🚀 go-pugleaf

Bill Vaughan wrote:
>"...This ought to provide some ammo for people trying fight their employer's urge to switch platforms."

I agree. I'm the sole Mac user in my company, and VPC allows me to talk
to the Windows NT network 100%. Over I'm amazed at what it can do.

I've been using VPC for 3 days and I'm amazed at it's seamless
integration;
at work I've been connecting to our NT network via the Mac's ethernet
port,
and using Office 97 and Outlook, Explorer, Netscape Communicator, etc.
just
like a real PC. It's pretty slow on my 7600/120, but the point is it
works!
It needs Photoshop-like RAM amounts, but I always keep in mind I'm
carrying
two OSes at once on my Mac, so it makes sense that it needs lots of ram.

Overall I'm very impressed at how Win 95 (and our NT network) have no
idea
that they're not talking to an intel box. Like I said, the integration
is
seamless; for example: when I have an audio CD playing in Windows' CD
player
app, I can flip back to the Mac, open the Mac's CD player, skip a track,
go
back to Windows and its CD player has skipped the track just as if I had
done it there! Wow. Overall, Connectix has done an amazing engineering
feat
here.

GK

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

Geoff Kaiser wrote:

> Bill Vaughan wrote:
> >"...This ought to provide some ammo for people trying fight their
> employer's urge to switch platforms."
>
> I agree. I'm the sole Mac user in my company, and VPC allows me to
> talk
> to the Windows NT network 100%. Over I'm amazed at what it can do.
>
> I've been using VPC for 3 days and I'm amazed at it's seamless
> integration;
> at work I've been connecting to our NT network via the Mac's ethernet
> port,
> and using Office 97 and Outlook, Explorer, Netscape Communicator, etc.
>
> just
> like a real PC. It's pretty slow on my 7600/120, but the point is it
> works!
> It needs Photoshop-like RAM amounts, but I always keep in mind I'm
> carrying
> two OSes at once on my Mac, so it makes sense that it needs lots of
> ram.
>
> Overall I'm very impressed at how Win 95 (and our NT network) have no
> idea
> that they're not talking to an intel box. Like I said, the integration
>
> is
> seamless; for example: when I have an audio CD playing in Windows' CD
> player
> app, I can flip back to the Mac, open the Mac's CD player, skip a
> track,
> go
> back to Windows and its CD player has skipped the track just as if I
> had
> done it there! Wow. Overall, Connectix has done an amazing engineering
>
> feat
> here.
>
> GK

Off topic help request,  For some reason I am having a problem getting
the right mouse button to work under Virtual PC. I am using a Kensington
Turbo Mouse and Ver5.0 driver. I tried the keyboard setup listed in VPC
and got no where (non-Apple-KB) so what are you sucessful users using?
Please email tparo@earthlink.net no use snarling the thread worse.
THANKS  Tom Paro
  

In article <33CDC6F9.126537A9@earthlink.net>, comp.sys.mac.misc wrote:

>> Geoff Kaiser wrote:
>> 
>> > Bill Vaughan wrote:
>> > >"...This ought to provide some ammo for people trying fight their
>> > employer's urge to switch platforms."
>> >
>> > I agree. I'm the sole Mac user in my company, and VPC allows me to
>> > talk
>> > to the Windows NT network 100%. Over I'm amazed at what it can do.
>> >
>> > I've been using VPC for 3 days and I'm amazed at it's seamless
>> > integration;
>> > at work I've been connecting to our NT network via the Mac's ethernet
>> > port,
>> > and using Office 97 and Outlook, Explorer, Netscape Communicator, etc.
>> >
>> > just
>> > like a real PC. It's pretty slow on my 7600/120, but the point is it
>> > works!
>> > It needs Photoshop-like RAM amounts, but I always keep in mind I'm
>> > carrying
>> > two OSes at once on my Mac, so it makes sense that it needs lots of
>> > ram.
>> >
>> > Overall I'm very impressed at how Win 95 (and our NT network) have no
>> > idea
>> > that they're not talking to an intel box. Like I said, the integration
>> >
>> > is
>> > seamless; for example: when I have an audio CD playing in Windows' CD
>> > player
>> > app, I can flip back to the Mac, open the Mac's CD player, skip a
>> > track,
>> > go
>> > back to Windows and its CD player has skipped the track just as if I
>> > had
>> > done it there! Wow. Overall, Connectix has done an amazing engineering
>> >
>> > feat
>> > here.
>> >
>> > GK
>> 
>> Off topic help request,  For some reason I am having a problem getting
>> the right mouse button to work under Virtual PC. I am using a Kensington
>> Turbo Mouse and Ver5.0 driver. I tried the keyboard setup listed in VPC
>> and got no where (non-Apple-KB) so what are you sucessful users using?
>> Please email tparo@earthlink.net no use snarling the thread worse.
>> THANKS  Tom Paro
>>   

Not really off-topic.

VPC assumes that you have only a one-button mouse, and emulates the right
mouse button with the keyboard.

Now, most aftermarket Mac pointing devices that have two or more buttons
also have software that allow those extra buttons to emulate a keypress.

So, whatcha gotta do is to open your MouseWorks control panel (the
standard Kensington software), and configure your right mouse button to
emulate a Control-Click. I don't have the software here in front of me,
but it shouldn't be hard to do.

Yeah, It sounds confusing, I know: configuring a button to emulate a key
that emulates a button. Thankfully, you only have to do it once ;{>

Gryffin
gryffin@gryffnet.com
"Never attribute to malice that which can be
adequately explained by stupidity."

FOR DIRECT REPLY:  remove "virus" from my email address.

On Wed, 16 Jul 1997, Lyle Zynda wrote:

> 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,
[...]
> 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
[...]

I would expect that VPC on a 200 MHz PPC 604 SHOULD be about equivalent to
a 100 MHz Pentium (this assumes linear speed benefits to vpc with
increases in PPC speed AND assuming that a 150 MHz 604 on vpc is
equivalent to a 75 MHz P5).  I would also expect that to get about the
performance of a 133 MHz P5 you would need a 266 MHz PPC.  Anyone with
something along this line able to confirm the speeds?  Perhaps by running
the Quake timedemo benchmark?  Also, I BELIEVE there is a means in Duke
Nukem 3D to get a framerate indication onscreen.  It isn't as clean as the
timedemo method of Quake but it would give an indication of what is being
seen.  With a 133 MHz P5-performing VPC you would essentially be able to
run all PC game software at decent and playable speeds...with Quake being
somewhat of an anomaly due to the fpu usage.

patrick
FOR DIRECT REPLY:  remove "virus" from my email address.

I'm a new MAC user, switched over from a PC (no shit, I really did!).
I work with UNIX workstations and servers all day at work, and needed
less stress, less maintenance, and more enjoyment from my home machine.
So I bought a UMAX C500 clone and have been VERY pleased with its
performance and ofcourse MacOS.  But I wanted to do some light development
with the Java 1.1 JDK and threw a purchace on VirtualPC to run a
development environment I'm comfortable with and run the JDK 1.1 software
which isn't available on the Mac yet.

Well, I installed Virtual PC on my 180mhz 603e and performance is lousy,
and unuseable.  For example, I experiance delays of about 1 second when
traversing each entry on the start menu of win95.  I would estimate the
performance of being that of a slow 386sx25 with 8mb of ram.  Not giving
up on it though.  I suppose that I need to upgrade my hardware since my
machine is the minimum suggested by Connectix.  Perhaps the 604e is the
trick to better performance, although I'm not going to be geting one anytime
soon. Or, maybe its the video subsystem thats slowing things down.  
I've got 48mb in my machine and that gives win95 about 24mb to work with.

Just thought I would share my experiances for anyone with similar hardware
looing to do the same.

Bart

In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.970718093731.8194B-100000@howard>, Patrick
<patrick@howard.genetics.virus.utah.edu> wrote:

> FOR DIRECT REPLY:  remove "virus" from my email address.
> 
> On Wed, 16 Jul 1997, Lyle Zynda wrote:
> 
> > 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,
> [...]
> > 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
> [...]
> 
> I would expect that VPC on a 200 MHz PPC 604 SHOULD be about equivalent to
> a 100 MHz Pentium (this assumes linear speed benefits to vpc with
> increases in PPC speed AND assuming that a 150 MHz 604 on vpc is
> equivalent to a 75 MHz P5).  I would also expect that to get about the
> performance of a 133 MHz P5 you would need a 266 MHz PPC.  Anyone with
> something along this line able to confirm the speeds?  Perhaps by running
> the Quake timedemo benchmark?  Also, I BELIEVE there is a means in Duke
> Nukem 3D to get a framerate indication onscreen.  It isn't as clean as the
> timedemo method of Quake but it would give an indication of what is being
> seen.  With a 133 MHz P5-performing VPC you would essentially be able to
> run all PC game software at decent and playable speeds...with Quake being
> somewhat of an anomaly due to the fpu usage.
> 
> patrick
> FOR DIRECT REPLY:  remove "virus" from my email address.

In article <sanbart-ya023680002207972352580001@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
sanbart@ix.netcom.com (Sanford Barton) wrote:

> I'm a new MAC user, switched over from a PC (no shit, I really did!).
> I work with UNIX workstations and servers all day at work, and needed
> less stress, less maintenance, and more enjoyment from my home machine.
> So I bought a UMAX C500 clone and have been VERY pleased with its
> performance and ofcourse MacOS.  But I wanted to do some light development
> with the Java 1.1 JDK and threw a purchace on VirtualPC to run a
> development environment I'm comfortable with and run the JDK 1.1 software
> which isn't available on the Mac yet.
> 
> Well, I installed Virtual PC on my 180mhz 603e and performance is lousy,
> and unuseable.  For example, I experiance delays of about 1 second when
> traversing each entry on the start menu of win95.

You must have Level 2 cache.  512K should do.  I can't say that VPC
is fast but it is usable on a 180.

-- 
My opinions are free, worth nothing, and not Apple's
It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. - David Hume
<http://www.webcom.com/thinker> Hypertext editor for creative people.