or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › G5 Virtual PC
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

G5 Virtual PC

post #1 of 76
Thread Starter 
So with the blazing new speed and wall smashing power of the new G5, how will Virtual PC run on it? Will running an emulated version of windows dumb down the G5 so that it will operate on par with a wintel machine?
post #2 of 76
Kickaha and Amorph couldn't moderate themselves out of a paper bag. Abdicate responsibility and succumb to idiocy. Two years of letting a member make personal attacks against others, then stepping aside when someone won't put up with it. Not only that but go ahead and shut down my posting priviledges but not the one making the attacks. Not even the common decency to abide by their warning (afer three days of absorbing personal attacks with no mods in sight), just shut my posting down and then say it might happen later if a certian line is crossed. Bullshit flag is flying, I won't abide by lying and coddling of liars who go off-site, create accounts differing in a single letter from my handle with the express purpose to decieve and then claim here that I did it. Everyone be warned, kim kap sol is a lying, deceitful poster.

Now I guess they should have banned me rather than just shut off posting priviledges, because kickaha and Amorph definitely aren't going to like being called to task when they thought they had it all ignored *cough* *cough* I mean under control. Just a couple o' tools.

Don't worry, as soon as my work resetting my posts is done I'll disappear forever.
post #3 of 76
Quote:
Originally posted by AirSluf
It will still be slow, but maybe not painfully slow anymore. Biggest issue is VPC has no GFx card (2D or 3D) acceleration and no amount of CPU will fix that in the foreseeable future.

Good software could fix it though. If Microsoft decided to (for whatever reason) they could implement a native PowerPC/OpenGL driver for the DirectX Windows subsystem and performance would improve very very dramatically.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #4 of 76
Quote:
Originally posted by Programmer
Good software could fix it though. If Microsoft decided to (for whatever reason) they could implement a native PowerPC/OpenGL driver for the DirectX Windows subsystem and performance would improve very very dramatically.

Seems like it would be a smart thing for MS to do.
I heard that geeks are a dime a dozen, I just want to find out who's been passin' out the dimes
----- Fred Blassie 1964
Reply
I heard that geeks are a dime a dozen, I just want to find out who's been passin' out the dimes
----- Fred Blassie 1964
Reply
post #5 of 76
Quote:
Originally posted by Bigc
Seems like it would be a smart thing for MS to do.

It sells more of their software but fewer of their platforms. Should they discourage people from buying any Macs, or should they try to disuade developers from bothering with Mac versions of their software?
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #6 of 76
Quote:
Originally posted by Programmer
It sells more of their software but fewer of their platforms. Should they discourage people from buying any Macs, or should they try to disuade developers from bothering with Mac versions of their software?

Seems like they could jump on the G5 bandwagon, and after all, they are in the software business and it would sell more versions of windows along with office programs and reduce their Mac development costs. I for one wouldn't mind a good Vitrual PC, there are plenty of programs I could use that are only available for Windows.

Curious though, how good could MS make VirtualPC? Could it get to be almost transparent with 90% of the speed of running native designed MS programs on the Mac?
I heard that geeks are a dime a dozen, I just want to find out who's been passin' out the dimes
----- Fred Blassie 1964
Reply
I heard that geeks are a dime a dozen, I just want to find out who's been passin' out the dimes
----- Fred Blassie 1964
Reply
post #7 of 76
Quote:
Originally posted by Programmer
It sells more of their software but fewer of their platforms. Should they discourage people from buying any Macs, or should they try to disuade developers from bothering with Mac versions of their software?

But does it sell fewer copies of the Windows OS? It's my impression that every time someone buys VPC, they are paying for a copy of the Windows OS. When an x86 Windows PC is sold, MS makes its money on is the OS, and of course any bundled MS software the hardware vendor installs. So, wouldn't MS make as much, maybe even more, on VPC than the sale of a Windows PC? I understand MS sells Windows at a reduced price when it is pre-installed.

Regarding your question, the most profitable strategy for MS would be to discourage developers from producing Mac software. If most Macs needed VPC, MS would be making as much or more off each Mac sold as it does each x86 PC.
post #8 of 76
Quote:
Originally posted by Programmer
It sells more of their software but fewer of their platforms. Should they discourage people from buying any Macs, or should they try to disuade developers from bothering with Mac versions of their software?

