|
Microsoft shelves its Virtual PC for Mac
Quote:
|
no big loss.
Looks like Connectix sold up at the right time :D |
I seriously doubt that there are that many people that aare surprised about this or that are dependent on Virtual PC
VMWare is introducing their Virtualisation system for OSX Parallels is here and you can do dual boot with Boot Camp |
I was looking forwards to running windows on my mac at snail speed, guess I'll just have to run it at full speed or better still not at all!
|
They dropped it because the code was now worthless, since it emulated an Intel CPU. They would have had to start from scratch and build a virtualizer so instead they said "ah, f___ it..."
|
WTFs with dropping support for Visual Basic in Mac Office? I have a mac but the rest of the office is PC so I write VB routines for Excel on the Mac to run on PC.
|
MS Virtual PC was emulation, not virtualization. Emulation is no longer needed, and there are lots of virtualization companies around to fill the new need.
Hopefully they can spend the time saved to make Office a Universal app. |
Although this sounds like MS gave up VPC and thinks it's too much work, I think that MS is trying to stop Windows from running on Macs. idk. A odd idea, but it seems to work.
|
How can you possibly derive that from the facts known?
|
yer, having windows on mac's and PC's is a plus for Microsoft. They don't make the machines so they don't care how much of the market apple has as long as a high percentage (mainly new users) buy windows to go with their macs. The down side for MS perhaps would be when these new mac users relise how much better OS X is and uninstall windows from their machines to free up space for mac programs. As I have done.
Also is there any ideas when the new office for Mac will be coming out? Office 2007 looks really nice, they have changed the whole look of it for the better! |
Quote:
I wonder if MS is looking to buy out Parallels like it did with Virtual PC? |
Quote:
|
If Connectix had still been in charge of VPC, an Intel version would have been on the shelves before Parallels appeared. Probably before the Intel Macs were actually available. No moss ever grew on the developer's sneakers at Connectix.
This should not have been rocket science. MS acquired Connectix' VPC out of lust for the Windows version of VPC, not the Mac version. And the version that should have been available in shrinkwrap for the Intel Mac should have been a relatively easy port of the Windows version of VPC, not the Mac version (which had to emulate the Pentium in software). MS — asleep at the wheel once again. |
I give you a 10 for your ability to craft wild assumptions, an 8 for MS bashing creativity, and a 1 for being able to understand the difference between emulation and virtualization.
|
Was that aimed at me???
THE TECHNOLOGY IN QUESTION A virtual machine that runs natively on the true HW machine's processor and runs Windows: yep, they had that. They also had the almost infinitely more complicated emulator for running Windows on a PowerPC Mac, but that's not relevant here. Porting it to execute in the MacOS X environment: no more brain surgery than porting any other app. As easy as porting SheepShaver or Basilisk, I'd think. THE TWO COMPANIES Connectix: lemme say it again — no moss ever grew on the developer's sneakers at Connectix. Microsoft: took their own good sweet time to get a G5-compatible version of the Windows-on-PPC emulator — a non-simple rewrite, to be sure, especially given how close to the metal that Connectix code had been. But compare to Connectix and the elapsed time between announcing that it was going to compete with Insignia Solutions and the arrival of VPC 1.0... MS should not have had problems porting the Windows (Intel-based) version of VirtualPC (which was a virtual-machine technology using native hardware extensively) to MacOS X Intel (where it would do the exact same thing but execute in the OS X environment do so as an OSX app). Parallels did it from a standing start while MS napped. (Or chose not to bother). |
I want to know why Microsoft is missing a chance to stick it to the masses again. Heck, they could even say you need different copies of Windows for your "virtual machine" (VPC) and for your "real machine" (Boot Camp), they could make even more money!
