[tsheley]

I am wondering if you can do an unique IP address with it. I can't share my IP with the Mac and VPN into work. VPN will only work if Virtual PC has its own IP address.

Thanks.

[naderby]

Can't help you there but I have a question also.

Now that VPC5 has 'Multiprocessor support in Mac OS X', does this mean a substantial speed inprovement for me with my Dual 450? See, I don't like the way they said that, implying that under OS9 there is no multiprocessor support, which it would have if the actual program supports both processors right?

Confused? Hell so am I!

[Eug]

Is it snappier (compared to 4.1 Test Drive)??? OS X.1.1 iBook G3 600 (FSB 100) with 4200 rpm drive.

Is there going to be a university educational price? I already own a copy of Windows 2000 (and Win 98) so I'd consider the DOS version.

I'd consider wiping my drive of MP3s and clearing a sequential 5 GB region for creation of a fixed size Win 2000 drive, if that speeded up VPC any. I got the (subjective) impression that was the case with fixed size vs non-fixed in VPC 4.1 Test Drive.

[ 12-05-2001: Message edited by: Eug ]

Oh ya, I have 640 ram. Win 2000 in vpc test drive is VERY slow with 384 in OS X, but is better (but still slow) with 640.

VPC 5 is about twice as slow under OSX 10.1.1 as under OS9. There is no 3D hardware support, and the read me clearly states:
Virtual PC is not recommended as a gaming solution for the Mac. Virtual PC does not provide the resources many PC games require to run, such as hardware accelerated 3D video.

Oh, and BTW:

__________________________________________________ ___
SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS
__________________________________________________ ___

� Virtual PC requires a native G3 or G4 processor.

� Upgrade and accelerator cards are not actively supported by Connectix.

� Virtual PC requires Mac OS 9.1 or later and/or Mac OS 10.1 or later.

� To run Virtual PC 5.0 in OS X, you need a 400MHz minimum processor.

Please refer to the Virtual PC manual for OS-specific RAM and hard disk requirements.

[cowerd]

I am wondering if you can do an unique IP address with it. I can't share my IP with the Mac and VPN into work. VPN will only work if Virtual PC has its own IP address.

You can do that now in VPC4, unless Connectix is removing features it should be in VPC5.

[tsheley]

Yes I know you can do that in VPC 4 but you couldn't do it in the Test Drive for OS X and I was wondering if it made it into VPC 5.

[Gee4orce]

I've installed it, but not a PC OS to run on it yet. I expect it to be slow - but so long as it runs my 1 critical app at all I'm happy.

The interface of the application in general is leaps and bounds better than pervious versions - it feels really polished now. You can run multiple OSes simultaneously, you can set up 'Undo drives' where changes are saved to a separate file outside the drive image (great of beta testing), plus all the usual treats like network and peripheral sharing.

Cool.

[absmiths]

Connectix must be seriously challenged if they can't make the OS X version run faster. They complain about not being able to dominate the processor, etc, but setting the nice level and other things just don't make any difference. There is clearly an architectural incompatibility between the VPC design and the OS X system. Given that they have been working on this for almost a year (probably more) I am beginning to lose confidence that they can keep this product moving. It seems like they needed a quick infusion of cash and so voila a whole number release when they promised a minor release.

[BTP]

I was hoping it would be better than it seems to be. I have yet to read a good comment, save Gee4orce. The same thing on Versiontracker.

[absmiths]

Not to mention (but I will anyway) the line they have been feeding us all year that an upgrade to the OS X final version would come for free if we bought during the beta period. Now that free upgrade window is approximately from 11/1 to now - the product that we paid to beta test does not exist (the official release of 4.x for OS X) - and that free upgrade is actually $4.95 (they say it is to verify that you are a user!) It is extremely annoying that Apple's "old" OS could run VPC twice as fast as the "blazingly fast OS of the future."

[milhous]

VPC 5 + G5 = no need for PC

[C.J. Moof]

Yes, you can do a separate IP address for the Win environment under OS X. It's called "virtual switch":

"When you select Virtual Switch, the Mac's TCP/IP address is not shared with the PC. You must use a TCP/IP address that you enter in the Network Control Panel under Windows."

