Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Virtual PC 7 Now Shipping
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I just have to mention, to those saying VPC 6 is too slow to use, you should adjust the preferences (in macspeak) within the windows operating system that Connectix suggested back in the old days. Meaning, disabling auto update, etc etc etc. Also, if you are accessing the internet directly, as opposed to using the macs internet connection, you are opening yourself up to all the related viruses that windows is famous for. If you ARE accessing the internet through the shared mac connection, there is no need for all the various and sundry virus apps that slow things down.(unless you are using win IE, and why would you?) Anyway, perhaps you need to visit the MacWindows site.
I use VPC 6 with Win2000 daily, to remotely access my computer at work, and it is faster than my old 300mhz P2 laptop. No, its not a gaming machine, but it runs office and my remote access app just fine thank you. Also,, I allocate 50% of my 1.5 gig of ram to VPC, and from what I hear, that makes a huge difference.
I use VPC 6 with Win2000 daily, to remotely access my computer at work, and it is faster than my old 300mhz P2 laptop. No, its not a gaming machine, but it runs office and my remote access app just fine thank you. Also,, I allocate 50% of my 1.5 gig of ram to VPC, and from what I hear, that makes a huge difference.
Quick question, this is my first post.
I have been with VPC since its earliest days. When I got to VPC6, and it was very slow and useless on my G4 powerbook I gave up on it. Before I venture into 7, and spend more money, does it work any better? Or is it still very slow and cumbersome to use?
I would appreciate an unbiased opinion on this.
Thank you in advance,
Ti.
I have been with VPC since its earliest days. When I got to VPC6, and it was very slow and useless on my G4 powerbook I gave up on it. Before I venture into 7, and spend more money, does it work any better? Or is it still very slow and cumbersome to use?
I would appreciate an unbiased opinion on this.
Thank you in advance,
Ti.
Doubt that it's worth it.
I've always run it like that, I wouldn't waste my time with AntiVirus software etc, I have it on the Mac side. The only difference is that I run it with 512 MB RAM allocated to VPC with Me, the new minimum requirement. There are some programs that run better than on a comparable 266 MHz Windows box, which is the speed of the emulated chip under VPC6, that I have sitting around the house running Me, but it can't run anything that is graphics intensive due to the max 16 MB of VRAM that can be assigned to the system. There are also issues with the networking capabilities of the software. If you include an IP and associated host name in the HOSTS file of the Windows side of the software it's not recognized, same if you include it in the Mac side, this renders many programs useless on the PC side. With only the same 16 MB of VRAM available under the new VPC7 it's no real improvement. MS is claiming a 10-30% improvement which doesn't justify the $250 with no upgrade path currently available.
I've always run it like that, I wouldn't waste my time with AntiVirus software etc, I have it on the Mac side. The only difference is that I run it with 512 MB RAM allocated to VPC with Me, the new minimum requirement. There are some programs that run better than on a comparable 266 MHz Windows box, which is the speed of the emulated chip under VPC6, that I have sitting around the house running Me, but it can't run anything that is graphics intensive due to the max 16 MB of VRAM that can be assigned to the system. There are also issues with the networking capabilities of the software. If you include an IP and associated host name in the HOSTS file of the Windows side of the software it's not recognized, same if you include it in the Mac side, this renders many programs useless on the PC side. With only the same 16 MB of VRAM available under the new VPC7 it's no real improvement. MS is claiming a 10-30% improvement which doesn't justify the $250 with no upgrade path currently available.
I wouldn't say "available next month" equates to "unavailable".Warlock7 said:
Upgrades from versions 5 and 6 will cost $100, not $250, unless you feel that you have to have it NOW and can't wait another minute for your fix.
So we're still stuck with the same video issues? I really only need VPC for QuickBooks. I tried running it on my 12" PB G4, but it was too slow. I just saved all the paperwork until I could get to my PC. I'd use the Mac version but the files aren't compatible. Maybe the speed increases would make it more tolerable.
Still, if VPC offered DirectX support with native drivers for the video card, I'd consider getting a PowerMac G5 to replace my Windows box. Oh well, maybe next year...
