Virtual PC 7 Preview? [Archive]

MacRumors

May 13, 2004, 05:09 AM

MacBidouille claims (http://www.hardmac.com/niouzcontenu.php?date=2004-05-12#2089) to have seen a demo of Virtual PC 7.0 for the Mac.

The software was apparently demoed for French resellers by Apple and Microsoft representatives.

New features include: Better support of Peripherals (especially USB), notably faster than previous version, should support dual processor as well as G5 based systems. The most notable new feature however is native support for graphic cards. This will reportedly allow video operations to be handled natively rather than through emulation.

Rob Nance

May 13, 2004, 05:13 AM

phampton81

May 13, 2004, 05:14 AM

Thanatoast

May 13, 2004, 05:24 AM

hallelieuah! i'm not a hardcore gamer, so i don't need huge amounts of power, but a enough to run a few older games would be nice. :) hope this pans out!

crap freakboy

May 13, 2004, 05:28 AM

hope this is true, Half-Life on a mac would be the dogs.
unfortunately I'll need something a little faster than this old sawtooth....bolo anyone?

aafuss1

May 13, 2004, 05:28 AM

Native video card support sounds potentially awesome. I doubt I'll be able to play Half Life 2 on my dual G5, but I might be able to keep my PC in the closet a little longer as far as some less intensive games.

I'm really looking forward to this release.
I wonder if the Windows version of VPC would be updated with Native video card support , just like the Mac version will have.

Veldek

May 13, 2004, 05:30 AM

It’s good to see that most of the new games, especially the top ones are ported to the Mac. But there are some older ones which don’t need much horsepower. For them, VPC 7 seems to be ideal. So, I’m looking forward to it!

nsb3000

May 13, 2004, 05:48 AM

windowsblowsass

May 13, 2004, 05:53 AM

I wonder if the Windows version of VPC would be updated with Native video card support , just like the Mac version will have.
:confused: umm there is no windows version it wold be pointless to emulate a windows machine on a windows machune

legion

May 13, 2004, 05:57 AM

:confused: umm there is no windows version it wold be pointless to emulate a windows machine on a windows machune

Maybe you should double check that...
There is a windows version and the point is for software developers who need to test against multiple systems or who don't want to corrupt their original system. Also, you can install Linux in VPC for windows (multiple distros.)

Time to think bigger..

legion

May 13, 2004, 05:58 AM

What I would like to know is weather it will still be a true "virtual PC", or weather we will be limited to running just Windows on it.

Otherwise, it sounds like Microsoft has added some nice features...

whether not weather (unless this really is about the chance of rain or overcast skies)

nsb3000

May 13, 2004, 06:00 AM

:confused: umm there is no windows version it wold be pointless to emulate a windows machine on a windows machune

Completely incorrect. The windows version is used to create virtual test machines, with different operating systems, different configurations, that you can run all from one machine,.

See this link: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/virtualpc/

denm316

May 13, 2004, 06:02 AM

This is great news, however I would be much more excited if the earlier rumor did not say that it was delayed till the second half of 2004. Everything relating to my Mac is always delayed.

Masao[RY]

May 13, 2004, 06:28 AM

If VPC7 has native card support, I may just buy it. Although on the article page, it says DirectX will not be supported? How would that effect games? Also couldn't this be an excuse for companies not to be porting games to the mac? I just dread hearing, "We no longer support the Macintosh platform, but you might be able to run X game via VPC7."

Flickta

May 13, 2004, 06:31 AM

Too good to be true. I think this comes straight from the rumor of native vid-card support in the now dead realpc. There are so many games (the ONLY reason to have a pc somewhere in the house) which would play ideally on the mac (vpc processor will be fast enough for any games released prior to 2001-2002, eh?)... I just can't believe it. :(

BornAgainMac

May 13, 2004, 06:33 AM

:confused: umm there is no windows version it wold be pointless to emulate a windows machine on a windows machune

I disagree.

1) There are some programs that will not run on the newer versions of Windows and you have to use something old like Win95. (Think of it as our classic)

2) Some Windows programs don't get along when installed on the same machine

3) Great for testing a program on a fresh copy of Windows and restoring Windows is easy

4) A image of Windows can be copied to another machine running Virtual PC

I think Virtual PC makes Windows better than Windows, it is mainly speed that you lose.

Vanilla

May 13, 2004, 06:33 AM

Snowster

May 13, 2004, 06:48 AM

What I would like to know is whether it will still be a true "virtual PC", or whether we will be limited to running just Windows on it.

Otherwise, it sounds like Microsoft has added some nice features...

EDIT: Compensated for dyslexia

I saw a demo where they had Windows 2 and Windows 3.0 installed in Virtual PC 7. You can even create a disk image without any os, and it shows the same error message in 'dos' as it did with older versions. If I understood it correctly there will be different versions of VPC7 and one of them will be sold without an os.

-Snowster

Mercury

May 13, 2004, 06:51 AM

Holy crap; that would be amazing. It's what RealPC kept promising, and well, where are they?

With native graphics support, I'm going to bust out all the legacy games. I always wanted to play XWA and X-Wing vs. TIE Fighter...

Not to mention 90% of the rest of the games out there.

stingerman

May 13, 2004, 06:51 AM

Native video card support sounds potentially awesome. I doubt I'll be able to play Half Life 2 on my dual G5, but I might be able to keep my PC in the closet a little longer as far as some less intensive games.

I'm really looking forward to this release.

Not only a native video drive, but native DirectX. It's a three-fold benefit: 1. Less work on the system, systems graphics need not be emulated.
2. Much faster graphics since they will be run through the GPU hardware.
3. Much more processor time to emulate the x86 since graphics are out of the way.

In addition, if it takes advantage of dual GPU's, than it has better threading support, which will mean an even greater boost. Who knows, maybe VPC will be the future core of the new Xbox2, especially if MSFT ports Win32 as well. I imagine it shouldn't be so hard for them to port Win32. Especially with third parties like the Darwin Wine project doing it.

amberashby

May 13, 2004, 07:01 AM

SpaceMagic

May 13, 2004, 07:01 AM

I personally cannot wait for VPC7... I have a G5 and im dying to try it out.
DirectX on the Card will be fantastic, it'll mean speed :p. Im not so sure about the reports use of conditional clauses... 'it should...' 'it will...'

hvfsl

May 13, 2004, 07:13 AM

I am really looking forward to this. I have some PC software that requires a dual monitor setup to work. Hopefully I will be able use my PowerBook G4 instead of a PC laptop for this, in future. :)

PPC970FX

May 13, 2004, 07:13 AM

HL2 will come in a year or more. Hehe I have a poster "gaming 2003 HL2"

And I will be able to play CS on a mac :cool: But mac have som bad graphic cards. Realy bad graphic cards. The best is 9800Pro, and that cost a lot.

Hm can you start the PC in VPC and go inn the BIOS to overclock the G5??

