I think it's the right decision. Let parallels and vmware take care of that option. Bootcamp just works - virtualization is nicer in many ways, but much messier.
VMware's site is confusing, so is there really a VMware product that works on OS X? I found Windows, Linux, NetWare, or Solaris x86 mentioned but no mention of OS X. Why do you say virtualization is messier?
While that may be true, you can't dismiss the eye candy vista brings to the table has a performance hit. The whole operating system uses MUCH more resources than xp ever thought of. A lot of that is from aero. WinSAT rated my system a 4 out of 5 with a 7900gs, 1.5gigs of ram, and an athlon 64 3400+ venice. Pretty sad. I'm not going to upgrade my system so I can run vista at full bore AND games too. I think I'll be waiting quite a while for D10 games.
Ah, I knew that would be brought up. I was going to address that in my last post on it, but decided not to.
When most games are playing, the "eye candy" isn't on. The game has control of the display.
VMware's site is confusing, so is there really a VMware product that works on OS X? I found Windows, Linux, NetWare, or Solaris x86 mentioned but no mention of OS X. Why do you say virtualization is messier?
One is that I hope that MS doesn't buy Parallels as they did VPC, and two, it might not be a bad idea for Apple to do so.
Actually I'd like to see Apple make ann investment in Parallels - not buy them altogether. The extra cash would speed up new development and the shares in hand could prevent MS from buying the company. I prefer that Parallels otherwise stays independent as they are doing a hell of a job on their own. There is no reason to pull then under the Apple tree and every reason tokeep them out of MS's hands.
Actually I'd like to see Apple make ann investment in Parallels - not buy them altogether. The extra cash would speed up new development and the shares in hand could prevent MS from buying the company. I prefer that Parallels otherwise stays independent as they are doing a hell of a job on their own. There is no reason to pull then under the Apple tree and every reason tokeep them out of MS's hands.
My fear is that if it becomes too successful, and MS thinks it is threatening their business, they just might buy it.
I would really like to be able to run OS X in Parallels. It would be good to have a virtual Mac to install new apps on until I am confident enough to move them across to my real machine.
My belief is that Apple has been working on an XP application layer for Mac OS X for a very long time and it "just works". Others have suggested this too.
They have the expertise to do it.
It could easily have been kept completely secret.
It would be a huge strategic coup for Apple. Where do all the wavering XP users go from here? Vista? Most don't want to, and yet they will be forced to as soon as MS stops loading it on new machines.
Apple is in the unique position of being able to make a *better* XP than MS by adding security and other safeguards in the API layer. So they can sell Apple hardware to all current XP users and offer greater value.
It's completely legal and free of licensing problems: just move you applications to the Mac.
My belief is that Apple has been working on an XP application layer for Mac OS X for a very long time and it "just works". Others have suggested this too.
...
It's completely legal and free of licensing problems: just move you applications to the Mac.
Don't forget: Apple is a hardware company.
Keep on dreaming.
I'd love to see it. But for a "hardware company", that is the mother of all coding to do! Apple are a hardware *and* software company, and they value their OS over such visions of seamless interoperability. Bootcamp is one thing: a necessity once we hackers figured out our own kluge to run XP straight on Intel Macs. Parallels is another: virtualisation for he who could bear Connectix but dreamt of more performance. But Apple's vision is of their OS, not someone else's. All the arguments about Bootcamp killing Mac game development would be magnified across all Mac software and it would make as much mess for devs as Zen for dual minded users like ourselves.
Apple have basically got it right. And I back the idea around here that they should buy a good chunk of Parallels just so MS can't steal it away like the last time!
My fear is that if it becomes too successful, and MS thinks it is threatening their business, they just might buy it.
