Despite promises, VPC 7 is impossibly slow...

VPC has always been sluggish at best in my experience, but I found with some
effort versions 6 and 7 running Windoze can be tuned/hacked/slimmed down to
give workable performance if you dont have high expectations.

I wonder whats going on in your case... perhaps you skipped some of the
tuning
tips posted around?
My PB 867MHz 12" performance seems signifcantly better than your findings.
I have 1.128GB, and 512MB for VPC... you have reduced VRAM to 4MB?
I am using XP pro as bundled.

I can run qicktime movies, this barely passes but is possible even if not
something
I'd recommend using VPC for when OS X can handle it so well.
My browser experience I have to say is superb - its just as fast as it is in
OS X.
(Actually IE in XP in VPC runs much better than IE in OS X - well we know
that
is sluggish in OS X.)
My browser experience on a really old Linux distro running under VMWare on
the PC
is pretty horrible, but then some browsers are slow - try a different one,
e.g. FireFox.

Have you tried to minimize the number of unnecessary services - you can
disable them,
but be careful before you do to understand what youre effectively giving up.

Just the other night I had reason to copy about 3GB of data from an external
firewire
drive: once to the PB running XP Pro in VPC; and once to my PC notebook (P4
1.5GHz)
running XP Home. The VPC XP outperformed the real PC XP by 500%.

[I have upgraded my PB to a 7200RPM HD and this PC uses a 4200RPM HD because
it runs way too hot already to do the upgrade.]

I dont use virtual memory because that can slow you down and I keep under
512MB.
But others suggest lowering your RAM in VPC to 256MB which might make it
more
likely you'll need to use virtual memory.


Just a few suggestions...
Have you been able to determine whether your performance drag is pure CPU
utlization or HD access.
Do you see any paging activity either in VPC or OS X?
Have you turned off the screensaver?
Have you turned off "Allow Indexing Service to index this disk for fast file
searching"?




"pkazmercyk" wrote in message

 > I'm (barely) running VPC 7.01 on a new PowerBook 1.5 GHZ 17" with 1GB
 > of RAM and 512 MB dedicated to VPC, which has XP Home installed. Even
 > with minimum graphics effects enabled and other efforts to optimize its
 > performance, Windows is just barely usable. I use it to test my web
 > site designs online with Explorer and Netscape. Once the program
 > finally launches (an excruciatingly slow process, even with no other
 > apps running) minutes tick by waiting for browsers to launch and then
 > more time for sites to actually load. I suspect the browser use is not
 > especially taxing on the OS, so I truly pity users who are hoping for
 > something remotely resembling performance with more demanding apps. I'd
 > previously run VPC 6.1 on a 1 GHZ PowerBook and I'd swear it was faster
 > than this.
 >
 > I'm open to suggestions for performance improvements, but even a search
 > of these forums indicates I'm far from alone and Microsoft's support
 > for this product appears nominal at best. So, before you purchase or
 > upgrade, be sure your expectations are set very low.
 >
 >> Stay informed about: Despite promises, VPC 7 is impossibly slow... 

With only a gig of ram, you should not be assigning 512mb to a VM.

First off, if you have anything else running in that configuration,
you're pretty much guaranteed to be paging to disk regularly. That's a
massive performance hit.
Second, while counter-intuitive, assigning more ram to a VM will not
make it faster, but in fact, will slow it down. The easiest explanation
for this is that it increases the overhead that needs to be emulated.
I'm still trying to find the text of the technical answer I received
from one of the VPC devs. In short, the sweet spot for XP is between
224mb and 256mb of ram.

Other tips... do not max your VRAM. Lower it from 16mb to 8mb, or even
4mb if you don't need to run full screen in millions of colors. More
VRAM means less code cache for the application. That is a direct
performance hit.

If you're running with a third party firewall (ie. not Apple's) on your
Mac, either disable it, or switch to Virtual Switch networking (from
Shared).

Don't assign a device to a COM port via the serial PC settings unless
you need to. In fact, turn off things you don't need. Don't use USB
devices in VPC? Turn off USB, etc.
 >> Stay informed about: Despite promises, VPC 7 is impossibly slow... 

pkazmercyk wrote:
 > I'm (barely) running VPC 7.01 on a new PowerBook 1.5 GHZ 17" with 1GB
 > of RAM and 512 MB dedicated to VPC, which has XP Home installed. Even
 > with minimum graphics effects enabled and other efforts to optimize
its
 > performance, Windows is just barely usable. I use it to test my web
 > site designs online with Explorer and Netscape. Once the program
 > finally launches (an excruciatingly slow process, even with no other
 > apps running) minutes tick by waiting for browsers to launch and then
 > more time for sites to actually load. I suspect the browser use is
not
 > especially taxing on the OS, so I truly pity users who are hoping for
 > something remotely resembling performance with more demanding apps.
I'd
 > previously run VPC 6.1 on a 1 GHZ PowerBook and I'd swear it was
faster
 > than this.
 >
 > I'm open to suggestions for performance improvements, but even a
search
 > of these forums indicates I'm far from alone and Microsoft's support
 > for this product appears nominal at best. So, before you purchase or
 > upgrade, be sure your expectations are set very low.

