# what happened to VirtualPC7?



## Zammy-Sam (Jun 1, 2004)

If I recall correct, microsoft planed to release VPC7 by the end of may. It was supposed to be in the office 2004 professional bundle. Well, I am waiting for this bundle and have no idea how much time it will take. Any rumours?


----------



## serpicolugnut (Jun 1, 2004)

It's been delayed until this fall. Aparently Microsoft had a harder time with the integration of the VPC team in to the MacBU, among other reasons.


----------



## DJ Rep (Jun 1, 2004)

Hopefully though it should be ace and is *rumored* to have GPU acceleration meaning old games will be playable and more CPU being dedicated to emulating the x86


----------



## fryke (Jun 1, 2004)

I still wouldn't expect games to be 'playable', though. ;-) ... (Never get your expectations too high, anyway...)


----------



## Alex x (Jun 1, 2004)

i always get excited when a new VPC is released, i think its cool that you can have a mac and windows on the same computer. ......Then I use windows and realise why I use a Mac and not a pc.


----------



## fryke (Jun 1, 2004)

... Basically: Same here... However, I still use VPC for testing web pages and stuff on the PC side.


----------



## mindbend (Jun 1, 2004)

I have found XP to be surprisingly "tolerable" in VPC on a Dual G4 (1 GHZ). Performance-wise it was noticeably faster than, say, Win98. I guess I would have thought the older OSes would run faster in emulation.

And since Longhorn is miles away, that means it's XP for a while in VPC. Which also means that when I grab one of those 3GHZ G5s (or whatever they announce next) I expect XP/VPC to be quite decent indeed. And that's with no optimizations beyond the status quo.

I'm really hoping for GPU support. Given that Apple has a such a limited selection of cards, you'd think it would be a bit more realistic for the Mac VPC to support GPU processing on some level.

I don't know about games, but I don't really care about that. Any game that would be playable is probably too old to interest me. Would be neat though if they could pull it off. Too good to be true.


----------



## Ifrit (Jun 1, 2004)

Something I would like to see (and which others mentioned before) is a desktop less emulation of Windows, like Wine. I mean I wouldn't go as far as adding osx styled title bars to windows applications, but removing the windows desktop should be possible. We already have a start menu application in the dock. If it would be improved (like sorting the entries using different criteria > date, name etc., or reflect more the real state of the "real" start menu) this should work fine.


----------



## jhawk28 (Jun 1, 2004)

If you want to play old DOS games, get DosBox.

Joshua


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Jun 2, 2004)

amazing, Joshua! You couldn't have posted this app before? tc tc tc..


----------



## Satcomer (Jun 2, 2004)

i think the delay has to do with the rumored XP update coming along soon. MACBU wants to make sure it is pre-installed and works correctly.


----------



## fryke (Jun 2, 2004)

I don't quite understand why they don't release the 'pro' box with VPC 6.1 and an upgrade coupon to VPC 7... Sure, that wouldn't solve G5 user's problems, but I guess people don't want to wait on Office 2004 just because of VPC?


----------



## jonmichael23 (Jun 3, 2004)

I am also excited about the new virtual pc. I have a 1ghz iMac, and any kind of speed upgrade would be nice for it. It's not so much that I use it, but I occasionally like to look at new Winamp releases, use MSN Messenger on Windows (since microsoft has made the mac version seriously crippled in comparison), etc. I only have 512 mb ram so I've assigned 256 to vpc, along with 16 mb for video emulation. And I'm running Windows Xp Pro, so yes......any kind of speed upgrade at all would be a real nice suprise   . For as sluggish as XP is on my computer, I still think its neat when friends come over and I'm able to say, "hey look, its windows, inside a window! hahaha". Of course, that is if I'm not running it full screen   .


----------



## Natobasso (Jun 3, 2004)

I thought Microsoft had said that it wasn't going to be updating VP6 now or in the near future. Is this incorrect?


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Jun 3, 2004)

It would be darn stupid to not update VPC, Natobasso. MS bought it from Connectix some time ago and why would they just delete this project? It should be released soon.
And jonmichael23, I am wondering how ppl can waste their money so easily.  If you spent $249 on software just to test msn and winamp from time to time, I can simply die of jealousy..


----------



## Natobasso (Jun 3, 2004)

Well, we are talking about Microsoft here, right?!  I am just reporting what I heard. Maybe what I actually heard was they either weren't in a hurry to update it (for us 3-5%ers who have seen the light) or they were having trouble getting an update out due to the requirements of OS X.


