[MW Forums]

Philip Michaels looks at the latest Microsoft-Apple pact and what the future holds for Virtual PC. more

[AI_Joe]

Wow, that aspect never occurred to me until now - Running VirtualPC on a Mac OS running on an Intel chip.
That kinda makes my head hurt. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[jmincey]

I still fail to understand this whole Virtual PC on Mac-intel issue.
The sole purpose of Virtual PC is to emulate the Intel environment on an alien platform -- namely the PPC -- in order that users of that platform could run Windows and Windows software. As with all emulated software, the user takes a performance hit so this is not meant as a long-term solution but rather it's for Mac users who have occasion now and then to run the odd Windows-only app. And who wants two separate boxes on their desk just for that -- right?
But now that Apple is moving to Intel, what's the point in porting an emulation product to a chip where Windows runs natively to begin with?
Yes, right now Macs are using Intel's EFI, but Windows XP is compatible with EFI as well. There is simply no way that Microsoft will fail to support this successor to BIOS. Moreover by all accounts future Intel chips will support virtualization, thereby allowing users to run multiple OS's in different partitions -- and in so doing sparing the user of the need to reboot from one OS to the other.
Granted the ability of Windows to run natively on Intel-based Macs is still a ways off yet. But just how far off might this be? Three months? Six months? A year at the most? That's hardly compelling enough to justify the continued development of a product whose very point for existence has evaporated.

[fds]

In reply to:

---

But now that Apple is moving to Intel, what's the point in porting an emulation product to a chip where Windows runs natively to begin with?

---

So that you can run Windows and Windows applications while at the same time you are still in Mac OS X and able to run your normal Mac apps.
Ever wonder why there always was a Windows version of Virtual PC? Or why is there VMWare which in its whole life only emulated x86 on x86 host computers?
There's a reason they exists even for Windows, as it is often beneficial for testing and isolation purposes to have a virtual machine running.

[montgomery_burns]

That Roz lady likes to proclaim how they listen to customer feedback. So what is the biggest request from Mac users regarding Microsoft Office software? I would have to say a Mac OS X version of Outlook that supports all the features of the latest Windows version. It's interesting how they keep glossing over this.

[montgomery_burns]

In reply to:

---

Ever wonder why there always was a Windows version of Virtual PC? Or why is there VMWare which in its whole life only emulated x86 on x86 host computers?

---

Since VirtualPC is already available for x86 PC's running Windows, is it really going to take "a lot of work to rebuild for an entirely new architecture"? Or are they just exaggerating in order to cover their rear ends? Or are they contemplating how to cripple VirtualPC for Intel Macs it in such a way that it will only be "fast enough" but nowhere near native PC speeds, so Intel Macs running native VirtualPC won't make real PC's look too bad?

[schoonerman]

The agreement is good for me. It means I won't have guilt pangs when I don't upgrade beyond Office 2004 when the time comes (which could be this year or next). [Various forms of openOffice.org do what I need, and Office 2004 keeps running.]
By 2014 (when failure to continue Office development past 2010 could become a pressing matter), I likely won't need Apple, or Microsoft, or Office. I'll either be 75 or dead.
--John

[uchuugaka]

your Outlook dream is just that and will remain so for at least the next year or so.
Outlook and the latest Exchange server rely heavily on ActiveX tools that do not exist outside of windows.
You really just need an application that can talk to Exchange servers. or do you?
Have you used Outlook in an Exchange Server environment? It's ugly, hard to use, requires tons of mousing just to create an email and it's slowwwww.
It's calendaring features are big but not very slick. Same disease: ugly, hard to use, slow AND buggy.
When it crashes, it doesn't have redundancies to keep things running, it crashes hard and nobody gets any information.
Too often it's more practical to send a fax, call somebody, or go talk to them in person.

[Nobody]

A Mactel with an Intel chip with virtualization technology will boot and switch in real time between Mac OS X, Linux and Windows.
Such machine will sell millions amongst Windows and Linux users, beside Mac users that need sporadic compatibility.
And once they taste the Mac flavor, they will not return to Windows any more...
Even better if Mac OS X could run on any PC out there, but Apple does not seem to understand such STRATEGIC move...

[frankie]

Microsoft didn't buy Virtual PC from Connectix because they're huge fans of the Mac compatibility market. They bought it because they wanted to use the same technology to run multiple copies of Windows on the same box. Virtualization is the major trend for big iron servers.

Personally, I'm MUCH more interested in DarWine. Rootless Windows apps on my Mac, like the X11 environment... salivate...

[frankie]

...give it a rest already.
Apple is a hardware company. They make the vast majority of their profit from hardware sales. If they released a generic version of OSX, they would need to instantly capture about 25% of the entire PC market in order to make the same money they do right now, selling Macs to 5% of the market. That ain't gonna happen.

[jmincey]

No, Apple is not a hardware company. And Apple is not a software company either. Apple is BOTH.

[Hawaiian717]

My suspicion is not so much that they wanted VirtualPC to run Windows on Windows (if so, why do it by acquiring a product where they had to rip out all the x86 on PowerPC code?), but rather they wanted the x86 on PowerPC code to give the XBox 360 (PowerPC G5) the ability to run XBox (Pentium III) games. Windows on Windows and Windows on Mac capability is just a side effect.

[iSunfish]

In reply to:

---

is it really going to take "a lot of work to rebuild for an entirely new architecture"? Or are they just exaggerating in order to cover their rear ends? Or are they contemplating how to cripple VirtualPC for Intel Macs it in such a way that it will only be "fast enough" but nowhere near native PC speeds, so Intel Macs running native VirtualPC won't make real PC's look too bad?

---

Call me cynical, but I think you are on to something here. Jeff asked, even bother? To maintain the illusion of control, that's why they bother.
But I have a strong feeling that, one way or another, within the next couple of years at most, Macs will be able to run many Windows apps either with or without Microsoft's help (the same may be true for Mac OS X on a regular Wintel box, with or without Apple's help). If you are Microsoft, you have to be trying to figure out how to convince people that the ONLY way to run Windows apps on MacTel is with Virtual PC. I sense that they sense that control of this is slipping away from them.