I don't know any PC person who would rather run Windows on a Mac, but lots of Mac people need or want to run Windows-based apps from time to time. If MS were to optimize performance of Virtual PC, it could only be good for them and for Mac people.
post #9 of 76
Well, perhaps I can just dream of a version of Virtual PC that operates with 3D graphics support.........
post #10 of 76
Kickaha and Amorph couldn't moderate themselves out of a paper bag. Abdicate responsibility and succumb to idiocy. Two years of letting a member make personal attacks against others, then stepping aside when someone won't put up with it. Not only that but go ahead and shut down my posting priviledges but not the one making the attacks. Not even the common decency to abide by their warning (afer three days of absorbing personal attacks with no mods in sight), just shut my posting down and then say it might happen later if a certian line is crossed. Bullshit flag is flying, I won't abide by lying and coddling of liars who go off-site, create accounts differing in a single letter from my handle with the express purpose to decieve and then claim here that I did it. Everyone be warned, kim kap sol is a lying, deceitful poster.

Now I guess they should have banned me rather than just shut off posting priviledges, because kickaha and Amorph definitely aren't going to like being called to task when they thought they had it all ignored *cough* *cough* I mean under control. Just a couple o' tools.

Don't worry, as soon as my work resetting my posts is done I'll disappear forever.
post #11 of 76
said it before, i'll say it again:

as a web designer, i could test my code in over a dozen different versions of web browsers ( netscape 4.x (scary), 6 and 7 and internet explorer versions 4 (just as scary) 5 and 6, opera, et al. ) on four different operating systems ( Win 95 at 256 colors and 640x480, Win 98 at thousands of colors at 800x600, and Win 2000 and XP at millions of colors at 1024x768 ) all under VPC environments on my dual 1 ghz quicksilver at my old job. need to free up cycles? no problem -- just save session and come back to it later once i do more work (or get distracted by another project)

honestly, if you aren't using a mac and vpc for web design, then you must either...
a.) be surrounded by a cacophony of old wintel machines to do the same thing
or
b.) just not care about what you put online.
When you're lovers in a dangerous time,
You're made to feel as if your love's a crime.
Nothing worth having comes without some kind of fight.
Gotta kick at the darkness 'til it bleeds daylight.

-...
Reply
When you're lovers in a dangerous time,
You're made to feel as if your love's a crime.
Nothing worth having comes without some kind of fight.
Gotta kick at the darkness 'til it bleeds daylight.

-...
Reply
post #12 of 76
Quote:
Originally posted by AirSluf
Not according to the conversations I had with Connectix engineers during the VPC4/5 transition. A single OS needs to own a single video card. . .

I realize you may have explained it, but it went over my head. Where is my logic going wrong? I look at this problem like layers in software. An application running in OS X can make use of the graphics card, right? Okay, in this layer, VPC is just another application as far as OS X is concerned, so it can take advantage of, and use, the graphics card. That seems obvious.

Within VPC, there is a layer that takes the output of the Windows OS and converts it as necessary for VPC application interface mentioned above. This in not so obvious, and may be the point of your comments. However, it seems that MS controls the code for Windows, and it may be possible to modify the OS code as needed to make this job easier. They own the whole things, so it should not be any different than making a version of Windows that runs on the Mac PPC. Right? In fact, if MS makes such a version of the Windows OS within VPC, they do not even need much of a translation layer at all going to the VPC application.

I think the other layers for running PC applications in the Windows OS would stay about the same as they are now.
post #13 of 76
My first post, so bear with me...

Rok said

"as a web designer, i could test my code in over a dozen different versions of web browsers ( netscape 4.x (scary), 6 and 7 and internet explorer versions 4 (just as scary) 5 and 6, opera, et al. ) on four different operating systems ( Win 95 at 256 colors and 640x480, Win 98 at thousands of colors at 800x600, and Win 2000 and XP at millions of colors at 1024x768 ) all under VPC environments on my dual 1 ghz quicksilver at my old job. need to free up cycles? no problem -- just save session and come back to it later once i do more work (or get distracted by another project)"

What operating system were you using to accomplish this? I face this dillema - I need VPC to run some Windoze only Real Estate Appraisal software. I have a 600Mhz iBook, and I find VPC unusable in OSX, but tolerable in OS9. I need portabilty, but have found VPC on even 15' TiBook unbearable.

My question is essentially two-fold: 1) Is there reason to believe/hope that MS will be willing to speed up VPC or 2) Will the new 'Books be fast enough (speed-wise and L3 size-wise (12'???)).

I should add, I am not doing anything that would require substantial use of the graphics card, only processor.

Maclawyer
post #14 of 76
I am just curious, but does anyone know if a linux os install on vpc will have graphic card hardware support? if so, then you could start to figure out some solutions.
Gyah! (just say it outloud, you'll understand)
Reply
Gyah! (just say it outloud, you'll understand)
Reply
post #15 of 76
Quote:
Originally posted by maclawyer
My first post, so bear with me...

Rok said

"as a web designer, i could test my code in over a dozen different versions of web browsers ( netscape 4.x (scary), 6 and 7 and internet explorer versions 4 (just as scary) 5 and 6, opera, et al. ) on four different operating systems ( Win 95 at 256 colors and 640x480, Win 98 at thousands of colors at 800x600, and Win 2000 and XP at millions of colors at 1024x768 ) all under VPC environments on my dual 1 ghz quicksilver at my old job. need to free up cycles? no problem -- just save session and come back to it later once i do more work (or get distracted by another project)"

What operating system were you using to accomplish this? I face this dillema - I need VPC to run some Windoze only Real Estate Appraisal software. I have a 600Mhz iBook, and I find VPC unusable in OSX, but tolerable in OS9. I need portabilty, but have found VPC on even 15' TiBook unbearable.

My question is essentially two-fold: 1) Is there reason to believe/hope that MS will be willing to speed up VPC or 2) Will the new 'Books be fast enough (speed-wise and L3 size-wise (12'???)).

I should add, I am not doing anything that would require substantial use of the graphics card, only processor.

Maclawyer

It's almost unusable on a dual gigger and impossible on a 500MHz Beige G3 in OSX, bearable on the Beige in OS9.
I heard that geeks are a dime a dozen, I just want to find out who's been passin' out the dimes
----- Fred Blassie 1964
Reply
I heard that geeks are a dime a dozen, I just want to find out who's been passin' out the dimes
----- Fred Blassie 1964
Reply
post #16 of 76
Quote:
Originally posted by AirSluf
Not according to the conversations I had with Connectix engineers during the VPC4/5 transition. A single OS needs to own a single video card. The old Voodoo cards got around that as they were able to shunt 3d commands off the video bus into their processor, then recombine the OSes un-accellerated video which was piped back in via a pass through connector of some sort. It was fairly Rube Goldberg and completely eliminated as a possibility with the advent of OS X.

Because VPC is actually attempting to run the OS in an un-modified state, it runs a software version of an old decrepit video card which it sees as "owning". Using the Mac's hardware card runs into feedback issues of application (VPC) vs OS (Windos running within an application).

Hogwash.

They can't do it because they don't have the balls (or resourcing) to write native drivers. An OS has drivers to insulate it from the hardware, and those drivers aren't part of the OS. By implementing a special trap in their emulator to jump to PowerPC code (simple to do) that would enable them to selectively "supplement" the hardware drivers that Windows comes with. These new drivers would, when called, drop into native PowerPC code and do the work more quickly, possibly using native MacOS X services (e.g. OpenGL) to do so.

VPC took the approach of purely emulating the hardware and thus using the Microsoft drivers (written in x86) to pretend to use the fake hardware that they fake using PowerPC. This is very inefficient, but it allowed them to make it at least as stable as Windows running on the real hardware they chose to emulate. With a bit more work they could improve performance tremendously. This has been done before so the fact that the VPC guys say it can't be done is just a cop-out.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #17 of 76
Quote:
Originally posted by Baron von Smiley
So with the blazing new speed and wall smashing power of the new G5, how will Virtual PC run on it? Will running an emulated version of windows dumb down the G5 so that it will operate on par with a wintel machine?

VPC does not emulate Windows. VPC emulates an x86 processor and a selection of peripherals. If you run Windows on VPC, Windows code is translated at runtime into PPC code and then executed. Think of BASIC at a lower level. Instead of interpreting BASIC source code into PPC code on the fly, you are effectively doing the same thing with x86 binary code. There is an upper limit on the rate at which one processor can run the interpreted binary code of another processor.

This brings us to a very important point. We are currently in version 6 of VPC. I would guess that the VPC x86 emulator engine reached its effective maximum efficiency no later than version 3. Since then, Connectix has concentrated on adding features such as sharing a single IP address with the host, multiple OS options at start-up, MacOS X dock integration, etc. It may be possible to further tweek the performance of VPC on MacOS X, but a tweek is a tweek. A tweek will not substantially improve the performance of the emulator.

Several years ago, there was an emulator for the Alpha processor that was advertised as executing x86 code at 70% of the host processor. My sense is that is about the best that one can expect from an x86 to PPC emulator. This would give you an effective speed rating of a 1.4 GHz x86 on a single 2 GHz G5.
post #18 of 76
Kickaha and Amorph couldn't moderate themselves out of a paper bag. Abdicate responsibility and succumb to idiocy. Two years of letting a member make personal attacks against others, then stepping aside when someone won't put up with it. Not only that but go ahead and shut down my posting priviledges but not the one making the attacks. Not even the common decency to abide by their warning (afer three days of absorbing personal attacks with no mods in sight), just shut my posting down and then say it might happen later if a certian line is crossed. Bullshit flag is flying, I won't abide by lying and coddling of liars who go off-site, create accounts differing in a single letter from my handle with the express purpose to decieve and then claim here that I did it. Everyone be warned, kim kap sol is a lying, deceitful poster.

Now I guess they should have banned me rather than just shut off posting priviledges, because kickaha and Amorph definitely aren't going to like being called to task when they thought they had it all ignored *cough* *cough* I mean under control. Just a couple o' tools.