Veldek

May 13, 2004, 07:23 AM

Hm can you start the PC in VPC and go inn the BIOS to overclock the G5??

You could only change any emulated parts, not the real hardware.

SiliconAddict

May 13, 2004, 07:35 AM

Screw games! If the system can offload some of the load onto the GPU instead of the CPU maybe I can run some of the more business oriented apps on a Mac. Love hate or despise Microsoft this is REALLY good news,

OK OK so maybe not screw games. I have more then a few that I would like to take with me when I get a Mac all of which are 2+ years old so hopefully they would run at least somewhat fast enough to be entertaining. This would be seriously sweet.

qubex

May 13, 2004, 07:56 AM

I am somewhat dubious about VirtualPC. More than anything, I see it as a last resort: something to fall back on if there is absolutely no tool available to run natively under OSX to get the job done. Getting excited about VPC7 really suggests that, performance-wise, getting an Apple computer may have not been a very rational choice.

Even if graphics are offloaded natively to the GPU (speaking of which - which GPUs will be supported? Nvidia, ATI, all of them...?) there will still be an atrocious performance hit when compared to running the same OS/application/game combination on a similarly priced PC. I expect that playing any PC games less than a year old will be a lacklustre experience even on top-grade G5 hardware.

Also please remember that running an application under VPC requires you run the OS too - this may be stating the obvious but it is a fact that is often overlooked. Personally, I find the Darwine Project (http://darwine.opendarwin.org/) to be far more promising, because it does not require that you run the OS in the background. It simply translates API calls. This does not necessarily mean that you don't have to possess a valid Windows licence (it still requires some Microsoft Windows .dll files that are subject to the EULA) but at least you don't need to run the whole kernel, all the Windows services, network stack, etc. on the background on your machine just to run, say, Microsoft Project. Darwine may not offer the lowlevel optimisations Microsoft is apparently implementing (at least not yet) but, native graphics aside, it will be a far more lithe system for running x86 applications on the Mac. It's also free, which is always an advantage.

I do of course keep a copy of VirtualPC 6 on my machine, and I expect I'll find myself buying a copy of VirtualPC 7 shortly after it is released - mainly as a fallback solution. But as an occasional FreeBSD user, I have grown to appreciate the flexibility of WINE and so that's the solution I'm really looking forward to.

chabig

May 13, 2004, 08:08 AM

michaelrjohnson

May 13, 2004, 08:17 AM

Will Microsoft sell VPC on its own, or must you buy Office Pro or Windows XP bundled with it?

I already have XP professional for my PC. Can I buy VPC all by itself and install my windows versions on it?

Thanks.

i'm not sure whether if you need to buy an OS pack or not. otherwise, sure, you could install it. it would be illegal...

Veldek

May 13, 2004, 08:18 AM

MorganX

May 13, 2004, 08:19 AM

RE: The talk about Virtual PC for Windows...I don't think Virtual PC for Windows emulates hardware at all. It's kind of a fancy uber-OS that lets you manage one or more than one operating system on a single machine.

Chris

It does the exact same thing using the exact same interface that VirtualPC for Mac does. And PC users are loving it.

Longhorn installs in a VirtualPC. Windows Server Enterprise. Of course, because it doesn't have to emulate x86 performance is much, much better than VPC on Mac.

Time for all those MS-haters who swore up and down MS would kill VPC Mac to eat some crow. Sounds like they're making it better than ever.

MorganX

May 13, 2004, 08:24 AM

This is great news, however I would be much more excited if the earlier rumor did not say that it was delayed till the second half of 2004. Everything relating to my Mac is always delayed.

Have you ever considered writing complex software is..... hard? Especially given the ambitious goals in this upgrade (native GPU, SMP, G5 Support). Adding that alone, with stability, is worth a 6-12 month extension.

GetSome681

May 13, 2004, 08:24 AM

I am somewhat dubious about VirtualPC. More than anything, I see it as a last resort: something to fall back on if there is absolutely no tool available to run natively under OSX to get the job done. Getting excited about VPC7 really suggests that, performance-wise, getting an Apple computer may have not been a very rational choice.

No. Right now I am stuck with my powerbook and a pc, just because I like to game. However, I will glady trash the pc and just settle w/ a few of the biggest games for the mac, and pickup a G5 ONLY if vpc7 can play the one game that I can't live without. It's sorta an old game, and not too demanding, heck I can almost play it in vpc6, however the networking emulation is too slow as my pings are all over the place.

chabig

May 13, 2004, 08:38 AM

Well, it has to emulate a x86-processor, doesn’t it? How else could the apps work?

Virtual PC for Windows RUNS on an x86 processor. So there is no need for emulation. It's kind of like the way OS X runs Classic--another OS running on the same machine. And OS X doesn't run Classic by emulating a PowerPC processor, because there is a real one already there.

nervouce

May 13, 2004, 08:53 AM

I think Virtual PC makes Windows better than Windows, it is mainly speed that you lose.

I'd like to install Virtual PC on a copy of Virtual PC, on a copy of Virtual PC on a copy of Virtual PC on... yep, another copy of Virtual PC.... etc... How deep can I go? And how do I explain this to my 60 year-old Dad, who asks questions like "am I on the internet, or an I on e-mail?" ??

n.

SilentPanda

May 13, 2004, 08:58 AM

i'm not sure whether if you need to buy an OS pack or not. otherwise, sure, you could install it. it would be illegal...

Why would it be illegal? I have VPC 5 (no sense in upgrading to 6 with version 7 coming out) and it came with Windows 2000 but I could install Windows XP, Windows ME, Windows 98, DOS 6.1, whatever I want. You could buy VPC with or without the OS. Either way you can install whatever versions of Windows you own. But maybe I am misunderstanding you.

tannyboy

May 13, 2004, 08:58 AM

Howdo y'all.

Video Support - Woohoo!, i can only hope :D
Im considering to get this because i use Access for websites and other stuff, but if it can allow me to play a few games here and there - ill be cashin up and getting it. Well as long as it can play 'gunbound' ill be happy!

Cheers All

KingOfPain

May 13, 2004, 08:59 AM

RE: The talk about Virtual PC for Windows...I don't think Virtual PC for Windows emulates hardware at all. It's kind of a fancy uber-OS that lets you manage one or more than one operating system on a single machine.

I think that VPC/Win32 is a virtual machine just like VMware, which means that they actually use the real processor to run most of the instructions.
But all the other hardware has to be emulated, because you cannot have several operating systems access your printer or network card at the same time, ie. those components are emulated and the VMM (virtual machine monitor) passes them on to the host operating system.

What I mentioned so far is true for all virtual machines on any hardware, but the IA-32 (aka x86) is a special case. You cannot have a guest operating system inspecting or even changing superuser settings, thus in "normal" architectures previleged instructions cause an exception when executed in user mode. In the case of the IA-32 this is only true for the special V86 mode, but that was only designed to virtualize the real-mode and have several DOS boxes running.
Intel never really thought of virtualization of the protected mode, so only some previleged instructions cause exceptions in user mode, but several don't. This means that a VMM for the IA-32 not only has to emulate the previleged instructions (which all VMMs on any hardware have to do to make the guest OS think it has a machine all by its own) , but it also has to make sure that all previleged instructions actually cause expecptions. This means that it basically has to analyze each code block before execution, and replace each problematic instruction with a breakpoint.
Actually this isn't too dissimilar of what VPC/Mac does, only that VPC/Win32 keeps track of which instructions were replaced by the breakpoints and VPC/Mac translates the whole code block to PPC machine code. But the need to analyze code blocks before being able to execute it is present in both instances.

So there is an awful lot of stuff going on in a virtual machine, and even more so in one running on a PC, although probably over 90% of the instructions are executed directly by the processor with no emulation whatsoever involved.

AidenShaw

May 13, 2004, 09:01 AM

Virtual PC for Windows RUNS on an x86 processor. So there is no need for emulation. It's kind of like the way OS X runs Classic--another OS running on the same machine. And OS X doesn't run Classic by emulating a PowerPC processor, because there is a real one already there.

Please open up your definition of "emulation" to include situations where the emulated hardware has the same instruction set as the real hardware.

"Instruction set emulation" is not part of Virtual PC/Virtual Server for Windows, but emulation of a virtual hardware machine is part of it. The common use of the term "emulate" in computer science is to describe any situation where a program sees non-existent hardware. Instruction set emulation is just a subset of the common use of the term.

(The comment above about the need to trap and emulate inner mode instructions is probably true, so there is probably some amount of instruction set emulation even running an x86 guest on an x86 host.)

To wit:

Virtual PC emulates a physical computer so exactly that the applications users install in them don’t distinguish the virtual machine from a physical computer.

Microsoft® Virtual PC 2004 Technical Overview ( http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/virtualpc/evaluation/techoverview.asp )

Emulates the Intel 440BX chipset, including all the auxiliary chips that are required:
o 8259 programmable interrupt controller (PIC)
o 8254 peripheral interval timer (PIT)
o 8237 direct memory access (DMA) controller
o CMOS RAM (persistent RAM)
o Real-time clock (RTC)

The emulated environment "sees" the same processor model as the processor of the physical computer.

Emulates a Creative Labs ISA Sound Blaster 16 sound card.

Emulates the S3 Trio 32/64 PCI Super VGA (SVGA) card.

Emulates a PS/2 mouse by using IRQ 12.

Emulates an 8255 keyboard controller

Emulates the standard floppy disk drive controller interface.

Overview of the technical specifications of virtual machines in Virtual PC 2004 ( http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;833144#appliesto )

Seems to me that if "gestalt" says that I have a 440BX chipset with an S3 card and ISA SoundBlaster, and my machine is an 850E with a Quadro and an Audigy - then I must be running on an emulated machine.

ACED

May 13, 2004, 09:11 AM

This will boost switcher numbers, but reduce computer sales I fear once people realise they can run the same apps on a PC and pocket the change.

Veldek

May 13, 2004, 09:13 AM

KingOfPain

May 13, 2004, 09:14 AM

I am somewhat dubious about VirtualPC. More than anything, I see it as a last resort: something to fall back on if there is absolutely no tool available to run natively under OSX to get the job done.

Of course it would be insane to buy a Mac, and then mainly work under Windows via VPC, but it's good to have that option, and it'll also be far faster to launch VPC on my G5 than having to wait till my old PC has booted.

Even if graphics are offloaded natively to the GPU (speaking of which - which GPUs will be supported? Nvidia, ATI, all of them...?) there will still be an atrocious performance hit when compared to running the same OS/application/game combination on a similarly priced PC. I expect that playing any PC games less than a year old will be a lacklustre experience even on top-grade G5 hardware.

That's clear, it's an emulation after all. And I still remember too well the last time graphics hardware support was announced and the final outcome to be too thrilled by this news before I have actual proof that it works.
But I have to admit, the possibility to play Half-Life 1, Jedi Knight, and other rather outdated games without having to use my old PC that isn't running too well anymore would be a nice one.

Also please remember that running an application under VPC requires you run the OS too - this may be stating the obvious but it is a fact that is often overlooked. Personally, I find the Darwine Project (http://darwine.opendarwin.org/) to be far more promising, because it does not require that you run the OS in the background.

I agree, which is why I use DOSBox instead of Bochs for DOS applications. Not only is DOSBox far easier to set up, and you don't have to install an operating system first, but it's also much faster than Bochs.
But Darwine is still far from a running state, not to mention a practically usable one. So VPC is the only real option to run Windows applications if you have to (since Bochs is way too slow), but Darwine certainly is something to look out for.

Of course VPC also has the advantage that it doesn't just run applications for a specific operating system, like DOSBox or WINE, but enables you to run different PC operating systems, which can be a nice or maybe even necessary feature for some users.

I certainly know what you mean, and I can agree with you for a large part, but you shouldn't forget that each approach has its own advantages and disadvantages. I don't see Darwine making VPC obsolete or the other way round.

qubex

May 13, 2004, 09:38 AM

You cannot have a guest operating system inspecting or even changing superuser settings, thus in "normal" architectures previleged instructions cause an exception when executed in user mode. In the case of the IA-32 this is only true for the special V86 mode, but that was only designed to virtualize the real-mode and have several DOS boxes running.
Intel never really thought of virtualization of the protected mode, so only some previleged instructions cause exceptions in user mode, but several don't. This means that a VMM for the IA-32 not only has to emulate the previleged instructions (which all VMMs on any hardware have to do to make the guest OS think it has a machine all by its own) , but it also has to make sure that all previleged instructions actually cause expecptions.
This is really best summarised as running some code in Ring-3 and making it believe it is running in the privileged Ring-0. Basically, in the case of IA-32 on IA-32 virtualisation (as opposed to emulation) you're constructing a software jail to run potentially untrustworthy code without the risk of it affecting the host system. Doing this isn't particularly difficult (the FreeBSD team nailed this ages ago with its jail( ) system call, as did VMware) - the problem is doing it efficiently without bogging down the system. That is where the mastery lies.

I'm very curious to see the outcome. Even though as I have indicated I don't anticipate relying on VPC7 for anything critical or even for gaming, it stands to be a pretty impressive software product from the technical point-of-view. That's why the announcement of the delay doesn't concern me particularly.

Phatpat

May 13, 2004, 09:43 AM

i'll believe it when I see it. We've had bad experiences with claims of "native video card support" in the past...

chabig

May 13, 2004, 09:44 AM

Interesting discussion about emulation. I see the point about emulating the processor instruction set versus emulating other hardware.

