... but to say that vpc under os x is "almost unusable on a dual gigger" utterly baffles me, based on my experience.
Same here. I use VPC -- on my on a TiBook 800 w. 1GB RAM -- with win98, 2k and XP to check html pages in various IEs, Netscapes/Mozillas, and Operas, and while it certainly is not blazingly fast, it has made more than one customer sit up and look very bewildered, and it certainly does the job.
I'm almost certain that Microsoft will never invest much money into Virtual PC, because doing so would make it much easier to switch to the Mac platform. Of course it can be argued that they still sell not only a copy of Windows but also a copy of VPC, but once someone switches to Mac, they're naturally going to prefer to use Mac native programs as opposed to emulated ones, because no matter how much work MS puts into Virtual PC, a native environment beats an emulated environment. So Mac users buy Virtual PC and Windows but then end up switching to using mostly or all Mac programs. Are they going to want to upgrade Windows and Virtual PC when MS comes out with the new version? Probably not if they've come to use mostly Mac programs.
Furthermore, Microsoft's business model is dependant on not on selling as many copies of Windows as possible, but preventing people from using any other operating systems - even if they keep buying Windows. People who use Macs and use Virtual PC are probably not going to use Virtual PC to browse the internet, so it cuts into IE's monopoly, which hinders Microsoft's promotion of things like ASP.NET (doesn't work as well in anything but IE), and Windows networking technologies, since Linux or another Unix would be more universally compatible with OS X, Windows and Linux desktop machines..
Microsoft has a history of not playing nice with any technology that isn't controlled by them.
Same here. I use VPC -- on my on a TiBook 800 w. 1GB RAM -- with win98, 2k and XP to check html pages in various IEs, Netscapes/Mozillas, and Operas, and while it certainly is not blazingly fast, it has made more than one customer sit up and look very bewildered, and it certainly does the job.
Try using PS, Arcinfo, MS Project, or even KaZaa is slow as snot (besides being ugly). Web Java Apps are also painfull, although they run in OSX anyway.
. . . People who use Macs and use Virtual PC are probably not going to use Virtual PC to browse the internet, so it cuts into IE's monopoly, which hinders Microsoft's promotion of things like ASP.NET (doesn't work as well in anything but IE), and Windows networking technologies, since Linux or another Unix would be more universally compatible with OS X, Windows and Linux desktop machines. . .
I don't know what is on Microsoft's mind, and you could be right. Yet the argument can be turned around. If VPC works exceptionally well and IE can be used for the internet, it may make a convincing argument why business should go with .NET. MS can say even Mac users have easy access using VPC.
Quote:
. . . but once someone switches to Mac, they're naturally going to prefer to use Mac native programs as opposed to emulated ones. . . Mac users buy Virtual PC and Windows but then end up switching to using mostly or all Mac programs. Are they going to want to upgrade Windows and Virtual PC when MS comes out with the new version? . . .
MS does not make any money from Windows applications that independent developers sell. MS makes money from the OS installed by the hardware vendor, which is likely under 90 US dollars. MS makes more on each copy of VPC sold. Regarding upgrading, many or most Windows users do not upgrade, so VPC upgrades may be no different. MS also makes money from their application software. So for products like Office, MS makes a profit whether selling an OS X or Windows version.
I just do not see how MS would be hurt by having a really good VPC and selling it to most Mac users. Looking at it another way, selling more copies of VPC lets MS claim a higher percentage of computers that run Windows. So it depends on how MS sees it.
When the hell will this vaporware RealPC with native 3d acceleration show!
VPC did it with Voodoo cards so Airsluf I don't see why they can't implement it especially given OS X's abstraction and Microsoft's vast resources. Of course that is assuming they would want to. Like I say, them buying VPC was either real good or real bad. There has not been an update since they bought it though. That was a while ago. Hopefully they are working on VPC 7. Besides even if two Operating Systems can't use the graphics surely VPC could take it over and turn it off for OS X or just shut OS X down entirely and run stand-alone effectively turning your Mac into a (slow) PC.
VPC is great with Win2k on my PB 12" but with 3d acceleration it could be so much more. Programmer's idea sounded realistic to implement.
