or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › VPC 5
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

VPC 5

post #1 of 23
Thread Starter 
"Connectix has also added support for dual processor machines when running under Mac OS X. Virtual PC will automatically use the second processor for all video updating tasks when launched on a dual machine. "
<a href="http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/0112/05.vpc5.php" target="_blank">http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/0112/05.vpc5.php</a>

Hmmm, interesting. By this is sounds like their essentially making the second processor act as a GPU. I wonder if they've increased the the VRAM settings above 4MB. Perha DP will be able to play some of those newer PC games now ... (the ones that actualy work in VPC anyway).

They didn't say anything about speed enhancements though. Anyone know if aster for SP machines?
post #2 of 23
I really hope VPC 5 is as fast on OS X as VPC 9 running on MacOS 9.
It's slow on my 400MHz G3, even with 512MB
post #3 of 23
This is not a direct answer to your question but I find the whole virtual PC thing confusing. Each release says it's better and faster than the one before. I own VPC 3 and 4 and 3 is considerably faster than 4 on a 450mhz G4 w/ 256mb. Also, VPC supports Voodoo 5 cards unlike the newer versions. If you have a Mac w/o AGP and want to play some windows games get a Voodoo 5 and VPC 3.
I have a fever and the only prescription is more cowbell.
Reply
I have a fever and the only prescription is more cowbell.
Reply
post #4 of 23
[quote]I wonder if they've increased the the VRAM settings above 4MB.<hr></blockquote>

Nope.
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
post #5 of 23
G4Dude,

I've benchmarked VPC 3 & 4 on my G3.
VPC 4 is faster ( I've tried Norton System Info and Sisoft Sandra) but screen redraws are painfully slow under VPC 4 so it seems slower.
post #6 of 23
I guess that's it. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
I have a fever and the only prescription is more cowbell.
Reply
I have a fever and the only prescription is more cowbell.
Reply
post #7 of 23
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by Franck:
<strong>G4Dude,

I've benchmarked VPC 3 & 4 on my G3.
VPC 4 is faster ( I've tried Norton System Info and Sisoft Sandra) but screen redraws are painfully slow under VPC 4 so it seems slower.</strong><hr></blockquote>

The Maccentral article reports that screen redraws are supposed to be faster, something to do with keeping the res the same as the mac side. I haven't found it to be a problem, but then I've always kept the VPC res at the same res as my mac side so perhaps I won't see a difference ...

[quote]Originally posted by G4Dude:
<strong> Also, VPC supports Voodoo 5 cards unlike the newer versions. If you have a Mac w/o AGP and want to play some windows games get a Voodoo 5 and VPC 3.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's to my understanding that only a Voodoo 2 will get 3D acceleration in VPC 3. I could be wrong but you may want to double check the Voodoo 5 accel. Have you actually played a 3D game & used the Glide or OpenGl drivers?

I really hope the OS X version is on par with the OS 9 one. The "Test Drive" performance was terrible.
post #8 of 23
I thought there was a file called "voodoo 5 config" or something but I could be wrong. I don't have a Voodoo card so I would n't know what performance is like. Does anybody out there use a Voodoo w/ VPC?
I have a fever and the only prescription is more cowbell.
Reply
I have a fever and the only prescription is more cowbell.
Reply
post #9 of 23
Looks pretty slick. Wonder how the speed is on Windows XP.

Also, imagine running it on a 1 GHz G5. How fast do you think the x86 emulation would be? I didn't read all the info but does it have built-in support for Altivec? Perhaps with a G5 we wouldn't even need to worry about the slow-down in emulation...
~Winner of the Official 2003 AppleInsider NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament Pool~
Reply
~Winner of the Official 2003 AppleInsider NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament Pool~
Reply
post #10 of 23
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by TigerWoods99:
<strong>Looks pretty slick. Wonder how the speed is on Windows XP.

Also, imagine running it on a 1 GHz G5. How fast do you think the x86 emulation would be? I didn't read all the info but does it have built-in support for Altivec? Perhaps with a G5 we wouldn't even need to worry about the slow-down in emulation...</strong><hr></blockquote>

VPC 4 had some Altivec support, assumingly VPC 5 does too. Apparently VPC 5 in OS X is no faster (or not much) then the "Test Drive", very dissapointing .

