Virtual PC 2004

Len Simms wrote:
 > I see that Microsoft is planning to release VPC 2004 soon for the PC.
 > What is the tentative timeline for updating VPC for the Mac? I
 > understand why VPC doesn't work with the G5, so I simply want to know
 > when I can expect to be able to emulate a PC on my new G5.

Yes, when?<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Virtual PC 2004 

Virtual PC 6.1 doesn't count as an update, it was simply a release to
embed MS's name on everything.

He already said he knew why it didn't work... and MS has had a 5 month
lead time to fix this. If its not fixed by the end of the year, I'm
personally going to be pissed.

SJ <essjae-No.TakeThisOut@Spam-hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<dh6pqvk2g255kgb9ksre8v170igrf7i6b4.TakeThisOut@4ax.com>...
 > VPC 6.1 was the first VPC update from MS, before VPC 2004 and Virtual
 > Server.
 >
 > VPC doesn't work with the G5 because its a totally new CPU. When you
 > wirte code that connects at the kernel level, you have to expect that
 > a TOTALLY new processor is going to break things.
 >
 > You need to realize that VPC is not the same kind of app as iTunes and
 > Word.
 >
 >
 >
 > On 7 Nov 2003 18:22:23 -0800, ljsimms.TakeThisOut@buffalo.edu (Len Simms) wrote:
 >
  > >I see that Microsoft is planning to release VPC 2004 soon for the PC.
  > >What is the tentative timeline for updating VPC for the Mac? I
  > >understand why VPC doesn't work with the G5, so I simply want to know
  > >when I can expect to be able to emulate a PC on my new G5.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Virtual PC 2004 

What does VPC 6.1 have to do with anything?

We haven't heard ANY direction from Microsoft on this, and a "late 2004"
release to fix their product is ridiculous. If that is the case, it
wouldn't be that we're waiting for a simple bugfix release, it would be
because they're going to roll the bugfixes into a new release,
presumably to help force upgrades. This is irresponsible to Microsoft's
existing customers.

Again, I speculate that this wouldn't be an issue if 1) VPC was owned by
Connectix, 2) if Microsoft didn't hold a monopoly in this particular
area (PC emulation on the Mac)

SJ wrote:

 > VPC 6.1 was the first VPC update from MS, before VPC 2004 and Virtual
 > Server.
 >
 > VPC doesn't work with the G5 because its a totally new CPU. When you
 > wirte code that connects at the kernel level, you have to expect that
 > a TOTALLY new processor is going to break things.
 >
 > You need to realize that VPC is not the same kind of app as iTunes and
 > Word.
 >
 >
 >
 > On 7 Nov 2003 18:22:23 -0800, ljsimms.DeleteThis@buffalo.edu (Len Simms) wrote:
 >
 >
  >>I see that Microsoft is planning to release VPC 2004 soon for the PC.
  >>What is the tentative timeline for updating VPC for the Mac? I
  >>understand why VPC doesn't work with the G5, so I simply want to know
  >>when I can expect to be able to emulate a PC on my new G5.
 >
 ><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Virtual PC 2004 

A 5 month lead, so? You can't just wave a magic wand and fix code.
I'd expect that the MS programmers are busy rewriting VPC from the
ground up to be compatible with a completely new CPU.

There's more to developing applications than creating a fix and giving
it out. It needs to be tested, localized, etc.

VPC 2004 for Win, was basically just a rebrand too, and exposing
hidden features. Its not a completely new version either.

No, I don't work for MS.

On 8 Nov 2003 08:34:47 -0800, jjscott.RemoveThis@ucdavis.edu (Jefferson) wrote:

 >Virtual PC 6.1 doesn't count as an update, it was simply a release to
 >embed MS's name on everything.
 >
 >He already said he knew why it didn't work... and MS has had a 5 month
 >lead time to fix this. If its not fixed by the end of the year, I'm
 >personally going to be pissed.
 >
 >SJ <essjae-No.RemoveThis@Spam-hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<dh6pqvk2g255kgb9ksre8v170igrf7i6b4.RemoveThis@4ax.com>...
  >> VPC 6.1 was the first VPC update from MS, before VPC 2004 and Virtual
  >> Server.
  >>
  >> VPC doesn't work with the G5 because its a totally new CPU. When you
  >> wirte code that connects at the kernel level, you have to expect that
  >> a TOTALLY new processor is going to break things.
  >>
  >> You need to realize that VPC is not the same kind of app as iTunes and
  >> Word.
  >>
  >>
  >>
  >> On 7 Nov 2003 18:22:23 -0800, ljsimms.RemoveThis@buffalo.edu (Len Simms) wrote:
  >>
   >> >I see that Microsoft is planning to release VPC 2004 soon for the PC.
   >> >What is the tentative timeline for updating VPC for the Mac? I
   >> >understand why VPC doesn't work with the G5, so I simply want to know
   >> >when I can expect to be able to emulate a PC on my new G5.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Virtual PC 2004 

