f



Virtual PC now free but is it good for PC Games?

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/virtualpc/downloads/sp1.mspx

MS Virtual PC 2004 is now free but is it good for PC Games?
Does it run well old DOS Games? with sound and all?

0
pcgamer23708 (1692)
7/15/2006 8:38:50 AM
comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg 10727 articles. 0 followers. jonahnynla (1774) is leader. Post Follow

35 Replies
1203 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 26

On 15 Jul 2006 01:38:50 -0700, "pc games" <pcgamer23708@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>http://www.microsoft.com/windows/virtualpc/downloads/sp1.mspx
>
>MS Virtual PC 2004 is now free but is it good for PC Games?
>Does it run well old DOS Games? with sound and all?

caveat: I haven't tried the latest free version 

While VirtualPC usually *can* play DOS games -with sound and all-, in
my experience it rarely plays them well. Its emulation is just too
slow. You'll get low framerates and crackly sounds, even if hosted on
a beefy machines. There are also some games that just don't take well
to emulation, and VirtualPC doesn't really cater to these. 

If your main interest is old games, DOSBox is still the way to go.
It's virtualization is geared towards DOS gaming, so the designers add
in work-arounds for those hard-to-run games, and tweak the program to
maximize game-speed. It also has more features that DOS gamers will be
interested in (for instance, it emulates more soundcards, including
the Gravis Ultrasound).

It's really a difference in focus; DOSBox emulates just a DOS
environment so you can run games, and they cut corners in the name of
speed by only emulating things necessary to that. VirtualPC emulates a
complete PC, right down to the BIOS screen, so you can run operating
systems, so its overhead is a bit higher. 

That said, I've heard (but not tested) that VMware smokes VirtualPC in
terms of performance and capability. I believe they have a free
version, too. But if it's games you're solely interested in, then
DOSBox is still the first choice.


0
yoinks (1015)
7/15/2006 1:58:47 PM
On 15 Jul 2006 01:38:50 -0700, "pc games" <pcgamer23708@yahoo.com> wrote:

>http://www.microsoft.com/windows/virtualpc/downloads/sp1.mspx
>
>MS Virtual PC 2004 is now free but is it good for PC Games?
>Does it run well old DOS Games? with sound and all?

  You should hope not.  After all, that would only encourage people to
buy old second hand games; or even worse pirate them.  That can only
damage the retail channel you claim to love so much.
0
Johnny
7/15/2006 2:21:18 PM
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.adventure, pc games <pcgamer23708@yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/virtualpc/downloads/sp1.mspx
> 
> MS Virtual PC 2004 is now free but is it good for PC Games?
> Does it run well old DOS Games? with sound and all?

I didn't have a lot of luck with it with DOS games (but I didn't try
very many -- one brush with an Ultima collection is all.) 

Virtual PC kept me going in the 1998-2000 era of PC adventure games.
With recent, faster host CPUs, it could probably go beyond that. But
those weren't full-on 3D engines, of course.

--Z

-- 
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
If the Bush administration hasn't thrown you in military prison
without trial, it's for one reason: they don't feel like it. Not
because of the Fifth Amendment.
0
Andrew
7/15/2006 3:22:29 PM
pc games wrote:
> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/virtualpc/downloads/sp1.mspx
>
> MS Virtual PC 2004 is now free but is it good for PC Games?
> Does it run well old DOS Games? with sound and all?

I would stick with DOSBox for DOS based games.  VPC isn't going to do
well for Windows based games either - it can only use software
rendering for the graphics (no 3d acceleration,  no directx, etc) so
you're best setting up a dual boot system if you must use Win95/98 for
some old game that you just have to play that 2000/XP refuses to load,
even in compatability mode.

0
junk
7/15/2006 3:36:46 PM
* pc games:

> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/virtualpc/downloads/sp1.mspx
> 
> MS Virtual PC 2004 is now free but is it good for PC Games?
> Does it run well old DOS Games? with sound and all?

Yes, it does. Tried DN3D and Redneck Rampage series and also several 
other games some time ago and it worked fine. But since VPC unlike 
DOSBox doesn't emulate the operating system but just the hardware the 
grade of compatibility depends on what software you use. I used MsDOS 
6.22 and MsDOS 7 from Win95 instead of these FreeDOS or Novell DOS 
things since these DOS versions (resp. their protected mode memory 
managers) often have some issues with the GW4DOS engine that most games 
of that period use.

