Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft Businesses Software Apple

RealPC For Mac Delayed By MS Cease And Desist 100

Posted by timothy from the but-you-can-still-open-98-windows dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

RealPC For Mac Delayed By MS Cease And Desist More

RealPC For Mac Delayed By MS Cease And Desist

Comments Filter:

  • What? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by C0LDFusion ( 541865 ) on Monday June 09, 2003 @07:51PM (#6157119) Journal
    Windows DOESN'T WANT MORE WINDOWS USERS? In order to run windows on a Mac, you have to buy the license to run the Windows, even with VPC-style emulation.

    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)

      by jimbolaya ( 526861 ) on Monday June 09, 2003 @07:56PM (#6157150) Homepage
      It could be that Microsoft plans on killing VPC, and doesn't want there to be any way to run Windows on Mac. Or it could be that Microsoft wants to monopolize Windows emulation on the Mac. But this is Microsoft...surely they wouldn't try to pull either one of those, would they?

      • Close (Score:5, Insightful)

        by bill_mcgonigle ( 4333 ) on Monday June 09, 2003 @09:38PM (#6157791) Homepage Journal
        It could be that Microsoft plans on killing VPC, and doesn't want there to be any way to run Windows on Mac.

        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.
        • I was under the real impression that Palladium was something Intel was leading. Microsoft is supposed to be their premier partner in preparing an OS level implementation of it and of course is helping to coordinate integration with Windows first... am I incorrect?

          • I was under the real impression that Palladium was something Intel was leading. Microsoft is supposed to be their premier partner in preparing an OS level implementation of it and of course is helping to coordinate integration with Windows first... am I incorrect?

            At least read the links I bothered to include in the parent comment...
        • I hadn't thought of the Palladium angle, but I suspect you are very right about that. I guess I had better go find a used copy of VPC while I can.
        • but I had to mention your other insightful observation, after I looked it up:

          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".

          • Websters 1913:

            Barratry:

            1. (Law) The practice of exciting and encouraging lawsuits and quarrels. [Also spelt {barretry}.]

            What did you look up?
            • It was a joke - check Dictionary.com.

              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)

    by QuiGonJin ( 531349 ) on Monday June 09, 2003 @07:55PM (#6157149)
    Well, of course Microcrap doesn't want FWB to make a Windows emulator. Why would they, M$ already makes one? We don't need TWO Winblows emulators, right? That would just be downright GREEDY.
    • You'll be able to compare right there on the screen. Think how ugly MS-Windows will look alongside Aqua, and what dumb-blonde secretaries and hairdressers will think of how slowly MS-Windows runs on their Mac. (-:

  • is there any real cause listed? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jpt.d ( 444929 ) <`moc.sregor' `ta' `llafba'> on Monday June 09, 2003 @07:59PM (#6157172)
    If so I didn't see it there. Why not just post the cease and desist?
  • I mean, if their monopoly power and deep pockets and hordes of lawyers don't stop an opposing product, it might actually have to succeed on it's MERITS! MS always wants to avoid that at all costs.

    • "I mean, if their monopoly power and deep pockets and hordes of lawyers don't stop an opposing product, it might actually have to succeed on it's MERITS!"

      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.)
      • Of course, Sony ended up buying Virtual Game Station from Connectix, and burying it in the desert or something. They certainly never made it available for sale. Could be what MS is doing, too.

      • don't want customers thinking that MS is at fault when really it's the PC emulator that's to blame

        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.

  • Don't Panic (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jlower ( 174474 ) on Monday June 09, 2003 @08:18PM (#6157304) Homepage
    It could be something as simple as a product naming/trademark issue.
    • "It could be something as simple as a product naming/trademark issue."

      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?
      • and how - exactly - could "RealPC" possibly be construed to tread on MS's trademarked toes?

        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)

      by cioxx ( 456323 ) on Monday June 09, 2003 @08:51PM (#6157478) Homepage
      I call bullshit on that theory for one simple reason.

