WTB - Virtual PC 6 vs. Virtual PC 7

[jimjiminyjim]

I'm wondering if there will be a significant speed difference between VPC 6 and VPC 7 on a quicksilver 733 with 768 Mbs RAM. It will be running XP, whether home or pro, I'm not sure. It has to run XP, as the particular program (a farm accounting program) will not run on 98 or 2000.

The quicksilver is running OS X.2.8. Anybody have experience with both VPC 6 and 7?

Thanks in advance,
Jim.

 

[Chrispy]

I have used both. I used 6 of a 1.33 GHz powerbook and 7.0 on a 1.5GHz powerbook. I did notice a little speed increase with verzion 7.0 over 6.0. Both are very slow compared to a regular windows machine, but for only using Microsoft Access both work fine for me.

 

[FoxyKaye]

Having used both versions of VPC on my little upgraded Blue & White (specs below), I can say that VPC is marginally faster and handles overall Windows functions a little better. There wasn't a quantum leap of improvement between the two, but having M$ take over the program did improve its functionality a little.

If you don't need WinXP in the VPC environment, I would recommend using Win 2K. Although a little outdated by PC standards, Win2k runs far better in VPC than WinXP.

If you can afford it on your system, also max out the RAM available to each Windows OS you're running in VPC to 512MB - it also helps a lot with performance. VRAM can be as low as 4MB though, unless you absolutely need the extra graphics performance.

 

[appleupnorth]

I completely agree with FoxyKaye:
Windows 2K is still a "kinda" current OS and for sure it runs faster than Windows XP. The base setup for the 2K is a 133mhz Pentium/64MB Ram - works nicely with 700G3 iMacs.

If you do have XP - dont mess with home, go straight to pro - its faster and alot more reliable.

But, basically because XP is really an - re-done version of 2K - you should be able to run 89% of all programs out there.

Matt