Chris

SiliconAddict

May 13, 2004, 09:49 AM

wrldwzrd89

May 13, 2004, 10:03 AM

What I'd like to see VPC be able to do is unbundled the app from the OS. Launching the app from the start menu from the dock would bring up a screen inside of OS X instead of Windows. Windows would still be running but the VPC would actually draw the GUI outside the OS. Similar to how Citrix apps can run in a virtual session that for all intents and appearances looks like a local app.
If VPC can already do this sorry :o The only instances of where I've gotten to place with VPC is at an Apple store. Actually the folks there were cool enough to let me load MapPoint to see how well it runs. Wasn't too bad. 25%-50% faster and they would have had a sale on their hands right then and there.
If you mean an implementation somewhat like Apple's rootless X11, with X11 windows drawn just like those of any other Mac OS X application, then yes, I'd LOVE to see Virtual PC get that ability. I've used VPC 6.1 before (but I don't anymore), and I know that currently, VPC does NOT have this ability.

qubex

May 13, 2004, 10:12 AM

wrldwzrd89

May 13, 2004, 10:18 AM

As far as I know, if you use VirtualPC 6 with Windows XP and the OS extensions, it already does this. I run Windows 2000 in my VPC so I don't have that benefit, but really I don't need it anyway.

There's actually a picture on the back of the box of a Microsoft Access XP icon sitting in the dock, and an Access window on the OSX desktop. Spooky.
That is correct, but what you describe is not what SiliconAddict described. The feature would work in such a way that you wouldn't see the Windows interface at all - Windows applications would draw their graphics using Quartz (through VPC, of course). You couldn't tell just by looking at the style of the window graphics whether you were running a Mac OS X application or a Windows application.

qubex

May 13, 2004, 10:20 AM

Oh, sorry. My bad.

JohnGalt

May 13, 2004, 10:21 AM

forget games, if this means I can run PC specific Business applications (e.g. Actinic e-commerce software, Microsoft Project etc.) effectively on a G4 PowerBook, without the sensation of wading through treacle I will be overjoyed and will look forward to a ritual demolition of my remaining PC Desktop.

Yes, and maybe one will be able to run QuickBooks in mixed platform, multi-user (ie, PC) environments at better than 10% speed - which coincidentally seems to be about the speed Intuit is moving to integrate the PC and MAC worlds...... :eek:

Lancetx

May 13, 2004, 10:39 AM

Yes, and maybe one will be able to run QuickBooks in mixed platform, multi-user (ie, PC) environments at better than 10% speed - which coincidentally seems to be about the speed Intuit is moving to integrate the PC and MAC worlds...... :eek:

Boy do I hear you! The only thing keeping me from being 100% Mac is that there is not a version of Quicken and/or Microsoft Money with full cross platform file compatibility. And running the Windows versions of Quicken and Money on VPC 6 is slower than the time it takes for paint to dry...

SiliconAddict

May 13, 2004, 10:40 AM

i'll believe it when I see it. We've had bad experiences with claims of "native video card support" in the past...

The diff being that:

1. The people claiming this didn't have 5 BILLION in the bank.
2. The people who claimed this may have not had intentions beyond the Mac platform. Keep in mind if they can get the architecture of this to work they may be able to easily allow people running POWER5 CPU's to run some flavor of Windows Server with VPC. MS could have designs on trying to expand the platform of Windows beyond x86.
3. Last I heard rumor was that some "form" of VPC was going to ship with Longhorn to allow full backwards compat with previous versions of Windows.

For once I have to have a little faith in MS. I think the greed factor at this point will outweigh the screw-apple-over factor. Esp when you consider that Apple is at what?! 2% of the market right now?

xtbfx

May 13, 2004, 10:43 AM

Now I can finally play my old copies of Space Quest and Kings Quest! Woo-hoo!

Codemonkey

May 13, 2004, 11:00 AM

I for one am looking forward to this release. This should keep me from buying a PeeCee for testing apps/sites for a few more years.

To be honest, I'm more than a little surprised that M$ is actually putting effort into this.

And to address the "why bother emulating windows on windows" issue:

- as a developer working for a company who creates learning resuorces, I use VPC daily to test the web delivered projects on various OS/Browser combinations without booting into an new OS (disrupting development workflow), or rolling over to 4+ different workstations. This allows us to control our QA costs, while providing the broadest range of testing possible.

Relevant, invaluable, necessary and a welcomed tool.

Incidentally: is it possible to emulate the Mac OS (X) on Windows? :-P

swissmann

May 13, 2004, 11:05 AM

Many of the comments on this say good for games. It just made me realize how much many of us don't think of windows as anything really valuable but for playing games not ported to the Mac, kind of sad in a way.

I am hoping for a tremendous speed increase and not just a noticable one. Even mundane tasks seem so slow when switching from a Dual G5 to an emulated PC on a G4.

qubex

May 13, 2004, 11:05 AM

Incidentally: is it possible to emulate the Mac OS (X) on Windows?

Yes. (http://pearpc.sourceforge.net/)

Codemonkey

May 13, 2004, 11:14 AM

Excellent! Going to have to give this a try.

I wonder how much faster it is than Panther running natively? :eek:

Codemonkey

May 13, 2004, 11:16 AM

Excellent observation.

I for one am looking forward to doing all my graphics work in Photoshop CS emulated on Windows ME through VPC.

:D

CmdrLaForge

May 13, 2004, 11:16 AM

I already have XP professional for my PC. Can I buy VPC all by itself and install my windows versions on it?

Thanks.

If its the same as today - yes. If they don't sell it alone - you can't

wrldwzrd89

May 13, 2004, 11:17 AM

Yes. (http://pearpc.sourceforge.net/)
That link goes to a site offering a Mac OS/PowerPC emulator for Windows. It's in the earliest stages of development (pre-beta; maybe even pre-alpha) and is by no means ready for regular use or to be included as part of a package. It DOES prove that PowerPC emulation on x86 hardware is possible, just not perfected yet.

wrldwzrd89

May 13, 2004, 11:21 AM

Excellent observation.

I for one am looking forward to doing all my graphics work in Photoshop CS emulated on Windows ME through VPC.

:D
Why on earth would you want to use Windows ME, of all versions of Windows available? Windows ME is hated by reviewers everywhere, as well as by numerous Windows users that tried it. I skipped it (back when I had a PC in addition to a Mac) because of the horror stories I read about it (I went straight from Windows 98SE to Windows XP Home). Is there some feature of WinME that compels you to use it instead of Win2K or WinXP?

CmdrLaForge

May 13, 2004, 11:22 AM

Screw games! If the system can offload some of the load onto the GPU instead of the CPU maybe I can run some of the more business oriented apps on a Mac. Love hate or despise Microsoft this is REALLY good news,

Thats what I am hoping as well ! I still would like to run Microsoft Project on my Mac. There is noting compatible on the Mac site.