Still, if VPC offered DirectX support with native drivers for the video card, I'd consider getting a PowerMac G5 to replace my Windows box. Oh well, maybe next year...
I wouldn't bother
Hi Ti,
Well, I'm hardly unbiased, but I've owned this particular emulation software for some time and it each update thus far has had fewer and fewer improvements. I'd say, if you need to run Windows software, buy a cheap Windows box. In the long run, it'll save you tons of frustration and you might actually get some value out of it. VPC6, not sure about VPC7 yet, only emulates a PII MMX running at 266 MHz. Save yourself from the headaches. This new version was supposed to have native graphics card support and it doesn't, big surprise from MS. The supposed improvements don't seem worthwhile. Sorry.
Ti-maniac said:
Hi Ti,
Well, I'm hardly unbiased, but I've owned this particular emulation software for some time and it each update thus far has had fewer and fewer improvements. I'd say, if you need to run Windows software, buy a cheap Windows box. In the long run, it'll save you tons of frustration and you might actually get some value out of it. VPC6, not sure about VPC7 yet, only emulates a PII MMX running at 266 MHz. Save yourself from the headaches. This new version was supposed to have native graphics card support and it doesn't, big surprise from MS. The supposed improvements don't seem worthwhile. Sorry.
As a follow up, my friend says that Virtual PC says the processor speed is a 686 533mhz when he goes to my computer properties, and he is running a dual 2gig G5! Sorry, that along with no native graphics support mean that there is no possible way for decent gaming, if people were so inclined.
Again, he tested a demo, maybe the final release is different, hopefully.
Again, he tested a demo, maybe the final release is different, hopefully.
How well will VP7 likely run on my 17"PB 1.5 1Gig ram, 128vram...?
Does everything else slow to a crawl when your run it?
Does everything else slow to a crawl when your run it?
Freg3000 said:That is what it says on my Dual 1GHz G4 though.....
Do you have VPC 7? Have you tried any games? If you have it, you must be running XP Pro - have you disabled any features to make it faster?
Thanks,
JOD8FY
I wonder if the stripped-down version of XP designed to compete with Linux in "developing countries of Asia" would be a good OS to run in XP. I figure it would have at least take up less space and be cheaper. Too bad it's not available in the US.
macidiot said:
Well the university as a whole has a strong Mac presence, at least when it comes to the computing folks - but IT decisions are often made by bureaucrats without actually consulting the people who actually have the relevant knowledge.
At a lower level, the Mac support varies widely from department to department. UW's Computer Science program is almost exclusively Microsoft based, for example, even at the server end (Lord knows why).
And where I'm at: my boss, the director of computing in our department, is very much anti-Mac - in part because he prefers a homogeneous system environment for managing (don't ask me to defend that because the first thing I think of is "Blaster" and "Netsky"), and in part because we get a lot of desktop donations from Intel. However a significant number of our grad students are getting powerbooks, and several of our faculty as well - so we support them "unofficially". That means some of us IT folks who are Mac users do the support.
As an off-topic aside, I do see a few Windows converts at work; but where OS X is currently making huge inroads is with the users who have had some exposure to *nix. That's a larger group than you might think, at least in a technical field.
If this thing emulates a P-400MHz, I'll be happy. My 650MHz AMD Duron feels as fast as some of the P4 2.2 GHz systems I've used. Its hard to explain, but I'm not a picky, whiney individual. There's always a limitation to using emulators, and I'll deal with them. All I want to know is if it'll run as good as a 6 year old PC. I'm guessing that it will, and if it emulates a 16MB video card, that's quite good if it's emulating a 6 year old PC.
But you're still not being forced to spend $250 on your upgrade unless you're one of those extremely impatient people that would rather die than wait another few weeks.Warlock7 said:I think the key word that you left out, which I didn't, was currently, which when it comes between not and available does equate to currently unavailable.
Sort of like the kid in the toy store that throws a tantrum when his mother says he'll have to wait until he gets home before he can open the package.
Not necessarily. He could've installed an operating system that didn't come bundled with VPC.JOD8FY said: