Darwine will have limited usefulness. Wine is not trivial to install, or use.
Crossover (which is built on top of Wine), puts a GUI onto it, eases the installing of the program itself, as well as the programs you will want to run. It is a long way off as well.
Wine doesn't run all programs either. If what you need is supported, fine. Otherwise, it won't help.
Some of the statements in the article are strange. MS has had developer systems as long as anyone else has, But the article makes it sound as though they could hardly get started until they had these new machines in their hands.
Virtual PC should be halfway there by now.
If they're having difficulties with rewriting their code base then to state that they are awaiting these new machines gives them some PR time to get their work done. Of course when more difficult applications are actually updated as Universal Binaries then the cat will be out-of-the-bag and the MacBU is simply behind in this process.
Yes and no. I first thought MS was just stalling as usual but then did the developer kits have EFI? As far as I know not.
The new Macs having EFI vs. a BIOS is irrelevant to virtualization software. The point is they could have at least started something and they didn't. I expect that after PPC sales of VPC dry up it will be discontinued for Macs. I'm not a betting man, but if I were I'd put $1000 on the table that MS will not bother doing a VPC for x86 Macs. That's fine with me, because it's one less dollar going to a monopolizing non-innovating leech; in my PC days I was a fan of VMWare anyway.
I really hope this improves Virtual PC's stability, usefulness and performance - it would be great to one day be able to open Windows applications transparently, without a major performance hit. Think maybe something like Rosetta?
isnt that kind of optimistic? you cant even do that on most regular window boxes.
I'm relatively a moron when it comes to tech (especially that involving Macs... my first is on the way ), so could you guys help me out with something?
If new versions of Virtual PC would allow for more stable Windows apps, would this also mean Mac users could play Windows-only video games? What kind of other software would that require (I'm guessing Direct X...) and is Virtual PC capable of running said software? If not in past versions, do you think this would be possible in the future?
Why or why not? I'm probably missing some big tech no-no about the whole equation, but it seems to make sense to my (small) brain.
I'm relatively a moron when it comes to tech (especially that involving Macs... my first is on the way ), so could you guys help me out with something?
If new versions of Virtual PC would allow for more stable Windows apps, would this also mean Mac users could play Windows-only video games? What kind of other software would that require (I'm guessing Direct X...) and is Virtual PC capable of running said software? If not in past versions, do you think this would be possible in the future?
Why or why not? I'm probably missing some big tech no-no about the whole equation, but it seems to make sense to my (small) brain.
Thanks, guys!
highly doubt it. the current version of Virtual PC doesnt emulate the video card. Maybe it will be different with intel based version, but i doubt it. Besides most low and medium end PC hardware doesnt crunch video games very well. The mac starting at an XL 1600 isnt so bad, but tack on preformance disadvantages on top of that and the game isnt gonna look that great. i hope they prove me wrong. until then stick with a custom PC or an Xbox for your gaming.
highly doubt it. the current version of Virtual PC doesnt emulate the video card. Maybe it will be different with intel based version, but i doubt it. Besides most low and medium end PC hardware doesnt crunch video games very well. The mac starting at an XL 1600 isnt so bad, but tack on preformance disadvantages on top of that and the game isnt gonna look that great. i hope they prove me wrong. until then stick with a custom PC or an Xbox for your gaming.
Actually, there is every reason to believe it will.
VPC's lack of support for video cards was because it was emulating a very basic PC. Translating code for Mac hardware was too difficult to do for anything more than the most basic tasks. Therefore it emulates a PC video card in software - very slow.
On an Intel Mac, none of this needs to be done. On a PC using VPC, Linux and the hardware supported by the native system works at about full speed. There is no reason to believe that it would work any differently here.
Windows will see a PC when it is running. It will have the drivers for the hardware, and will use them. It's possible that a few percent will be lost, but that's all. Playing PC games should work fine.
Actually, there is every reason to believe it will.
VPC's lack of support for video cards was because it was emulating a very basic PC. Translating code for Mac hardware was too difficult to do for anything more than the most basic tasks. Therefore it emulates a PC video card in software - very slow.
On an Intel Mac, none of this needs to be done. On a PC using VPC, Linux and the hardware supported by the native system works at about full speed. There is no reason to believe that it would work any differently here.
