Slashdot Mirror


FWB Admits RealPC for Mac OS X was Vaporware

reiggin writes "In a press release on their site, FWB's new management comes clean and says that the former management had been lying about an upcoming RealPC OS X release. Apparently, not one line of code had even been written. This is a huge disappointment for anyone looking for an alternative to the now-MS owned Virtual PC (which, incidentally, Apple and Microsoft have said will not initially run on a G5)."

472 comments

  1. There's always bochs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    There's always bochs. Open source too.
    http://bochs.sf.net

    1. Re:There's always bochs by Organized+Konfusion · · Score: 2, Informative

      there is also plex86, which is quite nice if you want to emulate Linux/x86 but not much else works.

    2. Re:There's always bochs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      plex86 won't run on a Mac. It required an x86 processor.

    3. Re:There's always bochs by pajamacore · · Score: 5, Informative

      To go along with that, there's a decent Aqua GUI for Bochs--Wintel by OpenOSX.

    4. Re:There's always bochs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      In the interest of full disclosure, OpenOSX has been accused of stealing intellectual property from the Fink project. While there's no conclusive information about this accusation out there, there's plenty of evidence on the Fink project web site, and no response to the contrary from OpenOSX. So it's wise to make careful decisions about whether or not one should support OpenOSX in any way, including using their software.

    5. Re:There's always bochs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it does, grab the source and compile.

    6. Re:There's always bochs by cerberusss · · Score: 5, Interesting
      There's always bochs
      While I agree that Bochs is very nice, the installation is hard, the interface is very oldfashioned and most importantly, it's barely workable because it's so damned slow.
      --
      8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
    7. Re:There's always bochs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Sure, maybe it'll compile. And that's all it'll do.
      Read the FAQ. It just excutes x86 code, doesn't do anything fancy. If the processor can't handle x86 code, then you're screwed. In which case, why'd you use a virtualizer in the first place?

      As a matter of fact, the plex86 FAQ doesn't even make claims to virtualize any other x86 OSs besides linux.

    8. Re:There's always bochs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah and there's also a bottle of molasses sitting in my kitchen cupboard.

      It runs about as fast as Bochs.

    9. Re:There's always bochs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So compile it for another processor. Geez.

    10. Re:There's always bochs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It virtualizes the processor, it doesn't emulate it. Re-compiling will not cause a processor emulator to suddenly appear.

    11. Re:There's always bochs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the interests of "full disclosure", how about signing your name to an accusation like that? At the very least, support it with something.

    12. Re:There's always bochs by irritating+environme · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Much like Konqueror and Safari, If Apple had half a brain, it would devote a good team to brushing up Bochs to perfection.

      --


      Hey, I'm just your average shit and piss factory.
    13. Re:There's always bochs by Jon+Abbott · · Score: 3, Funny

      Hey, with the G5, maybe Bochs will finally run fast! [ducks for cover]

    14. Re:There's always bochs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amen to that. OpenOSX is a very unethical organization. Those with ethical concerns should avoid them like a plague. Check out Fink instead.

    15. Re:There's always bochs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm amazed that Bochs is *always* mentioned when people talk about pc emulators. Have you actually tried Bochs? Bochs might be fine if all you want is to emulate DOS. Installing Windows 98 under Bochs took me 48 hours (no, Win98 usually doesn't take that long to install on a real pc). When I tried to run it afterwards, it hang indefinitely. Or maybe I should have waited another 48 hours for the desktop to appear. And who wants to run Win98 anyway. Forget about WinXP or if you like Red Hat or anything with a GUI.

    16. Re:There's always bochs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so... Fink finked on OpenOSX about stealing?

    17. Re:There's always bochs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      If Apple had half a brain, it would devote a good team to brushing up Bochs to perfection.

      If Apple had even a quarter of a brain they would've bought VirtualPC from Connectix instead of letting Microsoft grab it. Microsoft definitely doesn't need VirtualPC, but without it Apple is doomed.

    18. Re:There's always bochs by max_zorn · · Score: 2, Informative

      Unfortunately, this is vaporware.
      I got suckered into ordering the CD.

      Save your money, OpenOSX is a piece of shit.

      MZ

  2. SCO sues FWB for copyright infringement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    SCO today announced they would be suing FWB, non-makers of the non-existant RealPC OS, over their use of SCO's intellectual property in their code. "Just like SCO, FWB has not written one line of code in this OS, and for that, they will pay." said SCO's lead attorney Michael Newstrom.

    1. Re:SCO sues FWB for copyright infringement by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      SCO has a copyright on not writing stuff? Wow, they're going to be after me next. Ohh wait, Ill post this useing HTML then I can say I did write something.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    2. Re:SCO sues FWB for copyright infringement by Trurl's+Machine · · Score: 1

      Makes me wonder when "Hello world!" will eventually be replaced by "Hello SCO!"...

    3. Re:SCO sues FWB for copyright infringement by Sebby · · Score: 1
      Wouldn't it be patent infrigement instead?

      --

      AC comments get piped to /dev/null
    4. Re:SCO sues FWB for copyright infringement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am not sure i can swallow this! but there is more about things FWB and lawyers in this recent article @ macdiscussion: http://www.macdiscussion.com/article_show.php3?art icle_id_var=241

    5. Re:SCO sues FWB for copyright infringement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      maybe 'patience' infringement would be a better term...

      leave it to lawyers to find a way to make money when nothing happens.....

    6. Re:SCO sues FWB for copyright infringement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YHL HAND

  3. Wine? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    If we could get wine ported to mac os x, it may grow faster, being supported by the OS X crowd. In addition, it would have the benefit of greater Windows support for Linux.

    1. Re:Wine? by bmetz · · Score: 5, Informative

      WINE = Wine Is Not an Emulator.

      It is an API translation layer, not an x86 emulator. Thank you, drive through.

      --
      What did you eat today? http://www.atetoday.com/
    2. Re:Wine? by JPRelph · · Score: 5, Informative

      You have to remember though that WINE Is Not an Emulator. It allows Windows programs to run on Linux on the x86 platform but doesn't actually emulate the x86 processor.

      So you could use it as a start for a new Mac emulator but you'd have to build the chip emulator to fit underneath that.

      JP

    3. Re:Wine? by tiled_rainbows · · Score: 0

      If you ran a linux emulator in OSX, couldn't you run Wine in that?

    4. Re:Wine? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wine Is Not an Emulator, so you can't port it to other platforms.
      bochs is an emulator and runs on ppc.

    5. Re:Wine? by metatruk · · Score: 5, Informative

      Wine only translates from the Windows APIs into X11 and other such things. There is no x86 emulation done, which is one of the reasons Wine is so fast. In order for this to work on a Macintosh system, you'd either have to be using PowerPC Windows binaries (which there are few of) or you'd have to include an x86 emulation engine in Wine.

    6. Re:Wine? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Wine requires an x86 processor. It doesn't translate machine language instructions to the native set, and adding that functionality would be very much outside of the project's scope.

    7. Re:Wine? by iapetus · · Score: 2, Informative

      A wonderful idea, other than for the fact that Wine Is Not an Emulator. From the Wine FAQ:

      Is Wine an emulator?
      Fortunately, no.Wine provides low-level binary compatibility, but currently only for OSes running on Intel-compatible chips.
      --
      ++ Say to Elrond "Hello.".
      Elrond says "No.". Elrond gives you some lunch.
    8. Re:Wine? by Planesdragon · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Wine is a x86 program--it translates Windows x86 instructions to Linux x86 instructions.

      Running Wine on a Gx would require a x86 => Gx instruction interpreter. You'd have to, to be geeky, "emulate an x86."

      Remember:

      Wine
      Is
      Not an
      Emulator.

    9. Re:Wine? by awing0 · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Wine Is Not an Emulator. It runs x86 binaries on x86 platforms only. It works by providing the Windows API to the X windowing system, not by emulating other architectures.

      On another more disturbing note I just went to http://www.winehq.com/ and it's been closed?! Anyone know the story behind that?

      --
      Cthulhu Saves.
    10. Re:Wine? by FooBarWidget · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Supported by the OS X crowd? How?
      OS X is known and advertised as a friendly system for newbies or people who just want to do stuff easily. In other words: non-geeks. How many people will you find among the OS X crowd that:
      1) Can program.
      2) Understand and accept the open source philosophy.
      3) Has the time and is willing to contribute code under the LGPL.

      I'd say not many. The OS X crowd is already a small crowd. A small portion of a small crowd is, well... extremely small. OS X users will gain more from Wine than Wine gains from OS X users.

    11. Re:Wine? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative
      QEMU is just such a chip emulator.

      Qemu emulates an x86 chip (among other things). It runs WINE. It's been ported to PowerPC Linux. While it's still very young, it shows tremendous promise.

      Now all it needs is a port to OS X. Any takers?

    12. Re:Wine? by .com+b4+.storm · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If we could get wine ported to mac os x, it may grow faster, being supported by the OS X crowd. In addition, it would have the benefit of greater Windows support for Linux.

      That'd be pretty hard to do, I imagine, since Wine relies heavily on the x86 architecture. I suppose someone could come up with an x86 translation or emulation layer, or something. That could sit between Wine and the PowerPC it's running on. I'm not sure how feasible this idea is, though... Just a thought off the top of my head. Any Wine coders out there that can enlighten us on such possibilities?

      --
      "Wow, you're like some kind of superhero able to ward off happiness and success at every turn."
      -- Ryan Stiles
    13. Re:Wine? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Plus, wouldn't WINE require a command line? Everyone knows that no Mac has a CLI.

    14. Re:Wine? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Wine has already been ported to OS X.

      That doesn't mean that it emulates Windows binaries, but the port has been done.

    15. Re:Wine? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      you'd have to change WINE's name first.

    16. Re:Wine? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The emulation layer has already been written. It's called QEMU. It's an x86 emulator (among other things), it runs WINE, and it's been ported to PowerPC Linux.

      Now all it needs is a port to OS X (hint, hint)

    17. Re:Wine? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no you need a CPU emulator...

    18. Re:Wine? by pork_spies · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There is a protest in Europe today about the use/granting of software patents. Hence the closure of the site is temporary.

    19. Re:Wine? by Aliencow · · Score: 1

      It's just a protest... check my website too..

    20. Re:Wine? by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      By every definition, WINE is an emulator. Nowhere does "emulator" imply that hardware is imitated.

      To imitate the function of, as by modifications to hardware or software that allow the imitating system to accept the same data, execute the same programs, and achieve the same results as the imitated system.

    21. Re:Wine? by Henry+V+.009 · · Score: 1

      I don't think that you understand the definition of the word 'emulator.'

    22. Re:Wine? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or you'd have to include an x86 emulation engine in Wine.

      This has been sugested. The idea is to used bochs to run the attual windows exe's or other x86 code and then run wine on the PowerPC so anything bellow the win32 API runs natively.

      This simplifies what bochs has to do as there is no need to do low level emulation. Although this will not work for all applications.

    23. Re:Wine? by zulux · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There mab be somthing though...

      Wine with it's own .DLL's recompiled for Apple, and Boch for all the code in the rest of a Win32 app might be fast enough for a lot of apps out there.

      For example, I have a crappy database front-end written in Win32.

      It spends most of it's time in ODBC and calling Windows .DLL for forms and reports.

      If Wine on OSX had nativly compiled .DLLs for the ODBC, Win Forms and Report printing - there's barly anything left in my app. Just some crappy business logic - if that part ran ten times slower in Boch, nobody would notice.

      --

      Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.

    24. Re:Wine? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Point at the moron!

      WINE is not an emulator, spastic.

    25. Re:Wine? by OmniVector · · Score: 4, Interesting

      funny that this is posted on winehq.com then. as someone else said, you'd need to hook wine into an x86 emulation engine, but apparently that's being worked on.

      --
      - tristan
    26. Re:Wine? by newkid · · Score: 1
      Then why not combine:

      an x86 emulator like Boch

      and a Win32 API like Wine

      or Codeweavers?
      It could beat VirtualPC:

      faster (no Windows code to emulate)

      and cheaper (no Windows license required)

    27. Re:Wine? by Jucius+Maximus · · Score: 0
      "OS X is known and advertised as a friendly system for newbies or people who just want to do stuff easily. In other words: non-geeks."

      Perhaps the OS X marketing campaign has not been keeping up with you ...

      "My name is Gianni Jacklone and I'm an IT director."

      "My name is Gautam Godse and I'm a software projects manager."

      "My name is Ellen Feiss and I'm a student." (how can this not be aimed at sex-starved geeks?

      Aaron Adams / LAN Administrator

      Dave Haxton: "I'm a programmer and I've been a die-hard PC and UNIX guy for years."

      OS X is not just for people who think a computer is an appliance. I suggest you rethink you position.

    28. Re:Wine? by gamgee5273 · · Score: 1
      First: Dude...you obviously are not hanging out with the "OS X crowd." Of the ten people I work with who use OS X, six of them are coders. Complete and utter geeks, all of whom fit your qualifications and exceed them. OS X changed everything. Once 10.2 was out, you should have seen the influx of Macs into my office.

      Second: WINE needs to be on an x86 processor - it's not an emulator. Thus, to run on a G5, WINE would have to be run on an emulator like VPC...sounds kinda silly to me.

    29. Re:Wine? by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1
      Actually, contrary to what many have just said, running Wine on MacOS is indeed possible. In fact, the work to make WineLib function has already been done.

      That means if you have the source code, you can recompile and get native execution speeds.

      Combined with QEMU, that means that at least in theory you could run x86 Win32 binaries on MacOS. I can't comment on what the speed would be like. Probably not good enough for hard core gamers, but perhaps good enough for applications.

      Personally, I think it's a terrible idea. Wine is a testament to the problems proprietary APIs and lockin can cause - to port it to a platform with equally proprietary APIs and lockin is just begging for history to repeat itself. I for one don't fancy having to have a Mace anytime soon.

      The realist in me says that'll never happen of course, there are no killer apps for MacOS (no, the iApps don't count, I'm talking about functionally unique software), and there probably won't be for a very long time, if ever. But, that doesn't change the fact that it's a Really Really Bad Idea to encourage people to write to non-portable APIs (which basically means APIs with no free software implementation).

    30. Re:Wine? by stratjakt · · Score: 3, Funny

      Bochs register-by-register emulation is going to be faster than VirtualPCs dynarec core? And then adding WINE and X11 to the fray?

      You think that's going to be faster?

      Cheaper, sure. In the same way that dog turds are cheaper than chocolate bars.

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    31. Re:Wine? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mod parent up as informative

    32. Re:Wine? by pascalb3 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you haven't read this or this article on the lack of support getting OOo ported to OSX. 'Being wanted' and 'being supported' are two separate things; support usually means people are active in getting something to work, participating in some capacity besides: "It would be nice to have that on OSX, I wonder when someone will do it?"

    33. Re:Wine? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not if those OS X users started buying Wine devs dual G5's for testing... ;)

    34. Re:Wine? by Cyno · · Score: 1

      Maybe they should call it whine, then.

    35. Re:Wine? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2, Informative

      Wine does not in any way, shape, or form, emulate the x86 processor architecture. You can compile wine on an apple and it won't help one bit. Cluebie.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    36. Re:Wine? by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Or you would have to recompile the program with wine. Assuming (or simply hopeing) that the programs were made arch independant, then the software company could sell MS products on mac OSx. In Fact, If I were Apple, I would pay to have that happen. But that is just me.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    37. Re:Wine? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      WINE = Wine Is Not an Emulator.


      I bet you believe that GNU is not Unix too.

    38. Re:Wine? by Adm1n · · Score: 1

      What ever happend to this idea? http://www.orangemicro.com/opc290.html Anyone here remember OrngePC cards allowing you to run DOS applictions under a mac? Why don't we just put the whole freaking PC in there? (Hey not a bad idea?)

    39. Re:Wine? by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      Wine does not in any way, shape, or form, emulate the x86 processor architecture.

      Of course it doesn't. That's why I said "emulation doesn't imply imitating hardware". Because it DOESN'T. The acryonym-expansion for WINE is a lie. It emulates Microsoft Windows.

      You can compile wine on an apple and it won't help one bit.

      It'll help if you have some other way to emulate x86, but still don't want to pay Microsoft(tm) $200 for Windows(r).

    40. Re:Wine? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes.. stretch the definition all you like.. but emulation DOES imply imitating hardware.. otherwise, it is translating calls and is A FUNCTION WRAPPER.. now fuck off

    41. Re:Wine? by leifm · · Score: 1

      Yeah, then all you'd have to do is get the code for the Windows apps you want to use, and compile for PPC.

      --

      "Windows Me offers tremendous reliability and stability improvements..." -- Paul Thurott
    42. Re:Wine? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think you understand the use of the word emulator in this context.. at all.. if I were to attempt to type on a foreign keyboard in a language I did not understand and I was to put a device over the keyboard so I could type in english.. is that a TRANSLATOR or an EMULATOR? what do you think? because it's arguably an emulator.. IF YOU'RE AN ASSHOLE.. it is translating calls.. therefore, it is a FUNCTION WRAPPER.. now fuck off

    43. Re:Wine? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WINE Is Now an Emulator? :P

    44. Re:Wine? by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 0, Redundant

      I don't get the obsessive need to point this out. It can be quite convincingly argued that WINE is emulating an API. Stop being so pointlessly anal for mod points.

      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
    45. Re:Wine? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      maybe it can be argued to morons like you.. go grow a dick

    46. Re:Wine? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, that is not correct. WINE has always stood for "Wine Is Naturally an Emulator."

    47. Re:Wine? by Henry+V+.009 · · Score: 1

      Could you please troll me about something that I can get worked up about instead? I just can't make the effort right now for defending the dictionary definition of emulator.

    48. Re:Wine? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That acronym is horseshit! WINE emulates the Windows API. Just because it ins't an instruction set emulator, doesn't mean it isn't an emulator.

    49. Re:Wine? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      go die

    50. Re:Wine? by kannibal_klown · · Score: 1

      Umm, I'm no mac-head, but I'm pretty sure OS X has a CLI now. It's just not the easiest thing to find.

    51. Re:Wine? by cheesybagel · · Score: 1
      Very, very interesting. However I guess this is mostly useful for those wanting to compile their own Win32 API apps from source code.

      Not running Win32 binaries. For that you need a real emulator or CPU somewhere.

      Didn't MS release a PowerPC version of Windows NT eons ago? Maybe you could run some PowerPC Windows NT native apps using this. lolol.

    52. Re:Wine? by FooBarWidget · · Score: 1

      And? Of all those people you listed, only the last one is a geek. The 4th one *may* be a geek who can program.
      I can't see how IT directors, software projects managers and students can possibly help Wine.

      "(how can this not be aimed at sex-starved geeks?)"

      Because she's ugly.

    53. Re:Wine? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But.. but.. Pine is not Elm!

    54. Re:Wine? by FooBarWidget · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      "Of the ten people I work with who use OS X, six of them are coders."

      And out of 10 people I know who are Windows users, 6 of them are coders.
      Just because you know Mac OS X programmers doesn't mean the majority is a programmer.

    55. Re:Wine? by shotfeel · · Score: 1

      "(how can this not be aimed at sex-starved geeks?)"

      Because she's ugly.


      And that makes a difference to a sex-starved geek?

    56. Re:Wine? by TheCrazyFinn · · Score: 1

      Ever heard of Final Cut Pro?
      Soundtrack?
      Shake?
      DVD Studio Pro?
      Logic?

      While there are similar apps for the PC, there isn't anything that matches these apps for anywhere near the same price.

      There certainly are Killer apps for Mac OS X, but they certainly aren't the iApps.

      --
      "You've got an invalid haircut" -Warren Zevon - Life'll Kill Ya
    57. Re:Wine? by jobob · · Score: 1

      From the Wine web site

      Myth 10: "Wine is for Intel x86 only"
      Well, it is true that Wine only runs on Intel's x86 processors. Unfortunately it will also require quite a lot of work before it runs on other processor architectures.

      But what do we mean by 'running on a non x86 processor'.

      First it can mean 'I can compile a Windows application on Sparc, link it with Winelib, and have it run on Solaris'. I know, this is not what you had in mind. This may seem very restrictive and yet would be very useful: it means easy porting of Windows applications to almost any Unix architecture. In any case this is the first step towards allowing Wine to run on other processor architectures. Unfortunately Wine's code is not very portable to other processor architectures, partly because some parts of it have to know a lot about the processor, and partly because most of it makes assumptions like 'sizeof(int)==sizeof(pointer)' and 'byte-sex==little-endian'. This is being worked on though, and progress is being made albeit slowly.