From the help section.

[tsheley]

Thank you. That is all I wanted to know.

It's not surprising it's slower than in OS 9, but my question is it faster than the OS X 4.1 Test Drive? What about whole screen mode in OS X? It was missing from the Test Drive.

[masskinner]

Could someone confirm if VPC 5 requires OS 9.x?

I mean, let's say I'm running an OS X environment without Classic. Can I install and use VPC 5, or will it complain because it can't find a System folder?

[Mactoid]

Originally posted by Eug:
<STRONG>Is it snappier (compared to 4.1 Test Drive)??? OS X.1.1 iBook G3 600 (FSB 100) with 4200 rpm drive.
[ 12-05-2001: Message edited by: Eug ]</STRONG>

For the record, yes Virtual PC 5 is officially snappier then before!

see the last bullet point on the right side of this page

[pdot]

Milhous wrote: "VPC 5 + G5 = no need for PC"

I prefer to hope for OS X + G5 = no need for PC

[iBorg]

I started a thread on "Mac OS 3rd Party," on advice for VPC, but have some questions that belong here, also!

I currently use OS X almost exclusively, except for when I have to reboot into OS 9, to use VPC. I currently have VPC 3, with Win 98 - I can download the VPC 5 upgrade for $79, which runs on OS X or 9.2. My other option, if I want to use Win 2000 now, is to purchase VPC 4 w/ Win 2000, and get a free upgrade to VPC 5.

I have 3 questions here:

1. Is there any advantage to running Win 2000 vs. Win 98 in VPC? Any speed or stability improvements, or does it just require more memory and hard drive space with Win 2000?

2. How much slower is VPC 5 under OS X vs. using under OS 9? Connectix has stated that it will never run as fast under OS X, but they don't say how much slower - 10%, 30%? Anyone have any comparisons?

3. Any speed comparisons of VPC 5 vs. VPC 4? Only VPC 5 can run on OS X, of course, but under OS 9 is there any speed difference?

It's only been released today, but I'd appreciate any feedback/info from you early users!



iBorg

[kcmac]

Speed comparisons don't mean much to me with VPC 5. I only need to run ACT 2000 and while it is slow (VPC 4 was slow as well on OS 9), it gets the job done and
it lets me stay in OSX! When you consider the time it takes to restart, go into 9 then restart to go back to X, how much time do you think that takes?

VPC 5 installed easily for me and I didn't lose any data. It looks great and I think, runs very well for my needs.

VPC was never meant for gamers and it was never meant to run as fast as a modern PC. It was meant to allow you to operate some PC applications on your mac. Maybe a G5 will someday make this faster, but if you want the full PC experience, get yourself a PC and a mac.

An installation note. You will probably have to manually move your PC disk image (mine is windows 98 - 520mb) located in your virtual PC app folder in OS9 into your OSX virtual PC 5 folder. Also make an alias of your virtual pc prefs from os9 and place this in your VPC 5 folder. That worked for me.

Originally posted by iBorg:
<STRONG>I started a thread on "Mac OS 3rd Party," on advice for VPC, but have some questions that belong here, also!

I currently use OS X almost exclusively, except for when I have to reboot into OS 9, to use VPC. I currently have VPC 3, with Win 98 - I can download the VPC 5 upgrade for $79, which runs on OS X or 9.2. My other option, if I want to use Win 2000 now, is to purchase VPC 4 w/ Win 2000, and get a free upgrade to VPC 5.

I have 3 questions here:

1. Is there any advantage to running Win 2000 vs. Win 98 in VPC? Any speed or stability improvements, or does it just require more memory and hard drive space with Win 2000?

2. How much slower is VPC 5 under OS X vs. using under OS 9? Connectix has stated that it will never run as fast under OS X, but they don't say how much slower - 10%, 30%? Anyone have any comparisons?

3. Any speed comparisons of VPC 5 vs. VPC 4? Only VPC 5 can run on OS X, of course, but under OS 9 is there any speed difference?