----------



## Freiheit (Jun 6, 2004)

Why would they just delete this project?  Well they sure as heck killed the OS/2 version of VPC which had practically just been released when MS bought it off Connectix -- and the OS/2 version was probably 99% Windows version code with some emulation libraries.  It would be much, much easier and less expensive for them to keep the OS/2 version going than it is to develop it for a whole different hardware/software platform like MacOS X.  MS rarely "plays fair" in operating system support.

On another note, since VPC7 is still not available for MacOS and since some here have already commented on general VPC6 performance they see, I'd like to ask (as a Mac newbie) what kind of performance I might expect from 6.1.  I'd be running it on a PowerMac G4 1.25 DP with a gig of RAM and Panther.  I'd only be using it as an interim solution until I find/afford Mac equivalents for some of my current Win2K programs:  Shareaza p2p, a couple of old DOS games which I guess I could run in DosBox, Nero Burning ROM for CD/DVD burning (not sure how well that would work under emulation anyway), and some video file format converters (to Mac-ize some AVI/WMV/ASF files that don't have codecs for Mac).  I would not be using VPC for the long-term.

I guess in all of that, the real question is "is VPC6.1 dual-processor aware?"  Will having 2 CPUs benefit me at all over the person who's running on a 1GHz single CPU system?

Thanks!


----------



## fryke (Jun 6, 2004)

I don't quite get this (later) discussion. We all know MS is going to release VPC7 soon... So where's the problem? Where does the believe it's not going to be updated come from?


----------



## texanpenguin (Jun 6, 2004)

You might want to hold out on the file-converting stuff, Freiheit - that's processor intensive, and would take a bloody week on VPC.

VPC6.1 runs happily for non-processor intensive tasks. I generally use it for openCanvas 1.1 (a tablet-painting program, yet unrivalled on either the Mac or PC, including Photoshop and Painter) and for Solitaire (I wish I could find an adequate (hopefully IDENTICAL) port of Windows Solitaire), under Windows XP running with every nonessential service switched off. It runs quite happily, but I wish the cam would run through it better, into MSN. If it would, I wouldn't need the PC anymore.


So yeah, VPC is adequate but I wouldn't be converting AVI files.


----------



## fryke (Jun 6, 2004)

Solitaire? You're kidding, right? A game where whether you win or lose is defined before you start playing?


----------



## MisterMe (Jun 6, 2004)

Freiheit said:
			
		

> Why would they just delete this project?  Well they sure as heck killed the OS/2 version of VPC which had practically just been released when MS bought it off Connectix -- and the OS/2 version was probably 99% Windows version code with some emulation libraries.  It would be much, much easier and less expensive for them to keep the OS/2 version going than it is to develop it for a whole different hardware/software platform like MacOS X.  MS rarely "plays fair" in operating system support.
> 
> On another note, since VPC7 is still not available for MacOS and since some here have already commented on general VPC6 performance they see, I'd like to ask (as a Mac newbie) what kind of performance I might expect from 6.1.  I'd be running it on a PowerMac G4 1.25 DP with a gig of RAM and Panther.  I'd only be using it as an interim solution until I find/afford Mac equivalents for some of my current Win2K programs:  Shareaza p2p, a couple of old DOS games which I guess I could run in DosBox, Nero Burning ROM for CD/DVD burning (not sure how well that would work under emulation anyway), and some video file format converters (to Mac-ize some AVI/WMV/ASF files that don't have codecs for Mac).  I would not be using VPC for the long-term.
> 
> ...


You don't have to convert your video files to run them on the Mac. You can get a DivX codec for QuickTime to play AVI files. You may also download the VLC media player and/or Mplayer, which will play most media formats. Only Windows Media Player 9 will play WM9 files. You may download the Mac version of WMP 9 from Microsoft's Mactopia web site. You have a lot of options for playing media on the Mac. You don't have to rely on Windows software.


----------



## texanpenguin (Jun 7, 2004)

fryke said:
			
		

> Solitaire? You're kidding, right? A game where whether you win or lose is defined before you start playing?



It's MOSTLY like that, sure, but how QUICK can you win it?



So far I'm pushing 50-or-so seconds from deal to completion. So although many people can WIN Solitaire, I can win it four times in the same amount of time.

Solitaire, you see, is my bitch.


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Jun 21, 2004)

MacBidouille says not until october.
French article: http://www.macbidouille.com/niouzcontenu.php?date=2004-06-17#8807


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Jun 23, 2004)

Just read an article on german, that current VPC7 betas are not fast enough for games.. Anyone who can confirm there are betas already out?