      Then we could take it to mean 'Wine on Alpha should be able to run Windows NT Alpha applications'. The prerequisite for this is that Winelib compiles on Alpha (or MIPS, the other defunct Windows NT platform). Now, would it be really useful? I don't think many people have Windows NT applications for the Alpha or MIPS processor. So this is probably not that useful and also rather unlikely to happen since we would need a programmer who has just this combination of hardware and software to work on it.

      Then there's what everyone has been waiting for: 'I want to be able to run my x86 Windows applications on any processor architecture I like. That's the most complex one. Again the prerequisite is that Winelib works on this architecture, which will definitely happen someday. Then 'all that is needed' is to integrate an x86 emulator with Wine (and also change Wine's name :-). Ulrich Weigand just did that as an experiment some time ago when he had 'some spare time'. He even managed to get some Win16 applications to run. His code was not in a state where it could be integrated into Wine yet and I don't know how much work has been put into pursuing it. His attempt did spark many discussions on Wine's mailing list though. The result is that we would need a sophisticated emulator including a JIT in order to get something really viable (i.e. not too slow). And developing such an emulator is a whole project in itself.
      Does it mean it will never happen? Not sure. Maybe we'll get some motivated developers once the Winelib problems are solved. Of course, it would happen much faster if, for instance, Compaq made its Fx32! Intel x86 emulator Open Source and financed the development of Wine for their Alpha machines. As with all Open Source projects, if enough people are interested and pool their resources together, it will happen.

      --
      -- For love of family, code, and carpentry
    58. Re:Wine? by FooBarWidget · · Score: 1

      Even geeks would prefer good-looking over ugly women.

    59. Re:Wine? by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1
      All of those apps have equivalents on Windows. Now, you can certainly argue that they are so great, it justifies the purchase and training cost of a Mac, but they aren't "killer" apps unless you already have data tied up in them. Killer apps are typically custom business software, games (which are of course always unique), but rarely publicly sold applications.

      Anyway, even if there were such apps, one or two simply aren't enough, you need hundreds to make writing an emulator worthwhile.

      Besides, I'd note that at least one of them are apps bought by Apple, in order to force users of them to buy a Mac. Great business ethics there...

    60. Re:Wine? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And of course, you pile bullshit on top of horseshit to make one shitcake, or shitake or whatever.

      Emulation, by its very definition means to emulate.
      Wine does not emulate anything.
      It merely provides a layer that intercepts calls made by windows software and points them in the right direction.

      Calling that emulation, is like calling a traffic cop an intersection.

    61. Re:Wine? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's totally stupid. If you have the emulator, just run Windows on it. Why run Linux in an emulator with an API translation layer so you can run Windows applications?

      While we're at it, see if we can get a Mac emulator to run inside Linux running inside Bochs under MacOS X.

    62. Re:Wine? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, it's impossible to find. I mean, you'd think they'd put it under Applications/Utilities/Terminal.app, but, oh, wait.

    63. Re:Wine? by OmniVector · · Score: 1

      after doing some searching i found out that the project is officially called DarWine. It is a port of wine to the PPC architecture, backed by bochs. it's still a translation layer -- there's nothing stopping you from porting wine to another platform. it just doesn't do much good if there isn't a way to run the x86 compiled binaries, and this is where bochs comes in.

      i think the key word here is "port." It's not emulating linux. when i run konqueror in os x using fink, i'm not "emulating" linux to run konqueror, i'm running the Qt/X11 based PPC port of Konqueror.

      --
      - tristan
    64. Re:Wine? by shaitand · · Score: 1

      no wine IS an api implementation. If I write an sql database system, I'm not emulating sql, I'm implementing it.

      In the same way, if I write a win32 api system, I'm not emulating the win32 api, I'm implementing it.

      Wine in no way pretends to be windows to get windows applications to work, it merely implements the same api those programs use on windows so that when they call X function, X function exists in a 100% non-emulated native implementation.

    65. Re:Wine? by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Wine isn't pretending to be the win32 api, it's a 100% native implementation of the api!

      If microsoft ported the win32 gui and api to linux, would you call that implementation of the api an emulator? NO it's the win32 api... Does it then automatically become "emulated" is someone else writes the code besides microsoft. I hope not because microsoft doesn't really do much of anything in terms of programming... almost all their stuff is written by 3rd parties in "joint" projects that microsoft bails out of.

      The win32 api is a set of rules and commands an application interfaces with, you can't emulate it, it's impossible to emulate an api... you can only implement an api or interface with it. Wine isn't another api that is compatible with the win32 api, wine is an implementation of the win32 api on the linux operating system.

    66. Re:Wine? by shaitand · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Until apple decides to open up OS X, not even slightly interested in helping thier platform grow.

    67. Re:Wine? by b-baggins · · Score: 1

      No, a killer app is an app that drives the purchase of the OS/hardware.

      FCP counts as a killer app, and so do the iApps for this very reason.

      --
      You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
    68. Re:Wine? by OwlBoy · · Score: 1

      Pffhht.

    69. Re:Wine? by bursch-X · · Score: 1
      --
      There are two rules for success:
      1. Never tell everything you know.
    70. Re:Wine? by shaitand · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      No, apple releases next to nothing there, almost all that code was available to all BEFORE apple touched it.

      For instance the samba work apple did that has active directory working without a hitch on OSX, do you see those contributions anywhere?

    71. Re:Wine? by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 1

      Yeah. It's emulating the Win32 API so the apps can run. This is pretty clear-cut.

      You call it "implementation," but there is no real difference. The API is being emulated.

      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
    72. Re:Wine? by gamgee5273 · · Score: 1

      I didn't say that, did I? Read the post, in context, and try again.

    73. Re:Wine? by FooBarWidget · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      But then your post was offtopic since you didn't reply to my point.

    74. Re:Wine? by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Let me use another term people tend to get. It's not pretending to be the win32 api, it's a port.

      since the standard c libs were first developed on sysV then does that mean c on every other platform is emulating the REAL standard libs... or since it's a specification not a "thing" and the specification has been implemented on multiple platforms are they all the real thing so long as they follow the spec?

      Wine doesn't emulate a win32 api implementation, it's not something else which pretends to be one, IT IS a win32 implementation.

    75. Re:Wine? by Squidgee · · Score: 1
      Actually, that's a great idea. If you could -imbed- the Bochs and WINE code in a process, and then allow it to act as a compatibility lawyer (e.g. Classic), then it -would- beat VPC, as it would only be running the PROGRAM'S code, and not a big OS (Linux, Windows).

      That's actually an awesome idea...

    76. Re:Wine? by MoneyT · · Score: 1
      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
  4. New Strategy! by PopeAlien · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Honesty and openness with the user base is a cornerstone of the new management team. "

    This strategy was struck upon after it was discovered that the previous strategy of dishonesty and disceit was not as effective as originally hoped.

    Look out SCO!

    1. Re:New Strategy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      whats sad about this is that is all could have been avoided a long time ago if people had been paying attention to what was going on, and now it has turned into a self-promotion campaign about how wonderful the new team is....

      give me a break....

  5. Odd that no VPc for G5 by FileNotFound · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Isn't it odd that Ms does not plan to relaese Virtual PC for the G5?

    I mean it'd be good revenue if every mac user had to buy VPc and WinXP just so that they can play Doom3 or whatnot..

    --
    In Soviet Russia, the television watches YOU!
    1. Re:Odd that no VPc for G5 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the day you could run doom 3 on vpc (at a playable speed) is the day that i play my n64 games on my ps2

    2. Re:Odd that no VPc for G5 by nacs · · Score: 2, Informative
      I mean it'd be good revenue if every mac user had to buy VPc and WinXP just so that they can play Doom3 or whatnot..
      You won't need any sort of emulation to play Doom 3 on the Mac. Doom 3 will be released natively for Win/Lin/Mac platforms.
      --
      "I filter at +6, and have yet to miss out on an important comment." (#822545)
    3. Re:Odd that no VPc for G5 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      doom 3 will work natively on osx, same as quake3, distributed at the same time for win, linux i386 and macos.

    4. Re:Odd that no VPc for G5 by FileNotFound · · Score: 1

      Well what about Half Life 2?

      I wasn't sure about D3 which is where the "whatnot" comes in..

      --
      In Soviet Russia, the television watches YOU!
    5. Re:Odd that no VPc for G5 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      whatnot actually comes from the words what and not ... combined to make a new word, whatnot, see ... aint that hard to work it out is it?

    6. Re:Odd that no VPc for G5 by Kenja · · Score: 3, Informative

      Given that Half Life 2 will require PC systems the likes of which we have never seen and that Virtual PC has no hardware 3D support at all I would say its a moot point all around. You cant use Virtual PC to play 3D games, not since the Voodoo 2 went out of style.

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    7. Re:Odd that no VPc for G5 by pajamacore · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Unlike the G3 and G4 processors, the G5 does not support pseudo little endian mode, which boosts performance when emulating Pentium architecture. I think it's more a case of rewriting lots and lots of Connectix code than just not planning on doing it.

    8. Re:Odd that no VPc for G5 by stratjakt · · Score: 1

      They've announced G5 support will happen.

      They have everything to gain. People buy another license of XP and Office for their mac, and MSFT doesnt have to waste money porting its stuff to OSX.

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    9. Re:Odd that no VPc for G5 by johnnyb · · Score: 1

      Actually, if I were a nefarious business planner, I wouldn't do it for G5. Why?

      The G5s are going to make Intel users lust after them. They might switch if they had a lifeboat back to the old world. So, by not providing it for the G5, they can keep much of their userbase from switching. Allowing it on the G5 would have the effect of giving their users an intermediate platform to make it easier to switch away.

    10. Re:Odd that no VPc for G5 by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 1

      Half-Life 2 has been designed with a scalable engine that requires at least a DX-7 card. The engine will scale back its effects for older machines. You won't need "PC systems the likes of which we have never seen." I hate when people don't read up on what they're talking about and just make assumptions instead.

      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
    11. Re:Odd that no VPc for G5 by NDPTAL85 · · Score: 1

      In other words, it will SUCK on current systems and optimal game play will only be available on "PC systems the likes of which we have never seen".

      --
      Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
  6. That's OK... by Meat+Blaster · · Score: 3, Interesting
    If you want to run real PC software, why not get a real PC? It's only like $300 for something that'll run ten times faster than any Apple emulated environment.

    Somebody ought to get to work making emulator cards for the Mac that are essentially one of those mini PCs. It'd be pretty cool to have a true dual environment without having the emulation slowdown.

    1. Re:That's OK... by RocketScientist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because a $300 real pc wouldn't fit into my laptop bag, and would likely weigh more than 6 pounds.

    2. Re:That's OK... by El_Ge_Ex · · Score: 0

      If you want to run real PC software, why not get a real PC?

      The holy book of Jobs forbids it. Though shall buy any gadget that comes from Apple; no matter how expensive.

      No if you excuse me, I have to go rob a bank. The new iPod looks nice.

      -B

    3. Re:That's OK... by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      It's been done. Back in 97 or so I used a Mac that had a Pentium 200 or so on a card. You'd hit something like ctrl-alt-enter to switch between them. Not much advantage over a KVM switchbox, except for the shared clipboard, and maybe some shared file system stuff (nothing much that couldn't be done with something like NFS or appletalk).

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    4. Re:That's OK... by John+Harrison · · Score: 1

      They had this in the past. You could buy a Mac witha 486 daughter card. We had one in the dorms. Nobody used Windows on it. When they did, they had a hard time figuring out how to eject the floppy.

    5. Re:That's OK... by stratjakt · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If you need to use PC applications why did you buy a mac? Or, what can a mac do that a PC cant? All the aesthetics and battery life discussions aside, you leave me the impression that the laptop you have doesnt do something you need it to.

      I'll get modded flamebait, but big deal. Its like buying a PS2 because you want to play Zelda the Wind Waker.

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    6. Re:That's OK... by proj_2501 · · Score: 1

      Several manufacturers have tried this:

      When Apple released the Macintosh LC, one of its selling points was the IIe compatibility card (not quite relevant, but hey)
      Applied Engineering made two models of their PC emulator card for the Apple IIe/IIgs (i forget what they called it)
      Orange Micro made PCs-on-a-card for NuBus Macs.
      Apple even made their own PC Compatibility Card for some the Centris and Quadra machines.

    7. Re:That's OK... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A $300 PC? Sure, if you want to run your games in Wine. If you want Windows, bump that price up to $600.

    8. Re:That's OK... by zurmikopa · · Score: 1

      Back when I was more of a mac person I had one of those Quadras that had a PC card built in. I was a keystroke away from switching environments at any time. It was pretty spiffy and a lot faster than an emulator but now-a-days I think getting one of those cards costs more than just buying a complete system and it's slower.

      Then there's the laptop people like the other reply mentions that like macs but want to be able to run pc software; they can't put in a daughterboard.

    9. Re:That's OK... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Insert wild, knee-jerking price accusation here!! Hey ... buddy ... I can purchase Windows XP Home Edition for 130 dollars ... Canadian. Yeah, umm, that's less than 100 dollars American. Go ahead and throw around some more phony numbers, kthxbye.

    10. Re:That's OK... by SydShamino · · Score: 1

      Well, a Mac can be naturally immune to Windows security holes and safety exploits, while a Windows-based PC can't. On a laptop, where it may move around and get plugged into lots of unsafe networks, that sounds pretty damn spiffy.*

      If the only piece of PC software you need is one thing (like an industry-specific app only developed for one platform) then a PC emulator sounds great.

      *I have no experience with and am not claiming that MacOS is "safe". I just know it is safe from the problems that Windows machines have been hit by recently. And it is probably safe from the next unpatched MS security hole that gets hit.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    11. Re:That's OK... by questionlp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If the person is a web designer or a programmer and needs to test to see how the site renders or the program compiles/runs outside of the Mac environment?

      I think it would be really nice to be able to develop and test web sites on a lone laptop or system... mostly on the go.

      The other use of it is if the company is primarily Mac and has a handful of PCs for some functions, being able to test and support PCs under a virtual environment would be nice. Sure it won't be as fast, but it's still an option.

      Then you have companies that require software that will only run on PCs... by being able to run the software within a window rather than setting aside space for another monitor/keyboard/mouse and PC unit... that can be quite helpful if desk space limited.

    12. Re:That's OK... by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The occasional use of an obscure, unported windows program should not necessarily dictate one's choice of platform.

    13. Re:That's OK... by WillAdams · · Score: 4, Informative

      Stuff a new Mac can do which a Windows PC (default software install on both) can't:

      - make a .pdf from anything one can print
      - Services
      - Miller column browser for filesystem navigation
      - AAT / ATSUI - play w/ Zapfino in TextEdit
      - $10,000 worth of fonts (including non-Latin ones)
      - Mail.app (decent and safe mail client)
      - iApps (iTunes, iMovie, iCal, iSynch)
      - colour calibration which really works

      By contrast:

      - is there any app in a default Windows install which can take full advantage of the spiffy OpenType version of Palatino bundled w/ Windows 2000 or later? (bummer that has Ariadne swash caps instead of the original Palatino swash letters---only available in hot metal, though I did a digital font for a friend who has said letterforms ;)

      Moreover, if one adds in d/l'ing and installing free (libre) software, Mac OS X draws even further ahead w/ stuff like TeXShop (pdf editor lite!) and EquationService.app.

      William

      --
      Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
    14. Re:That's OK... by Paulrothrock · · Score: 1

      Well, you could always get one of those boxes that let you switch between PCs... but then you run the risk of Windows driver conflicts.

      (I've never needed VPC on my Mac.)

      --
      I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
    15. Re:That's OK... by mkelley · · Score: 2, Informative

      I got a mac, because it's what works for me. I design websites and test them under VirtualPC with Windows 98 & XP along with Linux. Why should I have to buy three boxes to do what some $200 piece of software can do?


      It's a big hassle to have three boxes under a desk, just to test a website. The cost justifcation isn't there, once you add kvms, and additional PCs.
      --

      m.kelley
      life is like a freeway, if you don't look you could miss it.
    16. Re:That's OK... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The sad fact is we live in a world dominated by one platform. That means interoperability is not a concern most companies have. If you choose an alternative platform it is still highly likely that you will be forced at one time or another to use the dominant platform in order to do business/communicate with the masses that use it.

      I face this often (though less and less) with linux. If MS could lose 40% of their market to alternatives so that interoperability became important again, I am sure many more of us could be happy campers.

    17. Re:That's OK... by ElGanzoLoco · · Score: 1

      Somebody ought to get to work making emulator cards for the Mac that are essentially one of those mini PCs. It'd be pretty cool to have a true dual environment without having the emulation slowdown. It has been done before. (by "Orange PC", I think.) It was a complete disaster. Apple even introduced some weird computers with two motherboards: one PPC, one X86, so you could switch between both platforms. BIG failure, too. Just as an information: VPC 6.0 usually emulates a processor (Pentium II / MMX) at 700 MhZ on my dual 1 GhZ. Once, it launched itself at more than 1 GhZ (though I hadn't changed any settings). I can run XP and sudden strike 2 at (sorta) decent speeds; all you need is a lot of RAM. If somebody knows how I could get back to this 1 GhZ speed, please tell me how...

      --
      Hello! I'm a disaster waiting to happen!
    18. Re:That's OK... by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Or, what can a mac do that a PC cant?

      well in regards to the ones not running linux but a microsoft product???

      not become infected or attacked every five minutes when on the internet...

      But that's a function of the os, so that should be what can OSX do that Windows Cant?

      the answer would be... be secure.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    19. Re:That's OK... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the conclusion I came to after using VPC for a month on my Dual 1 Ghz Mac. VPC cost almost $250.00. A cheap E-Machines package at Office Depot cost $525.00, which included a 17-inch CRT monitor. I sold VPC on eBay and bought the E-Machine. If I had been patient I could have bought any number of PCs on eBay for less money still.

      I must point out, however, that VPC didn't crash very often, my E-Machine does daily (Windows XP). In addition, VPC has a very handy Save-State feature that's way faster than shutting down and starting up a PC.

      Still, your point is right on.

    20. Re:That's OK... by Zeriel · · Score: 1

      Show me where, I'll jump all over it. I can't even find OEM versions for less than US$160.

      Or don't show me, and we'll assume you're just another AC talking out of your ass.

      --
      "America has done some terrible things. But I know that Americans don't cheer when innocents die." -Dave Barry
    21. Re:That's OK... by cosmo7 · · Score: 1

      Here's something that would be even more interesting: Apple could release an OS X card for PCs. The PC would run Darwin, while the card's G4 or G5 runs OS X on top. Apple would still see its hardware revenue, PC users would be able to run OS X.

    22. Re:That's OK... by timeOday · · Score: 1
      Stuff a new Mac can do which a Windows PC (default software install on both) can't:
      ...
      $10,000 worth of fonts (including non-Latin ones)
      ...
      Now there's a Steve Jobs-ism if ever I've heard one.
    23. Re:That's OK... by fritter · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I'll get modded flamebait, but big deal. Its like buying a PS2 because you want to play Zelda the Wind Waker.

      Well, to be honest, this post pretty much *is* flamebait. Are you this critical of Linux users who run WINE? Windows users with Cygwin? Just because the guy needs/wants to run one or two Windows programs, it hardly means he's made the wrong decision.

    24. Re:That's OK... by dbirchall · · Score: 1
      I guess it's time for me to point at that screen shot again...

      I got a PC emulator (VPC6/WinXP Pro) for my Mac (iBook600) because I "need" to run the occasional piece of software that's only available for Windows. $220ish for that is cheaper than that $300 PC, doesn't take up space, doesn't require me to add more outlets, etc. :)

      I have a lot of UNIX and Linux experience; I wound up getting a Mac almost 2 years ago because it'd run the apps I was used to from that arena, yet would also do things like playing QuickTime movies and DVD's (which back then were major struggles under Linux). That it can also emulate a PC, and that there are native versions of Microsoft products (MSIE, WMP, Office) for it, is just icing.

      There've been a couple switcher stories about technical or scientific people who were able to go from having a Mac, a Windows PC, and a UNIX/Linux system at their desks, to having... a Mac. And going from 3 computers to 1 is usually a cost-saver, not just in acquisition costs, but support as well.

    25. Re:That's OK... by RocketScientist · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Wow. Mozilla ate the post I had written.