It's only been released today, but I'd appreciate any feedback/info from you early users!



iBorg</STRONG>

There are reports out there saying that VPC 5 doesn't run significantly faster than 4.1 Test Drive, which is to say it runs A LOT slower than for OS 9. As for Win 2000, it seems to run slower for me (VPC 4) than Win 98, but surprisingly not as much as I expected. More importantly, it's MUCH more stable. Win 98 is inherently unstable and is prone to crashes. BSODs may not be hugely common but with proper drivers Win 2000 is a much more enjoyable experience than Win 98 in general, unless you have very light needs in Windows. When I first started trying VPC 4, I went to 98 simply for the sake of speed. After the first few crashes I promptly installed Win 2000. Much better.

[kcmac]

Eug,
You must really push VPC. It has never crashed on me and I use the windows 98 SE version. I also never tried to play games on it. Time will tell if VPC 5 is stable but I have no reason to believe otherwise.

[speter]

My question is: does it allow full-screen mode on OS X? The test drive didn't, and therefore, I rarely ran it. My laptop display is small enough, I won't put up with a menubar and titlebar getting in the way.

Originally posted by speter:
<STRONG>My question is: does it allow full-screen mode on OS X? The test drive didn't, and therefore, I rarely ran it. My laptop display is small enough, I won't put up with a menubar and titlebar getting in the way.</STRONG>

Yes it allows full screen mode. Also it runs on a 350 Mhz AGP. The 400 Mhz minimum requirement seems to only apply to G3 desktops.

On my G4 it is about 20 percent faster than the Test Drive. Some areas are much faster, like window redraws but other are not noticeably faster like IE with lots of ActiveX elements.

[Eug]

Originally posted by kcmac:
<STRONG>Eug,
You must really push VPC. It has never crashed on me and I use the windows 98 SE version. I also never tried to play games on it. Time will tell if VPC 5 is stable but I have no reason to believe otherwise.</STRONG>

Well, I don't think I'm terribly hard on it, but I guess I'm a little harder on my computers than many VPC users, being originally primarily a Windozer. However, after owning both Windows 98 and 2000, run on the same computer, I can safely say that the former OS is much less stable even just with moderate use. VPC per se OTOH seems quite OK.

Originally posted by &lt;Believe it or not&gt;:
<STRONG>

Yes it allows full screen mode. Also it runs on a 350 Mhz AGP. The 400 Mhz minimum requirement seems to only apply to G3 desktops.

On my G4 it is about 20 percent faster than the Test Drive. Some areas are much faster, like window redraws but other are not noticeably faster like IE with lots of ActiveX elements.</STRONG>

That's great, and a much better review than some others the macfixit forums have given. Hopefully that applies to my G3 too in addition to the G4s. Is yours a G4? Anyways, two of the major drawbacks of the test drive were the lack of a full screen mode and slow screen redraws. I wonder if they were able to bypass some of the OS X stuff like they said they were trying to.

Now if my university has an educational price...

[iBorg]

Originally posted by &lt;Eug&gt;:
<STRONG>

There are reports out there saying that VPC 5 doesn't run significantly faster than 4.1 Test Drive, which is to say it runs A LOT slower than for OS 9. As for Win 2000, it seems to run slower for me (VPC 4) than Win 98, but surprisingly not as much as I expected. More importantly, it's MUCH more stable. Win 98 is inherently unstable and is prone to crashes. BSODs may not be hugely common but with proper drivers Win 2000 is a much more enjoyable experience than Win 98 in general, unless you have very light needs in Windows. When I first started trying VPC 4, I went to 98 simply for the sake of speed. After the first few crashes I promptly installed Win 2000. Much better.</STRONG>

That's the kind of experiences I'd like to hear about. In real life, Win 2000 is much more stable than Win 98. But does it give enough stability improvement to make its purchase worth it for VPC on a Pismo 500 G3? If the speed isn't decreased, I'd probably opt for Win 2000.

Also, has anyone found that VPC 5 is unuseably slow in OSX? Any comparisons to its speed under OS 9?

