Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

saint J · Jun 1, 2006, 06:35 AM

From personal experience, how well does this run. Emulation as always is a bitch, but is it functional? RAM would be a high requirement I assume, but I'm looking into buying my first mac and I really do not want to spend alot. I'm considering finding a used G5 PowerMac or iMac while everyone is in the rush to upgrade to intel mac hardware, but I'd still like to retain my Windows XP functionality if I have to. I'm not a fan of dual booting anyway.

icruise · Jun 1, 2006, 07:48 AM

If you're buying your first Mac, I think you'd really be better off getting an Intel machine. For Windows XP, you can use Parallels which is very similar to VPC in functionality, but several times faster than VPC ever was. Plus it's much cheaper (only $40 if you preorder before the final version is released). It allows you to use Windows at the same time as OS X (and without rebooting), just like VPC does.

VPC is pretty much dog slow. It's bearable for some things, but once you've tried Parallels on an Intel machine, I think you'd find it hard to go back to VPC.

saint J · Jun 1, 2006, 08:22 AM

my problem is that I want to spend as little as possible, but still get a decent system that I could switch over to completely as my desktop workstation. I really don't need to spend the extra to grab an intel mac when I can find a used G5 for much less and then just use my new lappy as my PC windows system.

for this reason, I'd just like to know if running VPC on a G5 would be enough to maybe do some quick troubleshooting with a PC user if I absolutely HAD to boot into windows and my lappy was unavailable. I'm guessing the instance would be extremely rare as I'd usually have my lappy.

harrisjamieh · Jun 1, 2006, 08:26 AM

Ye, VPC should be fine for what you say then.

Originally Posted by pixelbaker

maybe do some troubleshooting

Fixed.

Eug Wanker · Jun 1, 2006, 08:49 AM

VPC works fine on the G5, but a refurb Intel iMac might be the best way to go.

Don Pickett · Jun 12, 2006, 12:32 PM

I run Windows 2000 under VPC on a single 1.8 G5 and it's okay: not a speed demon, but usuable for light stuff. I use it to unstuff game mods for Ghost Recon. I also run Ubuntu Linux under VPC and, while slow, it's usable enough to poke around in.

Like you said, the more RAM the better. If I had the extra money right now I'd buy two more gigs for my machine so as to give VPC a gig on its own.

emark · Jun 13, 2006, 10:19 AM

I use it on a 2001 G4 dual 800.. 1.25 GB total, alot 384 to VPC. Apparently w/ emulator it is good to have enough memory, but you don't want to give it memory it doesn't need...

while fast action gaming is a no-no, just about everything else works fine: office docs, network navigation and file sharing, and even something like chess, or mahjong, or solitaire, or even something like Eye-Q or other educational software it is typically fine.

I had installed iTunes to be able to help a friend do the same on a PC, and can playback music - it has some pops and clicks to it, but I suspect if my cpu (800 mHz G4 x 2) and sys bus (133) were faster those too would be gone.

Note that when you say troubleshooting, there are some distinct differences in the printing setup and possibly a few other tidbits.

While this is workable, and quite doable on the hardware you're looking at, if you can at all swing the intel processor I would...it is the future, the Core 2 Duos should be out soon further reducing costs of existing machines... if the examples on the web are true, future cpu upgrades could be fantastic on the intel machines.

And, it isn't likely that the VPC architecture will evolve IMHO, as w/ Boot Camp available now, and an acceptable VPC for legacy machines, why would MS want to develop the next gen?

Bite the bullet, spend a few extra $$ and go for the new architecture... faster, cooler, more versatile, better resale, more flexible, ready for the coming virtualization...and if it is business, you're getting a tax writeoff anyway...

good luck

Eug Wanker · Jun 14, 2006, 01:28 PM

Win XP with VPC 7 works fine on my G5 2.0 iMac. Slow, but functional. However, I only run Quicken on it.

WinXP with Parallels on my MacBook Core 2.0 is much, much faster though. In fact, my MacBook is overall much faster in most things.

©öñFü$íóÑ · Jun 14, 2006, 02:04 PM

I'd say an Intel MacMini would suit you just fine. The best thing about this option is that you can choose how much you want to spend on the peripherals and stuff.

All you need is your own copy of XP and either Apple's BootCamp or Parallel's Virtualization.

torifile · Jun 15, 2006, 11:34 AM

Think of it this way: you could spend $129 on VPC that's going to be dog slow compared to Parallels, or you can spend $50 on Parallels and put that $80 difference towards a refurb 17" Intel iMac. It's really a no brainer.

BoulderDash · Jun 16, 2006, 09:03 AM

Hey there,
So... are these the reasons people are talking about Parallels over VPC:

- Parallels is cheaper
- Parallels is faster (and I'm not saying this is fact)

I mean, is there anything Parallels can do, that VPC can't? Thanks,
BD

emark · Jun 16, 2006, 01:38 PM

BD:

they are completely different. Your statements are correct on both counts (cheaper, faster).

VPC exists to enable the old IBM/Moto PPC architecture to EMULATE an entire Intel PC...chips, graphics, file system, etc..There is a huge overhead to emulation of the hardware such that any software (all the windows and *nix and ...) can run there....

Parallels just enables two (or more) OSs to run natively and simultaneously on the same computer...sharing the memory, the processor, everything, not stomping on each others "space".

Virtualization may be the eventual/ultimate direction of Apple's efforts begun with Boot Camp...we shall see, though it will likely be tied to 10.5, whereas the Parallel's software would work for 10.4....interesting to see what develops.

torifile · Jun 17, 2006, 08:26 AM

Originally Posted by BoulderDash

Hey there,
So... are these the reasons people are talking about Parallels over VPC:

- Parallels is cheaper
- Parallels is faster (and I'm not saying this is fact)

I mean, is there anything Parallels can do, that VPC can't? Thanks,
BD

You mean other than it actually being usable? No, not for the end user, generally. I've found that VPC can seem to be okay at first, speedwise, but after some time, it's just unbearable. Parallels is a god send for those of us how have to use a Windows app or 2.

icruise · Jun 17, 2006, 08:45 AM

They aren't really even competing with each other (yet) since VPC only works on a PPC machine and Parallels only works on Intel machines.

TheoCryst · Jun 17, 2006, 04:15 PM

Another vote for an Intel Mac Mini and Parallels. Or if you're willing to spend a little more $$$, go for a refurb iMac. VPC, while useable, is oppressively slow, especially for anything more than very simple programs. Plus, Parallels is quite a bit cheaper.

And yes, memory is very important!

Don Pickett · Jun 19, 2006, 12:26 PM

Originally Posted by BoulderDash

I mean, is there anything Parallels can do, that VPC can't? Thanks,
BD

Emulate x86 on PPC, albeit slowly. If you have a PPC Mac it is currently the only way to run Windows.

msuper69 · Jun 22, 2006, 11:19 PM

Vpc = Slow

icruise · Jun 23, 2006, 12:21 AM

Originally Posted by Don Pickett

Emulate x86 on PPC, albeit slowly. If you have a PPC Mac it is currently the only way to run Windows.

Well, technically there are other emulation packages out there, but VPC is by far the best for the PPC.

typoon · Jun 23, 2006, 06:33 AM

What about using Guest PC from lismoresoft? I've been using that on a G4 and it seems to run okay. thought it does require RAM. Any of these emulators requires RAM.

torifile · Jun 23, 2006, 07:18 AM

The bottom line is that you've got 2 choices: temporary pain of spending a bit more on an intel iMac or permanent pain of having to use VPC or some equivalent on PPC.