----------



## ged3000 (Jun 23, 2004)

texanpenguin said:
			
		

> It's MOSTLY like that, sure, but how QUICK can you win it?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Theres no decent Minesweeper port for OSX either


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Aug 4, 2004)

Prices are now announced here


> Virtual PC 7 + Windows XP Professional Edition  $249
> Virtual PC 7 + Windows XP Home Edition $219
> Virtual PC 7 + Windows 2000 Professional Edition $249
> Virtual PC 7 without any OS $129
> Virtual PC 7 Upgrade without any OS $99


It is supposed to be realsed in october 2004.


----------



## Ailes Grise (Aug 4, 2004)

The only reason I'd want VPC 7 is to run MS Word 2000
and an old PC game Alpha Centauri and use IE once in
a while in  XP. I've already changed most of my software
 licences to OS X. Is Word and AC considered too processor
intensive for VPC 7? I have a P4 1.5 but its now running 
Suse 9.1 so VPC is the only option.


----------



## MisterMe (Aug 4, 2004)

Ailes Grise said:
			
		

> The only reason I'd want VPC 7 is to run MS Word 2000
> and an old PC game Alpha Centauri and use IE once in
> a while in  XP. I've already changed most of my software
> licences to OS X. Is Word and AC considered too processor
> ...


You do know that the Mac application M$ Word 2004 is file-compatible with the Windows application M$ Word 2000, don't you?


----------



## ora (Aug 4, 2004)

Ailes Grise said:
			
		

> The only reason I'd want VPC 7 is to run MS Word 2000
> and an old PC game Alpha Centauri



Alpha Centauri is available for mac (i have it), is old so probably pretty cheap by now, and works ok in classic.


----------



## Invicster (Aug 15, 2004)

Can't wait for VPC 7!


----------



## SirMacsAlot (Aug 15, 2004)

Just wondering whether the graphics inprovements would be enough to allow smooth playback of launch.com music videos.  I have yet to find a way to play music videos from launch.com and there are videos they have that others don't so if I can play those using Virtual PC 7 with smooth playback I will be at the store the day it comes out to buy.  I love my mac but that has been the only thing I've been regretting ever since I switched.

I plan on watching videos with only Virtual PC 7 open and only the web browser open within Virtual PC 7 so this would be a great thing for me.  Right now with Virtual PC 6.5.1 it just stutters all the time and than freezes with Windows XP as a host.  I don't want to play games or anything but would love to play those videos and other videos in WMV format that don't work with my mac.

So for anyone with more "inside" information could you tell me whether windows xp will run much faster and smoother on a 1.25Ghz G4 with 768MB of Ram.  Right now it crawls.

Also with the new graphics features would I now be able to play music videos without stuttering on a broadband connection.  I'm thinking that Virtual PC 7 using GPU on the mac directly (IE. no graphics emulation) that the graphics would be fine and I would think that the performace would be much better if emulation is only being done on non video or non graphics processes.

I'm sorry for going so long but I'm hoping this would be a good change.


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Aug 16, 2004)

If you want to have your launch.com videos on the road and not only at home, VPC will be the only choice. However, if it's actually a service you enjoy at home, I would suggest you to get yourself a cheap pc for this. 
From what I have heard about VPC7, it is not going to be so much more improved in speed. The main improvement will be the G5 compatibility, which won't be of any interest for you (at least with your G4 alubook). I heard, gaming is still impossible, which makes me wonder if the "direct" hardware access to the gpu is so much direct at all? 
I still believe that a cheap windoze box will do fine for little task like that and cause you much less headaches.


----------



## Myke (Aug 16, 2004)

SirMacsAlot said:
			
		

> Just wondering whether the graphics inprovements would be enough to allow smooth playback of launch.com music videos.  I have yet to find a way to play music videos from launch.com and there are videos they have that others don't so if I can play those using Virtual PC 7 with smooth playback I will be at the store the day it comes out to buy.  I love my mac but that has been the only thing I've been regretting ever since I switched.
> 
> I plan on watching videos with only Virtual PC 7 open and only the web browser open within Virtual PC 7 so this would be a great thing for me.  Right now with Virtual PC 6.5.1 it just stutters all the time and than freezes with Windows XP as a host.  I don't want to play games or anything but would love to play those videos and other videos in WMV format that don't work with my mac.
> 
> ...




Surely Windows Media Player for Mac will do this? Or VLC? Buying a complete PC seems a little over the top!


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Aug 16, 2004)

Why $129 for VPC when you can have an old PC which does much more than this? This is what many ppl don't see..