Windows will see a PC when it is running. It will have the drivers for the hardware, and will use them. It's possible that a few percent will be lost, but that's all. Playing PC games should work fine.
It would be ironic if games were the "tipping point" for widespread adoption of Macs by PC-lings. Go Applintel!
It would be ironic if games were the "tipping point" for widespread adoption of Macs by PC-lings. Go Applintel!
This is really such an interesting bit of history.
Back in the early '80's, when I first had an Atari St, a friend of mine had a Mac. He always used to complain to me that the best games were on the Atari, and almost never on the Mac.
Apple, almost from the first, didn't want to be associated with games because in those days, most computers were purchased by business, and they were already being called "this cute toy". By eschewing games, they were hoping to promote a more serious image to the business world, while at the same time, refusing to give business what they wanted in hardware. The small closed Mac was. of course, insisted upon by Jobs, who seems to have this dislike for anyone messing around with the inside of "his" machines.
After Jobs left the company, the Mac II came out, with 8 slots, etc., but it was too late.
Still, they refused to help game developers by not developing the API's, or by cooperating with them.
Later, when OS 9 came out, Apple wrote specific software for gaming companies, but, again, it was too late.
They then went on hold with the gaming industry with early versions of OS X. Only during the last three years has that really changed. We can only hope that the gaming community will respond.
It will be touch and go. The Mac base is still very small. Intel Macs may provide other ways of getting these games aboard, without the companies raising a finger to port.
I need a new notebook for work. I have to run AutoCad on it.
I want a new 12" iBook type comptuer with intel chip (size is nice, maybe a little big and the price is right (~$1000 isn't bad).
If VPC would have come out the day the MacBook Pro was announced, I would have ordered a new 15" MacBook Pro in advance with eager anticiapation. Running programs that run on Windows only does matter, in my business anyway.
I am bummed about the news from Roz, but my guess is she is full of crap and just pulling a Scotty. Tell them twice as long, deliver in half the time stated, and look like a Star Trek miracle worker. I am crossing my fingers.
Also, MS Office on the Mac kills the PC version. Gotta love Word and Excel. The rest blows on both versions.
I need a new notebook for work. I have to run AutoCad on it.
I want a new 12" iBook type comptuer with intel chip (size is nice, maybe a little big and the price is right (~$1000 isn't bad).
If VPC would have come out the day the MacBook Pro was announced, I would have ordered a new 15" MacBook Pro in advance with eager anticiapation. Running programs that run on Windows only does matter, in my business anyway.
I am bummed about the news from Roz, but my guess is she is full of crap and just pulling a Scotty. Tell them twice as long, deliver in half the time stated, and look like a Star Trek miracle worker. I am crossing my fingers.
Also, MS Office on the Mac kills the PC version. Gotta love Word and Excel. The rest blows on both versions.
The value of either solution, be it virtual PC or vmware will hinge more on support of DirectX and Direct 3D.
As neither companies current solutions offer a more reasonable video card emulation it looks bleak on that front for games.
Although you'd think at least Rick Rashid's group at Microsoft R&D would have some brainiacs who could solve this problem. Or even some of the research that had to go into the XBox 360 for video emulation the other way (intel to PPC) for legacy support of XBox games on Xbox 360.
Why? Well there is a continued push in the industry for virtualization usuage to better utilize existing and ever more powerful hardware. It would appear that the graphics hardware virtualization side of things is the last hurdle in this area.
Which makes one wonder if the hardware level virtualization technology offers anything cleaner in that regard, so that the OS's being run just think that they have native access to the machine and therefore just use their native video drivers (be it OSX, Linux or Windows.
Or perhaps the graphics card manufacturers should expend some effort in that area to virtualize their own products. Or perhaps have multicore GPUS which could deal with some of this. Hmmm multicore GPUS mmmmmmmmm.
The value of either solution, be it virtual PC or vmware will hinge more on support of DirectX and Direct 3D.
As neither companies current solutions offer a more reasonable video card emulation it looks bleak on that front for games.
Although you'd think at least Rick Rashid's group at Microsoft R&D would have some brainiacs who could solve this problem. Or even some of the research that had to go into the XBox 360 for video emulation the other way (intel to PPC) for legacy support of XBox games on Xbox 360.