I don't know what is on Microsoft's mind, and you could be right. Yet the argument can be turned around. If VPC works exceptionally well and IE can be used for the internet, it may make a convincing argument why business should go with .NET. MS can say even Mac users have easy access using VPC.
MS does not make any money from Windows applications that independent developers sell. MS makes money from the OS installed by the hardware vendor, which is likely under 90 US dollars. MS makes more on each copy of VPC sold. Regarding upgrading, many or most Windows users do not upgrade, so VPC upgrades may be no different. MS also makes money from their application software. So for products like Office, MS makes a profit whether selling an OS X or Windows version.
I just do not see how MS would be hurt by having a really good VPC and selling it to most Mac users. Looking at it another way, selling more copies of VPC lets MS claim a higher percentage of computers that run Windows. So it depends on how MS sees it.
You make some good points, but my point was that Microsoft's monopoly is dependant upon lock-in. If you can use anything from Microsoft on alternate platforms, then you are not locked in. People say that one of the main reasons that people don't switch is because they already have a collection of Microsoft software. Say Joe Consumer buys a Mac with Virtual PC and Windows, because he already has a license for Office for Windows, Apple gets a computer sale and Microsoft gets a Windows/Virtual PC sale. Win/win. Joe uses his new computer a while and likes it. Joe wants the new version of Office. Joe sees the Mac version and the Windows version. Joe owns a Mac. Joe buys the Mac version. Another year or two passes, and Joe wants a new computer. Joe likes his Mac and wants another, so he buys a PowerBook. Does Joe buy Virtual PC and Windows for his PowerBook? No, why would he? All his software needs are met by native Mac software.
Granted it does have upsides for Microsoft like you mentioned, but Microsoft wants to make it as hard as possible for people to switch (if not, why would they go out of their way to make Word files hard to read, etc). And about your points about Microsoft not making money from third party developers, Microsoft benefits when people use developoment technologies that only target Windows. Microsoft also benefits when they buy a license for those software technologies. I believe a license for Visual Studio .NET 2003 Enterprise Edition is in the neighborhood of $1300.
I think Real PC from FWB will be the better emulation... if it arrives
- Full MP support
- Native Graphic-card support
- Altivec optimization
- Port of the Solaris version
Here an old interview of Mark Prewitt from FWB on MacBidouille.
Since that interview, there have been changes at FWB. The FWB didn't work when I tried it before posting this. However, the company has withdrawn many of the outlandish claims for the revived RealPC emulator. Having just reread the interview, I have one response: "BUNK!" As I stated above, I believe that RealPC 1.1 will be a good emulator. However, the notion that it will represent some kind of breakthrough in emulator performance is withful thinking.
Quite frankly, Mark Prewitt's interview defies credulity. He implies if he doesn't state it outright that RealPC will talk directly to the kernel, bypassing everything above it. This is where the speed increase is supposed to come from. However, the MacOS X upper layers are not where the performance of emulators are lost. It is lost in the translation of x86 code to PPC code. Only additional power in the host system can restore it.
Consider this: Probably the best you can do with an emulator is an emulated clock speed of 70% of the host system. For a 2 GHz G5, you can expect an emulated speed of a 1.4 GHz x86. Such a system will be more than adequate for most PC applications. However, you will not want to use it for CG rendering or intensive gaming. If FWB were to write some kind of super AI-based emulator with zero host processor overhead, the very best that this super emulator could do would be to emulate a 2 GHz x86 on a 2 GHz G5.
Try using PS, Arcinfo, MS Project, or even KaZaa is slow as snot (besides being ugly). Web Java Apps are also painfull, although they run in OSX anyway.
okay, you may have a point on all of those apps, but...
1.) PS (PhotoShop?) -- i use the mac version (and i am assuming anyone else, given the choice, would rather use the mac native version ON the mac than try to run in emulation), so why would the PC version be necessary?
2.) arcinfo -- mapping software, i'll have to take your word for it. may be a hope for it eventually coming to mac, since the workstation variety is available for some unix flavors
3.) ms project -- sorry, but i've been using fasttrack scheduler for the past umpteen years, but, again, i'll take your word for it. then again, i can track most of my projects on post-it notes, but my managers insist on a bit more "detail"
4.) kazaa -- now c'mon, criticizing vpc because it (AND windows, mind you*) doesn't run kazaa, well, that's like when people would criticize apple and os x when it wouldn't run beta apps correctly. in other words, you knew what you were getting into when you downloaded and installed the app.