----------



## fryke (Aug 16, 2004)

VPC just isn't for that average guy who rather buys a second PC to watch some videos from some website that don't work on the Mac. When I'm on the road and have to test stuff in IE for Windows, VPC is quite a good solution. And much cheaper (and less weight, too!) than buying a second notebook that runs Windows natively.

The argument that a cheap PC might do the same is good - but only if you have the space for it and want the ugly beast to sit there in silence most of the time. VPC is a sleek software solution. Not for heavy-duty work, of course, but for many small tasks that you might need Windows for.


----------



## SirMacsAlot (Aug 16, 2004)

Well I can see gaming being a problem.  Even for a high end graphics board for a windows pc it still taxes a system so when you add emulation it just won't work good.  Now what I was trying to find out was if the direct graphics access would allow the operating system graphics to be done via the GPU instead of through CPU emulation.  Because my 32MB video card in my notebook is more than enough for music videos and graphics for windows in addition to running Mac OS X.  I don't think that most mac video cards are even able to play the windows pc games out there today.

I'm thinking that if all the graphics and music video playback would be done by my macs GPU I would think that would speed things up in Virtual PC.  Right now my Virtual PC shows me having a 633Mhz 586 CPU and if all of that 633Mhz Virtual CPU could be used for everything else besides video and graphics that would speed things up greatly at least I would think.

I hope I'm saying this the right way but you get what I mean.

For example on my old windows pc when using my intergrated graphics card a longtime ago launch.com music videos would stutter and even freeze when using the onboard graphics even with a broadband connection.  Now that same exact computer with onboard graphics disabled with a PCI Nvidia card with 32MB of SDRAM (not DDR) it played flawlessly.  That is why I'm thinking this.

That is what I think the problem is.  My onboard graphics had only 2MB of VRAM shared with my 256MB of RAM and that was a good computer then.  Now take Virtual PC having to emulate that same amount of VRAM and that makes it even slower than that same onboard graphics GPU.  So that is my thinking.  Its like my windows pc being downgraded from 2MB of shared memory to 640K of shared memory.  It just aint gonna work baby.

Also just like others said I'm using a notebook and buying a used notebook is still way more than buying an upgrade to virtual pc for 100 bucks.  I also use Virtual PC for some business specific apps that require windows xp or 2000 so that is why I have it.  So if version 7 could speed up my windows xp performance greatly and allow me to play music videos smoothly it would be worth every penny when you consider I'm going to write it off as a business expense which is true.  So for me its free.

Also does anyone think Microsoft might allow a limited beta soon so we can at least see where they are on this just because I'm very curious.


----------



## Pippin (Aug 16, 2004)

The Current Virtual PC will not utilise your Graphics card, hence the standard shared memory. There are rumours that VPC 7 will enable the use of graphics cards however I would not hold your breath on this.
Apple Graphics Cards are exactly the same as the standard PC ones that you can buy in shops, mostly that have just been flashed for the Macintosh platform. 
Apple has been slow in getting good graphics cards however this has changed recently with the 9800 and the 9600xt - finally meeting standards worthy of gamers. Now with the Nvidia 6800 they are at the same level as the Windows platform.
If your virtual pc is emulating at "633Mhz 586 CPU" you should run a music video no problem, even if it is the standard 2 or 4 meg shared memory - can increase this in the BIOS on windows but I dont know if any effect would take place in VPC.


----------



## Myke (Aug 17, 2004)

SirMacsAlot said:
			
		

> Well I can see gaming being a problem.  Even for a high end graphics board for a windows pc it still taxes a system so when you add emulation it just won't work good.  Now what I was trying to find out was if the direct graphics access would allow the operating system graphics to be done via the GPU instead of through CPU emulation.  Because my 32MB video card in my notebook is more than enough for music videos and graphics for windows in addition to running Mac OS X.  I don't think that most mac video cards are even able to play the windows pc games out there today.
> 
> I'm thinking that if all the graphics and music video playback would be done by my macs GPU I would think that would speed things up in Virtual PC.  Right now my Virtual PC shows me having a 633Mhz 586 CPU and if all of that 633Mhz Virtual CPU could be used for everything else besides video and graphics that would speed things up greatly at least I would think.
> 
> ...




OK, so I am going to repeat myself here. Any reason why you dont want to use Windows Media Player for Mac? Does it not work for you? And what about VLC?

VPC 7 won't solve your problem IMHO


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Aug 17, 2004)

There are many web-based streaming sites, that won't playback on macs, no matter if you use IE for mac or anything else. And there are also some videos that won't play back on macs no matter if you use Media Player, vlc, qt pro, Real One, mplayer... There was a thread on this.
However, I think VPC7 could help SirMacsAlot out, if $129 are no concern and if the gpu access will work better.


