Insignia SoftWindows anyone?
whatever happened to Insignia and their Virtual PC competitor SoftWindows?
When I go to <a href="http://www.insignia.com,"; target="_blank">www.insignia.com,</a> it says zip about PC emulation. It's all about Java and embedded devices now.
Without competitors, no wonder Virtual PC is taking its time to bring its products up to speed under OS X. They're absolutely unusable right now!
I also found this interesting quote from a VPC engineer about why VPC's performance under OS X is so abysmal, at <a href="http://www.connectix.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000099"; target="_blank">http://www.connectix.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000099</a>;
[quote] I do believe that the task scheduler in Mac OS X is far from optimal. Apple is reportedly looking at moving to a constraint-based scheduling algorithm to address some of the problems.
Incidentally, our Virtual PC for Windows product, which runs on Windows 98 through XP, doesn't suffer the same scheduling or performance issues, even though it runs on top of a preemptive kernel.
The main point I was trying to make in the FAQ is not that preemptive scheduling is bad, but if the preemptive scheduler is not well tuned for a particular class of applications, there's relatively little that a user-level process can do to fix the problem. On a <hr></blockquote>
Worst thing is that was back in December 2001!! And things have only gotten much worse, with Jaguar and VPC 5.0.4. Quite pathetic really. I really hope Apple (whose task scheduler seems at fault, which might also explain the less-than-stellar overall OS X performance...) and Connectix get their act together soon and make VPC worthy of its past reputation again.
When I go to <a href="http://www.insignia.com,"; target="_blank">www.insignia.com,</a> it says zip about PC emulation. It's all about Java and embedded devices now.
Without competitors, no wonder Virtual PC is taking its time to bring its products up to speed under OS X. They're absolutely unusable right now!
I also found this interesting quote from a VPC engineer about why VPC's performance under OS X is so abysmal, at <a href="http://www.connectix.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000099"; target="_blank">http://www.connectix.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000099</a>;
[quote] I do believe that the task scheduler in Mac OS X is far from optimal. Apple is reportedly looking at moving to a constraint-based scheduling algorithm to address some of the problems.
Incidentally, our Virtual PC for Windows product, which runs on Windows 98 through XP, doesn't suffer the same scheduling or performance issues, even though it runs on top of a preemptive kernel.
The main point I was trying to make in the FAQ is not that preemptive scheduling is bad, but if the preemptive scheduler is not well tuned for a particular class of applications, there's relatively little that a user-level process can do to fix the problem. On a <hr></blockquote>
Worst thing is that was back in December 2001!! And things have only gotten much worse, with Jaguar and VPC 5.0.4. Quite pathetic really. I really hope Apple (whose task scheduler seems at fault, which might also explain the less-than-stellar overall OS X performance...) and Connectix get their act together soon and make VPC worthy of its past reputation again.
Comments