Virtual PC

[KooBrewoP]

Ok, dire and complicated circumstances have forced me in to getting Virtual PC, and i was wandering how well it ran things, e.g. playing avi files - simple games etc. and as i have been a mac man my entire life i was wandering a few basic things, like what version i should get, and do old versions of programs e.g. a wmp from win 95, work on newer versions of windows? and can the pc emulator get a windows virus? and would that effect my mac? will it crash all the time?

i am running a 12in G4 PB (1.33) with 768 mb ram

 

[jsw]

VPC 7 is coming out, theoretically, in October. It should run things reasonably fast - if you're very lenient about your definition of "reasonably".

VPC 6.1, out now, is a slow pig.

Windows apps may or may not run on later versions. MS tried to keep the versions as compatible as possible, but there's no guarantee an older app will run on a newer version.

Yes, you can catch viruses - but only on your VPC partition, so it might utterly mess up your "PC", but not your Mac.

If you're buying VPC 6.1, make sure you can get upgraded to VPC 7, or wait a few months, as VPC 7 is supposed to be much better.

 

[Dr. Dastardly]

Is the rumor still that VPC7 will take advantage of the graphics card in your Mac? Or did this rumor get squashed?

I hope it didn't.

 

[Horrortaxi]

How dire and complicated are your circumstances. Maybe we can find you a way around VPC.

 

[crenz]

VPC 6 is actually usable with Windows 98 or Windows 2000. I have spent quite an amount developing software with Visual C++ under VPC 6. It is bearable enough to not make me get a PC . I hope VPC7 will bring speed improvements, but I only believe it when I see it. If you run Windows XP, VPC 6 will be very slow.

Your Windows Virtual PC can catch viruses the same way as normal Windows PCs, but it is still less likely as you probably won't use it to read your e-mail, boot from floppy disks etc. However, if you run a lot of software of questionable origin on it, of course you can catch a virus. It should not affect your Mac, unless you share directories with the Virtual PC. Then, the viruses could affect office files, but the virus could still not be executed on Office X. Also, executables will not be affected.

 

[w00tmaster]

If you are a bit adventerous

You could try bochs: http://bochs.sourceforge.net/
Now, you have to compile it on your own, and it doesn't come with windows, so your choice is to either find an old windows cd and install it, or use linux and try out your app with wine, depends on the app really. This isn't for the faint of heart!
I can't wait to try it running Fedora Core 3 when my G5 arrives(as a side note, I'm a little peeved at Fedex, my order shipped on Saturday; I went ground shipping and Fedex says that it will be delivered on Saturday, but the last scan was Tuesday at midnight, and it still says it's in CA even though I am in PA. Anyone else have similiar weird experience?)

 

[JOD8FY]

VPC 7 is coming out, theoretically, in October.

October! I thought it was supposed to come out in July!

After all this waiting, VPC 7 better have native graphics support if Microsoft knows what's good for them...

JOD8FY

 

[Horrortaxi]

October! I thought it was supposed to come out in July!

After all this waiting, VPC 7 better have native graphics support if Microsoft knows what's good for them...

JOD8FY

They just recently anounced that it's been pushed back. If it's not out by the end of the year I'm going to start smelling vaporware. It wouldn't be the first time they bought a comany to kill a product.

And if after all the waiting, VPC 7 doesn't have better native graphics support you'll buy it and that's the way it'll be and you'll like it. It's the Microsoft way.

 

[MisterMe]

They just recently anounced that it's been pushed back. If it's not out by the end of the year I'm going to start smelling vaporware. It wouldn't be the first time they bought a comany to kill a product.

And if after all the waiting, VPC 7 doesn't have better native graphics support you'll buy it and that's the way it'll be and you'll like it. It's the Microsoft way.

VPC 7 is a strategic product for Microsoft. If the product ends up as vaporware, it will be because of incompetence, not because Microsoft planned to kill it. I fear, however, that VPC 8 will be failure even if VPC 7 is a success. The reason: Microsoft never met a feature it didn't like. I don't believe the product will survive the Redmond Monopoly's "improvements."

 

[FredAkbar]

Eww, bochs...I think Qemu (recently available for OS X) is a bit faster, though still slower than VPC 6. Qemu's page is http://fabrice.bellard.free.fr/qemu and you can get an OS X version at freeoszoo.org.

I agree with the users above that WinXP in VPC 6 is almost unusable, but Win98 SE in VPC 6 is not too bad (still quite slow though, I think it emulates a 500 MHz Pentium or Pentium 2, at least with my specs--see my sig).

As for VPC 7, right now MS is saying that they're waiting for WinXP SP2 to come out, which seems reasonable. We can't really dispute that until SP2 really does come out, and VPC 7 still isn't out months later...

