[dopeavy]

Anyone here have Virtual PC under OS 9 or X? I have Virtual PC 4.0 under OS 9. I am running Win98 and wondering if anyone has run Win 2K. Is it more stable under VPC 4.0 than Win98?

[Eug]

Win 2000 is definitely more stable than Win 98, under (OS 9) VPC 4 (or any real computer for that matter). In (OS X) VPC 4.1 Win 2000 is unusably slow on a G3 however, but then again Win 98 is pretty slow too.

Hopefully you have a fast G4 and lots of memory.

[Davidarm]

I've used VPC 4 in both OS9 and X with both Win 98 and 2k, and my experience is that Win 2k is both more stable and slightly faster than 98. I haven't noticed a big speed penalty running is OSX - my guess is having 768M RAM makes up for the difference. I'm using a Pismo 400. The biggest problem with VPC under OSX is the things it's still missing, like USB support...

[Eug]

Originally posted by Davidarm:
<STRONG>I've used VPC 4 in both OS9 and X with both Win 98 and 2k, and my experience is that Win 2k is both more stable and slightly faster than 98. I haven't noticed a big speed penalty running is OSX - my guess is having 768M RAM makes up for the difference. I'm using a Pismo 400. The biggest problem with VPC under OSX is the things it's still missing, like USB support...</STRONG>

Yeah, I guess I should have specified that I'm running an iBook 600 with 384 RAM. That doesn't give me much breathing room in OS X, esp since Win 2000 is a memory hog when compared to WIn 98.

I also got the impression that a fixed drive size may slightly increase speed, but that's only an unconfirmed impression at this point, it eats space obviously.

I wish I had justification to upgrade to 640 RAM, but 512 MB SODIMMS are still relatively pricey. I wish the iBook had another slot.