Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'macOS' started by wasimyaqoob, May 4, 2006.
Is Virtual PC any good?
it's pretty good, but not as flexible as Q.
Q is also free, but a tiny bit slower. considering that wiithin 2-5 years, everybody will have an intel, Q should be fine for now. Neither VPC or Q are fast enough for games or other grapgics/cpu intensive stuff, but Q is certainly good enough to run little apps that just don't have an OS X alternative.
I can second that, its not great....but if your in desperation it may be worth a look,
It's about as good as running Windows on a Pentium 3 500 MHz machine. So okay if you use Windows 2000, completely useless if you use XP.
I have VPC for my 1.67 PB. I installed WinXP. It runs OK, just as good as my parents old 800MHz PIII (I'm so glad they now have a Mac too). I mostly use it for Minitab and checking websites in IE.
VPC is very slow and almost useless under winxp...unless of course you plan on just running notepad or calculator....or the clock.
I gave up after not being able to run Guitar Pro (tablature program) decently on a 1.5 PB, 1.5gb ram.
The speed of Virtual PC greatly depends on how fast your Mac is. I have a 500MHz Pentium 3 with 384MB RAM running Windows XP, and Virtual PC running Windows 2000 on my 1.33GHz iBook with 1.5GB of RAM. Virtual PC's performace is NOWHERE close preformace compared to the Pentium 3.
My only use of Virtual PC on my iBook is to run a program called Electronics Workbench, and Internet Explorer to test my sites on it. It performs fine with that.
For many Mac users who need to run Windows-only apps for their jobs, Virtual PC is a godsend. If you are a teenager looking for a substitute Intel-based computer in software, you might be better served reconsidering your priorities.
Nope, atleast not using XP
It's great if you're in a pinch and you need to run Windows on a PPC mac.
Otherwise, buy a PC (you can buy cheap barebones systems with like Pentium 4s and Athlon64s for a little more than VPC retail+license for Win2k or XP...), buy an Intel Mac, or use Q or the other freeware apps out there.
There is no difference in speed at all using Virtual PC 7 on my Power Mac Dual G5 or my PowerBook G4 1.67. Basically XP sucks on both.
I'm using a PowerBook G4 - 1.67GHZ with 1GB RAM
Do you think this will be ok for run XP efficiently?
I have the same PB, but with 1.5 GB RAM. XP works OK for me as long as I only use 1 or 2 programs at a time.
VPC is very good, IMHO. 1GB is about the minimum RAM I'd want, and more if you want to run XP. I've run several Linux distributions, Plan9, and BeOS in VPC, besides several versions of Windows. Haven't been able to get Solaris X86 or OS/2 Warp to work, though.
The other comments are all correct. For best operation of Windows programs I'd use either Win98 or Windows 2000.
as long as your not looking for any sort of speed or the ability to play graphic intensive games AND you don't have an Intel Mac it works well enough.
I find VPC very useful for emergencies when I do not have a pc available, but I would not recommend it for daily use. Usually I use remote desktop instead.
I use Virtual PC with XP.
There are MANY ways in which to speed it up. I have done so and it works as well as my 800mhz AMD Duron on a PowerMac G5 1.8
I use this: http://www.theorica.net/gamexp.htm for game xp, and virtual pc 7 is quite good for me, considering that i need to use paint, or msn for pc. you can also go find some black viper service tweaking, boosting more performance by disabling needless services.
there's a lot of small exe files, like this program that was refered by reader's digest, which tests your brain dominance, and tells you about whether you are artistic, anyalistic, and learn better by sight or hearing.
I use VPC with Windows XP on my G4 17" Powerbook (1.33GHz / 2Gb RAM) and it works OK. I design and build websites for a living, and need to test things on PC browsers - VPC beats having to have an extra computer around all the time, but I really wouldn't want to use it for anything other than Internet Explorer. Something that's processor intensive would really crawl...
At home I've got a little Sony Vaio that's been hanging around for ages, and that's definitely faster and more convenient than VPC, so I use that when I'm at home, but as I'm freelance and work 2 days a week elsewhere VPC is perfect for me.
It is ok...but it is rather slow so it really depends on what you will be doing.
Has anyone used Q or VP to run MSN messenger? If so have you used the webcam with other windows user? How was it?
It's ok i have 786 mb ram on my powermac and XP doesn't run sluggish on it, and i've allocated the PC to use 256 mb of my Ram
My experience has been that VPC7 runs in those absolutely-must-have-windows moments. It's not blistering. I can* run AutoCAD '06 on it. But I'm often waiting palpable minutes while XP tries to, say, open the start menu. If you've got an emergency, it works. But for productivity's sake, it's a dog.
* By can, I mean, slower than you would believe.
I think I have the ulitmate VPC setting:
Quad G5, 4 GB RAM and VPC 7 running Win 2000 Pro.
IMHO Win 2K feels faster (is less demanding) than XP.
I gave Windows 512 MB RAM, after playing around which settings "feel" fastest to work with (disable USB, etc.)
In the Windows environment, I turn off all "effetcs" (like show contents while dragging window, and everthing is set to Classic view, etc.), and it's very workable.
Just don't think it can replace a PC.
In my setting, it feels like a P3 500 MHz wihout any grfx card....