      To answer your question, here's the short list of what I need VPC for:

      1. SQL Server Management Tools: Enterprise Manager, ISQL/W, and so on.

      2. Outlook to Exchange 5.5 integration. Yeah, Entourage works great for Exchange 2000, but it still don't work worth talking about against Exchange 5.5.

      3. Testing sites on IE 6. It's just wacky enough to need separate testing.

      4. Various Windows network admin apps (User Manager, Share Management, Server Manager).

      All told, I get into it once or twice every 3 or 4 weeks. It's not like buying a PS2 to play zelda, it's more like buing a Torx screwdriver: I don't use it often, but when I need it, I REALLY need it, right then. Am I in it all the time? Nope. But I use it enough to justify buying it (err...making my employer buy it :) )

      Hope that clears things up.

    26. Re:That's OK... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck you. Walk into a FutureShop, a Price Club (Costco), or a Best Buy some day, you flaming fucktard.

      The world is not defined by your infinite laziness when it comes to finding better answers.

    27. Re:That's OK... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's safe because no one gives enough of a shit to rip it apart

    28. Re:That's OK... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Allow me to pimp the site of these fine folks who have been filling my OEM needs for a year. If you're putting a machine together, the price is quite reasonable for XP (Home/Professional) OEM, although the license under these circumstances ties the software to the machine you're building. If you've got flexible morality this may not be a problem, but I prefer a regular or upgrade license for my system to avoid this issue.

    29. Re:That's OK... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      - Miller column browser for filesystem navigation

      Which you can't change how it's sorted, brilliant!

    30. Re:That's OK... by gobbo · · Score: 1
      If you need to use PC applications why did you buy a mac? Or, what can a mac do that a PC cant? All the aesthetics and battery life discussions aside, you leave me the impression that the laptop you have doesnt do something you need it to.

      Oh, man, have you seen any solitaire game that is as good on the Mac? [oh, ok, there are a few] Solitaire is the most successful Microsoft project of all time [oh wait, that was Wes Cherry, and he didn't get any royalties].

      Seriously, though, what I can do on a Mac is develop/design cross-platform sites, db's, and video without all the grief of being in Microlimpland, then briefly confirm that it works as intended. Oh, and I used to use it to go to special websites that required monopoly computing, but thankfully those have pretty much shriveled up.

      Short answer to 'what can a mac do that a PC can't'? Pretty much everything that counts, and then some.

    31. Re:That's OK... by ealar+dlanvuli · · Score: 1

      Interesting, since your describing the price of windows upgrade. ...Idiot.

      --
      I live in a giant bucket.
    32. Re:That's OK... by PetWolverine · · Score: 1

      Don't forget the fun of being able to take a screenshot of the BSOD. I used it as my desktop background for a while, just to prod my Windows-using friends.

      --
      I found the meaning of life the other day, but I had write-only access.
    33. Re:That's OK... by Upphew · · Score: 0

      How about getting that cheapo PC and installing VNC?

    34. Re:That's OK... by shaitand · · Score: 1

      " If the person is a web designer or a programmer and needs to test to see how the site renders or the program compiles/runs outside of the Mac environment?"

      Wouldn't a more obvious solution be to simply design it outside the mac environment to begin with?

      "I think it would be really nice to be able to develop and test web sites on a lone laptop or system... mostly on the go."

      you do know that a mac really doesn't have any sort of edge on a pc in the web design department right? The graphics one works with in the web world can be rendered on a pentium 75! Anything that is too big for a 486 has no business being on the web. Granted, with extensions you can make view source open in a real text editor if you use firebird on your mac... but that is just catching up, not winning the race.

      "Then you have companies that require software that will only run on PCs... by being able to run the software within a window rather than setting aside space for another monitor/keyboard/mouse and PC unit... that can be quite helpful if desk space limited."

      Or again, you can simply get rid of the macs and run just the pc's. It's not like you'll find anything that runs on a mac that can't be easily replaced on a pc and 99% of the time at lower cost.

    35. Re:That's OK... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      nteresting, since your [sic] describing the price of windows upgrade. ...Idiot.

      While calling someone an idiot, It's better to not demonstrate your own ignorance.

    36. Re:That's OK... by aristotle-dude · · Score: 1
      How about installing Terminal services on your servers and downloading MS remote desktop clint for free from MS?

      You can do all of that with a pbook or ibook and a terminal server.

      --
      Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
    37. Re:That's OK... by RocketScientist · · Score: 1

      Actually, that's what I do most of the time. I've got an XP box at my office, I VPN into the office and use Remote Desktop (native Mac OS X version). Sometimes that doesn't work or I'm on a dialup, an I can do most SQL Server stuff faster by hand from a local ISQL than I can sending screen scrapes (even highly optimized ones) back and forth.

    38. Re:That's OK... by catfishmonkey · · Score: 1

      It's not like buying a PS2 to play zelda

      I should hope not, buying a PS2 to play Zelda is like buying a... well... mac to run Outlook.

      --
      The horse is dead. Either fuck it or walk away, but please stop beating it.
    39. Re:That's OK... by Moraelin · · Score: 1

      "If the person is a web designer or a programmer and needs to test to see how the site renders or the program compiles/runs outside of the Mac environment?"

      So how about actually testing on a PC then?

      E.g., would you really trust the fonts to get rendered _exactly_ the same on your Mac as on a real PC? Emulator or no emulator? From my experience, at least in Java the font widths vary considerably between the two platforms. Are you _sure_ that that emulator does an exact emulation of PC rendering, instead of just piping it all through to MacOS?

      And, no offense, but I'm sick and tired of programs and web sites designed under the assumption that "all the world is made of computers _exactly_ like mine, using _exactly_ the resolution on mine, _exactly_ the font size on mine, etc. And, oh, surely everyone has the toolbar the exact same size as mine, and set to auto-hide."

      And then someone has their Windows set to use large fonts. (It _is_ a standard Windows option, you know.) Oops.

      This isn't only about web sites, and not only about Macs. Linux is probably the biggest nightmare in this aspect, with 90% of the programs crapping out if you have your X set to use 100 dpi fonts instead of 72.

      (Again: they're standard X fonts, and it's a standard X dot pitch option. And some of us actually use it because we want something easily readable, and not a squinting fest. So I wish people jolly well got around to actually testing their programs in it.)

      But either way, back to the emulation thing, it seems to me like just the same old excuse to test everything on only one machine. Maybe a milder form of it, but nevertheless.

      Doubly so when that machine is a laptop and/or has a non-standard aspect ratio LCD screen. (Which most Apple LCD screens do, laptops included.) Most of us still use CRTs with a 4:3 aspect ratio. Wouldn't it be nice if you had at least _some_ idea of how that site would really look on a real user's screen?

      Don't get me wrong, I'm not against _developping_ stuff on a laptop and on the go. But if that's the only machine you _test_ it on, well, no offense, but I don't want to see the final site.

      --
      A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    40. Re:That's OK... by stefanb · · Score: 1
      Sounds like you're talking to some server or other most of the times yoiu need a Windows box.

      Have you considered Remote Desktop Connection? The client's great, and it sound as if you might have a Windows 2000 Server or XP which you could run Terminal Server in Remote Administration mode on..

      On my feeble white iBook 500, VPC is just too slow for about anything, so I usually RDC into a server at work, tunneled over ssh. It's surprisingly responsive; on a couple of occasions, I even ran it over a GPRS connection, and it was workable.

    41. Re:That's OK... by Zeriel · · Score: 1

      Quite right. I'd never heard of 'em.

      Their price on XP Pro is still exorbiant, but what the hell.

      --
      "America has done some terrible things. But I know that Americans don't cheer when innocents die." -Dave Barry
    42. Re:That's OK... by Shadowmist · · Score: 1

      In our case, we installed Virtual PC for the sole purpose of running FacetWin which was the only program that could interface with our antiquated SCO machine which uses a billing program that runs on SCOANSI (it couldn't just have been a standard ANSI but it had to be SCO* ansi grrr*)

      Virtual PC serves a purpose in running a few "non-killer" Windows apps one might need but not want to invest in a second space-eating desktop.

    43. Re:That's OK... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So your entire argument was pointing out I forgot an apostophie? Great.

      I'm sure you won many debates on the debate team.

      Seriously just shut up, the only $99 copies of windows are upgrades, that is just the way it is.

    44. Re:That's OK... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      So your entire argument was pointing out I forgot an apostophie? Great.

      Not just an "apostrophie" of course. There an E there also. But the details are beside the point. You called someone an idiot while at the same time making an idiotic mistake. Just a different kind of stupid, that's all.

  7. legal rights? by WatertonMan · · Score: 2

    There were always a lot of questioning about whether they could legally even do what they were attempting to do. I believe they had sold the rights to the code some time earlier. That they could go from an old Sys8 era emulator to a OSX quality emulator in a few months seemed...too good to be true.

  8. Wow...honestly in business. by Brendan+Byrd · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I appreciate that. I didn't know about this RealPC project, don't use a Mac, or had any interest in it, but the company is already a couple of notches ahead in my book for being so straightforward in their answer.

    1. Re:Wow...honestly in business. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      the company is already a couple of notches ahead in my book for being so straightforward in their answer.

      They get points for lying and then admitting to it later? If only Slashdot karma were as easy to obtain.

      Posted anonymously so as not to karma whore.

    2. Re:Wow...honestly in business. by Jon+Abbott · · Score: 1

      Actually, they are a little less honest than it appears -- they promised purchasers of the OS 9 version of RealPC a free upgrade to the OS X version, when it came out...

    3. Re:Wow...honestly in business. by repetty · · Score: 1

      "They get points for lying and then admitting to it later?"

      Absolutely. You don't think there's virtue in there, somewhere?

      Also, note in their statement that they were direct and frank. They didn't mince words as most other companies would have.

      Imagine if Microsoft where to do the same thing:
      Well, we don't really know anything about security and we've really been lying to all of you all along. The truth is, we don't even care about security. We don't care about you, for that matter. We just thought you ought to know.

      If MS were to be that frank, I'd give them points, too.

      --Richard
    4. Re:Wow...honestly in business. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a little less? i would say a lot less

      the new management, which was part of the old mangement is now acting like they had no idea what was going on and were totally out of the loop and only now are they finding out what their other manamgement partners were doing (or not doing) and now they are righteous and self promoting themselves about it...

      put your head back in the sand...

    5. Re:Wow...honestly in business. by Jon+Abbott · · Score: 1
      a little less? i would say a lot less
      Try looking up the word "understatement" sometime... :^)
    6. Re:Wow...honestly in business. by shivianzealot · · Score: 1

      I appreciate that. I didn't know about this RealPC project, don't use a Mac, or had any interest in it, but the company is already a couple of notches ahead in my book for being so straightforward in their answer.

      Its not as though the new group is repenting. I think I'd be somewhat more impressed if it were the management that actually DID the lying were apologizing for it.

      --

      Bored with karma, be a fan/freak

    7. Re:Wow...honestly in business. by FWBSoftware · · Score: 1

      Dear "Anonymous Coward"

      We were NOT part of the old management team. We have offered all proof as requested, informed the public and are now refunding customers who were ripped off by the previous management.

      I am wondering though...are YOU part of the previous management team.

      --

      Regards
      Marko Kostyrko
      CEO - FWB Software Inc

    8. Re:Wow...honestly in business. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dear "FWBSoftware"

      As there is no real name attached to this, or any other correspondence under this user name in this topic, how can this statement be verified?

      This is, of course, a troll, I am just pointing out that the word anonymous means "without name or identity"; a description which could be equally applied to you, Mr Software (or can I call you F.W.B.?). I could sign up as "WHGatesIII" and list my webpage as "www.microsoft.com"; that doesn't make me a billionaire, though it would put me on everyone's enemies list.

      To add to the original post, though, if this is as it appears then best of luck to FWB Software; morals are sadly lacking in the software business, any company displaying them should be encouraged. And I dare say you have more important things to do than feeding the ignorant /. trolls.

      All I need to do now is work out what exactly FWB does produce, so I can decide whether or not I need it :)

      An (alternate) Anonymous Coward

    9. Re:Wow...honestly in business. by Brendan+Byrd · · Score: 1

      Exactly my point. They even admitted that there was "not a single line of code", which indicates that they were open and honest with their answer, instead of trying to hide their fault with business-babble, which everybody is used to and tired of.

  9. OB Simpsons by cK-Gunslinger · · Score: 0, Redundant

    HAHA!

    Seriously, WTF? What kind of business practice is it to formally announce on your website and in press releases that "X is in late beta stage" when it hasn't even been started. I guess that's why they are the "ex" management team.

    1. Re:OB Simpsons by dlb · · Score: 1

      This surprises you?

      I guess you weren't paying attention to the tech industry circa 1997-2000.

    2. Re:OB Simpsons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      FWB has always been lots of flash and crappy work (I speak as someone quite familiar with SCSI drivers). Avoid avoid. I'd even say, avoid Macs because they are pointless these days, but then the fanboys would mod me into dust.

      Let me just say "Wow, Macs are the best and since the new interface is crap I'll say they are stylish, er wait, they are not as slow as they were...OK, they are twice as fast as PC's and...they hold 8 GB of RAM which is more than anyone's ever done". Notwithstanding Sun's fractional TB per processor on their E12K.

      Bitter, me? Never!

  10. here you go kids, a start by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    #include

    int main()
    {
    }

    now get to it!

    1. Re:here you go kids, a start by notanatheist · · Score: 1

      Well deserving of a 'funny' or 'informative' mod up.

    2. Re:here you go kids, a start by bigjocker · · Score: 0

      #include

      int main()
      {
      }


      Hmm ...

      [bigjocker@anacreon tmp]$ gcc test.c -Wall -o test
      test.c: In function `main':
      test.c:5: warning: control reaches end of non-void function
      [bigjocker@anacreon tmp]$

      Besides, I think SCO owns the copyright for the word main

      --
      Life isn't like a box of chocolates. It's more like a jar of jalapenos. What you do today, might burn your ass tomorrow.
    3. Re:here you go kids, a start by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think he's trying to mislead you with the stdio.h include. It's really a C++ program :).

    4. Re:here you go kids, a start by tjwhaynes · · Score: 2, Interesting

      [bigjocker@anacreon tmp]$ gcc test.c -Wall -o test test.c: In function `main': test.c:5: warning: control reaches end of non-void function [bigjocker@anacreon tmp]$

      Good thing it didn't compile. If it had, we'd discover whether you have . in your PATH. If you do (why?) you might find that a lot of scripts now throw a wobbly and do interesting things to your system.

      Don't EVER create a program called 'test' in your PATH.

      Cheers,

      Toby Haynes

      --
      Anything I post is strictly my own thoughts and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the opinions of IBM.
    5. Re:here you go kids, a start by cdrudge · · Score: 1

      Better watch it. I think that code might have been used in more then one program that SCO wrote^H^H^H^H^Hbought.

    6. Re:here you go kids, a start by ENOENT · · Score: 1


      No, here's the real code:



      #include "/dev/tty"


      --
      That's "Mr. Soulless Automaton" to you, Bub.
    7. Re:here you go kids, a start by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First off, you had to compile it to see that there is an int function declared that doesn't return a value???

      Secondly, nobody said it would compile, they said it's a START.

    8. Re:here you go kids, a start by PetoskeyGuy · · Score: 2, Funny
      "Unfortunately, the same guys that do the development had to do the rebranding," said Prewitt. "We're all wearing different hats. We ended up ceasing development on it for about a week," he said."

      They already had that part, but they had to rebrand it remember.
      /** RealPC
      *
      * TODO:
      * Write Program
      */

      #include <stdio.h>

      int main()
      {
      cout << "Hello World, from RealPC";
      exit(0);
      }
      And it only took them a week
    9. Re:here you go kids, a start by jayspec462 · · Score: 1
      The problem was, of course, that this is code from the old version. They were trying to update it to use the Cocoa Foundation Classes.
      #import "WindowsStuff.h"

      - (void) runEmulation (NSString *) windowsProgram {
      NSWindowsEmulator * emulator;
      emulator = [[NSWindowsEmulator alloc] initWithCrap];

      [emulator screenOfDeathWithColor: @"BLUE"];

      }
      --
      $comment =~ s/($verb)\s+($noun)/IN SOVIET RUSSIA, $2 $1s YOU!/g;
    10. Re:here you go kids, a start by coolmacdude · · Score: 2, Funny

      Apple will go bankrupt before it will write a function called NSWindowsEmulator.

      --

      -You may license this sig for only $6.99.
    11. Re:here you go kids, a start by WaKall · · Score: 1

      Would you look at that unnecessary include. I bet all your software is as bloated as can be.

    12. Re:here you go kids, a start by Haeleth · · Score: 1

      Er, it _did_ compile. I see no -Werror flag.

  11. G5 motherboard photos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If you look in photo there is a picture of the G5 motherboards which shows they have two different separate CPU connectors, not one like in most other dual macintoshes. Each connector will take one other of the CPU cards, which lets each have an independent bus to the board. In theory this would be good with something like RealPC or Windows on the G5, as you could have one half running windows and one half running MacOS still, AND NEITHER WOULD INTERFERE WITH THE OTHER as they would still have unique access to memory and things. Does anyone know if the motherboards in all G5 are still blue or is that just development?

    1. Re:G5 motherboard photos by rebeka+thomas · · Score: 2, Informative

      Red is early alpha development colors

      Blue means design complete or late development models, maybe even early production

      Green is the traditional final production colours. You'll find after they have been shipping for a while that they'll have green motherboards

      --
      RST
    2. Re:G5 motherboard photos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you work for Apple or a company that manufactures the boards? I ask because I remember reading that they had changed the color scheme so that blue was the final shipping product. I believe this can be backed up by looking at flat panel iMacs, Xserves, and the new G5s.

    3. Re:G5 motherboard photos by shotfeel · · Score: 1

      For more on the architecture, see

      http://www.apple.com/powermac/architecture.html

      When it comes to determining who's connected to what and how, simple-minded people like me can understand these pretty pictures better than a photograph of the motherboard.

  12. Right, let's try that again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this isn't 'look we lied', this is 'we're under new management'. Amiga was under new management for an entire decade, and it sent the platform into obscurity. That's not a score against Amiga, it's just the way the world works.

  13. Re:Now isn't *that* a surprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Actually I'm fairly sure that the union of the sets includes all the members from both sets. What is in question is the intersection of the two sets. Which is also probably fairly large.

  14. Botched Marketing Experiment? by Aikido+Al · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "I am sorry to have to admit that apparently the company has been a party to vaporware when it comes to the claims regarding RealPC." "In reviewing the status, it was determined that the development cost including licensing fees made the project unattractive."

    With the above statements in mind, and the rest of the article, it's almost like they passed around the idea of RealPC to see if there was enough interest.

    So perhaps we can expect vaporware to be a new marketing approach?

    Mac vs. PC aside, as an IT worker I'm glad I don't have to worry about yet another literal and figural can of worms in my department.:)

    1. Re:Botched Marketing Experiment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So perhaps we can expect vaporware to be a new marketing approach?

      New?

    2. Re:Botched Marketing Experiment? by Aikido+Al · · Score: 1

      New in the sense that spam is the new marketing strategy spun off from junk mail.

    3. Re:Botched Marketing Experiment? by elem · · Score: 1
      So perhaps we can expect vaporware to be a new marketing approach?

      Seems to be working for Duke Nukem Forever....

    4. Re:Botched Marketing Experiment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > So perhaps we can expect vaporware to be a new marketing approach?

      In what way do you think that this is 'new' ?

      When IBM complained to Gates about DRI's attitude over CP/M-86 for the IBM PC (they failed to bow deep enough), Gates offered MS-DOS and then had to run out and buy it from SCP and finish it.

      When DRI announced GEM as a GUI for PCs, MS announced they were about to deliver Windows and then spent two years writing it.

      The priciple is: announce products you don't have just to stop customers buying the competitor's and talk up with previews and planted 'reviews' to keep interest up while the code gets written, or is purchased from elsewhere.

      MS has done this for a quarter of a century.

  15. Other PC emulators by iJed · · Score: 3, Informative

    The other PC emulators are:

    Bochs - Open source emulator with some nice features.

    MS Virtual PC - Probably the best PC emulator on the Mac. Now owned by the evil Microsoft corporation.

