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)."
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.
Because a $300 real pc wouldn't fit into my laptop bag, and would likely weigh more than 6 pounds.
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.
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.
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
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
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)
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.
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.
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.
The occasional use of an obscure, unported windows program should not necessarily dictate one's choice of platform.
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.
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.
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.
Engineering and the Ultimate
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!
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.