VirtualPC preview for MacWorld?
- Thread starter octane
- Start date
Not bloody likely. If M$ were to give away Virtual PC, it would not include Windows. Free Windows for Mac users would mean Windows users would get it free, as well. M$ will not give away VPC as a standalone app because that would go against the current direction it is taking with its free software offerings. Specifically, M$ is reducing free software to a minimum. IE standalone is gone (from all platforms). MSN Messenger is no longer available unless you subscribe to MSN. M$ wants your money. If it doesn't get your money, then it doesn't want you.octane said:
Bottomline: No free VPC.
octane
I have issues, OK!
MisterMe said:
Who said anything about it being free?
I said incorporated the same way as X11, that doesn't mean free like X11.
Look at VirtualPC; you have the Dock icons and the Task Bar. It's the next logical step to break out of the Windows desktop and onto the Mac desktop.
Apple tried doing just this years ago, Copland was meant to go somewhere towards it [as I understand].
Microsoft couldn't care less whether Windows was running on some Intel box _or_ a Mac, so long as they're moving licenses.
It's a brave new world!..
If they can get it to be a lot faster that would be great. Right now it's basically useless for most things except running some small programs.
Then look at what MS can sell. Office and VPC. You would have to spend 700 versus 400. And, you know people would do it for compatability. Plus, all the games and such. Great switch tactic if you ask me. Pay premium for a mac, or get the same thing (a little faster) by getting a pc.
Joshua
Joshua
First off, Copland was intended to run System 7 applications transparently along side MacOS 8 (aka Copland) applications. It had nothing to do with Windows compatibility.octane said:
Now for VPC applications running like X11 applications. X11 applications are PPC-native. Windows applications are x86-native. As best as I can surmise, you seem to think that Windows applications can reside in MacOS HFS+ directories rather than the disk images currently used by VPC. That would render all applications that rely any of the current Windows file systems incompatible with VPC.
octane
I have issues, OK!
MisterMe said:
I've been hunting round, but I can't find the source, but I'm pretty sure that an initially proposed feature of Copland was that it would offer some kind of support for Windows applications. Politics would have won out in the end, I imagine.
As for X11, I am very much aware of how it works. Ditto with VirtualPC and the intricacies of Windows applications and the incumbent file systems. But given that this is _purely_ speculation, it's an idea, that's all. So let's not get all propeller-headed about it!
I'm not a developer, but technically, I'd say it's doable, though there would need to be some serious smoke & mirrors needed to make it all happen.
We'll all find out soon enough what Microsoft have in mind...
texanpenguin
Registered Penguin
The Windows visual effects are all embedded in Windows. Unless they release a SPECIFIC "Windows for VirtualPC" there's no conceivable way for them to make the windows appear as though they were Aqua.
Besides, Apple doesn't WANT people to use buggy PC programs on the Mac and think that they represent the quality of Mac-based products. If they appear the same to the untrained eye then all people will observe is that it takes really long to play Minesweeper on a Mac, compared to on a PC, so therefore go with PC for everything.
I'm not sure I've actually made any SENSE there, but in short, I mean to say it's a very very dangerous strategy to implement THAT.
On the contrary, though, an incredible VPC would be amongst the three top-selling Mac products on the market, you can be assured of that.
Besides, Apple doesn't WANT people to use buggy PC programs on the Mac and think that they represent the quality of Mac-based products. If they appear the same to the untrained eye then all people will observe is that it takes really long to play Minesweeper on a Mac, compared to on a PC, so therefore go with PC for everything.
I'm not sure I've actually made any SENSE there, but in short, I mean to say it's a very very dangerous strategy to implement THAT.
On the contrary, though, an incredible VPC would be amongst the three top-selling Mac products on the market, you can be assured of that.
octane
I have issues, OK!
texanpenguin said:
That's a good point, but I've got to reiterate my earlier point, this is just me speculating .. that's all! If I'm wrong, who cares?
Rather than dissecting my rambles with a wooden mallet, let's just _all_ try to focus on what Microsoft might have in mind...
Cat
Registered
What doe M$ have in mind ...? Make More Money! All and every product they can sell to any computer user be it Mac or PC is good for them. VPC and Office X are two top selling products of the M$ MacBU, Microsoft is one of the biggest Mac developers around due to these two products. It has actually helped the sales of Macs to people who would never have bought a Mac if it couldn't run Office or other M$ products. As long as they can sell these two products to Apple customers they will continue to improve and support them.
However, just like Connectix sold complete packages of VPC + OS, also M$ may do this for a discount price. They could bundle VPC and Windows for less than the two separate products. Most VPC users use VPC only for Windows. They could release some extra's this way, which would enhance the performance of Windows or M$ proprietary code on the Mac platform. The main "enhancement" would be G5 compatibility and maybe better access to hardware resources like 3D video accelleration.
However, just like Connectix sold complete packages of VPC + OS, also M$ may do this for a discount price. They could bundle VPC and Windows for less than the two separate products. Most VPC users use VPC only for Windows. They could release some extra's this way, which would enhance the performance of Windows or M$ proprietary code on the Mac platform. The main "enhancement" would be G5 compatibility and maybe better access to hardware resources like 3D video accelleration.
octane
I have issues, OK!
Cat said:
All valid points.
I think that in reality, the G5 optimization may well be the 'or something else...' factor.
Actually, as an aside, I got Red Hat Linux 9 working under VirtualPC .. after 5 failed attempts. It ran like a dog, but I did it!
Let's face it, Connectix were _never_ going to get VirtualPC / Windows performance were Microsoft can get it to.
I think that's were Microsoft could well have a couple of Apple engineers in the MacBU helping them work out efficient hardware calls from VirtualPC straight to CPU and GPU.
Ahhh...the trials and travails of VPC for the Mac. I know that I'm probably in the minority of Mac users who feels that Microsoft's acquisition of VPC as a good thing for our platform. As many have mentioned, Microsoft makes a vast majority of its sales from software. They don't care what platform you run their software on, as long as you run it, this includes Windows, otherwise, there wouldn't be nearly as many x86 PC manufacturers that sell machines running Windows.
Now, on to some technical stuff. Someone mentioned earlier, that Microsoft would have to maintain a specific version of Windows for VPC to get performance increases, that someone couldn't take an off-the-shelf version of Windows and run it. I think that would be somewhat counterintuitive. Instead, Microsoft could utilize a framework built by Connectix, the VPC Extras framework. They could use it to include VPC specific augmentations to Windows to any off the shelf version that a user would install, just like they already do. Well, that's my 2 cents.
Now, on to some technical stuff. Someone mentioned earlier, that Microsoft would have to maintain a specific version of Windows for VPC to get performance increases, that someone couldn't take an off-the-shelf version of Windows and run it. I think that would be somewhat counterintuitive. Instead, Microsoft could utilize a framework built by Connectix, the VPC Extras framework. They could use it to include VPC specific augmentations to Windows to any off the shelf version that a user would install, just like they already do. Well, that's my 2 cents.
For the most part, I agree. The point of VPC is to emulate Intel-based hardware on which Windows is the most likely OS. The point is not to run Windows, exclusively. Such a version of VPC would not be useful to a significant fraction of the VPC customer base. M$ knows better than anyone outside the corporation that Mac users will not accept just anything feed to them. We are not Wintel users in that regard.brooks_lt said:Ahhh...the trials and travails of VPC for the Mac. I know that I'm probably in the minority of Mac users who feels that Microsoft's acquisition of VPC as a good thing for our platform. As many have mentioned, Microsoft makes a vast majority of its sales from software. They don't care what platform you run their software on, as long as you run it, this includes Windows, otherwise, there wouldn't be nearly as many x86 PC manufacturers that sell machines running Windows.
Now, on to some technical stuff. Someone mentioned earlier, that Microsoft would have to maintain a specific version of Windows for VPC to get performance increases, that someone couldn't take an off-the-shelf version of Windows and run it. I think that would be somewhat counterintuitive. Instead, Microsoft could utilize a framework built by Connectix, the VPC Extras framework. They could use it to include VPC specific augmentations to Windows to any off the shelf version that a user would install, just like they already do. Well, that's my 2 cents.
