Just because it isn't now doesn't mean it never will be, but he's saying that right now it isn't the best alternative.  Don't go questioning his credibility because that makes you look bad.


----------



## MisterMe (Jun 16, 2003)

> _Originally posted by pyroboy _
> *Dearheart, you really need to relax. Are you afraid someone might think you're no longer king geek or something? Calm down, this is all supposed to be pleasant discussion. No need to throw down your +4 Gauntlet of Oracle knowlege. It is no match against my +50 Helm of Not Giving a Shit anyway.
> 
> Since Boch is an open source product, it would be hard to believe that it is as mature of a product as either Virtual PC or SoftWindows. Both applications have been around for a long time and both had well funded engineering departments behind them.
> ...


I take it then that when you asserted that the Red Box was more than a rumor, you were merely engaged in "pleasant discussion"? That really does help me to relax. Thanks, I needed that.

Toodles.


----------



## pyroboy (Jun 16, 2003)

Open Source Crapware?

I'm not talking about something you wrote, I'm talking about a real, live application that exists and works.

If VPC is pulled from the market and Microsoft prevents SW from being updated or released, it would be nice to have something besides a gaping hole where functionality existed before.

In that case, Bochs would be a perfect alternative to turn to since it currently exists, it works and if Apple needed it, the software could be cleaned up and made very functional or be included into the OS.

I mean really, I am happy MisterPee thinks my writings are so great they need doctorial references, but alas, this is not academic, it's for fun. If the two of you could be a little more friendly, this discussion would not becoming rather boring at this point...


----------