----------



## Myke (Aug 17, 2004)

Zammy-Sam said:
			
		

> There are many web-based streaming sites, that won't playback on macs, no matter if you use IE for mac or anything else. And there are also some videos that won't play back on macs no matter if you use Media Player, vlc, qt pro, Real One, mplayer... There was a thread on this.
> However, I think VPC7 could help SirMacsAlot out, if $129 are no concern and if the gpu access will work better.



Yes but my point is, has he tried them? He doesn't say so and as a newbie may not be aware of they exist. Also, if he can't steam directly can he download them to his hard drive and then try? Apologies to SirMacsAlot if he has examined all the other options and is still tearing out the hair.


----------



## Pippin (Aug 17, 2004)

HAHA yea to be honest man..Just get MTV.


----------



## SirMacsAlot (Aug 17, 2004)

Sorry I didn't understand what you were asking.  Now to start off some of the music videos I want to playback aren't on any other music site but Launch.com.  Now Launch.com won't work on Mac OS X and here is what I tried.  I tried every browser including all Mozilla brands, Safari, IE for Mac and Opera.  I tried using the user agent switcher in both Opera and Mozilla via plug-in.  There currently  is no way to save or find the link via launch.com to playback via anything else besides the web based player.  So using the user agent switcher I can get past the error message saying that my system isn't supported and start the media playback but nothing ever plays back and it ends up the the Java gets messed up and ends up giving me an error about Mozilla Bin or something like that.

Trust me I've tried everything.  The most common music videos I play from rollingstone but I've missed launch and ever since Yahoo bought it out even Windows Media 9 for windows never worked at first even though it works now.

Now if anyone knows a way to get launch.com to work with Mac OS X 10.3.5 I would be very happy to be told but from where I'm sitting now it just aint gonna happen today.


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Aug 31, 2004)

VirtualPC 7 went gold. Should be in the stores in october. Biggest new feature: G5 compatibility 
More details for germans: http://www.macnews.de/news/54991


----------



## btoth (Aug 31, 2004)

I despise websites that do browser checking... it's one thing to let you know that the site might not be compatible, but chances are that your "rare" web browser would work just fine with the proper plugins.

My mom wanted to look at HGTV's website the other day and it told her that the [movie] tour of the house wasn't compatible with Macintosh computers!  I looked at the code for the page... 90% of the code was Javascript to detect what browser you were using.  Basically if it wasn't IE 5 or higher for Windows you were out of luck.

I take it you tried Netscape 4.7 like the page suggests?


----------



## btoth (Aug 31, 2004)

http://www.macminute.com/2004/08/31/vpc7

Says it takes advantage of the Mac's graphics card... hopefully to it's fullest potential.  I want to see my 64MBs show up in Windows.


----------



## Ripcord (Aug 31, 2004)

It's also up on MS' website:

http://www.microsoft.com/mac/products/virtualpc/virtualpc.aspx?pid=highlights


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Sep 1, 2004)

not very spectacular.. Which one of the demonstrated features wasn't possible in VPC6.1?


----------



## Ripcord (Sep 1, 2004)

Well, G5 support, which is really the main thing I wanted =)


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Sep 1, 2004)

But then I wonder what took them so long to release it..


----------



## Ripcord (Sep 1, 2004)

Probably spending all that effort making it as incompatible with Linux as possible...


----------



## Randman (Sep 1, 2004)

At least there's an upgrade version. US$99.


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Sep 1, 2004)

ufff.. I don't pay $99 for an update. Updates are all somehow messed up esspecially when they are branded Microsoft. How much was the full version without any windows os? $129?


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Sep 15, 2004)

AppleInsider claims that VirtualPC 7 was released under pressure and lacks planned features such as the native graphic card support and some more features.
Read more about it here


----------



## soulseek (Sep 15, 2004)

im sure virtual pc would be better off in someone elses hands than microsoft.. but what can we do.. ???

anyways, this article is very interesting if u havent read it  http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2004/09/20040913105524.shtml


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Sep 15, 2004)

Yeah, read it before and I think that the developers are just rooks. "x86 run nearly at a native speed".. Yeah right! But still a good strategy to get investors.


----------



## Freiheit (Sep 17, 2004)

Native speed?  Native to what?  "x86 at 1GHz" means very little considering Intel's and AMD's 1GHz CPUs has vastly different performance (AMD's were typically faster).  And if I have a dual processor G4 PowerMac, would I get 80% of my total processing power, or only of one CPU?  I could SURELY live with 80% of 2.5GHz (in Intel terms or in AMD terms) for running even intensive multimedia apps in Win2K.