Hopefully, with future CPU speed increases, and with G5's, VPC under OSX will be better. But for now, I need it to work on my Pismo 500 (with plenty of ram - 1 GB).



iBorg

[C.J. Moof]

I'd say that running Win2K on my cube 450/VPC5/OSX combo is only for the patient. I feel like I'm slugging through it, not flying. The "I've loaded Windows, wheeee!" intro music breaks up on my system. 98 is better, but still only going to get used when I really HAVE to.

If I ever booted into 9, I'd be happy to comment on its's performance. But I don't.

[Eug]

Dunno about 5, but with 4.1 Win 2000 is pretty damn slow in OS X, even with 640 RAM on a G3 600 (iBook). I'd say it's usable in OS 9, but not really in OS X. But then again, look above for a review saying an approx 20% speed increase in every day type GUI stuff although I cannot verify that for myself, and I dunno if that's for a G4 or G3.

As for Win 98, it's not really recommended in OS X either with my setup, but it's less painful speedwise.

Also, I must reiterate that I was running the commercial Microsoft versions of Win 98 and 2000. I dunno if Connectix have their own tweaked versions of these OSes for VPC that are faster than mine.

By the way, for those who care, there is a Win98Lite out there which is a version of Win 98 with the Win 95 shell and a lot of the junk removed. That should be quite snappy with VPC. Still it would have the stability problems with Win 98 though, and who knows if they've done some weirdness to it that makes it less happy with an emulated PC.

[iBorg]

Originally posted by Eug:
<STRONG>Also, I must reiterate that I was running the commercial Microsoft versions of Win 98 and 2000. I dunno if Connectix have their own tweaked versions of these OSes for VPC that are faster than mine.</STRONG>

Interesting thought - anyone know if this makes a difference? I remember that with "SoftWindows," the version of Win 95 and Win 98 were specially altered to work with the emulator - with VPC, I got a commercial CD with Win 98 from Micro$oft. (Never had to remove it from the shrinkwrap, since it loaded with the VPC install disk, though.)

Any problems (or advantages) in using commercial Windoze 2000 to upgrade?



iBorg

[otter]

I have a PowerBook G4 500 with 512 MB of RAM

I ran two tests using ArcView 3.2a.

1) Time to resize a high resolution aerial photograph

VPC 5 under 9.2 15 sec

VPC 5 X 29 sec

2) Time to execute script clipping multiple polygonns & performing various calculations that I do on an everyday basis.

VPC 5 under 9.2 119 sec

VPC 5 X 284 sec

[typical time running on 800 mhz P-3 is about 30 sec]


I ran similar tests and got similar results comparing VPC 4 and VPC X this past summer.

As far as experience goes, VPC 5 X is definitely laggy, but [windows hessitate before appearing, etc], but is definitely a lot more usable than the Test Drive was [for the most part because full screen mode has been activated].

VPC 5 for 9.2 runs well enough to run in full view of other pc users instead of hiding in a hole somewhere.

- Art

[Gee4orce]

It's unfair to comment on the preview version now that the final is here -- who mentions Mac OS PB any more, now that we have 10.1 ?

What are you guys expecting ?? IF you want performance == go buy a PC box. If you want compatibility, stability, multiple (simultaneous) PC OS on one machine (that can network to each other), at a low cost == get virtual PC.

It seems a lot of folks here are going out of the way to diss VPC and Connectix when really it's a tool, not a toy, and AFAIK Connectix have produced a quality piece of Mac software. Give then a break will ya ?

I find VPC to be useable for what I want to do -- and better than a real PC for certain things (like maintenance !). If it's slower than the OS9 version then that's just the overhead of a new architecture and operating system.

If you want to resize images -- well use a damned Mac application (Photoshop in Classic, TIFFany, GraphicConverter, etc) ! IF you need to run a critical piece of PC-only software -- then VPC is a godsend.

[naderby]

So� what about this 'Multiprocessor support in Mac OS X'?

Under OSX will this support make any difference compared to running under OS9? Do both processors run the emulation or one System, one VPC?

Anybody here running it on a Dualie?

[tobster]

Originally posted by iBorg:
<STRONG>


Also, has anyone found that VPC 5 is unuseably slow in OSX? Any comparisons to its speed under OS 9?

iBorg</STRONG>

I setup WinXP business on my G4/500 with 768 ram, 330 allocated to XP on a 2 gb partition. Simply, it is unusably slow for any real world use. If all u are doing is testing web pages or anything like that then obvioysly it is helpful. If you intend on using any programs within it I'd say, according to my setup, it ain't good enough.

