[KellyHogan]

Originally posted by scarab:
<STRONG>With VPC 5, which would be the 'best'/fastest version of OS to use? I had VPC 3 with Windows 2000 and it was barely usable, while 98 was still fine on my G3 500 with a gig of RAM. Does VPC 5 use RAM better? Also, would XP be usable if the Classic theme is used? Thanks!</STRONG>

There's no point. Buy a cheapo Pentium box, network it to OSX and use it to share and backup files. You can find second hand ones for the same price as VPC with an OS. Connectix has simply cheated people since version 3 by making claims of greatly improved performance in version 4. Then they wouldn't let you run that in Classic so you have to buy version 5 which offers no advantage so therefore should be free.

The general feeling in this group is that VPC should go the way of the Playstation emulator. If you want to play Playstation games without worrying about bugs, speed and crashes, by a cheapo Playstation. Do the same if you occasionally need to run PC apps and games. It will be far more productive in the long run and offer you hardware expansion.

VPC5 gets 0/10

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by KellyHogan:
<STRONG>


There's no point. Buy a cheapo Pentium box, network it to OSX and use it to share and backup files. You can find second hand ones for the same price as VPC with an OS. Connectix has simply cheated people since version 3 by making claims of greatly improved performance in version 4. Then they wouldn't let you run that in Classic so you have to buy version 5 which offers no advantage so therefore should be free.

The general feeling in this group is that VPC should go the way of the Playstation emulator. If you want to play Playstation games without worrying about bugs, speed and crashes, by a cheapo Playstation. Do the same if you occasionally need to run PC apps and games. It will be far more productive in the long run and offer you hardware expansion.

VPC5 gets 0/10</STRONG>

this doesnt really constitute advice. If someone is wanting to use VPC for a variety of reasons (LIke me, with limited deskspace and only needing it to check websites or check cross-platform files), please try to answer the question if you know the answer rather than ragging on about how worthless VPC is.

sheesh!

I still want to know the answer to the other poster's question, namely, what is the best version of win to use, from those with experience on more than one?

thanks in advance for those who are able to answer the question.

[KellyHogan]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
<STRONG>
I still want to know the answer to the other poster's question, namely, what is the best version of win to use, from those with experience on more than one?

thanks in advance for those who are able to answer the question.</STRONG>

If you insist, Windows 2000 is the best to use because it has the plug and play that NT4 lacks, the stability that Win98 lacks and is leaner than XP.

[chabig]

Originally posted by KellyHogan:
<STRONG>Connectix shouldn't be charging the same amount for a Virtual PC as a real second hand PC costing a couple of hundred bucks.</STRONG>

I don't think they are. Virtual PC 5 with DOS only costs $100. You pay more if you want a brand spankin new Windows license with it, but that's not Connectix's fault. They're just passing along the cost of the Microsoft software.

Chris

[KellyHogan]

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

I don't think they are. Virtual PC 5 with DOS only costs $100. You pay more if you want a brand spankin new Windows license with it, but that's not Connectix's fault. They're just passing along the cost of the Microsoft software.

Chris</STRONG>

It should be free to us gullible fools who believed VPC4 was much faster than VPC3. The cost with Windows is over $200 and for a little more money it is far more useful to buy a second hand Pentium 200 with an OS and software preinstalled by the last owner. For that you will get:

-An OS that runs with little problem.
-Add a $10 network card and use it as a backup system for your Mac.
-The ability to use PCI graphics cards with near modern chipsets.
-The ability to add more hardware devices.
-Run apps at full speed with compromising OSX's performance.
-Adding a Unix based OS like Linus will allow you to run a server.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by KellyHogan:
<STRONG>

If you insist, Windows 2000 is the best to use because it has the plug and play that NT4 lacks, the stability that Win98 lacks and is leaner than XP.</STRONG>

thanks. now was that so hard ?

[KellyHogan]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
<STRONG>

thanks. now was that so hard ? </STRONG>

No. It was software emulation. Hardware is better!!!

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by KellyHogan:
<STRONG>


No. It was software emulation. Hardware is better!!!</STRONG>

I agree, but not everyone can avail themselves of that for various reasons.

[iBorg]

Originally posted by KellyHogan:
<STRONG>

It should be free to us gullible fools who believed VPC4 was much faster than VPC3. The cost with Windows is over $200 and for a little more money it is far more useful to buy a second hand Pentium 200 with an OS and software preinstalled by the last owner. For that you will get:

-An OS that runs with little problem.
-Add a $10 network card and use it as a backup system for your Mac.
-The ability to use PCI graphics cards with near modern chipsets.
-The ability to add more hardware devices.
-Run apps at full speed with compromising OSX's performance.
-Adding a Unix based OS like Linus will allow you to run a server.</STRONG>

I've got no connection with Connectix (no pun), but I disagree with you on 2 points:

1. For some users, "buying a cheap PC box" doesn't work - for me, because my computer use is mobile, with a PowerBook, and I'm sure as hell not going to carry around two of them! It's emulation, or switch to Windoze full-time (and that ain't gonna happen!)

