Even the PC version of VirtualPC is called VirtualPC. They'd definitely keep the same name.
But I hope the Vanderpool virtualization technology in Yonah makes VirtualPC obsolete. I admit that I don't fully understand what's possible with it, but I'd hope that you could run Windows easily without the need for something like VirtualPC.
I believe the OS has to support it. If not the OS, then some other software will be necessary. If the features are built-into the cpu, like, say, SSE, or Altivec, you need software support, or the features lie dormant.
I dont get it, doesnt Windows run (and crash) on Intel every day? Arnt M$ just making money from us mac-lads by trying to sell us a chunk of SW that we shouldnt need*?
I didn't specify 2d or 3d. I rarely do 3d and hate to do it when I have too.
3D is a$$ in Autocad. We usually set values in AC and use Sketchup to do the 3D work. Goes back and forth very readily. Sketchup is also cross platform which is nice.
I think that is this more to this issue than what has been discussed so far.
Yes. I agree with everyone that Microsoft is in to make money. A lot of money. But they are also in it to extend/continue the Windows monpoly.
Right now VPC is a novety. It doesn't totally suck, but isn't really that useful either. Microsoft doesn't mind making money off of a novety.
If rewritten VPC would allow Mac users to run Windows apps at near native speeds what benefit would it really be for Microsoft? It is not about the money. VPC would no longer be a novety but a useful tool for Mac users. This tool however, wouldn't extend the Windows monpoly, in fact Windows moves to a secondary OS behind Mac OS X.
In the past, Microsoft has done everything in its power to secure Windows as the primary default OS on computers. Coming in second really doesn't fit their business plan.
Hypothetically what would happen in 2-5 years if Apple decides to stop selling Apple branded hardware and license Mac OS X to every PC maker out there. Not only would a large number of PC makers install Mac OS X by default, but Microsoft would have provided a solution to allow all of those new Mac makers the ability to run their Windows OS and apps (without the hassles of dual-booting) as a secondary OS to Mac OS X.
I don't think we will see a rewritten VPC any time soon. Microsoft wants to see what Apple's future intentions are before releasing such a product.
3D is a$$ in Autocad. We usually set values in AC and use Sketchup to do the 3D work. Goes back and forth very readily. Sketchup is also cross platform which is nice.
Yes, I like SketchUp. I bought their first Mac version at the first Macworld they attended here in NYC. They came to our usergroup last year.
I haven't had the time to upgrade to the latest version, though.
I think that is this more to this issue than what has been discussed so far.
Yes. I agree with everyone that Microsoft is in to make money. A lot of money. But they are also in it to extend/continue the Windows monpoly.
Right now VPC is a novety. It doesn't totally suck, but isn't really that useful either. Microsoft doesn't mind making money off of a novety.
If rewritten VPC would allow Mac users to run Windows apps at near native speeds what benefit would it really be for Microsoft? It is not about the money. VPC would no longer be a novety but a useful tool for Mac users. This tool however, wouldn't extend the Windows monpoly, in fact Windows moves to a secondary OS behind Mac OS X.
In the past, Microsoft has done everything in its power to secure Windows as the primary default OS on computers. Coming in second really doesn't fit their business plan.
Hypothetically what would happen in 2-5 years if Apple decides to stop selling Apple branded hardware and license Mac OS X to every PC maker out there. Not only would a large number of PC makers install Mac OS X by default, but Microsoft would have provided a solution to allow all of those new Mac makers the ability to run their Windows OS and apps (without the hassles of dual-booting) as a secondary OS to Mac OS X.
I don't think we will see a rewritten VPC any time soon. Microsoft wants to see what Apple's future intentions are before releasing such a product.
Thanks
Dave
I can't agree with that. If what you said were true, then there would have been no benefit to MS to have given Softwindows and VPC the status of "computer" for the purpose of allowing them to license first DOS, and then Windows. You do remember that both companies that had these programs were selling it themselves? Novelty or not.
MS has already stated, a couple of days after Macworld, that they would be happy to license Windows to Apple, if they wanted it, and that ANY computer running Windows was something that they would encourage.
While it's certainly true that they would prefer a machine to be running Windows exclusively, they are very happy to have it run as a secondary OS on a machine that would otherwise not be running it at all.
I'm sure the announcememt by Apple and Ms that they would cooperate to come up with a new version for the Intel based machines was real.
