<strong>Forgive my ignorace on all this, but what do you all use VPC for? What programs absolutely need to run in windows which don't mind running really slowly?
Thanks in advance!</strong><hr></blockquote>
I've got a fair amount of electrical engineering software that only runs on a pc. Regarding whether or not it runs slowly, I can say that I've tried vpc on a dual 1.25 running windows xp and windows me and windows me ran fast enough for me. In fact, I opened a large hi res picture along with internet exploiter and it was really useable. Windows xp is noticeably slower.
<strong>This may give M$ a neutron bomb, but Apple has two answers up their sleeves: X11 and Darwin on x86. Once OpenOffice is ready for prime time, Apple will probably find they need MSOffice a whole lot less. If not, Apple can make all the rumor sites orgasm by rolling out OSX for x86 bundled with an OSX-optimized WINE. Viola, MSOffice back on Mac.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Um, when will OpenOffice be "ready for prime time," and will its developers' idea of "prime time" resemble a Mac user's in any significant way? In other words, will it be any less of a bloated tangle of widgets than MS Office is? And will the Office file compatibility improve at all?
Also, Apple would not only have to port WINE to PPC, they would have to supply a hardware emulation layer to go with it, since Wine Is Not an Emulator. It's also not all that close to a complete reimplementation of Windows. A friend of mine spent two weeks hacking WINE to run Lotus Notes, and nobody (including her!) can quite believe that she managed it. WINE might give Apple something of a head start on a replacement, but there's a great deal more work involved in spiffing it up to be a VPC replacement than you seem to think.
Edit (now for some content): VPC isn't used that much by long-time Mac users. It IS used by switchers however, to ease the Mac transition. MS could easily reduce the number of switchers by killing/crippling VPC.
<strong>Amorph, he said that they would roll out Mac OS X for x86 so WINE would not need to be ported to PPC, it would just be available on x86.</strong><hr></blockquote>
My bad, then.
But Apple would still have to put a lot of elbow grease into WINE. It's still a far cry from VPC, let alone Windows itself.
Funny -- I was just thinking about getting a copy of 5.0 w/ 98 so I could upgrade to 6 cheaply. As someone mentioned VPN clients (which are required to access wireless web at my school), that's my need for it -- my university has failed to release an OS 10.2-compatible client despite the fact that cisco has had it available for many months now (they're too lazy to upgrade their VPN). So, thanks to lazy IT personnel, I figured I'd just get Virtual PC and install the '98 client so I can do the wireless web thing (without it we can only access local network -- which is basically nothing).
<strong>Yeah, and what did they get slapped with, essentially nothing except their own lawyer bills which are insignificant compared to a single years earnings. How bad do you think they could be hurt if they finally went to court and ther wasn't any competition left at all once they finally got a judge and a hearing date?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yup. The up-shot is, MS can do anything it wants to do. Laws do not apply to them. I'm actually quite surprised at their restraint. Somebody on the Redmond campus must have a conscience.
<strong>This may give M$ a neutron bomb, but Apple has two answers up their sleeves: X11 and Darwin on x86. Once OpenOffice is ready for prime time, Apple will probably find they need MSOffice a whole lot less. If not, Apple can make all the rumor sites orgasm by rolling out OSX for x86 bundled with an OSX-optimized WINE. Viola, MSOffice back on Mac.
I install a copy of VPc on may machine.... a couple of months later I deleted it.
I found I had no real use for it. Fun to play with, but not a real "must have" program. If MS really wanted to scare Mac users they would buy Adobe. (though I suspect that wouldn't come cheap)
If the MS brains in redmond really were using this as a threat to Steve (IMO it isn't), Steve sounds like he has a MUCH bigger stick if Maklar is true.
Edit (now for some content): VPC isn't used that much by long-time Mac users. It IS used by switchers however, to ease the Mac transition. MS could easily reduce the number of switchers by killing/crippling VPC.
