Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Next Version of Virtual PC for Mac to Suck Less

Posted by pudge on from the we-shall-see dept.

Anomalous Coward writes "According to Apple Insider, it seems that the next version of Virtual PC for Mac will at long last have native support for decent graphics cards. Microsoft's XBox development team is developing this shiny new feature. Macs equipped with ATi cards will be able to emulate an original Radeon, while Macs with nVidia cards will be able to emulate a Geforce 3. Since the XBox uses a graphics core based on the Geforce 3, this may explain how Microsoft plans to include backward compatibility for the XBox in the XBox2."

7 of 86 comments (clear)

  1. vpc is slow by alatesystems · · Score: 4, Informative

    Not only does it have a problem with video cards, but it is dog slow. I don't think that this is a problem with the mac in general, but rather a problem of emulating another architecture in software on the cpu that is not designed to run those instructions.

    When I run xp pro on vpc on a mac( for some physicians who have it here and have to use it for hospital applications ), it takes FOREVER even to bring up internet explorer on a brand new powerbook g4.

    I'm not sure why MS even ships xp with vpc. It seems like something that still works with most stuff, like Windows 98, would be better because it's real cpu requirements are MUCH lower.

    I don't think the video card issues are the real problem. MS needs to just release a version of windows for the mac that can run as a .app if they want to have real compatibility, but then you'd still have to have a VM for the other x86 applications.

    Chris

    1. Re:vpc is slow by Watson+Azfor · · Score: 4, Informative

      I totally agree that VPC is dead-dog slow on OS X.

      However, it may be that VPC has seen its last days anyway if this stuff has any merit. Let's hope.

      From the press release:

      "Los Gatos, Calif. - September 13, 2004 - Transitive Corporation, the leading provider of software that enables transportability of applications across multiple processor and operating system pairs, today launched its QuickTransit(TM) product line, a family of products that allows software applications compiled for one processor and operating system to run on another processor and operating system without any source code or binary changes. The company's breakthrough hardware virtualization technology is unique because it provides 100% functionality, transparent interactive and graphics performance, near-native computational performance, and allows virtually any processor/operating system pair to be supported.

      The first products available in the QuickTransit(TM) product line are:

      QuickTransit for Itanium®: with support for MIPS®, POWER(TM)/PowerPC®, x86, and mainframe binaries
      QuickTransit for Opteron®: with support for MIPS, POWER/PowerPC, and mainframe binaries
      QuickTransit for x86: with support for MIPS, POWER/PowerPC and mainframe binaries
      QuickTransit for POWER/PowerPC: with support for MIPS, x86, and mainframe binaries"

      It's also interesting to note that they are saying:

      "Transitive has signed agreements with six of the world's largest computer OEMs to date."

      Find out more at:

      http://www.transitive.com/index.htm

  2. Doesn't necessarily apply to Xbox 2 by Bollenator · · Score: 5, Informative

    Since the XBox uses a graphics core based on the Geforce 3, this may explain how Microsoft plans to include backward compatibility for the XBox in the XBox2.

    This doesn't take into account the fact that the Xbox 2 has been announced to use a brand-new ATI video chipset. As near as I can tell, this has nothing to do with cross-compatibility between ATI and nVidia, which it would have to be if there's any relation to Xbox 2 backwards-compatibility. Just thought I'd mention it.

    --
    "The gods do not protect fools; fools are protected by more capable fools." -Larry Niven's "Ringworld"
  3. Re:Can someone explain to me... by DLWormwood · · Score: 4, Informative
    They are the same chip architecture isn't that the same instruction set, why can't they just dump it onto the chip?

    AFAIK, part of the problem is endian-swapping. The Mac and PC versions of the graphics cards have slightly different firmware and driver configurations that account for this. If a emulated PC application is running on a Mac, the graphics commands and texture info will be generated as little endian data with memory accesses assuming x86/Windows conventions. This will be different from what the OS X graphics drivers are expecting, which want big endian data and PPC-style memory accesses.

    Even if the GPU is always running in little-endian mode regardless of the CPU's byte order, the communication pipeline between the original x86 app and the final OS X driver communication will possibly involve a redundant little-to-big-to-little endian swap. (Especially if this swap actually is occuring in hardware via a bridge chip or clever bus wiring or something. This is just outside my scope of expertise.) In other words, to get maximum performance, the VPC host must take on some of the responsibilities that are normally handled by OS X graphics drivers.

    --
    Those who complain about affect & effect on /. should be disemvoweled
  4. Re:Can someone explain to me... by dgatwood · · Score: 4, Informative
    Most apps don't send direct instructions to the GPU, though. They use DirectX or OpenGL. OpenGL calls can be trivially passed to... get ready for it... OpenGL on Mac OS X. DirectX calls should be able to be translated to OpenGL calls, I suspect.

    --

    Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  5. Re:Slow on my iBook 500 by dbirchall · · Score: 4, Informative
    According to "BGINFO" from SysInternals (a nice little freeware app that puts up various information about a windows system on the desktop background):

    VirtualPC on my iBook 500 with 640MB RAM emulated a 266MHz PC. (That's better than 50% of native speed.)

    VirtualPC on my wife's iBook G4 800 with 640MB RAM emulated a 290-300MHz PC.

    VirtualPC on my Powerbook G4 1.5GHz with 512MB RAM emulates a 290-300MHz PC.

    Now...I am starting to suspect that something isn't right with those numbers, since it feels faster on the Powerbook (as one would expect it to). It may be thaht VirtualPC 6 simply won't report an emulated PC speed above 300MHz to things under Windows... and I don't think it'll report an emulated speed in excess of 4x the bus (my iBook 500's bus is 66MHz * 4 = 266).

    That said, I wonder what someone running it on an iBook G3-900 with a 100MHz bus would get... 300? Or 400?

  6. The "next" version of Virtual PC is 7.0! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Since version 7.0 has a few more days before it ships to customers, from a customer standpoint, version 7.0 is the "next" version, but it lacks the improved graphics support. Just so potential buyers of VirtualPC 7.0 aren't surprised, the AppleInsider article suggests a future (>7.0) version of VirtualPC will offer improved support for graphics cards, but 7.0 does not. (BTW: Don't buy software for a feature it might have in the future!)