Professional Web Applications Themes

Virtual PC 6.1 on G3 mac - feasible? - Mac Applications & Software

Am contemplating buying Virtual PC 6.1 for my G3 500 mHz iMac with 640MB RAM. Is XP likely to run fast enough to be usable under Mac OS X 10.2.8? TIA for any thoughts/suggestions. Sam...

  1. #1

    Default Virtual PC 6.1 on G3 mac - feasible?

    Am contemplating buying Virtual PC 6.1 for my G3 500 mHz iMac with
    640MB RAM. Is XP likely to run fast enough to be usable under Mac OS X
    10.2.8?

    TIA for any thoughts/suggestions.

    Sam
    Sam Guest

  2. #2

    Default Re: Virtual PC 6.1 on G3 mac - feasible?

    Sam Mountford <com> wrote:
     

    It depends on your demands ...
    --
    Per Erik Rønne
    Per Guest

  3. #3

    Default Re: Virtual PC 6.1 on G3 mac - feasible?

    In article <google.com>,
    com (Sam Mountford) wrote:
     

    Runs like a dog. A slow dog. A slow dog on a hot day. And sound
    doesn't work at all.
    fishfry Guest

  4. #4

    Default Re: Virtual PC 6.1 on G3 mac - feasible?

    > Is XP likely to run fast enough to be usable under Mac OS X 

    no.. if you REALLY want to then add more ram...

    and if you still REALLY want to then:

    add another harddrive and install run vpc from that.

    it will still be SLOW AS A DOG.

    better to boot in OS9 and run it in OS9 mode.. it may be a bit quicker
    as OS9 is less of an overhead to a G3 that OSX

    having said it does work.. as long as you only need to 'dip' in for a while...

    i have it running on a dual G4 1.25 w 1.5gb of ram and Win 2k is useable
    but i wouldn't want to use it all the time...
    beenie Guest

  5. #5

    Default Re: Virtual PC 6.1 on G3 mac - feasible?

    In article <attbi.com>,
    fishfry <com> wrote:
     
    >
    > Runs like a dog. A slow dog. A slow dog on a hot day. And sound
    > doesn't work at all.[/ref]

    No man, that's a slow dog on a hot day that also happens to be dead,
    and the only reason it's moving at all is that a colony of pillbugs is
    dragging it to their cache.

    I find v5 runs quicker than v6, on a G4/867 with 768mb RAM.

    I also find Win98 runs quicker than WinXP.

    z
    Zeph Guest

  6. #6

    Default Re: Virtual PC 6.1 on G3 mac - feasible?

    I'd like to third or fourth that (you count) by saying that yes, it's
    very slow. I've got a G3 400 MHz iMac with 1 GB of RAM (1,024 MB),
    running VPC 6.1 and Win2K, and it's so dang slow I just refuse to use
    it at all. I will say that it is much much much more stable than VPC 4
    and 5, though. I can't tell if that's Win2K being more stable or OS X
    being more stable. If it weren't so damn slow, it would be a great
    deal. If VPC 5 worked natively under OS X I would switch back
    immediately. (BTW, if I'm wrong on the VPC 5 and OS X thing, please let
    me know.) So as far as XP is concerned, I would have to say "no."

    It's a shame, too, you know? I mean, if VPC 4 and 5 runs OK on a G3,
    why wouldn't VPC 6.*? I mean, why does every new upgrade for every
    application require you to have a brand new ultra-fast computer? This
    is my rant, I know, but it's damn frustrating.

    My two cents,
    Beck

    In article <071020031743212550%nowhere.net>, Zeph
    <nowhere.net> wrote:
     
    > >
    > > Runs like a dog. A slow dog. A slow dog on a hot day. And sound
    > > doesn't work at all.[/ref]
    >
    > No man, that's a slow dog on a hot day that also happens to be dead,
    > and the only reason it's moving at all is that a colony of pillbugs is
    > dragging it to their cache.
    >
    > I find v5 runs quicker than v6, on a G4/867 with 768mb RAM.
    >
    > I also find Win98 runs quicker than WinXP.
    >
    > z[/ref]

    --
    Conservative Girl: Have you accepted Jesus Christ as your personal savior?
    Buffy: Uh, you know I meant to, and then I just got really busy.

