Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Software - Troubleshooting and Discussion > Applications > VPC 5.0 is out!

VPC 5.0 is out!
Thread Tools
juanvaldes
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Seattle, WA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 5, 2001, 03:33 PM
 
well, it's finally out the down side is you ONLY get the free upgrade to 5.0 if you bought 4.0 since November 1st, which leaves me and many others out who bought 4.0 expecting X support to come later when it was ready as a free upgrade.

Connectix VPC page

[ 12-05-2001: Message edited by: juanvaldes ]
The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it always to be kept alive.
- Thomas Jefferson, 1787
     
xi_hyperon
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Behind the dryer, looking for a matching sock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 5, 2001, 04:34 PM
 
Yep. $79 bucks. And IMO it doesn't seem any faster than the "test drive" which has been out for a number of months. If you've got the test drive, don't be too quick to ditch it just to get VPC 5.
     
juanvaldes  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Seattle, WA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 5, 2001, 05:29 PM
 
Originally posted by xi_hyperon:
<STRONG>Yep. $79 bucks. And IMO it doesn't seem any faster than the "test drive" which has been out for a number of months. If you've got the test drive, don't be too quick to ditch it just to get VPC 5.</STRONG>
oh I have the test drive, slow as hell! But still good enough for some things and alot better then booting up 9. But VPC 5 is almost worth it just to be able to drop files back and forth between X and Win, like I could do in 9 with 4.0
The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it always to be kept alive.
- Thomas Jefferson, 1787
     
ShyWizard
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Some where in CyberLand
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 5, 2001, 06:13 PM
 
VPC 5 is so slow
I would rather not use it
     
Earth Mk. II
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 5, 2001, 06:15 PM
 
I saw it uses dual CPU's in OS X - how, for what, and how well?
/Earth\ Mk\.\ I{2}/
     
xi_hyperon
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Behind the dryer, looking for a matching sock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 5, 2001, 06:25 PM
 
Originally posted by Earth Mk. II:
<STRONG>I saw it uses dual CPU's in OS X - how, for what, and how well?</STRONG>
how - dunno
why - so that it's faster than the test drive beta release.
how well - hopefully better than it uses one processor.
     
Fillman
Forum Regular
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Melbourne, VIC, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 5, 2001, 10:14 PM
 
VPC 5.0 aint as quick as I'd like but I've now got full access to the Windose NT network in the office now in OSX. Most file access I'm just using SMB which works well. VPC gives me access to all the other fidlly bits of pieces.

Good bit of work you guys at Connectix. Keep it up

- Earth First - We'll mine the rest of the planets later
     
Agasthya
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Seattle, WA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 5, 2001, 10:32 PM
 
Originally posted by Fillman:
<STRONG>VPC 5.0 aint as quick as I'd like but I've now got full access to the Windose NT network in the office now in OSX. Most file access I'm just using SMB which works well. VPC gives me access to all the other fidlly bits of pieces.

Good bit of work you guys at Connectix. Keep it up

</STRONG>
why don't you use dave?
     
Han's Hands on Leia
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Copping a feel on Endor
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 5, 2001, 10:34 PM
 
Did you guys read the last point about what's new in version 5 on Versiontracker?

"'Snappier' user experience-faster menus & faster text scrolling"

AHHHHHH!!!!!!

"I thought they smelt bad on the outside."
     
Telomar
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Oz
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 5, 2001, 11:21 PM
 
It's faster than the Test drive, although still half the speed or worse than when in OS 9, and it is also faster than VPC 4 in OS 9.2.1.

Can't say about performance gains on a dual processor (would need to run it on an identical single processor system). If there are some they certainly don't strike me as substantial though..
     
Fillman
Forum Regular
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Melbourne, VIC, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 6, 2001, 12:10 AM
 
Originally posted by agasthya:
<STRONG>

why don't you use dave?</STRONG>
Cost is the simple answer. I had been using Connectix DoubleTalk since it's release a year ago in OS9 with success. I then tried Dave public beta and was fairly happy with it. With 10.1 SMB does all that I need and very quickly at that.