    1. Re:Other PC emulators by jandrese · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't know if MS owning VirtualPC is such a bad thing. MS obviously has an interest in stelling their software on Macs, and they're the only ones who have a hope of getting all of the undocumented "features" of Windows right (just look at how much progress the Wine project has made for comparison). The danger here is that VirtualPC will become good enough to run MS software, though not as good as the regular PC version, and then stop, leaving all of those third party application developers out in the cold on the Mac (a market they probably didn't even really consider important in the first place). MS could even subtly break the emulator to prevent most non-MS software from running correctly. Still, selling Windows licenses to Mac users is just too good for MS to pass up.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    2. Re:Other PC emulators by mindbooger · · Score: 1

      The thing that frightens me about MS owning VirtualPC is that I (and hell, maybe I'm alone, but I wouldn't have thought so entirely) don't use VirtualPC to run Windows. I use it to run Linux (several different distros), FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and NetBSD on my Mac. What are the chances that VPC is going to be well tested against running anything but Windows in future versions? Every comment I've seen on this mentions that it's in MS' best interests to have it run Windows well. That's the problem! C'mon folks, x86 means more than just Windows!

    3. Re:Other PC emulators by alienw · · Score: 0, Troll

      This is one of the most retarded things I've ever heard. Do you understand that Microsoft can easily recompile their software to run on the Mac if they felt like it? Also, do you realize that they already do that with Office for Mac and MSIE and stuff?

    4. Re:Other PC emulators by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      and they're the only ones who have a hope of getting all of the undocumented "features" of Windows right

      VirtualPC doesn't need to know anything about Windows(r) features. VirtualPC emulates an Intel ("x86") computer, which you can then install a full (paid) copy of Windows on. One could also install Linux, FreeBSD, or other operating systems.

      But now that Microsoft is selling VirtualPC, the above conditions might change. They will probably bundle a special Windows version, and discourage use of others. We might expect it'll become more difficult to install non-Microsoft OSes on top of the emulated environment.

      MS obviously has an interest in stelling their software on Macs,

      That's not obvious at all. They have 2 goals: sell software, and improve the ubiquity of Windows (which helps sell even more software later). Supporting users of Macs boosts the first goal, but not the second. Microsoft would be better off if there were only one seller of desktop computer OSes.

      VirtualPC, in the nearterm, won't really encourage Mac users to buy MS software. The most popular MS programs (Word, Powerpoint, etc) are already sold in native Mac versions. MS has announced no plans to cancel development of Mac Office.

      The real danger is the opposite of what you suggested- not that VirtualPC will work poorly with 3rd party software, but that it'll work too well. What if Microsoft uses VirtualPC to convince other software vendors (mainly Adobe) to downsize or eliminate their Mac software divisions? If companies can sell programs to Mac users without writing Mac code, why would they bother to program for two separate platforms?

      Then, once Mac-specific development is good and dead, Microsoft can discontinue VirtualPC and kill Apple completely.

      (Naturally, they have motivations to keep Apple alive... they wouldn't have to take the plan through to completetion. It could be just another club in their bargaining arsenal)

    5. Re:Other PC emulators by betis70 · · Score: 1

      >>MS obviously has an interest in stelling their software on Macs

      Hmm, I'm not sure if you are saying MS has in interest in stealing their software or selling their software. Sounds like both ... (yeah yeah I know a typo, but maybe a Freudian typo)?

      --
      I forget...are we at war with Eurasia or East Asia?
    6. Re:Other PC emulators by axxackall · · Score: 1
      The thing that frightens me about MS owning VirtualPC is that I (...) don't use VirtualPC to run Windows. I use it to run Linux (several different distros), FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and NetBSD on my Mac.

      here is the list of distros i was running on my Macs without any emulations:

      • NetBSD
      • Suse
      • Linux/PPC
      • YDL
      • Gentoo
      The winner is of course Gentoo after all, but thatis not the point. The point is that you can install and run several BSD and Linux dostros on your Mac without any emulation. Directly. Fast. Clean. With no problems.

      C'mon folks, x86 means more than just Windows!

      C'mon, Linux and BSD run on much more platforms than just x86!

      --

      Less is more !
    7. Re:Other PC emulators by lordDallan · · Score: 1

      Of course it won't get too much better until it can run on Macs with the G5 processor, which the current version doesn't per Microsoft as mentioned in this article on MacCentral.

      I find it interesting that they only mention VPC 6.1 as not running, though I assume this applies to 6.0.1 as well.

    8. Re:Other PC emulators by pmz · · Score: 1

      I don't know if MS owning VirtualPC is such a bad thing.

      It really and truly is a bad thing. Apple is a fundamentally a competitor to Microsoft. That alone makes VirtualPC's useful days numbered.

      The only aspect of Apple's success that Microsoft wants a hand in is ensuring that Apple doesn't become too successful.

    9. Re:Other PC emulators by zdislaw · · Score: 1
      MS Virtual PC - Probably the best PC emulator on the Mac. Now owned by the evil Microsoft corporation.

      And doesn't work on the new G5s.

      --
      bad sig...no donut.
    10. Re:Other PC emulators by mindbooger · · Score: 1

      That's dual- (multi-) booting. That's an entirely different animal than what I'm talking about. I build test VMs, try out new utilities, etc. I like OS X as my primary environment. Within that session, I have smaller, hosted VMs doing other things. They come and go, while my OS X session is constant. They talk to each other over the virtual network. You can't do that when you're booting one OS at a time. Yeah, I could go native Linux, and run MOL on top of it, but that kinda defeats the purpose for buyingn my Pbook in the first place. VPC the way it works now, is very useful to me. If they start to optimize it to run windows better, at the expense of non-windows guest OSs, I will be sad. Is there any kind of PPC virtualization (ala MOL) that runs hosted on OS X? That would be a start... And I am poking around at Bochs, too.

    11. Re:Other PC emulators by jafac · · Score: 1

      "MS obviously has an interest in stelling their software on Macs"

      Didn't you mean "STALLING"?
      (actually, if you look at the state of Office X, and IE Mac, it looks to be the case. MBU, what have you done for me LATELY?!)

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    12. Re:Other PC emulators by PetWolverine · · Score: 1

      ...selling Windows licenses to Mac users is just too good for MS to pass up.

      Plus, they get to double-dip. Not only are they selling us the license to their operating system, but for an extra charge they're selling us the software that allows us to run said OS. Sorta like they just got into the OEM business, but without all the overhead of actually designing and manufacturing hardware. Hell, they don't even have to design the software--they just bought it. All they really have to do is print copies of the CD and stick it in boxes. And with their cash on hand approaching $5e10, I can't imagine that that purchase made any more impact on their finances than, say, buying a pack of gum would on mine.

      Of course, being a college student, I'm ashamed to say that buying a pack of gum actually would have an adverse effect on my finances...

      --
      I found the meaning of life the other day, but I had write-only access.
    13. Re:Other PC emulators by shaitand · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Somehow I doubt microsoft will kill apple off... one apple is about the only semblence to a claim they aren't a monopoly that microsoft has got. Two, microsoft owns a huge chunk of apple, and billg owns another large chunk.

    14. Re:Other PC emulators by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      That's why I said they wouldn't have to follow all the way through. Just go part of the way, make it an implicit threat- help them keep the price of owning chunks of Apple down, etc.

      one apple is about the only semblence to a claim they aren't a monopoly that microsoft has got.

      That's an issue I considered, but it's tough to guess how much this aspect really modifies their behavior. Whether or not the DoJ inspires any concern in MS might hinge on next year's presidential election (which in turn hinges on US infantry casualities...). Of course, they could call Linux a competitor also. That's a weaker claim in that Linux corporations aren't even as large as Apple, but stronger in that Apple doesn't actually compete in the OS market space (it's really a hardware company).

      Two, microsoft owns a huge chunk of apple, and billg owns another large chunk.

      Microsoft has long since sold it's famous Apple investment, which was never "huge" in any case. $150,000,000 is nothing to Microsoft. And it was cashed out by mid 2002.

    15. Re:Other PC emulators by shaitand · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      $150mil is nothing to microsoft, it's not nothing to Apple though, or rather wasn't, it's what saved them from bankruptcy long enough to get the imac to market.

      "Of course, they could call Linux a competitor also. That's a weaker claim in that Linux corporations aren't even as large as Apple, but stronger in that Apple doesn't actually compete in the OS market space (it's really a hardware company)."

      Depending on which firms numbers you believe, linux has either almost the same, or more desktop market share than apple now... not to mention linux and unix in general own every other aspect of the computer market already... I'd say microsoft is DEFINATELY more concerned with the growing linux OS (which is gaining market share whhile at the MS loses and apple stays the same... hmm) than an old hat with a few old timer loyal fans that it beat a long long time ago and has chosen to let continue to the degree it does because of Bill's personal fondness.

    16. Re:Other PC emulators by burns210 · · Score: 1

      for those who are interested in bochs, Wintel is a bochs frontend that makes the configuration/use GUI (read: easy!) :)

    17. Re:Other PC emulators by FiskeBoller · · Score: 1

      I wonder if anyone contacted the Federal Trade Commission on this one. I would have thought this a possible monopoly violation, or at least a serious impingement on other markets. Thoughts?

    18. Re:Other PC emulators by glenmark · · Score: 1
      $150mil is nothing to microsoft, it's not nothing to Apple though, or rather wasn't, it's what saved them from bankruptcy long enough to get the imac to market.

      Apple was nowhere near bankruptcy. They had billions in cash reserves (and still do). Microsoft's purchase of $150 million in (nonvoting) Apple stock (along with a commitment to continue developing Mac software) was a symbolic gesture meant to demonstrate to Apple's customers and shareholders that MS had confidence in Apple's future. In short, it was a PR move designed to pull Apple's marketshare and stock prices out of their respective nosedives. (Of course, the rumor mill had it that Jobs got Gates to do this by having him by the cajones over an intellectual property dispute, not that anybody could ever prove it...)

      --
      *** Quantum Mechanics: The Dreams of Which Stuff is Made ***
    19. Re:Other PC emulators by SJ · · Score: 1

      The real danger is the opposite of what you suggested- not that VirtualPC will work poorly with 3rd party software, but that it'll work too well. What if Microsoft uses VirtualPC to convince other software vendors (mainly Adobe) to downsize or eliminate their Mac software divisions? If companies can sell programs to Mac users without writing Mac code, why would they bother to program for two separate platforms?

      Then, once Mac-specific development is good and dead, Microsoft can discontinue VirtualPC and kill Apple completely.

      Not really as Apple has proven that they are more than capable of writing killer software (See FinalCut Pro, SoundTrack and LiveType) in the pro space. If Apple were to feel that Adobe were not going produce any more Mac software you would probably see Apple replace Photoshop and InDesign with some really killer software. Apple has the people and the knowhow. They also have a very stuborn CEO that doesn't like to be stuffed around with.
  16. dumbass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    the only reason wine works at a reasonable speed is that the 'emulated' platform is the same architecture as windows. i.e. x86 Linux.

  17. Bleh by Squidgee · · Score: 2, Informative
    Before y'all go blaming Apple, this isn't Apple; instead, it's a different company.

    And if you want a Non-MS Virtual PC solution, check out either Bochs, or Blue Label.

    Blue Label is a nice, albeit slow, PC emulator for Mac OS 8/9.x. Sadly, Blue Label isn't Mac OS X native, either; but, for people using Mac on Linux, it works fine. I think it will work in Classic, too, so no worries. Bochs, on the other hand, is Mac OS X native; however, it's open source, and therefore takes some tinkering. It does work very well, however.

    There -are- alternatives; you just need to look around. =)

    1. Re:Bleh by Squidgee · · Score: 1

      And, if you want a nice, pretty, tinker-free version of Bochs, check out Wintel, from OpenOSX.

    2. Re:Bleh by axxackall · · Score: 1
      And if you want a Non-MS Virtual PC solution, check out either Bochs, or Blue Label.

      Blue Label is a nice, albeit slow,

      Do you mean that blue Label is slower than Bochs?

      --

      Less is more !
    3. Re:Bleh by Squidgee · · Score: 1

      No, it's much faster than Bochs, but slower than VPC 6.

    4. Re:Bleh by truenoir · · Score: 1

      Blue Label is also cheap at around $30 (if I remember right). Very nice little bit o' software for the money.

    5. Re:Bleh by burns210 · · Score: 1

      for those who don't want to tink Wintel is a gui frontend to bochs, to make setup/use easier. Enjoy!

    6. Re:Bleh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Blue Label isn't Mac OS X native, either...I think it will work in Classic, too, so no worries."

      Great. Run an emulation of an OS inside an emulation of an OS. I can see the advertising campaign now: "Three times the complexity, up to one quarter the speed!"

  18. Blame it on the previous guy by FearUncertaintyDoubt · · Score: 5, Funny
    Recent management changes at FWB has led to a major evaluation of the status of development work including Realpc...

    "The previous management had made claims in press interviews and on the company website regarding the status and upcoming release of RealPC OSX claiming it was in late beta and about to be released...I am sorry to have to admit that apparently the company has been a party to vaporware when it comes to the claims regarding RealPC."

    Reminds me of an old joke...

    Stalin is dying, and summons Comrade Khrushchev to his bedside. Wheezing his last few words with difficulty, Stalin tells Khrushchev, "Comrade, the reins of the country are now in your hands. But before I go, I want to give you some advice."

    "Yes, yes, Great Leader, what is it?" says Khrushchev. Reaching under his pillow, Stalin produces two envelopes marked 1 and 2. "Take these letters," he tells Khrushchev. "Keep them safely - don't open them. Only if the country is in turmoil and things start going bad, open the first one. That'll give you some advice on what to do. And, even after that, if things start going REALLY bad, open the second one." And with a gasp Stalin breathed his last.

    Well, Khrushchev succeeded him, and sure enough, within a few years things started going bad - unemployment increased, crops failed, people became restless. Nikita decided it was time to open the first letter. All it said was: "Blame everything on me!" So Khrushchev launched a massive deStalinization campaign, and blamed Josef for all the excesses and purges and ills of the present system, and bought himself some time that way.

    But things continued on the downside - Kennedy successfully rebuffed Soviet missiles in Cuba, unemployment increased even more, crops failed even more, the Politburo was unhappy with Khrushchev's leadership and upstarts like Brezhnev and Gromyko were threatening his credibility. So finally, after much deliberation, Nikita opened the second letter.

    All it said was: "Write two letters."

    1. Re:Blame it on the previous guy by emptybody · · Score: 4, Funny

      Actually the joke is Three letters.

      The Company President is leaving after a particularly grim period. On the eve of his departure, he speaks with his successor telling him that if he has any problems there are three envelopes in the desk that were presented to him when he took the reigns of the company and that he should open one of them if he really needs help.

      A year goes by and the company is having serious problems that our hero cannot resolve.
      He opens the First envelope and reads:
      "Blame your predecessor."

      He does this and is able to circle the wagons and work with existing management to resolve the problems.

      2 more years pass and again the company is in dire straits. He opens the Second Envelope and reads:
      "Accept the blame for yourself."

      He does this and is yet again able to circle up the wagons and working closely with management and employees is able to resolve the impending crises and bring the company back from the brink.

      A few more years pass and we find our hero sitting at his desk gazing at a sealed envelope. The company is failing. people are leaving in droves. He has done all he can. With his last glimmer of hope he opens the third envelope and begins to read:

      "First, prepare three envelopes..."

      --
      comment directly in my journal
    2. Re:Blame it on the previous guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Actually the joke is Three letters.

      It's not like there's an official version. The way he heard it there were two letters. You heard it with three.

  19. Benifits? by John+Seminal · · Score: 1

    What would a company get from lying? A extra year or two of publicity and interest? Once the truth comes out that they lied, they will lose all their customers. It is troubling that many executives think lying is an okay part of doing buisness. This is bad.

    --

    Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."

    1. Re:Benifits? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the stock price was up, investors were happy.

      thats the problem, a lot of business execs only try to please the investors NOW and by all means possible.

      The long range is of no concern, to these people. They want stockholders now, not tommroow :(

    2. Re:Benifits? by Bo+Diddly+Squat · · Score: 1

      Keeping your customers from going to the competition perhaps ? Tell them you've got something that is much better than what the competition has and that it is almost ready.

      Intel for example, is really good at that stuff. Pentium and Itanium development time and performance.

    3. Re:Benifits? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm certain that it has nothing at all to do with artifically inflating the value of the company - I.E. making people believe that the stock is a good thing to buy based upon the future release of something (vaporware, in this case). The execs then sell of a bit of stock and make some money in the process.

    4. Re:Benifits? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Once the truth comes out that they lied, they will lose all their customers.

      The way Microsoft has?

    5. Re:Benifits? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They offered a FREE upgrade to the X edition if you bought the current software NOW. That's what they got by lying: a revenue stream.

  20. Someone will step up by shawkin · · Score: 1

    It looks like they will have to put on another pot of coffee for some PC emulation software coders at One Infinite Loop.

    Perhps they could take a page out of their Safari play book.

    1. Re:Someone will step up by BlowChunx · · Score: 1

      I would think that once VPC finally goes under due to neglect, Apple will release their "Red Box" that they had under Rhapsody (which did the x86 emulation).

      Heck, if they keep a copy of OS X running on x86, they probably have the "Red Box" ready to roll.

  21. not a line of code... by joeldg · · Score: 1

    wow.. that is some serious vaporware..
    I have seen vapor'ish-ware.. but not full blown diaphanous-pipe-dream-vapor-ware..

    I think this calls for a new definition.. Perhaps "dream-ware" or "never-ware".. maybe "talk-ware"

    And what is up with all the Apple news today?

    1. Re:not a line of code... by RumpRoast · · Score: 1

      I think that would be "hype-ware", or maybe "shitware".

      --

      My Ass hurts.
    2. Re:not a line of code... by Glock27 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      wow.. that is some serious vaporware.. I have seen vapor'ish-ware.. but not full blown diaphanous-pipe-dream-vapor-ware..

      I think this calls for a new definition.. Perhaps "dream-ware" or "never-ware".. maybe "talk-ware"

      The term is "slideware" meaning someone made up a presentation, but that's about it... ;-)

      And what is up with all the Apple news today?

      Apple is doing some really great things lately. My next few thousand or so of hardware money is likely headed in that direction.

      --
      Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
      Score: -1 100% Flamebait
    3. Re:not a line of code... by joeldg · · Score: 1

      Yea, a lot our techs here are getting new apples..
      In particular some of our windows guys who have been hounded by us linux users for a long time (can't resist taking a jab at a guy who gets a new worm every other week) are going mac. Looking around I see several new mac laptops in the office.

      I think that whole deal with this crap about he slideware, as you call it, is more than likely some investor strategy to make a quick buck.. sort of like what those sco monkeys are doing.. but that is whole different can of worms..

    4. Re:not a line of code... by butane_bob2003 · · Score: 1

      how about "pump-up-your-stock-ware"? If they were attempting to do anything but that, they would have been very, very far behind in their development process at the outset. Of course, I could write an x86 while reading the morning paper before breakfast.

      --


      TallGreen CMS hosting
    5. Re:not a line of code... by mshaslam · · Score: 1

      fraud-ware?

    6. Re:not a line of code... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      totally

      how many people paid money for something that didnt exist???

  22. Sad, Sad, Sad by N8F8 · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    So the liars get to cash in their stock valued with the market expectation of this updated product. Sadly, they'll get away with it too.

    --
    "God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
  23. Won't initially run on a G5? by wirelessbuzzers · · Score: 1

    Do they mean, won't initially run with G5 optimizations? Because the G5 is supposed to be binary-compatible with the G4... or does it check your proc version and then refuse to run?

    --
    I hereby place the above post in the public domain.
    1. Re:Won't initially run on a G5? by TheDredd · · Score: 1

      Do they mean, won't initially run with G5 optimizations?

      It means, it won't run on anything, ever again

      The source code is missing, and rewriting this kind of stuff from the ground up would require a little work, a little to much work that is.. or were you talking about Virtual PC? :)

    2. Re:Won't initially run on a G5? by Daniel_Staal · · Score: 1

      No, it means it will not run on a G5 at all.

      Supposedly it needs specific features of the G4, though I'm not sure I believe that. (Though I don't blame MS; they haven't had time to do anything to it yet.)

      --
      'Sensible' is a curse word.
    3. Re:Won't initially run on a G5? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The G5 is user mode binary compatible with the G4. At the privileged level where Virtual PC runs, compatibility is not there.

  24. Re:Now isn't *that* a surprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    actually, no one from the former management is employed any longer at FWB... In fact, they have had almost a 100% turnover in the last month except for the contract programmers...

  25. Re:Wow by luckyguesser · · Score: 1

    I'm not surprised. The whole "friendly computing" image that apple has crafted over the years is just that, an image.

