PDA

View Full Version : Anyone using Q? How is it?



mlrproducts
Jan 28, 2007, 03:49 AM
Anyone using Q? How does it run? And what Win OS are you using?


wmmk
Jan 29, 2007, 09:28 PM
Anyone using Q? How does it run? And what Win OS are you using?

I used it as an emu on the ppc mini. not bad. never tried virtualization on my mbp. I oughta try...
SC68Cal
Jan 29, 2007, 09:50 PM
I've used Q, it's only downside is using OSZoo, they've had some bandwith issues.
maxrobertson
Jan 29, 2007, 10:42 PM
I use it a little bit. It's pretty good, not mind blowing but it's easy and it works. It's a little slow, but you can't expect much else out of an emulator.

Plus, it's free!
Lovesong
Jan 29, 2007, 10:47 PM
Pros: Free (speech)
Cons: XP on it runs like molasses. I had it on a Dual 2.5 G5 with 5GB of RAM, and it was so bad that I uninstalled it, and put Windoze98 instead. It really didn't matter which OS I was using for the software I needed, but after a couple of weeks I simply stopped using it. If you want to try it- go for it. I'm sure it's as good as many of the other emulators out there.
WildPalms
Jan 29, 2007, 10:52 PM
Pros: Free (speech)
Cons: XP on it runs like molasses. I had it on a Dual 2.5 G5 with 5GB of RAM, and it was so bad that I uninstalled it, and put Windoze98 instead. It really didn't matter which OS I was using for the software I needed, but after a couple of weeks I simply stopped using it. If you want to try it- go for it. I'm sure it's as good as many of the other emulators out there.

I tried it as well over the course of 2 weeks. Tested with XP, 2000, 98 SE and even tried BeOS in it. Unfortunately, each was slow and just unbearable. If you have a bucket of patience then maybe, but I couldnt handle how slow it was and got rid of it. Parallels is far far better and cheap I think.
Lovesong
Jan 29, 2007, 10:54 PM
I tried it as well over the course of 2 weeks. Tested with XP, 2000, 98 SE and even tried BeOS in it. Unfortunately, each was slow and just unbearable. If you have a bucket of patience then maybe, but I couldnt handle how slow it was and got rid of it. Parallels is far far better and cheap I think.

Right... and if you have an intel machine, you are very unlikely to need an emulator... or is that just me?
WildPalms
Jan 29, 2007, 11:11 PM
Right... and if you have an intel machine, you are very unlikely to need an emulator... or is that just me?

I was using it on my G5 and the last time I checked it had a PPC chip...
Lovesong
Jan 29, 2007, 11:16 PM
I was using it on my G5 and the last time I checked it had a PPC chip...

Hmmm... why was it that I thought you needed an intel chip to run Parallels? Their site reads:
"Parallels Desktop for Mac is the first solution for Intel-Macs that give you the flexibility of running Windows on a Mac OS X simultaneously without rebooting. You can use Parallels Desktop for Mac on any Intel-powered iMac, Mac Mini, MacBook, MacBook Pro, & Mac Pro Towers."

Am I just misreading you? Sorry, don't mean to be a smartass.
WildPalms
Jan 29, 2007, 11:23 PM
Hmmm... why was it that I thought you needed an intel chip to run Parallels? Their site reads:
"Parallels Desktop for Mac is the first solution for Intel-Macs that give you the flexibility of running Windows on a Mac OS X simultaneously without rebooting. You can use Parallels Desktop for Mac on any Intel-powered iMac, Mac Mini, MacBook, MacBook Pro, & Mac Pro Towers."

Am I just misreading you? Sorry, don't mean to be a smartass.

I related my experience with Q and added that I finally purchased Parallels. The fact that I needed an Intel based machine to run Parallels is a given. Regardless, I did relate my experience with Q (which I thought is what you were asking the forum people about) and the rest of my statement was simply to relate what I did in the long run. I would recommend purchasing an Intel based Mac if you have a need to use Windows on a regular basis, otherwise, aside from Virtual PC, I dont see Q as being usable. I brain dump when I write so if its a bit vague, blame my brain :p
mlrproducts
Feb 4, 2007, 11:05 PM
Thanks for the posts. I was thinking I could try Q to rip/compress DVDs, but it looks like it'll be too slow. I've used Boot Camp on other machines, but frankly I'd like to be ripping and doing stuff in OS X at the same time.
apfhex
Feb 4, 2007, 11:30 PM
I was thinking I could try Q to rip/compress DVDs, but it looks like it'll be too slow.
As long as CPU emulation is involved, it will always be slow.

Just curious, do the various OS X DVD ripping/compressing options not fit your needs?
mlrproducts
Feb 5, 2007, 12:30 AM
As long as CPU emulation is involved, it will always be slow.

Just curious, do the various OS X DVD ripping/compressing options not fit your needs?

Well I was under the impression it wasn't slow with Parallels b/c it isn't "emulating" the hardware...?

Mac the Ripper just doesn't have the support for the latest copy protections, and AutoGK just kills handbrake in terms of quality.

Trust me, I'm sad about it!