On Friday, November 14, 2003, at 11:07 PM, James Rohde wrote:
On 11/14/03 5:41 AM, Bruce Johnson enlightened us by writing:
Softwindows was written by Insignia under license from Microsoft.
Insignia got the deep access to Windows source code. In return
Microsoft got significant rights to
On 11/13/03 6:59 AM, Kelly Johnson enlightened us by writing:
I think you guys are missing the boat on MS's intentions. I think it
is a simple matter of them knowing that a significant number of mac
users, given sufficient experience with windows, will become
comfortable enough with it to
On 11/14/03 5:41 AM, Bruce Johnson enlightened us by writing:
Softwindows was written by Insignia under license from Microsoft.
Insignia got the deep access to Windows source code. In return
Microsoft got significant rights to Insignia's code. FWB owns the
SoftWindows product, but they can't
I think you guys are missing the boat on MS's intentions. I think it
is a simple matter of them knowing that a significant number of mac
How about this then - if M$ want the new XBox (a glorified
Celeron) to run on a G5 chip and be backward compatible, then
maybe they'll need a good x86
On Wednesday, November 12, 2003, at 05:06 PM, Kelly Johnson wrote:
The reason I say this is that I am a fairly typical user, and this is
what happened to me. I used windows in VPC, got comfortable with it,
became irritated with apple for a few reasons, sold my mac, bought a
pc, bought another
On Wednesday, November 12, 2003, at 04:28 PM, David Sinn wrote:
I wasn't aware that Microsoft had bought FWB or SoftWindows for that
matter,
or were you saying that they should have?
Softwindows was written by Insignia under license from Microsoft.
Insignia got the deep access to Windows
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, Paul Stamsen wrote:
At 17:06pm -0700 on 11/12/03, you (Kelly Johnson), wrote:
I think you guys are missing the boat on MS's intentions. I think it
is a simple matter of them knowing that a significant number of mac
(snip)
price differences for me). All because of
Paul,
I have a 12 powerbook, which I think qualifies. kj.
On Thursday, November 13, 2003, at 05:59 AM, G-Books wrote:
And you wrote to (and stayed subscribed to) this list for what reason?
pc now. I bought a pb12 because there truly was nothing else pc or
otherwise that could compete (sony
On Nov 11, 2003, at 3:53 PM, Jim Schulze wrote:
On Monday, November 10, 2003, at 09:29 PM, Krevnik wrote:
It doesn't mean that Linux will suddenly stop working. VPC is
designed so that you can't just set a magic flag that prevents an OS
from working.
ROFLMAO.
Uh, do you think that if you had
On Wednesday, November 12, 2003, at 01:05 AM, Krevnik wrote:
On Nov 11, 2003, at 3:53 PM, Jim Schulze wrote:
On Monday, November 10, 2003, at 09:29 PM, Krevnik wrote:
It doesn't mean that Linux will suddenly stop working. VPC is
designed so that you can't just set a magic flag that prevents an
That is, of course, only if Microsoft continues to keep VPC as a emulator
and doesn't morph it into something closer to say WINE. Why do I need to
emulate the whole PC when all that users may need is a Windows API and
something to translate the code???
I have no info that this is what they are
David Sinn wrote:
That is, of course, only if Microsoft continues to keep VPC as a emulator
and doesn't morph it into something closer to say WINE. Why do I need to
emulate the whole PC when all that users may need is a Windows API and
something to translate the code???
I have no info that this
David Ensteness wrote:
The core design of VPC prevents MS/Connectix from disabling other OSes
without doing some damage to Windows running in the VPC environment.
Not true, there are some OSes that do not work under VPC, this has been
the case for several years.
Only if the emulated hardware is
I wasn't aware that Microsoft had bought FWB or SoftWindows for that matter,
or were you saying that they should have?
So, while they don't have an existing product to upgrade to do what I was
conjecturing to be Microsoft's intent, what ever any of us comes up with is
just that: conjecture.
I think you guys are missing the boat on MS's intentions. I think it
is a simple matter of them knowing that a significant number of mac
users, given sufficient experience with windows, will become
comfortable enough with it to ditch apple. They've lowered the price
already, which to me
At 17:06pm -0700 on 11/12/03, you (Kelly Johnson), wrote:
I think you guys are missing the boat on MS's intentions. I think it
is a simple matter of them knowing that a significant number of mac
(snip)
price differences for me). All because of VPC. kj.
And you wrote to (and stayed
On Monday, November 10, 2003, at 07:46 PM, Shawn Harley wrote:
Steve,
Looks like they are only talking about VPC for Windows and Linux. VPC
for Mac is mentioned in the Nov. 2 release near the end, but no
mention of Linux support there either. We'll just have to wait and see.
VPC emulates
On Monday, November 10, 2003, at 09:29 PM, Krevnik wrote:
It doesn't mean that Linux will suddenly stop working. VPC is designed
so that you can't just set a magic flag that prevents an OS from
working.
ROFLMAO.
Uh, do you think that if you had the source code you
might be able to come up
For everyone that was harping on Microsoft for removing support for
Linux or other non-MS operating systems from Virtual PC over the last
week or so, you can put down your pitchforks and black helicopter
theories.
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1378286,00.asp
Steve
--
G-Books is
Steve,
Looks like they are only talking about VPC for Windows and Linux. VPC
for Mac is mentioned in the Nov. 2 release near the end, but no mention
of Linux support there either. We'll just have to wait and see.
Shawn
On Monday, November 10, 2003, at 11:52 AM, Steve Fuller wrote:
For
Unless they are dropping support for the Mac, then what they say about
VPC in general applies to the Mac version. They don't want to support
people using Linux, and that isn't surprising in the least. It doesn't
mean that Linux will suddenly stop working. VPC is designed so that you
can't just
21 matches
Mail list logo