What planet do you inhabit? How could a highly successful Parallels, which encourages people to buy a high-proft-margin retail version of Windows plus undoubtedly lots of MS software for Windows "threaten their business"? What are you on about? MS will make far more money from the retail Windows needed for Boot Camp and Parallels than from a cheapo OEM version of Windows on a PC, the alternative. They'll be laughing all the way to the bank. It doesn't bother MS if Apple, rather than Dell, sells the machine: in fact they'd far prefer Apple to do so, since Apple's "we don't sell or support Windows" policy means that the copy of Windows you buy is sold at far greater proft to MS - probably about TEN times the profit margin! And if the Mac user with Parallels _also_ has MS Office for Mac on top of that - also a high-profit-margin seller - that's a big bonus, even better for MS. This is better for MS than for anyone else. Why else do you think they decided not to bother competing with VPC? Someone else (Parallels, and VMWare) can do the heavy lifting, and the better tey do, the more copies of high-profit Windows get sold, at no effort to MS. It's a win-win-win for MS. And for us too.
I don't think Apple would let MS buy Parellels - anything Ms can afford, Apple can afford and I think those guys would much rather sell to Apple and keep their jobs versus selling to MS and calling it a day ... in the worse case scenario, some other company would launch a parellels like app.
Apple didn't really care about MS buying VPC since they knew Boot Camp was coming - in fact, they probably had a good laugh that MS was paying millions thinking they would cut Macs off from running PC apps and they really bought a donkey.
In this day and internet age, there is no fear of something disappearing completely. It might not be available for a few months before another solution appears but just MS couldn't concieve a couple thousand/million coders could crank out an open source OS line by line and collaboratively worldwide.
Apple didn't really care about MS buying VPC since they knew Boot Camp was coming - in fact, they probably had a good laugh that MS was paying millions thinking they would cut Macs off from running PC apps and they really bought a donkey.
I don't think buying VPC to cut macs from using windows apps was M$'s original intentions. If that were the case why would they ever release updates to what they bought? Why would they repackage it to sell it? The problems hit when their was a huge problem converting the code to work with g5s. The project was further hit when apple moved to intel. It would have cost a lot more to convert it, and probably wouldn't get anything out of it. M$ purchased VPC to have a better virtual machine to run native software inside windows. That is what they use it for today. VirtualPC 2007 is right around the corner.
Originally it was a good idea for m$. They would get to sell an operating system for a machine they never intended on selling it for. That is a bonus sale IMO. Either way, like everything m$ buys or copies, they destroy it. I'm actually interested to see how virtualPC 2007 handles under vista.
I don't think Apple would let MS buy Parellels - anything Ms can afford, Apple can afford and I think those guys would much rather sell to Apple and keep their jobs versus selling to MS and calling it a day ... in the worse case scenario, some other company would launch a parellels like app.
Once they sell out, none of them are keeping their jobs! The owners won't care, because they get all the cash. And what would they care about their employees because, hello, they get all the cash! Hello, early retirement!
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbelkin
Apple didn't really care about MS buying VPC since they knew Boot Camp was coming - in fact, they probably had a good laugh that MS was paying millions thinking they would cut Macs off from running PC apps and they really bought a donkey.
Some people need to get themselves off their high-horse and stop believing that every business decision in the world somehow revolves around Apple and Macs. There was NOTHING about MS buying VPC that concerned Apple. MS wanted VPC for Windows, not VPC for Mac, so they could better support virtualization and running multiple OSes on their server products. That's it. That's where the money was going.
Oh, and if MS bought VPC to cut off Windows users, why did they/do they continue to sell it? Why did they spend the time and money to make it compatible with the G5? No one mentions the time or money needed to do that (which was also, probably, one of the reasons Connectix decided to sell the product). No, everyone ignores that. But when they say they won't make an Intel version, its all about how they're trying to put a stranglehold on the computer industry.
No one mentions the time or money needed to do that (which was also, probably, one of the reasons Connectix decided to sell the product). No, everyone ignores that. But when they say they won't make an Intel version, its all about how they're trying to put a stranglehold on the computer industry.