Why? Well there is a continued push in the industry for virtualization usuage to better utilize existing and ever more powerful hardware. It would appear that the graphics hardware virtualization side of things is the last hurdle in this area.
Which makes one wonder if the hardware level virtualization technology offers anything cleaner in that regard, so that the OS's being run just think that they have native access to the machine and therefore just use their native video drivers (be it OSX, Linux or Windows.
Or perhaps the graphics card manufacturers should expend some effort in that area to virtualize their own products. Or perhaps have multicore GPUS which could deal with some of this. Hmmm multicore GPUS mmmmmmmmm.
MS has been asked this question. Their response was that for the purpose they sell VPC for to the server industry (mostly) it wasn't necessary. And they are right. But, they also said if the market warranted it, they would consider it. Remember that VPC for the PC no longer runs Linux, only Windows.
VPC for the Mac is a completely different product, so I would doubt that they would simply port that PC version over.
If the object is to get Windows running on as many Macs as possible, and an incentive for that is to play games, then I don't see why they wouldn't want to do that. Direct X and Direct 3D is more a function of the OS, anyway. The servers that VPC runs on in the PC world are a different matter, they don't have to play games.
Several major games are written to Open GL as well, though.
We'll see what happens.
But WINE has been successful in allowing games to play in Linux. It should work here as well. Crossover will give the GUI Mac users need. Let's all hope it works for Vista.
He did say an iBook with an Intel chip which shouldn't be too bad.
An iBook (or MacBook) might have one low power core. AutoCad requires far more than that.
It will also have a smaller, lower rez screen. Have you ever run a heavy duty CAD program with a low rez screen? It ain't pretty. It's hard to get much work done.
Comments
Originally posted by BR
It's all about DarWINE.
Darwine will have limited usefulness. Wine is not trivial to install, or use.
Crossover (which is built on top of Wine), puts a GUI onto it, eases the installing of the program itself, as well as the programs you will want to run. It is a long way off as well.
Wine doesn't run all programs either. If what you need is supported, fine. Otherwise, it won't help.
Originally posted by melgross
Some of the statements in the article are strange. MS has had developer systems as long as anyone else has, But the article makes it sound as though they could hardly get started until they had these new machines in their hands.
Virtual PC should be halfway there by now.
If they're having difficulties with rewriting their code base then to state that they are awaiting these new machines gives them some PR time to get their work done. Of course when more difficult applications are actually updated as Universal Binaries then the cat will be out-of-the-bag and the MacBU is simply behind in this process.
Originally posted by noirdesir
Yes and no. I first thought MS was just stalling as usual but then did the developer kits have EFI? As far as I know not.
The new Macs having EFI vs. a BIOS is irrelevant to virtualization software. The point is they could have at least started something and they didn't. I expect that after PPC sales of VPC dry up it will be discontinued for Macs. I'm not a betting man, but if I were I'd put $1000 on the table that MS will not bother doing a VPC for x86 Macs. That's fine with me, because it's one less dollar going to a monopolizing non-innovating leech; in my PC days I was a fan of VMWare anyway.
Originally posted by ThinkingDifferent
Forget VPC, I want VMWare on OSX.
Either one would be fine.
Originally posted by thegreatluke
I really hope this improves Virtual PC's stability, usefulness and performance - it would be great to one day be able to open Windows applications transparently, without a major performance hit. Think maybe something like Rosetta?
isnt that kind of optimistic? you cant even do that on most regular window boxes.
If new versions of Virtual PC would allow for more stable Windows apps, would this also mean Mac users could play Windows-only video games? What kind of other software would that require (I'm guessing Direct X...) and is Virtual PC capable of running said software? If not in past versions, do you think this would be possible in the future?
Why or why not? I'm probably missing some big tech no-no about the whole equation, but it seems to make sense to my (small) brain.
Thanks, guys!
Originally posted by Animal Farm
I'm relatively a moron when it comes to tech (especially that involving Macs... my first is on the way
If new versions of Virtual PC would allow for more stable Windows apps, would this also mean Mac users could play Windows-only video games? What kind of other software would that require (I'm guessing Direct X...) and is Virtual PC capable of running said software? If not in past versions, do you think this would be possible in the future?
Why or why not? I'm probably missing some big tech no-no about the whole equation, but it seems to make sense to my (small) brain.