A person submitted this report to XLR8yourmac.com
[quote]" Hi! I have my Powerbook 667 with 512 Mb with MacOS 9.2.1 (Italian) and MacOS X 10.1.1. Well, I have tested VPC5 with Cinebench 2000 for windows:

MacOS 9.2.1
Shading (Cinema4D) = 2.12
Shading (OpenGL) = 1.24
Raytracing = 2.41

MacOS X 10.1.1
Shading (Cinema4D) = 1.29
Shading (OpenGL) = 0.83
Raytracing = 1.38

Good performance on old MacOS. Slooow on new MacOS.
Massimo De Carli
from Italy"
<hr></blockquote>
post #11 of 23
I haven't been able to find any info on connectix's website...but, does anyone know if USB is fully supported in VPC5 for OSX? It wasn't in the test drive.
post #12 of 23
I just got it running.

Honestly, I don't notice anything really gets the speed boost. It's still as slow as a turtle....
Mac Pro 2.66, 5GB RAM, 250+120 HD, 23" Cinema Display
MacBook 1.83GHz, 2GB RAM
Reply
Mac Pro 2.66, 5GB RAM, 250+120 HD, 23" Cinema Display
MacBook 1.83GHz, 2GB RAM
Reply
post #13 of 23
Checked it out last night. Got my hands on a copy. I think i may be slower than verion 4 or the same speed. The app is not coca, its carbon so its not going to run like a pure OS X app would. I dont know why they made it that way. They gave support for dual CPUs which is good.. but I thought the OS makes it so all tasks take advantage to both CPUs? And when you configure the windows image, you are still promped for RAM allocation. I thought that OS X allocated RAM dynamicly.... no need for this sort of thing? The first time you boot your Windows disk image, you have to do a hardware config.. takes a few min. The interface is more OS Xish as can be expected. if you are a user of Verion 4.. you wont need any help on how to use verion 5. Running a image of XP and its VERY slow. I didnt make the image so the image its self could be the promblem. I will have to pay with it somemore. Win89 image works just like it did with verion 4.
....Will contunue to test.
post #14 of 23
These reports are not good. My school is making all the students get laptops and if I can't run Winblows software at good speeds on a TiBook, I might have to get a PC. At least I still have 2 macworlds till I need the laptop (come on speed bump!). Overall though I have been very dissapointed with the performance of VPC 3 and 4. For the price of that software, I could get a wintel box that was like 4 times faster.
I have a fever and the only prescription is more cowbell.
Reply
I have a fever and the only prescription is more cowbell.
Reply
post #15 of 23
[quote]Originally posted by evildead:
<strong>= I think i may be slower than verion 4 or the same speed. The app is not coca, its carbon so its not going to run like a pure OS X app would. =</strong><hr></blockquote>

Wrong...try another theory. A well coded Carbon app will run identically (speed wise) to a well coded Cocoa app. The advantages of Cocoa are mainly manifested on the developer side, not the user side....
Aldo is watching....
Reply
Aldo is watching....
Reply
post #16 of 23
[quote]Originally posted by evildead:
<strong> The app is not coca, its carbon so its not going to run like a pure OS X app would. I dont know why they made it that way. </strong><hr></blockquote>


And I repeat:



If you don't know how Carbon and Cocoa work, please don't say anything against them.
post #17 of 23
[quote]Originally posted by TigerWoods99:
<strong>Looks pretty slick. Wonder how the speed is on Windows XP.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Windows XP in VirtualPC is fast unless you are moving active windows around. So I guess everything is fast but the video draw, but all else does seem faster than VPC4. I don't know if Windows XP Home edition would be any faster at video draw (I have Professional edition).
post #18 of 23
[quote]Originally posted by G-Dog:
<strong>I haven't been able to find any info on connectix's website...but, does anyone know if USB is fully supported in VPC5 for OSX? It wasn't in the test drive.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Actually OSX is recommended for full USB suport according to the "read me".
post #19 of 23
[quote]Originally posted by starfleetX:
<strong>


And I repeat:



If you don't know how Carbon and Cocoa work, please don't say anything against them.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Why don't you stop acting like an ass and explain it to him then.
--
move forward.
--
Reply
--
move forward.
--
Reply
post #20 of 23
[quote]<strong>Why don't you stop acting like an ass and explain it to him then.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Please excuse starfleetX, he's getting tired of explaining it.

[quote]Originally posted by evildead:
<strong>Checked it out last night. Got my hands on a copy. I think i may be slower than verion 4 or the same speed. The app is not coca, its carbon so its not going to run like a pure OS X app would.</strong><hr></blockquote>

A Carbon application is also an OS X native app. It does not imply a performance hit in any way.

[quote]<strong>I dont know why they made it that way. They gave support for dual CPUs which is good.. but I thought the OS makes it so all tasks take advantage to both CPUs?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Only certain kinds of tasks lend themselves to be divided among processors. It usually is not an issue to run application A on one processor while running application B on another, but for multiple threads within a single application, certain provisions must be made. VPC divides this problem by assigning graphics (windowing, I believe) operations to one processor while the other deals with everything else.

[quote]<strong>And when you configure the windows image, you are still promped for RAM allocation. I thought that OS X allocated RAM dynamicly.... no need for this sort of thing?</strong><hr></blockquote>

For most apps, yes.. but remember what VPC is doing. It is emulating a full blown PC, so it grabs a hunk of memory (of size X you specify) and uses that as "pc" memory. That hunk of memory is probably dynamically allocated under OS X, although it is possible for performance and compatability reasons it is a single static chunk. Windows XP or whatever x86 OS you use will then allocate its memory for its apps from that memory space.

[quote][/qb]Running a image of XP and its VERY slow.[/QB]<hr></blockquote>

I would bet that one of the reasons for the performance hit under OS X is that Darwin doesn't lend itself as an emulation platform (performance-wise) that well. It's tough for VPC to take over the processing and i/o resources and grab top priority on them.

It shouldn't have anything to do with Carbon.

Any other theories?

[ 12-10-2001: Message edited by: jutus ]</p>
post #21 of 23
Version 5.0 runs quite slow in OSX according to the reports from various web sites. What happened to the speed increase that it should have from the "modern" OS as compared to running it in the old slow classis OS?

I still don't think OS X is ready for prime time. Maybe its got too much glitz (transparency, etc).

- Mark
post #22 of 23
[quote]I still don't think OS X is ready for prime time. Maybe its got too much glitz (transparency, etc).<hr></blockquote>
Ah the knee-jerk Aqua response to application speed. There may be some speed problems with OSx, like programmers getting used to using different APIs and different calls for things they may have done before, as well as unoptimized frameworks, but perhaps in your infinite wisdom you can explain how glitz is slowing down a virtual machine.

before someone says it I will: %@&$wipe
four more beers, four more beers
Reply
four more beers, four more beers
Reply
post #23 of 23
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by cowerd:
<strong>
Ah the knee-jerk Aqua response to application speed. There may be some speed problems with OSx, like programmers getting used to using different APIs and different calls for things they may have done before, as well as unoptimized frameworks, but perhaps in your infinite wisdom you can explain how glitz is slowing down a virtual machine.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Exactly!
sc_markt why is VPC 4 "2x" faster then VPC 3 was? Was it glitz? No it was simply better programming. OS X is a whole new beast to programers. Obviously they're in a learning process & I'm sure that much of the speed problem with VPC in OS X is because of it's programming.

As cowerd mentioned to, Apple is continueing to optimize the new OS & this will improve. I don't see how transparency has anything to do with how fast VPC emulates things (assuming your not resizing your windows constantly while using VPC). No, Aqua is not to blame for the terribly poor performance VPC has in OS X. Hopefully Connectix will be able to considerably speed it up with a 5.1 update or something (perhpas 10.2, wherever it comes out, will also help).
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac Software
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › VPC 5