*p.s. also, which version of windows were you trying to run under vpc? it has been my experience that win98 still offers the best return on investment being installed on vpc, due to compatibility and relative speed. win2000 runs okay, too. don't bother with xp, though. even the home edition is dog slow.
2.) arcinfo -- mapping software, i'll have to take your word for it. may be a hope for it eventually coming to mac, since the workstation variety is available for some unix flavors
Sorry, ESRI is a Windows only shop now. However if you're X11 enough you can use GRASS.
okay, you may have a point on all of those apps, but...
1.) PS (PhotoShop?) -- i use the mac version (and i am assuming anyone else, given the choice, would rather use the mac native version ON the mac than try to run in emulation), so why would the PC version be necessary?
2.) arcinfo -- mapping software, i'll have to take your word for it. may be a hope for it eventually coming to mac, since the workstation variety is available for some unix flavors
3.) ms project -- sorry, but i've been using fasttrack scheduler for the past umpteen years, but, again, i'll take your word for it. then again, i can track most of my projects on post-it notes, but my managers insist on a bit more "detail"
4.) kazaa -- now c'mon, criticizing vpc because it (AND windows, mind you*) doesn't run kazaa, well, that's like when people would criticize apple and os x when it wouldn't run beta apps correctly. in other words, you knew what you were getting into when you downloaded and installed the app.
*p.s. also, which version of windows were you trying to run under vpc? it has been my experience that win98 still offers the best return on investment being installed on vpc, due to compatibility and relative speed. win2000 runs okay, too. don't bother with xp, though. even the home edition is dog slow.
Wasn't trying to criticize anything. Some companies I get involved use MS Project so I get stuck with it, PS I have for the Mac (while others that switch to a mac may have the windows version) and KaZaa sucks, I use xNap (which is painfully slow on a 500MHz G3 but fine on a dual gigger).
Was just pointing out that there are other programs and reasons for VPC other than Web and email.
As to GRASS, I use MapPublisher with AI and MacDEM, and it works fine (along with POVray for 3-d rendering of height fields)
Kickaha and Amorph couldn't moderate themselves out of a paper bag. Abdicate responsibility and succumb to idiocy. Two years of letting a member make personal attacks against others, then stepping aside when someone won't put up with it. Not only that but go ahead and shut down my posting priviledges but not the one making the attacks. Not even the common decency to abide by their warning (afer three days of absorbing personal attacks with no mods in sight), just shut my posting down and then say it might happen later if a certian line is crossed. Bullshit flag is flying, I won't abide by lying and coddling of liars who go off-site, create accounts differing in a single letter from my handle with the express purpose to decieve and then claim here that I did it. Everyone be warned, kim kap sol is a lying, deceitful poster.
Now I guess they should have banned me rather than just shut off posting priviledges, because kickaha and Amorph definitely aren't going to like being called to task when they thought they had it all ignored *cough* *cough* I mean under control. Just a couple o' tools.
Don't worry, as soon as my work resetting my posts is done I'll disappear forever.
However, the MacOS X upper layers are not where the performance of emulators are lost. It is lost in the translation of x86 code to PPC code. Only additional power in the host system can restore it.
Ah, but most of the x86 to PPC translation is in some portion of Windows -- usually the graphics (especially in the case of 3D). If you eliminate the need to translate this then your overall emulation will go considerably faster.
I had a discussion with the Connectix guys about this years ago as well, and the upshot was that they simply chose not to implement this kind of punch through in their emulator. Its not that they can't, its that they don't have the will to do so (probably due to the poor investment / revenue ratio). Their system works by emulating hardware. Fine. Invent a new fake piece of hardware, write the PowerPC emulator for the hardware, and then write a x86 driver for it that is paper thin and just invokes fake hardware functionality to do the work. You're "emulating" a piece of hardware that doesn't actually exist. Ta da, you've got a PowerPC driver.
