VPC on G3 ibook

Posted:
in Current Mac Hardware edited January 2014
I am curious about people's experience using VPC on a recent G3 ibook. I am specifically curious about the usability of Win 98 within VPC. I know that it is generally slower than on a native PC, but I am wondering how much of a performance hit it takes v. a G4 powerbook.



Thanks,

Stephan
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 23
    [quote]Originally posted by smatanovic:

    <strong>I am curious about people's experience using VPC on a recent G3 ibook. I am specifically curious about the usability of Win 98 within VPC. I know that it is generally slower than on a native PC, but I am wondering how much of a performance hit it takes v. a G4 powerbook.



    Thanks,

    Stephan</strong><hr></blockquote>





    ssslowwwwwwwwwwwwwwww but it works.
  • Reply 2 of 23
    cygsidcygsid Posts: 210member
    unusable in OS X, including 10.2.1.

    very usable in OS 9.

    Really a huge difference.

    Of course you need tons of RAM in either case (actually.. much less in OS 9). Otherwise there is no use even trying.

    Note that I tried Windows 2000.
  • Reply 3 of 23
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    [quote]Originally posted by cygsid:

    <strong>unusable...Note that I tried Windows 2000.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    This is the "mistake" a lot of people seem to make with VPC. The speed difference between Win98 & Win2000 is very similar to the differences between OS 9 & OS X. Even Win95 feel a lot faster than Win98 on Wintel hardware or in VPC.



    My advice for VPC has always been use the oldest operating system that you can and your results will improve. If it's at all possible to use Win95 I think the results would probably be satisfactory.
  • Reply 4 of 23
    I use VPC running Win2k Pro on my 700mhz iBook with 384 megs ram. It runs well enough that I won't complain about it, because it get's the job done.
  • Reply 5 of 23
    I used to use VPC and Win98 on an old iBook (466 clamshell) It was barely useable ... I would bet that the 100mhtz bus on the newer models makes a noticeable improvement !



    Since I never really needed Windows stuff on the road I went and bought an eMachine for less than $500 (with monitor) (no wonder Apple has a 5% market share).



    Even that poor machine is a WAY better way to run the few Windows programs I need. (and it's wirelessed into the airport for an additional 59 bucks).



    My point is, if you don't need it to be mobile and can afford it, that is a much better route for your windows stuff, and networking with Jag is easy !



    That machine has also taught me why the extra $$ for an Apple system is money WELL SPENT ... Windows is a major pain and even XP is unstable by comparison. And since I don't play games or do big rendering projects in Photoshop, speed has been a moot point for me ever since before the G4 was introduced!
  • Reply 6 of 23
    fobiefobie Posts: 216member
    VPC 5.0.4 with Windows 98 on my iBook 600/384/8MB Video runs quite nice in OSX and it rocks in OS9.



    Works nice in OSX if your tasks are not to processor intensive. But it's still to slow compared to OS9.
  • Reply 7 of 23
    guarthoguartho Posts: 1,208member
    I heard from someone once that it was possible to boot into Virtual PC as the primary operating system... thus making it work much faster. He told me how, but I was on my way out the door and I can't remember! If anyone else knows of this, maybe you (And I) can make use of that.
  • Reply 8 of 23
    No no no. Ignore booting into VPC as the primary operating system. Just forget about it. It was only a "snappy" difference in the first place, but it's been many, many years since the Finder took up enough processor cycles just idling that there'd be any real difference in VPC performance not having the Finder loaded.



    You would probably get a placebo effect of extra "snappiness", and then you're rebooting the machine all the time for no good reason.
  • Reply 9 of 23
    guarthoguartho Posts: 1,208member
    I love rebooting my machine... The pleasant little "Bong" soothes my savage nerves... ahhhhh..... sweet serenity...
  • Reply 10 of 23
    I just put it on my iBook 600, running win98, and OS X 10.1.5



    It is slow.



    You wouldnt want to use it for anything intensive.

    Ive got it because my doesnt support OSX very well.

    If you have some small requirement like that, then I can only recommend it.
  • Reply 11 of 23
    On my Dual 1Ghz DDR PowerMac it runs fairly nice!
  • Reply 12 of 23
    torifiletorifile Posts: 4,024member
    Jeez, man, don't do it. It's so painfully slow on my Ti 667 with 512 megs of ram, I'd rather eat glass. Seriously, it's that bad. I can't figure it out, but they make a ton of excuses and pass the buck like nowhere else over at connectix's site. Unless you absolutely NEED it, don't do it. Rendering pages is slow. Clicking on the start menu is slow. Moving windows around is slow. Downloading is fast. That's about all that is.



    Save yourself the heartache and figure out some other way. I only do it because I just got a pocket pc and it's so cool that the pain is almost worth it. :/
  • Reply 13 of 23
    serranoserrano Posts: 1,806member
    My 700 runs it just fine in 9, it's a bit slow in X though. Very useable.
  • Reply 14 of 23
    airslufairsluf Posts: 1,861member
  • Reply 15 of 23
    I bought VPC w/WinXP Home to use Minitab for my Stats course on my 14" iBook 700, and yeah, it is slow. Real slow. Dog slow. But what do you expect, honestly? It is after all, software that's *emulating* full PC hardware. Sure, I'd love it if it were faster, but it gets the job done.



    That's all I really care about. My advice echoes earlier sentiments regarding VPC: don't get it unless you absolutely need it, and if you're anal about performance, just get a real, cheap PC.
  • Reply 16 of 23
    emaneman Posts: 7,204member
    I wanted VPC so I could use Kazaa. Well all I have to say is that it's pretty much unuseable on my iBook.
  • Reply 17 of 23
    chychchych Posts: 860member
    Running XP on a DP1250 in OS X.2, runs fast



    XP thinks it is a 667mhz 686 processor, not really snappy on the interface. I think I'll go down to 2k or 98... though I really don't have much use for it.



    It does process fast though, 3000MK/s in RC5 using an x86 core, video and interface just sucks (27000MK/s in Mac OS)...
  • Reply 18 of 23
    The only thing I need Win 98 for is to connect to our network (there is no OSX client for our old-ass Novell network: see my thread in the genius bar) and I want to be able to use the network drives and print. Also, there are certain PC-only software titles that I need access to.



    Thanks, everyone. Sounds like I should at least get a Powerbook v. an iBook.



    SM
  • Reply 19 of 23
    aquaticaquatic Posts: 5,602member
    EmAn, with 384 megs of RAM and 9.2.2 on an iBook 500, I was going to get VPC and Win2000pro for Kazaa and maybe some VB. That's it, besides Solitaire Are you saying it won't be useable for Kazaa on an iBook 500? Would Win98 or 2000 be better, from a speed standpoint? Win98 is so crashy, that's why I was looking at 2000.
  • Reply 20 of 23
    emaneman Posts: 7,204member
    [quote]Originally posted by Aquatic:

    <strong>EmAn, with 384 megs of RAM and 9.2.2 on an iBook 500, I was going to get VPC and Win2000pro for Kazaa and maybe some VB. That's it, besides Solitaire Are you saying it won't be useable for Kazaa on an iBook 500? Would Win98 or 2000 be better, from a speed standpoint? Win98 is so crashy, that's why I was looking at 2000.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Well you're running 9.2.2, not Jaguar so it should be better in 9. I was using VPC with Win98, I could just imagine how it would be with Win 2000. But since VPC is faster in 9 I'm sure it's worth a shot.
Sign In or Register to comment.