    --BTVS, "The Freshman"
    Becky Guest

  7. #7

    Default Re: Virtual PC 6.1 on G3 mac - feasible?

    > If VPC 5 worked natively under OS X I would switch back 

    VP5 does work natively under OSX.. if remeber there are two
    installers on the disk one for
    9 and one for OSX...

    With 10.3 your Mac will become unsupported (officially) so good excuse
    for a nice shiny G5

    which of course won't run VPC at all!!!

    Grrrrrr

    :-D
    beenie Guest

  8. #8

    Default Re: Virtual PC 6.1 on G3 mac - feasible?

    Wow. That is excellent. Thanks, Beenie. Does VPC5 run any faster on a
    G3 than VPC6 does, would you know by chance?

    Cheers,
    Beck

    In article <google.com>, beenie
    <co.uk> wrote:
     
    >
    > VP5 does work natively under OSX.. if remeber there are two
    > installers on the disk one for
    > 9 and one for OSX...
    >
    > With 10.3 your Mac will become unsupported (officially) so good excuse
    > for a nice shiny G5
    >
    > which of course won't run VPC at all!!!
    >
    > Grrrrrr
    >
    > :-D[/ref]

    --
    Conservative Girl: Have you accepted Jesus Christ as your personal savior?
    Buffy: Uh, you know I meant to, and then I just got really busy.

    --BTVS, "The Freshman"
    Becky Guest

  9. #9

    Default Re: Virtual PC 6.1 on G3 mac - feasible?

    In article <091020030913335219%org>, Becky Carter
    Hickman-Jones <org> wrote:
     

    It runs faster on a G4, so presumably on a G3 as well. VPC5, that is.
    VPC6 is godawful.
    Z Guest

  10. #10

    Default Re: Virtual PC 6.1 on G3 mac - feasible?

    Z <ZZ.z> wrote:
     
    >
    > It runs faster on a G4, so presumably on a G3 as well. VPC5, that is.
    > VPC6 is godawful.[/ref]

    Godawful?
    --
    Per Erik Rønne
    Per Guest

  11. #11

    Default Re: Virtual PC 6.1 on G3 mac - feasible?

    In article <1g2yqix.2crkk81aggmysN%filter.invalid>,
    Per Rønne <filter.invalid> wrote:
     
    > >
    > > It runs faster on a G4, so presumably on a G3 as well. VPC5, that is.
    > > VPC6 is godawful.[/ref]
    >
    > Godawful?[/ref]

    That is to say, it s.
    Z Guest

  12. #12

    Default Re: Virtual PC 6.1 on G3 mac - feasible?

    Z <ZZ.z> wrote:
     

    Not in my experience. Though it is correct that it runs slower than a
    modern non-virtual PC it runs fast enough to be usable. Even in XP Pro -
    which I've just installed on VPC 6.0.

    Actually, Windows 3.1, NT, 2000 Pro and XP Pro are the only Windows that
    can recognize a double-click from a button assigned for that [Kensington
    Expert Mouse Pro trackball with 11 buttons]. Windows 95 can't do it
    unless you boot into pre-X and Windows 98 is the overall slowest
    Windows.
    --
    Per Erik Rønne
    Per Guest

Similar Threads

  1. How to get virtual dir name ?
    By F C in forum ASP Components
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: December 16th, 03:07 PM
  2. Virtual
    By Kevin Wheeler in forum Windows Server
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: June 7th, 01:50 PM
  3. Is this feasible?
    By Shawn in forum ASP Database
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: August 27th, 08:21 PM
  4. Virtual PC 6
    By Tom in forum Mac Applications & Software
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: August 2nd, 09:21 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139