Kickaha and Amorph couldn't moderate themselves out of a paper bag. Abdicate responsibility and succumb to idiocy. Two years of letting a member make personal attacks against others, then stepping aside when someone won't put up with it. Not only that but go ahead and shut down my posting priviledges but not the one making the attacks. Not even the common decency to abide by their warning (afer three days of absorbing personal attacks with no mods in sight), just shut my posting down and then say it might happen later if a certian line is crossed. Bullshit flag is flying, I won't abide by lying and coddling of liars who go off-site, create accounts differing in a single letter from my handle with the express purpose to decieve and then claim here that I did it. Everyone be warned, kim kap sol is a lying, deceitful poster.
Now I guess they should have banned me rather than just shut off posting priviledges, because kickaha and Amorph definitely aren't going to like being called to task when they thought they had it all ignored *cough* *cough* I mean under control. Just a couple o' tools.
Don't worry, as soon as my work resetting my posts is done I'll disappear forever.
The only way you can avoid having to do the emulation transition is to rewrite the client that requires the emulation in the first place (Windows window manager in this case). But then you aren't really running Windows anymore, it's something else similar to Windows. You buy tons of compatibility headaches with that type of break and patch solution, not to mention the costs of support or licensing the client's source code so you can break the original client in the first place.
The above part I italicized is exactly what Connectix did but the hardware had to conform to an existing interface for an existing Windows compatible card, or Windows would reject it. And it hardly qualifies as a driver, it is just another piece of emulation software running on the main CPU. Trying to involve the resident GFx card in the emulation adds ridiculous amounts of complexity to the whole process and still doesn't change the fact you are loosing speed because you are still emulating. It's your correctly identified "investment / revenue ratio" that makes that type of project a non-starter.
Hardware companies write new drivers all the time and they don't have the luxury of redefining the hardware's interface to match exactly what they need it to be. In six (seven?) versions of VPC Connectix hasn't done this, even though it is probably less technically challenging that their x86 emulator itself. And you don't need to modify the Windows OS itself, that's why it has drivers! Most of the time is spent in the grapics calls of the driver so it would have a significant speed improvement -- especially for 3D and video decoding. Sorry, this is just Connectix being cheap-ass about it.
when VPC3 dropped years ago the mac market was still in flux, and many consumers machines were 1st rev iMacs, with as little as 2Mb VRAM. even the top end machines only had 16Mb Rage cards. conversely there were more 3rd party cards available for the mac, but most only concentrating on faster quickdraw specs/providing 2nd monitor support.
i think that's one reason why, when connectix decided to utilise an emulated grapgic card, it was one which fitted the specs of the target market at the time, and was probably technically feasible. now, with all macs shipping with at least 32Mb of VRAM, it might be possible to revisit the solution with a more comparably powered emulated GPU.
furthermore i'm pretty sure the next iteration of VPC will be X only ... the last few revs of VPC added Mac OS X compatability and extra features, rather than much performance. i was so disappointed when VPC5 debuted ... i remember much speculation on these boards and others that VPC on X would bring real performance benefits. "Mach is your friend" was one quote i still remember tantalising me .... oh well.
So now VPC is X only. THe recommened specs for Quartz Extreme might be reflected in the revised emulated GPU for VPC ... 32Mb minimum for full effect, less will still run. if i were the M$ MacBU I would want to draw a line under previous performance issues with VPC on X, rasie the bar on minimum specs, redesign the emulated graphics to resemble a reasonable base PC spec card .. a GeForce2 or something. Unfortuately i'm unconvinced why M$ need VPC, and certainly why they may want to significantly rehaul it, rather than some basic new features, slap some more M$ branded installers and wizards, and stick it in a box next to Office vX on the shelves. But this thread isn't about the fundamental contradiction of VPC for Mac, made by a small section of M$, but is about performance.
hopefully they can bump the specs and rewrite the emulated graphics card.
The original version of Virtual PC was Virtual PC 1.0. It entered the market at a time when the dominant emulator was SoftWindows.
Quote:
Originally posted by jobes
.... Unfortuately i'm unconvinced why M$ need VPC, and certainly why they may want to significantly rehaul it, rather than some basic new features, slap some more M$ branded installers and wizards, and stick it in a box next to Office vX on the shelves....
Actually M$ doesn't need VPC, but that is not why the company bought Connectix's emulator line. It bought the product line for Virtual Server, but VPC was the shipping, profitable product. VS was still in beta. As to your second point, the MacBU has done a decent job so far of using standard MacOS X drag and drop installers. My concern is different. VPC has been a hallmark of simplicity. However, M$ subscribes to the When-in-doubt-add-another-feature school of software design. I expect the next major release of VPC (VPC7?) to be pretty good. But M$ is M$. I expect the following release (VPC8?) to be a hallmark of M$ feature bloat.