Are there any Mac Business Unit employees out there who monitor this
discussion borad? and if so, why don't they weigh inb on the issue of
when we can reasonably expect a G5-compatible updtae for VPC?



Ian <none.DeleteThis@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<OV$OWmcpDHA.2488@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl>...
 > Len Simms wrote:
  > > I see that Microsoft is planning to release VPC 2004 soon for the PC.
  > > What is the tentative timeline for updating VPC for the Mac? I
  > > understand why VPC doesn't work with the G5, so I simply want to know
  > > when I can expect to be able to emulate a PC on my new G5.
 >
 > Yes, when?<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Virtual PC 2004 

Are you sure you don't work for MS?

Thanks for belittling me with your "magic wand" analogy. If they
seriously cared, much progress could have been made in the past 5
months. So far Microsoft has shown absolutely no progress on the
virtual PC front since they purchased Connectix.

SJ <essjae-No DeleteThis @Spam-hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<fkiqqv0nvr0br734g4en57juh66non14pl DeleteThis @4ax.com>...
 > A 5 month lead, so? You can't just wave a magic wand and fix code.
 > I'd expect that the MS programmers are busy rewriting VPC from the
 > ground up to be compatible with a completely new CPU.
 >
 > There's more to developing applications than creating a fix and giving
 > it out. It needs to be tested, localized, etc.
 >
 > VPC 2004 for Win, was basically just a rebrand too, and exposing
 > hidden features. Its not a completely new version either.
 >
 > No, I don't work for MS.
 >
 > On 8 Nov 2003 08:34:47 -0800, jjscott DeleteThis @ucdavis.edu (Jefferson) wrote:
 >
  > >Virtual PC 6.1 doesn't count as an update, it was simply a release to
  > >embed MS's name on everything.
  > >
  > >He already said he knew why it didn't work... and MS has had a 5 month
  > >lead time to fix this. If its not fixed by the end of the year, I'm
  > >personally going to be pissed.
  > >
  > >SJ <essjae-No DeleteThis @Spam-hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<dh6pqvk2g255kgb9ksre8v170igrf7i6b4 DeleteThis @4ax.com>...
   > >> VPC 6.1 was the first VPC update from MS, before VPC 2004 and Virtual
   > >> Server.
   > >>
   > >> VPC doesn't work with the G5 because its a totally new CPU. When you
   > >> wirte code that connects at the kernel level, you have to expect that
   > >> a TOTALLY new processor is going to break things.
   > >>
   > >> You need to realize that VPC is not the same kind of app as iTunes and
   > >> Word.
   > >>
   > >>
   > >>
   > >> On 7 Nov 2003 18:22:23 -0800, ljsimms DeleteThis @buffalo.edu (Len Simms) wrote:
   > >>
   > >> >I see that Microsoft is planning to release VPC 2004 soon for the PC.
   > >> >What is the tentative timeline for updating VPC for the Mac? I
   > >> >understand why VPC doesn't work with the G5, so I simply want to know
   > >> >when I can expect to be able to emulate a PC on my new G5.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Virtual PC 2004 

In article <3ac751dc.0311082013.4df968c3 DeleteThis @posting.google.com>,
jjscott DeleteThis @ucdavis.edu (Jefferson) wrote:

 > Are you sure you don't work for MS?
 >
 > Thanks for belittling me with your "magic wand" analogy. If they
 > seriously cared, much progress could have been made in the past 5
 > months. So far Microsoft has shown absolutely no progress on the
 > virtual PC front since they purchased Connectix.

Microsoft probably has little to no idea how Virtual PC works, so don't
expect an update any time soon ... if ever.