VirtualPC 7 on the other hand has been rather unanimously bemoaned as "slow as molasses" (trying to be pleasant here ) so 10-30% speed increase still makes it "slow as tar".  Perhaps VPC7.1 will include some of the other rumored features and show another 10-30% increase on top of the current boost, and that might make it reasonably useful.


----------



## fryke (Sep 17, 2004)

I think VPC 6.x is a very good emulation software. Sure, it doesn't 'play' at 80% speed (of whatever 100% would be...) - but expecting that would be naïve, to say the least.

If you need Windows running at full speed: Buy a PC, they're cheap. If you only need Windows a few times a year or for some specialty software not available for Mac OS X, VPC just might be the solution. I don't agree to bash VPC 7 before having tested it against VPC 6.x on my own. And compatibility with the G5 processor _was_/_is_ urgent, and I rather see MS release the thing without all that fancy stuff people would bash anyway ("waah! it does _not_ play Doom III at more than 10 fps?!"), because the absence of a good Windows emulation on the G5 _really_ hurts Apple.

Slow as tar? Depends on your needs, really. My version with Win2K runs quite smoothly on my PowerBook. Yes, I don't run 3D applications or games on it, but then I'm not an idiot, either.


----------



## hulkaros (Sep 18, 2004)




----------



## ApeintheShell (Sep 19, 2004)

From what I saw on the demo at Mactopia I think this is a better release than previous attempts. I like the native printing and start menu in the dock. Maybe that was in previous versions though.


----------



## mindbend (Sep 19, 2004)

Performance is indeed completely subjective. Actually, I take that back, it's truly objective, but we all interpret "fast" differently. Enough semantics.

I've run a bit of VPC6. On my iBook it is unquestionably slow as molasses. (640 RAM, G4 800). On my DUAL 1 GHZ 1 GIG RAM G4, WinXP was surprisingly "decent". I did fairly undemanding stuff like Access database and a few proprietary things that were similar. It was fine. Not something I'd want to do all the time, but decent. I've got to believe VPC7 on any G5 (iMac or otherwise) would be even better than my experience. 

Interestingly, I found Win98 to run worse than WinXP. I guess I would have figured XP to be more bloated and slower, but not for me. Anyone else? Win98 performs much slower for me.

So, I'd run Word, Access, Explorer, ItsDeductible and similar apps without hesitation. Games, 3D or even Photoshop (not that I've tried) would not be something you'd want to bother with in VPC.


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Oct 14, 2004)

Microsoft announced the prices for the european market. The standalone version of VirtualPC7 will cost 159EURO. Pffffffff..


----------



## fryke (Oct 14, 2004)

The printing directly to the Mac's default printer is nice. The Dock start menu was there in 6.x before.


----------



## Viro (Oct 15, 2004)

Zammy-Sam said:
			
		

> Microsoft announced the prices for the european market. The standalone version of VirtualPC7 will cost 159EURO. Pffffffff..



159 isn't too bad. I think the VPC 6 cost more, didn't it? I only wish they would allow academic pricing for students as well so that it would be more affordable.


----------



## Jason (Oct 15, 2004)

Soooo is it out yet?


----------



## applewhore (Oct 15, 2004)

Ripcord said:
			
		

> Well, G5 support, which is really the main thing I wanted =)


unless you've got more than 2GB of RAM...


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Oct 19, 2004)

Jason said:
			
		

> Soooo is it out yet?


Office 2004 Professional is now available. Price: $499 including Office Standard Edition and Virtual PC for Mac Version 7 with Windows XP Professional.
This bundle is quite ok, if you consider that the Office Standard Edition costs $399, you get Virtual PC 7 and WinXP for $100 instead of $249 as a single package.
Anyone who is going to buy it and test for macosx?


----------



## Viro (Oct 19, 2004)

After my experience of trying it out the last time with that Airport Extreme Sony card thingy, no thanks. Get someone else to do your dirty work Zammy .


----------



## Veljo (Oct 19, 2004)

I'll also wait


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Oct 20, 2004)

Viro said:
			
		

> After my experience of trying it out the last time with that Airport Extreme Sony card thingy, no thanks. Get someone else to do your dirty work Zammy .



But I was willing to pay you one year of free macosx email if it would have worked. Maybe now I would propose more?!


----------



## Oscar Castillo (Oct 20, 2004)

What ever happened to the PC cards?  Software emulation is cheaper, but you have to compromise too much performance.  I'd of thought that by now things would be extremely cheap so software emulation wouldn't be necessary?  If $500 & $600 video cards are the norm surely people would pay that much for an integrated PC on say a PCI or PCI-x bus.


