Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

djjava · Jun 30, 2003, 01:05 PM

Anyone with the developer's copy of Panther try running Virtual PC 6??? any feedback on performance?

Timo · Jun 30, 2003, 01:06 PM

I'm curious as well.

bacchus · Jun 30, 2003, 01:25 PM

Yah i've been running it, seems fine. No big upgrade to speed or anything though.

Busemann · Jun 30, 2003, 03:13 PM

Originally posted by bacchus:
Yah i've been running it, seems fine. No big upgrade to speed or anything though.

Hmm are you sure? Mine crashes at startup all the time. (VPC 6.0.1)

trusted_content · Jun 30, 2003, 03:25 PM

Running it. Works fine. Can't tell if it's any snappier than it is in Jaguar, except my 'everything is snappier in Panther' sense will probably overwhelm reason and force me to say yes.

djjava · Jun 30, 2003, 05:18 PM

Originally posted by trusted_content:
Running it. Works fine. Can't tell if it's any snappier than it is in Jaguar, except my 'everything is snappier in Panther' sense will probably overwhelm reason and force me to say yes.

i was kind of hoping for, "it runs sooooo much better in panther.... it's like running a real pc"

xyber233 · Jun 30, 2003, 06:00 PM

Well hopefully the "Real PC" beta comes out tomorrow so we won't have to worry about VPC anymore

. Please FWB, release it!

keston · Jun 30, 2003, 07:18 PM

I'm a bit more interested in how VPC runs on a G5 more than Panther specifically, or both maybe. Imagine if VPC were moved to 64-bit code? Do you thin we would see a big improvement? Ignoring for the moment how unlikely it is that Microsoft will update it for this.

lookmark · Jul 1, 2003, 12:52 AM

I don't think VPC would benefit all that much from being 64-bit native, other than having access to +4GB of RAM.

The G5, on the other hand, I think will make a big difference.

aktive · Jul 1, 2003, 03:35 PM

I can vouch for vpc6 running in Panther. It seems to run fine, don't know about it running faster, but it certainly runs the same speed at least.

Mac007 · Jul 1, 2003, 04:48 PM

From my experience I would say VPC would run faster on a G5 since I've seen it run on different G4 processors and when the speed of the processor went up so did VPC's performance. Eventually VPC will run fast enough for most everything except of course those holographic total emersion video games coming out in the next 100 years.

brainchild2b · Jul 1, 2003, 04:55 PM

Why would you us virtual pc? That's wacked. What is it like $180? You can buy a decent pc for $200 and slip it under your desk, just get a switch and your mac becomes and instant "pc" at the touch of a button. Oh, and it will be 500000000000000000000000% faster than virtual pc.

Honestly people.

xyber233 · Jul 1, 2003, 05:09 PM

I think you are exaggerating a little. Anyways, the point is to have one computer not 2. So if I travel with a powerbook, I should drag along a "$200" computer?

Honestly people.

brainchild2b · Jul 1, 2003, 05:18 PM

obviously that would exclude a laptop.

alternate_bit · Jul 3, 2003, 02:14 AM

Originally posted by brainchild2b:
Why would you us virtual pc? That's wacked. What is it like $180? You can buy a decent pc for $200 and slip it under your desk, just get a switch and your mac becomes and instant "pc" at the touch of a button. Oh, and it will be 500000000000000000000000% faster than virtual pc.

Honestly people.

the cheapest adc 'switch' you're talking about is $326.

tikki · Jul 3, 2003, 02:35 AM

Originally posted by brainchild2b:
Why would you us virtual pc? That's wacked. What is it like $180? You can buy a decent pc for $200 and slip it under your desk, just get a switch and your mac becomes and instant "pc" at the touch of a button. Oh, and it will be 500000000000000000000000% faster than virtual pc.

Honestly people.

That's debatable. $200 PCs are horrible underpowered.

Xeo · Jul 3, 2003, 02:48 AM

Originally posted by tikki:
That's debatable. $200 PCs are horrible underpowered.

You're right that it's debatable. You can build a $200 PC that's not too shabby. It all depends on what parts you pick out.

keston · Jul 3, 2003, 07:06 AM

Yes, but i'd rather have ONE machine at my desk that stinks to high heaven hell of style, than have a PC/Box that looks like "it tried hard, but falls on its ugly face". For what i use it for, I'm very content fire up VPC when i have to do some dev/testing or to use a particular PC app. I try to keep my crib all in style, the pc just doesn't do that (inside or out).

thefamousmred · Jul 3, 2003, 09:55 AM

Originally posted by keston:
Yes, but i'd rather have ONE machine at my desk that stinks to high heaven hell of style, than have a PC/Box that looks like "it tried hard, but falls on its ugly face".

....and don't forget that you can run MULTIPLE virtual PCs at the same time. If I need to test something on (say) Linux, Win 98, WinME, Win2k, WinXP Home, and WinXP Pro, does it make more sense to buy 6 $200 computers or one copy of VPC with a couple of OS packs?

Do those 6 $200 computers all come with an undo feature that lets me painlessly revert the HDD to a known good state so I don't have to worry about clearing out registry keys before testing my program's installation process for the umpteenth time?

Do those 6 $200 computers require more or less space than a single computer running VPC? Do they require more or less support hardware (monitor/keyboard/mouse/KVM/extra hub/extra power bus)? Do they require more or less electricity? Do they produce more or less heat than a single computer running VPC?

That's what I thought. I wish people would shut up about how VPC is crap and you should just buy a cheap PC. It happens in all of the VPC threads. It's hardly constructive, and it makes you sound like an idiot.