I'd love to see it. But for a "hardware company", that is the mother of all coding to do! Apple are a hardware *and* software company, and they value their OS over such visions of seamless interoperability. Bootcamp is one thing: a necessity once we hackers figured out our own kluge to run XP straight on Intel Macs. Parallels is another: virtualisation for he who could bear Connectix but dreamt of more performance. But Apple's vision is of their OS, not someone else's. All the arguments about Bootcamp killing Mac game development would be magnified across all Mac software and it would make as much mess for devs as Zen for dual minded users like ourselves.
Apple have basically got it right. And I back the idea around here that they should buy a good chunk of Parallels just so MS can't steal it away like the last time!
An application "layer" is already about done. It's called Darwine. Crossover Mac is the commercial version. Whatever has to be done, the API's must be reverse engineered. That's what has been done. But, not all of them. More keep coming though.
What planet do you inhabit? How could a highly successful Parallels, which encourages people to buy a high-proft-margin retail version of Windows plus undoubtedly lots of MS software for Windows "threaten their business"? What are you on about? MS will make far more money from the retail Windows needed for Boot Camp and Parallels than from a cheapo OEM version of Windows on a PC, the alternative. They'll be laughing all the way to the bank. It doesn't bother MS if Apple, rather than Dell, sells the machine: in fact they'd far prefer Apple to do so, since Apple's "we don't sell or support Windows" policy means that the copy of Windows you buy is sold at far greater proft to MS - probably about TEN times the profit margin! And if the Mac user with Parallels _also_ has MS Office for Mac on top of that - also a high-profit-margin seller - that's a big bonus, even better for MS. This is better for MS than for anyone else. Why else do you think they decided not to bother competing with VPC? Someone else (Parallels, and VMWare) can do the heavy lifting, and the better tey do, the more copies of high-profit Windows get sold, at no effort to MS. It's a win-win-win for MS. And for us too.
While I agree with you on the relative size of the per-copy profit margins Microsoft makes on a retail copy of Windows sold to a Parallels/Bootcamp user vs. an OEM copy sold to Dell or HP (that is, about 10 to 1), I think there is a much larger concern for Microsoft at play here: What MS has most to fear is for users (beyond us Mac fanatics who they've already lost ) to discover that they have a choice of whether to use Windows or not. A large part of MS's lock on the market has been that most users don't know (or believe) that they actually could survive with anything else ... so their only choice is *when* to upgrade to MS's latest, um, emission, and now, with the plethora of variations on Vista, which of them to choose. I believe that MS is (understandably) quite desparate to keep the computing public in the dark.
But, once someone runs OS X generally, and uses Windows just for selected applications or as a general safety-blanket against discovering the need for such an application in the future ... whoa, why then the user will see first hand that not only can they indeed survive without Windows, but they'll have first-hand experience of all of Windows' relative deficiencies (and, for the first time, be willing to *admit* those deficiencies to themselves, because they'll no longer be psychologically dependent on the fantasy that Windows can actually satisfy their needs).
That is, what keeps a lot of people tied to Windows is, fundamentally, a *psychological* dependence, much like what keeps an abused & beaten spouse (most often, that means wife) from leaving her abuser. And, just like all those other abusers, Microsoft will do anything in their power (often without regard to legal niceties) to keep their abused subjects *isolated* from actually experiencing any alternatives.
So, even though MS does indeed realize a much greater profit margin on each retail sale of a copy of Windows for use on a Mac than on their OEM sales, they still have a lot to fear from this shift ... and they know it. The big question in my mind (and possibly still in theirs) is just what they're going to do about it ....