I really like VPC 6.02 I use it on my macintosh for Windows 2000 stuff. I wish the Ethernet was faster than 10 mbit because I use it as a ghost server. Running Visual Studio 2003 EA on it is not too bad on a Dual 1.25. I hope that the G5 brings better performance right now it is a little pokey but it's not too bad.
Maybe Microsoft has a plan of getting rid of Mac OS software other than VPC and will make VPC a really good product. This way they can have one code base for Office and any other stuff that someone would want to run on the mac. I mean it does seem smart even if I hate those Microshaft bastards. Maybe there will only be one more version of MS Office for mac then everyone will need to run VPC to use MS products. If they do this they can get rid of the Mac BU well all but the VPC part.
The power of Bill commands you,... the power of Bill commands you...
Comments
Originally posted by rok
(snip)
... but to say that vpc under os x is "almost unusable on a dual gigger" utterly baffles me, based on my experience.
Same here. I use VPC -- on my on a TiBook 800 w. 1GB RAM -- with win98, 2k and XP to check html pages in various IEs, Netscapes/Mozillas, and Operas, and while it certainly is not blazingly fast, it has made more than one customer sit up and look very bewildered, and it certainly does the job.
Furthermore, Microsoft's business model is dependant on not on selling as many copies of Windows as possible, but preventing people from using any other operating systems - even if they keep buying Windows. People who use Macs and use Virtual PC are probably not going to use Virtual PC to browse the internet, so it cuts into IE's monopoly, which hinders Microsoft's promotion of things like ASP.NET (doesn't work as well in anything but IE), and Windows networking technologies, since Linux or another Unix would be more universally compatible with OS X, Windows and Linux desktop machines..
Microsoft has a history of not playing nice with any technology that isn't controlled by them.
Originally posted by philby
Same here. I use VPC -- on my on a TiBook 800 w. 1GB RAM -- with win98, 2k and XP to check html pages in various IEs, Netscapes/Mozillas, and Operas, and while it certainly is not blazingly fast, it has made more than one customer sit up and look very bewildered, and it certainly does the job.
Try using PS, Arcinfo, MS Project, or even KaZaa is slow as snot (besides being ugly). Web Java Apps are also painfull, although they run in OSX anyway.
Originally posted by Delphiki
. . . People who use Macs and use Virtual PC are probably not going to use Virtual PC to browse the internet, so it cuts into IE's monopoly, which hinders Microsoft's promotion of things like ASP.NET (doesn't work as well in anything but IE), and Windows networking technologies, since Linux or another Unix would be more universally compatible with OS X, Windows and Linux desktop machines. . .
I don't know what is on Microsoft's mind, and you could be right. Yet the argument can be turned around. If VPC works exceptionally well and IE can be used for the internet, it may make a convincing argument why business should go with .NET. MS can say even Mac users have easy access using VPC.
. . . but once someone switches to Mac, they're naturally going to prefer to use Mac native programs as opposed to emulated ones. . . Mac users buy Virtual PC and Windows but then end up switching to using mostly or all Mac programs. Are they going to want to upgrade Windows and Virtual PC when MS comes out with the new version? . . .
MS does not make any money from Windows applications that independent developers sell. MS makes money from the OS installed by the hardware vendor, which is likely under 90 US dollars. MS makes more on each copy of VPC sold. Regarding upgrading, many or most Windows users do not upgrade, so VPC upgrades may be no different. MS also makes money from their application software. So for products like Office, MS makes a profit whether selling an OS X or Windows version.
I just do not see how MS would be hurt by having a really good VPC and selling it to most Mac users. Looking at it another way, selling more copies of VPC lets MS claim a higher percentage of computers that run Windows. So it depends on how MS sees it.
VPC did it with Voodoo cards so Airsluf I don't see why they can't implement it especially given OS X's abstraction and Microsoft's vast resources. Of course that is assuming they would want to. Like I say, them buying VPC was either real good or real bad. There has not been an update since they bought it though. That was a while ago. Hopefully they are working on VPC 7. Besides even if two Operating Systems can't use the graphics surely VPC could take it over and turn it off for OS X or just shut OS X down entirely and run stand-alone effectively turning your Mac into a (slow) PC.