As to the complaint that older Windows games don't do well and that the 
3D acceleration doesn't work: well, maybe these people better hat read 
about what VPC does in the first place, maybe then they would know that 
VPC emulates a Trio32 gfx chip which has exactly zero 3D capabilities at 
all. But on the other side the Trio32 is supported by almost every newer 
and also older operating system that runs on x86 hardware, thus making 
VPC very flexible...

Benjamin
0
Benjamin
7/15/2006 6:02:44 PM
Benjamin Gawert wrote:
> * pc games:
>
> > http://www.microsoft.com/windows/virtualpc/downloads/sp1.mspx
> >
> > MS Virtual PC 2004 is now free but is it good for PC Games?
> > Does it run well old DOS Games? with sound and all?
>
> Yes, it does. Tried DN3D and Redneck Rampage series and also several
> other games some time ago and it worked fine. But since VPC unlike
> DOSBox doesn't emulate the operating system but just the hardware the
> grade of compatibility depends on what software you use. I used MsDOS
> 6.22 and MsDOS 7 from Win95 instead of these FreeDOS or Novell DOS
> things since these DOS versions (resp. their protected mode memory
> managers) often have some issues with the GW4DOS engine that most games
> of that period use.

No known issues with DOS/4GW and standard FreeDOS memory managers for a
while now.  Of course, it's a big ol' universe and some user-specific
environments, or a particular line of hardware or software
configuration might be problematic, but nothing currently documented as
such.

0
GoToWebsiteForValidA
7/15/2006 6:32:32 PM
Quoth The Raven; Johnny Bravo <baawa_knight@yahoo.com> in
<8huhb2hhn2ls690u1ktuoqso9gr03a8egm@4ax.com>
> On 15 Jul 2006 01:38:50 -0700, "pc games" <pcgamer23708@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>http://www.microsoft.com/windows/virtualpc/downloads/sp1.mspx
>>
>>MS Virtual PC 2004 is now free but is it good for PC Games?
>>Does it run well old DOS Games? with sound and all?
>
>  You should hope not.  After all, that would only encourage people to
> buy old second hand games; or even worse pirate them.  That can only
> damage the retail channel you claim to love so much.

besides, arent you supposed to actually have a new pc for each operating 
system you want to run? vpc would deprive corporations of another fast buck

-- 
Remove the _CURSING to reply to me

I have an existential map. It has 'You are Here' written all over it. 


0
Highlandish
7/15/2006 9:07:01 PM
pc games wrote:
> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/virtualpc/downloads/sp1.mspx
> 
> MS Virtual PC 2004 is now free but is it good for PC Games?
> Does it run well old DOS Games? with sound and all?
> 

If it's good, M$ wouldn't offer it free....

-- 
  .~.   Might, Courage, Vision, SINCERITY. http://www.linux-sxs.org
 / v \  Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and Farce be with you!
/( _ )\ (Ubuntu 6.06)  Linux 2.6.17.6
  ^ ^   16:48:01 up 11 min 1 user load average: 1.43 2.15 1.40
news://news.3home.net news://news.hkpcug.org news://news.newsgroup.com.hk
0
Man
7/16/2006 8:49:09 AM
Quoth The Raven; Man-wai Chang <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> in
<44b9fd85$1_2@rain.i-cable.com>
> pc games wrote:
>> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/virtualpc/downloads/sp1.mspx
>>
>> MS Virtual PC 2004 is now free but is it good for PC Games?
>> Does it run well old DOS Games? with sound and all?
>>
>
> If it's good, M$ wouldn't offer it free....

huh? it was a very good product a few years back before MS bought it and 
re-labelled it

-- 
Remove the _CURSING to reply to me

Caterpallor (n.): The color you turn after finding half a grub in the
fruit you're eating. 


0
Highlandish
7/16/2006 9:20:06 AM
>> If it's good, M$ wouldn't offer it free....
> huh? it was a very good product a few years back before MS bought it and 
> re-labelled it

I believe VMWare is more solid and efficient ...