What planet do you inhabit? How could a highly successful Parallels, which encourages people to buy a high-proft-margin retail version of Windows plus undoubtedly lots of MS software for Windows "threaten their business"? What are you on about? MS will make far more money from the retail Windows needed for Boot Camp and Parallels than from a cheapo OEM version of Windows on a PC, the alternative. They'll be laughing all the way to the bank. It doesn't bother MS if Apple, rather than Dell, sells the machine: in fact they'd far prefer Apple to do so, since Apple's "we don't sell or support Windows" policy means that the copy of Windows you buy is sold at far greater proft to MS - probably about TEN times the profit margin! And if the Mac user with Parallels _also_ has MS Office for Mac on top of that - also a high-profit-margin seller - that's a big bonus, even better for MS. This is better for MS than for anyone else. Why else do you think they decided not to bother competing with VPC? Someone else (Parallels, and VMWare) can do the heavy lifting, and the better tey do, the more copies of high-profit Windows get sold, at no effort to MS. It's a win-win-win for MS. And for us too.
I live in Queens County, NYC, in the USA, on the surface of the planet Earth. I've moved around a bit, but, so far, I've never been more than about seven miles above the surface.
You must have been away for a while, right?
You didn't see the way MS has penned up the various Vista versions, with only the $299 and $399 versions being allowed to work from a virtual machine?
Did you also see that even with the two most expensive versions that can, you are not allowed to run ANY of their software that uses DRM? Ot that you won't be able to play a DVD, or Blu-Ray, or an HD-DVD because they all use DRM? That means all music and video software. There are other limitations as well.
Doesn't that show some fear of what Parallels might do to their marketshare?
Didn't MS buy VPC? Another very successful program that would have been as successful on an Intel Mac if Connectis still owned it.
With MS having about $30 billion in the bank, what makes you think they couldn't offer enough to buy the company, or at least the program?
You seem to forget the reason why people buying a Mac will be buying Parallels. Mostly to run a program or two that they need until they can switch out of Windows forever. Forget about that? MS hasn't!
If what you said would be true, then MS would have rushed an Intel version of VPC out the door instead of discontinuing it.
I don't think Apple would let MS buy Parellels - anything Ms can afford, Apple can afford and I think those guys would much rather sell to Apple and keep their jobs versus selling to MS and calling it a day ... in the worse case scenario, some other company would launch a parellels like app.
Apple didn't really care about MS buying VPC since they knew Boot Camp was coming - in fact, they probably had a good laugh that MS was paying millions thinking they would cut Macs off from running PC apps and they really bought a donkey.
In this day and internet age, there is no fear of something disappearing completely. It might not be available for a few months before another solution appears but just MS couldn't concieve a couple thousand/million coders could crank out an open source OS line by line and collaboratively worldwide.
But then MS still think it's 1996.
I don't see Apple being able to do a damn thing about it.
And Apple very much wanted VPC on their Intel Macs. They discussed it in puplic, even saying that MS had agreed to do it. MS had to come out with a statement saying that they were THINKING about doing it. But, I don't believe they really intended to. It looked as though Apple was trying to use public attention on the issue to force them to do it. But, it didn't work.
When Parallels announced their version, and it looked as though it wasn't vaporware, it no longer mattered, and MS could say, officially, that they were backing out.
I don't think buying VPC to cut macs from using windows apps was M$'s original intentions. If that were the case why would they ever release updates to what they bought? Why would they repackage it to sell it? The problems hit when their was a huge problem converting the code to work with g5s. The project was further hit when apple moved to intel. It would have cost a lot more to convert it, and probably wouldn't get anything out of it. M$ purchased VPC to have a better virtual machine to run native software inside windows. That is what they use it for today. VirtualPC 2007 is right around the corner.
Originally it was a good idea for m$. They would get to sell an operating system for a machine they never intended on selling it for. That is a bonus sale IMO. Either way, like everything m$ buys or copies, they destroy it. I'm actually interested to see how virtualPC 2007 handles under vista.
It's an open secret in the industry that MS had no interest in VPC for the Mac. It came as part of the package.
What they wanted was the server virtualizarion software that Connectix was almost finished developing. This is for the purpose of running more than one one virtual machine on a multi cpu server. All of those OS's would be MS's OS's ( that rhymes!).
It turns out that many servers are not using the full power available a great deal of the time. That is wasted cpu power that was paid for. By allowing several instances of the OS to run at once, the machine is more efficient, and MS gets more money. That was the big buck program they wanted.
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.
Comments
I think it's the right decision. Let parallels and vmware take care of that option. Bootcamp just works - virtualization is nicer in many ways, but much messier.
VMware's site is confusing, so is there really a VMware product that works on OS X? I found Windows, Linux, NetWare, or Solaris x86 mentioned but no mention of OS X. Why do you say virtualization is messier?
Melgross,
While that may be true, you can't dismiss the eye candy vista brings to the table has a performance hit. The whole operating system uses MUCH more resources than xp ever thought of. A lot of that is from aero. WinSAT rated my system a 4 out of 5 with a 7900gs, 1.5gigs of ram, and an athlon 64 3400+ venice. Pretty sad. I'm not going to upgrade my system so I can run vista at full bore AND games too. I think I'll be waiting quite a while for D10 games.
Ah, I knew that would be brought up. I was going to address that in my last post on it, but decided not to.
When most games are playing, the "eye candy" isn't on. The game has control of the display.
VMware's site is confusing, so is there really a VMware product that works on OS X? I found Windows, Linux, NetWare, or Solaris x86 mentioned but no mention of OS X. Why do you say virtualization is messier?
Not yet, it's still in beta.
Two things.
One is that I hope that MS doesn't buy Parallels as they did VPC, and two, it might not be a bad idea for Apple to do so.
Actually I'd like to see Apple make ann investment in Parallels - not buy them altogether. The extra cash would speed up new development and the shares in hand could prevent MS from buying the company. I prefer that Parallels otherwise stays independent as they are doing a hell of a job on their own. There is no reason to pull then under the Apple tree and every reason tokeep them out of MS's hands.
Actually I'd like to see Apple make ann investment in Parallels - not buy them altogether. The extra cash would speed up new development and the shares in hand could prevent MS from buying the company. I prefer that Parallels otherwise stays independent as they are doing a hell of a job on their own. There is no reason to pull then under the Apple tree and every reason tokeep them out of MS's hands.
My fear is that if it becomes too successful, and MS thinks it is threatening their business, they just might buy it.
They have the expertise to do it.
It could easily have been kept completely secret.
It would be a huge strategic coup for Apple. Where do all the wavering XP users go from here? Vista? Most don't want to, and yet they will be forced to as soon as MS stops loading it on new machines.
Apple is in the unique position of being able to make a *better* XP than MS by adding security and other safeguards in the API layer. So they can sell Apple hardware to all current XP users and offer greater value.
It's completely legal and free of licensing problems: just move you applications to the Mac.
Don't forget: Apple is a hardware company.
My belief is that Apple has been working on an XP application layer for Mac OS X for a very long time and it "just works". Others have suggested this too.
...
It's completely legal and free of licensing problems: just move you applications to the Mac.
Don't forget: Apple is a hardware company.
Keep on dreaming.
I'd love to see it. But for a "hardware company", that is the mother of all coding to do! Apple are a hardware *and* software company, and they value their OS over such visions of seamless interoperability. Bootcamp is one thing: a necessity once we hackers figured out our own kluge to run XP straight on Intel Macs. Parallels is another: virtualisation for he who could bear Connectix but dreamt of more performance. But Apple's vision is of their OS, not someone else's. All the arguments about Bootcamp killing Mac game development would be magnified across all Mac software and it would make as much mess for devs as Zen for dual minded users like ourselves.
Apple have basically got it right. And I back the idea around here that they should buy a good chunk of Parallels just so MS can't steal it away like the last time!
My fear is that if it becomes too successful, and MS thinks it is threatening their business, they just might buy it.
