Clarification: Virtual PC 2004?

[daveL]

Re: Re: Re: Re: I hope this doesn't mean MS is dropping it?

Originally posted by manu chao
davel, can you tell me whether Linux apps written and compiled for Linux on Intel/AMD can run on Yellowdog Linux for PPC or whether they have to be recompiled or even modified substantially?

I am asking, since if this would work, one could easily port Mac programs, if OS X would be ported to another processor. (Just curious)

For obvious reasons, x86 Linux software will not run unaltered on PPC. Linux software for PPC has to be re-compiled for that platform, although it's a pretty straightforward process. There are mechanisms similar to Fink that automate most of the build process. YellowDog is actually authorized to sell Mac hardware with YellowDog Linux pre-installed. There's also MOL (Mac on Linux), which allows you to run OS X on top of Linux, either in a X11 window or full screen, with near native performance.

 

[ffakr]

Re: Re: A question to the CPU experts here

Originally posted by kherdin
Yes, Transmeta has such a technology. However, to note, this technology is designed to only emulate the x86 architecture ON their own chips.

They did this to basically be able to make their chips simpler, with fewer instructions, so some of the more complex x86 ones would be done in "software" mode with the simpler native instructions. As a result, their chips can have fewer transistors, and thus dissipating less heat.

The fact that they designed this so centric to x86 emulation on their platform means that it would be almost impossible to port to another platform, which was not designed to use this emulation. Although the opposite was always speculated/rumored of this technology, it has been stated publicly by Transmeta that that's not how it works.

actually, this isn't accurate. The design isn't x86 centric at all.
Transmeta chips are VLIW processors, just like the Itanium. From an architectural or ISA standpoint, they don't look ANYTHING like x86 processors. I'm not sure about the first versions, but the upcomming transmeta processors will be 256bit cpus (VLIW means very long instructional words, where RISC is _supposed_ to have simple instructions, and CISC is supposed to have more complex instructions, VLIW is supposed to have very complex instructions)

Anywho... there is a software layer that translates x86 machine code to the Transmeta VLIW architecture. This is what they brought Linus Torvalds in for.
Transmeta could just as easily run PPC code on one of their chips, they just need to design a new software layer.

Personally, I'd love to see IBM work with transmeta to make PPC compatable chips that ran super cool. I'd be nice to add to the arsenal. Transmeta certainly isn't doing too well in the x86 markets. Intel keeps the super low power pentium3s around to compete.
Imagine a dual processor Transmeta notebook from Apple, one which could switch to x86 support on one of the CPUs when you opened your Windows Emulator. THAT would kick ass.

 

[manu chao]

Re: Re: Re: A question to the CPU experts here

Originally posted by ffakr

Personally, I'd love to see IBM work with transmeta to make PPC compatable chips that ran super cool. I'd be nice to add to the arsenal. Transmeta certainly isn't doing too well in the x86 markets. Intel keeps the super low power pentium3s around to compete.
Imagine a dual processor Transmeta notebook from Apple, one which could switch to x86 support on one of the CPUs when you opened your Windows Emulator. THAT would kick ass.

That would be cool indeed, the question is whether a Transmeta chip would be faster than a 7447. If Transmeta is competing with PIIIs this would confirm what I have heard that they are rather a bit slower than Pentiums.

 

[macrumors12345]

Re: Re: Where are the anti-trust regulators...

Originally posted by SiliconAddict
The same can't be said of Office. I fear if Apple's market share starts growing they will Ax Office and like it or not there are people that won't use the Mac without MS Office.

Yeah, I occasionally worry about this too. The people who say "MSFT is only interested in making more sales, so they wouldn't cut it" don't have it right. Well, they have it half-right - MSFT's end goal *is* to make as much profit as they can, but they are willing to take a long term view on this. They are not stupid, and they realize that by far their most valuable asset is their monopoly position, so reinforcing this position is always their first priority (you can't abuse it if you don't have it!). Contrast this too Apple's pricing strategy in the 80's and early 90's, which made a ton of short-term profit but ultimately turned out to be a bad idea (because they ultimately lost market share, and MSFT gained it, which over the long term has allowed MSFT to gouge far more profit than Apple ever did).

However, if Apple actually gained significant market share (haha, that will be the day...I'm a Mac user, but I'm still realistic!), it would present MSFT with a very interesting dilemma, and I'm not sure how they would react. Remember, the revenue is not so important, keeping the monopoly position is. But, the thing is, they actually have 2 monopolies - one in the OS mkt and one in the office productivity software mkt. Dropping Office for Mac would reinforce their monopoly in the OS market but weaken their monopoly in the office productivity software market (since it would open up opportunities for another office package to establish itself on the Macintosh platform, and then that package could try to seriously undercut MSFT on price on the Windows platform...sorta like Star Office, but more successfully). So which monopoly would be more important to MSFT? I'm not actually sure. I think the Office monopoly may actually generate more revenue (but maybe not, I don't know), but the OS monopoly is nice because it lets you screw over other software developers whenever you feel like it (which is quite often, in MSFT's case). So it's not clear to me. Back in the good old days when the DOJ was not in bed with the MSFT executives, one of the remedies suggested was to split MSFT into three companies (Windows, Office, and everything else). Some ppl speculated that if that happened, Gates would actually choose to go to the Office company rather than the Windows company!