-- 
  .~.   Might, Courage, Vision, SINCERITY. http://www.linux-sxs.org
 / v \  Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and Farce be with you!
/( _ )\ (Ubuntu 6.06)  Linux 2.6.17.6
  ^ ^   17:36:01 up 59 min 0 users load average: 1.10 1.13 1.52
news://news.3home.net news://news.hkpcug.org news://news.newsgroup.com.hk
0
Man
7/16/2006 9:36:43 AM
Man-wai Chang wrote:
>>> If it's good, M$ wouldn't offer it free....
>> huh? it was a very good product a few years back before MS bought it and 
>> re-labelled it
> 
> I believe VMWare is more solid and efficient ...
> 

So what Micro$oft is doing what it had done with Netscape... :)

-- 
  .~.   Might, Courage, Vision, SINCERITY. http://www.linux-sxs.org
 / v \  Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and Farce be with you!
/( _ )\ (Ubuntu 6.06)  Linux 2.6.17.6
  ^ ^   18:18:01 up 1:41 0 users load average: 1.05 1.06 1.07
news://news.3home.net news://news.hkpcug.org news://news.newsgroup.com.hk
0
Man
7/16/2006 10:18:29 AM
On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 17:36:43 +0800, Man-wai Chang wrote:

>>> If it's good, M$ wouldn't offer it free....
>> huh? it was a very good product a few years back before MS bought it and
>> re-labelled it
> 
> I believe VMWare is more solid and efficient ...

It's better for networking, but it's also more complicated for the average
user. There's an article that compares VMWare with VirtualPC here
http://arstechnica.com/reviews/apps/vm.ars/4

0
djin
7/16/2006 8:07:50 PM
On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 08:36:46 -0700, junk wrote:

> 
> pc games wrote:
>> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/virtualpc/downloads/sp1.mspx
>>
>> MS Virtual PC 2004 is now free but is it good for PC Games? Does it run
>> well old DOS Games? with sound and all?
> 
> I would stick with DOSBox for DOS based games.  VPC isn't going to do well
> for Windows based games either - it can only use software rendering for
> the graphics (no 3d acceleration,  no directx, etc) so you're best setting
> up a dual boot system if you must use Win95/98 for some old game that you
> just have to play that 2000/XP refuses to load, even in compatability
> mode.

Well that depends on the game(s). Early Windows games don't use
hardware rendering. And setting up a dual boot for 2 or 3 old games that
won't work in XP is probably a bigger PITA than using VirtualPC unless
you're starting with a clean hard drive. 
0
djin
7/16/2006 8:17:56 PM
On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 07:07:01 +1000, Highlandish wrote:

> Quoth The Raven; Johnny Bravo <baawa_knight@yahoo.com> in
> <8huhb2hhn2ls690u1ktuoqso9gr03a8egm@4ax.com>
>> On 15 Jul 2006 01:38:50 -0700, "pc games" <pcgamer23708@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>http://www.microsoft.com/windows/virtualpc/downloads/sp1.mspx
>>>
>>>MS Virtual PC 2004 is now free but is it good for PC Games? Does it run
>>>well old DOS Games? with sound and all?
>>
>>  You should hope not.  After all, that would only encourage people to
>> buy old second hand games; or even worse pirate them.  That can only
>> damage the retail channel you claim to love so much.
> 
> besides, arent you supposed to actually have a new pc for each operating
> system you want to run? vpc would deprive corporations of another fast
> buck

Yes, but it's quite possible to have an old Windows 95 CD even though
you've long since thrown out the old computer that came with it.
0
djin
7/16/2006 8:20:52 PM
Quoth The Raven; djin <nospam@nospam.com> in
<pan.2006.07.16.20.13.49.499125@nospam.com>
> On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 17:36:43 +0800, Man-wai Chang wrote:
>
>>>> If it's good, M$ wouldn't offer it free....
>>> huh? it was a very good product a few years back before MS bought
>>> it and re-labelled it
>>
>> I believe VMWare is more solid and efficient ...
>
> It's better for networking, but it's also more complicated for the
> average user. There's an article that compares VMWare with VirtualPC
> here http://arstechnica.com/reviews/apps/vm.ars/4

out of interest, who was the company that owned virtualpc before MS bought 
it?

-- 
Remove the _CURSING to reply to me

Bet you can't stop reading here <--- I knew it... 


0
Highlandish
7/16/2006 9:38:55 PM
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 07:38:55 +1000, "Highlandish"
<ckreskay1_CURSING@dodo.com.au> wrote:

>Quoth The Raven; djin <nospam@nospam.com> in
><pan.2006.07.16.20.13.49.499125@nospam.com>
>> On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 17:36:43 +0800, Man-wai Chang wrote:
>>
>>>>> If it's good, M$ wouldn't offer it free....
>>>> huh? it was a very good product a few years back before MS bought
>>>> it and re-labelled it
>>>
>>> I believe VMWare is more solid and efficient ...
>>
>> It's better for networking, but it's also more complicated for the
>> average user. There's an article that compares VMWare with VirtualPC
>> here http://arstechnica.com/reviews/apps/vm.ars/4
>
>out of interest, who was the company that owned virtualpc before MS bought 
>it?

Connectix.  MS actually fixed the way VirtualPC installed and uninstalled
to be much cleaner.  You still can't specify the hardware emulated though.
-- 
Michael Cecil
http://home.comcast.net/~macecil/
http://home.comcast.net/~safehex/
0
Michael
7/16/2006 10:06:44 PM
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 07:38:55 +1000, Highlandish wrote:

> out of interest, who was the company that owned virtualpc before MS bought
> it?


Connectix

0
djin
7/17/2006 2:45:53 AM
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 07:38:55 +1000, "Highlandish"
<ckreskay1_CURSING@dodo.com.au> wrote:

>Quoth The Raven; djin <nospam@nospam.com> in
><pan.2006.07.16.20.13.49.499125@nospam.com>
>> On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 17:36:43 +0800, Man-wai Chang wrote:
>>
>>>>> If it's good, M$ wouldn't offer it free....
>>>> huh? it was a very good product a few years back before MS bought
>>>> it and re-labelled it
>>>
>>> I believe VMWare is more solid and efficient ...
>>
>> It's better for networking, but it's also more complicated for the
>> average user. There's an article that compares VMWare with VirtualPC
>> here http://arstechnica.com/reviews/apps/vm.ars/4
>
>out of interest, who was the company that owned virtualpc before MS bought 
>it?

Connectix.
They sold to Microsoft in January 2003; their last version was
VirtualPC v5.2.

I've heard MS Virtual PC 2004 is basically v5.2 rebadged, with very
little changes under-the-hood.


0
yoinks (1015)
7/17/2006 2:49:06 AM
On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 19:20:06 +1000, "Highlandish"
<ckreskay1_CURSING@dodo.com.au> wrote:

>huh? it was a very good product a few years back before MS bought it and 
>re-labelled it

Can you run Linux on it? Or is it limited to Windows?
-- 
Andrew, contact via http://interpleb.googlepages.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.
0
Andrew
7/17/2006 5:20:56 AM
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 06:20:56 +0100, Andrew <spamtrap@127.0.0.1> wrote:

>On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 19:20:06 +1000, "Highlandish"
><ckreskay1_CURSING@dodo.com.au> wrote:
>
>>huh? it was a very good product a few years back before MS bought it and 
>>re-labelled it
>
>Can you run Linux on it? Or is it limited to Windows?

It's limited to being installed on Windows but you should be able to run
Linux on it fine.  I last used it to run a BeOS virtual machine.
-- 
Michael Cecil
http://home.comcast.net/~macecil/
http://home.comcast.net/~safehex/
0
Michael
7/17/2006 5:53:31 AM
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 00:53:31 -0500, Michael Cecil
<macecil@comcast.net> wrote:

>>Can you run Linux on it? Or is it limited to Windows?
>
>It's limited to being installed on Windows but you should be able to run
>Linux on it fine.  I last used it to run a BeOS virtual machine.

Cool, thanks.
-- 
Andrew, contact via http://interpleb.googlepages.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.
0
Andrew
7/17/2006 5:57:36 AM
Quoth The Raven; Andrew <spamtrap@127.0.0.1> in
<0g7mb2trtvn8f3jl81cm4hivt51vtoqpb1@4ax.com>
> On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 19:20:06 +1000, "Highlandish"
> <ckreskay1_CURSING@dodo.com.au> wrote:
>
>>huh? it was a very good product a few years back before MS bought it
>>and re-labelled it
>
> Can you run Linux on it? Or is it limited to Windows?

any OS that can boot off an ibm compatable pc can be installed and run in 
VPC

-- 
Remove the _CURSING to reply to me

"There isn't a word in the English language that can't be verbed." -
attributed to Alexander Haig 


0
Highlandish
7/17/2006 6:20:21 AM
Be aware though that Vmware is more compatible with Linux guests than
VPC guests.


Also although VPC is regarded as better than VMware for Windows games
it's really not true.

Vmware is faster. (Truth not fact).
Vmware is just as compatible for the 20+ games I run in it that I used
to run in VPC. (Just make sure that you run your guest in 16bit color).
Vmware has minimal support for DX8. (Not really worth mentioning since
it doesn't really work but at least it's there and they are working on
it).
Audio quality seems better to me at least. Probably due to Vmware being
faster.
For those that care Vmware can support more memory video. This only
will really apply when DX8+ support actually works tho.

Highlandish wrote:
> Quoth The Raven; Andrew <spamtrap@127.0.0.1> in
> <0g7mb2trtvn8f3jl81cm4hivt51vtoqpb1@4ax.com>
> > On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 19:20:06 +1000, "Highlandish"
> > <ckreskay1_CURSING@dodo.com.au> wrote:
> >
> >>huh? it was a very good product a few years back before MS bought it
> >>and re-labelled it
> >
> > Can you run Linux on it? Or is it limited to Windows?
>
> any OS that can boot off an ibm compatable pc can be installed and run in
> VPC
>
> --
> Remove the _CURSING to reply to me
>
> "There isn't a word in the English language that can't be verbed." -
> attributed to Alexander Haig

0
ronald
7/17/2006 11:27:26 AM
Be aware though that Vmware is more compatible with Linux guests than
VPC guests.

Also although VPC is regarded as better than VMware for Windows games
it's really not true.

Vmware is faster. (Truth not opinion).
Vmware is just as compatible for the 20+ games I run in it that I used
to run in VPC. (Just make sure that you run your guest in 16bit color).

Vmware has minimal support for DX8. (Not really worth mentioning since
it doesn't really work but at least it's there and they are working on
it).
Audio quality seems better to me at least. Probably due to Vmware being

faster.
For those that care Vmware can support more memory video. This only
will really apply when DX8+ support actually works tho.

0
ronald
7/17/2006 11:29:03 AM
"Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:44ba08aa$1_2@rain.i-cable.com...
>>> If it's good, M$ wouldn't offer it free....
>> huh? it was a very good product a few years back before MS bought it and
>> re-labelled it
>
> I believe VMWare is more solid and efficient ...
>
> -- 

My main use of this sort of stuff is for testing software I've written on 
alternative operating systems before I release it. I also use it to create 
virtual machines on which I install infrequently used software, rather than 
cluttering up my development machine. I used to us VMWare quite a while back 
(I think up until version 4, but I wouldn't swear to it) but once I noticed 
Virtual PC was included in MDSN Universal I gave it a try and haven't gone 
back to VMWare. It just seems to work better for me.

Kev 


0
Kevin
7/17/2006 12:12:04 PM
On 17 Jul 2006 04:27:26 -0700, ronald.phillips@gmail.com wrote:

>Also although VPC is regarded as better than VMware for Windows games
>it's really not true.

It works well if you want to play Titan Quest and not have to repeat
sections because you have to quit before you've reached the next
resurrection fountain (or whatever they're called.)  Just pause the game,
then save the session.  VMware can probably be used this way too.

>Vmware is faster. (Truth not fact).

*scratches head*  
*edges away slowly*

Okay, whatever you say.  Is this an Al Gore "truth"?
-- 
Michael Cecil
http://home.comcast.net/~macecil/
http://home.comcast.net/~safehex/
0
Michael
7/17/2006 12:48:59 PM
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 13:12:04 +0100, "Kevin O'Donovan"
<not.real@nowhere.com> wrote:

>Virtual PC was included in MDSN Universal I gave it a try and haven't gone 
>back to VMWare. It just seems to work better for me.

Just seems a bit more polished to me as well.
-- 
Michael Cecil
http://home.comcast.net/~macecil/
http://home.comcast.net/~safehex/
0
Michael
7/17/2006 12:50:30 PM
On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 16:49:09 +0800, Man-wai Chang
<toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote:

>If it's good, M$ wouldn't offer it free....

Man, are you unfamiliar with MS business tactics! You obviously were
not around when they first released Microsoft Access and gave it away
for $9.99 just so they could get market penetration and damage the
competition. T

That little tactic drove a lot of other competing companies out of
business. Would they dare take a known working tactic and implement it
again? 

Nah....they'd never do that.
0
gray
7/17/2006 8:54:00 PM
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 07:48:59 -0500, Michael Cecil
<macecil@comcast.net> wrote:

>Okay, whatever you say.  Is this an Al Gore "truth"?

VMWare is what the internet runs on. :)
0
gray
7/17/2006 8:58:27 PM
On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 15:22:29 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Plotkin <erkyrath@eblong.com>
wrote:

>In comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.adventure, pc games <pcgamer23708@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/virtualpc/downloads/sp1.mspx
>> 
>> MS Virtual PC 2004 is now free but is it good for PC Games?
>> Does it run well old DOS Games? with sound and all?
>
>I didn't have a lot of luck with it with DOS games (but I didn't try
>very many -- one brush with an Ultima collection is all.) 
>
>Virtual PC kept me going in the 1998-2000 era of PC adventure games.
>With recent, faster host CPUs, it could probably go beyond that. But
>those weren't full-on 3D engines, of course.

  Check out DosBox if you want to run a Dos game.  A lot easier than
trying to find a set of Dos disks to load into a virtual PC.
0
Johnny
7/18/2006 12:54:30 AM
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.adventure, Johnny Bravo <baawa_knight@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 15:22:29 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Plotkin <erkyrath@eblong.com>
> wrote:
> 
> >In comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.adventure, pc games <pcgamer23708@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/virtualpc/downloads/sp1.mspx
> >> 
> >> MS Virtual PC 2004 is now free but is it good for PC Games?
> >> Does it run well old DOS Games? with sound and all?
> >
> >I didn't have a lot of luck with it with DOS games (but I didn't try
> >very many -- one brush with an Ultima collection is all.) 
> >
> >Virtual PC kept me going in the 1998-2000 era of PC adventure games.
> >With recent, faster host CPUs, it could probably go beyond that. But
> >those weren't full-on 3D engines, of course.
> 
>   Check out DosBox if you want to run a Dos game.  A lot easier than
> trying to find a set of Dos disks to load into a virtual PC.

What I should have made clear was that, back then, I only had a Mac to
run games on. :) VPC was my only option.

--Z

-- 
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
If the Bush administration hasn't subjected you to searches without a warrant,
it's for one reason: they don't feel like it. Not because you're innocent.
0
Andrew
7/18/2006 2:04:12 AM
> Man, are you unfamiliar with MS business tactics! You obviously were
> not around when they first released Microsoft Access and gave it away
> for $9.99 just so they could get market penetration and damage the
> competition. T

I am a Foxpro guy. It's way more powerful than Access. :)

> 
> That little tactic drove a lot of other competing companies out of
> business. Would they dare take a known working tactic and implement it
> again? 

Don't forget about the IE vs Netscape battle...


-- 
  .~.   Might, Courage, Vision, SINCERITY. http://www.linux-sxs.org
 / v \  Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and Farce be with you!
/( _ )\ (Ubuntu 6.06)  Linux 2.6.17.6
  ^ ^   13:13:01 up 1 day 20:36 1 user load average: 1.58 1.55 1.26
news://news.3home.net news://news.hkpcug.org news://news.newsgroup.com.hk
0
Man
7/18/2006 5:14:16 AM
Andrew Plotkin wrote in news:e9hfis$8e9$1@reader2.panix.com:

> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.adventure, Johnny Bravo
> <baawa_knight@yahoo.com> wrote: 

>>   Check out DosBox if you want to run a Dos game.  A lot easier
>> than trying to find a set of Dos disks to load into a virtual PC.
> 
> What I should have made clear was that, back then, I only had a
> Mac to run games on. :) VPC was my only option.

DosBox runs on Mac, too. But on the other hand it probably didn't 
"back then", since it's only OS X.

-- 
Rikard
http://www.trumgottist.com/

0
Rikard
7/18/2006 9:23:50 AM
Quoth The Raven; gray.wizard@moria.mines <gray.wizard@moria.mines> in
<s3unb2tt108kn62gf4nerkr9ju3j7mli6k@4ax.com>
> On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 16:49:09 +0800, Man-wai Chang
> <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>If it's good, M$ wouldn't offer it free....
>
> Man, are you unfamiliar with MS business tactics! You obviously were
> not around when they first released Microsoft Access and gave it away
> for $9.99 just so they could get market penetration and damage the
> competition. T
>
> That little tactic drove a lot of other competing companies out of
> business. Would they dare take a known working tactic and implement it
> again?
>
> Nah....they'd never do that.

it seems M$ Access has violated copywrite laws, the owner of the patent to 
"import data from excel in a query" had shown M$ the tech and was laughed 
out of the office, he has just won several million in court.

-- 
Remove the _CURSING to reply to me

Geneology: chasing your own tale. 


0
Highlandish
7/19/2006 8:14:29 AM
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 13:14:16 +0800, Man-wai Chang <toylet.toylet@gmail.com>
wrote:

>> That little tactic drove a lot of other competing companies out of
>> business. Would they dare take a known working tactic and implement it
>> again? 
>
>Don't forget about the IE vs Netscape battle...

  The IE vs Netscape battle appears to have been won by Firefox. :)
0
Johnny
7/20/2006 1:30:42 AM
Reply: