Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

ogun · Feb 24, 2005, 07:41 PM

I'm going to have to do stufff with an Access database, which means that I'm going to have to run Windows XP. I last seriously used VPC with version 5, on a beige G3 and later a 700 MHz eMac. VPC5 was dog slow on both. Even though the eMac was more than twice as fast as the beige, I couldn't detect much difference. Will VPC 7 on a 1.25 GHz eMac or a 1.8 GHz iMac deliver acceptable speed?

osxisfun · Feb 24, 2005, 08:23 PM

do you have access to a pc on the network?

if so, run your app on your pc from your mac using

Microsoft Remote Desktop.

its good stuff and faster(?!) than VPC. (maybe someone else can comment on VPC speed with the latest rev.)

timmerk · Feb 24, 2005, 08:30 PM

It's slower then VP 6 for me.

leperkuhn · Feb 24, 2005, 09:12 PM

i'm on a dual 1 ghz g4 and it's downright terrible. 1 gig ram.

Maflynn · Feb 24, 2005, 09:41 PM

I found it to be surprisingly fast, both on my PB and G5. I compared Winxp and win2k, while win2k was faster it was only marginally faster. If I turned off all of the eye candy then the speed difference was negligable.

I didn't own VPC6 so I cannot compare that version but overall I found it to be useable.

My usage is primarly is access btw.

Mike

Raining Down in Texas · Feb 24, 2005, 09:59 PM

I had been using Windows 2000 under VPC 5 on my 1 GHz TiBook with 1 Gbyte RAM, and it was truly painful due to VPC 5's extension conflict with Panther. Under VPC 7, it actually is not too horrible. I turned off most of the services in Win 2000, and it takes 2 minutes 47 seconds to get to the desktop from complete shutdown. MS Access opened to a blank document in 5 seconds. The first IE page I bring up typically takes a while to load, but all ensuing pages come up quickly.

I help maintain a small network of (mostly older) Windows machines at church, and this VPC 7 setup is faster than half of them.

If you've got a 3 GHz machine already, RDC is the way to go. But VPC isn't bad for casual use.

PurpleGiant · Feb 24, 2005, 11:02 PM

If you have plenty of RAM and a fast processor, it goes okay. I'd even say 'decent' for simple tasks.

G5 iMac would be the way to go.

sieb · Feb 24, 2005, 11:25 PM

On my 15" 1.2Ghz PB with 768MB of ram, Windows says it clocks in at 298MHz, feels like it too (with 256MB allocated to it and everything turned off). I am thinking of making a ramdisk and putting the VPC.app on it, some say that helps speed it up a bit.

driven · Feb 24, 2005, 11:49 PM

I've been pleasantly surprised with VPC7 on my PowerMac G5 Dual 2Ghz w/ 2GB RAM.

When I last tried this (VPC4) on my 500Mhz G4 Cube, it was horrible.

That said: For Access VPC7 is quite usable on my hardware.

OwlBoy · Feb 25, 2005, 12:43 AM

Now the Question is... Who paid for it!? hahahahahha.

-Owl

driven · Feb 25, 2005, 12:51 AM

Since I made my living for many years by writing commercial software I'd find it somewhat hypocritical to "pirate" software.

Therefore I do in fact purchase my software.

Oddly, this is also one of the driving forces to my ultimate move to an all Mac household. The OS is cheaper, I have less of a need for anti-virus, anti-spyware, anti-something else products, etc. Also: My Macs typically have a longer "shelf life" so in the long run they end up being cheaper than my PCs. (I still keep a PC or two around for development and games.)

Maflynn · Feb 25, 2005, 06:30 AM

Originally posted by OwlBoy:
Now the Question is... Who paid for it!? hahahahahha.

-Owl

Me, I figure downloading software, i.e., acquiring something w/o paying for it is no different then going down the street and stealing a car.
Well there is a difference, the likelihood of people getting caught.

Its amazing how some people's true character comes out when they know they can do something in complete anonymity. That's just not limited to downloading software but how others interact on with each other in forums/chat rooms and even email (while no anonymous it is physically detached).

Peace
Mike

driven · Feb 25, 2005, 08:37 AM

Originally posted by Maflynn:
Me, I figure downloading software, i.e., acquiring something w/o paying for it is no different then going down the street and stealing a car.
Well there is a difference, the likelihood of people getting caught.

