Microsoft Buys VirtualPC

I'm guessing "because they can" isn't a good answer. It is certainly an interesting move.

I doubt you'd want to, but a Windows machine can be setup in a multi-boot environment, so you wouldn't need a physical box per Windows environment. I have one box that boots to WinNT4/IE5 or Win2K/IE5.5 or WinXP/IE6.

I think that with Microsoft aquiring Virtual PC, this will benefit us Mac users. I believe that Microsoft's Macintosh Business Unit (MacBU) has potential in making Virtual PC even better than it is now. I must admit that I respect MacBU and they have gone a long way especially with very well done Office v. X. I agree with Todd that they have bigger plans for it but I doubt that they will kill it. It will all depend on MacBU's dedication to the product. Virtual PC has been there for manyf Mac users and making their lives easier including Todd.

If they can make a similar product for the PC environment heck - I'm game. (Anyone know of something like that for the PC?)

Interesting indeed.

As both a Microsoft alum and a full-on Mac/OS X convert, I think I have a somewhat unique perspective. Rest assured, this has nothing to do with Apple. With all due respect, those who think it does are missing the point entirely, failing to realize that Apple is but a mild annoyance to Microsoft. This is all about server consolidation/virtualization. Expect to see Microsoft rip core technology out of the existing Connectix product line and build it into future products. If they can generate a little revenue by selling a desktop product to boot, that's just gravy.

I just started using VPC 6 to do some browser testing in IE 5.0, and it’s tremendous! I used it back when it was around version 3, but have since moved on to a multiple-boot Dell PIII. The reason for firing up VPC was solely for the IE 5/Win98 combination, since that’s about the only popular browser/OS combo that I don’t have on my Dell.

So what does this have to do with Microsoft buying Connectix?

I’m usually ready to bash Micro$oft whenever I get the chance, but if VPC ends up in the MacBU (strong chance I believe) we could all end up with a superior product. Just think, Microsoft’s own engineers could contribute to its future development and optimization, perhaps even creating special versions of each OS that would run even faster under emulation (you never know).

I’m in favor of this move (although with this purchase and Google’s purchase of Pyra within a week of each other, I’m running short of surprised expressions…) and I hope we hear something from MS soon on their future plans.

My 2 cents :-)

-Dan

Microsoft doesn't care what computer is running it's operating system. If they can get XP running on an Apple desktop then they gotta like that.

It's in Microsoft's best interest to develop one OS with out having to worry so much about the hardware. The Connectix part would be the emulator that uses that same OS on a Motorola chip (Mac), an Xbox, a handheld... possibly an internet-based OS, ala Palladium.

I think the Connectix purchase actually has made the Microsoft development of Mac OSX apps less likely. If you can run XP on your Mac quickly and stable than Microsoft would rather you run Office in XP... less dev time.

I don't know if it's true, but I once heard that Virtual PC can possibly be faster than a Wintel box. I have to think that is a threat to Microsoft, and although I think the MacBU could do some real good here, I wonder if there are roads they won't go down to make sure Wintel always has the edge. Office is one thing, but this is the company jewels. I'd also guess they'd drop Linux support.

Microsoft didn't purchase Connectix, just the PC emulation software assets. Microsoft may go on to by Connectix out right, but that hasn't happened yet.

Personally, I've always been super-happy with VPC (I use VPC 5 and will up-grade to 6 ASAP). It is slow, but I don't really know if Microsoft will do much to speed it up. It seems like a really big commitment to develop for the Mac platform, a commitment that I can't really imagine Microsoft making consistently over an extended period of time.

I agree with JMBR, this will make development of Office for the Mac platform obsolete.

My major concern is the quality of customer service Microsoft will offer vs. what I've experienced dealing with Connectix in the past. Connectix has -hands down- some of the best customer service representatives, policies, and tools of any software company out there. When I've contacted them, they've actually helped me, you know, worked with me to get through sticky situations (mostly networking). The knowledge base has answers to just about any question you can ask about VPC. I don't see Microsoft as a company that makes a commitment to making a good product (duh) and backing it up with excellent customer service.

Interesting theory about Office X and how it would be affected by VirtualPC. Perhaps by buying VirtualPC, and developing that instead of building an entirely different build of Office, they could actually save money and time. Not that they really need to be that concerned about pinching pennies, but it is an interesting point. Though I never use it, I personally would be pretty sad to see Office X go the way of the dodo, with all future Office / Mac users forced into buying VirtualPC instead. Office X truly is a wonderful, beautiful product. It would be a shame.

@Marty: There's already a pc-version of VPC which runs quite ok on windows. Or you could use VMWare, which does the same, only with different features and slightly better performance

As Shawn pointed out, I personally think MS wants to add value to their server-line of operating systems. Datacenter Server runs on huge machines (32 CPUs, 64GB RAM), but it's not yet possible to really split memory and cpu-power in a clean way and have multiple virtual machines on one install as you can do with Unix or Solaris. This functionality can be very useful when security/stability is key and cpu-power isn't that much of a factor - webhosting or simple asp comes to mind.