If DoubleTalk goes X I might upgrade.
- Earth First - We'll mine the rest of the planets later
     
fulmer
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 6, 2001, 12:35 AM
 
I ordered VPC 4.0 w/ Windows 2000 a couple days before this 5.0 release. Called Apple today and canceled the 4.0 purchase. I'll just wait, thank you very much, until 5.0 is ready to go with Windows 2000 preinstalled. And I don't want the hassel of no 5.0 CD-ROM full install. So the Apple Store will get my $$ in late December or early January, whenever VPC is ready for Windows 2000.
     
xi_hyperon
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Behind the dryer, looking for a matching sock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 6, 2001, 09:47 AM
 
Originally posted by Han's Hands on Leia:
<STRONG>Did you guys read the last point about what's new in version 5 on Versiontracker?

"'Snappier' user experience-faster menus & faster text scrolling"

AHHHHHH!!!!!!</STRONG>
OK, "snappier" seems to be permeating people's vocabulary, but aside from that, I don't see this at all. When I first used VPC 5 yesterday, I was wondering if I had installed it incorrectly, because menus and scrolling don't seem *any* faster to me than the test drive.

Of course, one will never know if there's a problem looking at the documentation that comes with it. Connectix seems to have taken a que from Apple and thrown in nothing more than a token "getting started" guide.
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 6, 2001, 09:58 AM
 
Originally posted by xi_hyperon:
<STRONG>

OK, "snappier" seems to be permeating people's vocabulary, but aside from that, I don't see this at all. When I first used VPC 5 yesterday, I was wondering if I had installed it incorrectly, because menus and scrolling don't seem *any* faster to me than the test drive.

Of course, one will never know if there's a problem looking at the documentation that comes with it. Connectix seems to have taken a que from Apple and thrown in nothing more than a token "getting started" guide.</STRONG>
Are you running a G3 or a G4, at what speed, and with how much RAM?

People are claiming significant improvements while others are claiming none. I wonder if it's because of the hardware partially.
     
xi_hyperon
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Behind the dryer, looking for a matching sock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 6, 2001, 10:06 AM
 
Originally posted by Eug:
<STRONG>Are you running a G3 or a G4, at what speed, and with how much RAM?

People are claiming significant improvements while others are claiming none. I wonder if it's because of the hardware partially.</STRONG>
I'm running a TiBook [G4] 500 Mhz / 512 MB RAM, so I have the advantage of the Velocity engine to speed up the graphic display.

Also, I have the PC RAM set to 220 MB.

[ 12-06-2001: Message edited by: xi_hyperon ]
     
KellyHogan
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: The Breakaway Democratic Banana Republic of Jakichanistan.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 6, 2001, 10:20 AM
 
Originally posted by Fillman:
<STRONG>VPC 5.0 aint as quick as I'd like but I've now got full access to the Windose NT network in the office now in OSX. Most file access I'm just using SMB which works well. VPC gives me access to all the other fidlly bits of pieces.

Good bit of work you guys at Connectix. Keep it up

</STRONG>
Can In use the older VPC OS packs from VPC3 and VPC4? If so, how do VPC5 suddenly allow the ability to read DVDROMs? Do I have to install new additions once an OS is installed?
     
absmiths
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Edmond, OK USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 6, 2001, 11:50 AM
 
This is a sick trick by Connectix to raise money. This release was supposed to be VPC 4.x and be a free upgrade to VPC 4.0 buyers who bought just to participate in the Test Drive (There was, of course, no mention of the 11-1 cut-off when I purchased the stupid thing on 10-17!). I think Connectix used a couple of enhancements to justify the 5.0 upgrade because they need money.

Does noone else here remember Connectix saying that Test Drive users would get a free upgrade to the released OS X VPC? They are being generous, though, they said the Test Drive will remain active until January - how thoughtful.

[ 12-06-2001: Message edited by: absmiths ]
     
tsheley
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 6, 2001, 12:07 PM
 
I would like to know how to get a unique IP address in VPC 5. I set the Virtual Switch but now I don't get any internet connection or IP. I need a unique IP to use Nortel VPN to get onto the network at work.