Not true at all. I've been a mac user for years, but I need to use VPC for some stupid access application that the dook medical center has in place for HIPAA compliance. I have no other options when it comes to this. Others have already stated that they use VPN software in VPC. New users wouldn't put up with that steaming pile of shit known as VPC. They'd find another way if there were one.
Forgive my ignorace on all this, but what do you all use VPC for? What programs absolutely need to run in windows which don't mind running really slowly?
Thanks in advance!<hr></blockquote>
Not a single one of the many programs we use at my major university library have mac versions. They are ALL windows based. If you want to use a mac here, you have no choice but to run VPC. In fact, my professional life puts me in no contact with any mac-compatible software. I assume this is the same for most other large organizations. Software is simply not developed for macs at all because there is no use for Apple computers.
One of the primary reasons for this is our reliance on windows based databases. Even simple, but extremely widely used, access database programs need windows to run. Most large institutions have no choice but to run windows because that is what ALL of the software runs on.
[quote]Originally posted by ZO:
c) could the fact that X11 was released by Apple have anything to do with this? That Apple knew this was happening and released X11 to alay some fears or show that Mac still has surprises? Compatibility, etc?
<hr></blockquote>
apple X11 has everything to do with running non-aqua unix programs on OS X. It has nothing to do with Microsoft. XWindows was slow and cumbersome before Apple X11, which was just stupid considering how hard it was to run unix programs on unix (OS X). Apple's release of X11 was for unix folks.
[quote]Um, when will OpenOffice be "ready for prime time," and will its developers' idea of "prime time" resemble a Mac user's in any significant way? In other words, will it be any less of a bloated tangle of widgets than MS Office is? And will the Office file compatibility improve at all?
<hr></blockquote>
Apple has already shown that, now that the OS is unix, it likes to take free software and refine it. I would be extremely surprised if there is not a team working on a new productivity suite that, if not based on openoffice.org, borrows heavily. It will no doubt be a very nice collection of apps.
Not true at all. I've been a mac user for years, but I need to use VPC for some stupid access application that the dook medical center has in place for HIPAA compliance. I have no other options when it comes to this. Others have already stated that they use VPN software in VPC. New users wouldn't put up with that steaming pile of shit known as VPC. They'd find another way if there were one.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Some people use VPC for specific, non-Mac applications. But it's also important to lots of switchers.
For the couple of you saying Microshaft would never kill it for fear of the Justice Department and monopoly charges- look at what happened to Jusge Jackson's verdict and punishment. MS gets away with what they want. That is clearly what the latest trial shows. They have no reason to worry based on what has happened thus far.
Microsoft will do what they want, and the possiblity of DOJ bullet chinks in their armor won't stop them. Microsoft won't step lightly as they walk across eggshells.
Buying VPC is just one more move in hopes to keep people off the Mac platform. No one knows for sure what the plan is. Maybe they'll make VPC better, or maybe they'll kill it off. Maybe they'll use VPC as an excuse to not develop Office for OS X after the next release. Maybe they'll just use it for virtual machines on Windows. I don't think it looks good no matter what what they do. It can't lead to anything good knowing Microsoft's attitude. Screw'em.
"I guess that's what happens when you awaken the giant in hibernation during the winter.
Apple had to see this coming or some sort of retalitory measure for Safari and the Switch campaign. "
Oh please...like they give a sh!t. There's no way this move developed in just a month or so--and while keeping Apple on their toes is a nice ancillary benefit, they are much more concerned about getting the multiserver business.
Rather than type this over again, here is my post to MacCentral on this subject.
======
I'm no fan of Microsoft, whose general behaviour I believe to be predatory and monopolistic; however, some - actually most - of the responses here are typical of the type of kneejerk paranoia you would normally expect from a member of the Lone Gunmen on the X-Files.
Another possible interpretation to this transaction goes as follows:
I'm Steve Ballmer, and I've now read almost three months of hype surrounding Apple's future technological direction and the likelihood of their adoption of IBM's PPC 970 processor.