CmdrLaForge

May 13, 2004, 11:25 AM

Why on earth would you want to use Windows ME, of all versions of Windows available? Windows ME is hated by reviewers everywhere, as well as numerous Windows users that tried it. I skipped it (back when I had a PC in addition to a Mac) because of the horror stories I read about it (I went straight from Windows 98SE to Windows XP Home). Is there some feature of WinME that compels you to use it instead of Win2K or WinXP?

You are right. ME is buggy. Have seldom seen a Windows crashing that often. Better use 98 or 2000 if not XP. But I would expect that 98 runs faster. And still most games run on 98.

mrsebastian

May 13, 2004, 11:29 AM

what ever they can do to speedup vpc is huge. i use it for a few things here and there and it's painfully slow at right now :mad:

Codemonkey

May 13, 2004, 11:30 AM

Why on earth would you want to use Windows ME, of all versions of Windows available?[SNIP]

Are you braindead? I orignally stated that we use VPC for testing our apps on various browser/OS combinations.

I then made a sarcastic/snide/obviously rhetorical remark (hence the :D ) about running a bloated program on a crap OS EMULATED.

LOL

Ya, let me take that back: I WAS serious after all.

:p

Ta ta.

pgwalsh

May 13, 2004, 11:30 AM

I know everyone hear scoffs at the idea of playing video games on the mac, especially through VPC, but this may make it possible to play a few not so new games on the mac that aren't ported already, I see this as good news.
Maybe games like Age of Mytholody or something along those lines. Not sure if you'd get perfromance out of any of the the first person shooters.

SiliconAddict

May 13, 2004, 12:05 PM

Excellent observation.

I for one am looking forward to doing all my graphics work in Photoshop CS emulated on Windows ME through VPC.

:D

Dang it Codemonkey!! Warn people before you do that. I was in mid swallow of my Mello Yellow. I just about died!! :eek:

What are you some masochist or something?! ;) Windows ME.... *vomits profusely*

Codemonkey

May 13, 2004, 12:16 PM

Dang it Codemonkey!! Warn people before you do that. I was in mid swallow of my Mello Yellow. I just about died!! :eek:

What are you some masochist or something?! ;) Windows ME.... *vomits profusely*

Glad someone else saw the humor in it.

Mello Yellow... *vomits profusely* :D

psxndc

May 13, 2004, 12:32 PM

Why would it be illegal? I have VPC 5 (no sense in upgrading to 6 with version 7 coming out) and it came with Windows 2000 but I could install Windows XP, Windows ME, Windows 98, DOS 6.1, whatever I want. You could buy VPC with or without the OS. Either way you can install whatever versions of Windows you own. But maybe I am misunderstanding you.

I think you are misunderstanding. It is not illegal to install other operating systems apart from what came with it. Quite the contrary. What is illegal is installing WindowsXP on one machine, taking out the disk and installing it on a second machine. Each copy of Windows can only be installed on one computer at a time. Installing the same copy on two computers violates the license agreement (coporate licenses are different). Office on the other hand has a desktop-and-a-portable license that lets you install it on two computers, provided one is a laptop.

-p

gopher

May 13, 2004, 12:34 PM

Yes. (http://pearpc.sourceforge.net/)

Its emulation is still quite limited. No altivec or 64 bit support.

qubex

May 13, 2004, 12:45 PM

Its emulation is still quite limited. No altivec or 64 bit support.
It is workable. Primitive but rapidly evolving. There is no point emulating "advanced stuff" such as AltiVec because running it in emulation would actually be slower than running non-AltiVec implementations of the software itself. This is because the x86 platform, even with its MMX, SSE, SSE2 and 3DNow! instruction sets, is way behind the PowerPC AltiVec level. Sure, if there are AltiVec-only applications out there it will be impossible to make them run, and as such the option to "lie" about AltiVec support could be useful, but so far, so good.

Anybody who looks to emulation as a solution to their computing problems is in hock anyway. Emulation is only a last resort.
It DOES prove that PowerPC emulation on x86 hardware is possible, just not perfected yet.
Actually, the possibility of emulating PowerPC machines under x86 was never in any doubt. Alan Turing proved this fact in the early 1930s and indeed the very notion of emulation and the Universal Turing Machine is the foundation of the mathematical edifice upon which computation rests. One could, if one felt so inclined, emulate a Cray supercomputer on a Commodore-64 with a stack of punched cards. What this emulator proves is that it is possible to emulate a PowerPC machine under x86 and achieve a reasonable degree of performance.

wrldwzrd89

May 13, 2004, 12:48 PM

Are you braindead? I orignally stated that we use VPC for testing our apps on various browser/OS combinations.

I then made a sarcastic/snide/obviously rhetorical remark (hence the :D ) about running a bloated program on a crap OS EMULATED.

LOL

Ya, let me take that back: I WAS serious after all.

:p

Ta ta.
It's perfectly understandable that you would want to test things out on ME - your comment about looking forward to using ME was what surprised me. I have nothing against testing your web site/application - in fact, I do it myself :D (I'm a software developer, trying to decide if upgrading to a Select ADC membership is worth my while).

ZildjianKX

May 13, 2004, 01:12 PM

The important part about having it use your native videocard isn't so great for games as much as it is one less thing to have to emulate, so it can run faster overall. I've heard emulating the videocard was one of the most taxing things about VPC.

atszyman

May 13, 2004, 01:30 PM

To be honest, I'm more than a little surprised that M$ is actually putting effort into this.

I don't understand why people are amazed by this. M$ does not make the hardware that their OS runs on and actually sells the OS at a discount to the hardware manufacturers. With each copy of VPC sold they can charge a consumer the full price for their OS and expand the number of computers that their OS will run on.

The further development may actually doing more harm to Apple than discontinuing VPC. If VPC were discontinued there might be more incentive for people to port their applications to OSX rather than get into the "they can run it on VPC" mindset. Die hard Mac fans, like myself, will buy a Mac with or without VPC. Some people may buy a Mac with VPC and get frustrated by the performance or find that Windows offers programs to do what they want and the result may convert them over to Windows users rather than keeping them on Macs.

I will buy VPC once I finally save enough for my powerbook, (I will however buy the non OS version and use the substantial discount I get on MS software through my college to get the OS), but I will not be getting rid of my Windows PC. Now M$ has sold me 2 OSes (one for my PC, one for VPC) where if there were no VPC they only would have sold me one. There is $$ to be made and since I don't believe they think of OSX as a real threat (probably more of a benefit when the anti-monopoly lawsuits are running) they look at Macs as another market for their OS.

cshander

May 13, 2004, 01:34 PM

macffooky

May 13, 2004, 01:35 PM

I know the OP mentioned improved USB support but if I can use EAC to burn with my Firewire burner I'll be one happy bunny.

rogozhin

May 13, 2004, 02:05 PM

Why would it be illegal? I have VPC 5 (no sense in upgrading to 6 with version 7 coming out) and it came with Windows 2000 but I could install Windows XP, Windows ME, Windows 98, DOS 6.1, whatever I want. You could buy VPC with or without the OS. Either way you can install whatever versions of Windows you own. But maybe I am misunderstanding you.