What planet do you inhabit? How could a highly successful Parallels, which encourages people to buy a high-proft-margin retail version of Windows plus undoubtedly lots of MS software for Windows "threaten their business"? What are you on about? MS will make far more money from the retail Windows needed for Boot Camp and Parallels than from a cheapo OEM version of Windows on a PC, the alternative. They'll be laughing all the way to the bank. It doesn't bother MS if Apple, rather than Dell, sells the machine: in fact they'd far prefer Apple to do so, since Apple's "we don't sell or support Windows" policy means that the copy of Windows you buy is sold at far greater proft to MS - probably about TEN times the profit margin! And if the Mac user with Parallels _also_ has MS Office for Mac on top of that - also a high-profit-margin seller - that's a big bonus, even better for MS. This is better for MS than for anyone else. Why else do you think they decided not to bother competing with VPC? Someone else (Parallels, and VMWare) can do the heavy lifting, and the better tey do, the more copies of high-profit Windows get sold, at no effort to MS. It's a win-win-win for MS. And for us too.
Apple didn't really care about MS buying VPC since they knew Boot Camp was coming - in fact, they probably had a good laugh that MS was paying millions thinking they would cut Macs off from running PC apps and they really bought a donkey.
In this day and internet age, there is no fear of something disappearing completely. It might not be available for a few months before another solution appears but just MS couldn't concieve a couple thousand/million coders could crank out an open source OS line by line and collaboratively worldwide.
But then MS still think it's 1996.
Apple didn't really care about MS buying VPC since they knew Boot Camp was coming - in fact, they probably had a good laugh that MS was paying millions thinking they would cut Macs off from running PC apps and they really bought a donkey.
I don't think buying VPC to cut macs from using windows apps was M$'s original intentions. If that were the case why would they ever release updates to what they bought? Why would they repackage it to sell it? The problems hit when their was a huge problem converting the code to work with g5s. The project was further hit when apple moved to intel. It would have cost a lot more to convert it, and probably wouldn't get anything out of it. M$ purchased VPC to have a better virtual machine to run native software inside windows. That is what they use it for today. VirtualPC 2007 is right around the corner.
Originally it was a good idea for m$. They would get to sell an operating system for a machine they never intended on selling it for. That is a bonus sale IMO. Either way, like everything m$ buys or copies, they destroy it. I'm actually interested to see how virtualPC 2007 handles under vista.
I don't think Apple would let MS buy Parellels - anything Ms can afford, Apple can afford and I think those guys would much rather sell to Apple and keep their jobs versus selling to MS and calling it a day ... in the worse case scenario, some other company would launch a parellels like app.
Once they sell out, none of them are keeping their jobs! The owners won't care, because they get all the cash. And what would they care about their employees because, hello, they get all the cash! Hello, early retirement!
Apple didn't really care about MS buying VPC since they knew Boot Camp was coming - in fact, they probably had a good laugh that MS was paying millions thinking they would cut Macs off from running PC apps and they really bought a donkey.
Some people need to get themselves off their high-horse and stop believing that every business decision in the world somehow revolves around Apple and Macs. There was NOTHING about MS buying VPC that concerned Apple. MS wanted VPC for Windows, not VPC for Mac, so they could better support virtualization and running multiple OSes on their server products. That's it. That's where the money was going.
Oh, and if MS bought VPC to cut off Windows users, why did they/do they continue to sell it? Why did they spend the time and money to make it compatible with the G5? No one mentions the time or money needed to do that (which was also, probably, one of the reasons Connectix decided to sell the product). No, everyone ignores that. But when they say they won't make an Intel version, its all about how they're trying to put a stranglehold on the computer industry.
No one mentions the time or money needed to do that (which was also, probably, one of the reasons Connectix decided to sell the product). No, everyone ignores that. But when they say they won't make an Intel version, its all about how they're trying to put a stranglehold on the computer industry.
I refer you to the post right above yours
Keep on dreaming.