They just bought the knowledge, but even if they buy Connectix, it wouldn't threaten Office on the Mac to much. On a G3 or G4 you get about 30-50% of the MHz compared to a x86-cpu. So when it comes to Office-performance, my G3-ibook 700 will equal a Pentium II 350 at best. Having Office on the Mac run with speeds that remind people of 4 year old PCs would hurt their reputation and people would switch to other solutions. If the MS BU continues ther sh*t and does nothing for the platform, maybe Apple will go ahead and produce a real (sorry, but I don't mean Apple works) Office-alternative as they did with Safari vs. IE and to a lesser degree with Keynote vs. Powerpoint.

I think they're doing it for the reason you noted: It will give them a leg up in continuing to have Windows penetration on other machines. I run on a PC, but if I did have a Macintosh I sure as hell would have VirtualPC -- there are just too many apps out there that I'd still need to run in that environment. A smart business move on their part, actually. And I hope they continue to improve the speed and performance of the product.

(Of course, it could be because they want to ruin the program, so Apple users are completely blocked out of running Windows apps and switch back as a result. Talk about Dark Side of the Force...)

I think Microsoft understands that many Mac users are die hard and will never switch. Connectix technology makes it possible for Microsoft to appeal to those die hards (like me).

Also, Microsoft doesn't make PCs. They make software. They don't care what box you have or what logo is on it. They only care if you buy their software. An improved Virtual PC means more XPs shipped.

I think that this purchase has nothing to do with VPC Mac and everything to do with Connectix's virtual server technology. We shouldn't forget that Microsoft makes alot of money from the Mac platform, in addition to a little anti-trust insulation. Perhaps we, as marginalized Mac users, are sometimes a little too myopic and... dare I say it...paranoid.

Ok, I recognize that maybe I am being too paranoid. However, I believe this acquisition has everything to do with sending a message to Apple brass. You wanna compete head-on in the free browser arena, fine. You wanna trumpet your 'Switch' campaign and trash Windows, fine. But guess what Apple users. Over a million of you (and to Mac's market share, that is a number that matters) you feel the need to run a Windows environment on your Mac. And for what amounts to absolute pocket change for the folks in Redmond, they will scoop up, control and at some point exploit the fact that Mac users still want their Windows and eat it too. Whether Microsoft decides to improve and expand on VPC, or kill it altogether, this move assures them that they will control Windows on the Mac platform for better or worse to Mac users. And that my friends is what is called a 'strategic' business move. I'm not suggesting that there weren't 'other' assets that made this deal appealing for Microsoft. However, ultimately this deal is all about control. And we all know how much Billy G likes control.

hey, maybe this'll finally goad apple into releasing that x86 version of OSX that doesn't exist. allegedly. maybe.
i know a number of people who'd love to run OSX but find the hardware too expensive.

Thanks Andy. I'll look into it.

Microsoft bought VirtualPC not to take it away from Apple but to improve it. Look at Office for the Mac. New versions continue to be released. Microsoft knows that there is a strong Mac community out there and is catering to it instead of trying to squash it. Microsoft's bullying of Apple is a thing of the past, I believe.

As for Linux/Unix deployment, I think that is a possibility. If Microsoft was smart, and they are, they would make VirtualPC work just as well on Linux as it does on the Mac. This would be evolution of Microsoft into the open-source realm, which is the right move.

Even though there are hard-core Linux fans out there that swear on the stability of the kernel as compared to Windows, Microsoft Office still kills OpenOffice hands down. I don't think there are too many Linux users that believe OpoenOffice is right now a superior product. However, having OpenOffice and Windows running under VirtualPC on a Linux machine would be a good idea.

Maybe that's why Microsoft made the move. Then again, maybe not.

Mac Users Respond to Connectix Purchase. Craziness Ensues
And speaking of reality, I've been really surprised by the response Microsoft has gotten from this crowd about the company's purchase of Connectix's virtual machine technologies. On the Mac rumors sites, the buy is seen as a direct attack on the Mac's 2.5 percent of the market, as if this was somehow more important to Microsoft than the lucrative server consolidation and NT upgrade markets the company is actually targeting. It's time for another reality-check, folks: You're just not that important in the wider scheme of things, sorry.

http://www.wininformant.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=38088

Well, I'm a bit worried about Microsoft owning Virtual PC. I can understand why they bought it, they have the same problem that the Mac had before OS X: How to change the system and continue to support the old software ?

Microsoft want to get rid of old windows but they cant without providing a way for old software to work so they bought Virtual PC. I heard their interest in Virtual Server and I can understand also the interest.

What I can't see is why they would continue to sell a Virtual machine that can load different competing system, Linux, QNX, etc.

I think they will integrate Virtual PC in Windows and maybe still keep Virtual PC as a Package but integrate it with version of Windows, so you could buy a NT/Virtual PC but you wouldn't be able to put another system on it.

just realized - i run a qa lab and have vmware running on a linux box (and it's wonderful for what it does). might not be too much of a stretch to get it running on OSX. i think vmware is probably a more mature and higher performance product too. maybe with more xserves in the market vmware would have the incentive to port it over.