Its amazing how some people's true character comes out when they know they can do something in complete anonymity. That's just not limited to downloading software but how others interact on with each other in forums/chat rooms and even email (while no anonymous it is physically detached).

Peace
Mike

Agreed.

I have noticed however in recent years that some people's "dark side" is coming across in everyday life. (Road Rage, outright rudeness, etc.)

I'm not sure I like the trend.

ogun · Feb 25, 2005, 08:51 AM

Thanks for the replies. Looks as though I'll be buying a (ick) Windoze machine. Bah. Humbug.

Memo to Redmond: boyz, make that thing faster. I ain't even trying to use any sub-300 MHz machines. Using Windoze is bad enough, I don't wanna have to use _slow_ WIndoze.

ogun · Feb 25, 2005, 08:56 AM

Mickeysoft would have to pay me to use VPC if it's as slow as it seems to be. I certainly wouldn't go to the trouble of finding p-2-p software and downloading it. Not after my troubles with VPC 5. VPC 8 is gonna have to be vastly faster before it's worth stealing, much less paying for. And Billg can quote me.

osxisfun · Feb 25, 2005, 09:37 AM

Originally posted by driven:
Agreed.

I have noticed however in recent years that some people's "dark side" is coming across in everyday life. (Road Rage, outright rudeness, etc.)

I'm not sure I like the trend.

Agreed. I just wish have these kids that use these rippoff p2p tools could have their paychecks be "naptersized" each payday...

Then those (that don't use the term "would you like fries with that" in their workday) might get a clue and end their thievery...

osxisfun · Feb 25, 2005, 09:40 AM

Originally posted by Maflynn:
Me, I figure downloading software, i.e., acquiring something w/o paying for it is no different then going down the street and stealing a car.
Well there is a difference, the likelihood of people getting caught.

Its amazing how some people's true character comes out when they know they can do something in complete anonymity. That's just not limited to downloading software but how others interact on with each other in forums/chat rooms and even email (while no anonymous it is physically detached).

Peace
Mike

I always argue that these thieves are cowards since they would not have the balls to walk into tower records and steal a cd, but will download all day with their kazzaa p2p tools..

CaptainHaddock · Feb 25, 2005, 10:01 PM

I'd like to point out in fairness that the issue of copying software is hardly cut-and-dried. Stealing physical property is, of course, wrong, and often also involves violence towards the victim. The idea that copying intangible data and ideas should be illegal, however, was pretty much unheard-of until quite recently. No religious moral code that I know of (Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc) prohibits the sharing or copying of information on grounds of "copyright".

Some people clearly feel copying is a bad, bad thing, presumably because it's a civil offense in the US, and that's fine. They certainly may choose to hold themselves to that ideal. My own opinion is that if I want to share music, software, or other data with a friend, that is a private transaction between the two of us and is no one else's business. In fact, I object to copyright on moral grounds because it puts artificial limitations on what one may do with one's own (physical) property.

If a person cannot tell the difference between robbing a person of actual, physical goods, and the private sharing of data between individuals, then that person is being purposely obtuse.

I would also point out that while US copyright law sometimes prohibits a person from distributing material, it doesn't prohibit a person from being the recipient of such material, nor from using said material. For example, someone who purchases a book from a bookseller isn't responsible for making sure the book's content is free of infringement.

Anyway, I know it's not on the topic of Virtual PC, but I wanted to point out that there is room for a wide range of opinions on file-sharing and software copying. Laws also vary widely from place to place, with file-sharing being entirely legal in many countries. It's useless to get worked up about the issue unless you don't think differences of opinion are permissible on this forum.

driven · Feb 25, 2005, 10:40 PM

The problem with the "we are just copying data" argument is that it ignores the very real work and effort that went into creating that data.

Shouldn't the author of the software/music/movie, whatever be compensated for their work?

Anyway: I know we've had this discussion here many times before. I doubt that anyone's mind will be changed.

driven · Feb 25, 2005, 10:46 PM

The problem with the "we are just copying data" argument is that it ignores the very real work and effort that went into creating that data.

Shouldn't the author of the software/music/movie, whatever be compensated for their work?