----------



## btoth (Oct 20, 2004)

Oscar Castillo said:
			
		

> What ever happened to the PC cards?  Software emulation is cheaper, but you have to compromise too much performance.  I'd of thought that by now things would be extremely cheap so software emulation wouldn't be necessary?  If $500 & $600 video cards are the norm surely people would pay that much for an integrated PC on say a PCI or PCI-x bus.



In my old PowerMac I had a RealPC (I think that was the brand) 486 PC card... the thing ran great.  I could just hit a key combo and switch which computer I was using.


----------



## shorty114 (Oct 20, 2004)

jonmichael23 said:
			
		

> I am also excited about the new virtual pc. I have a 1ghz iMac, and any kind of speed upgrade would be nice for it. It's not so much that I use it, but I occasionally like to look at new Winamp releases, use MSN Messenger on Windows (since microsoft has made the mac version seriously crippled in comparison), etc. I only have 512 mb ram so I've assigned 256 to vpc, along with 16 mb for video emulation. And I'm running Windows Xp Pro, so yes......any kind of speed upgrade at all would be a real nice suprise   . For as sluggish as XP is on my computer, I still think its neat when friends come over and I'm able to say, "hey look, its windows, inside a window! hahaha". Of course, that is if I'm not running it full screen   .



Gaim or aMSN, man!!! free, open source, and i don't know anyone who would spend 249$ on something to use MSN and look at winamp...but that's just me...


----------



## Oscar Castillo (Oct 20, 2004)

btoth said:
			
		

> In my old PowerMac I had a RealPC (I think that was the brand) 486 PC card... the thing ran great.  I could just hit a key combo and switch which computer I was using.


It makes more sense than having VirtualPC.  I had Mac and PC compatability back when I had my Amiga.  Three systems in one and hardware based.  It was the best.  Innovation like that seems to have died among 3rd party peripheral manufacturers.  Sure you can do the 2 or 3 systems with the KVM deal, but there's no reason it can't be all in the same box.  Sun also had a PC on a card solution for their Sparc systems.  Not sure if they continued developing that.


----------



## Viro (Oct 21, 2004)

Have you seen PC processors lately? Look at the size of the heatsink/fan on those things. They're huge!!

I think the main thing stopping people from producing cards like that anymore is the power requirements of current x86 CPUs and the heat problems.


----------



## Oscar Castillo (Oct 21, 2004)

Viro said:
			
		

> Have you seen PC processors lately? Look at the size of the heatsink/fan on those things. They're huge!!
> 
> I think the main thing stopping people from producing cards like that anymore is the power requirements of current x86 CPUs and the heat problems.


If someone is willing to settle for software emulation then they certainly aren't looking for the latest and greatest.  And if they are I'm sure someone can come up with a design that vents rearward like some nVidia processors.


----------



## Viro (Oct 21, 2004)

It is actually cheaper to just buy a PC to run those PC apps you need. You will never match the experience of running software on it's native platform.


----------



## chevy (Oct 21, 2004)

Viro said:
			
		

> Have you seen PC processors lately? Look at the size of the heatsink/fan on those things. They're huge!!
> 
> I think the main thing stopping people from producing cards like that anymore is the power requirements of current x86 CPUs and the heat problems.



The Pentium M is a nice and cool CPU.


----------



## Viro (Oct 21, 2004)

That isn't available on desktops.


----------



## Ripcord (Oct 21, 2004)

Viro said:
			
		

> Have you seen PC processors lately? Look at the size of the heatsink/fan on those things. They're huge!!
> 
> I think the main thing stopping people from producing cards like that anymore is the power requirements of current x86 CPUs and the heat problems.



Er, the 5 lb heatsinks and 7 fans on my G5 at work aren't tiny...  ;-)

But, yeah, Intel's finally being forced to come to terms with their clock rate scaling issues because it's just gotten ridiculous in the PC world.  The next gen of Pentiums will be a lot more Pentium-M like than Pentium 4...


----------



## fryke (Oct 21, 2004)

And for an emulation card, a Pentium-M would sure be quite nice, too. Heck: Why does nobody do this? I'm sure this could be done quite nicely, actually. The card doesn't even need much! A Pentium-M or similar processor (I'm sure Transmeta would be nice, too?), a bit of RAM (256 MB soldered and a slot?)... The rest can be shared with the Mac somehow... Then again, while VPC's speed increases if you move to a faster Mac, such a card wouldn't. It'd be old quite fast - and you wouldn't maybe want to upgrade that with every new Mac you're buying...


