RealPC For Mac Delayed By MS Cease And Desist 100
mgh02114 writes "Microsoft recently purchased the Windows-on-a-Mac emulation program "Virtual PC" from Connectix. Since then, FWB announced that they were working to revive their competing 'Real PC' Windows emulation program for Macintosh OS X.
Well, now it looks like Microsoft is trying to kill that program as well. FWB announced that: 'FWB is working diligently to update Real PC and Softwindows for OSX. In May, while working on this project, we received a setback in the form of a cease and desist letter from Microsoft. We are working to resolve the issues with Microsoft, and this has caused some delay, much to our frustration. We are committed to having a beta for you to test for us and help us optimize, this summer. We think we have only lost a few weeks of time to this issue.' FWB appreciates your continued patience and support."
What? (Score:4, Interesting)
This is a load of status-quo crap that Microsoft wants to cram down the throats of those of us who like the Mac platform.
Re:What? (Score:5, Interesting)
Close (Score:5, Insightful)
Q: Yes, but why?
A: Palladium [epic.org].
Microsoft is really into this whole Palladium thing. It provides a way to secure future revenue streams once Windows' competitors pass it by [informationweek.com] on the technology front. They just need to provide a 'secure platform' and convince/acquire the big media players into only allowing their IP to be available on Palladium.
Palladium relies on trusted hardware. If you have a bunch of trusted 'hardware' out there running emulated in software it's suddenly much easier to peek at. This is bad for media sales, and Microsoft revenue.
So, might as well cut off any such efforts before they get off the ground. Who do you think has more lawyers, FWB or Microsoft? My vocabulary word of the day today is barratry [reference.com].
From this perspective, the iTunes Music Store is the biggest poke in the eye Steve could have stuck to Bill, and puts them on the defensive [macdailynews.com] like nothing else could. The iTunes Music Store is actually strategically necessary for the future viability of Mac OS X and Apple. It's real purpose is to preempt Palladium. I have to admit, that's pretty frikkin clever.
Re:Close (Score:2)
Re:Close (Score:2)
At least read the links I bothered to include in the parent comment...
+12, Super Insightful (Score:1)
Sorry to reply twice, (Score:2)
My vocabulary word of the day today is barratry.
Hear, hear! Microsoft will not get any of my business until they stop the deceitful practice of "Sale or purchase of positions in church or state".
Re:Sorry to reply twice, (Score:2)
Barratry:
1. (Law) The practice of exciting and encouraging lawsuits and quarrels. [Also spelt {barretry}.]
What did you look up?
Re:Sorry to reply twice, (Score:2)
1. The offense of persistently instigating lawsuits, typically groundless ones.
2. An unlawful breach of duty on the part of a ship's master or crew resulting in injury to the ship's owner.
3. Sale or purchase of positions in church or state.
While I realize the poster was referring to #1 I think a case could be made for #3 as well...
Go figure... (Score:3, Funny)
Look and feel (Score:1)
is there any real cause listed? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:is there any real cause listed? (Score:2, Insightful)
Details? Who needs details?
Re:is there any real cause listed? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:is there any real cause listed? (Score:3, Funny)
(thinking hard...)
Well, there was that NSA backdoor thing that turned out to be nothing. Tough to think of anything else, though.
Re:is there any real cause listed? (Score:2)
Think about it - one platform, only one place to assert master key escrow [win2000archives.com].
Of course MS doesn't want competition. (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Of course MS doesn't want competition. (Score:3, Insightful)
Or they just don't want customers thinking that MS is at fault when really it's the PC emulator that's to blame. Sony used a similar argument when it tried to shoot down the PSOne emulator for Mac.
(note: Playing Devil's Advocate doesn't mean I'm supporting MS's position.)
Re:Of course MS doesn't want competition. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Of course MS doesn't want competition. (Score:3, Informative)
In my experience providing tech support to students running Windows apps in VPC, I have encountered exactly ZERO errors that were the fault of the emulator. Every single problem (other than helping a Mac user configure Windows) was a faithful bug-for-bug [google.com] emulation of known errors experienced by physical PCs.
Re:Of course MS doesn't want competition. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Of course MS doesn't want competition. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Of course MS doesn't want competition. (Score:1, Interesting)
What they decide to do with the mac version is really unknown. They have sai
Re:Of course MS doesn't want competition. (Score:2)
Don't Panic (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Don't Panic (Score:2)
Man I wish I had mod points right now. Everybody's ready to assume the worst, when the real problem could just as easily be what the parent poster described.
Honestly, is it so hard to reserve judgement until the facts are out?
Re:Don't Panic (Score:1)
It's just scary legal action crap designed to cave in the competition, this kind of barratry should be outlawed by some kind of legal-aid system.
Unlikely. (Score:4, Interesting)
FWB used to produce the Windows 95/98 Emulator which was called Softwindows. They changed the title of it to RealPC just to avoid extra headaches from Microsoft's legal department.
