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)."
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.
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.
Zodiac Survey
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?
"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.:)
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
8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
There mab be somthing though...
.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.
.DLL for forms and reports.
.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.
Wine with it's own
For example, I have a crappy database front-end written in Win32.
It spends most of it's time in ODBC and calling Windows
If Wine on OSX had nativly compiled
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
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
Here's quite an interesting interview with the new CEO that reveals just what a bunch of crooks the former management were. Interesting read:
c le _id_var=241
http://macdiscussion.com/article_show.php3?arti
MS is pulling another MS monopoly action - they are using their marketshare/IP-share in emulation to kill work on others! Those Bastards!
You can Google for this vaporware and see promises from as recent as 2 months ago that everything is on track.
f wb /
This Mark Prewitt who was vice president of sales and marketing is caught pretty bad here.
http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/2003/06/10/
"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
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 $7 million--lining up distributions deals with Tandy Radio Shack, and so forth and so on.
It was taken absolutely seriously by everyone from Byte to The Wall Street Journal. Everyone thought it would be a serious rival to 1-2-3.
The business geniuses who dreamed it up did everything right and didn't miss on a single detail. Oh, well, one little detail maybe--they never started development of the product.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Microsoft like doesn't want to give more reasons for people to move to Apple's platform. VirtualPC is really a program for facilitating a transition to Apple's platform from Wintel. Of course, it's too early to jump the gun and say that Microsoft are being anti-competitive.
VirtualPC can't use the native 3D hardware accelleration. There are no plans to. Unfortunately, Microsoft removed the VirtualPC FAQ, so I cannot cite where this is stated.
As for Doom III... it will run on OS X. Carmac first demoed Doom III on OS X. He loves Apple's platform because of the uniformity, which eliminates many nightmares for a game programmer. Trust me, it will be native.
Join Tor today!
[bigjocker@anacreon tmp]$ 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.
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).
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
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.
QEMU is a project that is moving at a nice clip, using dynamic code-recompilation (decompile x86 into C, recompile using gcc).
...), caching it's results.
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
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
Check out this link. (Emulation.net - very cool site)