Thanks, guys!
highly doubt it. the current version of Virtual PC doesnt emulate the video card. Maybe it will be different with intel based version, but i doubt it. Besides most low and medium end PC hardware doesnt crunch video games very well. The mac starting at an XL 1600 isnt so bad, but tack on preformance disadvantages on top of that and the game isnt gonna look that great. i hope they prove me wrong. until then stick with a custom PC or an Xbox for your gaming.
Originally posted by mike12309
highly doubt it. the current version of Virtual PC doesnt emulate the video card. Maybe it will be different with intel based version, but i doubt it. Besides most low and medium end PC hardware doesnt crunch video games very well. The mac starting at an XL 1600 isnt so bad, but tack on preformance disadvantages on top of that and the game isnt gonna look that great. i hope they prove me wrong. until then stick with a custom PC or an Xbox for your gaming.
Actually, there is every reason to believe it will.
VPC's lack of support for video cards was because it was emulating a very basic PC. Translating code for Mac hardware was too difficult to do for anything more than the most basic tasks. Therefore it emulates a PC video card in software - very slow.
On an Intel Mac, none of this needs to be done. On a PC using VPC, Linux and the hardware supported by the native system works at about full speed. There is no reason to believe that it would work any differently here.
Windows will see a PC when it is running. It will have the drivers for the hardware, and will use them. It's possible that a few percent will be lost, but that's all. Playing PC games should work fine.
Originally posted by melgross
Actually, there is every reason to believe it will.
VPC's lack of support for video cards was because it was emulating a very basic PC. Translating code for Mac hardware was too difficult to do for anything more than the most basic tasks. Therefore it emulates a PC video card in software - very slow.
On an Intel Mac, none of this needs to be done. On a PC using VPC, Linux and the hardware supported by the native system works at about full speed. There is no reason to believe that it would work any differently here.
Windows will see a PC when it is running. It will have the drivers for the hardware, and will use them. It's possible that a few percent will be lost, but that's all. Playing PC games should work fine.
It would be ironic if games were the "tipping point" for widespread adoption of Macs by PC-lings. Go Applintel!
This is leaving me pretty hopeful in regards to the Mactel's future.
One more thing:
Which card is better, an ATI Mobility Radeon X1600 or an ATI Radeon X800 Pro?
Thanks again.
Originally posted by SpamSandwich
It would be ironic if games were the "tipping point" for widespread adoption of Macs by PC-lings. Go Applintel!
This is really such an interesting bit of history.
Back in the early '80's, when I first had an Atari St, a friend of mine had a Mac. He always used to complain to me that the best games were on the Atari, and almost never on the Mac.
Apple, almost from the first, didn't want to be associated with games because in those days, most computers were purchased by business, and they were already being called "this cute toy". By eschewing games, they were hoping to promote a more serious image to the business world, while at the same time, refusing to give business what they wanted in hardware. The small closed Mac was. of course, insisted upon by Jobs, who seems to have this dislike for anyone messing around with the inside of "his" machines.
After Jobs left the company, the Mac II came out, with 8 slots, etc., but it was too late.
Still, they refused to help game developers by not developing the API's, or by cooperating with them.
Later, when OS 9 came out, Apple wrote specific software for gaming companies, but, again, it was too late.
They then went on hold with the gaming industry with early versions of OS X. Only during the last three years has that really changed. We can only hope that the gaming community will respond.
It will be touch and go. The Mac base is still very small. Intel Macs may provide other ways of getting these games aboard, without the companies raising a finger to port.
Originally posted by Animal Farm
Awesome, thanks for the info, guys!
This is leaving me pretty hopeful in regards to the Mactel's future.
One more thing:
Which card is better, an ATI Mobility Radeon X1600 or an ATI Radeon X800 Pro?
Thanks again.
I would go for the X1600 in a machine that has it.
I want a new 12" iBook type comptuer with intel chip (size is nice, maybe a little big
If VPC would have come out the day the MacBook Pro was announced, I would have ordered a new 15" MacBook Pro in advance with eager anticiapation. Running programs that run on Windows only does matter, in my business anyway.
I am bummed about the news from Roz, but my guess is she is full of crap and just pulling a Scotty. Tell them twice as long, deliver in half the time stated, and look like a Star Trek miracle worker. I am crossing my fingers.