 

[BrianKonarsMac]

vpc 7 was delayed because of the windows xp service pack 2, same as longhorn was delayed. it's not vaporware, M$ just doesn't have their **** together, at all.

 

[jsw]

Eww, bochs...I think Qemu (recently available for OS X) is a bit faster, though still slower than VPC 6. Qemu's page is http://fabrice.bellard.free.fr/qemu and you can get an OS X version at freeoszoo.org.

I just installed QEMU. Anyone know if/how I can use it (or something else not[/] VPC) to install a (licensed) copy of Win98SE? or Win98? or Win2K? We moved some systems at work over to Linux and have the licenses free again, and I was just looking to try it out.

 

[FredAkbar]

I just installed QEMU. Anyone know if/how I can use it (or something else not[/] VPC) to install a (licensed) copy of Win98SE? or Win98? or Win2K? We moved some systems at work over to Linux and have the licenses free again, and I was just looking to try it out.

Try this page, it's a howto for installing and using Win98 in Qemu. The howto isn't made for OS X specifically, but I used it and it worked fine for me.

http://www.dad-answers.com/qemu/howto/qemu-win98-howto.html

The only problem I had is when he tells you where to get the floppy images (including the one for Win98), the ones on the site he gives are all .exe files, which won't work for a Mac. I think I had to do some searching to find a bootdisk in .img format.

 

[Nermal]

The 98 CD is bootable, so I don't know why you need the floppy images in the first place. Maybe Qemu can't boot from CD?

 

[5300cs]

I smell vaporware too. I would not put it past m$ at all to kill this product, at least, the Mac version

I could have sworn I saw the pc version of VPC 7 in store a few weeks ago

 

[MisterMe]

....

I could have sworn I saw the pc version of VPC 7 in store a few weeks ago

So f--king what? VPC for Windows does not require much of an emulation engine because it emulates Intel hardware on Intel hardware. Wouldn't you agree that that is an easier job than emulating Intel hardware on PPC G5 hardware. Wouldn't you also agree that the software that is easier to write is likely to make it to market sooner than software that is difficult to write? Think.

 

[5300cs]

So f--king what? ... Think.

Calm down I was trying to point out that a pc version already came out, but a Mac version hasn't. It's making me sceptical about the Mac version, that's all. Yeesh...

 

[Aciddan]

VPC 8

VPC 7 is a strategic product for Microsoft. If the product ends up as vaporware, it will be because of incompetence, not because Microsoft planned to kill it. I fear, however, that VPC 8 will be failure even if VPC 7 is a success. The reason: Microsoft never met a feature it didn't like. I don't believe the product will survive the Redmond Monopoly's "improvements."

VPC is more than just the Mac->PC side: there's the whole emulation of virtual PCs on PC Servers (which we do at our work) too.

A possible prediction for VPC8: Think of it more in terms of a .NET runtime rather than a full "virtual PC". .NET is the aim of the game boys and girls:
- Windows Mobile 2003: .NET (Pocket PC)
- Longhorn: .NET
- XBox2: ppc970 running .NET runtime
- VPC8: ???

... and lets not forget Mono and Microsoft's own initial "Stick it out there": .NET CLR for BSD (OSX)

The .NET framework is a very powerful infrastructure that they're pushing as the future. Microsoft doesn't care what platform their software runs on: as long as it runs on what you buy, they get $ every time you buy their software.

Don't forget that Microsoft also has at its disposal a native implementation of the NT kernel for ppc : Don't you think that just like Apple keeps an "unreleased" x86 version of OSX around, that MS would not do the same thing (actually, given the resources they have at their disposal it would not surprise me at all).

So now we also have mention of native GFX support in VPC7: perhaps with the aid of a DX wrapper OR similar. In the next few years, you might see a lot more integration than we have seen in the past...

-- Dan =)

 

[MisterMe]

Calm down I was trying to point out that a pc version already came out, but a Mac version hasn't. It's making me sceptical about the Mac version, that's all. Yeesh...

That's all? That's everything. Now think. Does Microsoft sell more copies of VPC for Windows or VPC for the Mac? I'm not a betting man, but my money would be on the Mac version if I were. It makes no sense for Microsoft to develop a Windows version of a little used application when it makes so much more money from the much more popular Mac version. It is entirely possible that VPC 7 for the Mac has been delayed due to unanticipated difficulties. That it would kill the product as part of a larger diabolical plan is nonsense. Consider this: Customers have postponed original and upgrade purchases of Office 2004 Professional in anticipation of VPC 7. If Microsoft plans to kill VPC 7, it is deliberately sacrificing current sales of Office 2004 and the advertising and packaging for Office 2004 Pro and VPC 7 standalone. This would be astoundingly stupid. Microsoft did not get to be as rich as it is by being that stupid.

