Best Windows OS for VPC?

Discussion in 'Mac Apps and Mac App Store' started by mdeschenes, Apr 11, 2003.

  1. mdeschenes macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2003
    #1
    I have VPC 6.0 DOS version and was wondering which WinOs was the best (stability, features, speed,..._). I have a DP 1.25 with OS 10.2.4 and 1 gig RAM. I want to use it for accessing Word files and other programs not easily translated to Mac platform. I also would like to access Kazaa from internet (slow phone line).

    I currently have my own licenced copies of WinMe and XP home. I can access Win 2000. If Win98 is the choice, I would be willing to purchase that OS. I have already tried Windows ME and found it slow (allocated over 480 megs ram). I also found that I could not get my internal modem to work correctly - It would only "receive" at about one tenth of my normal rate - and that is a usual 4.0 mps (ultra-slow phone line). Is there a "setting" somewhere that I can access to"up" the rate of reception? VPC also caused 4 severe crashes within 30 minutes requiring that I hold the start button x 10 sec. to reboot the computer - not a good thing.

    I found it easy to access the printer and to set it up. I am hoping that those of you "experienced" folks out there can lead me in the best direction.

    OR....

    Will I have to wait until the next version of VPC to correct some of the stability/speed issues?

    Mike
     
  2. buseman macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2002
    #2
    I have the same computer as you, and have great success with win 2000. I use it mainly for Soulseek and, the slightly overhyped, Kazaa.

    You know that MS Office is for OS X, right? It opens and edits Word files just as if i were a PC
    :)
     
  3. Kid Red macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2001
    #3
    VPC 6 sucks but the best OS is w2000 from what I've been told.
     
  4. MacManDan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2003
    #4
    W2k

    I have to use Virtual PC for school .. and I think (from my previous experience with PCs before I switched :cool: ) that NT is the most stable, especially 2000 and XP. XP has a lot of bulk that most people really don't need, though .. they claim that XP is much more multimedia oriented than 2000 .. but if you are trying to use W2K for multimedia you might as well use OS X! I say go for 2000! It's what you want without the fat ..

    My .02 :)
     
  5. maradong macrumors 65816

    maradong

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2003
    Location:
    Luxembourg
    #5
    win2k pro,
    DONT USE XP! it s way to overloading the ram and cpu
     
  6. Xero macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #6
    whatever you do DONT use winME, that sorry excuse for an OS should havenever been released to the public. :) win2k is your best bet, since your not really running media intesive apps [most of that you can just do in OS X, and anyhitng too intensive will run like crap in VPC anyways]. winXP is what im running in VPC and i just turned off all the visual styles/effects [so it basically looks like win2k] which helps with speed a bit, at least as much as it can.
     
  7. vniow macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    I accidentally my whole location.
    #7
    Some people here have had good luck with XP if you turn all the eye candy off, otherwise its 2k for stability and 98 for a cross between stability and speed.
     
  8. hvfsl macrumors 68000

    hvfsl

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2001
    Location:
    London, UK
    #8
    As long as you have the latest version, Windows 95b is by far the fastest. I have tried all versions of windows except XP and 95 is best, it does not crash so I dont see what the problem is. But if you want better networking etc, go for 98se, although it is quiet a bit slower. I can play c&c red alert 2 quiet well on my PB G4 in windows 95.
     
  9. Computer_Phreak macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    #9
    well I don't know about that...:D

    i would say go 2000 if money is no object *cough*, but 98se is probably the most stable without the NT kernel (2000, XP, NT)
     
  10. MrMacMan macrumors 604

    MrMacMan

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2001
    Location:
    1 Block away from NYC.
    #10
    My wind. friends all think that 2000 Pro (home if you are less money the home version.

    Win. ME is a frikken joke, it is one of the worst, if not worst OS ever conceived.

    I mean even 95b has its pluses, like being small and fast, but if you don't mind to take some critism, WHY THE F**K DO YOU NEED ANY VITRUAL PC FOR OPENING WORD DOCS?!??

    Macs have Office X and it opens runs saves and read win word doc to 99.9% perfection.

    I mean if it were a game of a work related app I can see but just word docs, I have Office on my comp, it likes to pig on some resources but much less that any VPC w/Win NT 4.0 and above w/word.

    Okay well 2000 seems good bet, but if your looking for speed, lower is always faster.
     
  11. janey macrumors 603

    janey

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Location:
    sunny los angeles
    #11
    9x = fast but they're pieces of ****
    Millennium = you've gotta be kidding
    2k = The best. Hands down.
    XP = überslow and they're also pieces of **** too.
     
  12. tazo macrumors 68040

    tazo

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2003
    Location:
    Pacific Northwest, Seattle, WA actually
    #12
    very true about the WINME thing, i got in on a ****e pc i bought a few years back, i took it off and put 98 on, now the pc is usable :D
     
  13. benixau macrumors 65816

    benixau

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2002
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    #13
    want speed??? want a GUI???? want windows to do that????

    LOL - HAHAHAHAHA
     
  14. hvfsl macrumors 68000

    hvfsl

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2001
    Location:
    London, UK
    #14
    Windows 2000 is the fastest OS on real PC hardware, but in emulation windows 95b is the fastest. People here seem to think that if it is fast on PC hardware, it will be fast in emulation, which it is not.
     
  15. mdeschenes thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2003
    #15
    Well, lots of advice. I do have several other important files that I cannot find MacOS translators for - otherwise, I would not use VPC.

    I think perhaps I will have to find a licensed version of Win 98 se. I thought that there were issues re. Win 95 and usb drivers. I do not know if that translates to problems using external usb drives attached to my mac - I would guess so.

    I tried the Win2000 thing last evening and it was dirt slow, slow, slow...even with 512 mb allocated + 16 mb vram. Why did VPC only design their product with a max of 16 mb vram?

    Also, is there any performance difference between VPC 6.0 with OS integrated (all-in-one from Connectix) vs VPC 6.0 DOS + adding your own copy of Windows?

    Mike
     
  16. MacManiac1224 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2001
    Location:
    NY
    #16
    I am an avid windows user, and the os that I would use would be Windows 98 or 2000. 98 becasue it is pretty stable, and it is relatively a light weight with ram and hardrive space, also it will run faster then 2000. 2000 would be better for stability, but other then that, it is basically the same as 98, just a couple of more administrative tools, also it si a little more up to date. I would not use XP becasue it is a very heavy operating system which means it consumes a lot of ram, hard drive space, and cpu usage. I have an 800mhz Windows XP Pro machine, and it runs fine, but I wouldn't dream on putting XP on anything less then a 1.25Ghz powermac, just an opinion, but stick with 98 or 2000.
     

Share This Page