Don't worry, as soon as my work resetting my posts is done I'll disappear forever.
post #19 of 76
Kickaha and Amorph couldn't moderate themselves out of a paper bag. Abdicate responsibility and succumb to idiocy. Two years of letting a member make personal attacks against others, then stepping aside when someone won't put up with it. Not only that but go ahead and shut down my posting priviledges but not the one making the attacks. Not even the common decency to abide by their warning (afer three days of absorbing personal attacks with no mods in sight), just shut my posting down and then say it might happen later if a certian line is crossed. Bullshit flag is flying, I won't abide by lying and coddling of liars who go off-site, create accounts differing in a single letter from my handle with the express purpose to decieve and then claim here that I did it. Everyone be warned, kim kap sol is a lying, deceitful poster.

Now I guess they should have banned me rather than just shut off posting priviledges, because kickaha and Amorph definitely aren't going to like being called to task when they thought they had it all ignored *cough* *cough* I mean under control. Just a couple o' tools.

Don't worry, as soon as my work resetting my posts is done I'll disappear forever.
post #20 of 76
Quote:
Originally posted by Bigc
It's almost unusable on a dual gigger...

okay, this is just what i don't get. the above setup i described ran fine -- not tolerable, nor blazingly fast, just fine -- on my dual gigger under os x. i ran a tight ship on my machine, updating with all necessary performance and bug patches, backing up as necessary my saved sessions onto cd or dvd (whichever was required). i had lots of different variations, but i wasn't running all of them simultaneously. for instance, the win95 256 color 640x480 netscape 4.x environment was checked RARELY for web compatibility, but i had it ready in case someone called complaining that it "wasn't working."

sure, the installs take forever -- especially so on winXP and win95 -- and you must, MUST update to the latest version of vpc BEFORE installing windows, or you'll think you're on a 386. but to say that vpc under os x is "almost unusable on a dual gigger" utterly baffles me, based on my experience.
When you're lovers in a dangerous time,
You're made to feel as if your love's a crime.
Nothing worth having comes without some kind of fight.
Gotta kick at the darkness 'til it bleeds daylight.

-...
Reply
When you're lovers in a dangerous time,
You're made to feel as if your love's a crime.
Nothing worth having comes without some kind of fight.
Gotta kick at the darkness 'til it bleeds daylight.

-...
Reply
post #21 of 76
Quote:
Originally posted by AirSluf


. . . what you are suggesting is a significantly different and more expensive undertaking than VPC was ever designed to be. You really have to have access to the guts of Windows (which MS does have) and be willing to provide support for all the internal changes that would be necessary (which I doubt MS would ever sign on to) to use a OS X native driver tactic. Sinking that much work into VPC is more than would be financially viable in a market with sub $500 white boxes. . .


Maybe MS has a plan that would make it worth the effort to vastly improve VPC. What if it ran 70 percent efficiency, as was suggested above? Windows applications would work as well on a Mac as they would on a cheap PC. MS may want to convince its developers that they need not port software to OS X if VPC works this well. The upshot would be, in their plan, to get the majority of Mac users to buy VPC. In other words, MS would get paid for an OS not only on x86 PCs, but on most Macs as well. If their plan works, MS could care less if Apple gets 20 percent or more of the market. MS would still be selling their OS.

Actually, such a plan would be very beneficial to the Mac, even if it means many Mac users would be paying a Windows tax to the big gorilla. So, I hope MS does it. Over time, the applications that can really benefit from OS X will be ported, even if they do work fairly well in VPC.
post #22 of 76
Quote:
Originally posted by rok
(snip)
... but to say that vpc under os x is "almost unusable on a dual gigger" utterly baffles me, based on my experience.

Same here. I use VPC -- on my on a TiBook 800 w. 1GB RAM -- with win98, 2k and XP to check html pages in various IEs, Netscapes/Mozillas, and Operas, and while it certainly is not blazingly fast, it has made more than one customer sit up and look very bewildered, and it certainly does the job.
post #23 of 76
I'm almost certain that Microsoft will never invest much money into Virtual PC, because doing so would make it much easier to switch to the Mac platform. Of course it can be argued that they still sell not only a copy of Windows but also a copy of VPC, but once someone switches to Mac, they're naturally going to prefer to use Mac native programs as opposed to emulated ones, because no matter how much work MS puts into Virtual PC, a native environment beats an emulated environment. So Mac users buy Virtual PC and Windows but then end up switching to using mostly or all Mac programs. Are they going to want to upgrade Windows and Virtual PC when MS comes out with the new version? Probably not if they've come to use mostly Mac programs.

Furthermore, Microsoft's business model is dependant on not on selling as many copies of Windows as possible, but preventing people from using any other operating systems - even if they keep buying Windows. People who use Macs and use Virtual PC are probably not going to use Virtual PC to browse the internet, so it cuts into IE's monopoly, which hinders Microsoft's promotion of things like ASP.NET (doesn't work as well in anything but IE), and Windows networking technologies, since Linux or another Unix would be more universally compatible with OS X, Windows and Linux desktop machines..

Microsoft has a history of not playing nice with any technology that isn't controlled by them.
Everybody wants prosthetic foreheads on their real heads.
Reply
Everybody wants prosthetic foreheads on their real heads.
Reply
post #24 of 76
Quote:
Originally posted by philby
Same here. I use VPC -- on my on a TiBook 800 w. 1GB RAM -- with win98, 2k and XP to check html pages in various IEs, Netscapes/Mozillas, and Operas, and while it certainly is not blazingly fast, it has made more than one customer sit up and look very bewildered, and it certainly does the job.

Try using PS, Arcinfo, MS Project, or even KaZaa is slow as snot (besides being ugly). Web Java Apps are also painfull, although they run in OSX anyway.
I heard that geeks are a dime a dozen, I just want to find out who's been passin' out the dimes
----- Fred Blassie 1964
Reply
I heard that geeks are a dime a dozen, I just want to find out who's been passin' out the dimes
----- Fred Blassie 1964
Reply
post #25 of 76
Quote:
Originally posted by Delphiki

. . . People who use Macs and use Virtual PC are probably not going to use Virtual PC to browse the internet, so it cuts into IE's monopoly, which hinders Microsoft's promotion of things like ASP.NET (doesn't work as well in anything but IE), and Windows networking technologies, since Linux or another Unix would be more universally compatible with OS X, Windows and Linux desktop machines. . .

I don't know what is on Microsoft's mind, and you could be right. Yet the argument can be turned around. If VPC works exceptionally well and IE can be used for the internet, it may make a convincing argument why business should go with .NET. MS can say even Mac users have easy access using VPC.

Quote:

. . . but once someone switches to Mac, they're naturally going to prefer to use Mac native programs as opposed to emulated ones. . . Mac users buy Virtual PC and Windows but then end up switching to using mostly or all Mac programs. Are they going to want to upgrade Windows and Virtual PC when MS comes out with the new version? . . .

MS does not make any money from Windows applications that independent developers sell. MS makes money from the OS installed by the hardware vendor, which is likely under 90 US dollars. MS makes more on each copy of VPC sold. Regarding upgrading, many or most Windows users do not upgrade, so VPC upgrades may be no different. MS also makes money from their application software. So for products like Office, MS makes a profit whether selling an OS X or Windows version.

I just do not see how MS would be hurt by having a really good VPC and selling it to most Mac users. Looking at it another way, selling more copies of VPC lets MS claim a higher percentage of computers that run Windows. So it depends on how MS sees it.
post #26 of 76
When the hell will this vaporware RealPC with native 3d acceleration show!

VPC did it with Voodoo cards so Airsluf I don't see why they can't implement it especially given OS X's abstraction and Microsoft's vast resources. Of course that is assuming they would want to. Like I say, them buying VPC was either real good or real bad. There has not been an update since they bought it though. That was a while ago. Hopefully they are working on VPC 7. Besides even if two Operating Systems can't use the graphics surely VPC could take it over and turn it off for OS X or just shut OS X down entirely and run stand-alone effectively turning your Mac into a (slow) PC.

VPC is great with Win2k on my PB 12" but with 3d acceleration it could be so much more. Programmer's idea sounded realistic to implement.
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
post #27 of 76
Quote:
Originally posted by snoopy
I don't know what is on Microsoft's mind, and you could be right. Yet the argument can be turned around. If VPC works exceptionally well and IE can be used for the internet, it may make a convincing argument why business should go with .NET. MS can say even Mac users have easy access using VPC.



MS does not make any money from Windows applications that independent developers sell. MS makes money from the OS installed by the hardware vendor, which is likely under 90 US dollars. MS makes more on each copy of VPC sold. Regarding upgrading, many or most Windows users do not upgrade, so VPC upgrades may be no different. MS also makes money from their application software. So for products like Office, MS makes a profit whether selling an OS X or Windows version.

I just do not see how MS would be hurt by having a really good VPC and selling it to most Mac users. Looking at it another way, selling more copies of VPC lets MS claim a higher percentage of computers that run Windows. So it depends on how MS sees it.

