First, I'm not saying this is a good thing for VPC.
However, do you really think MS wanted VPC? They wanted the code, programers, and maybe any pattents that will make it easy to have multiple versions of Windows running on Windows. How about a program that runs your web server in an environment. If it gets hacked or the OS crashes the main OS simply restarts it. Or, your server runs its own OS and every time someone logs in it loads their OS on the server in their own environment. There are tons of possible uses for this if they wanted to play with it.
Now, VPC for Mac uses this same exact feature so it goes as an extra (you buy one but the other has to go with it).
Also, as others have pointed out which would you pick between the following two options? Sell PC Office to mac users for $500-600 (won't pay much more than that). Or, sell Office for $400-$500 and sell Virtual PC for $150-$250 and you have sold more copies of your OS? I don't think the mac version of software is going anywhere. Mac users won't accept the slowdown or the lack of an OS X gui app that major.
Heck, there is even a slim chance MS might be able to optimize VPC to make it faster and if they can sell it at a profit they'll keep selling it.
What about the Virtual Playstation. What if they build this code onto a chip and put it in the X-Box. Wouldn't that allow them to play all the Playstation games? Wouldn't that give them a leg up on what we all want? The ability to play all games on one machine.
I feel somewhat relieved that the MBU will be charged with the work for the VPC. They have done a great job bringing MS software to the Mac and appearing to genuinely care about the quality of their work. What MS does with the Server components is still rumors at best.
Regardless of what all the rumors say, until mac uses stop complaining about their own AppleWorks and Keynote becomes a larger source of income for Apple that Mac Office is for MS, then we probably won't see any changes. In my presentation heavy work environment, there are a ton of macs all with MS Office, and no one has keynote yet.
Microsoft will 1) make VPC, or like I prefer to call it "Windows: mac", a much better application. 2) give Windows: mac away for almost nothing, maybe absolutely free as a bundle which includes WindowsXP, to keep people from using the alternative Windows emulators that are/will be available for OS X, increasing the "market share" to almost 100%, because Microsoft doesn't care if you running Windows on a $500 home-built AthlonXP box or a $2,700 Macintosh. All they care about is selling more copies of Windows, which killing VPC will definitely not do. 3) produce only Windows versions of their other software titles, increasing their market share, reducing their development cost, and making their entire software library available to 3% of the market to which they currently do not.
<strong>Microsoft will 1) make VPC, or like I prefer to call it "Windows: mac", a much better application. 2) give Windows: mac away for almost nothing, maybe absolutely free as a bundle which includes WindowsXP, to keep people from using the alternative Windows emulators that are/will be available for OS X, increasing the "market share" to almost 100%, because Microsoft doesn't care if you running Windows on a $500 home-built AthlonXP box or a $2,700 Macintosh. All they care about is selling more copies of Windows, which killing VPC will definitely not do. 3) produce only Windows versions of their other software titles, increasing their market share, reducing their development cost, and making their entire software library available to 3% of the market to which they currently do not.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I couldn't have said better myself. This could potentially mean all of Microsoft Window apps are "ported" Mac OS X. For example, I would love to see Microsoft's Publisher Windows application running on my Mac as though it is a Mac OS X program. This is very possible since MS writes the OS, the apps, and now the emulator. Hell, MS could do the same thing for Linux as well. This is really going to be good thing for Mac users.
Now if MS acquires REALbasic, that could be a REAL problem.
I've had a great deal of trouble finding it since, but I still remember a shootout that found that Excel 98 for Mac was slower than Excel 97 running on the same Mac in Virtual PC. So as far as Mac applications go, running the Windows code on a VPC layer might actually be an improvement, at least in terms of performance.
Still, I have to agree that although this puts Mac users in a more precarious position, the primary reason for the acquisition is VPC for Windows, which gives MS a very useful high-end capabillity that IBM has touted for some time now.
The real casualty will probably be VPC Linux. I can't see that lasting much longer.
Comments
However, do you really think MS wanted VPC? They wanted the code, programers, and maybe any pattents that will make it easy to have multiple versions of Windows running on Windows. How about a program that runs your web server in an environment. If it gets hacked or the OS crashes the main OS simply restarts it. Or, your server runs its own OS and every time someone logs in it loads their OS on the server in their own environment. There are tons of possible uses for this if they wanted to play with it.
Now, VPC for Mac uses this same exact feature so it goes as an extra (you buy one but the other has to go with it).
Also, as others have pointed out which would you pick between the following two options? Sell PC Office to mac users for $500-600 (won't pay much more than that). Or, sell Office for $400-$500 and sell Virtual PC for $150-$250 and you have sold more copies of your OS? I don't think the mac version of software is going anywhere. Mac users won't accept the slowdown or the lack of an OS X gui app that major.
Heck, there is even a slim chance MS might be able to optimize VPC to make it faster and if they can sell it at a profit they'll keep selling it.
I feel somewhat relieved that the MBU will be charged with the work for the VPC. They have done a great job bringing MS software to the Mac and appearing to genuinely care about the quality of their work. What MS does with the Server components is still rumors at best.
Regardless of what all the rumors say, until mac uses stop complaining about their own AppleWorks and Keynote becomes a larger source of income for Apple that Mac Office is for MS, then we probably won't see any changes. In my presentation heavy work environment, there are a ton of macs all with MS Office, and no one has keynote yet.
Your unquestioning servent,
Barto
<strong>Microsoft will 1) make VPC, or like I prefer to call it "Windows: mac", a much better application. 2) give Windows: mac away for almost nothing, maybe absolutely free as a bundle which includes WindowsXP, to keep people from using the alternative Windows emulators that are/will be available for OS X, increasing the "market share" to almost 100%, because Microsoft doesn't care if you running Windows on a $500 home-built AthlonXP box or a $2,700 Macintosh. All they care about is selling more copies of Windows, which killing VPC will definitely not do. 3) produce only Windows versions of their other software titles, increasing their market share, reducing their development cost, and making their entire software library available to 3% of the market to which they currently do not.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I couldn't have said better myself. This could potentially mean all of Microsoft Window apps are "ported" Mac OS X. For example, I would love to see Microsoft's Publisher Windows application running on my Mac as though it is a Mac OS X program. This is very possible since MS writes the OS, the apps, and now the emulator. Hell, MS could do the same thing for Linux as well. This is really going to be good thing for Mac users.
Now if MS acquires REALbasic, that could be a REAL problem.
Thanks
Still, I have to agree that although this puts Mac users in a more precarious position, the primary reason for the acquisition is VPC for Windows, which gives MS a very useful high-end capabillity that IBM has touted for some time now.
The real casualty will probably be VPC Linux. I can't see that lasting much longer.
<strong>Virtual Game Station code is now owned by Sony, due to a court-forced decree.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, Sony lost the case, but they still wanted to stop VGS so they just bought it.