How can they possibly wait for Apple to show its intentions? If companies did that, nothing would ever get done!
If Apple does intend to release OS X on the PC world, it could happen two years from now, or five years from now. How long is MS supposed to wait?
Meanwhile they give up on several million possible sales of both VPC, Windows, and other software. It makes no business sense. I think that, contrary to what you are saying, MS has a vested interest in getting a new version out the door as soon as possible. They may have to wait for Leopard. If so, it will take some time. If not, we might see it by the fall.
Because Vista requires hardware capable of running pixel shader 2.0. You're not going to emulate that via OpenGL.
I doubt that it's a good assumption. Ms was free to state that VPC was a product that they no longer had an interest in providing as Vista would not work.
They have no good reason to come out with a product that will only run the OS that they just discontinued.
Keep in mind OS X uses the pixel shader all the time. It would have to be done via OpenGL. I don't see how this is possible.
I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. There is no reason the OS (Vista) couldn't access the hardware directly. This is exactly what is being assumed it will do.
The frivers for the cards will reside within Vista. It will access the card as it needs it.
Remember that VPC has a full screen mode. There is no reason to believe that the new one won't either. So any problems you are assuming to be true won't be in that mode. Though I don't see why they would be anyway.
I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. There is no reason the OS (Vista) couldn't access the hardware directly. This is exactly what is being assumed it will do.
No reason? I just gave you the reason.
Quote:
The frivers for the cards will reside within Vista. It will access the card as it needs it.
Remember that VPC has a full screen mode. There is no reason to believe that the new one won't either. So any problems you are assuming to be true won't be in that mode. Though I don't see why they would be anyway.
Again, OS X uses this hardware all the time already. You can't relinquish control of this hardware and hand it off to VPC running on OS X unless you killed the display server, Quartz, along with every app using Quartz, which is every OS X app. Full-screen mode is completely irrelevant.
Again, OS X uses this hardware all the time already. You can't relinquish control of this hardware and hand it off to VPC running on OS X unless you killed the display server, Quartz, along with every app using Quartz, which is every OS X app. Full-screen mode is completely irrelevant.
No, that wasn't a good reason.
In fact, when Connectix still had this software, the reason they gave for not accessing the video hardware had nothing to do with that. Disabling the services wasn't considered to be the issue.
I haven't read anything anywhere else mentioning this as a problem.
I haven't read anything anywhere else mentioning this as a problem.
Well now you have.
Let me put it this way:
The Dock uses the Pixel Shader in OpenGL (via the Core Image API) every time you put an item in it. Say you're running VPC, which is magically allowing Vista to use the same hardware. How does the Dock perform the animation? Simply put, it can't. You would have to create some kind of context switch where the state of the hardware was saved, control handed over to whatever app is using OpenGL (namely ALL OF THEM since they all use Quartz), let the Quartz apps use the GPU for a split second (halting VPC), save the state again, switch to VPC (halting every other Quartz-using app) so Vista can use the GPU for a split second...
Of course, keep in mind that the context would include not only the pixel processor status, but also all the textures.
Also, keep in mind the only way to do this would either be to virtualize the hardware for both OpenGL and VPC, or to create some kind of über-driver which could be used by Vista drivers and also provide OpenGL (which is how Windows Vista does it by the way, and will also be why OpenGL will run like crap on Vista).
Are these reasons enough, or are you going to complain you haven't read this explanation in WIRED magazine yet?
Comments
Originally posted by BRussell
Even the PC version of VirtualPC is called VirtualPC. They'd definitely keep the same name.
But I hope the Vanderpool virtualization technology in Yonah makes VirtualPC obsolete. I admit that I don't fully understand what's possible with it, but I'd hope that you could run Windows easily without the need for something like VirtualPC.
I believe the OS has to support it. If not the OS, then some other software will be necessary. If the features are built-into the cpu, like, say, SSE, or Altivec, you need software support, or the features lie dormant.
Originally posted by mike12309
why does the current VPC run so shitty? Its not because its for PPC, its because its windows.
No, it's because it's for PowerPC, really.
*i mean VPC not Windows!
Originally posted by melgross
Where have you been hiding lately?
Yeah, it's the same old thing, but with different people. Facts are facts, though. We can't get away from them no matter where we hide.
i wasn't hiding
Originally posted by aplnub
[B]melgrossYou use it daily?
