Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

slider · Feb 10, 2003, 04:07 PM

OK, the first thing people want to do when someone mentions VPC is that it's slow, but I guess it depends on what your doing. I am using it to run ArcView 3.2a and I gotta tell ya it's plenty fast to work a project. Is it the fastest PC I have ever used, hell no, but it's not a PC. Now this is what is really getting me excited (yeah I know, shinny objects) this whole dock thing. I can leave the program in the dock and launch it, it starts VPC and then starts the program inside it. Plus, if I am already in VPC, I can launch the program faster from the dock than I can from the start menu, one click in the dock and it launches. I am very happy with the speed improvements and some of the extra features that have been installed in this release. 867QS 1.1GB Ram running 10.2.3, 512MB allocated to VPC and max vid ram (16MB, not that that did anything). Opted out of the start menu in the dock, I only use it for this one program. Plus I am working to and from my DiskOnKey via the "Share Folder" set-up. Not bad at all.

dreilly1 · Feb 10, 2003, 04:41 PM

Which Windows OS are you running? We need to get VPC for my wife's Gigabook. We saw it running WinXP on a shiny new dual processor PowerMac desktop, and it was visibly slow, unsuitable even for solitare. (The Media Player ran flawlessly, though...) I imagine that running it on the PB, with the slower bus and processor speed, will be slower.

We're going to get it with Win2k, we've heard it's less taxing on the processor. I really think the version of Windows you use with VPC makes a huge difference with what you think of its performance..

Getting hard data on VPC performance seems to be an elusive task, perhaps I'll post some benchmark data once we get it.

slider · Feb 10, 2003, 07:11 PM

Sorry, I meant to put that on. I am running Win98, although several posters have reported 2000 runs faster in VPC6, but not 5. I had WinXP home, slow as a dog with a broke leg and no eyes. I deleted it, just too painful to run. If it does run faster than what I am experiencing then it's gotta be great, maybe 2000 does a better job at multitasking or something. Internet Explorer is slow as hell too, not sure why, but I am on airport and maybe the way VPC networks it through has something to do with it, but why would I surf that way anyways. But for what I need it for it's great. good luck to you.

trusted_content · Feb 10, 2003, 07:17 PM

Interestingly enough, the fastest OS I've been able to run in VPC 6 is XP...

I can't explain it, it's almost........

snappy

Keda · Feb 10, 2003, 07:23 PM

I was thinking about the whole dock integration thing the other day while I was walking my dogs. Now, I'm now programmer, but this looks promising to me.

How much of VPC is dedicated to running the Windoze interface? I bet its a chunk. Anyone remember 'red-Box?' Imagine if this behavior evolves. It might follow the original implementation of X-Windows in OSX. What if a future release of VPC where to run in a Windows-less environment.

There would still be a speed penalty, but if the Win apps would run w/o the Win OS, then things might pick-up some speed. Plus, I don't know about you, but when I run VPC I'm interested in the apps not the OS.

Could the x86 emulation happen in the background? Would it be possible to run Windoze Apps along side OSX and X11 apps w/o having the whole Win OS running in a virtual machine? Like I said, there would be a speed hit, but I bet it would be better than what we have today.

Well, those are my ideas. I don't know if they are possible, but the possibilities are exciting.

trusted_content · Feb 10, 2003, 07:35 PM

To be able to separate the windows/interface from the actual apps would basically involve porting with Win32 API to Mac. no small feat

MacGorilla · Feb 10, 2003, 07:54 PM

Originally posted by trusted_content:
To be able to separate the windows/interface from the actual apps would basically involve porting with Win32 API to Mac. no small feat

It would be like buying a $2000 car stereo system for your Yugo.

slider · Feb 10, 2003, 08:41 PM

Originally posted by Keda:
I was thinking about the whole dock integration thing the other day while I was walking my dogs. Now, I'm now programmer, but this looks promising to me.

How much of VPC is dedicated to running the Windoze interface? I bet its a chunk. Anyone remember 'red-Box?' Imagine if this behavior evolves. It might follow the original implementation of X-Windows in OSX. What if a future release of VPC where to run in a Windows-less environment.

There would still be a speed penalty, but if the Win apps would run w/o the Win OS, then things might pick-up some speed. Plus, I don't know about you, but when I run VPC I'm interested in the apps not the OS.

Could the x86 emulation happen in the background? Would it be possible to run Windoze Apps along side OSX and X11 apps w/o having the whole Win OS running in a virtual machine? Like I said, there would be a speed hit, but I bet it would be better than what we have today.

Well, those are my ideas. I don't know if they are possible, but the possibilities are exciting.

No, I get what your saying, emulate it, but just the application would run in it's own window, I thought about that too, but then what about your file system, you couldn't use the Mac file system or you really would need to port the whole thing over. I like the concept, but I am not sure how they would go about implicating it. Or, maybe just deconstruct the interface a little, it would be a windows environment, but then not the actually window desktop, you could run everything from the start menu in the dock. Problem, even if this were possible, would you want to deconstruct the gui to the point where you really have to know what is what, I mean if you breakdown the desktop analogy, what's the point? Don't me wrong, I would love it, but could you sell it and make money off of it?

slider · Feb 10, 2003, 08:42 PM

XP fast? Pro or Home. Someone posted that Pro was good and avoid the home version.

CheesePuff · Feb 10, 2003, 08:58 PM

Originally posted by slider:
XP fast? Pro or Home. Someone posted that Pro was good and avoid the home version.