If they bought the Connectix programmers as well as the product, then
there's a better chance of a G5-working version, once they get through
all Microsft's red tape and add all the anti-Apple routines Bill Gates
insists on.

:-(<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Virtual PC 2004 

On 11/8/03 10:26 AM, in article enHMZUhpDHA.2964 DeleteThis @tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl, "Ian"
<none DeleteThis @nospam.com> wrote:

 > What does VPC 6.1 have to do with anything?
 >
 > We haven't heard ANY direction from Microsoft on this, and a "late 2004"
 > release to fix their product is ridiculous. If that is the case, it
 > wouldn't be that we're waiting for a simple bugfix release, it would be
 > because they're going to roll the bugfixes into a new release,
 > presumably to help force upgrades. This is irresponsible to Microsoft's
 > existing customers.
 >
 > Again, I speculate that this wouldn't be an issue if 1) VPC was owned by
 > Connectix, 2) if Microsoft didn't hold a monopoly in this particular
 > area (PC emulation on the Mac)

According to Microsoft's statement at the end of this page
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?kbid=827904&product=vpcmac," target="_blank">http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?kbid=827904&product=vpcmac,</a>
"Microsoft expects to deliver G5 compatibility in the next full version of
Virtual PC for Mac." This would be VPC 7.0. This page has been publicly
viewable for at least a couple of months.

Virtual PC 6 was released well before the G5 processor. Nothing is broken in
it nor is there a bug in it that makes it not work with a G5. It's simply
incompatible and has to be rewritten for the new platform.

You can speculate and presume all you like about what would happen if
Connectix still owned VPC and Microsoft's business practices were different,
but in the end Microsoft now owns VPC and will release it and sell it as
they see fit. Whether or not you choose to accept this will change nothing.

bill
--
William M. Smith
(Microsoft Interop MVP)<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Virtual PC 2004 

"Whether or not you choose to accept this will change nothing." So
your saying how we feel as consumers and customers of Microsoft
doesn't affect Microsoft at all? Thanks.

"William M. Smith" <mecklists.TakeThisOut@REMOVETHIS.mn.rr.com> wrote in message news:<BBD42BBD.2279D%mecklists@REMOVETHIS.mn.rr.com>...
 > On 11/8/03 10:26 AM, in article enHMZUhpDHA.2964.TakeThisOut@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl, "Ian"
 > <none.TakeThisOut@nospam.com> wrote:
 >
  > > What does VPC 6.1 have to do with anything?
  > >
  > > We haven't heard ANY direction from Microsoft on this, and a "late 2004"
  > > release to fix their product is ridiculous. If that is the case, it
  > > wouldn't be that we're waiting for a simple bugfix release, it would be
  > > because they're going to roll the bugfixes into a new release,
  > > presumably to help force upgrades. This is irresponsible to Microsoft's
  > > existing customers.
  > >
  > > Again, I speculate that this wouldn't be an issue if 1) VPC was owned by
  > > Connectix, 2) if Microsoft didn't hold a monopoly in this particular
  > > area (PC emulation on the Mac)
 >
 > According to Microsoft's statement at the end of this page
<font color=purple> > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?kbid=827904&product=vpcmac,</font" target="_blank">http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?kbid=827904&product=vpcmac,</font</a>>
 > "Microsoft expects to deliver G5 compatibility in the next full version of
 > Virtual PC for Mac." This would be VPC 7.0. This page has been publicly
 > viewable for at least a couple of months.
 >
 > Virtual PC 6 was released well before the G5 processor. Nothing is broken in
 > it nor is there a bug in it that makes it not work with a G5. It's simply
 > incompatible and has to be rewritten for the new platform.
 >
 > You can speculate and presume all you like about what would happen if
 > Connectix still owned VPC and Microsoft's business practices were different,
 > but in the end Microsoft now owns VPC and will release it and sell it as
 > they see fit. Whether or not you choose to accept this will change nothing.
 >
 > bill<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Virtual PC 2004 

William M. Smith wrote:

 > You can speculate and presume all you like about what would happen if
 > Connectix still owned VPC and Microsoft's business practices were different,
 > but in the end Microsoft now owns VPC and will release it and sell it as
 > they see fit. Whether or not you choose to accept this will change nothing.