You make some good points, but my point was that Microsoft's monopoly is dependant upon lock-in. If you can use anything from Microsoft on alternate platforms, then you are not locked in. People say that one of the main reasons that people don't switch is because they already have a collection of Microsoft software. Say Joe Consumer buys a Mac with Virtual PC and Windows, because he already has a license for Office for Windows, Apple gets a computer sale and Microsoft gets a Windows/Virtual PC sale. Win/win. Joe uses his new computer a while and likes it. Joe wants the new version of Office. Joe sees the Mac version and the Windows version. Joe owns a Mac. Joe buys the Mac version. Another year or two passes, and Joe wants a new computer. Joe likes his Mac and wants another, so he buys a PowerBook. Does Joe buy Virtual PC and Windows for his PowerBook? No, why would he? All his software needs are met by native Mac software.

Granted it does have upsides for Microsoft like you mentioned, but Microsoft wants to make it as hard as possible for people to switch (if not, why would they go out of their way to make Word files hard to read, etc). And about your points about Microsoft not making money from third party developers, Microsoft benefits when people use developoment technologies that only target Windows. Microsoft also benefits when they buy a license for those software technologies. I believe a license for Visual Studio .NET 2003 Enterprise Edition is in the neighborhood of $1300.
Everybody wants prosthetic foreheads on their real heads.
Reply
Everybody wants prosthetic foreheads on their real heads.
Reply
post #28 of 76
I think Real PC from FWB will be the better emulation... if it arrives

- Full MP support
- Native Graphic-card support
- Altivec optimization
- Port of the Solaris version



Here an old interview of Mark Prewitt from FWB on MacBidouille.
Waiting for the Power Mac G5 since Oktober 2001
Reply
Waiting for the Power Mac G5 since Oktober 2001
Reply
post #29 of 76
Quote:
Originally posted by Fat Freddy
I think Real PC from FWB will be the better emulation... if it arrives

- Full MP support
- Native Graphic-card support
- Altivec optimization
- Port of the Solaris version



Here an old interview of Mark Prewitt from FWB on MacBidouille.

Since that interview, there have been changes at FWB. The FWB didn't work when I tried it before posting this. However, the company has withdrawn many of the outlandish claims for the revived RealPC emulator. Having just reread the interview, I have one response: "BUNK!" As I stated above, I believe that RealPC 1.1 will be a good emulator. However, the notion that it will represent some kind of breakthrough in emulator performance is withful thinking.

Quite frankly, Mark Prewitt's interview defies credulity. He implies if he doesn't state it outright that RealPC will talk directly to the kernel, bypassing everything above it. This is where the speed increase is supposed to come from. However, the MacOS X upper layers are not where the performance of emulators are lost. It is lost in the translation of x86 code to PPC code. Only additional power in the host system can restore it.

Consider this: Probably the best you can do with an emulator is an emulated clock speed of 70% of the host system. For a 2 GHz G5, you can expect an emulated speed of a 1.4 GHz x86. Such a system will be more than adequate for most PC applications. However, you will not want to use it for CG rendering or intensive gaming. If FWB were to write some kind of super AI-based emulator with zero host processor overhead, the very best that this super emulator could do would be to emulate a 2 GHz x86 on a 2 GHz G5.
post #30 of 76
Quote:
Originally posted by Bigc
Try using PS, Arcinfo, MS Project, or even KaZaa is slow as snot (besides being ugly). Web Java Apps are also painfull, although they run in OSX anyway.

okay, you may have a point on all of those apps, but...

1.) PS (PhotoShop?) -- i use the mac version (and i am assuming anyone else, given the choice, would rather use the mac native version ON the mac than try to run in emulation), so why would the PC version be necessary?
2.) arcinfo -- mapping software, i'll have to take your word for it. may be a hope for it eventually coming to mac, since the workstation variety is available for some unix flavors
3.) ms project -- sorry, but i've been using fasttrack scheduler for the past umpteen years, but, again, i'll take your word for it. then again, i can track most of my projects on post-it notes, but my managers insist on a bit more "detail"
4.) kazaa -- now c'mon, criticizing vpc because it (AND windows, mind you*) doesn't run kazaa, well, that's like when people would criticize apple and os x when it wouldn't run beta apps correctly. in other words, you knew what you were getting into when you downloaded and installed the app.

*p.s. also, which version of windows were you trying to run under vpc? it has been my experience that win98 still offers the best return on investment being installed on vpc, due to compatibility and relative speed. win2000 runs okay, too. don't bother with xp, though. even the home edition is dog slow.
When you're lovers in a dangerous time,
You're made to feel as if your love's a crime.
Nothing worth having comes without some kind of fight.
Gotta kick at the darkness 'til it bleeds daylight.

-...
Reply
When you're lovers in a dangerous time,
You're made to feel as if your love's a crime.
Nothing worth having comes without some kind of fight.
Gotta kick at the darkness 'til it bleeds daylight.

-...
Reply
post #31 of 76
Quote:
2.) arcinfo -- mapping software, i'll have to take your word for it. may be a hope for it eventually coming to mac, since the workstation variety is available for some unix flavors

Sorry, ESRI is a Windows only shop now. However if you're X11 enough you can use GRASS.
four more beers, four more beers
Reply
four more beers, four more beers
Reply
post #32 of 76
Quote:
Originally posted by rok
okay, you may have a point on all of those apps, but...

