[(( p g ))]

I'm curious to hear what people have to say about VPC, especially version 6.0...or ever 6.1 (the new MS-branded version). Any thoughts? I seem to recall that version 5.0 was criticized for being dog slow...did they address this in version 6?

 

[Klaatu]

Depends on the speed of your machine -- and your operating system (both Mac and PC). Unless you have something close to a 1Ghz G4 it's probably not worth it. Especially is you're already running OS X -- which just barely runs at about 500 mhz -- running Virtual PC, which is another memory-intensive operating system, you'll slow your computer to a crawl.

I've demoed versions of 5 and 6 to run on my souped-up G3 (500 Mhz G4, 512 RAM) and the computer nearly choked. It's the most memory-hogging program I've ever tried to run which is why I figure at least double the power is necessary to make it passable.

 

[MaxPower]

I've tried Virtual PC 6 on my 1ghz iMac and I find that the Windows XP environment to be very slow. Moving the cursor around seems to be fine, but doing anything but that tends to slow the system down.

Keep in mind also that Virtual PC not only emulates the OS, but it also emulates the hardware as well. These two factors contribute to the slowness.

My advice: I wouldn't rely on Virtual PC for programs that you absolutly have to use. if you want to use it for P2P programs, then you'll get by with it, but any thing else where you have to do some work forget it.

 

[old dawg]

I second everything you said. I've had to use it (VPC 5) in the past and wasted hours getting things done. I now have a new, very fast G4 with tons of memory and it kinda sorta looks useable.

My advice is to stick to Mac based applications if you can.

 

[Finch]

I can only say the same thing about v6 that I said about v5 and v4, SLOW.

 

[Jordan]

Have you thought about RealPC? It onlly runs in OS 9, but on my PB Pismo 400, 512ram runs fairly decent. I have Win98se on it and it's like running a Intel/AMD 266mhz.

 

[jfpoole]

I've got Virtual PC 6 on my PowerBook G4 667, and I find it's usable (especially if you use Windows 2000 instead of Windows XP).

 

[Jordan]

I just checked out RealPC's site, and it looks like they've stopped making new versions of their RealPC software. But you can still pick it up from them for $80 US in the "Specials and Older Versions".

 

[(( p g ))]

So from the sounds of things, don't bother with VPC unless you have a G4 1 ghz (which I do, but running a slow app would defeat the purpose of having a fast machine). Maybe this was one of Microsoft's less-than-smart acquisitions.

 

[ShnickyShnack]

There are ways to keep the slowness under control, number one among them to not run anything above Windows 98. On a reasonably fast G4, and using only Windows 98 (and fiddling with the settings revolving around memory and such), it's not too bad. But it's only for things you absolutely, positively can't live without. Otherwise it's pretty much a waste of time.

Maybe on a G5?

 

[(( p g ))]

This just in. VPC won't run on a G5.

Link

 

[RobTheGob]

Maybe this was one of Microsoft's less-than-smart acquisitions.

M$ didn't acquire VPC so they could continue selling it to Mac users. They picked it up so they could get their virtual server technology.

I've always been impressed by VPC, it's a remarkable piece of SW. The fact that it works at all should impress anybody around here that writes SW... Having said that, it will almost always be cheaper/faster to simply buy a cheap PC for PC duties. Blasphemy!

 

[used to be jwoodget]

FWB (who bought the rights to RealPC when they acquired another company) says they are not going to develop an OS X version contrary to previous statements.

Anyone else feel the slightest bit of unease that Microsoft now controls the only software that emulates Windows (and is currently incompatible with the G5 processor)? At least Intel didn't buy Connectix....

 

[Chealion]

Now with RealPC dead, Microsoft doesn't have any healthy competition to make them work hard on VPC. Monopoly all over again.

 

[PosterBoy]

I have VPC 6 on my iBook 600 and it is slow but useable so long as you don't do anything more intense than say MS Office XP. It helps that I am running Win98SE in it instead of Win2k or WinXP.

I had a curious problem though, MS recently released a service release (VPC6.1) that basically rebranded the software from Connectix to Microsoft, and when I tried to start it up again it asked for my serial number. When I tried to enter my serial number it said it was invalid. I have yet to receive a response from MS Support.

Grr.

--PB

 

[Gerbill]

Now that I've got my 800 MHz processor upgrade, VPC 5 finally runs Win98 at a respectable speed. It is perfectly all right for MS Office tasks, which is the only real reason I bother with it. If I need to do any serious Windows stuff (seldom happens, fortunately) I have a real Athlon box with Win 2000. I don't have it hooked to a monitor, I just run it through the Mac via VNC, which is free.

Cheers :-> Bill

 

[dibenga]

Does anyone know if VP6 takes advantage of Dual processors?

 

[Finch]

On an off note looks like M$ just announced that VPC is not compatible with the new G5 line of computers. Like every other M$ product buyer beware!

 

[Miko Fulla]

I have VPC6 running on my 700mhz 640mb iBook with win98SE and it is very slow. All I need it for is connecting to my Sony NetMD player but it doesn't even do that right (something about bugs with USB devices, coupled with Sony's absolutely HORRIBLE software). Stupid Sony. I'm going to try the RealPC software and see if it works with that.

 

[VertiGoGo]

I have VPC running Windows 2K and it is painfully slow.

It is used sparingly...and it won't even let me telework cuz of how it emulates or some damned thing. Very annoying!!!