      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 /.'s front page instead of the apple section. If this doesn't look like Microsoft-specific coercion by using their monopolistic strongarm tactics, I don't know what is.
      • Actually they changed the name of it as part of a product relaunch - SoftWindows hadn't been updated for while, and was not really regarded as offering great performance.

        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...
      • Insigna used to produce a Windows emulator called SoftWindows. This was purely designed to emulate Windows (not a PC).

        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)

      by Daleks ( 226923 ) on Monday June 09, 2003 @11:41PM (#6158404)
      It could be something as simple as a product naming/trademark issue.

      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].
      • I would like to have more info about the first agreement, you know, the one that barred RealPC from being a competitor to VirtualPC?
        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)

    by dunar ( 575371 ) on Monday June 09, 2003 @08:19PM (#6157308)
    MS VPC or FWB RealPC - the choice for me would come down to speed. I've used VPC and been less than impressed with its quickness. So much so, that it would almost be faster for me to drive to the office to do the "Windows-only" tasks that I might need to do.

    Luckily my company uses Citrix, which allows me to do my Windows work from the comfort of my Mac!

  • Implications (Score:2, Insightful)

    by sabNetwork ( 416076 )
    Whoa, what's going on here? Seriously, this is some fishy stuff.

    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)

      by Anonvmous Coward ( 589068 ) on Monday June 09, 2003 @08:42PM (#6157424)
      "Microsoft is doing one of the following:"

      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?
      • Why can't it be that this software trips over a patent they have or some other issue?

        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)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 09, 2003 @08:48PM (#6157460)
    What the RealPC guy doesn't tell you is that he SOLD his business to Connectix a few years ago. This is how Connectix did the product for Mac. VitrualPC is nothing but the evolution of RealPC.
    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)

      by goombah99 ( 560566 ) on Monday June 09, 2003 @08:55PM (#6157505)
      hmmm....maybe this guy is actually clever. He gets massive press coverage when ms sues and thenhe changes his name to UnrealPC or something and everyon now knows that UNrealPC is really realPC. good way to laubder brand loyalty to associate it with a new product.

      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)

      by bnenning ( 58349 ) on Monday June 09, 2003 @09:40PM (#6157804)
      VitrualPC is nothing but the evolution of RealPC.


      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...

    • Mod Parent Down...

      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.
  • By shrewdly stopping their work for weeks, they've complied with both the cease and desist requests in one move! Take that, M$!

  • Virtual PC is NOT virtual Windows (Score:5, Informative)

    by pauljlucas ( 529435 ) on Monday June 09, 2003 @11:08PM (#6158264) Homepage Journal
    Virtual PC software emulates commodity PC hardware. It does not emulate Windows. If you choose to use Windows under Virtual PC, you use a bona fide Microsoft Windows installer CD. Alternatively, you're free to install x86 Linux under Virtual PC as well.
  • I also exepct it to be a trademark issue. Can anyone think of a way to communicate the idea of emulating Windows specifically?
    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

  • I thought... (Score:3, Funny)

    by djupedal ( 584558 ) on Tuesday June 10, 2003 @01:47AM (#6158857)
    ....that OpenOffice made this a non-issue [openoffice.org]. Yes, I used to run SoftWindows, etc. but never on a regular basis, and not in the last two or three years. Now that OO is available, I can run it on my Mac and/or Linux boxen and be happy.

    No need to check pricing for MS emulator cloaking devices.
    • There are other reasons. I run Virtual PC to allow me to back up my mobile phone, the software is Windows only. I have however made some progress deciphering the protocol so I should be able to write my own perl backup utility soon. (I can currently backup, but not restore)
    • How did OO make PC emulation a non-issue? OO is an Office suite, isn't it?
      • ...just to run "real" MS-Office on Mac. Especially around the "nobble the MS-Word for Mac v6" time.

        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. (-:

        • "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."

          How's that? MS Office is Microsoft's ONLY profitable product!

          • MS-Office for Linux (Score:3, Interesting)

            by leonbrooks ( 8043 )

            MS Office is Microsoft's ONLY profitable product!

            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

  • on the x86 side there is always vmware... it is a generic and reasonably well working x86 emulator. isn't a port to ppc planned for them? btw. i know it would be difficult for them as they perform most instructions directly on the cpu -> there is no need to adapt two instruction sets (eg. x86 on x86 vs. x86 on ppc). nevertheless, it could be a reasonable market considering MS is interested enough to buy companies that operate in that market...
  • On what grounds can microsoft issue a hardware emulator with cease and desist?
    • the original RealPC didn't emulate the entire x86 architecture, just the most important parts. That's why it would only run windows, and before you could use windows RPC had to patch it to take care of the parts that tried to use the missing chip intructions. That's one of the reasons why VPC gained so much more popularity. If they were just going to speed it up and port to OSX, then they would have still be patching windows, and I can see how MS would throw a bitch fit over that. The delay is probably
  • it seems like connectix is great at working on software that pisses of some company and then sells the right to it back to that company. think "virtual game station" which was probably the best playstation emulator to date. don't forget the connectix quickcam which used to be a great, simle webcam until the sold it to logitech which made the camera better but the software and drivers such a hassle that i gave up on what use to be a fine product. that is it! the awnser to the second step in the equation 1

  • Microsoft scared? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by ickoonite ( 639305 )
    Might it not have something to do with the fact that Macs are about to get a whole lot faster when the G5 (allegedly) comes out in a month's time?

    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)

      by cgenman ( 325138 )
      There were rumors of G5's coming out in 2001 (at which point they would be bearably fast).

      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.

    • 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.

  • Why has no one release a product like the SUN PCiii card [sun.com] for Apple?
    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.
    • They used to. Orange Micro sold one, I think Apple even had their own at one point. They were never popular enough.
    • Orange Micro definitely used to have one. Apple's version, I beleive was the DOS Compatibility Card. It was for the old NuBus Macs like the PowerMac 6100/66. Way old school. Worked pretty well...for DOS anyway. I think you could actually run Windows 3.11 on it as well. But it's been so long...
    • Apple did make these, and I actually have one that is about four years old with a Pentium 166 on it. I call it the "PC on a Stick" because it has a chipset, processor, sound card, memory controller, DIMM slot, and other features of a x86 PC all on one big honkin' PCI card. They licensed the design to Orange Micro, who made the OrangePC and ran with it, until the product went *poof*

      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
    • The reason the hardware cards failed is that people don't like doubling their hardware upgrade costs. Virtual PC cost way less than any card, and if you got yourself a faster PowerPC chip, Virtual PC also ran faster.

      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)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Microsoft bought Connectix for their emulation layer on x86. They're in the middle of building a new product to compete with VMWare installations using the Connectix Windows emulator to go along with a new embedded version of XP. It's currently called Typhon right now (Typhon was the 100 headed monster who was supposed to kill Zeus, and is supposed to be the source of lava from Mt Etna).

    The Macintosh version of VPC might be maintained for a minof update or two, but then disappear under the guise of "not
  • Thank you everyone for your comments. For the record, Connectix never paid FWB "off". That is an old rumor and untrue. Not sure where it started or why. For a time FWB carried VPC after it had originally shut down SoftWindows and RealPC, but that was more of a courtessey to existing customers who wanted an upgrade path. As far as the cease notice from M$, if you want to see it, just ask. Goto www.fwb.com and email us. FWB has decided to rebrand "SoftWindows" to "PowerWindows". Sadly the process Micr
    • So, you're, uh, not sure where the rumor started?

      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
      • JBX,

        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
  • I'm sorry but it really irks me to see writers such as timothy say "Well, now it looks like Microsoft is trying to kill that program as well."

    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
    • Will the MS branded version of VPC for Mac maintain the ability to run x86 operating systems other than windows?
      • > Will the MS branded version of VPC for Mac maintain the
        > 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

Slashdot Top Deals

"The following is not for the weak of heart or Fundamentalists." -- Dave Barry

Close