I really hope this was on
Re:Unlikely. (Score:2)
Connectix, who by then had built up a name for themselves as very proficient low-level developers with hacks like RamDoubler, brought out VirtualPC with a lot of PR about how much faster it was than SoftWindows.
RealPC was a direct response to that, if a little lame in the naming department...
Re:Unlikely. (Score:1)
When Connectix brought out VirtualPC, it was designed to emulate PC hardware. RealPC was Insigna's version of this...emulating the PC hardware (of course, you could run Windows on this, too). They are not the same product, nor is one an update of the other.
FWB bought those products from Insignia in 1999.
Re:Don't Panic (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not. Connectix paid FWB off to stop making SoftWindows so VirtualPC would be the only game in town. When MS bought VirtualPC from Connectix, this agreement was null and void from FWB's point of view. Apparently MS differs.
More info here [macnn.com].
Re:Don't Panic (Score:1)
That agreement made all competition disappear on the PC-emulator-for-Mac market, isn't it?
I bet both product would have benefited from some competition.
So, does every player in this game have dirty hands? Connectix for muzzling FWB, FWB for accepting such a deal (but was it a deal?), and M$, well, time will tell how exactly...
I wouldn't be surprised if M$ released VPC for a
a need for speed... (Score:3, Interesting)
Luckily my company uses Citrix, which allows me to do my Windows work from the comfort of my Mac!
Implications (Score:2, Insightful)
Microsoft is doing one of the following:
1.) Trying to profit from Windows emulation on MacOS by buying the most popular product, then eliminating the competition. I suppose this is a good idea, as it sells Windows licenses.
2.) Trying to eliminate Windows emulation entirely because it's a threat. After all, it's a good reason for people to use Macs-- running Windows software means no inhibitions about switching. Microsoft could eliminat
Re:Implications (Score:5, Insightful)
Just out of curiosity, how do you know those are the only options? Why can't it be that this software trips over a patent they have or some other issue? I mean seriously, isn't it odd that they're not showing us the Cease and Desist letter? Isn't it odd that they're not explaining what the issue is? For all we know, MS just wants them to stop the shipment of the product because they're not using the (R) term properly.
I'm not defending Microsoft here. Far from it. I'm just sick of all these paranoid theories that pop up with the most minimal of information. We already get this type of sensationalism from CNN. Do we need it on Slashdot too?
Re:Implications (Score:2)
Maybe RPC and VPC are based on a component from UnixWare 7? Maybe Microsoft are waiting for a technology transfer from The SCO Group before they go ahead with VPC? Maybe this is what TSG meant about an ongoing revenue stream? (-:
This is not the whole story (Score:4, Informative)
When Connectix PURCHASED the IP from RealPC, the contract was saying that RealPC would not be able to sell anymore this product, as it was not theirs anymore. Now that MS bought Connectix's IP, VirtualPC that is, that idiot RealPC guy THOUGHT that he would be able to re-sell his own app!! What a loonie! He signed for the contract that now MS is owning.
MS only does what they should do here, as they own that IP. RealPC seems to have its head on its a$$.
Re:This is not the whole story (Score:4, Informative)
the thing is I somehow doubt your claim. as I recall softPC and virtualPC were competitors being sold at the same time for a while. They supposedly worked on differtent principles with VirtualPC running windows near native emulating the CPU while softPC focused more on emulating windows with ppc native repalcements for the API. maybe i'm wrong.
Re:This is not the whole story (Score:5, Informative)
I don't believe that's the case. IIRC Connectix developed VPC from scratch. For a while VPC and SoftWindows/RealPC were competitors, but VPC had better compatibility and performance, so Insignia discontinued the product and sold the rights to FWB. Someone correct me if I'm wrong...
Re:This is not the whole story (Score:1)
RealPC was written by Insignia Solutions (makers of SoftWindows) in response to Connectix releasing VirtualPC.
It was then later sold to FWB when Insignia went under.
Fighting back with efficiency (Score:2)
G5 Story pulled on Apples request (Score:1)
OS News pulled the story too:
http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=3735
Apple Insider still has it:
http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=114
Virtual PC is NOT virtual Windows (Score:5, Informative)
could OSS help in some way? (Score:1)
How's about:
`SoftWinbloze - come to the dark side` or something?
Could a company use OSS projects such as bochs somehow to thier advantage? Is there a LGPL alternative?
Could a company be justifiable as supporting the code but making money from something else other than writing it, such as commercial support, additional features and a guarentee that specific programs will run.
I
Re:Why am I not surprised? (Score:5, Funny)
Fuck Microsoft.
(I love it. Two of my favorite words and I get a chance to use them!!!) :) LOL
Microsoft is one of your favorite words ? Ack !
I thought... (Score:3, Funny)
No need to check pricing for MS emulator cloaking devices.