Check the Microsoft EULA, and an attorney who knows something about IP licensing. I believe the EULA restricts your use of their OS to one 'computer' at a time. So if you have XP installed on your PC, you aren't allowed by the EULA to install it on VPC on your mac unless you go out and buy another copy of XP, or remove it first from your PC.

It's not illegal in the 'cops and robbers' sense, but it is violating the contract you agreed to when you installed the OS, and Microsoft could ostensibly sue you for that...

wrldwzrd89

May 13, 2004, 02:11 PM

While reading all the comments, I wondered what had become of Connectix and it seems that their site is no longer active. I don't remember reading anything about them going out of business (though it would certainly make sense). Did I miss an announcement of them finally closing up shop?
As far as I am aware, Connectix closed their site because they have no products to market there anymore. Connectix may still be around, or they may have faded away - this I do not know.

KingOfPain

May 13, 2004, 02:12 PM

Now I can finally play my old copies of Space Quest and Kings Quest! Woo-hoo!

I guess you haven't heard of Sarien and FreeSCI, or DOSBox:
http://www.emuscene.com/software/view.php?softid=211
http://www.emuscene.com/software/view.php?softid=212
http://software.emuscene.com/view.php?softid=143

titaniumducky

May 13, 2004, 02:31 PM

Trekkie

May 13, 2004, 02:32 PM

:confused: umm there is no windows version it wold be pointless to emulate a windows machine on a windows machune

the confused icon fits, because that's what you are.

Not pointless at all. Say you have 14 machines in your office doing server tasks, they're all used 5-15% max because on windows most apps don't get along.

You put a virtual software package on a machine (a la VMWare GSX/ESX or the forthcoming MS Virtual Server) and you have one computer running at 80 - 90% instead of 14 running at 5-15.

Great tool. VMWare does it better on Intel right now

JOD8FY

May 13, 2004, 03:00 PM

']If VPC7 has native card support, I may just buy it. Although on the article page, it says DirectX will not be supported?

It said that Direct X is not emulated - it will run like it does on a PC!!! :)

This is great news for Apple.

Cheers,
JOD8FY

SpaceTripper

May 13, 2004, 03:25 PM

barryp

May 13, 2004, 04:08 PM

Am I the only Jedi who sprung a massive lightsaber reading about VPC 7?

7on

May 13, 2004, 04:20 PM

I'll only be getting it if I can run Half-Life (the original) and CS on it. Mmmmm, still the biggest game being played on campus (though will probably change with HL2 :() I can play HL with VPC6, only at about 3fps.

Digidesign

May 13, 2004, 04:42 PM

Hmm... I wonder if it'd be possible to play FFXI (Final Fantasy 11) with this on my G4 1.5 Powerbook? That would rock my world.

The recommended settings for FFXI (beyond just basic) are:
-----
Operating System: Microsoft® Windows® XP
CPU: Intel® Pentium®4 processor
Memory: 256 MB RAM
Graphics Card: NVIDIA® GeForceFX™ series graphics processing unit (AGP)
with 64MB of VRAM
Sound Card: DirectX®8.1 compatible sound card
Hard Drive Space: 6 GB free hard disk space
-----

Hmmm,... any guesses?

JonYo

May 13, 2004, 05:00 PM

I will buy VPC once I finally save enough for my powerbook, (I will however buy the non OS version and use the substantial discount I get on MS software through my college to get the OS), but I will not be getting rid of my Windows PC.

Are you sure that VPC7 will be sold in version without a Windows OS? I think VPC7 will be the first non-free VPC update since MS took over VPC from Connectix (correct me if I'm wrong there, I'm not 100% sure on that), and I have the feeling that they won't be offering it for sale in a version that doesn't come with a Windows OS as well, which would raise the price quite a bit. Anyone have any info on what versions of VPC7 will be availble when it's released?

- JonYo

chabig

May 13, 2004, 05:14 PM

I am pretty sure that every VPC update has been a paid update. I know version 5 to version 6 definitely was.

Chris

SiliconAddict

May 13, 2004, 05:16 PM

Am I the only Jedi who sprung a massive lightsaber reading about VPC 7?

Ahh... no DirectX... I counted my Nabooian eggs before they hatched!

Damn the Empire.

DirectX will not be emulated, but directly treated, as on a PC, by the graphic card!!!

Ahh young Jedi. Much do you have to learn. For Microsoft will support directly Direct X it will. Yes yes. Direct X support.

ZildjianKX

May 13, 2004, 05:38 PM

You guys are going to be very upset if you're waiting for this update just to play PC games... just warning you.

qubex

May 13, 2004, 05:51 PM

I am pretty sure that every VPC update has been a paid update. I know version 5 to version 6 definitely was.

Chris
I'm currently running VPC 6.1.0, and I only paid for version 6.0. The interim (fractional version number) updates are free. This is pretty much like Apple's policy on OSX: Pay for 10.2.x, get 10.2.0-10.2.8 free; pay for 10.3.x, get 10.3.0-10.3.3 (or whatever) free, etc.

itsa

May 13, 2004, 06:05 PM

Anything that brings sports games to Mac is welcomed!!!!
This is something Apple should have done something about years ago!

Wombatronic

May 13, 2004, 06:34 PM

Actually, the possibility of emulating PowerPC machines under x86 was never in any doubt. Alan Turing proved this fact in the early 1930s and indeed the very notion of emulation and the Universal Turing Machine is the foundation of the mathematical edifice upon which computation rests. One could, if one felt so inclined, emulate a Cray supercomputer on a Commodore-64 with a stack of punched cards. What this emulator proves is that it is possible to emulate a PowerPC machine under x86 and achieve a reasonable degree of performance.

Ok, since you chose to be pedantic: ;)

1. It is the Church-Turing *hypothesis*. Not a theorem.
2. Modern computers (and those of the foreseeable future) are deterministic finite automata. They do not have access to infinite tapes, and are not capable of simulating any other DFA. (the number of states that a C64 can be in is fewer than my g4 iBook, ergo a surjection onto its states is impossible.)

/not good for much, but there you have it.

legion

May 13, 2004, 07:18 PM

RE: The talk about Virtual PC for Windows...I don't think Virtual PC for Windows emulates hardware at all. It's kind of a fancy uber-OS that lets you manage one or more than one operating system on a single machine.

Chris
Wrong. It emulates hardware.

Why are people chiming in on this with "I don't think" bs when you can actually use the program and find out? Really, it's not that hard. You don't need to create a rumour or speculate on software that actually exists.

chabig

May 13, 2004, 07:23 PM

Why are people chiming in on this with "I don't think" bs when you can actually use the program and find out? Really, it's not that hard. You don't need to create a rumour or speculate on software that actually exists.

I would tend to agree, but this is a Mac forum. Most of use know and use Macs. There probably aren't many of us who run Virtual PC for Windows.