Anyway: I know we've had this discussion here many times before. I doubt that anyone's mind will be changed.

osxisfun · Feb 25, 2005, 10:53 PM

I made a software program a few years ago. It had a 9-1 pirated to purchase ratio. You'll forgive me if i don't take people splitting hairs seriously until they have been affected personally by blatant copyright infringement...

Oh but wait. Those 9 people that pirated my app for every honest person that paid didn't steal anything "physical" so there was no harm....

yah right...

and i am sure they "weren't going to buy it anyway"... either... which is the other tired argument people spout off...

If a person does not like the rules around copyright then they should not use copyrighted materials...or be proactive and help to elect politicians that will change the law... or better yet... please send the RIAA or the SPA your real name and address and the names of all the programs and songs they have "shared" if they believe what they are doing is not wrong...

I triple dog dare them...

CaptainHaddock · Feb 25, 2005, 11:35 PM

"Shouldn't the author of the software/music/movie, whatever be compensated for their work?"

That's a good question, and again, there's room for many opinions. If programmers, movie executives, and RIAA lawyers deserve money from society for what they do, why not just put them on welfare instead of throwing people in jail for sharing?

On the other hand, many people think that trying to sell bits of data that can be easily copied is a poor business strategy, and that if you can't make money selling bytes alone, there might simply not be a market for what you do. There are many other ways to make money in the software industry besides simply selling the program and hoping people don't copy it.

ogun · Feb 26, 2005, 10:01 AM

Originally posted by osxisfun:
I made a software program a few years ago. It had a 9-1 pirated to purchase ratio. You'll forgive me if i don't take people splitting hairs seriously until they have been affected personally by blatant copyright infringement...

Ah, how do you _know_ that it had a 9-to-1 pirated to purchase ratio? Was it retail or shareware or what? If shareware, well, I've downloaded several applications, tried 'em, didn't like what they did, dumped them. One particular app which I tried out in the last few days was written by a gentleman who was so concerned about people not getting any practical use out of his app without paying him that he limited it to 10 operations per startup unless you paid up. This particular application searched for duplicate items on a hard drive. Each search was one operation. If it found duplicates, listing them was one operation. Deleting duplicates was one operation per dupe. I tried it... once. I discovered the limitations. I trashed the app and found and deleted the dupes by hand. If he'd not have been so greedy, I'd probably have paid up after putting it through its paces. If he's tracking downloads, he knows that someone downloaded a copy a while back and that he hasn't got any money for it. (And he ain't gonna get no money from me. He annoyed me.) Meanwhile, I've been a registered user of Graphic Converter for _years_. I've _gladly_ paid up each time since I became a registered user when Mr. Lemke issued a for-pay upgrade. Frankly, Graphic Converter is an absolute steal at the price.. .and Mr. Lemke doesn't cripple it. (Or at least he didn't cripple it back before I was a registered user.) Lemke _didn't_ annoy me. I bought a license. Is it possible that you may have annoyed potential buyers and they merely deleted your app and see no reason to pay because, well, it's no longer on their systems and wasn't there for longer than necessary to evaluate it?

iluvmymactoo · Feb 26, 2005, 03:49 PM

Anyway to get back onto the original topic of this thread....

I had VPC 6.1 and now VPC 7 and in comparison version 7 is much slower. It is painful to wait for it to startup and is even more painful waiting for it to open IE (I want it to test websites under a windows platform).

In a few weeks I'll be getting a new PowerBook so I don't know if it will perform any better, but my guess is with the advent of Tiger we will have to use VPC 7, so the slower version is what we'll be stuck with

Maflynn · Feb 26, 2005, 09:49 PM

Originally posted by iluvmymactoo:
Anyway to get back onto the original topic of this thread....

I had VPC 6.1 and now VPC 7 and in comparison version 7 is much slower. It is painful to wait for it to startup and is even more painful waiting for it to open IE (I want it to test websites under a windows platform).

In a few weeks I'll be getting a new PowerBook so I don't know if it will perform any better, but my guess is with the advent of Tiger we will have to use VPC 7, so the slower version is what we'll be stuck with

Its weird, most people who had VPC 6.1 on their Macs and upgraded complained that VPC 7 was too slow. While those of us who hadn't mention the speed to be acceptable.