Also, MS Office on the Mac kills the PC version. Gotta love Word and Excel. The rest blows on both versions.
Originally posted by aplnub
I need a new notebook for work. I have to run AutoCad on it.
I want a new 12" iBook type comptuer with intel chip (size is nice, maybe a little big
If VPC would have come out the day the MacBook Pro was announced, I would have ordered a new 15" MacBook Pro in advance with eager anticiapation. Running programs that run on Windows only does matter, in my business anyway.
I am bummed about the news from Roz, but my guess is she is full of crap and just pulling a Scotty. Tell them twice as long, deliver in half the time stated, and look like a Star Trek miracle worker. I am crossing my fingers.
Also, MS Office on the Mac kills the PC version. Gotta love Word and Excel. The rest blows on both versions.
You want to run AutoCad on an iBook equivelent?
I'll give you one point for balls.
I think the odds that the Mac version will be useful for 3D-heavy games is pretty much nil.
PS: GG Apple for shipping decent video in the iMacs. This will help the native Mac gaming scene enormously.
As neither companies current solutions offer a more reasonable video card emulation it looks bleak on that front for games.
Although you'd think at least Rick Rashid's group at Microsoft R&D would have some brainiacs who could solve this problem. Or even some of the research that had to go into the XBox 360 for video emulation the other way (intel to PPC) for legacy support of XBox games on Xbox 360.
Why? Well there is a continued push in the industry for virtualization usuage to better utilize existing and ever more powerful hardware. It would appear that the graphics hardware virtualization side of things is the last hurdle in this area.
Which makes one wonder if the hardware level virtualization technology offers anything cleaner in that regard, so that the OS's being run just think that they have native access to the machine and therefore just use their native video drivers (be it OSX, Linux or Windows.
Or perhaps the graphics card manufacturers should expend some effort in that area to virtualize their own products. Or perhaps have multicore GPUS which could deal with some of this. Hmmm multicore GPUS mmmmmmmmm.
Originally posted by melgross
You want to run AutoCad on an iBook equivelent?
I'll give you one point for balls.
He did say an iBook with an Intel chip which shouldn't be too bad.
Originally posted by planetWC
The value of either solution, be it virtual PC or vmware will hinge more on support of DirectX and Direct 3D.
As neither companies current solutions offer a more reasonable video card emulation it looks bleak on that front for games.
Although you'd think at least Rick Rashid's group at Microsoft R&D would have some brainiacs who could solve this problem. Or even some of the research that had to go into the XBox 360 for video emulation the other way (intel to PPC) for legacy support of XBox games on Xbox 360.
Why? Well there is a continued push in the industry for virtualization usuage to better utilize existing and ever more powerful hardware. It would appear that the graphics hardware virtualization side of things is the last hurdle in this area.
Which makes one wonder if the hardware level virtualization technology offers anything cleaner in that regard, so that the OS's being run just think that they have native access to the machine and therefore just use their native video drivers (be it OSX, Linux or Windows.
Or perhaps the graphics card manufacturers should expend some effort in that area to virtualize their own products. Or perhaps have multicore GPUS which could deal with some of this. Hmmm multicore GPUS mmmmmmmmm.
MS has been asked this question. Their response was that for the purpose they sell VPC for to the server industry (mostly) it wasn't necessary. And they are right. But, they also said if the market warranted it, they would consider it. Remember that VPC for the PC no longer runs Linux, only Windows.
VPC for the Mac is a completely different product, so I would doubt that they would simply port that PC version over.
If the object is to get Windows running on as many Macs as possible, and an incentive for that is to play games, then I don't see why they wouldn't want to do that. Direct X and Direct 3D is more a function of the OS, anyway. The servers that VPC runs on in the PC world are a different matter, they don't have to play games.
Several major games are written to Open GL as well, though.
We'll see what happens.
But WINE has been successful in allowing games to play in Linux. It should work here as well. Crossover will give the GUI Mac users need. Let's all hope it works for Vista.
Originally posted by ThinkingDifferent
He did say an iBook with an Intel chip which shouldn't be too bad.
An iBook (or MacBook) might have one low power core. AutoCad requires far more than that.
It will also have a smaller, lower rez screen. Have you ever run a heavy duty CAD program with a low rez screen? It ain't pretty. It's hard to get much work done.