I've instructed my technology wizards to analyze 970 from a SWOT perspective and they've told me some things I would have preferred not to hear: Firstly, the chip will be small and energy-efficient compared to my favoured 64-bit horse, namely Itanium - so it will probably cost less to produce than Itanium and be capable of being deployed all the way from sub-notebook to 8-way server; secondly, it will have more headroom for improvement than my partner's mainstream desktop chip (Pentium 4) given that it will become more and more difficult to scale the processor as it starts to reach the limits of its electrical engineering envelope.
I now know that a number of my competitors are applying the rule of "My enemy's enemy is my friend" and have either developed or are developing their products for OS X. And with the earlier SWOT information, I now have to take seriously the possibility that - for the first time in many years - Apple's hardware architecture may take back the speed crown using any type of benchmark that the industry cares to use. And I'm also worried that Apple's server product has the potential to undercut my somewhat onerous licensing costs given that I charge a licence for the server and for every client that attaches to that server.
In fact, from a threat point of view, I can see that Apple may soon be in a position to issue a unilateral declaration of independence from MS, given that they may be contemplating a release of an OpenOffice variant.
In reality I can't afford to let Connectix drop the development of VPC, which they might just do if OS X starts to build a snowball effect: The fastest hardware platform, a more stable, more robust (and agonisingly, more well regarded) OS, combined with a brilliant development environment may attract genuinely innovative software developers, some of whom may start to tread on my toes.
So I face a simple reality: A) Run the risk that OS X may turn into a genuine thorn in my side building market share exponentially quarter-on-quarter, or hedge my bets and buy a company that has already worked out how to run my my less mainstream products under emulation.
My choice is B, and I will give said acquistion a considerable degree of insider assistance could make my products run competitively under a platform that I will never be able to even think of controlling because I know that no power on earth will be able to protect me from the ensuing storm of crap that would result from such a move.
Whilst I'm at it, I will use the acquisition to help me implement my grand master plan (.NET) on multiple platforms, because I know that Apple, Sun et al have no intention of ever really buying into it and I'm way too committed to back out now, especially as I now have a dividend programme to support.
Just another point of view, feel free to shoot it down but it's as valid as any of the "truth is out there" crap contained elsewhere.
Comments
<strong>Forgive my ignorace on all this, but what do you all use VPC for? What programs absolutely need to run in windows which don't mind running really slowly?
Thanks in advance!</strong><hr></blockquote>
I've got a fair amount of electrical engineering software that only runs on a pc. Regarding whether or not it runs slowly, I can say that I've tried vpc on a dual 1.25 running windows xp and windows me and windows me ran fast enough for me. In fact, I opened a large hi res picture along with internet exploiter and it was really useable. Windows xp is noticeably slower.
<strong>This may give M$ a neutron bomb, but Apple has two answers up their sleeves: X11 and Darwin on x86. Once OpenOffice is ready for prime time, Apple will probably find they need MSOffice a whole lot less. If not, Apple can make all the rumor sites orgasm by rolling out OSX for x86 bundled with an OSX-optimized WINE. Viola, MSOffice back on Mac.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Um, when will OpenOffice be "ready for prime time," and will its developers' idea of "prime time" resemble a Mac user's in any significant way? In other words, will it be any less of a bloated tangle of widgets than MS Office is? And will the Office file compatibility improve at all?
Also, Apple would not only have to port WINE to PPC, they would have to supply a hardware emulation layer to go with it, since Wine Is Not an Emulator. It's also not all that close to a complete reimplementation of Windows. A friend of mine spent two weeks hacking WINE to run Lotus Notes, and nobody (including her!) can quite believe that she managed it. WINE might give Apple something of a head start on a replacement, but there's a great deal more work involved in spiffing it up to be a VPC replacement than you seem to think.
Edit (now for some content): VPC isn't used that much by long-time Mac users. It IS used by switchers however, to ease the Mac transition. MS could easily reduce the number of switchers by killing/crippling VPC.
Barto
[ 02-19-2003: Message edited by: Barto ]</p>
<strong>Amorph, he said that they would roll out Mac OS X for x86 so WINE would not need to be ported to PPC, it would just be available on x86.</strong><hr></blockquote>
My bad, then.