Thanks
1.6ghz G5 Power Mac/1.5GB RAM/Superdrive
     
gaffa
Forum Regular
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 6, 2001, 12:11 PM
 
When I e-mailed them about pricing, etc. they just said that pricing had not been fixed, but there would be many options as usual when it shipped.
I have never heared any mention of a free upgrade.
That would be too good to be true.

Cheers

Gaffa.

[ 12-06-2001: Message edited by: gaffa ]
     
mr_avery
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Portland,Oregon,United States
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 6, 2001, 02:17 PM
 
I have a pismo 400 with 768 megs of ram. Will this be fast enough to run VPC 5.0 with 98 or 2000 reasonably? The common comment I am reading is that it is slow.
     
Jan Van Boghout
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 6, 2001, 02:38 PM
 
Does anybody have experiences with it on an iBook 500 ?
     
Fillman
Forum Regular
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Melbourne, VIC, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 6, 2001, 04:21 PM
 
Originally posted by KellyHogan:
<STRONG>
Can In use the older VPC OS packs from VPC3 and VPC4? If so, how do VPC5 suddenly allow the ability to read DVDROMs? Do I have to install new additions once an OS is installed?</STRONG>
I have used VPC since around version 2 days (it was a bit slow on my 6100/60AV!) with W95. I then bought VPC 3 with W98 OS installed. That OS pack transferred through the VPC 4 upgrade, OSX test drive and, yesterday, to the VPC 5. The W98 drive survived the transfer to resizeable drives in VPC4 without any dramas.

The DVD read capability is a function of VPC to talk to Mac OSX and then Windoze to read that info.
- Earth First - We'll mine the rest of the planets later
     
KellyHogan
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: The Breakaway Democratic Banana Republic of Jakichanistan.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 6, 2001, 04:35 PM
 
Originally posted by Fillman:
<STRONG>

I have used VPC since around version 2 days (it was a bit slow on my 6100/60AV!) with W95. I then bought VPC 3 with W98 OS installed. That OS pack transferred through the VPC 4 upgrade, OSX test drive and, yesterday, to the VPC 5. The W98 drive survived the transfer to resizeable drives in VPC4 without any dramas.

The DVD read capability is a function of VPC to talk to Mac OSX and then Windoze to read that info.</STRONG>
So can it play DVDs or does it still lack hardware acceleration?

Also, how come I have already seen Virtual PC 5 on Carracho? Doesn't Connectix have any security?
     
De Luca
Junior Member
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Somerville, MA USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 7, 2001, 01:36 PM
 
Two things:

1. VPC5 is so slow it's almost not suitable for release. On 9 it's great, on X it's painful (on my Cube and my iBook 466). This is not a question of perception, this is reality. This is "slow" that everyone used to describe OS X 10.0...but worse. I know people won't believe it until you try it, but when you do you'll say "wow, it really *is* slow." It's hard to say what even goes on..it's not like it's frantically accessing the disk, it just sits and stares at you, mocking you.

2. Connectix implemented the same license protection that Msoft did. That is, when you have two copies running on a network with the same license key it stops you in your tracks. Not only does it warn you on the second machine, but also on the first machine so they both stop working until one or the other is exited.
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 7, 2001, 02:52 PM
 
Originally posted by De Luca:
<STRONG>Two things:

1. VPC5 is so slow it's almost not suitable for release. On 9 it's great, on X it's painful (on my Cube and my iBook 466). This is not a question of perception, this is reality. This is "slow" that everyone used to describe OS X 10.0...but worse. I know people won't believe it until you try it, but when you do you'll say "wow, it really *is* slow." It's hard to say what even goes on..it's not like it's frantically accessing the disk, it just sits and stares at you, mocking you.</STRONG>
Yes, it's slow (VERY slow with VPC 4.1 anyway), and they need to continue the tweaking for speed but:

1) You need a faster computer (fast G4)
2) You need lots of RAM.

I have an iBook 600 and it is very slow, but speeds definitely improved with 640 RAM (with 256 allocated VPC) over 384 (with 192 allocated to VPC). No more pageouts.

By the way, I'm convinced that a fixed disk size on a separate partition with contiguous file info would speed up VPC. Unfortunately for me that's not how my VPC 4.1 is setup.
     
De Luca
Junior Member
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Somerville, MA USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 7, 2001, 03:15 PM
 
Originally posted by Eug:
<STRONG>Yes, it's slow (VERY slow with VPC 4.1 anyway), and they need to continue the tweaking for speed but:

1) You need a faster computer (fast G4)
2) You need lots of RAM.

I have an iBook 600 and it is very slow, but speeds definitely improved with 640 RAM (with 256 allocated VPC) over 384 (with 192 allocated to VPC). No more pageouts.

By the way, I'm convinced that a fixed disk size on a separate partition with contiguous file info would speed up VPC. Unfortunately for me that's not how my VPC 4.1 is setup.</STRONG>
4.1? Is that the test drive? Either way, the program is night and day when in X or 9. People on here with dual processor G4's are complaining of speed. I'm sure this is not all connectix's fault as OS X is still sluggish, yet improved. I would think my cube would be sufficient and I doubt more ram would to anything considering there's no disk access going on..just loooooong pauses. Maybe a 1ghz g4 would do it, but then again, I'll buy a $400 pc before I buy a $3000 G4 just to run VPC.
     
Severed Hand of Skywalker
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: The bottom of Cloud City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 7, 2001, 03:16 PM
 
VPC 4.1 for OS9 is acceptable on my G4 Cube with 448 megs of RAM. The test drive for OSX was slow as hell on the same computer. I guess they just have to tweak things for OSX.

"Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh"
     
Eugene Fields
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Hampton Bays, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 7, 2001, 03:23 PM
 
[QUOTE]Originally posted by De Luca:

1. VPC5 is so slow it's almost not suitable for release. On 9 it's great, on X it's painful (on my Cube and my iBook 466). This is not a question of perception, this is reality. This is "slow" that everyone used to describe OS X 10.0...but worse. I know people won't believe it until you try it, but when you do you'll say "wow, it really *is* slow." It's hard to say what even goes on..it's not like it's frantically accessing the disk, it just sits and stares at you, mocking you.

I don't use VPC but just heard some news for all of you who do!!! It seems that the speed issue is atteneded to by 'upping' the priority of the Program using Terminal and 'nice' commands!

This was discoverd on one of the boards Macfixit or one of them don't remebemr sorry. Maybe someone can 'flesh out' this info as it it should be an option on install and eventually probably will be. Seems like they missed a golden opertunity and pissed eveyone off in the process.. when a 'simple' 'correction fixes the isuue.

Most users are not at all comfortable using Terminal so an easier method will be developed soon I'm sure. Id like a program that let me controll the Prioroty with out Terminal anxiety..heh.

I wonder how fast the Command line Seti can run with that 'nice' fix. Though its probobly better to leave it alone as I want it in the backround Out of my awareness. Curious though...


<font color = red> </font>

[ 12-07-2001: Message edited by: Eugene Fields ]
"Recent history is the record of a vast conspiracy to
impose one level of mechanical consciousness on mankind."
Allen Ginsberg
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 7, 2001, 03:53 PM
 
Originally posted by Eugene Fields:
I don't use VPC but just heard some news for all of you who do!!! It seems that the speed issue is atteneded to by 'upping' the priority of the Program using Terminal and 'nice' commands!

This was discoverd on one of the boards Macfixit or one of them don't remebemr sorry. Maybe someone can 'flesh out' this info as it it should be an option on install and eventually probably will be. Seems like they missed a golden opertunity and pissed eveyone off in the process.. when a 'simple' 'correction fixes the isuue.

Most users are not at all comfortable using Terminal so an easier method will be developed soon I'm sure. Id like a program that let me controll the Prioroty with out Terminal anxiety..heh.

I wonder how fast the Command line Seti can run with that 'nice' fix. Though its probobly better to leave it alone as I want it in the backround Out of my awareness. Curious though...
What that does is increase the priority of VPC over other programs. Ie. if I have iTunes running and I set VPC to the highest priority, iTunes will sometimes skip more often in MP3 playback. Of course, if nothing else is running, changing the VPC priority doesn't do a whole lot. I have no desire to run iTunes when running VPC since VPC is so slow to begin with.
     
Earth Mk. II
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 7, 2001, 04:08 PM
 
Just a guess, but VPC 4/5 require the G3+ chips because of their endian switching mode. I'd imagine that because there are usually background tasks demanding CPU time, especially in OS X, the overhead of switching from Big to little endian must be pretty large (probably have to flush the pipeline). In OS 9 it's probably able to dominate the CPU and switches the endian modes less. (Another thought - this might be how it uses dual CPU configs in X. One CPU to run your Darwin/OS X stuff on, and the other in emulation mode for VPC - though Mach probably doesn't allow this to be executed perfectly)

All that from what (very) little I know about CPU's, Darwin, and a few tech publications/FAQ's I read on connectix's site awhile ago. So take it all with a grain of salt, and if I'm off on anything (I probably am) please correct me. (but sometimes it pays to read Ars. )
/Earth\ Mk\.\ I{2}/
     
chuckeroo
Junior Member
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 7, 2001, 05:25 PM
 
I have a DP 500 G4 w/ over 800 megs of RAM. VPC 5 is simply too slow to use. I was running Windows 2000 on VPC 4 in OS9, and it was kind of slow, but still usable when necessary. Windows 2000 in X w/ VPC 5 is slower than VPC 4 in OS9. Windows XP in OSX is absolutely unusable. Ever feel like "progress" really isn't in the direction you'd like? Seems to be a trend in software these days. Just an observation through teary eyes looking at the money I've spent on software that was better 2 versions ago than it is now.
Late
     
Fallout
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Edmonton, AB
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 7, 2001, 07:17 PM
 
How does VPC 5 perform in OS9?
Version 4 is on the edge of being unusably slow in 9 with an iMac 400 with 320 ram. I wouldn't even consider trying to use 5 in OSX, judging by other people's comments.
     
juanvaldes  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Seattle, WA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 7, 2001, 08:26 PM
 
Originally posted by absmiths:
<STRONG>This is a sick trick by Connectix to raise money. This release was supposed to be VPC 4.x and be a free upgrade to VPC 4.0 buyers who bought just to participate in the Test Drive (There was, of course, no mention of the 11-1 cut-off when I purchased the stupid thing on 10-17!). I think Connectix used a couple of enhancements to justify the 5.0 upgrade because they need money.

Does noone else here remember Connectix saying that Test Drive users would get a free upgrade to the released OS X VPC? They are being generous, though, they said the Test Drive will remain active until January - how thoughtful.

[ 12-06-2001: Message edited by: absmiths ]</STRONG>
oh I do. THat is why I am os farking pissed at them.

If nothing else the 11-1 cut off shows just how "generous" they are being. They should have done AT LEAST 2 or 3 months. Should have just lived up to their original promise of all 4.0 users to get a free upgrade for OS X support.

I will not buy it, and I have advised my father to also not upgrade. Just use the power of UNIX to write a script and you can enjoy the test drive indefinitely.
The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it always to be kept alive.
- Thomas Jefferson, 1787
     
Jim Paradise
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 7, 2001, 08:38 PM
 
" Ever feel like "progress" really isn't in the direction you'd like? Seems to be a trend in software these days. Just an observation through teary eyes looking at the money I've spent on software that was better 2 versions ago than it is now."


Agreed... what's with that? With the exception of FCP which seems to constantly get better and of course, a few other programs that do get better... But still..... Lots of apps seem to be getting bigger and slower.
     
zigmeister
Forum Regular
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Nowhereland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 7, 2001, 08:41 PM
 
Man, it's so slow it's driving me nuts. Much worse then the test drive on my Beige G3.
Master of Zigs
     
KellyHogan
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: The Breakaway Democratic Banana Republic of Jakichanistan.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 8, 2001, 06:56 AM
 
How do I install an OS from CD? I've got DOS only but when I access the CD drive from DOS I get a message that says it cant run the Windows 2000 setup from CD in DOS. And that capture CD image just confuses me.
     