 

[ffakr]

Re: Re: Re: Re: A question to the CPU experts here

Originally posted by manu chao
That would be cool indeed, the question is whether a Transmeta chip would be faster than a 7447. If Transmeta is competing with PIIIs this would confirm what I have heard that they are rather a bit slower than Pentiums.

The transmeta chips have been about as fast as PIIIs at similar clocks, but they can be difficult to bench since they only run as fast as they need to for a given task.

For a lot of tasks, a 1GHz Transmeta chip probably wouldn't be quite as fast as a 7447, but they run so cool that it wouldn't be a big deal putting two of them in a big notebook (that is if they can function in smp configs).
I think the real bonus here would be a laptop that could run x86 and PPC code at the same time.

The upcomming chip is supposed to be much faster than previous Transmeta chips. Transmeta Efficeon

 

[Vanilla]

Re: Re: Re: Where are the anti-trust regulators...

Originally posted by macrumors12345
However, if Apple actually gained significant market share (haha, that will be the day...I'm a Mac user, but I'm still realistic!), it would present MSFT with a very interesting dilemma, and I'm not sure how they would react. Remember, the revenue is not so important, keeping the monopoly position is. But, the thing is, they actually have 2 monopolies - one in the OS mkt and one in the office productivity software mkt.

Doesn't the current professional version of Office v.X contain an integrated version of VPC and hence a Windows Licence? In which case surely if your scenario (which I touched on in an earlier posting) ever came true (please [insert your personal diety preference]) then I guess Microsoft would insist that all versions of Office v.X contained VPC, ensuring that the Windows OS maintained its market presence.

Bottom line is I feel that Microsoft's primary aim is to secure software dominance, irrespective of OS platform.

Vanilla

 

[SiliconAddict]

Re: Re: Re: Re: A question to the CPU experts here

Originally posted by manu chao
That would be cool indeed, the question is whether a Transmeta chip would be faster than a 7447. If Transmeta is competing with PIIIs this would confirm what I have heard that they are rather a bit slower than Pentiums.

The older Transmeta chips performance sucked badly. If you've ever had a chance to play with one you will notice that simply opening up an application on even a 1Ghz chip takes a noticeable amount of time. Once the app is open and running speed is decent. Its all in the design of the chip. However the new Astro (Its been renamed to something else due to legal problems because of the Jetson's dog. ) chip is suppose to be substantially better then the previous gen. I've yet to see benchmarks on it. But AFAIK the chip hasn't even shipped yet even though they have been pounding their chests stating how they are going to blow away the Pentium M. (Shades of Moto there.) Until a final product ships its just grandstanding at this point.

PS- Just remembered the new name. Efficeon. Sounds like a transformer.

 

[SiliconAddict]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Where are the anti-trust regulators...

Originally posted by Vanilla
Doesn't the current professional version of Office v.X contain an integrated version of VPC and hence a Windows Licence? In which case surely if your scenario (which I touched on in an earlier posting) ever came true (please [insert your personal diety preference]) then I guess Microsoft would insist that all versions of Office v.X contained VPC, ensuring that the Windows OS maintained its market presence.

Bottom line is I feel that Microsoft's primary aim is to secure software dominance, irrespective of OS platform.

Vanilla

Well VPC doesn't = Windows license. Going to http://www.microsoft.com/mac I think its just the VPC software itself not a lic and not a copy of Windows.

As macrumors12345 alluded to it all depends on where their priorities are. IF they see protecting the Windows monopoly as their first and most important goal they will consider sales of Office as secondary and in addition to that since Office for Mac represents a fairly small % of their profits they very well could take that hit if it means recouping market share.
Also consider this. Remember just because a person switches to a Mac doesn’t mean they are going to buy Office and VPC. If enough users don’t purchase these apps there is no real reason to support the Mac.
Finally one last consideration. IMHO Microsoft is the most paranoid company on this planet. IF they see even a potential threat to them they will go after it like a pack of wolves. Witness the browser war. Witness the XBOX. (Do you think MS really wanted to get into the gaming biz? It’s because of the potential of the settop computer taking over one day.) My point is they are predatory and proactive in nature when it comes to protecting their monopoly. They won’t sit around idly and twiddle their thumbs while apple eats away at their market share. If push comes to shove they will kill VPC and Office for Mac.
Yes, admitly this is all speculation at this point and I’m playing devils advocate but it’s a possibility I wouldn’t rule out. At any rate until Apple has a drastic surge in switchers I wouldn’t really worry about MS doing such a thing for now. Get back to me in 2 years when more sec holes have been found, where it’s been 2 years since MS released an OS update. Where Apple may have released 1 or even 2 updates to OS X and where their market share has grown. That will be the time we see where MS’s priorities lie. Windows or Office.