1.) PS (PhotoShop?) -- i use the mac version (and i am assuming anyone else, given the choice, would rather use the mac native version ON the mac than try to run in emulation), so why would the PC version be necessary?
2.) arcinfo -- mapping software, i'll have to take your word for it. may be a hope for it eventually coming to mac, since the workstation variety is available for some unix flavors
3.) ms project -- sorry, but i've been using fasttrack scheduler for the past umpteen years, but, again, i'll take your word for it. then again, i can track most of my projects on post-it notes, but my managers insist on a bit more "detail"
4.) kazaa -- now c'mon, criticizing vpc because it (AND windows, mind you*) doesn't run kazaa, well, that's like when people would criticize apple and os x when it wouldn't run beta apps correctly. in other words, you knew what you were getting into when you downloaded and installed the app.

*p.s. also, which version of windows were you trying to run under vpc? it has been my experience that win98 still offers the best return on investment being installed on vpc, due to compatibility and relative speed. win2000 runs okay, too. don't bother with xp, though. even the home edition is dog slow.

Wasn't trying to criticize anything. Some companies I get involved use MS Project so I get stuck with it, PS I have for the Mac (while others that switch to a mac may have the windows version) and KaZaa sucks, I use xNap (which is painfully slow on a 500MHz G3 but fine on a dual gigger).

Was just pointing out that there are other programs and reasons for VPC other than Web and email.

As to GRASS, I use MapPublisher with AI and MacDEM, and it works fine (along with POVray for 3-d rendering of height fields)
I heard that geeks are a dime a dozen, I just want to find out who's been passin' out the dimes
----- Fred Blassie 1964
Reply
I heard that geeks are a dime a dozen, I just want to find out who's been passin' out the dimes
----- Fred Blassie 1964
Reply
post #33 of 76
Kickaha and Amorph couldn't moderate themselves out of a paper bag. Abdicate responsibility and succumb to idiocy. Two years of letting a member make personal attacks against others, then stepping aside when someone won't put up with it. Not only that but go ahead and shut down my posting priviledges but not the one making the attacks. Not even the common decency to abide by their warning (afer three days of absorbing personal attacks with no mods in sight), just shut my posting down and then say it might happen later if a certian line is crossed. Bullshit flag is flying, I won't abide by lying and coddling of liars who go off-site, create accounts differing in a single letter from my handle with the express purpose to decieve and then claim here that I did it. Everyone be warned, kim kap sol is a lying, deceitful poster.

Now I guess they should have banned me rather than just shut off posting priviledges, because kickaha and Amorph definitely aren't going to like being called to task when they thought they had it all ignored *cough* *cough* I mean under control. Just a couple o' tools.

Don't worry, as soon as my work resetting my posts is done I'll disappear forever.
post #34 of 76
post #35 of 76
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Me
However, the MacOS X upper layers are not where the performance of emulators are lost. It is lost in the translation of x86 code to PPC code. Only additional power in the host system can restore it.

Ah, but most of the x86 to PPC translation is in some portion of Windows -- usually the graphics (especially in the case of 3D). If you eliminate the need to translate this then your overall emulation will go considerably faster.

I had a discussion with the Connectix guys about this years ago as well, and the upshot was that they simply chose not to implement this kind of punch through in their emulator. Its not that they can't, its that they don't have the will to do so (probably due to the poor investment / revenue ratio). Their system works by emulating hardware. Fine. Invent a new fake piece of hardware, write the PowerPC emulator for the hardware, and then write a x86 driver for it that is paper thin and just invokes fake hardware functionality to do the work. You're "emulating" a piece of hardware that doesn't actually exist. Ta da, you've got a PowerPC driver.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #36 of 76
Kickaha and Amorph couldn't moderate themselves out of a paper bag. Abdicate responsibility and succumb to idiocy. Two years of letting a member make personal attacks against others, then stepping aside when someone won't put up with it. Not only that but go ahead and shut down my posting priviledges but not the one making the attacks. Not even the common decency to abide by their warning (afer three days of absorbing personal attacks with no mods in sight), just shut my posting down and then say it might happen later if a certian line is crossed. Bullshit flag is flying, I won't abide by lying and coddling of liars who go off-site, create accounts differing in a single letter from my handle with the express purpose to decieve and then claim here that I did it. Everyone be warned, kim kap sol is a lying, deceitful poster.

Now I guess they should have banned me rather than just shut off posting priviledges, because kickaha and Amorph definitely aren't going to like being called to task when they thought they had it all ignored *cough* *cough* I mean under control. Just a couple o' tools.

