virtual pc for carbon

jove

Member
Hello,

I agree that there are many muscle memory pitfalls. But the argument is almost too personal.

The BIG plus of the shared window space is, well, space. Many moons ago the UI wizards at M$ (sarcasm) created MDI (multiple document interface). MDI's purposes were to (a) minimize window region calculations and (b) create an application menu. Somewhere in the Win32 documentation M$ actually admits that MDI was a bad idea, suggests not to use it, and says to use the single-doc architecture until "something better comes along." We are having trouble in our Windows products finding a place for non-document commands of our non-MDI application (i.e. where is the new command if no documents are open?).

VPC is an MDI application; a single window encloses all other windows in the process. If you have an Apple Cinema display - that is not a problem. On my iBook I am constantly moving, shading, and hiding VPC. I would be more than willing to switch gears to gain that space.

If Connectix is actually going through the great effort to create the “red box”, I would hope they give options for desktop emulation.

Jove

P.S.
I wouldn't exactly call the previous posts FUD :-> Misconceptions are not FUD unless the poster tries to instill a sense of, well, fear. I guess I'd be afraid too if my brain were liable to fry ;-)
 

strobe

Puny Member
Microsoft admitting MDI was a bad idea is like Intel saying the 640k limit or the 4 partition limit was a bad idea. I don't think we really need to hear it from the horse's mouth |-)

You could change the OS X menu with the menu of the current Win32 window and perhaps use the command key in place of the control key when using hotkey combinations. This would help a bit now that I think about it.
 

AdmiralAK

Simply Daemonic
Some of you are missing the point!
VPC is a hardware emulator of the PC.
The windowing scheme the way it's described here in previous posts CANNOT happen because VPC does not emulate the windows OS. A VPC HD Image doesnt JUST hold data, it holds the OS file as well. Without the OS in that VPC HD NOTHING happens!

And in case you have not noticed, you can do control-m with current versions of VPC to go full screen.

I think making VPC like classic is a VERY bad idea. The reason? Connectix will have to concentrate on ONLY one OS, and that OS is namelly windows. ALl the other OSs that can run under VPC (even though they might not be supported by connectix ) are going to die! No more BeOS, QNX, OS/2, Rhapsody, NeXTSTEP, OpenSTEP, etc etc etc on your mac.

I run these OSs on my mac and they are pretty good under VPC. Since they are not supported I have to be a bit ingenuine but if connectix makes the mistake by doing what softwindows is doing (or did) they have to make major upgrades each time a new windows OS, or update comes out. By simply focusing on the hardware , connectix allows for a broader base of OSs to be run on the mac, so you CAN run BeOS, you CAN run QNX, you CAN run OS/2 and almost any other OS you damn please.

While I like classic the way it is, meaning that it's seamlessly integrated with OS X, so you don't have to run classic under "emulation" in a window, I would not like this to be the case with windows, BeOS, or any other OS that I want to run on VPC in OS X.

Maybe I am alone, maybe not.
This is just my 2 cents.


Admiral
 

jove

Member
Hello,

>Connectix will have to concentrate on ONLY one OS, and that OS is namely Windows

Your point about Connectix's business/tech strategy is very true. It would be a bad idea for Connectix to abandon its efforts for true hardware abstraction.

Except they do support VPC additions for the various Intel OSs. These additions replace the Windows mouse and add features for clipboard, drag 'n' drop, and shared folders. Those additions are OS specific. The "red box" would require more extensive additions. BTW VPC 4 does NOT support BeOS. Let’s face it, the only OS Connectix really has to support is Windows :-(

I guess my point is that VPC has been designed effectively enough where both true hardware abstractions and extensive OS specific additions are NOT mutually exclusive.

Jove
 

AdmiralAK

Simply Daemonic
While it is true that there are additions to VPC, software additions that is, that you can add to the OS side (namelly windows) to get windows to be able to share with the mac, this does not hinder people from installing other OSs.

BeOS might or might not work on VPC 4. It did work with VPC 3, although the "monitor" where BeOS was projected in (i.e. the VPC window) was black and white and the speed was a bit slower than windows, BeOS installed! The BeOS problem is unemulated, or unsupported emulated hardware.