|
The premise is that Microsoft is pure evil and is only greedy. If the evidence doesn't support the premise, the premise is faulty. I may not be the biggest Microsoft fan, but I'm sure a lot of the people working there are just like a lot of the people working everywhere else in tech, or working next to you, or in your church group or bar, and some may be even be just like you (horrors). I copied this from MacInTouch:
"Here's an update on the number to call at Microsoft to get a replacement install disk when changing from Virtual PC to Windows XP to run natively on your MacBookPro. Call the replacement desk at Microsoft at 800-360-7561. Tell them that you already have an authorized and registered copy of Virtual PC with Windows XP and that you just want to purchase a replacement installation disk of Windows XP without the Virtual PC program. They will ask for the product verification code that is engraved on the inner rim of your virtual pc disk. As has been mentioned before, be polite but firm. The representative that I was working with was not aware of what I was trying to do. I asked to speak with a supervisor and after being put on hold, the supervisor apparently informed the representative of this replacement program and I was able to purchase the replacement disk. And yes, the folks at Microsoft are amazinglly pleasant on the phone, so make sure you respond it kind. Really it only makes sense. Microsoft should be only too happy to have more Macintosh customers to buy their future upgrades. By the way, the replacement disk for windows xp pro is $23, plus $5 for shipping and additional sales tax depending on where you live." |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I feel MS has become another IBM; they stand back letting everyone work through the problems of new a technology and then jump in once the market is established. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Styrafome- Not sure if your comment was aimed at me. But I wanted to point out that you entirely missed the satire. If I really hated Microsoft I'd swear of videogames and use openoffice.
|
CAlvarez:
Quote:
You're really not listening. They do too modify the existing VPC. Or an existing VPC at any rate. The one they modify is the VPC that runs under Windows. VPC for Windows. NOT the VPC that ran under MacOS X on PowerPC chips. VPC for Windows. The one that does not emulate the processor because it doesn't need to. Just as VPC for Mac-on-Intel would not need to. The one that is a Windows program that creates a virtual machine within which you run some other flavor of Windows. (Or Linux for that matter). You port that and you end up with an OS X program that creates a virtual machine that runs Windows. Sheesh! |
Quote:
Although it is relatively unlikely that the Connectix code was as hard to maintain as that for Visual Basic for Applications in MS Office, it is worth noting that Microsoft found it too difficult to port the VBA code to Intel Macs (they looked into porting the existing PowerPC version and the existing Windows XP version) - so they are dropping support for it in the next version of Office: http://www.schwieb.com/blog/2006/08/...-visual-basic/ |
I shouldn't be getting pissy with CAlvarez anyhow, I guess. I've always respected his opinion overall.
Apologies all around. I just got frustrated because I didn't seem to be communicating. |
Quote:
Quote:
Edit: Quote:
Quote:
|
I'm understanding, but disagreeing. Porting from Windows to Mac/Unix/Linux is not trivial. Notice that the other Mac virtualization programs came from companies that were already making *nix products, so the change was somewhat easy. I assume you know that OS X is Unix based and thus everything underlying it has strong compatibility with other *nix-based products.
|
Well I read the blog and it all sounds fairly reasonable. I know the pain of trying to have something to run x-platform, and that's as a Director programmer without getting into the core. But that still doesn't help me with Excel. I find I use Excel almost exclusively through VB macro execution. It seems to be the only way I can ensure the integrity of the data. Excel seems to do some really flunky things with data when you start moving it around, especially with dates. My macros generally use Excel to query an old sales database and port it into production summaries etc. I don't know if it's just me but I find it easier to write a macro than to get Excel to do anything through the gui. Plus by scripting I can force feed the data in the formats that I require.
|
I say we continue trying to run OSX on native Windows machines :D
Anyway, I think Parallels is a great program. It runs well and has some great features. Better than dual booting (although that even has its benefits) |
Quote:
|
I ran my legally-owned retail copy of OS X on a home-built machine, just to check it out. Is that illegally cracked?
|
Yes because Apple does not want people running OS X on PCs ;)
|
Quote:
But more importantly, it is off-topic for this thread. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:53 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Site design © IDG Consumer & SMB; individuals retain copyright of their postings
but consent to the possible use of their material in other areas of IDG Consumer & SMB.