    Maybe they should pair up with Enron and Martha Stewart. =P

    --


    The power of Christ compiles you.
    A Random Blog
  26. Re:Now isn't *that* a surprise? by demo9orgon · · Score: 3, Funny

    Ugh!

    I just had this terrible vision of a thousand foot Venn diagram towering over a blackened charred world lit only by buzzing corporate logos, displaying the visual for your assertion, supported on the backs of countless Discrete mathematicians who are happily writing proofs despite the onerous weight of what they bear...

    Damn, this is good Diet Pepsi (the essential 12939 formula sans corn syrup).

    --
    Every new form of media has it's own Requirimento
  27. Re:Now isn't *that* a surprise? by larkost · · Score: 5, Informative

    Actually it was a hostile shareholder revolt. In fact the old management has been playing a lot of games (locking the new management out of offices, removing documentation, stealing computers, etc...). There was a nice little article about it written by the new manager (can't find the link now).

    So could someone drop the "Insightful" mod off the parent comment, and add an "uninformed" one?

  28. Re:Now isn't *that* a surprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Comment from a logic nazi...

    The union of OLD and NEW management would consist of the set of OLD management plus the set of NEW management minus the intersection of OLD and NEW.

    This has the curious property as follows:

    count(OLD union NEW) >= count(OLD)

    and

    count(OLD union NEW) >= count(NEW).

    So the size of the union would be at least as high as either group's size.

    You obviously meant intersection, so I'll stop being a jackass... :)

  29. Re:Now isn't *that* a surprise? by BlueGecko · · Score: 5, Informative

    Actually, I feel very sorry for the new management. According to this interview with the new CEO, the old management literally locked their offices, stole the equipment, and has generally made life for the new people a living hell. Although I suppose it's possible that the entire interview at that site was staged, and honestly do not know the background story behind the whole escapade, it does not appear to me as if this was a SCO-like deceptive tactic by the old managers to try to get out of a bind.

  30. Re:Wine site still open by tomhudson · · Score: 2, Informative
    poster wrote:
    On another more disturbing note I just went to http://www.winehq.com/ and it's been closed?! Anyone know the story behind that?
    It's not closed - if you read the page, it gives a link to the site's main page as well as telling you that, in 20 seconds, you'll be redirected to a site to fight software patents if you don't click the link.
  31. Vaporware? by siskbc · · Score: 2, Funny

    (Insert obligatory Duke Nukem reference here)

    --

    -Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat

  32. Generic CEOs by fizban · · Score: 4, Funny

    For more information please contact ceo@fwb.com

    So you never have to update your address book when the CEO of the company changes, because it happens a lot...

    --

    +1 Insightful, -1 Troll. What can I say, I'm an Insightful Troll.

  33. You mean something like this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.sun.com/desktop/products/sunpci/

  34. In other news... by stames · · Score: 1

    In a related story, Lindon, Utah based SCO has sued software maker FWB for "allegedly using three Roman alphabet characters in its moniker." According to SCO chief Darl McBride, "we realized that IBM might have been copying our naming conventions by using the three-roman-character (TRC) advanced naming system, and clearly FWB is doing the same. I'm very disappointed that they have come to this." McBride also said that they might have to go after AT&T next because, "we're not sure yet, but our lawyer Mr. Boies has determined that the ampersand doesn't really count."

  35. Wine? *FAST*??? by siskbc · · Score: 1, Flamebait
    which is one of the reasons Wine is so fast.

    Bwahahahahaha!

    --

    -Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat

  36. Duke Nukem 3D by iamacat · · Score: 1

    Wait, could it mean...? Holy shit!

  37. pseudo little-endian mode by frankie · · Score: 4, Informative
    Since this article doesn't even include a link about VPC, I can't curmudgeonly tell you to RTFA. So...

    The G3 and G4 series include support for both big- and little-endian modes. VPC uses assembly-level little-endian instructions for obvious performance reasons. The G5 is only big-endian. Poof.

    1. Re:pseudo little-endian mode by 11223 · · Score: 1

      WRONG! The G5 still implements full little-endian mode. MS's blowing smoke out their ass. Even if a few instructions were removed, that would not force them to rewrite it.

    2. Re:pseudo little-endian mode by rootofevil · · Score: 1

      i suppose we will see when the g5 actually starts shipping, and see how well it runs.

      the proof will be in the pudding, methinks.

      --
      turn up the jukebox and tell me a lie
    3. Re:pseudo little-endian mode by frankie · · Score: 4, Informative
      G5 still implements full little-endian mode

      Sorry if I mis-phrased my explanation; the last time I did assembly programming was a decade ago on MC68k.

      The exact missing capability is called pseudo little-endian mode. According to some old documentation, this will "make memory appear to the processor as true little-endian by playing with the addresses of load/stores, but without reversing any bytes. The result is a fast, simulated little-endian world, but it's not true little-endian in memory - numbers do not have reversed bytes, but their starting addresses are changed."
    4. Re:pseudo little-endian mode by b1t+r0t · · Score: 1
      I thought little-endian mode was a part of the PowerPC spec, and wasn't optional. But I don't know for sure, so it's possible that it is optional and also possible (though IMHO unlikely) that IBM wouldn't support it in the 970 (I think they even support the legacy POWER instructions that haven't been in a PPC since the 601). Maybe there's something missing in the external bus logic that makes little-endian mode not work.

      Right now, my money's on Microsoft talking out of their ass. Although this makes for a nice forced upgrade path, wouldn't you admit? Version 1 wouldn't run on a G3, forcing an upgrade there, and now the current version won't work on a G5.

      I think that the people who wrote VPC were just coding a little too close to the bare metal. It's hard to make a user app incompatible with a new CPU, but I suppose it's possible. Maybe it's even an interaction between VPC and the Darwin kernel that doesn't work on a 64-bit CPU.

      --

      --
      "Open source is good." - Steve Jobs
      "Open source is evil." - Microsoft
    5. Re:pseudo little-endian mode by lordDallan · · Score: 1

      From this article at MacCentral.

      "Virtual PC for Mac Version 6.1 will not run on the new G5 machines," MacBU Product Manager, Jessica Sommer, told MacCentral. "G5 users will get an error dialog letting them know that Virtual PC does not support the CPU in their Macintosh. The dialog allows the user to click directly to the Mactopia Web site to access support information."

      Virtual PC relies on a feature in the G3 and G4 processors that is no longer present in the G5 chip. Sommer said that Microsoft is rewriting large portions of the Virtual PC code to make it compatible with the new processor.

      So version 6.1 (recently released by MS) will NOT run on any Mac with a G5 processor.

  38. Toss the bastards in jail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obviously the ex management had one goal in mind...pump the stock up and SELL. Mother f-kers. Put them in jail. Obviously that's against SEC rules.

    I say shoot every fucking CEO/CFO in the country...that'll teach em!

  39. Include emulation engine *under* WINE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    You could also run an emulation engine like QEMU *under* WINE, so that WINE itself was emulated.

    Although still young QEMU already supports this, on PowerPC Linux no less. All it needs is an OS X port.

  40. CEO Interview by Srsen · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Here's quite an interesting interview with the new CEO that reveals just what a bunch of crooks the former management were. Interesting read:

    http://macdiscussion.com/article_show.php3?artic le _id_var=241

    1. Re:CEO Interview by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Working Link

      It's just html. If you can't write an "a href" what are you on slashdot.

  41. Re:Wine? *FAST*??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Hey, it's not WINE's fault the window API sucks. There a number of programs that run faster under WINE than they do under Windows. Of course there are even more programs that just crash, so that's not much of a victory.

    Still, the WINE is slow thing is pretty much a myth now.

  42. Re:MacOS X ported to slashcode. by Squidgee · · Score: 1
    No apt-get?

    Go install fink. =)

  43. How fast is it? by axxackall · · Score: 1, Flamebait
    Can it run with a reasonable speed windows games? How about multimedia? Do Flash and Media player run without problems?

    What CPU and memory does it require? Can it work on G3?

    --

    Less is more !
    1. Re:How fast is it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why on earth would you want to run flash and media player under bochs when there are OS X native versions of both? Why??

    2. Re:How fast is it? by SuperDuperMan · · Score: 1

      The poster didn't ask you if you should run it but if you COULD run it. A simple yes or no would suffice. There are plenty of reasons why having a fully functional x86 emulator running at a reasonable speed is desirable. Perhaps there is a media player that they want to run or a codex that isn't available on the Mac. I know that while VLC works pretty well for most videos it's a bit on the buggy side and I'd rather for the most part run Windows Media Player in XP in an emulator.

  44. Other news... by leomekenkamp · · Score: 2, Funny

    Other news of today:

    Duke Nukem Forever has gone into beta, according to a spokesman from 3D Realms: "[Duke Nukem Forever] is good on track, and we are looking forward to the moment the code comes out of beta stage and goes into production."

    Rumors about a management buy-out by angry Duke Dukem fans were said to be "(...) completely unfounded and untrue (...)". There were reports of large groups of DNF fans, who collectively put $0.05 in their bank accounts when DNF was first announced; the plan was to use the accumulated interest for the management buy-out.

    --
    Wenn ist das Nunstueck git und Slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput.
    1. Re:Other news... by parliboy · · Score: 1

      But a few more weeks and they'll be able to score that can of anchovies that Mom's been eyeing.

      --
      "You're never ready, just less unprepared."
  45. RealPC? Why not WINE? by Dr.+Zowie · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Shouldn't WINE run OK under MacOS X?

  46. Re:Now isn't *that* a surprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I have trouble with this:
    "Since taking over F.W.B. software on July 17th one of the first priorities was determining the status of all development work on going by FWB."

    "it appears not a single line of code has been written."

    It took them until August 27 2003 to admit it. What was the hold up? Trying to figure out if the new management could maintain the lie?

  47. Re:Wine? *FAST*??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Yay for ignorance! \o/

    Seriously, Wine is speedy. The only slowness comes from the Win32 to X11 stuffs, everything else is essentially as fast as Windows.

  48. If Mac is so great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...why the need for something like this?

    Oh, I'm aware of lots of good reasons, but when Mac people speak up here, they make it sound like Macs have everything PCs have, and more, and better. Not to mention pricier.

    So what's the fuzz about? Really.

    1. Re:If Mac is so great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know how to answer your question. My Mac don't need no stinkin emulation.But then again, I don't have a need to run any PC only apps.

      If I did, I'd just buy a white box from the local computer guy. Must be corporate drones that need it.

    2. Re:If Mac is so great... by ElGanzoLoco · · Score: 1

      No matter how great your applications are, there is always somebody requesting YOU to use windows programs...

      Your boss may be a good example; or a friend that sends you his summer JPEG pictures in a nice .exe package.

      --
      Hello! I'm a disaster waiting to happen!
  49. CONSPIRACY! by teamhasnoi · · Score: 0, Interesting
    The 'new' management is the old management. The only new thing is the $$$/threats of lawsuits that MS gave them to 'vapor' the product. Recall that RealPC it was 'on hold' because MS had some issues

    MS is pulling another MS monopoly action - they are using their marketshare/IP-share in emulation to kill work on others! Those Bastards!

    ....Or the one guy they had working on it decided to go work at Taco Bell where the paychecks were bigger...

  50. Wine through Bochs by axxackall · · Score: 2, Informative
    1. install Bochs on your Mac;
    2. install Linux in that Bochs;
    3. install Wine in that Linux;
    4. compare the speed with direct Windows in bochs;
    5. ...
    6. no profit! just kidding :)
    Well, actual benefit of Wine in Bochs would be that you don't need actual distro of Windows. Or do you?
    --

    Less is more !
  51. Re:Don't run that crap by Fly+Ricky+-+The+Wine · · Score: 1

    One time I only had access to a windows-only scanner and I desperately needed to scan some files (onto my OSX box.) And after much head scratching and trying to figure out how in the world it could be possible... I realized I had Virtual PC and could install the device drivers in VPC, and have it access the scanner through USB emulation. I felt like I had just friggin cured cancer. It was a beautiful moment, enhanced by the fact that I stole the copy of VPC :) It's actually quite useful for very specific things, you'd be surprised. And I hate Microsoft as much as the next guy, trust me. It's really infuriating that they've bought VPC (and probably won't develop it.) Seems like it's kinda against their anti-trust ruling. Oh wait, they ignore that anyway.

  52. Conspiracy conspiracy!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd bet they had a fully functional RealPC for MacOS X, that mysteriously 'vaporized' when they were bought out by MS. Now who's telling the truth?

  53. Time for hardware fix by Glock27 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    G5s have PCI-X slots. Someone should make an ~$200 x86 card with sufficient performance to run Windows. Perhaps a low-power AMD Duron plus integrated graphics and up to, say, 1 GB RAM (256 MB standard). Mass storage could come from some virtualized Mac resources...perhaps Samba. Low-power Athlons could be used for upscale versions with more performance.

    I'm sure Microsoft would go for an OEM bundle approach on XP Home, so that would only add $30 or so (maybe less). What did the emulators cost?

    The only downside to this approach is that it involves opening the case and inserting a card, anathema for many Mac people. The obvious answer is a micro-form-factor PC hooked up via Firewire 800, with some (simple) custom software to handle display on the Mac. This should go for under $300.

    OK, now that we have a business plan, who's ready to hire me as CTO? :-)

    --
    Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
    Score: -1 100% Flamebait
    1. Re:Time for hardware fix by faedle · · Score: 1
      Wow, this sounds soooo familiar. A "minority hardware" platform that provided PC compatibility by installing a card that had an x86 processor, and provided access to machine resources through virtualized hardware.

      Wouldn't it be even better if this "minority hardware" computer ran a really thin operating system that was tweaked towards graphics performance and pre-emptive multitasking, and included a bus architecture that looks a lot like an early version of PCI? Then, we can rest on our laurels and do no R&D, and hire a bunch of crooked management to steer our company right in to the ol' crapper.

      Nope. Can't imagine where I've seen this scenario before.

      "But I'm not bitter."

    2. Re:Time for hardware fix by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      The obvious answer is a micro-form-factor PC hooked up via Firewire 800, with some (simple) custom software to handle display on the Mac. This should go for under $300.

      Use VNC and IP over Firewire. As CTO you can send royalties to my paypal account. :)

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    3. Re:Time for hardware fix by DocTee · · Score: 1

      i feel your pain :)

      i've actually just set up an a1200 in my front room for gaming on, its still just as fun as it always was - although using plain workbench really reminds you how far we've come!

      --
      - doctea
    4. Re:Time for hardware fix by b1t+r0t · · Score: 2, Informative
      I guess you don't remember the 486 cards from the old days. It was a stunning flop. Too expensive, too underpowered, and almost nobody cared. It was cheaper, simpler, and more flexible to duct tape a real PC to the side of the box and add a KVM switch.

      Oh, and by the way, "integrated graphics" is a codeword for "cheap crappy graphics chip that satsfies Ma and Pa, but any serious gamer will disable in favor of his own card". Oops, there's no AGP slot on your PC-on-a-card!

      What I want to see is Windows apps running as separate apps in separate windows, just like Apple's X11 does. Not one big window that pretends to be a screen. And no stupid Start menu. Even nicer would be to make the apps support a real menu bar (ditto for X11), but considering all the Windows apps that make the menu bar into a toolbar, this might be tricky.

      --

      --
      "Open source is good." - Steve Jobs
      "Open source is evil." - Microsoft
    5. Re:Time for hardware fix by Glock27 · · Score: 1
      I guess you don't remember the 486 cards from the old days. It was a stunning flop. Too expensive, too underpowered, and almost nobody cared.

      None of those criticisms apply to this product, however. ;^)

      It was cheaper, simpler, and more flexible to duct tape a real PC to the side of the box and add a KVM switch.

      Cheaper and more flexible, but definitely not simpler.

      Oh, and by the way, "integrated graphics" is a codeword for "cheap crappy graphics chip that satsfies Ma and Pa, but any serious gamer will disable in favor of his own card". Oops, there's no AGP slot on your PC-on-a-card!

      First of all, gamers will play native G5 games rather than their PC counterparts.

      Secondly, if the new ATI integrated graphics parts are used, they are sufficient for mid-level gaming if there's no Mac port available. They certainly aren't "crappy".

      What I want to see is Windows apps running as separate apps in separate windows, just like Apple's X11 does. Not one big window that pretends to be a screen. And no stupid Start menu. Even nicer would be to make the apps support a real menu bar (ditto for X11), but considering all the Windows apps that make the menu bar into a toolbar, this might be tricky.

      Why would you want that? Almost all Mac users who need this need to run an occasional Windows app alongside all their Mac stuff. That single app running full-screen in a single virtual desktop works fine.

      If you need more, just allow multiple Windows "displays". No big deal.

      --
      Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
      Score: -1 100% Flamebait
    6. Re:Time for hardware fix by Glock27 · · Score: 1
      Too expensive

      By the way, one more point about this: Virtual PC bundled with a copy of Win XP Home is $219.99 at CompUSA. I'm pretty sure that price could be beat with a hardware solution - which would run faster, use fewer Mac resources and be 100% compatible. And heck, how cool would it be to have an x86 Linux node in your Mac when you don't need Windows? ;-)

      As far as I can tell, not counting NRE costs, the raw materials per board should be less than $100 - lower yet with sufficient volume.

      --
      Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
      Score: -1 100% Flamebait
    7. Re:Time for hardware fix by SengirV · · Score: 2, Informative
      The only downside to this approach is that it involves opening the case and inserting a card, anathema for many Mac people.

      Not since the advent of the B&W, and before that Apple invited people to muck around inside. If you are basing your knowledge on 1984 information, then I have to question your opinion.

      --

      Prof. Farnsworth - "Oh a lesson in not changing history from Mr I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!"

  54. Funny by bogie · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You can Google for this vaporware and see promises from as recent as 2 months ago that everything is on track.

    This Mark Prewitt who was vice president of sales and marketing is caught pretty bad here.

    http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/2003/06/10/f wb /

    "Unfortunately, the same guys that do the development had to do the rebranding," said Prewitt. "We're all wearing different hats. We ended up ceasing development on it for about a week," he said."

    Only a week eh? LOL.

    --
    If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
    1. Re:Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Prewitt and his partner Mark Strathdee (I think everyone in the company has a first name of Mark) could sell ice cubes to eskimos, but where was the rest of the management team when all this was going on? what were they doing? and now they are stepping in and will make the world a happy place again?

      here's some cool-aid......

  55. Re:RealPC? Why not WINE? by Wumpus · · Score: 1

    It won't run Windows binaries, because it merely provides the Win32 APIs. The hardware CPU still runs the actual code.

    It can probably be used to compile native PPC binaries of Win32 apps, if you have the source code.

  56. Then you never saw Ovation. by dpbsmith · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What year was it? Maybe 1982 or 1983... Lotus 1-2-3 was the hottest success story in the history of the personal computer.

    Not just the trade press, but the the mainstream business press was raving about the hot new product, Ovation. It was going to have more rows and columns that Lotus ever dreamed of. It had fabulous screen shots and videos showing how it would work. And it had really, really professional management, MBA's all, who were doing the best job yet of raising financing--something like $7 million--lining up distributions deals with Tandy Radio Shack, and so forth and so on.

    It was taken absolutely seriously by everyone from Byte to The Wall Street Journal. Everyone thought it would be a serious rival to 1-2-3.

    The business geniuses who dreamed it up did everything right and didn't miss on a single detail. Oh, well, one little detail maybe--they never started development of the product.

  57. What in the world are you smoking? by danaris · · Score: 3, Insightful

    All right, I'll bite.

    You obviously know NOTHING about porting. It's hundreds, nay, thousands of times more complex than your misguided and bizarre impression of it. Mac IE and Office are nothing close to an "easy recompile" of the Windows versions. If this were true, it would mean there'd be no point in not porting anything except for wanting to shut someone else out.

    The most important difference is that Windows and Mac use vastly different APIs (Windows's is called Win32, I believe, and the Mac uses Carbon and Cocoa). All the API calls need to be changed, and a lot of data structures have to be changed to the other side's API-specific structures. There are also different interface demands (Apple has particular UI guidelines, like you have to have certain items under certain menus; Windows probably has something similar, but I'm not familiar with it). There's a lot more, but I've never ported anything, so I don't know offhand what it is, and it would go on for too long anyway. And that's certainly more than enough.

