🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <5qeimn$jlt$1@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM>, billv@Eng.Sun.COM wrote:

> I just installed Virtual PC with Win95 on my PowerMac 7500 604/150 and I
can't believe the snappiness in performance. This is definately faster
than SoftWindows, and much cheaper. From my own estimate, comparing it to
the 90mhz Pentium I use at work, it seems to be performing equivilant to
approximately a 75MHz Pentium - this is running on a 150MHz PPC 604 with
512K cache. Since Virtual PC is optimized for the 604e version of the PPC,
I would guess running it on a 250 MHz 604e PowerMac would be equivilant to
a mid-range Pentium - not bad! This ought to provide some ammo for people
trying fight their employer's urge to switch platforms.
> 
> Bill

I've had a similar experience.  I just recently upgraded from a PowerMac
6100 DOS compatible (which had 16M on the DOS card and a 486DX/66
processor) to a new PowerMac 7300/200 (with a 1M L2 cache), and I decided
to try out Virtual PC (cost $137) on the 7300/200 before deciding whether
to add Apple's 166MHz Pentium board (cost about $989).   I have 33M
allocated to Virtual PC on the 7300/200, and I'm not using virtual memory
or Ram Doubler.  I tried out Word 97 and Publisher 95, and they were very
spiffy, certainly much faster than on my old 486DX/66 board.  Then, I
tried some games, since they are very demanding, and was pleasantly
surprised.  Doom II ran quickly, and even Quake (which requires a Pentium)
was playable, though hardly a speed demon.  (I could not play Quake at all
on the 486DX/66, and even with a 100MHz Cyrix 5x86 upgrade, it was just
playable.)  I'd say the overall subjective feel of Virtual PC (running on
a 604e/200 PowerMac with a 1M L2 cache) is a Pentium PC running at between
75-90MHz.  This would hardly satisfy a PC "power user," but it's enough
for my occasional Windows 95 needs, and much faster that what I had
before, so I will forgo buying Apple's 166MHz Pentium board for the
foreseeable future.

I also tried Virtual PC on a lowly PowerMac 7200/75 (with a 75 MHz 601
processor and a 256K cache), just for kicks, and the subjective feel was
running Windows 95 on a fast '386 PC.  Suitable for emergency use only.

Lyle Zynda