I would stay away from the Home version of Windows XP even for a real x86 hardware anyway.

For Virtual PC I find that Windows 2000 Professional or Windows XP Professional with all of the eye candy off is just fine, as long as the Mac you are running it on has L3 cache, more than enough RAM, and is running 10.2.3.

trusted_content · Feb 11, 2003, 07:34 PM

I'm using XP Pro on an iMac 800 running 10.2.3 server, where Win98 and even 3.1 had been practically unusable, and XP is actualy reponsive enough to not be a pain in the ass. It probably does have to do with it being the pro version, as well as the fact that I disabled their cheap "luna" ripoff eye candy within a minute of installing it.

dreilly1 · Feb 11, 2003, 09:03 PM

XP Pro runs faster than XP home? Hmmm, you learn something new every day...

Chris Grande · Feb 11, 2003, 09:19 PM

Originally posted by dreilly1:
XP Pro runs faster than XP home? Hmmm, you learn something new every day...

Sorry but that is not true. XP Home and Pro are EXACTLY the same, while PRO has multi-processor support and the ability to due remote descktop and the ability to log onto a domain. Along with some other PRO only features. The underlying OS itself is the same. I think the Home to Pro upgrade cd is only like 50mbs or so.

DaedalusDX · Feb 11, 2003, 10:04 PM

Originally posted by dreilly1:
Which Windows OS are you running? We need to get VPC for my wife's Gigabook. We saw it running WinXP on a shiny new dual processor PowerMac desktop, and it was visibly slow, unsuitable even for solitare. (The Media Player ran flawlessly, though...) I imagine that running it on the PB, with the slower bus and processor speed, will be slower.

We're going to get it with Win2k, we've heard it's less taxing on the processor. I really think the version of Windows you use with VPC makes a huge difference with what you think of its performance..

Getting hard data on VPC performance seems to be an elusive task, perhaps I'll post some benchmark data once we get it.

Haha... I can play Solitare just fine on my 733 Quicksilver G4 running Windows 2000... that's about all i do with it.

Its slow, yes, but it does what i need to do... i run an obscure programming language called SML/NJ that i need for a class... and its easier in some ways to run from vpc than to try to get the unix version working...

spiney · Feb 11, 2003, 11:58 PM

I've tried Win 95, Win 2000, and Win XP Pro. I'm also doing lots of Arcview things, as well as some biological software, program mark, program distance, and openoffice to manipulate date somewhat.

My experience has been this:

Win 95 fast but has a general protection fault about once per hour.

Win 2000 fast, stable and quite useable

Win XP pro, so slow that I want to gouge my eyes out with forks. Not to mention the most irritating OS that I have ever used. It nagged at me constantly about almost everything. Everything I hate about windows seems to be turned on by default, and it is like a snipe hunt figuring out where to turn all of the stuff off.

The clear choice for me is W2K.

ApeInTheShell · Feb 12, 2003, 12:07 AM

i keep deleting mine off the machine because that is just how useless it is"L"
Windows 98 actually works decent in VPC 5 if you don't interrupt the install process.
I wouldn't mind a Win32 app like X11 and maybe we could finally play window games without a lot of hassle from vpc.
until than, vpc remains in it's box.

Fallout · Feb 12, 2003, 12:18 AM

I have vpc 6 with Win 98. It's nearly too slow to use on my crappy Mac. I'm gonna try Win2k Pro, maybe that'll be faster.

dwishbone · Feb 12, 2003, 07:39 AM

I run Win2000 Pro on VPC6 on a 1Ghz TiBook with 1024MB RAM (256 allocated to VPC) and it runs extremely smooth. Its not the fastest in the world, but its much better than it used to be. Also, remember there are alot of tweaks you can do to 2000 to squeak out some extra performance. To make the interface a bit faster change the "transition effects" to "scroll" instead of the default "fade". That's just an example. VPC 6 under X is almost as fast as it is under 9. This alone is a major accomplishment.
Anyway...thats my two cents worth of experience with VPC 6.
(edit)
Just a little addition. I benchtested VPC one time. Showed raw processor performance was the the same as a 533 Celeron.
(end of edit)

mitchell_pgh · Feb 12, 2003, 09:49 AM

+++ DANGER - FORUM POLICE +++

Sorry to be the forum police, but shouldn't this be in the software forum?

clebin · Feb 12, 2003, 11:31 AM

Originally posted by dwishbone:
I run Win2000 Pro on VPC6 on a 1Ghz TiBook with 1024MB RAM (256 allocated to VPC) and it runs extremely smooth. Its not the fastest in the world, but its much better than it used to be. Also, remember there are alot of tweaks you can do to 2000 to squeak out some extra performance. To make the interface a bit faster change the "transition effects" to "scroll" instead of the default "fade". That's just an example. VPC 6 under X is almost as fast as it is under 9. This alone is a major accomplishment.
Anyway...thats my two cents worth of experience with VPC 6.
(edit)
Just a little addition. I benchtested VPC one time. Showed raw processor performance was the the same as a 533 Celeron.
(end of edit)

That's encouraging, but does it FEEL like a 533 Celeron?

I ran VPC 5 with Win2K on my TiBook/500 and it was unusable - in the same way that OS X would be unusable on a 180mhz 603e. If it had a spinning beach ball of death, you'd see almost nothing else.

Chirs

CroMac · Feb 13, 2003, 07:08 AM

Just one question: Netmeeting on the VPC. Working or not? Could someone trying before I'm buying VPV for my iBook, please?