Chris

legion

May 13, 2004, 07:24 PM

That is correct, but what you describe is not what SiliconAddict described. The feature would work in such a way that you wouldn't see the Windows interface at all - Windows applications would draw their graphics using Quartz (through VPC, of course). You couldn't tell just by looking at the style of the window graphics whether you were running a Mac OS X application or a Windows application.
Then you miss the point of a Virtual PC. It is a virtual pc!

What you're looking for is a code translator (like FX!32 did for the Alpha chips to run x86 code.) The real point behind VPC is so you can have developers buy it and use it.

Plutoniq

May 13, 2004, 07:48 PM

I hope their "improved USB support" will allow USB audio devices to work with VPC. The stock "emulated" soundblaster in VPC really hurts audio latency & stability in music software (ie Fruityloops), although after installing the DirectX 9 latency was improved becuase of the updated DirectSound drivers.

But still, an emulated Soundcard is never gonna compare to "real" hardware support, and I think if USB Audio works with VPC7, well, thats just as important as a direct harware support for GPU.

Just FYI, my USB Audio device (Ego-Sys U24A) was recognized with the ASIO drivers I installed in Win98 on VPC6. It however produced some horrible distortion when playing audio though it though, I figure it's the lack of bandwidth on the emulated USB ports in VPC. So, it's really close to being possible, hopefully Microsoft is working on this for VPC7.

I'm pretty much using VPC in order to use Fruityloops, which there is no equivelent of for Mac.
I'm running a highly optimized & tweaked version of Win98 SE on my 500mhz G3 (In Panther). It's quite useable so far, even being able to use a handful of VST plugins with the tracks I write in Fruityloops.....but it glitches here & there and latency is only useable at around 200ms, which is a long time in the audio world.

Anyways.........

Photorun

May 13, 2004, 07:52 PM

Remember peeps, development and developers, developers, developers being able to work on the Mac using whatever means available is goooood. Not having options... not so good!

yoda13

May 13, 2004, 08:40 PM

I surely hope that this will allow games for PC only to be played on Mac. I will only believe it when I see it, but if its true, this will finally convince me that I need a G5 :D

BornAgainMac

May 13, 2004, 09:10 PM

Well, while all this emulation technical discussion is just fascinating, I for one am thrilled to see item 1 on the change list: A new icon. Whew! I got to tell ya that I was just an emotional wreck about that previous icon. I couldn't stand the old icon and was afraid I wouldn't be able to run VPC 7 when it came out since it was so incompatible with my sense of style. But now that the icon has been changed I have something to hope for.

I suppose what would also really make me want to buy VPC 7 is actually needing VPC 7 for something.

That's funny. Usually Microsoft changes the colors, fonts, or icons between versions because they don't change much else. It was the number one feature at the top of the list.

I am excited about this upgrade from Microsoft because it looks like a promising must-have upgrade compared to going from version 5 to version 6. I have a G5 and a G3. It's unbearable on the G3. I wish I didn't sell my G4 because it seemed very usable on it. I would even say it was fast because my old PC (PIII 450mhz) wasn't that much faster except for games.

atszyman

May 13, 2004, 09:26 PM

Are you sure that VPC7 will be sold in version without a Windows OS? I think VPC7 will be the first non-free VPC update since MS took over VPC from Connectix (correct me if I'm wrong there, I'm not 100% sure on that), and I have the feeling that they won't be offering it for sale in a version that doesn't come with a Windows OS as well, which would raise the price quite a bit. Anyone have any info on what versions of VPC7 will be availble when it's released?

- JonYo

Well they still offer version 6 without Windows so there's a good bet that they will still do that for 7. Doesn't really matter anyway since my college discout should apply to VPC now since it is now a M$ product.

mactastic

May 13, 2004, 09:57 PM

I could care less about games... but if I can run AutoCad on my mac fast enough to make it unnecessary for me to build a PC box for one app I'll be a seriously happy camper. Well, two apps if you count Project. I only need it at home, I've got an XP box at work already.

Now, if I could emulate OS X at work, and XP at home at speeds that were acceptable that would be awesome!

ClimbingTheLog

May 13, 2004, 10:26 PM

Please open up your definition of "emulation" to include situations where the emulated hardware has the same instruction set as the real hardware.

"Instruction set emulation" is not part of Virtual PC/Virtual Server for Windows, but emulation of a virtual hardware machine is part of it. The common use of the term "emulate" in computer science is to describe any situation where a program sees non-existent hardware. Instruction set emulation is just a subset of the common use of the term.

Virtual PC emulates a physical computer so exactly that the applications users install in them don’t distinguish the virtual machine from a physical computer.

You're right but the companies sometimes play fast and loose with terms so some readers are bound to be confused. For instance with VMWare, you'd think VM stood for Virtual Machine, but only the CPU is virutalized, the hardware is emulated. VPC is the same on x86. But the marketing quote you have above, if the reader were to read the final 'a' as 'the' would imply a full virtual machine, but it's not. A tiny change like that effecting the meaning so much at least suggests that marketing isn't being careful to make the appropriate distinctions.

AidenShaw

May 13, 2004, 10:52 PM

But the marketing quote you have above, if the reader were to read the final 'a' as 'the' would imply a full virtual machine, but it's not.

Why is it "not".

Please explain what a "full virtual machine" is, and how VPC 7 (or the current VMware product) fails that test.

Sorry to be sticky, but there are so many people who are hung up on "ISA emulation" vs. "hardware emulation" vs. "ring 0 emulation" that one needs to pin down the words that one is using.

iostream.h

May 13, 2004, 11:57 PM

This now makes complete sense as to how the XBox 2 will work.

dmjones

May 14, 2004, 12:33 AM

I don't have a huge use for Windows, but it will be nice to be able to run XP and the latest version of Office for Windows on my G5. I am a freelance graphic designer and also do some freelance prepress work for a print shop that I'm friendly with. Every now and then I need to be able to open a Publisher file and get it to output to a Mac-based imagesetter or DTP system. I have tried using VPC 4/Win200/Office2000 on my PowerBook G4 (500MHz), but it is really slow and often doesn't come out right. When VPC 7 finally shows up I plan on buying it along with Office XP (or whatever the most current version is called), Adobe Type Manager and Acrobat Professional. That way I can hopefully output decent PDF files that will work cross-platform and output correctly on my printshop's RIP. Boy, what we won't do to make a buck!

ClimbingTheLog

May 14, 2004, 12:58 AM

Why is it "not".

Please explain what a "full virtual machine" is, and how VPC 7 (or the current VMware product) fails that test.

A real virtualizer presents the hardware it's running on. Like the old IBM VM mainframes. In a PC, for instance, you'd have a Radon 7500 video card. With a real virtualizer the "virtual PC" would see a Radeon 7500 video card. The virtualizer would save state, switch VM's, do the work, restore state, repeat.