I also installed QNX, OS/2, Windows 3.11, windows NT 3.1, Rhapsody, NeXTSTEP and OpenSTEP on VPC and used them without any problem what so ever. They only problem was the driver side where I did not have drivers to install in my OSs to make them "see" my CD-drive, and I did not have special utilities to make folder sharing possible! Speed on everything (except QNX) was up to par, and as for QNX, it's speed was a little lacking but it as stated it was far from supported.

It is true that you can install other OSs on VPC but how functional depends on how wide then driver database is for each OS....

(Next up, I want to see if NetBSD 1.5 x86 works on VPC...should be a worth while experiment)


Admiral
 

strobe

Puny Member
Sorry but you're wrong if you think it's impossible.

VirtualPC emulates a PC, but it also patches windows. This means you can patch the windows equivalent of the region manager much like Classic does.

Classic is a virtual mac. VirtualPC is a virtual PC. Classic patches MacOS and VirtualPC already patches windows.

It's possible, but the jury is still out if it's practical from a UI conformity standpoint.
 

AdmiralAK

Simply Daemonic
It is possible to do anything in this world, if one sets his mind and resources to it.

What I am saying is that virtual PC gives you the "Extras" which are drivers, and programs for making it seems like the mac is on a network and so that you can share folders. Granted that these extras only work with VPC but there are similar products out there for real PCs to make them connect with macs.

I dont think that VPC patches the OS. I tend to think that a patch would mean something like softwindows. I think that VPC extends the OS in question with driver and such.

I would really hate to have VPC go softwindows on us because then our choices are locked in. For now we can use almost any PC OS on VPC (with various degrees of success). If VPC goes softwindows on us then all other OSs are marginalized and we are locked in to one thing...no choice is baaaaaaad

my 2 cents in any case.

Admiral
 

monty

Registered
what about a choice!

Have it auto detect if the OS is windows and if it is then patch it to be like classic, and if it's not then run it in an emulated screen window. Also put a preference setting in there so you can turn off the patching and view windows in a single window too. Best of both worlds. Compared to getting it working like Classic, the problem of detecting the OS is trivial and in fact VPC must already do it because the shared folders don't work if you're running linux. No errors, the button is just greyed out. And Connectix does support linux not just windows, they bundle it with VPC. Hmm... VPC 4 supports having more than one emulated pc running at once. Just imagine the chaos of having classic windows, OSX windows, Windows windows, and linux windows all on the desktop together. Just a thought.

peter
 

AdmiralAK

Simply Daemonic
My preference is to havbe each emulated OS in its window just like the default is in VPC, if I want to go full screen with the OS I can just do command - m .

I was thinking about all the kinds of windows... and I have to say that that would have been very funny because its confusing... I can just imagine my mother, my father and my girlfriend all trying to figure out what's what on my OS X machine all three of em would go nuts! HAHAHAHAHAHA.....


Admiral
 

monty

Registered
just another thought,

do you reckon, while we're hacking the windows, we can hack them to look like os x windows.

yes I know I know. I not being entirely serious. It would require hacking Windows it self. but still most windows programs use a standard window. if you could some how map it's content area to a macosx window's content area then no more confusion. You could even minimize them to the dock etc. the menus in the windows would be both a problem and a blessing. Problem: where do you put them. Blessing: because each window has it's own, you could put it in the content area (like they are in Windows). Thinking about it that would make it an up on classic ie no switching the main menu bar. the MDI might be a problem.

Note: i don't intend to defend this idea. I not being entirely serious but what does everyone think?

peter

PS One problem is that they would look terrible. Windows grey content inside pretty aqua frames. oh well.
 

AdmiralAK

Simply Daemonic
There is a utility for windows, a control panel, program, extension..dll... I cant remeber for sure what it is BUT id does make your PC look like a mac running MacOS 8/9. I have it on an old macaddict CD... look around on the net lol... hmmmm come to think about it... my girlfriend is coming over with her laptop...maybe I can install it without her knowing...pull a fast one on her! ...