 

[Horrortaxi]

It makes no sense for Microsoft to develop a Windows version of a little used application when it makes so much more money from the much more popular Mac version.

That's assuming they are that interested in making money off a niche market that wants to run Windows on a Mac. From a straight numbers perspective it might cost them more to develop the product than they can make from it. When it's important, they don't let that stop them though--see Explorer, Internet and Box, X--they lose serious money on those but they get their products into your house, which is what they really want. But that is why it makes sense for them to keep VPC alive--it's that many more people who become dependent on their products. It doesn't make sense for them to kill it off, but to postpone it so often isn't like them. If anything I'd expect them to rush a buggy version just to get it out there. That's why I said that if it isn't out by the end of the year I'm going to start suspecting vaporware.

As for the excuse that they have to get SP2 finished first, why should that have anything to do with VPC? Theyr'e still selling Windows XP, right? They didn't pull it off the shelf when they realized how full of holes it is, pending release of SP2. Why should Windows running on a Mac be any different? Also, wouldn't those be under 2 different departments? It's not as if "Larry the Programmer", their sole employee, was working on VPC but then had to give all his attention to SP 2. They have enough personnel to do both. I believe this is what you call a "thinly veiled excuse."

 

[5300cs]

That's what I was trying to say all along

 

[Aciddan]

As for the excuse that they have to get SP2 finished first, why should that have anything to do with VPC? Theyr'e still selling Windows XP, right? They didn't pull it off the shelf when they realized how full of holes it is, pending release of SP2. Why should Windows running on a Mac be any different? Also, wouldn't those be under 2 different departments? It's not as if "Larry the Programmer", their sole employee, was working on VPC but then had to give all his attention to SP 2. They have enough personnel to do both. I believe this is what you call a "thinly veiled excuse."

I wouldn't call it an excuse, just economics: if you're about to send off a gold master of vpc bundled with XP Pro, would you prefer to produce one boxed set or have the headache of trying to manage an 'A' (SP1) and 'B' (SP2) version of the product through production (especially when the difference in versions is a matter of a couple of months). Two months into selling VPC7, they'd have to send off another VPC version, and it would have to be labelled differently so you know that you bought the SP2 version rather than the SP1 version. They've just opted for a single version for production. They probably won't change the bundling until the next major "pay" version of VPC.

-- Dan =)

 

[MisterMe]

VPC is more than just the Mac->PC side: there's the whole emulation of virtual PCs on PC Servers (which we do at our work) too....

I am perfectly aware of Virtual Server. This is why Microsoft bought Connectix's product line in the first place. It was the Redmond Monopoly's concession to the reality that its enterprise customers don't trust the company's new products and are unwilling to buy them. Nothing about Virtual Server, however, requires Microsoft to continue development of a standalone version of Virtual PC for Windows. Certainly nothing about Virtual Server requires the development of Virtual PC for the Mac. The only reason that Microsoft develops VPC is that it is a profitable product. You seem to forget that VPC does not emulate Windows. It emulates Intel-based PC hardware.

That's assuming they are that interested in making money off a niche market that wants to run Windows on a Mac. From a straight numbers perspective it might cost them more to develop the product than they can make from it. When it's important, they don't let that stop them though--see Explorer, Internet and Box, X--they lose serious money on those but they get their products into your house, which is what they really want....

You, like a lot of people, seem to believe that Microsoft has an infinite repository of money with which it can use in any manner it sees fit. I disagree. It is well known that most of Microsoft's operations lose money. If you study the company's behavior over the last few years, you will see that it is trying to increase its revenue and reduce its costs. If we are to believe its financial reports (and I don't), Microsoft has been successful with the former and unsuccessful with the later. It is interesting that you mention the Xbox and Internet Explorer. From your comments about them, it is clear that you have not been paying attention. Microsoft developed with Xbox in an effort to enter the lucrative games market. Games may be lucrative, but hardware development is high-cost. Ask Apple. The Xbox loses money on every unit sold. Now that the company has announced that it is switching from the Intel processor to the PPC, its has guaranteed that the original Xbox will never make a profit. Before you point out that Microsoft also owns games vendors, remember that the competition sells games for all three major console makers as well as for personal computers. Microsoft sells games for the Xbox and personal computers, a smaller total market than the competition. Internet Explorer? You really need to read the paper. Microsoft has already announced that it will not continue to develop Internet Explorer as a standalone application for any platform. IE:mac has ceased development. IE:win is being folded into the OS. On other fronts, just yesterday Microsoft announced that it is looking for a buyer for its online magazine, Slate. Also yesterday, the company reported a profit increase of 81%, which sent its stock into a dive because the profit increase was not large enough. I could go on, but I believe that I have made my point that Microsoft is not in a position to take profits off the table.