    Anyway, you're an idiot. They can't just "recompile their software to run on the Mac if they [feel] like it"; that's what the whole Mac Business Unit is for, porting to the Mac. This is, of course, a totally different issue than what the poster is talking about. So, have a nice day!

    Dan Aris
    PS Yeah, I fed a troll. So sue me.

    --
    Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
    1. Re:What in the world are you smoking? by alienw · · Score: 0, Troll

      It's considerably easier to port something than to make it run under an emulator. As to API calls -- that's where various layers of abstraction come in useful. If properly designed, a program should not be hard to port to any platform that offers the necessary features. I am sure Microsoft knows what the hell they are doing, given that they have been in the business for quite a while.

      Besides, don't you think that if Microsoft changed the interface to port stuff to the mac, they would not be able to just sell an emulated version that looks exactly like windows? You are not making any sense.

      Also, the Mac Business Unit is there not because it's difficult to port but because the software needs to be sold to mac users who are very different from windows users. Ever notice that Mac Office and Windows Office look nothing like each other? I don't think it's because of porting difficulties; it's more about getting artsy-fartsy, picky as hell Mac users to buy Microsoft software.

    2. Re:What in the world are you smoking? by danaris · · Score: 1

      But if you write an emulator (or have one that already exists), you only need to do that once. On the other hand, each piece of software needs to be ported separately. And sometimes it's really hard to get the necessary abstraction to work properly. I can attest to this, since I'm currently trying to write a program on the Mac that I want to make portable to Windows (probably not port it myself, but maybe if I'm real bored...).

      As to your second paragraph, I'm afraid I don't understand what the heck you're trying to say. Do you mean "They can make it look like Mac, so they can emulate it, and it will look like Windows"? If so, then duh, of course they can, since they have an emulator now. But that seems like a pretty pointless statement, so I'm not really sure what you're driving at....

      And while your description of Mac users is one point of view, another is simply that Mac users tend to appreciate good UI design. One of the reasons MS has been ripping of the Mac's UI design from the get-go.

      Dan Aris

      --
      Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
    3. Re:What in the world are you smoking? by Valdrax · · Score: 1

      As to API calls -- that's where various layers of abstraction come in useful. If properly designed, a program should not be hard to port to any platform that offers the necessary features.

      As a person who works almost entirely on maintaining the UNIX port of a Windows/UNIX application where 90% of its developers only work on Windows, I can tell you that first-hand that this isn't as easy as you say. First, you have to design the software from ground-up to be portable. That means making sure that you never call system-specific APIs where possible and always step through the abstraction layer. If your application wasn't designed to be ported at the very beginning, then going back through the codebase and retooling all calls to native system calls is extremely time-consuming and leaves behind terribly unmaintainable code. Second, even if you did do a nice abstraction layer, platform-specific demands for features will eventually render your abstraction layer harder and harder to maintain. It isn't that it's impossible to have cleanly implemented abstraction layer that doesn't build up horrible kluges over time -- it's just extremely time-consuming and thus considered economically unfeasable in the real world.

      Because of the slow decay of portability layers over time, it's actually far easier to just write single-platform code. Backend code tends to be easy to write portably, but front-end code is always nightmarish when going between GUI and graphics libraries. OpenGL vs. DirectX, Motif vs. Win32, COM vs. CORBA -- the small incompatibilities between the way these libraries work always results in some horrible glue code.

      I am sure Microsoft knows what the hell they are doing, given that they have been in the business for quite a while.

      Me too. This is why the Mac Business Unit has a completely separate codebase for IE for Mac. This is one reason why IE for Mac was far more standards-compliant and far more bug-free than IE for Windows. They didn't share ANY code.

      Ever notice that Mac Office and Windows Office look nothing like each other? I don't think it's because of porting difficulties [...]

      The fact that the two products don't resemble each other at all should be the first warning that they have a lot of code that is not shared between the two platforms. MS tried straight-up porting the suite back in the 90s, and it was disasterously received on the Mac for 3 reasons -- it didn't look like a Mac app at (including the previous versions of Word, Excel, etc.), it was slow and a memory hog, and it was buggy. All of these were because of the disasterous backporting effort to take the Windows codebase and use it on the Mac. They essentially wrote a huge library that contained large chunks of the Windows APIs ported to run on top of the MacOS APIs. (This is ironic since all of these applications started on the Mac and were ported to Windows from there before the differences between the two were considered to be "unmaintainable.") Over the years since then, the Mac version of Office has eliminated more and more ported Windows code and gone back to using more and more MacOS-only code. There were serious porting difficulties with their software. That's why they prefer to just treat the two as separate codebases whenever possible.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    4. Re:What in the world are you smoking? by johnnyb · · Score: 1

      " It's considerably easier to port something than to make it run under an emulator."

      This is incorrect. If the emulator is any good, it shouldn't need anything else to make it run.

      "As to API calls -- that's where various layers of abstraction come in useful. If properly designed, a program should not be hard to port to any platform that offers the necessary features."

      It depends on what you mean by "not be hard". If "not be hard" means it will take 6 months to a year, and then you have to maintain two separate code bases for the rest of your life, I'll agree. It will allow you to take less time than, say, rewriting from scratch, but it won't make it easy by any stretch of the imagination.

      "Ever notice that Mac Office and Windows Office look nothing like each other? I don't think it's because of porting difficulties; "

      It's not because of porting _difficulties_, it's because Mac behaves differently than Windows. It would be idiotic to have a Office behave like a Windows program - they're running a Mac for crying out loud - they didn't WANT windows.

      Now, if you want to see a UI abomination that came from porting APIs, check out Photoshop for Windows. That whole "screen takes over everything" is Windows-specific, because they were using less-than-perfect porting API.

      Now, in all honesty, Windows developers usually do not code in the modular fashion you describe. In fact, Microsoft usually has entire teams set up to do the porting effort. In fact, often times with Microsoft the ports to other platforms are essentially rewrites with similar specifications. Mac IE 5 was like that - the codebase for that and Windows IE 5 had almost no sharing.

    5. Re:What in the world are you smoking? by prichardson · · Score: 1

      Quick note: Microsoft's mac department doesn't port, they write from the ground up. They copy features from windows versions of software and a little UI stuff but mostly they do it all different. Why do you think that Office X is actually better than the windows version? The same thing is true about IE.

      --
      Help I'm a rock.
    6. Re:What in the world are you smoking? by kherr · · Score: 2, Informative

      Quick note: Microsoft's mac department doesn't port, they write from the ground up.

      They tried doing just a port at one point, and brought the Mac community Word 6. It was so god-awful that Microsoft was losing customers in droves. That's when they created the current MacBU which writes good stuff. Office v.X is arguably much better than its Windows counterpart.

  58. Re:RealPC? Why not WINE? by Qwaniton · · Score: 1

    Wine is an abstraction layer, not an emulator. WINE runs native x86 code. Last I knew the Mac wasn't an x86 machine.

  59. How slow is Bochs? by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 1

    It's faster to run apps on a slow PocketPC using XT-CE, say, than run them under Bochs with a fast Apple. Admittedly XT-CE only emulates up to a 80186 but it's better to emulate that than have something so slow you can't actually do anything useful with it.

    --
    Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
  60. RFID Tag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a special tag, it is number AF16E82R665TLS8.

  61. You need an update by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hawash pled guilty.

  62. Crap by Sir+Rhosys · · Score: 2, Funny

    How am I suppose to play Duke Nukem Forever on my wife's new Mac?

    --

    Use Python

    1. Re:Crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "How am I suppose to play Duke Nukem Forever on my wife's new Mac?"

      The forthcoming quad processor G6 comes with OSXI's predictive multitasking, which gives the capacity to decompile x86 code and recompile as PPC code in the background before you even know you want to do it.

      Besides, DNF runs as fast on currently available Macintosh models as it does on Wintel machines.

  63. my thought... by greenskyx · · Score: 1

    I always imagined that this product was vaporware. I'm willing to bet that FWB was just trying to get MS to pay them to not produce the product.

  64. The REAL reason by not_a_george · · Score: 1

    Everyone is missing the real reason no code was even made.
    They were trying to figure out how to fake numbers that made it look like realPC ran faster than anything in the world!

    --
    Linux: Helping nerds look smarter since the late 90s.
  65. MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    informative

  66. Also announced today by rf0 · · Score: 1

    The next Windows releaase will be guarenetted to be bug free and work on 286+. Also it will be free. And fairies will becomign out of Bill Gates' Arse

    rus

    1. Re:Also announced today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [quote] And fairies will becomign out of Bill Gates' Arse [/quote] Thats not much different than normal. They've been "comming" IN his ass for ages. Thank you, thank you, I'll be here all night.

  67. Tech Industry Circa 1987-1989 by razberry636 · · Score: 1
    I guess you weren't paying attention to the tech industry circa 1997-2000.

    Or even before that.

    I seem to remember back in the MS-DOS days when the Macintosh was gaining market share. Two companies independently announced that they were each going to start developing a windowing environment to allow x86 machines to behave like the Macintosh. MS jumped in and said that they too, have been working on something like that, and (get this) they were almost done.

    I haven't heard from the original two since then about any result of this (and I can't remember who they were). My guess is that they read MS's press release and gave up. After all, how could they compete when MS was obviously going to have first to market advantage and that they were, well, Microsoft?

    I don't remember if MS actually released Windows on time, but I heard that Windows 1 was instantly rejected by consumers, and Windows 2 met a similar fate. I'm sure you remember what 3 was like.

    1. Re:Tech Industry Circa 1987-1989 by rworne · · Score: 1

      DESQview from Quarterdeck perhaps? They had a spiffy multitasking OS that ran on top of DOS. It was practically required if you only had one PC and hosted a BBS.

      It rapidly disappeared once MS released Windows.

      To your other point, there was a Windows 286 and Windows 386 that predated Windows 3.0. And yes, they sucked. I still got the floppies for one of them floating around somewhere...

      --
      I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
    2. Re:Tech Industry Circa 1987-1989 by TomV · · Score: 1

      Three that I know of. VisiCorp's VisiOn, Digital Research GEM and QuarterDeck DesqView all predated Windows 1.

      GEM came on our Amstrad PC512, and was fine if you could find the apps for it. Which I couldn't. The same was apparently true of VisiOn, and both of these died young. But both were real graphical OSs (DR's GEM, of course, was a 'derivative work' of CP/M, and the PC also came with Concurrent CP/M 86, which which was pretty fab, and frankly a whole lot more useful than GEM).

      DesqView was too costly for me to have played with it, but it got great reviews and seemed very desirable from afar. It wasn't an OS as such, but a GUI wrapper on top of DOS, which seemed like a fiendishly clever wheeze, and meant it could run serious apps like WordStar and VisiCalc. So fiendishly clever that one Mr W H Gates decided to do something similar, though it took version 3 of his product to deal the coup-de-grace...

      TomV

    3. Re:Tech Industry Circa 1987-1989 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Might one of them have been a product called Geoworks? I remember using this as a graphical desktop environment in the early 1990's...

  68. This was a total surprise! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And, even if they were working on it, they won't be any longer.

    Come on, really now! Do you think M$ in any way, shape or form was going let such a product come into being or, if already existant, let it continue to live on in any company they owned? If so, I have a secure version of Windows Server 2003 to sell you!

  69. Bochs Wine by rmiller021 · · Score: 1

    Ok here is my 2 cents.

    Bochs is a free X86 emulator.

    Wine needs an x86 processor to work with windows aps.

    Why can someone take them and put them together?
    Write a simple linux distro to forward everything to Apple's x11.

    --
    What happened to my robot, I was promised a robot.
    1. Re:Bochs Wine by WatertonMan · · Score: 2, Informative
      Bochs would be way too slow. Virtual PC does a lot of things to get even the speed it does. The reason it doesn't work on the G5 is because it was the sole program to use a little known feature of PPC chips to help it emulate x86 code. (Basically dealing with endian issues - the x86 and PPC store their numbers in different ways) This feature was dropped by IBM with the G5.

      Writing an emulator is a non-obvious problem if you want reasonable performance.

    2. Re:Bochs Wine by demon · · Score: 1

      You're saying it flips the CPU into little-endian mode when its timeslice comes up, and uses that so it doesn't have to handle endianness on its own? /me laughs till he's sobbing... that's amazing. Not to mention really pretty lame... but hey.

      --

      Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
      Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
    3. Re:Bochs Wine by WatertonMan · · Score: 1

      Why is that lame? Consider the speed difference between letting the CPU handle it versus handling conversions yourself. It adds up.

    4. Re:Bochs Wine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a simple solution that works quite well.
      install X11 from Apple.
      Log into Linux using ssh -X and any X11 application display is sent back to OS X

      later

  70. sorta done before by boomerny · · Score: 4, Informative

    Orange Micro sold PCI card PC's for Macs for years, you can still check the specs on their discontinued product page. A cool idea but it never really caught on.

    1. Re:sorta done before by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      Sun also made 486 cards for their Sparcstations, though I'm not sure whether they were ever released as official products: I had a prototype for a while in one of my previous jobs. The problem was that the overhead of getting data in and out of the card was pretty substantial, so AFAIR it wasn't that much faster than software unless you were running something CPU-intensive that didn't do much I/O.

    2. Re:sorta done before by Glock27 · · Score: 1
      The problem was that the overhead of getting data in and out of the card was pretty substantial, so AFAIR it wasn't that much faster than software unless you were running something CPU-intensive that didn't do much I/O.

      Not sure why there was that much of a bottleneck with S-Bus, but both PCI-X and Firewire 800 have plenty of bandwidth.

      --
      Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
      Score: -1 100% Flamebait
    3. Re:sorta done before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Firewire 800 does not have anything near the bandwidth necessary for this sort of thing.

      A P4 has a 6.4 GB/s system bus. PCI-X does maybe 1 GB/s. Firewire does ~100 MB/s.

    4. Re:sorta done before by Glock27 · · Score: 1
      Firewire 800 does not have anything near the bandwidth necessary for this sort of thing.

      A P4 has a 6.4 GB/s system bus. PCI-X does maybe 1 GB/s. Firewire does ~100 MB/s.

      Please define "this sort of thing". I'm sure we have "a failure to communicate".

      There is a frontside bus on the card, providing an interface to local DDR memory (ala the 6.4 GB/s system bus). That is independent of the bus connection to the host computer. Believe me, Firewire 800 will do just fine for virtualizing display and storage...and those are the only two issues. In fact, the card should also have an (Gigabit) Ethernet port so it can function as a second network connection / firewall etc. Another cool use as a "slave" Linux/Windows node - with zero overhead for the host computer compared to a normal network card.

      Actually, the more I think about this idea, the more I like it. The fact that it isn't original with me really has nothing to do with it. :-)

      I have a local PCI-X capable design firm on tap. C'mon, there *must* be some interest out there! :-)

      --
      Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
      Score: -1 100% Flamebait
    5. Re:sorta done before by bjb · · Score: 1

      Sun did make a Pentium (II?) based board for their UltraSPARC workstations (I think the Ultra 10 had the option). I never saw one, but I do distinctly remember reading that the capability was available from Sun.

      --
      Never hit your grandmother with a shovel, for it leaves a bad impression on her mind...
  71. Why does it matter? by moankey · · Score: 3, Insightful

    At this point buying a low end PC can be as much as $199.99 on a good sale day, with or without an OS. Sometimes you get lucky and Windows XX is on it.
    The cost of Virtual PC is already close to $199. Unless having a PC is so visually unappealing that you can only have Apple's around.

    1. Re:Why does it matter? by mkelley · · Score: 1

      If you test under multiple enviroments, Linux and the various Windows, it gets cramped under a desk with all of those PCs. I use VirtualPC so I can test websites under all of the Windows and a few Linuxs without a kvm and the extra floor space.

      I have a nice G4 with lots of memory, so the PCs work decent. And if I need to test a variant of one of my test PCs, it's easer to clone a PC image, than setup another machine.

      I'm really OS agnostic.....I'll use anything to get my job done. But the Mac just is my preference.

      --

      m.kelley
      life is like a freeway, if you don't look you could miss it.
  72. OpenOSX is iffy by Whumpsnatz · · Score: 5, Informative

    I attempted to purchase something from OpenOSX, and never received anything. To their credit, they eventually refunded my money - but only after I resorted to vulgar screaming emails to whoever I could find. There certainly was nothing helpful on their site to address the problem.

    Of course, now I'm glad I never got anything from them.

  73. Pfft. by Jerk+City+Troll · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Isn't it odd that Ms does not plan to relaese Virtual PC for the G5?

    Microsoft like doesn't want to give more reasons for people to move to Apple's platform. VirtualPC is really a program for facilitating a transition to Apple's platform from Wintel. Of course, it's too early to jump the gun and say that Microsoft are being anti-competitive.

    I mean it'd be good revenue if every mac user had to buy VPc and WinXP just so that they can play Doom3 or whatnot..

    VirtualPC can't use the native 3D hardware accelleration. There are no plans to. Unfortunately, Microsoft removed the VirtualPC FAQ, so I cannot cite where this is stated.

    As for Doom III... it will run on OS X. Carmac first demoed Doom III on OS X. He loves Apple's platform because of the uniformity, which eliminates many nightmares for a game programmer. Trust me, it will be native.

    1. Re:Pfft. by PetWolverine · · Score: 1

      Metamoderators: Are you watching this!?
      --

      Yes. I would say the "Interesting" mods are fair, while the "Underrated" mod is unfair, since it doesn't increase your karma. It has happened that I got to meta-mod moderations on posts I had already read, but don't hold your breath.

      --
      I found the meaning of life the other day, but I had write-only access.
  74. Dammit..... by Channard · · Score: 0

    ... and just as 3D Realms were porting Duke Nukem Forever for it.

  75. It's an Endian issue that G5 doesn't support by morcheeba · · Score: 1
    According to MACOS Rumors, it's an endian issue:
    Virtual PC for Mac Version 6.1 relies on a feature of the PowerPC G3 and G4 processors called 'pseudo little-endian mode' for increased performance when emulating a Pentium processor. Current versions of Virtual PC require this feature in order to function. Because the new G5 processor does not support this feature, large portions of the VPC for Mac program must be rewritten and carefully tested to work properly on the G5 CPU.

    Sure, you can mangle the endian in software, but it's such an expensive operation that needs to be done so often, that performance will be incredibly terrible.

    I'd love to verify this myself... I've seen the registers in the older PPC's I've used (GP405), but would love to get a datasheet for the G5. Anyone have one?
    1. Re:It's an Endian issue that G5 doesn't support by morcheeba · · Score: 1

      I see IBM has a 32/64 bit programming reference manual, but it seems to cover the architecture in general, and not so much the 970. I'll read it tonight!

  76. Apple should have bought VirtualPC by terris · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    The fact that Apple didn't buy Virtual PC is pretty good evidence why Apple will always be a second rate computer manufacturer. No business sense. I had an Apple ][+ and a Mac Plus, and fifteen years later, Apple is finally shipping computers that I would actually consider buying.

    1. Re:Apple should have bought VirtualPC by Paulrothrock · · Score: 1

      They're not a second-rate computer manufacturer, they have a small market share. Any company that could come up with the great ideas and implementations that Apple has is hardly second rate.

      --
      I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
    2. Re:Apple should have bought VirtualPC by terris · · Score: 1

      Good point, they just have second-rate executives.

    3. Re:Apple should have bought VirtualPC by johnnyb · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, that would be bad business sense. Why do that when they can just devote a few engineers to Bochs to make it faster?

      Even better, with 8-20 engineers, they could probably finish out the Wine API and combine it with Bochs so that users could run Windows apps without paying any extra money at all, and it would cost Apple a few million less.

    4. Re:Apple should have bought VirtualPC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      And then nobody would develop OS X native apps anymore when they can develop for Windows and get Mac compatibility for free. Sounds like a winner!

    5. Re:Apple should have bought VirtualPC by amichalo · · Score: 1

      eMachines - THOSE are second rate computers. Apple builds first rate computers. What, because they charge more or have a smaller niche they aren't first rate? Or is it that they don't use an Intel chip like everyone else? Hey, BMW has a small niche market too. The Mazda RX-8 uses a rotary engine unlike anyone else. Are these cars second rate?

      --
      I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.
    6. Re:Apple should have bought VirtualPC by johnnyb · · Score: 1

      The same argument could be made for OS 9 apps now, but there is definite value in a native port.

  77. in other news by butane_bob2003 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Bill gates admits Windows is a dying operating system. What can you do with windows that can't be done (better) with OS X? or Gnome for that matter? Besides hosting viruses I mean. Next windows release? Microsoft Trusted Virus Server!

