End of Virtual PC on the Mac?

2

Comments

  • Reply 22 of 49
    ebbyebby Posts: 3,110member
    The PC card was an actual PC chip that worked with the Mac's PPC chip to launch Windows programs without emulation. Due to heat/space issues of the PCI area, the processors were limited to something around 150Mhz. This was "back in the day" so I suppose laptop processors could be used with a fan or clocked down, but either the cost outweighs the benefits or it is no longer compatible with Apple's latest technology.
  • Reply 23 of 49
    mr. memr. me Posts: 3,221member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Ebby

    The PC card was an actual PC chip that worked with the Mac's PPC chip to launch Windows programs without emulation. Due to heat/space issues of the PCI area, the processors were limited to something around 150Mhz. This was "back in the day" so I suppose laptop processors could be used with a fan or clocked down, but either the cost outweighs the benefits or it is no longer compatible with Apple's latest technology.



    The real reason that Orange Micro stopped making x86-based coprocessor cards was that there really is a limited market for such an expensive item. Virtual PC pretty much satisfied the needs of users who really needed Wintel compatibility in their Macs.
  • Reply 24 of 49
    ebbyebby Posts: 3,110member
    I remember having a short debate with another kid in High School. I bought VPC, and he bought a PC card for his, uhh, I think it was a 9600. His was faster at PC stuff, but my big advantage was compatibility with future machines. Yet here I sit with OS X, a spiffy new G5, and a VPC box for OS 9. It ended up being cheaper to build my own cheap PC than to fork out the dough for all the upgrades to a software that ran so slow.

    8)
  • Reply 25 of 49
    pbpb Posts: 4,255member


    Nice timing! Thanks SonOfSylvanus.
  • Reply 26 of 49
    pbpb Posts: 4,255member
    Now, could someone "translate" this news from MOSR?



    Quote:



    Good news: Microsoft VirtualPC 7.0 (alpha version) performance on PowerMac G5 is surprisingly good! Even though we have only received a few real-world "wristwatch" benchmarks and preliminary reports from two sources who have recently come into possession of an alpha build of Virtual PC 7.0, the news so far is very good.



    On a single 1.6GHz G5, performance of a broad spectrum of applications and operating systems was roughly comparable to that of a Dual 1GHz G4. On a Dual 1.8GHz model, performance was "astounding," well above and beyond that of a Dual 1.42GHz G4 system -- notably with resource-intensive multi-tasking where the G5's superior bandwidth comes into play. On any Quartz Extreme-class system (Radeon or GeForce accelerator on an AGP bus), applications were reported to take huge advantage of new VPC7 features which route some emulated PC graphics functions directly to the real graphics accelerator hardware -- notably games and professional 3D apps.



    Although stability in these alpha builds leaves much to be desired according the reports, and so far neither source has been able to install current builds of Microsoft's Longhorn next-gen operating system, we are expecting more detailed benchmarks and features reports shortly.





    So, what do we have here? VPC7 running on a dual G5 1.8 GHz like VPC6 running on a dual 1.42 GHz G4? Is that surprisingly good or astounding performance? Or do they mean that PC applications in VPC7 on a dual 1.8 GHz are running like their Mac analogs on a dual 1.42 GHz G4? Either way, it does not make sense to me.
  • Reply 27 of 49
    jlljll Posts: 2,713member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by PB



    So, what do we have here? VPC7 running on a dual G5 1.8 GHz like VPC6 running on a dual 1.42 GHz G4?




    Read it again:



    On a single 1.6GHz G5, performance of a broad spectrum of applications and operating systems was roughly comparable to that of a Dual 1GHz G4.



    And:



    On a Dual 1.8GHz model, performance was "astounding," well above and beyond that of a Dual 1.42GHz G4 system
  • Reply 28 of 49
    pbpb Posts: 4,255member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by JLL

    Read it again:



    On a single 1.6GHz G5, performance of a broad spectrum of applications and operating systems was roughly comparable to that of a Dual 1GHz G4.



    And:



    On a Dual 1.8GHz model, performance was "astounding," well above and beyond that of a Dual 1.42GHz G4 system




    Again, I don't understand: "comparable to that of a Dual 1GHz G4" and "well above and beyond that of a Dual 1.42GHz G4 system", running what?
  • Reply 29 of 49
    Quote:

    Originally posted by PB

    Again, I don't understand: "comparable to that of a Dual 1GHz G4" and "well above and beyond that of a Dual 1.42GHz G4 system", running what?



    According to the last line of the post. More details will be forth coming. You might slide over to MOSR and message them and see if they do have more details or can clarify this issue for you. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.



    Such are the dangers of trolling a rumor mill. Accurate and detailed information are never guaranteed.



    I for one am glad to hear about the Quartz extreme support. everyone with a Geforce2MX installed in a 4x AGP slot should get a nice speed boost.
  • Reply 30 of 49
    pbpb Posts: 4,255member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Plague Bearer



    Such are the dangers of trolling a rumor mill. Accurate and detailed information are never guaranteed.




    This is one thing, but comparing a given 'hardware + software' configuration (in that case G5 + VPC7) to another 'hardware + what?' vague one (in this case G4 + what?), is something different. At least so it seems to me. Never mind.
  • Reply 31 of 49
    jlljll Posts: 2,713member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by PB

    Again, I don't understand: "comparable to that of a Dual 1GHz G4" and "well above and beyond that of a Dual 1.42GHz G4 system", running what?



    VPC. They are comparing VPC speeds.
  • Reply 32 of 49
    pbpb Posts: 4,255member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by JLL

    VPC. They are comparing VPC speeds.