I didn't specify 2d or 3d. I rarely do 3d and hate to do it when I have too.
3D is a$$ in Autocad. We usually set values in AC and use Sketchup to do the 3D work. Goes back and forth very readily. Sketchup is also cross platform which is nice.
Thankfully, we'll have alternatives if they drop the ball. QEMU, Bochs, VMWare to name three.
Yes. I agree with everyone that Microsoft is in to make money. A lot of money. But they are also in it to extend/continue the Windows monpoly.
Right now VPC is a novety. It doesn't totally suck, but isn't really that useful either. Microsoft doesn't mind making money off of a novety.
If rewritten VPC would allow Mac users to run Windows apps at near native speeds what benefit would it really be for Microsoft? It is not about the money. VPC would no longer be a novety but a useful tool for Mac users. This tool however, wouldn't extend the Windows monpoly, in fact Windows moves to a secondary OS behind Mac OS X.
In the past, Microsoft has done everything in its power to secure Windows as the primary default OS on computers. Coming in second really doesn't fit their business plan.
Hypothetically what would happen in 2-5 years if Apple decides to stop selling Apple branded hardware and license Mac OS X to every PC maker out there. Not only would a large number of PC makers install Mac OS X by default, but Microsoft would have provided a solution to allow all of those new Mac makers the ability to run their Windows OS and apps (without the hassles of dual-booting) as a secondary OS to Mac OS X.
I don't think we will see a rewritten VPC any time soon. Microsoft wants to see what Apple's future intentions are before releasing such a product.
Thanks
Dave
Originally posted by sunilraman
i wasn't hiding
Well, that's ok, just as long as they were useless.
Originally posted by kcmac
3D is a$$ in Autocad. We usually set values in AC and use Sketchup to do the 3D work. Goes back and forth very readily. Sketchup is also cross platform which is nice.
Yes, I like SketchUp. I bought their first Mac version at the first Macworld they attended here in NYC. They came to our usergroup last year.
I haven't had the time to upgrade to the latest version, though.
Originally posted by strobe
Microsoft probably is luke warm on developing VirtualPC since it won't run Vista, their hopeful future cash cow.
Thankfully, we'll have alternatives if they drop the ball. QEMU, Bochs, VMWare to name three.
Why do you think that a rewritten version won't run Vista?
Originally posted by Dave K.
I think that is this more to this issue than what has been discussed so far.
Yes. I agree with everyone that Microsoft is in to make money. A lot of money. But they are also in it to extend/continue the Windows monpoly.
Right now VPC is a novety. It doesn't totally suck, but isn't really that useful either. Microsoft doesn't mind making money off of a novety.
If rewritten VPC would allow Mac users to run Windows apps at near native speeds what benefit would it really be for Microsoft? It is not about the money. VPC would no longer be a novety but a useful tool for Mac users. This tool however, wouldn't extend the Windows monpoly, in fact Windows moves to a secondary OS behind Mac OS X.
In the past, Microsoft has done everything in its power to secure Windows as the primary default OS on computers. Coming in second really doesn't fit their business plan.
Hypothetically what would happen in 2-5 years if Apple decides to stop selling Apple branded hardware and license Mac OS X to every PC maker out there. Not only would a large number of PC makers install Mac OS X by default, but Microsoft would have provided a solution to allow all of those new Mac makers the ability to run their Windows OS and apps (without the hassles of dual-booting) as a secondary OS to Mac OS X.
I don't think we will see a rewritten VPC any time soon. Microsoft wants to see what Apple's future intentions are before releasing such a product.
Thanks
Dave
I can't agree with that. If what you said were true, then there would have been no benefit to MS to have given Softwindows and VPC the status of "computer" for the purpose of allowing them to license first DOS, and then Windows. You do remember that both companies that had these programs were selling it themselves? Novelty or not.
MS has already stated, a couple of days after Macworld, that they would be happy to license Windows to Apple, if they wanted it, and that ANY computer running Windows was something that they would encourage.
While it's certainly true that they would prefer a machine to be running Windows exclusively, they are very happy to have it run as a secondary OS on a machine that would otherwise not be running it at all.
I'm sure the announcememt by Apple and Ms that they would cooperate to come up with a new version for the Intel based machines was real.
How can they possibly wait for Apple to show its intentions? If companies did that, nothing would ever get done!