Telomar
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Oz
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 8, 2001, 07:44 AM
 
Originally posted by Fallout:
<STRONG>How does VPC 5 perform in OS9?
Version 4 is on the edge of being unusably slow in 9 with an iMac 400 with 320 ram. I wouldn't even consider trying to use 5 in OSX, judging by other people's comments.</STRONG>
In 9 I found a noticeable improvement over 4. It was worthwhile to me for that alone even though it isn't huge.

VPC 5 in OS X isn't wonderful though as people have said. There are a number of issues. It is better though than the test drive. In the test drive an operation that took me 6 seconds now takes 1 or 2. Still it is a process that under 9 is done in around half a second.
     
godzookie2k
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 8, 2001, 09:48 AM
 
VPC 5 in OS X isn't wonderful though as people have said. There are a number of issues. It is better though than the test drive. In the test drive an operation that took me 6 seconds now takes 1 or 2. Still it is a process that under 9 is done in around half a second.
Damn, you must have gotten a different vpc 5 than me. W2K is just murderously slow.

Kellyhogan: put your w2k/98/95/me cd in the drive, start up your vpc (make sure it is starting up, not 'restoring pc state). if its a true-blue w2k/98/95/me cd the installer will auto run.


Nick
     
KellyHogan
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: The Breakaway Democratic Banana Republic of Jakichanistan.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 8, 2001, 12:22 PM
 
Originally posted by godzookie2k:
<STRONG>

Damn, you must have gotten a different vpc 5 than me. W2K is just murderously slow.

Kellyhogan: put your w2k/98/95/me cd in the drive, start up your vpc (make sure it is starting up, not 'restoring pc state). if its a true-blue w2k/98/95/me cd the installer will auto run.


Nick</STRONG>
OK, I got it to install. I was putting the CD in after DOS booted.

After installing Windows 2000 on VPC5 and I have to say if this is full speed emulation then Connectix should give up trying to sell such a shoddy product. There has been zero improvement in two years.

The only way VPC could improve is if it enabled graphic acceleration and passed the video to the Macs graphic chip. There is no point trying to emulate a 6 year old shite graphics cards like the Tri 32/64. Until then I suggest that anyone who wants a cheap Windows box should pick up a second hand 200Mhz Pentium box which is still faster than VPC and has accelerated graphics. It should cost only a couple hundred bucks. Hardly a difference.
     
amontague
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 8, 2001, 01:46 PM
 
I downloaded VPC 5 and I'm running it on my B+W G3 350 (below recommended speed). I find the speed acceptable on 10.1. It's faster than VPC 2.1 running on the same machine in OS 9. I have 640 MB of RAM. I'm sure that helps. I use VPC to view web pages as I design them. It's great to be able to view the pages without booting into OS 9.

I run Apache on OS X so that I can view dynamic pages locally. I was hoping to be able to view these pages from Windows in VPC but I haven't been able to access "http://localhost" in VPC. Does anyone know how to do this?

Andrew Montague
www.draiochtweb.com
     
godzookie2k
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 8, 2001, 02:28 PM
 
yeah do a http://your.ip.here

however, I have a gig of ram and *I* find w2k unacceptable under 10.1 so I guess the speed perceptions are a matter of pickiness. I use vpc for looking at web pages and thats about it too, though I'd prefer if it didn't work so damn sluggishly...

Nick
     
barbarian
Senior User
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Palo Alto, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 8, 2001, 03:07 PM
 
Here's another problem with VPC 5 on OS X:

It doesn't handle long filenames properly when dragging from VPC Win 2K to OS X.

"the beatles - I wanna hold your hand (live ed sullivan).mp3" becomes "the beatles - I wanna hold~8198"

Under OS 9 the situation is equally annoying, but handled slightly more elegantly:

the same file becomes "the beatles - I anna h~5817.mp3" (at least the extenstion is kept).

When you view a regular long OS X filename in OS 9, it has the numeric code tag, but at least it means something (when you look at in X again, the name is normal). The tags added to dragged Win2K docs are simply garbage added to the filename.

Secondly dragging files from VPC to OS X is obnoxiously slow. Dragging a file out of the VPC window literally stops the machine in it's tracks and you have to wait a good 15 seconds for OS X to realize a file is being dragged. (Under OS 9 the process is slow, but tolerable... you just have to drag slowly).