    This contradicts in some sense what they are saying, that's why I have trouble to see what they mean. It is certainly expected that on dual 1.8GHz G5 model the performace will be "well above and beyond that of a Dual 1.42GHz G4 system" (running the same software, not only VPC). How is this astounding performance (that is of VPC)? If VPC 7 performs much better than VPC 6 on the SAME Dual 1.42GHz G4, then this could be astounding performance. But I don't think they say something like that.
  • Reply 33 of 49
    mr. memr. me Posts: 3,221member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by PB

    This contradicts in some sense what they are saying, that's why I have trouble to see what they mean. It is certainly expected that on dual 1.8GHz G5 model the performace will be "well above and beyond that of a Dual 1.42GHz G4 system" (running the same software, not only VPC). How is this astounding performance (that is of VPC)? If VPC 7 performs much better than VPC 6 on the SAME Dual 1.42GHz G4, then this could be astounding performance. But I don't think they say something like that.



    You have forgotten the reason that VPC 7 is a big deal in the first place. Remember that VPC cannot run on the G5. That is because recent versions of the emulator rely on a couple of instructions that are available in the G4, but not in the G5. IIRC, these instructions dramatically accelerate the endian conversion of data. Even though the G5 is dramatically faster than the G4, its speed advantage could have been rendered moot by the slow down caused by replacing the hardware endian conversion in VPC with software endian conversion. Now do you understand the reason that others are making a big deal of VPC 7's performance on the G5?
  • Reply 34 of 49
    pbpb Posts: 4,255member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Mr. Me

    Even though the G5 is dramatically faster than the G4, its speed advantage could have been rendered moot by the slow down caused by replacing the hardware endian conversion in VPC with software endian conversion. Now do you understand the reason that others are making a big deal of VPC 7's performance on the G5?



    Now, this does make sense. Thanks.
  • Reply 35 of 49
    aquaticaquatic Posts: 5,602member
    A Pentium on a PCI card would have to be around the price of VPC, I think it would be a good product if they reintroduced it and if I had a tower I'd buy one immediately, because I assume that the Windows environment could use the graphics card, since you would either boot OS X or Windows, one or the other, or if you were really lucky have dual graphics boards in your tower and thus boot both, and have both with 3d acceleration and you'd still have plenty of RAM, what with the G5 having up to 32 gigabytes of RAM as we've seen it is capable of! Besides the Pentium chip most other components in a PC are the same. It's cheaper than buying a PC, saves power and space, and much faster than VPC and around the same price.
  • Reply 36 of 49
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Aquatic

    A Pentium on a PCI card would have to be around the price of VPC, I think it would be a good product if they reintroduced it and if I had a tower I'd buy one immediately, because I assume that the Windows environment could use the graphics card, since you would either boot OS X or Windows, one or the other, or if you were really lucky have dual graphics boards in your tower and thus boot both, and have both with 3d acceleration and you'd still have plenty of RAM, what with the G5 having up to 32 gigabytes of RAM as we've seen it is capable of! Besides the Pentium chip most other components in a PC are the same. It's cheaper than buying a PC, saves power and space, and much faster than VPC and around the same price.



    These aren't a "either/or" product. Both systems run concurrently with one another. The card has it's own video hardware, audio and RAM. The only shared hardware was the keyboard and mouse, monitor and hard drive. After booting up the Mac side. you then hit Shift + Return and that booted the PC on the PCI card and switched the video and mouse over to the PC. It's been a long time since I played with one of these.



    Ours is a 100Mhz 586, ATI mach64 chipset, 1MB VRAM. Soundblaster16 compatable audio. 64MB RAM (maxed out). Came with windows95 and a rather extensive bundle of crappy software. We still have all the software to install it on MacOS 7.5.3



    The last time I saw one of these available new, it was a 233Mhz Pentium II from Orange micro.



    Does anyone still make these kind of cards? If they can build full systems like this with CD/DVD, hard drive, power supply and a complete set of I/O ports. Then, a slower P4 or Athlon with Geforce2MX chipset on a full length PCI card certainly isn't out of the realm of possibility.
  • Reply 37 of 49
    der kopfder kopf Posts: 2,275member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Aquatic

    A Pentium on a PCI card would have to be around the price of VPC,



    Why a Pentium? A recent Duron would easily outperform any G5 running VPC by a landslide, and those are 40 bucks for the end-consumer (i.e. virtually gratis for OEMs). Also, seeing laptops constitute about 50% of the macfield these days, it might be better if they'd give thought to developing a little stand-alone AMD based solution on firewire. Might be an architectural nightmare though, I really can't tell. A form factor comparable to this, maybe.



    Is this possible? Feasible?
  • Reply 38 of 49
    pbpb Posts: 4,255member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by der Kopf

    A form factor comparable to this, maybe.



    Is this possible? Feasible?




    I don't really know, but for notebook users, a PCMCIA system would be a much more convenient solution. Not sure if it is technically possible or efficient.
  • Reply 39 of 49
    der kopfder kopf Posts: 2,275member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by PB

    I don't really know, but for notebook users, a PCMCIA system would be a much more convenient solution. Not sure if it is technically possible or efficient.



    Yes, but no! Only two laptop models, of 5 total, sold by Apple right now have PCMCIA capability (being the 15 and 17 inch powerbooks), AND the desktop macs have no PCMCIA slots available whatsoever. Therefore my idea of a FireWire solution: one size fits all. Reducing R&D, maximizing turnover.
  • Reply 40 of 49
    aquaticaquatic Posts: 5,602member
    der Kopf that's an interesting idea especially considering the bandwidth of FireWire 2. When I said Pentium I meant any x86 and yes I guess AMD is cheaper. Plague I said either/or because some people have only 1 vid card and just like VPC, I don't think you can have two OSes sharing one vid card. Can you?
Sign In or Register to comment.