From: "digidandy" <>
> --- In Walter Knapp <>
> wrote:
>
>
>>> Virtual PC has been a useful piece of software for considerably
>>> longer back than a couple generations.
>
>
> Indeed. But there is very little evidence that Connectix, and now
> Microsoft, has been able to take advantage of the increased processor
> speeds.
>
> Stangely enough, running VPC 7 on my Dual G5 doesn't feel very
> different from when I was running it for the first time about 7 or 8
> years ago - on a much, much slower machine. This, of course, is much
> due to the fact that Microsoft haven't been able to take advantage of
> the G5 processor, and as far as I know they might not be very
> interested in doing it either. They spent a considerable amount of time
> just getting it to *run* on the G5.
There is some question just what Microsoft's purpose was in buying VPC.
It could have been to kill it.
When you consider what Microsoft's own OS does with fast processors, I'm
not sure they understand much about getting effective work done with any
processor.
> I don't think so. Rob D. was saying he got about 4-6x transfers on a
> lowly 286 processor, while, as I said in a reply to his post, I'm
> getting about 0.3x on my Dual G5.
I'm, of course, keenly interested in what a G5 does as one is in my
future. From what I've seen of disk handling info about the G5, I'm a
little worried about it's disk speeds. But, then I'm used to Ultra SCSI
160 disks. Disks are my biggest worry about going to a G5.
> The bottleneck has to be the emulation, because even though USB 1.0/1.1
> is slow - it's not that slow. However, I will try running Windows 98 on
> VPC - that might help a bit.
Use windows 2000 pro. If there is a "good" windows that seems to be it.
Too much of the new software does not like 98, or 98 does not like what
it wants to do.
Walt
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|