Don't worry, as soon as my work resetting my posts is done I'll disappear forever.
post #37 of 76
Quote:
Originally posted by AirSluf
The only way you can avoid having to do the emulation transition is to rewrite the client that requires the emulation in the first place (Windows window manager in this case). But then you aren't really running Windows anymore, it's something else similar to Windows. You buy tons of compatibility headaches with that type of break and patch solution, not to mention the costs of support or licensing the client's source code so you can break the original client in the first place.

The above part I italicized is exactly what Connectix did but the hardware had to conform to an existing interface for an existing Windows compatible card, or Windows would reject it. And it hardly qualifies as a driver, it is just another piece of emulation software running on the main CPU. Trying to involve the resident GFx card in the emulation adds ridiculous amounts of complexity to the whole process and still doesn't change the fact you are loosing speed because you are still emulating. It's your correctly identified "investment / revenue ratio" that makes that type of project a non-starter.

Hardware companies write new drivers all the time and they don't have the luxury of redefining the hardware's interface to match exactly what they need it to be. In six (seven?) versions of VPC Connectix hasn't done this, even though it is probably less technically challenging that their x86 emulator itself. And you don't need to modify the Windows OS itself, that's why it has drivers! Most of the time is spent in the grapics calls of the driver so it would have a significant speed improvement -- especially for 3D and video decoding. Sorry, this is just Connectix being cheap-ass about it.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #38 of 76
when VPC3 dropped years ago the mac market was still in flux, and many consumers machines were 1st rev iMacs, with as little as 2Mb VRAM. even the top end machines only had 16Mb Rage cards. conversely there were more 3rd party cards available for the mac, but most only concentrating on faster quickdraw specs/providing 2nd monitor support.

i think that's one reason why, when connectix decided to utilise an emulated grapgic card, it was one which fitted the specs of the target market at the time, and was probably technically feasible. now, with all macs shipping with at least 32Mb of VRAM, it might be possible to revisit the solution with a more comparably powered emulated GPU.

furthermore i'm pretty sure the next iteration of VPC will be X only ... the last few revs of VPC added Mac OS X compatability and extra features, rather than much performance. i was so disappointed when VPC5 debuted ... i remember much speculation on these boards and others that VPC on X would bring real performance benefits. "Mach is your friend" was one quote i still remember tantalising me .... oh well.

So now VPC is X only. THe recommened specs for Quartz Extreme might be reflected in the revised emulated GPU for VPC ... 32Mb minimum for full effect, less will still run. if i were the M$ MacBU I would want to draw a line under previous performance issues with VPC on X, rasie the bar on minimum specs, redesign the emulated graphics to resemble a reasonable base PC spec card .. a GeForce2 or something. Unfortuately i'm unconvinced why M$ need VPC, and certainly why they may want to significantly rehaul it, rather than some basic new features, slap some more M$ branded installers and wizards, and stick it in a box next to Office vX on the shelves. But this thread isn't about the fundamental contradiction of VPC for Mac, made by a small section of M$, but is about performance.

hopefully they can bump the specs and rewrite the emulated graphics card.
Nothing but sunshine, it's all sunshine ....
Reply
Nothing but sunshine, it's all sunshine ....
Reply
post #39 of 76
Quote:
Originally posted by jobes
when VPC3 dropped years ....

The original version of Virtual PC was Virtual PC 1.0. It entered the market at a time when the dominant emulator was SoftWindows.
Quote:
Originally posted by jobes
.... Unfortuately i'm unconvinced why M$ need VPC, and certainly why they may want to significantly rehaul it, rather than some basic new features, slap some more M$ branded installers and wizards, and stick it in a box next to Office vX on the shelves....

Actually M$ doesn't need VPC, but that is not why the company bought Connectix's emulator line. It bought the product line for Virtual Server, but VPC was the shipping, profitable product. VS was still in beta. As to your second point, the MacBU has done a decent job so far of using standard MacOS X drag and drop installers. My concern is different. VPC has been a hallmark of simplicity. However, M$ subscribes to the When-in-doubt-add-another-feature school of software design. I expect the next major release of VPC (VPC7?) to be pretty good. But M$ is M$. I expect the following release (VPC8?) to be a hallmark of M$ feature bloat.
post #40 of 76
Quote:
Originally posted by Bigc
Wasn't trying to criticize anything...

okay, apologies for my wording. mea culpa.
When you're lovers in a dangerous time,
You're made to feel as if your love's a crime.
Nothing worth having comes without some kind of fight.
Gotta kick at the darkness 'til it bleeds daylight.

-...
Reply
When you're lovers in a dangerous time,
You're made to feel as if your love's a crime.
Nothing worth having comes without some kind of fight.
Gotta kick at the darkness 'til it bleeds daylight.

-...
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac Software
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › G5 Virtual PC