----------



## Oscar Castillo (Oct 22, 2004)

fryke said:
			
		

> ... Then again, while VPC's speed increases if you move to a faster Mac, such a card wouldn't. It'd be old quite fast - and you wouldn't maybe want to upgrade that with every new Mac you're buying...


Don't you think it would be several PPC generations before VPC would run at speeds equivalent to a decent PC?  So it wouldn't get old quite as fast as you may think.  What's the equivalent PC performance of VPC on current Mac hardware?


----------



## fryke (Oct 22, 2004)

You're right. However: Even those PC emulator cards won't reach any 'real' speeds, since they're using a slower bus rather than being a 'real' motherboard and also have to share some components with the Mac unless you want to make that card really big (or two cards...). Anyway: Even the card solution doesn't give you a really _good_ PC inside your Mac. People who need that are still better off buying a cheap PC notebook or a cheap PC extra. Also helps as a secondary computer should your Mac ever need a repair or something... So I guess the card would just be a 'middle' solution people won't want to spend real money for...


----------



## Jason (Oct 23, 2004)

Ok, here is a small review.

Performance: Better... At least on my 800mhz G4. Graphics redraw faster, just seems quicker overall. 

Features: No real change. There is a CPU usage meter now, but everything else was there already I think.

Unfortunately, I ran into one problem. I converted my VP6 drive over to VP7 (yes you have to convert it), ran with it for a while fine, but when I did a windows update (Win2k) it no longer worked. So my "drive" is now screwed. I will reinstall sometime soon, and let you guys know if the problem still occurs.

But for right now, VP7 is an inprovement, not great, but an improvement (15-25%?)


----------



## ScottW (Oct 24, 2004)

My Quick Review:

DAMN! This is awesome. 

Honestly, Virtual PC was always a novelty for me. I had it installed, I had my disk image with XP on it and at time attempted to make it my main system for Stamps.com and some other software that is Windows only that I run on a very infrequent basis. However, VPC6 and earlier, just too slow. My Dell P4 1.6ghz was my system of choice for those applications and needs.

So, I convered my image over to VPC7 and DUDE, forget my Dell. You know, 30% improvement doesn't sound all that much. But it really is.

Here is what I think they did. I think screen re-draws are up 100% or more. When the system displays pages and redraws, there might be a delay (only 30% speed improvement) but when it shows it, WHAM, it's on the screen. So, although it is running slower, the over-all experience is that it is signficantly faster. This can be very good on the brain.

Everything I have tested has worked like a champ. In fact, Im typing this on VPC7! Although, I haven't upgraded to SP2 cause I heard that VPC7 didn't like it. Will save that for a rainy day.

Does it replace my Dell? Absolutely not. But, I'd REALLY like to see this on a G5 machine. For those who care, I'm on a G4 1GHZ, 17" Flat-Panel iMac.

In conclusion, maybe it was the past experience with VPC that I really didn't have any hopes of having a usable virtual pc on my Mac, especially my 'slow' one. But, my expectations, although at the very bottom, where greatly exceeded.


----------



## fryke (Oct 24, 2004)

VPC7 likes SP2 very well. In fact they have waited for SP2 to be released in order to finish VPC7 with Windows XP SP2. Runs like a champ here. _Not_ installing SP2 just opens you to security threats...

But: Yes, absolutely, VPC7 (installed only three days ago) is responsive enough to allow for small amounts of work on my system (PB G4 1.33), too.


----------



## Viro (Oct 24, 2004)

That sounds really really cool. Is there an education version for VPC 7 or is there a cheap upgrade from VPC 6?


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Oct 25, 2004)

Hmmmm, any demo version out there?


----------



## t_habrock (Oct 27, 2004)

Viro said:
			
		

> That sounds really really cool. Is there an education version for VPC 7 or is there a cheap upgrade from VPC 6?


 Viro,

The Upgrade version to move from VPC 6 -> VPC 7 goes for $ 99, but it is not out yet, you can pre-order it, however.  I am not sure if there is an academic version, but since it is MS, I doubt it, but what do I know...?


----------



## fryke (Oct 27, 2004)

What do you mean 'since it is MS'? MS does, for example, quite a successful education version of Office...


----------



## t_habrock (Oct 27, 2004)

fryke said:
			
		

> What do you mean 'since it is MS'? MS does, for example, quite a successful education version of Office...



What I meant was that since it is MS that the Apple Store would not offer an Academic/Educational price (although they might - I don't know)... Based on what I've seen it does not appear that that MS has an educational version proper, but maybe they will in the near future.

Cheers,
T


----------