But Apple would still have to put a lot of elbow grease into WINE. It's still a far cry from VPC, let alone Windows itself.
<strong>Yeah, and what did they get slapped with, essentially nothing except their own lawyer bills which are insignificant compared to a single years earnings. How bad do you think they could be hurt if they finally went to court and ther wasn't any competition left at all once they finally got a judge and a hearing date?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yup. The up-shot is, MS can do anything it wants to do. Laws do not apply to them. I'm actually quite surprised at their restraint. Somebody on the Redmond campus must have a conscience.
<strong>This may give M$ a neutron bomb, but Apple has two answers up their sleeves: X11 and Darwin on x86. Once OpenOffice is ready for prime time, Apple will probably find they need MSOffice a whole lot less. If not, Apple can make all the rumor sites orgasm by rolling out OSX for x86 bundled with an OSX-optimized WINE. Viola, MSOffice back on Mac.
Interesting times, interesting times...</strong><hr></blockquote>
haha that would definatly be interesting, i think apple would loose in the long run, but it'd be funny
ONLY ON THE ****ING XBOX! **** THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This must be a hoax.
****.
I found I had no real use for it. Fun to play with, but not a real "must have" program. If MS really wanted to scare Mac users they would buy Adobe. (though I suspect that wouldn't come cheap)
If the MS brains in redmond really were using this as a threat to Steve (IMO it isn't), Steve sounds like he has a MUCH bigger stick if Maklar is true.
Way too much of a coincidence, especially after Apple came out with Keynote and Safari.
Its a strike back.
Its now time for Apple to come out wih the full version of their Office suite.
Office 11 is a pipe dream. It will never see the light of day.
M$ is ruthless and no DOJ ruling is going to stop these people.
The war has now begun in earnest.
[ 02-19-2003: Message edited by: msantti ]</p>
<strong>KILL ALL MICROSOFT BASTARDS!
Edit (now for some content): VPC isn't used that much by long-time Mac users. It IS used by switchers however, to ease the Mac transition. MS could easily reduce the number of switchers by killing/crippling VPC.
Barto
[ 02-19-2003: Message edited by: Barto ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not true at all. I've been a mac user for years, but I need to use VPC for some stupid access application that the dook medical center has in place for HIPAA compliance. I have no other options when it comes to this. Others have already stated that they use VPN software in VPC. New users wouldn't put up with that steaming pile of shit known as VPC. They'd find another way if there were one.
Forgive my ignorace on all this, but what do you all use VPC for? What programs absolutely need to run in windows which don't mind running really slowly?
Thanks in advance!<hr></blockquote>
Not a single one of the many programs we use at my major university library have mac versions. They are ALL windows based. If you want to use a mac here, you have no choice but to run VPC. In fact, my professional life puts me in no contact with any mac-compatible software. I assume this is the same for most other large organizations. Software is simply not developed for macs at all because there is no use for Apple computers.
One of the primary reasons for this is our reliance on windows based databases. Even simple, but extremely widely used, access database programs need windows to run. Most large institutions have no choice but to run windows because that is what ALL of the software runs on.
[quote]Originally posted by ZO:
c) could the fact that X11 was released by Apple have anything to do with this? That Apple knew this was happening and released X11 to alay some fears or show that Mac still has surprises? Compatibility, etc?
<hr></blockquote>
apple X11 has everything to do with running non-aqua unix programs on OS X. It has nothing to do with Microsoft. XWindows was slow and cumbersome before Apple X11, which was just stupid considering how hard it was to run unix programs on unix (OS X). Apple's release of X11 was for unix folks.
[quote]Um, when will OpenOffice be "ready for prime time," and will its developers' idea of "prime time" resemble a Mac user's in any significant way? In other words, will it be any less of a bloated tangle of widgets than MS Office is? And will the Office file compatibility improve at all?