I'm thinking this might be better with Win2k since the graphic oohhs and ahhs in WinXP are much more than in w2k...

A word up to the poeple at Connectix for offering us the choice. I'd also think the program can only get better from now on - with more programming experience in os x, faster processors and all that...


cheers...

[Simon Mundy]

Originally posted by Gee4orce:
<STRONG>

It's unfair to comment on the preview version now that the final is here -- who mentions Mac OS PB any more, now that we have 10.1 ?

What are you guys expecting ?? IF you want performance == go buy a PC box. If you want compatibility, stability, multiple (simultaneous) PC OS on one machine (that can network to each other), at a low cost == get virtual PC.

It seems a lot of folks here are going out of the way to diss VPC and Connectix when really it's a tool, not a toy, and AFAIK Connectix have produced a quality piece of Mac software. Give then a break will ya ?

I find VPC to be useable for what I want to do -- and better than a real PC for certain things (like maintenance !). If it's slower than the OS9 version then that's just the overhead of a new architecture and operating system.

If you want to resize images -- well use a damned Mac application (Photoshop in Classic, TIFFany, GraphicConverter, etc) ! IF you need to run a critical piece of PC-only software -- then VPC is a godsend.</STRONG>

Indeed - well said!

They've made it far easier for someone with ONE mac test and debug web pages for IE/NS/Mozilla/Opera 3/4/5/6+ all on the one system. Try setting up a lab with REAL PC's to allow for all that for the same cost as VPC.

[clebin]

Originally posted by Gee4orce:
<STRONG> </STRONG>

Sorry, but you can't blame people for being disappointed. And you went and used the 'I'm an arrogant arsehole' smiley not once, but 4 times in a row.....

The reason people are talking about Test Drive is that many have tried it, and we want to know if there's any speed gains. From what I can gather, they appear to be minor if they exist at all. There's no point in skirting the issue - this is rather gutting. Test Drive 4.1 wasn't much quicker than RealPC 1.0 on my G3/266 and I expected a lot more from a new computer, a new OS and 5 revisions of VirtualPC.

Not necessarily blaming Connectix (although I'm surprised that a 'FAT' OS X/OS 9 binary was the way to go) just expressing some disappointment.

I work in a fly the Microsoft flag high kind of company and if it runs like Test Drive did.... well do you think I can run a Win2000 / ActiveDirectory domain, IIS, SQL Server and our own server software, on my Powerbook? Unfortunately, that's what my work requires and looks like that's going to be unrealistic. Unless I boot into the OS I've tried to get rid of for the past year.

Chris

Originally posted by Gee4orce:
<STRONG>

It's unfair to comment on the preview version now that the final is here -- who mentions Mac OS PB any more, now that we have 10.1 ?

What are you guys expecting ?? IF you want performance == go buy a PC box. If you want compatibility, stability, multiple (simultaneous) PC OS on one machine (that can network to each other), at a low cost == get virtual PC.

It seems a lot of folks here are going out of the way to diss VPC and Connectix when really it's a tool, not a toy, and AFAIK Connectix have produced a quality piece of Mac software. Give then a break will ya ?

I find VPC to be useable for what I want to do -- and better than a real PC for certain things (like maintenance !). If it's slower than the OS9 version then that's just the overhead of a new architecture and operating system.

If you want to resize images -- well use a damned Mac application (Photoshop in Classic, TIFFany, GraphicConverter, etc) ! IF you need to run a critical piece of PC-only software -- then VPC is a godsend.</STRONG>

It's not as if really everyone's dissing it. I think people are trying to get more accurate assessments of it. In other words, they're trying to see if Connectix's claims of increased speed in OS X vs previous versions, etc. are true. If not, then VPC 5 on most current G3 and lower end G4 machines is less than completely usable for many if not most people. Furthermore, those using VPC 4 in OS 9 may want to think twice about upgrading. There's nothing wrong with that.