I'm wondering if the upgade process leaves pieces of VPC 6.1 or setting hanging around that impact the performance.

I was a user of VPC back in the OS9 days and had not needed to go beyond version 4 which precluded me from an upgrade. I also had no first hand experience or expectations for vpc 7 but it is faster then what I had been using (vpc 4 on os9)

Mike

CharlesS · Feb 26, 2005, 10:41 PM

Originally posted by CaptainHaddock:
That's a good question, and again, there's room for many opinions. If programmers, movie executives, and RIAA lawyers deserve money from society for what they do, why not just put them on welfare instead of throwing people in jail for sharing?

WTF?

mania · Feb 27, 2005, 07:53 PM

well okay - vpc7 on a g4 is slow - but usable - if you only want to test website in IE6 win - which is the only thing i use it for.

now that brings up the other topic in this thread - why on earth would someone pay hundreds of $$ to have vpc and then over a hundred more for windows just for IE6?

PubGuy · Feb 27, 2005, 10:30 PM

I've been using VPC since version 3. For the last 5 years I haven't owned a Windows PC and have been making a very profitable living doing primarily Microsoft Access programming on my Mac under VPC.

I run a G4-400 (upgrade to G4-800) as my desktop machine and my Powerbook is a first generation titanium G4-400 with 384 MB memory. The desktop machine VPC 7 works great! Every thing is very responsive. May not be as good as a "real PC", but it is certainly fine for everything I'm doing on it. I've got 3 drive images (Win98, Win2K and Win XP). The Win2K image is the most stable and fastest setup.

I've also got these images on my Powerbook. Its certainly slower on the powerbook (G4-400) but its also totally usable for programming work. Let's face it, most programming work is only typing text, doesn't exactly strain the computer. At cleints sites, I've timed the boot process on their development servers running Win2K on Dell boxes -- the boot times were pretty much identical !!! My Win2K image boots to the desktop in 1:20 and all services are fully started 1:10 after that (in other words, that's when all the disk I/O is complete).

A lot of people rag on VPC speed, but I can attest that it is totally usable for programming, especially if you're using Microsoft Access. The nice thing about VPC is that you can get the basic (DOS) version, create your own drive image, and install Windows directly from any disk you own. AND, with a 1.8 MHz iMac, VPC should feel like most development boxes I've worked on.

joe · Mar 8, 2005, 08:16 AM

In my experience working with WIn XP, service pack 2 is at least partially responsible for slowing things down. That's for both VPC and real PC. Win98 SE seems to work well in both VPC6 and 7 while WIn95 runs faster than my real 90MHz Win95 Canon notebook PC! I haven't had a chance to try Win2000 yet but I have an unopened Win2K Pro OS at the office. But from what I've read here and elsewhere Win2K seems worth a try.......joe

Cadaver · Mar 9, 2005, 07:45 AM

Originally posted by joe:
In my experience working with WIn XP, service pack 2 is at least partially responsible for slowing things down. That's for both VPC and real PC. Win98 SE seems to work well in both VPC6 and 7 while WIn95 runs faster than my real 90MHz Win95 Canon notebook PC! I haven't had a chance to try Win2000 yet but I have an unopened Win2K Pro OS at the office. But from what I've read here and elsewhere Win2K seems worth a try.......joe

I've found that Windows 2000 SP4 feels twice as fast as Windows XP SP2 on VPC7 & my G5... even with all the visuals in WinXP turned off.

If you can use Win 2K, I suggest doing so instead of WinXP. Also requires a lower memory footprint, which can help those who may be RAM-challanged.

Randman · Mar 9, 2005, 08:08 AM

With enough ram given to VPC (I have 1.5GB of my PB so I allot the entire amount VPC will take) and all of the eye candy and sound turned off, it's pretty functional. It's not going to blow you away with its performance but it can do many jobs decently.

driven · Mar 9, 2005, 12:47 PM

of course the big problem with using Win2k is that Microsoft is apt to be slow with releasing patches.

for example: where are the XP-SP2 patches for Win2k? IE is less secure on Win2k because of this. (run Firefox in the meantime)

But I agree: Win2k IS faster on VPC7.