<hr></blockquote>
Apple has already shown that, now that the OS is unix, it likes to take free software and refine it. I would be extremely surprised if there is not a team working on a new productivity suite that, if not based on openoffice.org, borrows heavily. It will no doubt be a very nice collection of apps.
[ 02-19-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</p>
<strong>
Not true at all. I've been a mac user for years, but I need to use VPC for some stupid access application that the dook medical center has in place for HIPAA compliance. I have no other options when it comes to this. Others have already stated that they use VPN software in VPC. New users wouldn't put up with that steaming pile of shit known as VPC. They'd find another way if there were one.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Some people use VPC for specific, non-Mac applications. But it's also important to lots of switchers.
The empire strikes back
Barto
Buying VPC is just one more move in hopes to keep people off the Mac platform. No one knows for sure what the plan is. Maybe they'll make VPC better, or maybe they'll kill it off. Maybe they'll use VPC as an excuse to not develop Office for OS X after the next release. Maybe they'll just use it for virtual machines on Windows. I don't think it looks good no matter what what they do. It can't lead to anything good knowing Microsoft's attitude. Screw'em.
[ 02-19-2003: Message edited by: FrostyMMB ]</p>
Apple had to see this coming or some sort of retalitory measure for Safari and the Switch campaign. "
Oh please...like they give a sh!t. There's no way this move developed in just a month or so--and while keeping Apple on their toes is a nice ancillary benefit, they are much more concerned about getting the multiserver business.
======
I'm no fan of Microsoft, whose general behaviour I believe to be predatory and monopolistic; however, some - actually most - of the responses here are typical of the type of kneejerk paranoia you would normally expect from a member of the Lone Gunmen on the X-Files.
Another possible interpretation to this transaction goes as follows:
I'm Steve Ballmer, and I've now read almost three months of hype surrounding Apple's future technological direction and the likelihood of their adoption of IBM's PPC 970 processor.
I've instructed my technology wizards to analyze 970 from a SWOT perspective and they've told me some things I would have preferred not to hear: Firstly, the chip will be small and energy-efficient compared to my favoured 64-bit horse, namely Itanium - so it will probably cost less to produce than Itanium and be capable of being deployed all the way from sub-notebook to 8-way server; secondly, it will have more headroom for improvement than my partner's mainstream desktop chip (Pentium 4) given that it will become more and more difficult to scale the processor as it starts to reach the limits of its electrical engineering envelope.
I now know that a number of my competitors are applying the rule of "My enemy's enemy is my friend" and have either developed or are developing their products for OS X. And with the earlier SWOT information, I now have to take seriously the possibility that - for the first time in many years - Apple's hardware architecture may take back the speed crown using any type of benchmark that the industry cares to use. And I'm also worried that Apple's server product has the potential to undercut my somewhat onerous licensing costs given that I charge a licence for the server and for every client that attaches to that server.
In fact, from a threat point of view, I can see that Apple may soon be in a position to issue a unilateral declaration of independence from MS, given that they may be contemplating a release of an OpenOffice variant.
In reality I can't afford to let Connectix drop the development of VPC, which they might just do if OS X starts to build a snowball effect: The fastest hardware platform, a more stable, more robust (and agonisingly, more well regarded) OS, combined with a brilliant development environment may attract genuinely innovative software developers, some of whom may start to tread on my toes.
So I face a simple reality: A) Run the risk that OS X may turn into a genuine thorn in my side building market share exponentially quarter-on-quarter, or
My choice is B, and I will give said acquistion a considerable degree of insider assistance could make my products run competitively under a platform that I will never be able to even think of controlling because I know that no power on earth will be able to protect me from the ensuing storm of crap that would result from such a move.
Whilst I'm at it, I will use the acquisition to help me implement my grand master plan (.NET) on multiple platforms, because I know that Apple, Sun et al have no intention of ever really buying into it and I'm way too committed to back out now, especially as I now have a dividend programme to support.
Just another point of view, feel free to shoot it down but it's as valid as any of the "truth is out there" crap contained elsewhere.
Â* Â*