Apple reiterates: no interest in virtualization for Leopard

13»

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 47
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 32,977member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by gordy


    I don't think M$ cares about Parallels...they still make money when it's used. I'd think they would be more concerned with widespread WINE/Crossover adoption in the Mac community.



    I'm not so sure about that.



    Wine only allows a very small number of programs to work at 100% efficiency. Some others have most, or some of their functions enabled. It's better than nothing if you have those programs that it does well. But, it's not the same thing as running the OS.
  • Reply 42 of 47
    gordygordy Posts: 1,004member
    My point was that M$ shouldn't care, since you still need a copy of Windows to use Parallels. Running Windows software sans Windows would be a bigger concern were I on their management committee at Microsoft. Even if users only ran Office--arguably the most popular Windows app--there is room for concern.
  • Reply 43 of 47
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by gordy


    I don't think M$ cares about Parallels...they still make money when it's used. I'd think they would be more concerned with widespread WINE/Crossover adoption in the Mac community.



    Given the fact that you are going to have to pay a premium to run Windows under emulation, I'd say they were a little worried. Sure they make money for now. But the fact is virtualization is a major threat to Windows, because now it must compete head to head with other OSes for the first time. Having Windows just to run a couple of apps diminishes the importance of Windows, and MS sure doesn't like anything like that. Because if enough people switch using a different OS for most things, then some apps themselves might ported. In any case it devalues Windows over the long haul.
  • Reply 44 of 47
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 32,977member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by gordy


    My point was that M$ shouldn't care, since you still need a copy of Windows to use Parallels. Running Windows software sans Windows would be a bigger concern were I on their management committee at Microsoft. Even if users only ran Office--arguably the most popular Windows app--there is room for concern.



    Like most companies, MS looks to the future. That's why they are willing to lose billions on their XBox venture, and several others that have cost them big bucks over the years. It's because they believe that sometime in the future, perhaps as far as ten years from now, those ventures will attain great importance.



    Given that, it's understandable that a short lived gain of perhaps a couple percent of Vista sales dwindles into insignificance if they believe the talk, heavily promoted, that the ability to use Parallels will actually HASTEN the shrinking of MS's dominance.



    If they look to the next year or so, they may see a good thing for them in Parallels. But, if they believe that over the long run, it is going to result in people using Parallels as a bridge to the Mac OS, or even Linux, then they won't be happy about it at all.



    Crossover on Linux isn't nearly as big a threat, nor is it so on the Mac, simply because of the reasons I gave earlier—few programs run well, and fewer run at all.



    It's mostly geared towards Office. In fact, on Linux, it's been named Crossover Office.



    But, Linux isn't a big threat on the desktop. Not like the Mac is.
  • Reply 45 of 47
    emig647emig647 Posts: 2,426member
    Even if M$ does see importance in obtaining Parallels...



    There still is VMWare. In today's world, another set of developers would come out with something very similar to Parallels. If M$ buys them, we are in no danger of losing the ability to run windows within os x. All you chicken little's need to settle down.
  • Reply 46 of 47
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 32,977member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by emig647


    Even if M$ does see importance in obtaining Parallels...



    There still is VMWare. In today's world, another set of developers would come out with something very similar to Parallels. If M$ buys them, we are in no danger of losing the ability to run windows within os x. All you chicken little's need to settle down.



    That's possible. But, it's also possible that if they do, others won't rise to replace it. MS doesn't have to discontinue it to lessen its usfulness.



    And, again, VMWare is not likely to be used by the general public nearly as much as business.
  • Reply 47 of 47
    othelloothello Posts: 1,054member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Inkling


    I agree with the previous poster that Apple would do well to quietly detail a couple of clever programmers to assist the WINE/Crossover project. Most potential Mac buyers have, at most, one or two Windows programs that they need to run. In that situation the cost and virus risks of Windows are too great. Wine lets them run Windows applications on Macs without Windows or the risk of Windows virsuses.



    While they're at it, Apple should do something about the one-and-only major application that doesn't have a Mac or open source counterpart--FrameMaker. The loss of Classic with Intel hardware means we can no longer run older Mac versions of FrameMaker on current Macs. With a bit of effort from the right people, the Wine compatibility rating of FrameMaker could be raised from Bronze to Gold.



    If Apple wants to sell high-end Mac Pro desktops to the engineering and scientific community, they need a way to run FrameMaker on Macs. There's nothing around that can handle lengthy, complex documents like it can.



    thank goodness. another framemaker fan!



    i've posted about the death of framemaker quite a few times on AI. it is all down to adobe, who in their wsdom, have decided to drop the mac version.



    i am running frame 7.1 in windows xp on my macbook pro. hate the interface and the fact i'm in windows, but it *does* work...
Sign In or Register to comment.