Re:I thought... (Score:2)
Huh? (Score:2)
Many PC-on-Mac emulators were sold... (Score:2)
Nowadays, MS-Office on Mac OS X is generally better than MS-Office on MS-Windows despite OS cheats; that's not far from what would happen if they went on to port it to Linux, but they seem to want "none" rather than "half a loaf". And of course, Linus has publicly stated in several ways that the day Microsoft port MS-Office to Linux, he'll consider himself to have won. World Domination will be complete. (-:
Re:Many PC-on-Mac emulators were sold... (Score:1)
How's that? MS Office is Microsoft's ONLY profitable product!
MS-Office for Linux (Score:3, Interesting)
Not quite true. Windows itself is steeply profitable, and there are many other minor software products that they turn a dollar on. Nothing earth-shaking but it's there.
Porting MS-Office to Linux will send two messages: "We trust Linux enough to put our flagship products on it" (what other software does Microsoft ship Linux versions of? I can only think of the FrontPage extensions); and "There is enough Linux on the desktop and it's going to be there for
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
We're talking about emulation on Mac OS X. Why read Office files in an emulator when you could use something native like, ummmm, Office?
is a generic x86 emulator planned? (Score:1)
Can they do that? (Score:2)
Re:Can they do that? (Score:1)
connectix sux (Score:1)
Microsoft scared? (Score:2, Interesting)
At the moment, Macs are for the most part embarassingly slow (I say this as a Mac user, so flame all you like, but you're flaming your own) and when the G5 comes out and things get a hell of a lot quicker, any PC emulator is going to speed up similarly - it might even become usable.
If one ever wanted proof that they were/are a monopoly and are just incredibly
G5? (Score:1)
Then again in 2002.
Now again in 2003.
They're not that fast anymore. Honestly I don't see why Microsoft would be cringing in their shoes at the prospect of competing with a 4k$ quad-proc with "up to" 2ghz chips. Even with the RISC boost, that puts them in a class with systems half of their cost.
This by itself would not be enough to justify worry.
Re:Microsoft scared? (Score:3, Funny)
At the moment, Macs are for the most part embarassingly slow (I say this as a Mac user, so flame all you like, but you're flaming your own)
Relax. This is apple.slashdot.org. You're safe here.
Hardware x86 cards? (Score:2)
The beauty of this setup is that x86 apps run natively, thus there is no emulation performance lag. You effectively get two computers in one.
Re:Hardware x86 cards? (Score:2)
Re:Hardware x86 cards? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hardware x86 cards? (Score:1)
Re:Hardware x86 cards? (Score:2, Informative)
Here's the reason why they never went anywhere:
Why would you buy a $1800 Mac, and then buy a $500 PC Compatibility Card and
Re:Hardware x86 cards? (Score:1)
These days, for only slightly more than a card, you can get an actual PC, connect it up with Ethernet, and whenever you want to use it from your Mac, just run Microsoft's Remote Desktop Connection (which is free) on your Mac. Just as fast as a PC, because it is a PC. If you ever want to upgr
M$ doesn't care about VPC for Macintosh (Score:1, Interesting)
The Macintosh version of VPC might be maintained for a minof update or two, but then disappear under the guise of "not
Connectix Old Rumor Put To Bed (Score:1)
Re:Connectix Old Rumor Put To Bed (Score:1)
Try http://www.macnn.com/news/19031
You know, where FWB tells customers "When Microsoft purchased Virtual PC, we decided it was time to re-release an updated version of Real PC & SoftWindows 98 (and shortly XP etc). We had to discontinue the product as the agreement was with Connectix, not Microsoft. If you would like to update your Real PC to a faster, better and more powerful version, give us 30 days to finish the software and you'll be glad you waited
Re:Connectix Old Rumor Put To Bed (Score:1)
Ineeded I am the CEO of FWB Software as previously stated.
The agreement you are discussing was a distri agreement for FWB to cross-sell VPC. In simplistic terms, we sold VPC as a reseller.
Both Connectix and FWB shared the same ECOM provider and such had abilities to mutually cross-sell the other's product line.
Upon the purchase of Connectix by Mircrosoft our "agreement" to cross-sell was terminated as Connectix was no longer with the same ECOM provider. Thus we had no active agreement in place.
Do
"kill that program as well"?!? (Score:2, Informative)
As well as what? Look, I worked as the dev lead for Virtual PC at Connectix, and came to Microsoft 5 years ago. I work at MacBU only a few offices away from the Virtual PC development team. Microsoft has repeatedly stated that they intend to continue development of Virtual PC for Macintosh, and no matter how many times people here repeat that Microsoft is trying t
Re:"kill that program as well"?!? (Score:2)
Re:"kill that program as well"?!? (Score:1)
> ability to run x86 operating systems other than windows?
I don't see why not. Trying to run other OS's besides Windows is one way of increasing the possibility of running future versions of Windows. As I recall, modifying VPC to run Linux wasn't that difficult because Linux supported a lot of different CPUs, so it tended to do plain vanilla stuff in only slightly different ways than Windows did, and fixing VPC to run Linux really amounted to
Re:"kill that program as well"?!? (Score:1)
I'm too ignorant of Interix and Kerberos to follow your point, but I will say this: it's even further off-topic.