I'd love to see it. But for a "hardware company", that is the mother of all coding to do! Apple are a hardware *and* software company, and they value their OS over such visions of seamless interoperability. Bootcamp is one thing: a necessity once we hackers figured out our own kluge to run XP straight on Intel Macs. Parallels is another: virtualisation for he who could bear Connectix but dreamt of more performance. But Apple's vision is of their OS, not someone else's. All the arguments about Bootcamp killing Mac game development would be magnified across all Mac software and it would make as much mess for devs as Zen for dual minded users like ourselves.
Apple have basically got it right. And I back the idea around here that they should buy a good chunk of Parallels just so MS can't steal it away like the last time!
An application "layer" is already about done. It's called Darwine. Crossover Mac is the commercial version. Whatever has to be done, the API's must be reverse engineered. That's what has been done. But, not all of them. More keep coming though.
What planet do you inhabit? How could a highly successful Parallels, which encourages people to buy a high-proft-margin retail version of Windows plus undoubtedly lots of MS software for Windows "threaten their business"? What are you on about? MS will make far more money from the retail Windows needed for Boot Camp and Parallels than from a cheapo OEM version of Windows on a PC, the alternative. They'll be laughing all the way to the bank. It doesn't bother MS if Apple, rather than Dell, sells the machine: in fact they'd far prefer Apple to do so, since Apple's "we don't sell or support Windows" policy means that the copy of Windows you buy is sold at far greater proft to MS - probably about TEN times the profit margin! And if the Mac user with Parallels _also_ has MS Office for Mac on top of that - also a high-profit-margin seller - that's a big bonus, even better for MS. This is better for MS than for anyone else. Why else do you think they decided not to bother competing with VPC? Someone else (Parallels, and VMWare) can do the heavy lifting, and the better tey do, the more copies of high-profit Windows get sold, at no effort to MS. It's a win-win-win for MS. And for us too.
While I agree with you on the relative size of the per-copy profit margins Microsoft makes on a retail copy of Windows sold to a Parallels/Bootcamp user vs. an OEM copy sold to Dell or HP (that is, about 10 to 1), I think there is a much larger concern for Microsoft at play here: What MS has most to fear is for users (beyond us Mac fanatics who they've already lost
But, once someone runs OS X generally, and uses Windows just for selected applications or as a general safety-blanket against discovering the need for such an application in the future ... whoa, why then the user will see first hand that not only can they indeed survive without Windows, but they'll have first-hand experience of all of Windows' relative deficiencies (and, for the first time, be willing to *admit* those deficiencies to themselves, because they'll no longer be psychologically dependent on the fantasy that Windows can actually satisfy their needs).
That is, what keeps a lot of people tied to Windows is, fundamentally, a *psychological* dependence, much like what keeps an abused & beaten spouse (most often, that means wife) from leaving her abuser. And, just like all those other abusers, Microsoft will do anything in their power (often without regard to legal niceties) to keep their abused subjects *isolated* from actually experiencing any alternatives.
So, even though MS does indeed realize a much greater profit margin on each retail sale of a copy of Windows for use on a Mac than on their OEM sales, they still have a lot to fear from this shift ... and they know it. The big question in my mind (and possibly still in theirs) is just what they're going to do about it ....
What planet do you inhabit? How could a highly successful Parallels, which encourages people to buy a high-proft-margin retail version of Windows plus undoubtedly lots of MS software for Windows "threaten their business"? What are you on about? MS will make far more money from the retail Windows needed for Boot Camp and Parallels than from a cheapo OEM version of Windows on a PC, the alternative. They'll be laughing all the way to the bank. It doesn't bother MS if Apple, rather than Dell, sells the machine: in fact they'd far prefer Apple to do so, since Apple's "we don't sell or support Windows" policy means that the copy of Windows you buy is sold at far greater proft to MS - probably about TEN times the profit margin! And if the Mac user with Parallels _also_ has MS Office for Mac on top of that - also a high-profit-margin seller - that's a big bonus, even better for MS. This is better for MS than for anyone else. Why else do you think they decided not to bother competing with VPC? Someone else (Parallels, and VMWare) can do the heavy lifting, and the better tey do, the more copies of high-profit Windows get sold, at no effort to MS. It's a win-win-win for MS. And for us too.
I live in Queens County, NYC, in the USA, on the surface of the planet Earth. I've moved around a bit, but, so far, I've never been more than about seven miles above the surface.
You must have been away for a while, right?
You didn't see the way MS has penned up the various Vista versions, with only the $299 and $399 versions being allowed to work from a virtual machine?
Did you also see that even with the two most expensive versions that can, you are not allowed to run ANY of their software that uses DRM? Ot that you won't be able to play a DVD, or Blu-Ray, or an HD-DVD because they all use DRM? That means all music and video software. There are other limitations as well.
Doesn't that show some fear of what Parallels might do to their marketshare?
Didn't MS buy VPC? Another very successful program that would have been as successful on an Intel Mac if Connectis still owned it.
With MS having about $30 billion in the bank, what makes you think they couldn't offer enough to buy the company, or at least the program?
You seem to forget the reason why people buying a Mac will be buying Parallels. Mostly to run a program or two that they need until they can switch out of Windows forever. Forget about that? MS hasn't!
If what you said would be true, then MS would have rushed an Intel version of VPC out the door instead of discontinuing it.
I don't think Apple would let MS buy Parellels - anything Ms can afford, Apple can afford and I think those guys would much rather sell to Apple and keep their jobs versus selling to MS and calling it a day ... in the worse case scenario, some other company would launch a parellels like app.
Apple didn't really care about MS buying VPC since they knew Boot Camp was coming - in fact, they probably had a good laugh that MS was paying millions thinking they would cut Macs off from running PC apps and they really bought a donkey.
In this day and internet age, there is no fear of something disappearing completely. It might not be available for a few months before another solution appears but just MS couldn't concieve a couple thousand/million coders could crank out an open source OS line by line and collaboratively worldwide.
But then MS still think it's 1996.
I don't see Apple being able to do a damn thing about it.
And Apple very much wanted VPC on their Intel Macs. They discussed it in puplic, even saying that MS had agreed to do it. MS had to come out with a statement saying that they were THINKING about doing it. But, I don't believe they really intended to. It looked as though Apple was trying to use public attention on the issue to force them to do it. But, it didn't work.
When Parallels announced their version, and it looked as though it wasn't vaporware, it no longer mattered, and MS could say, officially, that they were backing out.
I don't think buying VPC to cut macs from using windows apps was M$'s original intentions. If that were the case why would they ever release updates to what they bought? Why would they repackage it to sell it? The problems hit when their was a huge problem converting the code to work with g5s. The project was further hit when apple moved to intel. It would have cost a lot more to convert it, and probably wouldn't get anything out of it. M$ purchased VPC to have a better virtual machine to run native software inside windows. That is what they use it for today. VirtualPC 2007 is right around the corner.
Originally it was a good idea for m$. They would get to sell an operating system for a machine they never intended on selling it for. That is a bonus sale IMO. Either way, like everything m$ buys or copies, they destroy it. I'm actually interested to see how virtualPC 2007 handles under vista.
It's an open secret in the industry that MS had no interest in VPC for the Mac. It came as part of the package.
What they wanted was the server virtualizarion software that Connectix was almost finished developing. This is for the purpose of running more than one one virtual machine on a multi cpu server. All of those OS's would be MS's OS's ( that rhymes!).
It turns out that many servers are not using the full power available a great deal of the time. That is wasted cpu power that was paid for. By allowing several instances of the OS to run at once, the machine is more efficient, and MS gets more money. That was the big buck program they wanted.
The Mac version was just an afterthought to them.