2. VPC 5 absolutely should not be a "free" upgrade. For me, VPC 4 had few major advantages over VPC 3, although it was faster with added capabilities (manipulation of drive size, etc.) - so I continued to use VPC 3, because the upgrade wasn't worth $79 to me, particularly since OSX was on the horizon, and would obviously need a new VPC version. Connectix did give a $20 price break for upgrades, though, (VPC with DOS for new buyers is, and was, $99) and if you didn't want the new version, VPC 3 still worked fine - if an upgrade isn't worth it, don't buy it! But you think that VPC 5 should be "free?" For a completely new program rewrite, compatible with not just OS 9, but also with a whole new operating system, OSX? What other company gives "freebies" for completely new, major upgrades? Adobe? Microsoft? Apple? Micromat? Symantec? Alsoft? What - nobody except for a handful of "Sharewares???" Then quit bitching! Either pay the cost, or stick with the old version - it still works, you just need to reboot into OS 9 to use it! Or do without it!

I've been using Macs, almost exclusively, for over 20 years, but sometimes the percentage of Mac-whiners just makes me ashamed to be one of you!!! You (and I use "you" in a general sense, not directed at anyone in particular) whine when companies don't upgrade their software (e.g. Intuit,'s QuickBooks, Britannica CD, GlobalFax, FaxSTF, etc.) and when they do upgrade and charge a reasonable fee (e.g. Apple charging $20 to ship you upgrade CD's to save your lazy a** from driving down to a computer store to pick up a complementary freebie!), you whine again!!! What can a company do to make the Mac-whiners happy? Spend $$$$ on R&D, then hand out free software, with free technical support, and maybe give you a coupon for a free car wash and massage???

SHEESH!!!!!!!!!



iBorg

(btw: if you bought VPC 4 and want to upgrade to v.5, you don't have to buy the "whole package" for $200 - upgrade for $79, and use the OS you bought with v.4, which would be either Win 95, Win 98 or Win2K - whichever you chose to buy then.)

[KellyHogan]

Originally posted by iBorg:
<STRONG>

(btw: if you bought VPC 4 and want to upgrade to v.5, you don't have to buy the "whole package" for $200 - upgrade for $79, and use the OS you bought with v.4, which would be either Win 95, Win 98 or Win2K - whichever you chose to buy then.)</STRONG>

Even that $79 is not worth the upgrade. Is I combine the cost of VPC3, 4 and then 5, I can basically buy a proper computer. In the case of VPC, I have nothing physical but a few CDs. A software computer for the price of a real one? How many more costly upgrades will Connectix ask people to go through before it really is usable and what can customers do with the money in the meantime?

In other words, the virtual computer is a silly idea unless VERY cheap and the company that develops them makes money through other methods such as banners or software services that go on top of the virtual computer.

Do not try XP with VPC 5...It's unbearably sloooooooowwww!

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by &lt;H&gt;:
<STRONG>Do not try XP with VPC 5...It's unbearably sloooooooowwww!</STRONG>

thanks for the warning! I just picked up windows ME and will upgrade later tonight.

[iBorg]

Originally posted by KellyHogan:
<STRONG>

Even that $79 is not worth the upgrade. Is I combine the cost of VPC3, 4 and then 5, I can basically buy a proper computer. In the case of VPC, I have nothing physical but a few CDs. A software computer for the price of a real one? How many more costly upgrades will Connectix ask people to go through before it really is usable and what can customers do with the money in the meantime?

In other words, the virtual computer is a silly idea unless VERY cheap and the company that develops them makes money through other methods such as banners or software services that go on top of the virtual computer.</STRONG>

Let me get this straight: You determine the "cost" of a given software by the cumulative cost of all the upgrades you've purchased??? Thus, is you've upgraded Mac OS from v. 8 to v. 8.5 to v. 9 to v. X, your Mac OS "costs" $450-500??? If you've bought Office 98 and upgraded to Office 2001 it "cost" $750??? If you bought a Mac 6100, later upgraded to a Beige G3, and now a Quicksilver your Mac "cost" $7,000+???

C'mon - I'm sure you're smarter than that!!! In computer software, as with computer hardware, one expects to pay for upgrades every several years, unless you're happy with a "Classic Color Mac" running MacPaint, etc.!!!!! If so - then good for you, enjoy!!! I've spent many thousands of $$$ over the past 15+ years of Mac use, and thousands more on software - with rare exceptions, I've felt that I've "gotten my money's worth" from each purchase, and each upgrade.