Diabolical schemes lol :p
 

monty

Registered
so admiral,

you're saying that you put a Windows extension (what ever you call them) and make Windows look like macosx THEN patch the winow. That would be cool. anyway it'll be interesting if Connectix is even considering a "red box". looking forward to the possibility.

peter
 

strobe

Puny Member
Originally posted by AdmiralAK

I dont think that VPC patches the OS. I tend to think that a patch would mean something like softwindows. I think that VPC extends the OS in question with driver and such.
It does patch Windows for things like dragging items directly into a window in Windows.


I would really hate to have VPC go softwindows on us because then our choices are locked in. For now we can use almost any PC OS on VPC (with various degrees of success). If VPC goes softwindows on us then all other OSs are marginalized and we are locked in to one thing...no choice is baaaaaaad

my 2 cents in any case.

Admiral
There is no comparison. SoftWindows isn't a PC Emulator, it's a windows emulator.

VirtualPC merely patches windows on the PC-side which writes to a specific address when it has information to send to the mac side, and vice versa. It's still a VirtualPC and when you run other OSs it doesn't allow you to share the clipboard.
 

strobe

Puny Member
Originally posted by monty
what about a choice!

Have it auto detect if the OS is windows and if it is then patch it to be like classic, and if it's not then run it in an emulated screen window. Also put a preference setting in there so you can turn off the patching and view windows in a single window too. Best of both worlds. Compared to getting it working like Classic, the problem of detecting the OS is trivial and in fact VPC must already do it because the shared folders don't work if you're running linux. No errors, the button is just greyed out. And Connectix does support linux not just windows, they bundle it with VPC. Hmm... VPC 4 supports having more than one emulated pc running at once. Just imagine the chaos of having classic windows, OSX windows, Windows windows, and linux windows all on the desktop together. Just a thought.

peter
I don't think you understand how it works.

VirtualPC does not need to detect windows. The windows drivers you install in Windows communicates with VPC on a specific address. It's like if the mac-side were a PCI card or something.

If the drivers aren't installed VirtualPC has nothing to do. There is no detection.
 

strobe

Puny Member
Originally posted by AdmiralAK
My preference is to havbe each emulated OS in its window just like the default is in VPC, if I want to go full screen with the OS I can just do command - m .

I was thinking about all the kinds of windows... and I have to say that that would have been very funny because its confusing... I can just imagine my mother, my father and my girlfriend all trying to figure out what's what on my OS X machine all three of em would go nuts! HAHAHAHAHAHA.....


Admiral
Well if Connectix published the source to the windows patch you could write an equivalent for the OS you wanted. The VirtualPC app itself isn't windows-centric, the drivers you install in Windows are VPC-centric.
 

AdmiralAK

Simply Daemonic
I think we are talking about the same thing but with different names LOL.

I understand what you are saying, and I agree with you...m I just use different names LOL.

Admiral
 

strobe

Puny Member
Originally posted by monty

PS One problem is that they would look terrible. Windows grey content inside pretty aqua frames. oh well.
Who cares about appearance? Windows and mac apps to not behave the same. You're going to be totally confused what to do when you have a window which might be windows or might be OS X. How would you copy? ctrl-c or command-c?

Better to just leave the title bars as they are, or make them even uglier so they are more conspicuous.
 

monty

Registered
like i said I wasn't being entirely serious and i'm not going to argue with you because you're right. Why try to do all this tricky hacking when all VPC does is add extensions to windows.

I don't think I see the reason why connectix isn't open sourcing these add ons so they can be ported to linux etc. Am I wrong in saying that the code wouldn't really be usefull to anyone except to allow linux etc to talk to VPC like windows does. I imagine there wouldn't be anything earth shatering in there. But with out the code it would be impossible to rewrite. So Connectix wouldn't really have anything to loose and they would gain much. Then again maybe they've already done the port for VPC4. Anyone have that yet? i've still got VPC3.

In VPC 3 you could mount the PC disk in the finder. Is it true that you can't do that with the expandable 4 ones?

Thought: couldn't you map the command key to the control key when a PC app is in the forground? This would free up the control key to emulate the right mouse button.

peter

[Edited by monty on 01-12-2001 at 07:56 AM]
 

jove

Member
>Is it true that you can't do that with the expandable 4 ones?

Whenever I double clicked on an expandable drive - VPC loaded and did the usual.

Jove

PS
How do I do that 'quote' formatting?
 
Top