Bill,

The fact that most people seem to believe this is endemic of the state
of today's consumers. Basically, I, as a customer, have no influence on
the maker of my product? My wants/needs are not a driving factor in the
development and sales of the product? If not, something is seriously
wrong...

I'm not trying to troll here, and I'm especially not trying to pick on
you (I know you're not directly employed by Microsoft and you've been
exceptionally helpful to people on these boards), but statements like
that just drive me crazy.

Ian<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Virtual PC 2004 

In article <3ac751dc.0311092152.3ce04df0 RemoveThis @posting.google.com>,
jjscott RemoveThis @ucdavis.edu (Jefferson) wrote:

 > "Whether or not you choose to accept this will change nothing." So
 > your saying how we feel as consumers and customers of Microsoft
 > doesn't affect Microsoft at all? Thanks.

Of course not, it IS Microsoft after all, not a "normal" company.

Microsoft couldn't care less what the customer thinks ... how else do
you explain that Windows still being made? ;-)<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Virtual PC 2004 

On 11/9/03 11:52 PM, in article
3ac751dc.0311092152.3ce04df0 RemoveThis @posting.google.com, "Jefferson"
<jjscott RemoveThis @ucdavis.edu> wrote:

 > "Whether or not you choose to accept this will change nothing." So
 > your saying how we feel as consumers and customers of Microsoft
 > doesn't affect Microsoft at all? Thanks.

No, I'm not saying that.

I'm referring to these two comments by Ian:

  > > We haven't heard ANY direction from Microsoft on this, and a "late 2004"
  > > release to fix their product is ridiculous. If that is the case, it
  > > wouldn't be that we're waiting for a simple bugfix release, it would be
  > > because they're going to roll the bugfixes into a new release,
  > > presumably to help force upgrades. This is irresponsible to Microsoft's
  > > existing customers.

  > > Again, I speculate that this wouldn't be an issue if 1) VPC was owned by
  > > Connectix, 2) if Microsoft didn't hold a monopoly in this particular
  > > area (PC emulation on the Mac)

Ian "presumes" Microsoft may be rolling bugfixes into the next version of
VPC to force upgrades and "speculates" he wouldn't have his current issue if
Connectix still made VPC.

Making unsubstantiated presumptions and unverifiable speculations in public
forums about a business isn't a method of telling that business how one
feels. It's bashing.

By all means, tell Microsoft that you're really pissed off for not having a
faster resolution to your problems. I do think this is one of the places
where you should say so. But you're certainly not going to bully Microsoft
into answering your questions or releasing an earlier product by making
speculations and presumptions that can't be substantiated.

bill
--
William M. Smith
(Microsoft Interop MVP)<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Virtual PC 2004 

On 11/10/03 12:32 PM, in article O#aCPk7pDHA.2304@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl,
"Ian" <none.RemoveThis@nospam.com> wrote:

 > William M. Smith wrote:
 >
  >> You can speculate and presume all you like about what would happen if
  >> Connectix still owned VPC and Microsoft's business practices were different,
  >> but in the end Microsoft now owns VPC and will release it and sell it as
  >> they see fit. Whether or not you choose to accept this will change nothing.
 >
 > Bill,
 >
 > The fact that most people seem to believe this is endemic of the state
 > of today's consumers. Basically, I, as a customer, have no influence on
 > the maker of my product? My wants/needs are not a driving factor in the
 > development and sales of the product? If not, something is seriously
 > wrong...
 >
 > I'm not trying to troll here, and I'm especially not trying to pick on
 > you (I know you're not directly employed by Microsoft and you've been
 > exceptionally helpful to people on these boards), but statements like
 > that just drive me crazy.

Ian,

How are you trying to influence Microsoft by publicly stating you presume
they're forcing upgrades and speculating Connectix would do a better job?

Where are your wants/needs listed in that presumption and that speculation
that you made?

You've done an excellent job in many of your posts to voice your
frustrations and your needs without having to make comments like those. And
I think that this forum IS the place to make those frustrations and needs
heard. I really do!

But, talking about Connectix isn't going to bring it back and accusing
Microsoft of potentially trying to force upgrades isn't going to make them
work harder on the next release of VPC. Is it? If you do think comments like
these will make them work harder, then we'll have to simply disagree.

bill
--
William M. Smith
(Microsoft Interop MVP)<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Virtual PC 2004