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: :mad: WRONG!!:mad:

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!

I don't really want to get into this argument, but I'd like to point out that porting a Windows program to the Mac is not at all trivial. Especially one that interacts with the system at a low level. Most of the guts of the program is likely to be stuff that is very Windows-specific. It might well be easier/faster to start from scratch.

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.

I was going to point that out sooner but that site wasn't responding the other day. (Check it out fazstp.)

I wonder if something like this applies to VPC as well…

Edit:
I kinda picked up on that…

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)

I don't know about you but I personally don't support using illegally cracked copies of OS X http://forums.macosxhints.com/images/icons/icon13.gif

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 ;)

Please don't continue this discussion about the legality or morality or lessality of running OS X on non-Apple hardware. It is contrary to the OS X licence and hence these forums don't support it (to the point where any threads discussing how to do it will get closed).
But more importantly, it is off-topic for this thread.