I agree though that criticisms that it can't be used for 3D games are irrelevant though. After all, we all know that is not the point of VPC.

[absmiths]

Originally posted by Gee4orce:
<STRONG>
It's unfair to comment on the preview version now that the final is here -- who mentions Mac OS PB any more, now that we have 10.1 ?
</STRONG>

Only because we have had 10.1 for a long time. You're a moderator here, don't you recall the 8 million posts on March 24th asking if this-or-that had been fixed, were screen redraws fasterwere screen redraws faster than the previous version, etc. It happens all the time. If people are still primarily comparing in a year then there will be a problem.

I still believe that the fundamental problem is that Connectix is telling us that on the exact same hardware OS X exacts a 2X performance slowdown, shen Apple and the evidence of other software (iMovie, iTunes, Apps running in Classic, etc) would suggest that the design of the application is the bigger issue.

[cowerd]

clebin:
try this
http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/
Some real numbers on VPC peformance in OSX. Not extensive but enough to get an idea.

[ 12-06-2001: Message edited by: cowerd ]

[iBorg]

Some "official" speed numbers from Eric Traut of Connectix on the Connectix Forums:

"Our internal testing indicates that VPC 5 on Mac OS 9 is about the same speed as VPC 4 on Mac OS 9 when running Windows 98 and Me. But it's about 20% faster when running Windows 2000.

VPC performance on Mac OS X is typically 20-35% lower than performance on Mac OS 9 (given the same Mac hardware). This performance difference is comparable to many other applications available on both Mac OS 9 and X. We were somewhat disappointed about this performance difference, but it's understandable given that Mac OS X is a much heavier-weight OS than Mac OS 9. Needless to say, we'll continue to work with Apple on ways to improve VPC performance on future releases of Mac OS X."

So, it appears that running Win 2000 should actually be a plus for stability and speed.

These numbers also look like a lesser loss of speed than I've heard, as many posts around the 'net have estimated a 50% slowdown.



iBorg

[asxless]

Originally posted by C.J. Moof:
<STRONG>Yes, you can do a separate IP address for the Win environment under OS X. It's called "virtual switch":

"When you select Virtual Switch, the Mac's TCP/IP address is not shared with the PC. You must use a TCP/IP address that you enter in the Network Control Panel under Windows."

From the help section.</STRONG>

BTW this does NOT work if you are using a AirPort card. It only works for wired ethernet connections

asxless in iLand

[Species 8472]

I wonder why VPC 5 is so sloooow. I also have Softwindows98 which runs perfectly in Mac OS X classic. I think it's strange that Softwindows98 is at least 5 times faster than VPC 5 in OS X. I really hope that FWB will make an carbon or cocoa version of RealPC.

Originally posted by Species 8472:
<STRONG>I wonder why VPC 5 is so sloooow. I also have Softwindows98 which runs perfectly in Mac OS X classic. I think it's strange that Softwindows98 is at least 5 times faster than VPC 5 in OS X. I really hope that FWB will make an carbon or cocoa version of RealPC.</STRONG>

Yeah but how well does it actually work? I hear SoftWindows 98 has lots of weird bugs, but I have not tried it myself. What I am most interested in is Classic use with USB on an iBook. What hardware are you running, and can you use USB?

It's not surprising that SoftWindows runs faster though, since they don't completely emulate everything. Oversimplified, it's sort of like having partial emulation plus Mac drivers for Windows for the rest, as I understand it. OTOH, VPC is a complete machine.

[clebin]

Originally posted by cowerd:
<STRONG>clebin:
try this
http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/
Some real numbers on VPC peformance in OSX. Not extensive but enough to get an idea.

[ 12-06-2001: Message edited by: cowerd ]</STRONG>

Thanks!

The numbers seem to back up people's experience. I tried the renice trick and it seemed to have some effect, but until I use it more I can't say how useful it is. Hopefully, I'll get a copy of VPC 5 on Saturday, despite the problems. I don't know when it hits UK shops.

SoftWindows certainly used some tricks, like a modified version of Windows that shipped with it, but RealPC was a true emulator. Pretty under-rated too - faster than VirtualPC and quite compatible. I remember Grand Theft Auto played really well on my G3/266.