As I said, if you don't need a Windows software emulator - DON'T BUY IT! For those of us who do need it, and need a version than runs on OSX, this thread is being wasted by your rants about how Connectix is ripping its customers off, when you've already admitted that you neither have, nor plan to try, the product! Your advice to "buy a cheap PC box" has been duly noted, but it gives no help to those seeking information about expected speed, methods for optimization, best Windows OS to use, etc.



iBorg

[ 12-10-2001: Message edited by: iBorg ]

[iBorg]

From the Connectix fora,, Eric Traut gives some info regarding relative speeds of the various versions of Windows to use with VPC 5:

I should clarify my previous statement. I should have said that Windows 2000 is the fastest guest OS that is currently available for sale with VPC. Windows 3.1, 95 and NT are all faster because they are much ligher-weight OSes.

The current (or soon-to-be-released) OSes that Connectix provides (either directly sold with VPC or as "OS Packs") include: Windows 98SE, Windows Me, Windows 2000 Pro, Windows XP Home and Windows XP Pro. Of these, Windows 2000 is the fastest.

Any VPC users have any hard numbers on comparative speed? I need VPC in OSX - my only question is whether to simply upgrade VPC to work with my Windows 98, vs. upgrading to VPC 5 with Win2K. Sounds like Win 95 would be faster, but unless one already has this, it's no longer available to buy.



iBorg

[Eug]

Originally posted by iBorg:
<STRONG>From the Connectix fora,, Eric Traut gives some info regarding relative speeds of the various versions of Windows to use with VPC 5:



Any VPC users have any hard numbers on comparative speed? I need VPC in OSX - my only question is whether to simply upgrade VPC to work with my Windows 98, vs. upgrading to VPC 5 with Win2K. Sounds like Win 95 would be faster, but unless one already has this, it's no longer available to buy.



iBorg</STRONG>

I installed Win 95 (on VPC 4) and yes it's fast. Of course it's not very useful as a modern OS. It's unstable and it doesn't support USB properly. Why bother?

Originally posted by Eug:
<STRONG>I installed Win 95 (on VPC 4) and yes it's fast. Of course it's not very useful as a modern OS. It's unstable and it doesn't support USB properly. Why bother?</STRONG>

I can run MS Access at a reasonable speed in Win95. If I need USB, I use my mac.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by iBorg:
<STRONG>Any VPC users have any hard numbers on comparative speed? I need VPC in OSX - my only question is whether to simply upgrade VPC to work with my Windows 98, vs. upgrading to VPC 5 with Win2K. Sounds like Win 95 would be faster, but unless one already has this, it's no longer available to buy.



iBorg</STRONG>

I bought and installed winME last night on an existing win98 virtual drive. I've had 95,98, 98 2nd E and now ME.

Me is thus far the fastest in osx, but gawd it took several hours to install. I've also gotten the blue screen of death twice.
But, browser-wise thus far it seems roughly 20% or more faster than 98.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by iBorg:
<STRONG>

Let me get this straight: You determine the "cost" of a given software by the cumulative cost of all the upgrades you've purchased??? Thus, is you've upgraded Mac OS from v. 8 to v. 8.5 to v. 9 to v. X, your Mac OS "costs" $450-500??? If you've bought Office 98 and upgraded to Office 2001 it "cost" $750??? If you bought a Mac 6100, later upgraded to a Beige G3, and now a Quicksilver your Mac "cost" $7,000+???

C'mon - I'm sure you're smarter than that!!! In computer software, as with computer hardware, one expects to pay for upgrades every several years, unless you're happy with a "Classic Color Mac" running MacPaint, etc.!!!!! If so - then good for you, enjoy!!! I've spent many thousands of $$$ over the past 15+ years of Mac use, and thousands more on software - with rare exceptions, I've felt that I've "gotten my money's worth" from each purchase, and each upgrade.

As I said, if you don't need a Windows software emulator - DON'T BUY IT! For those of us who do need it, and need a version than runs on OSX, this thread is being wasted by your rants about how Connectix is ripping its customers off, when you've already admitted that you neither have, nor plan to try, the product! Your advice to "buy a cheap PC box" has been duly noted, but it gives no help to those seeking information about expected speed, methods for optimization, best Windows OS to use, etc.



iBorg

[ 12-10-2001: Message edited by: iBorg ]</STRONG>

I kinda already raked him/her over the coals about that, but amen anyways.

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

I can run MS Access at a reasonable speed in Win95. If I need USB, I use my mac.</STRONG>

That's fair, but Win 95's instability worries me too much to trust it with my data. But for light usage with specific software it's OK.

[supernature]

As far as upgrade prices, I'd try to find someone who's going to MWSF and get the discounted upgrade price over there.

I believe VPC 5 takes advantage of the dual processors by splitting the workload (obviously). The Window management is taken care of by one processor and the rest by the other processor. At least that's what I read. VPC 6 would be something to pay for. I think Connectix is aiming for building it from near scratch in order to work with the low level components more directly. If they can make it something like Classic, that would be awesome. If anything, put it this way, support Connectix by paying for this port of an upgrade, and hopefully they can churn out a totally new VPC by end of 2002.

I really think they could have VPC at least twice as faster.

Originally posted by iBorg:
<STRONG>From the Connectix fora,, Eric Traut gives some info regarding relative speeds of the various versions of Windows to use with VPC 5:



Any VPC users have any hard numbers on comparative speed? I need VPC in OSX - my only question is whether to simply upgrade VPC to work with my Windows 98, vs. upgrading to VPC 5 with Win2K. Sounds like Win 95 would be faster, but unless one already has this, it's no longer available to buy.



iBorg</STRONG>

I did a benchmarking on Win98SE & Win2000SP2, and the score was not that different.
However, the each event seems to be much snappier in Win2000 than in Win98, it seemed to take some time for VPC to recognize action in Win98.
I've heard that disk-accessing, task & thread-handling is better on Win2000, and the differences seem to make advantages on VPC5.
Oh, by the way, the score was horrible compared to real machines; CPU & memory weren't as bad, but the VGA and disk was sort of worst.

[iBorg]

Here's another bit of information from Eric Traut of Connectix at their Connectix Care Fora:

"I should clarify my previous statement. I should have said that Windows 2000 is the fastest guest OS that is currently available for sale with VPC. Windows 3.1, 95 and NT are all faster because they are much ligher-weight OSes.

The current (or soon-to-be-released) OSes that Connectix provides (either directly sold with VPC or as "OS Packs") include: Windows 98SE, Windows Me, Windows 2000 Pro, Windows XP Home and Windows XP Pro. Of these, Windows 2000 is the fastest."

So, Win 95 would be faster, but is less stable, and is unavailable to purchase (at least as an OS pack from Connectix - can you purchase it elsewhere??) And Win NT should give speed and stability, but is also unavailable to purchase (again, at least from Connectix - where else, and for how much $$ elsewhere??)



iBorg

[Lerkfish]

FWIW, I buy actual win versions and install them on existing VPC drives...seems to work ok. In other words, my first VPC v. 1.0 used Win95, since then, I've always purchased the actual windows upgrades independent from Connectix and installed them without apparent problem. You DO have to install vpc additions, but that's the only complication.

[clebin]

Apart from the arguments presented so far for PC emulation, one advantage of emulation is that you can set up multiple environments for demos, testing, development and general work. Right now, that's more an argument for VPC for Windows, particularly as there isn't a quality VirtualMac for any platform. In certain circumstances, VPC could help companies migrate away from Windows. I hope that becomes a trend some day.

Windows 2000 does take a bigger hit than older Windozes, but I think it's worth it in terms of refinement and stability.

XP is really an upgrade for those on Win9x - the refinements over Win2000 are pretty minor and are made to look far more than they are. On the flip-side, you can keep product activation, Passport and 'integrated' WMP and MSN Messenger, thanks all the same. Windows 2000 might end up being cheaper in the long run...

Chris

[fulmer]

Originally posted by clebin:
<STRONG>XP is really an upgrade for those on Win9x - the refinements over Win2000 are pretty minor and are made to look far more than they are. On the flip-side, you can keep product activation, Passport and 'integrated' WMP and MSN Messenger, thanks all the same. Windows 2000 might end up being cheaper in the long run...

Chris</STRONG>

that was my reasoning for ordering the Windows 2k VPC, rather than XP. No major differences, and no product activation (though VPC w/ XP might come already activated), 'integrated' WMP nad MSN messenger. 2000 is a better choice for some of us (this includes me).

[suthercd]

I have had each iteration of VPC installed since 1.0 and I had more hair. VPC 4.0/Win 95 is the most responsive and has provided the functionality I need. VPC/Win 98 is more stable and the performance reflects this. Is it a trade off?- not for me. VPC 4.0/Win 2000- boy, I sure wanted it to be the solution. It is stable, it does provide a Win2000 emulation, but it is very very slow- on G4 Ti 500Mhz, 450 G4 Sawtooth, 733 Mhz G4 Tower - I have not had a chance to wring it out on the Dual 800.

VPC 4.0 beta for OS X has the same performance profile but with a 30% performance decrease. I found Win95 the only usable combo.

I am not seeing 5.0 as a worthwhile investment.

Craig

[ 12-16-2001: Message edited by: suthercd ]