    --


    TallGreen CMS hosting
    1. Re:in other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dying? Next major release in 2005 or 2006... I'd hardly call Windows dying.

  78. As cool a vaporware story as this is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...it still can't touch the Visualabs GroutFree Fiasco, which must go down as the all-time champion.

  79. OrangeMicro by MyDixieWrecked · · Score: 1
    I had an OrangeMicro PCfx! PCI card in my old 7600/132. After adding 128MB of RAM to it, it ran about 800$

    It sucked in that it was advertised as being a low-end card for gamers, but it really blew. @ a mere 200mhz, and not a true pentium (it was a WinChip), it only really ran stuff like DXBall, Quake1 and Myth2. It had a built-in nVidia TNT (it might have been a tnt2, I don't remember), too. I only wish that thing ran in OSX because it ran windows98 quite well, much better than I could emulate it even on my G3/450 when I got it.

    The main thing I used the card for, though, was running the BackOrifice client so I could hack people's computers in my dorm and run the Quake3 level editors.

    The whole reason I got it was because I was bitching that my computer sucked (it was only 132mhz!) and I wanted a video card so I could play games better, so my dad decided to get me this instead since he thought I should learn windows.

    --



    ...spike
    Ewwwwww, coconut...
    1. Re:OrangeMicro by Bullseye_blam · · Score: 1

      it only really ran stuff like DXBall, Quake1 and Myth2.

      Heh, well, Myth 2 was a simultaneous port, and Quake 1 came not too much later, maybe a year and a half after the original came out. ;) That was a good turnaround time back in those days!

    2. Re:OrangeMicro by MyDixieWrecked · · Score: 1
      well, the only reason that I ran quake1 or myth2 on that thing rather than on the mac part was due to the fact that the card had an on-board 3d accelerator so I was able to take advantage of Fog and smoothing in myth2 and the graphical enhancements of GLQuake. It also afforded me better framerates (but only about 20% better).

      Also, amazingly enough, when I put that card in my G3 (before I put OSX on it; the card was never compatable with X), it got me even better framerates and an overall performance boost! I still don't really understand why. Maybe faster HD and system bus? but still. still. *shrug*

      --



      ...spike
      Ewwwwww, coconut...
  80. Runner-Up: Daikatana by Vexler · · Score: 1

    I read with interest the amount of hype that came before this game (all the "suck it down" ads), along with juicy tales of internal squabbling and mass resignation of the dev team, and have to say that Daikatana came awfully close to being vaporware. Alas, it was not meant to be, and now future generations will be cursed with bootleg copies of this junk.

  81. Re:Wine x86 emulation, called QEMU by whizzter · · Score: 1

    written by fabrice bellard(winner of 2 otcc contests).
    that madman did a working c compiler and a x86 emulator that brings wine to the mac in one year?
    (haven't tested it yet but it's released, altho the page is closed atm because of EU patent protests)

    qemu/org.bellard.www , if you really need it. type it.

  82. SunPCi by pmz · · Score: 3, Interesting


    I wonder if Apple would be wise to adopt Sun's SunPCi PC-on-a-PCI-card strategy. All Sun requires is that the customer get their Windows license from somewhere else (Sun is most definitely not a Microsoft OEM).

    Why worry about whether Microsoft will release their VirtualPC, when a PowerMac can have a genuine x86 CPU with dedicated RAM? I don't see why Apple can't resell Sun's own SunPCi cards with different branding and driver software. Actually that would be win-win (Sun gets higher volume, Apple gets a really really neat toy to sell their customers).

    1. Re:SunPCi by WatertonMan · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I wonder if Apple would be wise to adopt Sun's SunPCi PC-on-a-PCI-card strategy.

      Apple actually did this at one time. They had a DOS card I believe for one of the Quadra models. (I think it was an early 486)

      Today though I don't think that would be too wise a move. After all Apple wants people to port software. If people can run the software without the port, then Apple loses. Also one can effectively do this right now through the ethernet card using Microsoft's remote PC services. I have an old PIII I'm using as a server which I control from my Mac when I need the occasional PC program.

    2. Re:SunPCi by pmz · · Score: 1

      If people can run the software without the port, then Apple loses.

      I disagree. In one desktop enclosure, a software developer could develop and test on these operating systems: Mac OS X/PPC, Linux/PPC, Linux/x86, Windows/x86, *BSD/x86, perhaps Solaris x86, and probably more. SunPCi uses a flat file to contain its "hard drive", so any number of SunPCi configurations could be stored side-by-side on the Mac's hard disk and switching among them would be as easy as one configuration file parameter and a reboot of the SunPCi card. It is also a good way to do the Java "write once-test everywhere" scheme all in one physical enclosure.

      Now, if Sun were to release a PPC version of SunPCi, in one Sun Blade enclosure you can have all the above operating systems plus Solaris/SPARC.

      All this in one physical enclosure! For developers that can actually think outside of the Microsoft-induced tunnel-vision, SunPCi or similar is really a truly useful tool.

    3. Re:SunPCi by gobbo · · Score: 1
      have an old PIII I'm using as a server which I control from my Mac when I need the occasional PC program.

      Would you be willing to describe your software setup a bit more? I'm considering options for a similar solution. TIA.

    4. Re:SunPCi by WatertonMan · · Score: 1
      Remote Desktop Connection

      Just allow remote access on your XP box and then type in its IP addres in RDC on the Mac.

  83. can't...help....it... by switcha · · Score: 1

    So you're saying the earlier Apple models had support for
    one little, two little, three little endians?

    --
    You know what? ... A little club soda *did* get that out!
    1. Re:can't...help....it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The PowerPC ISA defines two operating modes Big Endian and Little Endian, since this is DEFINED by the ISA. I would believe this is complete bullshit. Atleast I don't see how they could market a CPU as a PowerPC if it's not constructed regaring to the PowerPC ISA.

  84. Newest product from Trojan by mabu · · Score: 1

    Isn't the whole idea of going with a mac to get away from windoze? This is like saying the next product from Trojan will be a condom coated with sperm. Oh no, it was vaporware? Whoa is me.

    1. Re:Newest product from Trojan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only for the zealots without a life. Some of us simply prefer a Mac, with most of what we need available natively for the Mac, but find that there are a few Windows programs we need to run.

      Yes, it is a strange concept on Slashdot, but sometimes, no holy war is involved.

  85. Wrong! by Jagasian · · Score: 2, Informative

    Come on people, this is basic set theory. The union of two sets is not all the elements from both sets minus the intersection of both sets. The union of two sets is simply all the elements from both sets.

    But you are correct in that the guy meant intersection. Your explanation of union just freaked me out.

    Also, while logic and set theory share many concepts and relationships between them... logic and set theory are two different things.

    1. Re:Wrong! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, he is correct. Pay attention to the way he phrased it; the union is all elements in old plus all elements in new minus the intersection. If you don't subtract the intersection, you end up double counting, since elements in the intersection must by defintion be in both old and new management. Your definition of union also works fine though.

    2. Re:Wrong! by Jagasian · · Score: 1

      Two sets are equal even if one has duplicates of an item and the other doesn't.

  86. Re:Wow by ElGanzoLoco · · Score: 1

    What has Apple to do with FWB?

    If I followed your logic, I could say: "Duke Nukem Forever was announced in 1998, and still not out! Microsoft, liars! ". That wouldn't be fair either, would it?

    --
    Hello! I'm a disaster waiting to happen!
  87. Re:Financial software by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 1

    most quote and trading software is written only for the windoze platform, excepting the odd java ap. So if you like the mac platform better, and also happen to do a lot of photo/video/audio stuff after hours, you really do need something like this.

  88. Very sad... by Bloodbane · · Score: 1

    It is very sad to see a much needed tool become vaporware. I wonder if any for the open source emulators will be able to fill the void?

  89. Another gamer numbnut by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    People don't use Virtual PC (or the hypothetical PCI card) for gaming, so that's not a valid criticism.

    ObCarAnalogy: It's like complaining that a Ford Focus can't win the Indy 500. It's not designed to. It's basic transportation.

  90. X11 gives more/better options by djh101010 · · Score: 1

    I've figured out how to get the best out of both worlds for my home network. I've got the iMac on the desk, and a PC in the basement running Linux. X11 on the mac - when I need a Windows app, I fire up VMWare on the Linux box, displayed back to the Mac. The Windows instance comes up in the VM, displayed on the Mac. I've got the cd/dvd drive on the Mac shared out to the windows instance in the VM on the Linux box, so I stick a disk in the mac, the PC sees it, and it all "just works".

    Sounds complicated, but for the cost of one VMWare license (like 60 or 100 bucks), I've got a copy of Windows running native (not emulated), working fine with the mac for the display & cd drive.

    I only use it for a couple of apps, but when I need to, I can get to it in a few seconds. Windows even seems like it behaves better in the VM than it does on the machine itself.

  91. Assembly language by yerricde · · Score: 2, Informative

    Because Plex86 is a virtualizer, not an emulator, much of Plex86 is written in x86 assembly language. How do I compile x86 assembly language for a PowerPC processor?

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
    1. Re:Assembly language by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you :)
      So much of /. is spouting uninformed opinions.
      as an A/C it is hard to get above the 0 threshhold.
      If I was still using my /. account before I stopped in protest of their RBLing it for moderation rights, I'd be a 2.

    2. Re:Assembly language by miu · · Score: 1
      If I was still using my /. account before I stopped in protest of their RBLing it for moderation rights, I'd be a 2.

      Ah c'mon AC, you'll always be a '10' to me.

      --

      [Set Cain on fire and steal his lute.]
    3. Re:Assembly language by Stonent1 · · Score: 1

      When you figure that out let me know so I can install MOL on my Dell laptop. I want to run OSX under Gentoo! :P

    4. Re:Assembly language by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Run it on top of a real emulator, of course!

  92. wrong language by otherwhere · · Score: 1
    OK, I'll play weenie -- it compiles fine and warning -free if you use g++, because the c++ standard says that there is an implicit return of 0 if there is no explicit return from main (which also can no longer return void). Hence:

    rooneyc@derivdev1.nyc$ cat >test.cc
    #include <stdio.h>

    int main()
    {
    }
    rooneyc@derivdev1.nyc$ g++ -Wall test.cc
    rooneyc@derivdev1.nyc$

    of course, if you consider it c++, you want to include cstdio and not stdio.h to be all namespace spiffy, but you knew that.

  93. Carrying coals to Newcastle. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is so unreasonable to ask why the user wants to do this thing?

  94. Recompile open-source Windows apps with Wine by yerricde · · Score: 1

    Wine does not in any way, shape, or form, emulate the x86 processor architecture.

    True.

    You can compile wine on an apple and it won't help one bit.

    False, for two reasons. First of all, if you have the C or C++ source for an application (under either a free software license or a so-called "shared-source" license), you can recompile it for any POSIX conforming target using Wine. Then, remember that some versions of SoftWindows (a version of RealPC distributed with a special OEM version of Microsoft Windows) had a traditional x86 emulator for user code but HLE'd much of the kernel code, especially the video driver; somebody might hack up a version of Wine that integrates with Bochs (hopefully after getting Bochs to dynamically recompile code).

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
    1. Re:Recompile open-source Windows apps with Wine by Henry+V+.009 · · Score: 1

      You could also create a program to translate the binary from x86 instructions to whatever equivalent instructions you would like. The API wrapper (WINE) is the only hard part about running the program then.

  95. pc card by hpavc · · Score: 1

    what happened to that old pc card that you tossed in your mac to run pc programs? maybe there is some room there for something.

    --
    members are seeing something, your seeing an ad
  96. Congratulations! by ghjm · · Score: 1

    You have reached a totality of oneness with incomprehensibility. Soon your material form will fade and you will achieve Nirvana.

    "Services?" WTF?

    And if it cost less than $10,000, then by definition the included fonts are not worth $10,000, because they are widely offered for sale for whatever you paid for them.

    -Graham

    1. Re:Congratulations! by rworne · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you never used NeXTSTEP (or OS X for that matter), there is a cascading menu called "Services" that do a variety of interesting, useful, or totally useless things.

      One such example is highlighting a word going to the services menu and getting the definition or highlighting text and putting it into an e-mail message.

      Applications can add enhancements to the OS by providing services and placing them in this menu. I used them all the time in NeXTSTEP, but in OS X I find them a bit lacking and they pretty much go unused for me. In other words, it's a great tool in OS X, but needs more support.

      The closest example I can think of in the Intel world is right-clicking on a file and selecting "Add to Zip file" for computers with Winzip installed. That would be very much like how services work.

      --
      I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
    2. Re:Congratulations! by WillAdams · · Score: 1

      Find where I can buy a copy of an OpenType version of Zapfino for Windows which has the over 1,400 characters which Mac OS X does.... or someone who'll sell you the lovely sets of Hanja for even ten times what Mac OS X costs.

      Go read up on NeXTstep, I've some material at http://members.aol.com/willadams and there's more at http://www.gnustep.org --- Services are quite nice, and have no pervasive equivalent in Windows.

      William

      --
      Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
    3. Re:Congratulations! by andrewski · · Score: 1

      Not to antagonize here, but Services in OS X is EXACTLY the same as in Nextstep / Openstep. I don't know why you think services needs mode 'support' in OS X, anything you can do in Nextstep with services you can do in OS X.

      I love the services menu. Think of it as the pipe for GUI apps.

    4. Re:Congratulations! by rworne · · Score: 1

      Yes it is the same, perhaps I didn't make myself clear enough.

      It is underutilized, that's all.

      --
      I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
    5. Re:Congratulations! by WillAdams · · Score: 1

      No, it's not _exactly_ the same.

      It's not a top-level menu any longer.

      It can't be torn off, it can't be popped up with the right-button menu either.

      One doesn't get the rich set of default clients any longer so that COMMAND= is reserved to Webster.app's Define in Webster Service....

      It was rare to find an app in NeXTstep which didn't support Services---lots in Mac OS X don't :(

      William

      --
      Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
    6. Re:Congratulations! by andrewski · · Score: 1

      Only cocoa (or, as I like to call them 'real OS X applications') apps support services. Carbon apps don't, and probably never will.

    7. Re:Congratulations! by WillAdams · · Score: 1

      Actually, Apple recently (10.1, 10.2?) added support for Services in Carbon apps.

      Unlike Cocoa, they have to be explicitly coded for this, but the hooks are there, and there's no excuse for things like InDesign not fully supporting them.

      William

      --
      Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
  97. They did provide a reference by FreeUser · · Score: 1

    In the interests of "full disclosure", how about signing your name to an accusation like that? At the very least, support it with something.

    He (or she) did support their allegations with something: a reference to the web page of the fink project (who are making the accusations and presenting their evidence).

    As to identifying themselves, in these days of barrotry and letigiousness, why the hell should they?

    I on the other hand have no opinion on the veracity of these claims against OpenOSX ... but, as no open or free project really has anything to gain by throwing around baseless allegations, it does bear watching.

    --
    The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
    1. Re:They did provide a reference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GPL, A Modern Bill of Rights

      Unfortunately, you're absolutely correct. The postwar generations have grown up with a completely different concept of rights than their fathers and grandfathers had. Once upon a time, "rights" meant "those things that I am willing to fight and die to defend."

      Today, however, "rights" means, "What's mine is mine, and what's yours is mine." And the GPL exemplifies that.

      Sorry for spinning so wildly off-topic, but I was just struck with an inescapable sadness at the realization that your little bumper sticker is correct, and that that's a terrible, terrible thing.

    2. Re:They did provide a reference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you mean "barratry"? Don't try to type like a pompous QC unless you can spell like one.

  98. Two laptops are twice as heavy as one by yerricde · · Score: 1

    I don't want to have to carry two laptops just so I can run that odd app for the other platform.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
  99. VMWare would be a nice option by nedron · · Score: 0
    VMWare is another PC hardware emulation product that is hosted on Windows and Linux boxes. It can run various Intel-based operating systems, including all the WIndows flavors and Linux.

    In light of the RealPC and VirtualPC problems, people may want to politely request that VMWare make their Workstation product available for Mac OS X:

    feature-request@vmware.com

    VMWare

    --


    * As is generally the case, my opinions do not reflect those of my employer.
    1. Re:VMWare would be a nice option by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      Seems to me you're the idiot since you don't seem to understand that "PC hardware emulation" and "virtual machine" are the same thing.
      Back to school kiddie...

    2. Re:VMWare would be a nice option by nedron · · Score: 1
      Seems to me you're the idiot since you don't seem to understand that "PC hardware emulation" and "virtual machine" are the same thing. Back to school kiddie...

      Was this reply to me? If so, where in my message did I say that they were different?

      --


      * As is generally the case, my opinions do not reflect those of my employer.
    3. Re:VMWare would be a nice option by nedron · · Score: 1

      Ignore my other message. I just saw the ACs earlier post that you were responding to, but the low mod on his message dropped it from my radar. ;)

      -David

      --


      * As is generally the case, my opinions do not reflect those of my employer.
  100. In the case of some parts of MS Office, was right by maggard · · Score: 3, Informative
    Well, actually with MS Office it wasn't so black & white as you present. Until a few years ago the Win & Mac version of MS Office, components like Word & Excel, were indeed 'just recompiled for the other platform'.

    Before everyone freaks out bear with me for a moment:

    MS Excel was originally a Mac product. The GUI version of Word too. They were both built using an Apple tool called MacApp. When they were ported to Windows the solution was to stay on MacApp and run it under Windows. This kept on for years and years, even after Apple discontinued MacApp MS kept their own version going internally to support their products based upon it.

    Thus for many versions MS Word & Excel were indeed pretty much the same under the hood on both platforms. Indeed this became a big problem for Mac folks when a version of Word looked & behaved too much like it's Windows brother (not cousin: "brother", heck "fraternal twin").

    Eventually the effort of keeping the underlying platform going, the amount of customization required for each OS, etc. all finally made the common code base too much effort. That was when they finally made the break a few years ago and yeah, the Windows versions were solidly the flagship products and the Mac one's became re-implementations, albeit with access to the original code for guidance.

    Some parts of Office were never common. PowerPoint on Mac was never very closely linked. Access never was brought over, ironically MS even recommends FileMaker on the Mac and builds in support for it on their Mac Office suite. Outlook, there's been a long and ugly history of sorta-products with a new version coming out recently but never has it been a peer with the Windows version.

    None of the internet division code ever had anything in common on any platform, or with their Office division cousins for that matter (the boneheaded naming of "Outlook Express" atyer "Outlook" notwithstanding). Indeed when IE 5.0 for Mac shipped it was arguably a far better browser then IE 5.0 for Windows.

    So yeah, in the case of the two leading MS Office components, going back a few years ago, there was a common code base and yes, it could have been characterized (loosely) as just a recompile away.

    Nowadays that isn't the case at all, and indeed with both platforms having large libraries of components and APIs any "native" application is gonna need a serious rewrite for each platform. Ports from 'nix, easier to do if it doesn't mind being a 2nd class citizen, Java on MacOS X is pretty much peer, but outside of that it's a lot of work.

    --
    I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
  101. A new vaporware extreme? by ianscot · · Score: 1

    When has vaporware ever been admitted so openly? Has anyone ever just plain admitted that they never even started developing something they'd previously claimed was in late beta? I'm trying to think of an example. I mean,

    ...the development had not formally been started, and it appears not a single line of code has been written. FWB has not to date even received the source code upon which any development would use as the foundation to build a new RealPC for OSX.

    "We said it was almost done, but apparently we never had anyone working on it at all." Pretty danged total vapor.

    --
    "Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
  102. Both right really... by Kjella · · Score: 1

    Come on people, this is basic set theory. The union of two sets is not all the elements from both sets minus the intersection of both sets. The union of two sets is simply all the elements from both sets. But you are correct in that the guy meant intersection. Your explanation of union just freaked me out.

    A = {1,2,3}
    B = {2,4,6}
    A+B = {1,2,2,3,4,6}
    A intersect B = {2}
    A+B-A intersect B = A union B = {1,2,3,4,6}

    The union is the sum of elements in A+B, counted once. What he described is a rather common implementation for calculating this union on a computer. Humans tend to assume the "counted once" part, but a computer doesn't...

    Kjella

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  103. So..... by gr8_phk · · Score: 1

    What does that have to do with running Bochs on OSX?

    1. Re:So..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's your problem? Short attention span or something? Let me see if I can't explain it in short sentences, so you can follow along.

      1. OpenOSX packages and distributes a build of Bochs.

      2. OpenOSX are evil.

      3. Don't use OpenOSX's build of Bochs.

      That's pretty much it.

  104. LINUX BOX by rmiller021 · · Score: 1

    If you had a linux box with wine installed on it.
    "Even better one of those computers on an pci card."

    Could you ssh to it and use you mac only to display what ever the linux box forwarded to x11?

    I'm not really sure how wine works but it seems that with gigabit ethernet there would be sufficient bandwidth to run applications in real time on a remote computer.

    --
    What happened to my robot, I was promised a robot.
    1. Re:LINUX BOX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes it works quite well.
      install X11 from Apple
      ssh -X
      works fine over LAN speed 10/100 connections.

  105. ....hmmmm by zmq503o1 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Funny, I've never need a Mac Emulator on my Windows or Linux machines to run Mac software... must not be anything worth running on that platform....

    1. Re:....hmmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree that most pc users don't want a mac emulator.
      However most pc users have never used a mac.
      If you have used a mac for any length of time (playing with one at the store for five minutes so you friends don't find out doesn't count) you would most likely want a mac.

      The reason people that use macs want a good emulator is impart do to the lack of software. Or for other reason such as if you work in a large company which uses primarily PC's they may require to use some piece of crap software written 5 years ago for PC's only.

      In my opinion the lack of software is due to the fact that developers do not trust apple to deliver a large enough market for there software. I myself am guilty of developing windows software.

      I think as time goes on the new Mac os based on UNIX will gain users. However I expect Unix users to increase as well.
      The only company I expect to loose users is Microsoft.
      The recent round of virus and worm attacks is increasing the number of users leaving Microsoft behind.

  106. RealPC was really good by etresoft · · Score: 1
    This is too bad. I bought RealPC when OS X came out. It seems that VPC, even the classic version, initially wouldn't work on OS X. (One would think that Connectix had OS X in beta for a long time. Why couldn't they get it running in that time? The same is true for HP, but only much worse - another story)

    RealPC worked OK in classic mode under X. It was a little buggy, but quite fast.

    VPC is now X-native and I am relatively happy with version 5. I will probably have to upgrade when it breaks on 10.3.

    In any event, to answer those who ask, VPC (and even RealPC) are better PCs than PCs.

    • Slow? Yes, but I can save states and come back to them.
    • I also have 4 OS-versions in various stages of hibernation.
    • I can back and restore entire disks using drag and drop.
    • I can run any exe in the world, including viruses, and just "undo" any disk changes.
    • And it all fits on my iBook
  107. Virtual PC acquisition plan by sabNetwork · · Score: 1

    1.) Buy Virtual PC from Connectix.
    2.) Release upgrade, simply changing the logo and telephone numbers.
    3.) Wait 6 months for it to become obsolete, and don't bother patching it.

    Embrace, Extend, Eliminate -- only not so much the first, and a little lax on the second.

  108. Miller column browser (was Re:That's OK...) by WillAdams · · Score: 1

    an AC said:
    >Which you can't change how it's sorted, brilliant!

    In NeXT/OPENstep one can---presumably this infelicity will go away for Mac OS X at some point in time---in the meanwhile, just use rBrowserLite which does have a pop-up menu for changing the sorting order ;)

    William

    --
    Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
  109. Re:Big suprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Indeed, that the last, best way to run Windows applications on Apple hardware is owned by Microsoft, OSX will flicker and fade. The most compelling feature of OSX has always been its ability to run Win32, Mac, and Unix software on platform. Now that's been limited to just Mac and Unix software, and very few Mac users are able and willing to compile their own software (The reason they went with apple to begin with was the GUI...). I predict that five years from now, Apple will be seen the same way as Amiga.

  110. Re:Wine? *FAST*??? by bored · · Score: 1
    Seriously, Wine is speedy. The only slowness comes from the Win32 to X11 stuffs, everything else is essentially as fast as Windows.

    Uh, hu, what I think you meant to say was that windows apps under WINE are now nearly as fast as slow X11 apps. The couple of program i have tried to run under wine (Lotus notes, Excel, etc) are slow enough that It would probably be faster to reboot my machine into windows everytime I needed to run one of them and then boot back to Linux. The cold boot to start menu prompt in XP on some of the new machine here is less than 20 seconds.

  111. Re:Now isn't *that* a surprise? by FWBSoftware · · Score: 2, Informative

    Greetings,

    The NEW management team does not include ANY members of the old management team and their employment with FWB Software has been terminated.

    There is no union between the two sets, no intersection between the two sets, just two mutually exclusive sets.

    The new management team is made up of myself (CEO) and Mark Hurlow (President).

    I was previously - until a little over 1 year ago - a contractor then the author of several previously licensed software products (the products made by SubRosaSoft.com).

    Mark was - until january - quality assurance and support for FWB.com for many years.

    We both are shareholders (30% each) and removed the previous management team and all members of the staff because of our concerns with the RealPC product and 2 other products which were being sold contrary to the owners of their respective copyrights.

    Your bet was a fair one, and would be quite expected to be true based on the facts you previously had at hand. It is my home that this assists a more accurate conclusion to be drawn.

    --

    Regards
    Marko Kostyrko
    CEO - FWB Software Inc

  112. Re:X11 gives more/better options -- mod parent up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    mod parent up! interesting solution. i suspect you can get pretty nice performance this way

  113. top secret fwb facts : (the drity secrets) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    top secret fwb facts :

    the reason they have to claim not a line of code was written was because the engineers involved were contracted from the vitualpc team and thus... with legal restraints... they had to disavow using them and thus claim it was vapor.

    they did start tot hire a few employees, but basically they lost all the best talent in 1995 and have been downhill since then (when they lost Jim Merkle the author of the good version of CD-ROm Toolkit).

    In recent years FWB got in legal trouble for not reimbursing people they owed money to for software sales.

    And FWB stiffed another contractor by the name of john Brisbin for about 15 thousand.

    however.. softpc was not to be vapor ware. It was going to be the real deal... but they have a few pressures on them.

    1. Re:top secret fwb facts : (the drity secrets) by FWBSoftware · · Score: 1

      the reason they have to claim not a line of code was written was because the engineers involved were contracted from the vitualpc team and thus... with legal restraints... they had to disavow using them and thus claim it was vapor.

      The reasons we have stated the facts we have stated are simple. This is what our investigation has shown. Microsoft was not involved at all other than their ownership of the name "SoftWindows" (note; this did not in any way effect RealPC).

      It is unclear why so many people are claiming that I/we have been paid off by Microsoft. Persons making claims to this effect are welcomed and urged to offer any logical reasoning behind our announcements based on this presumption.

      I am personally no great fan of large corporations, but this was quite simply a case of outright dishonesty on the part of FWBs previous management. Please feel free to discuss with John Brisbin perhaps that will assist in understanding the awful reality of the situation, be sure to ask him who the new management team is and what his experiences have been with us.

      --

      Regards
      Marko Kostyrko
      CEO - FWB Software Inc

  114. Summed up perfectly by coreytamas · · Score: 2, Funny

    This was over at MacSlash:

    "The new RealPC was fake and the VirtualPC was real, but now the new VirtualPC is owned by the folks responsible for the real PCs, and the RealPC is virtually toast."

    And people say poetry is dead.

    --


    www.macgamer.com
  115. Steps to Success! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. Promote soon to be created Product.
    2. ???
    3. Profit!

  116. Re:CONSPIRACY! Mod parent up!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unless you can't take the truth.

  117. A lot of Windows mainstays started on the Mac by jht · · Score: 1

    PowerPoint was originally a Mac product, too. It was from the old Forethought, IIRC. Microsoft bought them back in 1987 and ported PowerPoint over to Windows. Aldus came out with Persuasion a short time later.

    Forethought was also the original developer behind FileMaker as well, and sold it to Nashoba Systems. Then Apple bought FileMaker and assigned it to Claris.

    And of course, as you already mentioned, Excel was originally a Mac-only product. The multiplatform spreadsheet they started with was Multiplan. I think Windows Word was a ground-up rewrite from the old DOS version of Word, though. In the same vein, I think Mac Word was originally a separate product, and then they tried to converge the two apps with disasterous results. That was one of the things that led to the MacBU being spun out and sent to California.

    --
    -- Josh Turiel
    "2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
  118. QEMU is the future by Corpus_Callosum · · Score: 4, Interesting

    QEMU is a project that is moving at a nice clip, using dynamic code-recompilation (decompile x86 into C, recompile using gcc).

    The author, Fabrice Bellard, is a madman. Anyone with experience and time should join his team. You can already run Wine on PPC (fast, because of dynamic translation), and they are very close to getting the Virtual Machine (an x86 virtual pc) running on PPC (it runs now on x86).

    This project aims at not just being a contender for emulation, but eventually blowing all the competition away due to it's ability to recompile everything into native PPC (or MIPS or ...), caching it's results.

    There is a protest over European patents going on, but you can visit the project site at http://fabrice.bellard.free.fr/qemu/

    --
    The reason that it can be true that 1+1 > 2 is that very peculiar nonzero value of the + operator
    1. Re:QEMU is the future by colinleroy · · Score: 1

      Just for the record, Fabrice Bellard is also the guy behind FFmpeg and libavcodec (the project that makes mplayer read almost any video file using opensource codecs).

      --
      blah
  119. Re:Now isn't *that* a surprise? by FWBSoftware · · Score: 2, Informative

    It took us from July 7th to August the 27th to "admit it". Further to your question here are the reasons for the hold up.

    January 24th two shareholders (the new management team) agreed to allow one of the other shareholders to purchase their shares, payment was agreed to take place 8 to 12 weeks from that date. Those 2 shareholders no longer worked for FWB awaiting completion of that agreement. Payment was never made many discussions took place as to why and when payment would be made. During that time (the previous management with respect to recent events) made a series of poor judgments.

    July 8th a shareholder meeting was held to remove the previous management out of direct concern for the future of FWB software, a majority of shareholders agreed to remove the previous management. Previous management were not present at the shareholder meeting, then subsequently locked the office and refused the authority of the shareholders to remove them.

    July 17th Honorable Thomas McGinn Smith of the San Mateo Supreme court judges that the shareholder vote was valid, that the previous management is to be removed, and that the new management was entitled to hold office.

    Subsequently the previous management continued to lock the doors and contacted suppliers to claim the new management had no authority and was not to contacted.

    Late July the new management with the help of a San Mateo Sheriff and a locksmith gain access to the office to find all pertinent company records, files, and computers had been removed.

    August was spent attempting to define what had been done on RealPC from contacts made from reconstructing the company email records, and having meetings with relevant suppliers to find out what had been committed to and what had been completed.

    August 26 the decision was made that it was potentially fatal to FWB to continue development and it was clear untruths have been told. In accordance with our policy on honesty and openness we immediately prepared the appropriate press release and published it.

    --

    Regards
    Marko Kostyrko
    CEO - FWB Software Inc

  120. Don't emulate WINE! by benwaggoner · · Score: 1

    Well, you'd run everything (X11, WINE) that can run in native code in native code. It'd only be the stuff in the .exe itself that would be emulated. For code that mainly makes calls to the WIn API, like your run of the mill VB app, this might wind up being quite a bit faster than VPC, which has a faster emulator, but has to emulate EVERYTHING, even device drivers.

  121. Re:Wine? *FAST*??? by shaitand · · Score: 1

    yes but since slow x11 apps are faster than fast windows apps....

  122. Virtual PC by Max+Threshold · · Score: 1
    There's a computer store in my town called Virtual PC. Nobody shops there because they're overpriced and they don't have shit in stock. My friend said it's actually a front for some other, er, business. Anyway, I went in there one night because it was the only place open. They didn't have any 80mm case fans. I thought maybe a smaller one would do in a pinch and asked for some zip ties to secure it with. The guy didn't know what I was talking about. I described them, and he goes, "Oh, those things the cops tie your hands together with? Fucking cops..."

    The place is still open. I don't know how.

  123. Re:Now isn't *that* a surprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hostile takeover???

    the new management is part of the old management team - all they did was finally kick out 2 of the scumbags that were defrauding customers and the company

    but where were these other managers when all this was going on and why was it allowed to happen at all?

    are we to believe that these old managers that are now the managers are going to make everything wonderful now? why didn't they do something before????

  124. Re:Now isn't *that* a surprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the old management and new management were partners in management from the beginning

    why didnt the new management do something about the old management when they were all managers together?

    the 'interview' is nothing more than smoke and mirrors and deception to take any blame and responsibility off the old management that is now the new management

    gets confusing doesnt it?

  125. Re:Now isn't *that* a surprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that is sort of contradictory isnt it?

    there were press releases posted when the 'new management' team took over FWB, which includes everyone above, was posted some time ago - now you state that you were not part of the old management team? which is it?

  126. Re:Now isn't *that* a surprise? by FWBSoftware · · Score: 2, Informative

    I was NOT part of the old management team. It was originally intended in the old management team that I was to be the director of development, but this was never honoured by the previous management team. I left employment of the company in January 2003 and returned to the helm of SubRosaSoft.com Ltd until it was clear that I had to act to stop the previous management from destroying FWB (of which I was still a significant shareholder - albeit one that was kept quite in the dark).

    --

    Regards
    Marko Kostyrko
    CEO - FWB Software Inc

  127. Known past & present PC Emulators by Steve+Cowan · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Check out this link. (Emulation.net - very cool site)

  128. Re: mail.app by King_TJ · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Your list was fine by me until you got to Mail.app. That app has got to be the most disappointly "half baked" thing I've seen in OS X to date!

    For starters, it has issues with sending file attachments. Especially in the case of recipients using AOL (but not necessarily limited to AOL), photos attached to email sent from Mail.app aren't always viewable/saveable by the receiver. Apple, so far, denies this is a bug/issue - yet I've repeatedly witnessed this problem, as have columnists for Mac-centric magazines, who I've seen collecting information on this problem for write-up in future articles.

    I'd also, personally, like to see Mail.app functionality extended to the ability to read/post to Usenet groups. OS X seems to be lacking a decent Usenet newsreader program. (Especially odd omission, considering even IBM's OS/2 used to include a newsreader application, years ago, and Microsoft has it built into Outlook Express.)

  129. Show me the MONEY! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    Show me the MONEY!

    Show me the MONEY!

    Show me the MONEY!

    Show me the MONEY!

  130. Re: mail.app by WillAdams · · Score: 1

    Mail.app works fine e-mailing files to my NeXT Cube ;)

    Seriously, lots of things have problems sending to / from AOL 'cause of their (non) support of MIME---when I want to send something to an AOL user, I use my AOL account---usually it works :/ the fault here is not w/ Mail.app (MIME was based on NeXTMail after all), but w/ AOL---take a look at keyword MIME on AOL to see how broken they admit to this being.

    There were some pretty cool usenet clients for NeXTstep (AISTR it was NewsGrazer which innaugurated binary posts....), and NeXT^H^H^H^H Mac OS X affords a high enough level of app interoperability that one shouldn't lose anything in having a dedicated client. I'm pretty sure that newsreades for Mac OS X have been thoroughly discussed on comp.sys.mac.advocacy---you can check at http://groups.google.com

    William

    --
    Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
  131. Why emulate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An example: The Australian Tax Office (ATO) has an electronic form for tax returns (which isn't too bad, surprisingly). The system requirements listed on the ATO's web site are:

    PC: Windows 95 or higher, IE 5 or higher.

    Mac: PPC running an emulator with Windows 95 or higher, etc (although my venerable VPC 2.1.3 running Win95 didn't work).

    The question is: should I be more annoyed with the ATO for producing a web-browser based spreadsheet that only works with IE, or because they are forcing me to pay a fee to Microsoft (two really, one for VPC and one for Windows) in order to complete my taxes electronically? Admittedly, the purchase of a cheap PC could be counted as an accounting expense and claimed back (not that I even want a Windows box), but I do have a problem with a government body insisting I purchase the products of one specific company in order to comply with my legal obligations where it isn't a matter of safety.

  132. Mac cannot do all PDF creation Windows can! by llamafirst · · Score: 1
    Stuff a new Mac can do which a Windows PC (default software install on both) can't:

    - make a .pdf from anything one can print

    While that's true about out-of-the-box features, the mac cannot do everything Windows can do regarding PDF creation.

    Despite what you might think from the Adobe web site, if you want to make nice Microsoft Word PDFs including proper use of bookmarks -- the "table of contents" turned into bookmark shortcuts -- that's trivial on Windows but impossible on Mac. :-( I wish it were otherwise, but MS and Adobe haven't gotten their shit together to cooperate on this feature.

    I'm a tech writer. I have Virtual PC just to do that when I need to. (And I'm mobile most of the time and so using a 'real pc' doesn't always make sense.)

    When I did mostly web stuff for a living, I'd use VPC for verifying the most important web pages (home page, etc.) and the most complex pages in IE for Windows .... just to make sure. It's a good thing, cause there are differences occasionally.

    1. Re:Mac cannot do all PDF creation Windows can! by WillAdams · · Score: 1

      But as you noted, one merely needs a copy of VPC and appropriate Windows software to enable a Mac to do so.

      Moreover, Adobe and Microsoft's inability to support anything other than the majority market share is something I try very hard to not concern myself with---while I use Adobe Acrobat at work (from time-to-time on a Windows box to access the functionality you describe, the remainder on a Mac so as to use printer-specified .joboptios settings and Enfocus PitStop preflight profiles), most of my pdfs are made using pdfTeX (and w/ hyperref I get bookmarks &c.) which allows one to access _all_ of the .pdf spec programmatically.

      The remainder I make w/ pStill.app which supports PostScript specials so that one can insert hyperlinks &c. using a wee bit of PostScript coding ;)

      William

      --
      Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
    2. Re:Mac cannot do all PDF creation Windows can! by llamafirst · · Score: 1

      But as you noted, one merely needs a copy of VPC and appropriate Windows software to enable a Mac to do so.

      You forgot to mention one important thing: a copy of Adobe Acrobat for Windows -- the Mac and Windows versions are separate products, separate product numbers, separate purchases.

      Virtual PC with XP Pro is $249 and Acrobat for Windows is $300 ... and that's in addition to whatever mac tools you use (Acrobat mac = $300).

      Side note: To Mac folks considering Acrobat on Mac, be warned that it has limited utility on mac os x, but it sure made smaller camera-ready PDFs from my Freehand documents (by about 100x) compared to the basic print-to-PDF OS X functionality. However, the parent comment to this one has other geeky software that might help some avoid shelling out for the Acrobat for Mac for such things.

      Don't get me wrong: I like Virtual PC. It's Adobe that I'm pissed at because they don't provide feature parity on Mac and they charge $600 to have Acrobat for my mac and my emulated PC.

  133. Re:RealPC? Why not WINE? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, you can run WINE on Linux. Log into Linux over SSH, export the display back to the X11 server on OS X (you have to download X11 from Apple)
    ssh -X anyone?
    and it runs very fast, I think more efficient than Citrix...

  134. Re:fp! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Thanks for the explanation! (about sp)

    Looks like the best part of you ran down the crack of your momma's as and ended up as brown stain on the mattress.

  135. Re: mail.app by King_TJ · · Score: 1

    Yeah, I realize there are several teriffic newsreader programs for OS X. My point was, Apple should have included one to get new users started.

    (I'm still not sure why my original post was labeled "flamebait" - as I think I'm addressing a very real concern.)

    See this site for a bunch of people reporting problems with Mail.app and attachments:

    http://www.macintouch.com/mail.app01.html

  136. Re: mail.app by WillAdams · · Score: 1

    Reading usenet is outside of Apple's target market would be my guess as to why they don't---besides, one can always use dejaGoogle.

    Most of the problems strike me as pretty esoteric---and I think it's a good idea Apple keeps to a reasonable core functionality so as to leave room for third-party development.

    There is GNUMail though, for those with an itch to scratch ;)

    William

    --
    Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
  137. Re:X11 gives more/better options -- mod parent up! by djh101010 · · Score: 1

    Yes, the performance is better running an x-displayed VMWare instance of Windows, than it does running it in Virtual PC. VMWare isn't an emulation, it's native execution on the pentium, so it's faster, *and* it doesn't slow down the other stuff the Mac is doing. It's not quite procedure-able yet, but with a bit of tinkering, it's working just fine. Frees up some desk space too.

  138. Re:There's always bochs or try the OPENOSX site by tekhed01 · · Score: 1

    See...same product but seemingly more support offered but I have not conducted business with this vendor. http://www.openosx.com/wintel/index.html

  139. Correction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    - Mail.app (decent, safe and SLOW mail client)