You are correct that M$ wants to make profit. The easiest way to make a profit is to eliminate costs--and saving that--not increase costs. Currently, the addtional cost to M$ for a VPC-compatible version of Windows is $0.00. VPC Extras is the customization for the VPC virtual computer. It is equivalent to the customizations to Windows found on computers sold by Dell, HP-Compaq, Gateway, IBM, and such like. These customizations are, however, not required for the emulator to operate just as Dell customizations are not required for Dell computers to run retail versions of Windows.
octane
I have issues, OK!
My main concern is that with VirtualPC in the hands of Microsoft, we could end up seeing it closed to other operating systems.
It's quite like Microsoft to cut off the air supply to the OS Packs for all but variations of Windows.
The main idea for buying VirtualPC was to help customers move over to the next biggest, bestest version of Windows and still be able to run WindowsNT, 98, 2000 on top.
But I'd have to stand up to be counted and agree that VirtualPC for the mac may well blossom while under the tenure of Microsoft. If anyone can make it fly, they can...
It's quite like Microsoft to cut off the air supply to the OS Packs for all but variations of Windows.
The main idea for buying VirtualPC was to help customers move over to the next biggest, bestest version of Windows and still be able to run WindowsNT, 98, 2000 on top.
But I'd have to stand up to be counted and agree that VirtualPC for the mac may well blossom while under the tenure of Microsoft. If anyone can make it fly, they can...
ApeintheShell
Registered
I want some Virtual competition!
We need an alternative to VPC that is easier to use and set up, and costs less. Open source emulators are swell until you realize you need to download what should have already been included. that is my rant for tonight
We need an alternative to VPC that is easier to use and set up, and costs less. Open source emulators are swell until you realize you need to download what should have already been included. that is my rant for tonight
stingerman
Registered
ApeintheShell said:
Yeah I agree. I would be nice if we had another team working on a x86 emulator that would be highly optimized for the PPC and OS X. There is OpenSource BOCHs but it is very generic and slow.
stingerman
Registered
One other thought comes to mind. If Linux goes on to make deeper in roads into Microsoft's Enterprise beachhead, wouldn't it make sense that MSFT keep OS X in its back pocket in case Longhorn turns into a nightmare (which is likely for the first two versions.) I know this might sound crazy, but I can see the scenario where MSFT buys Apple. Does the PPC based xBox 2 signal a new relationship between Apple-IBM-MSFT?
octane
I have issues, OK!
stingerman said:
Microsoft already are keeping Apple in the back pocket, so to speak.
To be seen to be adhering to the terms of the DoJ settlement -- such that is / was -- Microsoft have to be careful they don't damage Apple [too much?] This to help preserve the idea that Microsoft actually have competitors.
In reality, Apple really aren't the competition -- and that's more of a reflection on their numeracy rather than technical superiority, which we know they have. But the rise of Linux on various fronts means that they very well could be.
This is where Apple could get hurt, and -- I've said this before and I'll say it again -- Apple could go well to make themselves as Linux-friendly as possible.
That said, and it's a point that's already been covered, Microsoft may be maniacal, but they're good business people. The market for software on the mac isn't too small that they can just walk away from it.
It's really interesting what Microsoft have done to themselves. Longhorn is literally years away. Best estimates -- and these are _direct_ from Redmond -- is that Longyawn
is slated for release Q4 of 2006 / Q1 2007 .. better still, the feature set was frozen mid 2003, before Panther shipped!Best that your common-or-garden variety Windows user can hope for is a Service Pack release to XP. ::ha::
I thought I read on another rumor site that M$ finally got VPC to work with Mac 3D cards. It said that some less-modern games were actually plenty playable even, which seems amazing to me, if true. Just a rumor though.
I'm very much looking forward to running a good VPC. I ran XP thru my DP G4 1 Gig for a while and it was surprisingly "adequate" for my minimal needs at the time. Considering that XP isn't going to change much and with Longhorn on delay, the newer G5s, M$ optimizations and possible 3D card accelleration could mean VPC might actually run VPC pretty damn well on such a machine.
Can't wait to see.
I'm very much looking forward to running a good VPC. I ran XP thru my DP G4 1 Gig for a while and it was surprisingly "adequate" for my minimal needs at the time. Considering that XP isn't going to change much and with Longhorn on delay, the newer G5s, M$ optimizations and possible 3D card accelleration could mean VPC might actually run VPC pretty damn well on such a machine.
Can't wait to see.