VPC is great with Win2k on my PB 12" but with 3d acceleration it could be so much more. Programmer's idea sounded realistic to implement.
Originally posted by snoopy
I don't know what is on Microsoft's mind, and you could be right. Yet the argument can be turned around. If VPC works exceptionally well and IE can be used for the internet, it may make a convincing argument why business should go with .NET. MS can say even Mac users have easy access using VPC.
MS does not make any money from Windows applications that independent developers sell. MS makes money from the OS installed by the hardware vendor, which is likely under 90 US dollars. MS makes more on each copy of VPC sold. Regarding upgrading, many or most Windows users do not upgrade, so VPC upgrades may be no different. MS also makes money from their application software. So for products like Office, MS makes a profit whether selling an OS X or Windows version.
I just do not see how MS would be hurt by having a really good VPC and selling it to most Mac users. Looking at it another way, selling more copies of VPC lets MS claim a higher percentage of computers that run Windows. So it depends on how MS sees it.
You make some good points, but my point was that Microsoft's monopoly is dependant upon lock-in. If you can use anything from Microsoft on alternate platforms, then you are not locked in. People say that one of the main reasons that people don't switch is because they already have a collection of Microsoft software. Say Joe Consumer buys a Mac with Virtual PC and Windows, because he already has a license for Office for Windows, Apple gets a computer sale and Microsoft gets a Windows/Virtual PC sale. Win/win. Joe uses his new computer a while and likes it. Joe wants the new version of Office. Joe sees the Mac version and the Windows version. Joe owns a Mac. Joe buys the Mac version. Another year or two passes, and Joe wants a new computer. Joe likes his Mac and wants another, so he buys a PowerBook. Does Joe buy Virtual PC and Windows for his PowerBook? No, why would he? All his software needs are met by native Mac software.
Granted it does have upsides for Microsoft like you mentioned, but Microsoft wants to make it as hard as possible for people to switch (if not, why would they go out of their way to make Word files hard to read, etc). And about your points about Microsoft not making money from third party developers, Microsoft benefits when people use developoment technologies that only target Windows. Microsoft also benefits when they buy a license for those software technologies. I believe a license for Visual Studio .NET 2003 Enterprise Edition is in the neighborhood of $1300.
- Full MP support
- Native Graphic-card support
- Altivec optimization
- Port of the Solaris version
Here an old interview of Mark Prewitt from FWB on MacBidouille.
Originally posted by Fat Freddy
I think Real PC from FWB will be the better emulation... if it arrives
- Full MP support
- Native Graphic-card support
- Altivec optimization
- Port of the Solaris version
Here an old interview of Mark Prewitt from FWB on MacBidouille.
Since that interview, there have been changes at FWB. The FWB didn't work when I tried it before posting this. However, the company has withdrawn many of the outlandish claims for the revived RealPC emulator. Having just reread the interview, I have one response: "BUNK!" As I stated above, I believe that RealPC 1.1 will be a good emulator. However, the notion that it will represent some kind of breakthrough in emulator performance is withful thinking.
Quite frankly, Mark Prewitt's interview defies credulity. He implies if he doesn't state it outright that RealPC will talk directly to the kernel, bypassing everything above it. This is where the speed increase is supposed to come from. However, the MacOS X upper layers are not where the performance of emulators are lost. It is lost in the translation of x86 code to PPC code. Only additional power in the host system can restore it.
Consider this: Probably the best you can do with an emulator is an emulated clock speed of 70% of the host system. For a 2 GHz G5, you can expect an emulated speed of a 1.4 GHz x86. Such a system will be more than adequate for most PC applications. However, you will not want to use it for CG rendering or intensive gaming. If FWB were to write some kind of super AI-based emulator with zero host processor overhead, the very best that this super emulator could do would be to emulate a 2 GHz x86 on a 2 GHz G5.
Originally posted by Bigc
Try using PS, Arcinfo, MS Project, or even KaZaa is slow as snot (besides being ugly). Web Java Apps are also painfull, although they run in OSX anyway.
okay, you may have a point on all of those apps, but...