If Apple does intend to release OS X on the PC world, it could happen two years from now, or five years from now. How long is MS supposed to wait?
Meanwhile they give up on several million possible sales of both VPC, Windows, and other software. It makes no business sense. I think that, contrary to what you are saying, MS has a vested interest in getting a new version out the door as soon as possible. They may have to wait for Leopard. If so, it will take some time. If not, we might see it by the fall.
That is how bad I need new computers for work. Even though 15" is too big, I would suffer through the heftiness until the 12" intels came along.
I believe VPC sells a small percentage of Macs, myself.
Originally posted by melgross
Why do you think that a rewritten version won't run Vista?
Because Vista requires hardware capable of running pixel shader 2.0. You're not going to emulate that via OpenGL.
Originally posted by strobe
Because Vista requires hardware capable of running pixel shader 2.0. You're not going to emulate that via OpenGL.
I doubt that it's a good assumption. Ms was free to state that VPC was a product that they no longer had an interest in providing as Vista would not work.
They have no good reason to come out with a product that will only run the OS that they just discontinued.
And, I think it's shader 3.0
Originally posted by strobe
Because Vista requires hardware capable of running pixel shader 2.0. You're not going to emulate that via OpenGL.
Why wouldn't the Intel Macs' hardware be capable of running pixel shader?
Originally posted by BRussell
Why wouldn't the Intel Macs' hardware be capable of running pixel shader?
How would you propose accessing such hardware?
Keep in mind OS X uses the pixel shader all the time. It would have to be done via OpenGL. I don't see how this is possible.
Originally posted by strobe
How would you propose accessing such hardware?
Keep in mind OS X uses the pixel shader all the time. It would have to be done via OpenGL. I don't see how this is possible.
I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. There is no reason the OS (Vista) couldn't access the hardware directly. This is exactly what is being assumed it will do.
The frivers for the cards will reside within Vista. It will access the card as it needs it.
Remember that VPC has a full screen mode. There is no reason to believe that the new one won't either. So any problems you are assuming to be true won't be in that mode. Though I don't see why they would be anyway.
Originally posted by melgross
I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. There is no reason the OS (Vista) couldn't access the hardware directly. This is exactly what is being assumed it will do.
No reason? I just gave you the reason.
Quote:
The frivers for the cards will reside within Vista. It will access the card as it needs it.
Remember that VPC has a full screen mode. There is no reason to believe that the new one won't either. So any problems you are assuming to be true won't be in that mode. Though I don't see why they would be anyway.
Again, OS X uses this hardware all the time already. You can't relinquish control of this hardware and hand it off to VPC running on OS X unless you killed the display server, Quartz, along with every app using Quartz, which is every OS X app. Full-screen mode is completely irrelevant.
Originally posted by strobe
[B]No reason? I just gave you the reason.
Again, OS X uses this hardware all the time already. You can't relinquish control of this hardware and hand it off to VPC running on OS X unless you killed the display server, Quartz, along with every app using Quartz, which is every OS X app. Full-screen mode is completely irrelevant.
No, that wasn't a good reason.
In fact, when Connectix still had this software, the reason they gave for not accessing the video hardware had nothing to do with that. Disabling the services wasn't considered to be the issue.
I haven't read anything anywhere else mentioning this as a problem.
Originally posted by melgross
I haven't read anything anywhere else mentioning this as a problem.
Well now you have.
Let me put it this way:
The Dock uses the Pixel Shader in OpenGL (via the Core Image API) every time you put an item in it. Say you're running VPC, which is magically allowing Vista to use the same hardware. How does the Dock perform the animation? Simply put, it can't. You would have to create some kind of context switch where the state of the hardware was saved, control handed over to whatever app is using OpenGL (namely ALL OF THEM since they all use Quartz), let the Quartz apps use the GPU for a split second (halting VPC), save the state again, switch to VPC (halting every other Quartz-using app) so Vista can use the GPU for a split second...
Of course, keep in mind that the context would include not only the pixel processor status, but also all the textures.
Also, keep in mind the only way to do this would either be to virtualize the hardware for both OpenGL and VPC, or to create some kind of über-driver which could be used by Vista drivers and also provide OpenGL (which is how Windows Vista does it by the way, and will also be why OpenGL will run like crap on Vista).
Are these reasons enough, or are you going to complain you haven't read this explanation in WIRED magazine yet?