 

[Chris1127]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Where are the anti-trust regulators...

Originally posted by SiliconAddict
Well VPC doesn't = Windows license. Going to http://www.microsoft.com/mac I think its just the VPC software itself not a lic and not a copy of Windows.

While it's true that VPC != Windows license, Vanilla specifically mentioned Office v. X Pro. From Microsoft's Office v. X Pro page, the Pro version includes VPC 6.1 and WinXP Pro. However, the other versions of Office don't include VPC.

Just a bit of clarification.

 

[Vanilla]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Where are the anti-trust regulators...

Originally posted by SiliconAddict
Well VPC doesn't = Windows license. Going to http://www.microsoft.com/mac I think its just the VPC software itself not a lic and not a copy of Windows.

Well as Chris1127 says, I was talking in terms of the current Professional version of Office v.X which does indeed include a windows licence, but I appreciate there are other flavours.

IF (huge if) Apple did gain significant market share Microsoft would also be receiving a roughly commensurate increase in revenue from Office v.X, as to date it is the key application for Word processing/spreadsheet work/presentation work, particularly for users operating in a mixed environment. Therefore in terms of Office sales Microsoft would be happy.

However in terms of OS sales they may well be a little concerned as more people switched to Apple. Therefore it would surely be a natural move to incorporate VPC/XP in all flavours of Office v.X. Thus they ensure they continue to enjoy increasing sales of their premier software application while securing their OS market share. This also provides a conduit for their other apps (Project, Money etc.) into the Apple market.

I just feel that talk of Microsoft pulling out of the Apple market if a/ Apple has the temerity of doing well or b/Apple doesnt do well at all is a little too black and white.

As I have detailed previously (and of course its only my opinion) I feel Microsoft is in a win-win (scuse the pun) situation regardless of what happens to Apple and satisifies the anti-monopoly authorities to boot.

Vanilla

 

[ahunter3]

If I were a Microsoft decision-maker, I would not (have) looked at Connectix VirtualPC and said, "Oh no, this is scary, a means of running our Microsoft operating systems on Mac hardware in emulation". And, in fact, Microsoft did not go off to purchase the product line from Connectix when this was all that VPC was up to.

I think it was the release of VPC for Windows that got them thinking. "Hmm, run Windows XP or 2000 Server as a process in a window of another PC operating system...today that 'other operating system' is one of ours, but is there a 'Virtual PC for Linux' right around the corner?"

Imagine people, geeks, corporations, etc., buying Intel PCs and installing Linux as the primary OS and running VPC for the running of any Windows-only apps. Doesn't this look a lot more scary from a Microsoft perspective than people buying Apple Macintosh computers and running VPC to run Windows-only apps? The Mac + MacOS is competition, but of less current worry to Microsoft than a free OS that will run on the same hardware as Windows.

 

[sccaldwell]

I fully expect that if/when Micro$oft releases a version of VPC for the G5, it will either (a) only support XP and higher, or (b) make it much harder to run anything but XP and higher.

Why?

I'd bet that many people running VPC/Mac are using "illegal" installtions of Windows....illegal because either (a) it's a copy that they *do* have legally licensed, but they also have it installed a physical PC, or (b) they "got a copy of Windows 95/98/2000/Me from a friend" to install under VPC.

As I understand it, Windows XP has something in it that helps Micro$oft track licensed versions of XP, and detect duplicate installations of the same license key (all via their online registration process). I know they've done something similar with recent versions of MS Office under Windows.

Allowing or "encouraging" only use of Windows XP (and higher) would help force users of Virtual PC to *also* pay for a Windows license, whereas now I'd guess that a lot of people are either double-using a legal license (which is illegal), or "got a copy from work [or a friend]."

Craig

 

[topicolo]

Originally posted by SiliconAddict
Sadly...no. We can thank the Justice department for that.

Is it any coincidence that even though the DOJ had m$ by the balls before Bush got "elected," a hefty contribution to the George W. Bush presidential campaign and a republican win later, m$ was only given a slap on the wrist?

 

[xelterran]

is this version going to support G5 processors?

 

[eclipse525]

I'm sure the G5 verison of VPC will be ported. I just hope that it's quicker than the previous versions. Right now I use "VPC 6" on a iMac 17" FP / 800mHz and it's painfully slow. To the point that it doesn't justify using it and it's counter productive. If you're gonna emulate then I believe it should be done right and that includes speed. Hopefully now that MS has it's hands on it, they will be able to improve upon a possiblly great emulator.


~e

 

[scat999999]

I can think of two alternatives if this were to happen...>

Apple could make AppleWorks a truly competitive product. Of we could just use the PC version of Office on VPC. I would hope Apple would step up to the plate.

Originally posted by mustang_dvs
Think about it, Microsoft could axe the Mac BU, save on that payroll, and force a number of Mac Office users to either switch to a competing Mac product (which there is none) or switch to Windows, which would ultimately add much more to Redmond's bottom line.
[/B]