1.) PS (PhotoShop?) -- i use the mac version (and i am assuming anyone else, given the choice, would rather use the mac native version ON the mac than try to run in emulation), so why would the PC version be necessary?
2.) arcinfo -- mapping software, i'll have to take your word for it. may be a hope for it eventually coming to mac, since the workstation variety is available for some unix flavors
3.) ms project -- sorry, but i've been using fasttrack scheduler for the past umpteen years, but, again, i'll take your word for it. then again, i can track most of my projects on post-it notes, but my managers insist on a bit more "detail"
4.) kazaa -- now c'mon, criticizing vpc because it (AND windows, mind you*) doesn't run kazaa, well, that's like when people would criticize apple and os x when it wouldn't run beta apps correctly. in other words, you knew what you were getting into when you downloaded and installed the app.
*p.s. also, which version of windows were you trying to run under vpc? it has been my experience that win98 still offers the best return on investment being installed on vpc, due to compatibility and relative speed. win2000 runs okay, too. don't bother with xp, though. even the home edition is dog slow.
2.) arcinfo -- mapping software, i'll have to take your word for it. may be a hope for it eventually coming to mac, since the workstation variety is available for some unix flavors
Sorry, ESRI is a Windows only shop now. However if you're X11 enough you can use GRASS.
Originally posted by rok
okay, you may have a point on all of those apps, but...
1.) PS (PhotoShop?) -- i use the mac version (and i am assuming anyone else, given the choice, would rather use the mac native version ON the mac than try to run in emulation), so why would the PC version be necessary?
2.) arcinfo -- mapping software, i'll have to take your word for it. may be a hope for it eventually coming to mac, since the workstation variety is available for some unix flavors
3.) ms project -- sorry, but i've been using fasttrack scheduler for the past umpteen years, but, again, i'll take your word for it. then again, i can track most of my projects on post-it notes, but my managers insist on a bit more "detail"
4.) kazaa -- now c'mon, criticizing vpc because it (AND windows, mind you*) doesn't run kazaa, well, that's like when people would criticize apple and os x when it wouldn't run beta apps correctly. in other words, you knew what you were getting into when you downloaded and installed the app.
*p.s. also, which version of windows were you trying to run under vpc? it has been my experience that win98 still offers the best return on investment being installed on vpc, due to compatibility and relative speed. win2000 runs okay, too. don't bother with xp, though. even the home edition is dog slow.
Wasn't trying to criticize anything. Some companies I get involved use MS Project so I get stuck with it, PS I have for the Mac (while others that switch to a mac may have the windows version) and KaZaa sucks, I use xNap (which is painfully slow on a 500MHz G3 but fine on a dual gigger).
Was just pointing out that there are other programs and reasons for VPC other than Web and email.
As to GRASS, I use MapPublisher with AI and MacDEM, and it works fine (along with POVray for 3-d rendering of height fields)
Now I guess they should have banned me rather than just shut off posting priviledges, because kickaha and Amorph definitely aren't going to like being called to task when they thought they had it all ignored *cough* *cough* I mean under control. Just a couple o' tools.
Don't worry, as soon as my work resetting my posts is done I'll disappear forever.
Originally posted by Mr. Me
However, the MacOS X upper layers are not where the performance of emulators are lost. It is lost in the translation of x86 code to PPC code. Only additional power in the host system can restore it.
Ah, but most of the x86 to PPC translation is in some portion of Windows -- usually the graphics (especially in the case of 3D). If you eliminate the need to translate this then your overall emulation will go considerably faster.
I had a discussion with the Connectix guys about this years ago as well, and the upshot was that they simply chose not to implement this kind of punch through in their emulator. Its not that they can't, its that they don't have the will to do so (probably due to the poor investment / revenue ratio). Their system works by emulating hardware. Fine. Invent a new fake piece of hardware, write the PowerPC emulator for the hardware, and then write a x86 driver for it that is paper thin and just invokes fake hardware functionality to do the work. You're "emulating" a piece of hardware that doesn't actually exist. Ta da, you've got a PowerPC driver.
Now I guess they should have banned me rather than just shut off posting priviledges, because kickaha and Amorph definitely aren't going to like being called to task when they thought they had it all ignored *cough* *cough* I mean under control. Just a couple o' tools.