Unfortunately, it can't handle my TiBook 500 - the CPU counts minutes like seconds - and the update - a bug-fixing point release - demands I pay the full amount again! That is a right con.

Still, I hope that the new owners can bridge the big gap that's built up - WinMe/2000/XP (even Win98 I think) or Linux support, multiple virtual machines, OS X support, IP switching, drag & drop between desktops...

Chris

[cowerd]

Still, I hope that the new owners can bridge the big gap that's built up - WinMe/2000/XP (even Win98 I think) or Linux support, multiple virtual machines, OS X support, IP switching, drag & drop between desktops...

FWB--I wouldn't count on it. They seem to have enough trouble coding their own in-house wares--HDT has been a problem lately.

Someone on Macintouch reported renicing VPC to -16. Said it performs well, but at that point all you're doing is letting VPC take over the machine ala OS9.

Open the terminal and type the following:
ps -auxw | grep Virtual
This will reveal the process number for the Virtual PC application.
2. Reprioritize the process using the following command:
sudo renice &lt;nice&gt; &lt;pid&gt;
Where &lt;nice&gt; is an integer between 20 and -20 (the lower the number, the higher the priority.) and &lt;pid&gt; is the process ID you learned in step 1.

Form the nice folks at Macintouch

Originally posted by cowerd:
<STRONG>
Form the nice folks at Macintouch</STRONG>

[localhost:~] eug% ps -auxw | grep Virtual
eug 435 26.7 0.8 60156 5528 ?? S 0:14.57 /Applications/Virtual PC/Virtual PC Test Drive.app/Contents/MacOS/Virtual
root 436 0.0 0.1 2140 392 ?? S 0:00.02 /Applications/Virtual PC/Virtual PC Test Drive.app/Contents/MacOS/VirtualP
eug 440 0.0 0.0 1412 316 std S+ 0:00.01 grep Virtual

Can you explain this? What do the commands and the output actually mean?

What happens if one sets it to -20?

[C.J. Moof]

I find it easier to get a PID using TOP. It's the first column, and it's titled PID.

I've got my VPC/Win98 reniced to -10 right now, and I think it helps a bit. I'll still be heading over to my citrix server to get Windows done on my mac desktop most of the time....

Originally posted by C.J. Moof:
<STRONG>I find it easier to get a PID using TOP. It's the first column, and it's titled PID.

I've got my VPC/Win98 reniced to -10 right now, and I think it helps a bit. I'll still be heading over to my citrix server to get Windows done on my mac desktop most of the time....</STRONG>

I have two PIDs. One is VirtualPC_ (0.0% usage) and the other is Virtual PC (40% usage - iTunes is hogging most of the CPU time at the moment).

[boots]

[localhost:~] eug% ps -auxw | grep Virtual
eug 435 26.7 0.8 60156 5528 ?? S 0:14.57 /Applications/Virtual PC/Virtual PC Test
Drive.app/Contents/MacOS/Virtual
root 436 0.0 0.1 2140 392 ?? S 0:00.02 /Applications/Virtual PC/Virtual PC Test
Drive.app/Contents/MacOS/VirtualP
eug 440 0.0 0.0 1412 316 std S+ 0:00.01 grep Virtual

Can you explain this? What do the commands and the output actually mean?

What happens if one sets it to -20?

The important data to extract from the ps command given above is:

The first "column" (i.e. eug or root) is the user who spawned the process.
The second column is the process number.
The thrid,fourth, and fifth columns (x.x.x.x #### ### ??) are not important
for what you want to know.
the sixth column is how long the process has been running (grep was only
runnin for 1 sec, but VPC was running for nearly 15
minutes).

the last column is the process running (i.e. VPC or grep).

Top is the easier way to do this. Just remember that control-c gets you out of the top display.

By the way, is there any way of getting Virtual PC to remember the renice setting?

[Eug]

Thanks for the info guys. Setting VPC to -20 does help a little bit when other programs are running. Of course it doesn't do a helluvalot when nothing else is loaded.

So far the biggest speedup for me has been buying more RAM (now at 640). No more pageouts.