Instead, in a VPC 7 Virtual PC you see an ATI Mach 64 in the virtual machine because it emulates that piece of hardware. (I'm just making up the product names here).

VPC 7 does, however virtualize the CPU. It saves the registers, executes the code to be executed, then restores the registers. That's vitualized.

Westside guy

May 14, 2004, 01:10 AM

Are you sure that VPC7 will be sold in version without a Windows OS? I think VPC7 will be the first non-free VPC update since MS took over VPC from Connectix (correct me if I'm wrong there, I'm not 100% sure on that), and I have the feeling that they won't be offering it for sale in a version that doesn't come with a Windows OS as well, which would raise the price quite a bit.

If they tried to do this their sales would drop to zero because everyone (on the x86 platform anyway) would buy VMware instead. Mac folks may not be aware of this, but on the PC side of things VPC is the upstart - VMware has owned this market for a while.

GregA

May 14, 2004, 02:22 AM

An XP Pro machine can have a terminal access it from the network, and that terminal displays whatever the XP Pro user would see.

IE5.5 for Mac will also connect to that, so the Mac can be a terminal to the XP Pro machine.

Couldn't MS take that a step further, so that there is no graphics drawn by Virtual PC under emulation, but it is all drawn via the "terminal" running on Mac OS X?

I'm just wondering if this would be an easier development for MS, as well as using a PPC-native graphics engine.

qubex

May 14, 2004, 02:38 AM

2. Modern computers (and those of the foreseeable future) are deterministic finite automata. They do not have access to infinite tapes, and are not capable of simulating any other DFA. (the number of states that a C64 can be in is fewer than my g4 iBook, ergo a surjection onto its states is impossible.)
"A Commodore-64 with a stack of punched cards." :D

Beck446

May 14, 2004, 02:40 AM

I guess this is sort-of off topic, but did anyone see the CNet article today where MS is yet again delaying pieces of Longhorn? This time they are removing the new search feature that lets you search via tags/info content - the feature they dub WinFS. It should become fully operable in 2009!

http://news.com.com/2100-1016_3-5212077.html?tag=nefd.lede

I'd be shocked if this powerful new VPC software came out on schedule.

KingOfPain

May 14, 2004, 03:59 AM

For instance with VMWare, you'd think VM stood for Virtual Machine,

Guess what, it does!
The only thing with VM in the name that isn't a virtual machine is the JVM.

but only the CPU is virutalized, the hardware is emulated.

Just like with *any* other virtual machine. It is possible to virtualize a processor when previleged instructions cause an exception when it is tried to execute them in user mode. These instructions are then simulated by the VMM (virtual machine monitor), just like all the other hardware the OS might use and that shouldn't be accessed by several OSes at the same time.

The only reason why you think that there is a difference to VMs running on IBM mainframes, eg., is that you simply don't have several OSes running on the same monitor (because you are using terminals), and because a mainframe doesn't have a soundcard or other fancy hardware you find in PCs.
But when an operating system wants to access any other hardware apart from the user mode instructions of the processor, everything goes through the VMM, no matter if the VMM is running on a PC or a mainframe.

KingOfPain

May 14, 2004, 04:05 AM

Then you miss the point of a Virtual PC. It is a virtual pc!

Indeed, it's a PC emulator, not a Windows emulator.

What you're looking for is a code translator (like FX!32 did for the Alpha chips to run x86 code.)

That also isn't the right comparison, because FX!32 only emulates the CPU (first via interpretation, and then partial static binary translation), but it's only for running WinNT/x86 applications on WinNT/Alpha, so no other hardware is emulator and even the API is the same.

I guess what he is looking for is something like Darwine.

bradz_id

May 14, 2004, 04:32 AM

If it doesn't support DirectX, then it DOESN'T have native video card hardware support. It must mean that it forwards or "links" the OpenGL language straight from the game to Mac OS X's OpenGL engine. I wish Apple would be a bit more up to date with OpenGL myself. OpenGL is at 1.5 and we're stuck at 1.3. DirectX would be much better stillbecause it would require a LLT less effort to port games in most cases and they would look nicer. The only nice OpenGL game out there is Doom 3 which is VERY NICE!

AidenShaw

May 14, 2004, 06:56 AM

A real virtualizer presents the hardware it's running on. Like the old IBM VM mainframes. In a PC, for instance, you'd have a Radon 7500 video card. With a real virtualizer the "virtual PC" would see a Radeon 7500 video card.

I'll argue that is exactly *not* what you want. (I'll also say that if you can tell what the real hardware is, it's not virtualized....)

One of the main points of "virtual machines" is that they are all identical. I can take my VMware virtual machine from an 800 MHz PIII and move it to a 3GHz P4 if it needs more power. I don't need to worry that the PIII has a Rage video and an IDE disk card, but the P4 has a Quadro and Ultra320 SCSI and Fibre Channel.

It's very important for the virtual machine to be identical no matter what the underlying hardware is.

Note that you can have complete, portable virtualization and still have full hardware video acceleration. What you need is for VPC to provide a driver for the "VPC Virtual Video Card".

Every VM sees the VPC Virtual Video Card, yet underneath that the driver could do shortcuts to bypass emulation and go directly to the accelerated card.

VMware does some of that today - when you install the VMware Tools you get the "VMware SVGA II" video card and the "VMware Pointing Device" mouse. These give better video and mouse performance by bypassing some of the pure hardware emulation and going through the VMM directly to the real hardware.

MarkCollette

May 14, 2004, 07:32 PM

qubex

May 14, 2004, 09:36 PM

MarkCollette

May 14, 2004, 11:19 PM

VPC still has to address your computer's hardware through the OS. So, if OSX doesn't support a given feature, VPC certainly will not be able to take advantage of it.

I think iMacs with a G3 CPU don't have any GPU. But I could be wrong.

All computers with a screen have a GPU. My iMac's GPU uses some Rage chipset, which has support for 3D acceleration. Mac OS 9.x and before use that for OpenGL, etc., but OS X does not, I believe.

The question is, would DirectX in VPC be layered on top of some high layer in OS X, or would it be done at a lower layer, where maybe it wouldn't matter that the rest of OS X doesn't support it.

gopher

May 15, 2004, 08:47 AM

I've heard that my iMac G3 (333MHz)'s GPU isn't fully supported under OS X. Maybe 3D accelleration? I'm not talking about Quartz Extreme, it's something else. Maybe someone can clarify this.

Anyways, does anyone have an idea if OS X doesn't accellerate my GPU fully, what affect that would have on VPC 7 doing native GPU stuff. Could I potentially end up with a situation where MS does accelerate stuff, and emulated games would run faster?

Forget about the iMac G3 333's GPU for VirtualPC. You may be able to run Windows 98, but VirtualPC 6 for the Mac running Windows 2000 require at least a G4/500 Mhz, 512MB of RAM, and 10 GB of hard disk space free. Double that requirement for Windows XP.