Don't worry, as soon as my work resetting my posts is done I'll disappear forever.
Originally posted by AirSluf
The only way you can avoid having to do the emulation transition is to rewrite the client that requires the emulation in the first place (Windows window manager in this case). But then you aren't really running Windows anymore, it's something else similar to Windows. You buy tons of compatibility headaches with that type of break and patch solution, not to mention the costs of support or licensing the client's source code so you can break the original client in the first place.
The above part I italicized is exactly what Connectix did but the hardware had to conform to an existing interface for an existing Windows compatible card, or Windows would reject it. And it hardly qualifies as a driver, it is just another piece of emulation software running on the main CPU. Trying to involve the resident GFx card in the emulation adds ridiculous amounts of complexity to the whole process and still doesn't change the fact you are loosing speed because you are still emulating. It's your correctly identified "investment / revenue ratio" that makes that type of project a non-starter.
Hardware companies write new drivers all the time and they don't have the luxury of redefining the hardware's interface to match exactly what they need it to be. In six (seven?) versions of VPC Connectix hasn't done this, even though it is probably less technically challenging that their x86 emulator itself. And you don't need to modify the Windows OS itself, that's why it has drivers! Most of the time is spent in the grapics calls of the driver so it would have a significant speed improvement -- especially for 3D and video decoding. Sorry, this is just Connectix being cheap-ass about it.
i think that's one reason why, when connectix decided to utilise an emulated grapgic card, it was one which fitted the specs of the target market at the time, and was probably technically feasible. now, with all macs shipping with at least 32Mb of VRAM, it might be possible to revisit the solution with a more comparably powered emulated GPU.
furthermore i'm pretty sure the next iteration of VPC will be X only ... the last few revs of VPC added Mac OS X compatability and extra features, rather than much performance. i was so disappointed when VPC5 debuted ... i remember much speculation on these boards and others that VPC on X would bring real performance benefits. "Mach is your friend" was one quote i still remember tantalising me .... oh well.
So now VPC is X only. THe recommened specs for Quartz Extreme might be reflected in the revised emulated GPU for VPC ... 32Mb minimum for full effect, less will still run. if i were the M$ MacBU I would want to draw a line under previous performance issues with VPC on X, rasie the bar on minimum specs, redesign the emulated graphics to resemble a reasonable base PC spec card .. a GeForce2 or something. Unfortuately i'm unconvinced why M$ need VPC, and certainly why they may want to significantly rehaul it, rather than some basic new features, slap some more M$ branded installers and wizards, and stick it in a box next to Office vX on the shelves. But this thread isn't about the fundamental contradiction of VPC for Mac, made by a small section of M$, but is about performance.
hopefully they can bump the specs and rewrite the emulated graphics card.
Originally posted by jobes
when VPC3 dropped years ....
The original version of Virtual PC was Virtual PC 1.0. It entered the market at a time when the dominant emulator was SoftWindows.
Originally posted by jobes
.... Unfortuately i'm unconvinced why M$ need VPC, and certainly why they may want to significantly rehaul it, rather than some basic new features, slap some more M$ branded installers and wizards, and stick it in a box next to Office vX on the shelves....
Actually M$ doesn't need VPC, but that is not why the company bought Connectix's emulator line. It bought the product line for Virtual Server, but VPC was the shipping, profitable product. VS was still in beta. As to your second point, the MacBU has done a decent job so far of using standard MacOS X drag and drop installers. My concern is different. VPC has been a hallmark of simplicity. However, M$ subscribes to the When-in-doubt-add-another-feature school of software design. I expect the next major release of VPC (VPC7?) to be pretty good. But M$ is M$. I expect the following release (VPC8?) to be a hallmark of M$ feature bloat.
Originally posted by Bigc
Wasn't trying to criticize anything...
okay, apologies for my wording. mea culpa.
Maybe Microsoft has a plan of getting rid of Mac OS software other than VPC and will make VPC a really good product. This way they can have one code base for Office and any other stuff that someone would want to run on the mac. I mean it does seem smart even if I hate those Microshaft bastards. Maybe there will only be one more version of MS Office for mac then everyone will need to run VPC to use MS products. If they do this they can get rid of the Mac BU well all but the VPC part.
The power of Bill commands you,... the power of Bill commands you...