This is on a 500mhz G4 with 960 megs of memory.
     
Groovy
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 8, 2001, 11:31 PM
 
however, I have a gig of ram and *I* find w2k unacceptable under 10.1 so I guess the speed perceptions are a matter of pickiness

yes it is slow but you can do 3 things to really speed it up.


1) give it RAM. lots. Give at least 256megs
(VM kills speed big time so don't let W2k hit
the VPC virtual C drive)

2)
a. Run full screen (this will dump quartz and use their blitters etc... much faster.
b. thousands of colors (both W2K and your Mac)

3) renice/nice VPC in the terminal and give it real time priorty. however while in the background VPC will also eat CPU big time so.... be aware of this. You need to do this each time you run VPC.

do all the above and it doubles the speed from the out of box defaults


later


Groovy

[ 12-08-2001: Message edited by: Groovy ]

[ 12-08-2001: Message edited by: Groovy ]
     
KellyHogan
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: The Breakaway Democratic Banana Republic of Jakichanistan.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 9, 2001, 06:10 AM
 
3) renice/nice VPC in the terminal and give it real time priorty. however while in the background VPC will also eat CPU big time so.... be aware of this. You need to do this each time you run VPC.

do all the above and it doubles the speed from the out of box defaults


later


Groovy

[ 12-08-2001: Message edited by: Groovy

[ 12-08-2001: Message edited by: Groovy ][/QB]
How do you nice/renice?
     
bluehz
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 9, 2001, 07:06 AM
 
I installed VPC 5.0 on my iBook 2001 and fired it up with a VPC WIN98 disk image and it was unbearably slow. Useless in fact. I even tried the renice commands and they did not seem to make any difference. After reading many an unhappy post on the subject and gathering tips - I found the following setup really helps a lot and makes VPC usable again (still not great speed, but MUCH better):

* Renice to -16
* Give VPC lots of memory
* Windows 2000 (MUCH faster than WIN98)
* Run full-screen (didn't think this would work but it was a noticeable speed bump)
     
KellyHogan
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: The Breakaway Democratic Banana Republic of Jakichanistan.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 9, 2001, 08:44 AM
 
Running full screen made it a bit faster but still not really usable in the real world. There's just no GUI acceleration in hardware. Quartz itself is CPU intensive and then the CPU has to deal with VPC running on top.

Connectix shouldn't be charging the same amount for a Virtual PC as a real second hand PC costing a couple of hundred bucks. It was a bad enough con when I bought VPC4 because I believed it really was much faster than version 3.
     
mr_sonicblue
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Eagan, MN
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 9, 2001, 04:26 PM
 
Off to OS X - Software wid'cha...
     
timmerk
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 9, 2001, 08:09 PM
 
Windows 2000 is faster than 98 in virtual pc 5? How much faster? Also, can i run Win 98 apps in it?
     
Lerkfish
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 10, 2001, 12:32 AM
 
FWIW, I happened to accidentally make this discovery:
From my 4.0 I had a copy of my initial C drive without any extraneous programs loaded (like freehand, golive, etc.) in an extra folder, and my fully loaded with stuff I need C drive in another folder.

When I installed VPC 5, I forgot and chose the wrong Cdrive, the one with nothing but the OS on it. I updated the additions on it to run with VPC 5, and started to open up freehand...oops! So I opened the loaded Cdrive and updated it.

The accidental discovery was the OS-only Cdrive ran very fast, in fact I was excited! The loaded Cdrive was unbearably slow, especially by comparison.

I haven't had time to try yet, but I wondered if I used the OS-only and reloaded my extra apps one at a time if it would run any faster.

I was using win98, so I also am thinking of trying to buy XP and see if that runs any faster ...if 2000 supposedly runs faster, would Xp run even faster ? I dunno. but XP home version is only 99 dollars, and 2000 is 160, so it seems cheaper.


anyone else tried XP on it yet?
     
scarab
Forum Regular
Join Date: Sep 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 10, 2001, 08:14 AM
 
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!
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:31 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,