VPC Intentionally Sucks?

[SDW2001]

I read some rumor about this awhile ago. The rumor was that either Connectix or Apple had a PC Emulator (software) that was so incredible it could run Windows software natively and full speed. It is said the project was killed because it became clear that if Windows software would run great on a Mac (all of it), then developers would have no reason to develop for the Mac OS.

So, does it follow that Connectix has delibrately made VPC slower than it needs to be? It is that why it doesn't support video cards (and therefore games)? It would kind of make sense.

[Matsu]

No.

Connectix isn't part of Apple. If they had a faster emulator they'd sell it regardless.

[wfzelle]

A software emulator can never be as fast as hardware. And you have been watching too much of X-files if you believe there is a conspiracy. Connectix wants to make money, so they ported VPC to OS X. It sucks. Next version will be better (although the OS 9 version will always be faster because the OS can be hogged by VPC).

[Barto]

You are probably thinking of "Red Box". Mac OS X was (did) going to be able to run WinTel apps, like Classic (blue box). It was slow, it was killed.

I don't see the point for an emulator myself. Just about everything is for Macs anyway.

Also, Mac OS X can be MUCH faster for emulation. renice -20 <PID> isn't that hard. (renice is the terminal command for prioritizing processes).

Barto

[ 07-04-2002: Message edited by: Barto ]</p>

[X704]

With the latest VPC update you can set it's priority in the preferences (or was it my settings?). Anyway I assume this just a GUI for the renice command.

[Bunny Buster]

I'm interested in what versions of Windows you all are using with VPC 5.0- 98, 2000, XP? You guys say and I've also heard elsewhere that 5.0 on OS X is really slow, but what versions of Windows are you using and how much RAM are you allocating to VPC?

I'm interested because I'm considering upgrading my VPC 3.0 with Win98 to 5.0 when I get OS X. I would think that it would perform resonably well since the system requirements for Win98 are a lot less than XP or 2000, but maybe not as fast as in OS 9.

[robo]

I think VPC 5 runs everything slower than VPC 3. As seems to be the case with most apps, the first OS X version is sluggish in comparison to the last OS 9 version. After that, things seem to even out.

VPC 6, or 5.5, or whatever, could be quite decent.

-aoeu

[serrano]

win 98 - 128 ram allocated of 512, g3 450, much slower than under 9.

[Barto]

I'm running XP Professional, it boots so incredible fast.

It runs fine on my G4 400 (G4s are faster for emulation, as they can run windows code without swapping the 1s and 0s back to front, like a G3).

Barto

[AllenChristopher]

"I read some rumor about this awhile ago. The rumor was that either Connectix or Apple had a PC Emulator (software) that was so incredible it could run Windows software natively and full speed. It is said the project was killed because it became clear that if Windows software would run great on a Mac (all of it), then developers would have no reason to develop for the Mac OS.

So, does it follow that Connectix has delibrately made VPC slower than it needs to be? It is that why it doesn't support video cards (and therefore games)? It would kind of make sense."

Good lord! It doesn't make any sense at all. You're wondering whether one company, Apple, killing a project because it would compete with Mac OS has some bearing on an entirely different company that does not make Mac OS? The answer is no. Connectix doesn't make the Mac OS, and VPC for Windows is its fair-haired child right now anyway.

"It would kind of make sense." Yeesh.

[ 07-08-2002: Message edited by: AllenChristopher ]</p>

[Franck]

[quote]Originally posted by Barto:
<strong>I'm running XP Professional, it boots so incredible fast.

It runs fine on my G4 400 (G4s are faster for emulation, as they can run windows code without swapping the 1s and 0s back to front, like a G3).

Barto</strong><hr></blockquote>

G3 can load/store little-endian as well as big-endian data, just like G4.
But previous PPC chips (604 and before) can't.