2020. 3. 22. 17:36ㆍ카테고리 없음
I recently bought my first Mac, a PowerBook 867Mhz, and its critical that I am able to run some PC applications. Before purchasing I read a number of user reports saying that the emulation ran like a 300Mhz PII and similar so I figured it would be fine.
One of the first things I did after purchasing was install Virtual PC 6 and I can say without any exaggeration, it runs slower than the old 486 DX 66Mhz in the next room, although I will give it that its faster than that same PC when fitted with a 486SX 25Mhz. I've tried every Windows OS I have, including 98, 2000, NT, and XP. None were even remotely usable. The only thing I can come up with is that it could be the small L2 cache and lack of L3 or OS X performance is just dismal. Of course, I can't boot into OS 9.
I've been considering switching to a 900Mhz iBook to get the ability to run 9 if it would go faster - but it looks like I'd be stuck with CrapUSA's 15% restocking fee. All applicable updates have been installed through Software Update. Oh BTW, I apologize if this question is frequently answered or something - I couldn't get the search working right in this forum. Edit: I've heard that RealPC and SoftWindows run ok in Classic.
Do you guys think they would be faster? I would find out myself but I'm hesitant to drop $80 for RealPC after buying Virtual PC. This message was edited by aswedc on August 01, 2003 at 13:27. Quote: Originally posted by cubixe: I've NEVER had a good experience with VPC. I've got tons of ram (I can allocate 512 just to VPC) and its still unusably slow. The only OS that was even CLOSE to reasonable was win95. Rather than asking how you can accelerate vpc, I'd ask how you can do the work in OSX.
What apps are you running in VPC? I have to agree, for the most part.
The only machine that I've gotten to run Windows XP under VPC at what I would refer to as a 'good' speed is on my DP G4 with 1 GB of RAM (512 allocated to VPC). ANY other situation and it's ungodly slow. I would attempt to find solutions to doing things in OS X (but we all know that sometimes that's just impossible). Hell, even when I read this thread title, I laughed out loud. It's like asking 'Why is the sky blue?' In my experience, programs that are graphical in nature do not perform very well on VPC. Games really suffer, for example.
Another minus is that VPC on OSX is just not as fast as VPC on OS9. I used to make maps using UnrealEd on a G3 400 using OS9 and VPC4 and W95. It took some patience, but I made some pretty complex maps (nothing release quality). UnrealEd is pretty demanding, so I guess my point is that some apps may be better than others (depending on your patience too).
I wouldn't be surprised at all if a lack of a L3 cache and small L2 is hurting you. I thought FWB was supposed to release a new OSX version of RealPC this summer but it doesn't look so good now: quote: RealPC OSX - The new management is investigating the claims recently made by the previous management as to the status of this product. They will endeavour to update the public as soon as possible on the true status of the project and wish to continue development. This is from. This message was edited by Marid on August 01, 2003 at 16:48. Quote: Originally posted by Marid: In my experience, programs that are graphical in nature do not perform very well on VPC. This is because there's no real graphics acceleration.
Quote: I used to make maps using UnrealEd on a G3 400 using OS9 and VPC4 and W95. I wouldn't be surprised at all if a lack of a L3 cache and small L2 is hurting you. It's definitely much faster under OS 9. I think there's two major problems here.
As people suggested, 256MB is too little to run what amounts to two operating systems at the same time, especially when they're big and bloated like OS X and Windows. It's relatively inexpensive to add more and you'll be happier with working in OS X as well. It's likely you're running into VM paging issues with OS X in addition to VPC and that's not good for anybody. VPC uses memory in addition to that which it devotes to the emulated PC. No way in hell OS X is going to be happy with.
Fwb: Nothing Real About Realpc For Mac Download
Quote: Originally posted by Scud: sort of OT: No desktop OS should be this inneficient in 2003. Is this an area that Panther improves upon? First of all, as time goes by, ram requirements should tend to go up, so saying 'it's 2003!' Is really just saying that any os today should use more ram than any os before. Don't be stuck on the '512k should be enough for anyone' mindset. Secondly, as a general rule, memory can be swapped for speed.
Osx is efficient. Efficiency has nothing to do with speed. Inefficient things, i.e. Those that consume more ram, tend to be faster.
Osx adapts and will use as much memory as you give it to accomplish its task. So, to recap, osx is efficient, but smart enough to be as inefficient as possible in order to get the speed gains necessary. Quote: I recently bought my first Mac, a PowerBook 867Mhz, and its critical that I am able to run some PC applications. Before purchasing I read a number of user reports saying that the emulation ran like a 300Mhz PII and similar so I figured it would be fine.
You're not gonna get that speed. On my iBook 800MHz w/256MB (yes. I know RAM is cheap, but so am I) it feels like a Pentium 90 basically.
Fast enough to play SMAC multiplayer and for DC. It's faster than my 486-100 laptop although the RAM in that one is holding it back (8MB!) but no where near a P2 300. Sheesh you'll only really get those speeds on a G5. I ran VPC on my P4 2.26GHz and it was still a little slower than my old P2 300, depending on the task.
Actually I think Windows NT 4 is the fastest one. 95 is decent, 98 gets slowish (but is closer to 95 if you use 98lite), 2000's slow due to my lack of ram and I'm not even gonna try XP. I don't use it for much. Just the things I need on the go from the Windows world. It runs decently with 256. I just have a few other things to get first.
I've seen low profile ones for $75, which I'll snap up at first chance (few other things more important than ram to spend on, I had a couple of spare 128MB sticks and it made it workable. 128 is utterly unbearable though.). My older P4 had 768MB and it never got much further speedwise on VPC than a P2 233/266. I kinda doubt adding another 384MB would increase my iBook to those speeds in VPC. I'm mostly judging the speeds by games though.
Like SMAC, Civ 2 and Deadlock and a few others. DC takes a bit longer to load than on my old PC but it feels just as fine. I'm trying to make VPC into a replacement for the old 486 laptop and it looks like it'll do fine, worse sound though. I'd love a GM implementation for it.
SB16 sounds fugly nowadays. Quote: Originally posted by decursive: secondly, as a general rule, memory can be swapped for speed.
Osx is efficient. Efficiency has nothing to do with speed. Do you think OS X' swapping is efficient? I found that swapping os not only seriously affecting system performance (that was to expect) but is also causing a serious drop in responsiveness. When I try force-quitting an app while the computer is busy swapping, it can easily take 10 seconds or more from pressing command-option-escape until the force-quit window appears. Quote: Originally posted by eJacqui: Hell, even when I read this thread title, I laughed out loud.
It's like asking 'Why is the sky blue?' But that is easy to answer Lord Rayleigh figured that out in 1871 and formulated the complete theory with the then newly formulated theory of electro-dynamics in 1899.
Some minor correction were added in 1923, but for atmospheric modeling (think analysis of satellite images) his formula is used virtually unaltered. The short version: When a light wave hits a molecule (or atom), the electric field of the light induces a dipole in the molecule. This induced dipole oscillates, and an oscillating dipole radiates. This causes light to be scattered away from the original beam.
Since the power that is radiated by a dipole is proportional to the frequency to the power 4, the shorter the wavelength, the more efficient the radiator. The same holds true for the induced dipoles, the scattered power is much higher at short wavelengths, than at long wavelengths. So it is just a matter of the blue (short wavelength) overwhelming the red (long wavelength). So, now you know.