Hey, I'm having a very similar experience. I just bought a 1.8Ghz G5
tower, 1.5G RAM, and use VPC7 to test web pages in IE/Windows XP Pro.
It's so incredibly slow as to be, as you say, almost unusable. After a
few hours of switching back and forth between MacOS and VPC to view web
pages, I find that I have to pull down the PC menu and choose Reset.
When the thing finally reboots, it's faster-not fast, just faster
than it was-for a while, until the inevitable slowdown becomes
intolerable again.

I'm only running IE on Windows XP, so it's not as though it's
overloaded with software. In MacOS, I usually have 8 or 9 applications
open while i'm running VPC, but I'm not sure it makes much difference
when I don't.

My Activity Monitor (in OS X) shows a spike in CPU usage when I change
pages in Win/IE: loading a new page often uses 70-90% of my CPU,
according to the Monitor. Somehow I figured that the new G5, even with
only the one processor, should be able to handle this, and that VPC
would be reasonably fast. If you are able to figure out how to solve
your problem, please post or share the solution with me!
My best to you,
james.
 >> Stay informed about: Despite promises, VPC 7 is impossibly slow... 

pkazmercyk wrote:
 > I'm (barely) running VPC 7.01 on a new PowerBook 1.5 GHZ 17" with 1GB
 > of RAM and 512 MB dedicated to VPC, which has XP Home installed.

Well, as others suggested, only use 256MB for the virtual PC, because
everything beyond is just going to slow it down.

Also, if you don't have a need for the Windows XP features and should
have the older operating systems available, use Windows 98 (preferrably
the Second Edition) instead.
And if you have an older version of Windows 95 as well, give 98 a speed
kick, by using the free preview of 98lite to make IE optional and
replace the slow Windows 98 Explorer with the much faster 95 version:
<http://www.litepc.com/preview.html>

When I did some research in VPC before buying it, most people said that
Win98 would be rather slow, but on my 2GHz G5 it's much faster than the
Windows 2000 Professional that came with my copy of VPC7, especially
when I use 98lite to remove most of the clutter.

--
M.I.K.e
 >> Stay informed about: Despite promises, VPC 7 is impossibly slow... 

pkazmercyk wrote:
 > I'm (barely) running VPC 7.01 on a new PowerBook 1.5 GHZ 17" with 1GB
 > of RAM and 512 MB dedicated to VPC, which has XP Home installed.

Follow-up:
So far, I've lowered VPC allocation to 256 MB, dropped the VRAM to 4MB
and turned off USB, but I see absolutely no improvement. In fact, on my
first attempt to test out a web page, Explorer crashed and roughly 3
minutes have passed since I pressed the "Close" button on the "Error
Reporting" window.
 >> Stay informed about: Despite promises, VPC 7 is impossibly slow... 

On 21 Jan 2005 11:51:42 -0800, "pkazmercyk"
wrote:

 >
 >pkazmercyk wrote:
  >> I'm (barely) running VPC 7.01 on a new PowerBook 1.5 GHZ 17" with 1GB
  >> of RAM and 512 MB dedicated to VPC, which has XP Home installed.
 >
 >Follow-up:
 >So far, I've lowered VPC allocation to 256 MB, dropped the VRAM to 4MB
 >and turned off USB, but I see absolutely no improvement. In fact, on my
 >first attempt to test out a web page, Explorer crashed and roughly 3
 >minutes have passed since I pressed the "Close" button on the "Error
 >Reporting" window.

Are you running on battery or plugged in ? Previous Powerbooks had
power management schemes that would slow the CPU down to conserve
battery, causing VPC to run poorly. If you can, try changing the
power save mode to disabled or set for maximum performance.
--
Steve Jain, Virtual PC for Windows MVP
Website: <a rel="nofollow" style='text-decoration: none;' href="http://www.essjae.com" target="_blank">http://www.essjae.com</a>
"This posting is provided "AS IS" with
no warranties, and confers no rights.
You assume all risk for your use."
 >> Stay informed about: Despite promises, VPC 7 is impossibly slow... 

pkazmercyk wrote:
 > pkazmercyk wrote:
  >> I'm (barely) running VPC 7.01 on a new PowerBook 1.5 GHZ 17" with 1GB
  >> of RAM and 512 MB dedicated to VPC, which has XP Home installed.
 >
 > Follow-up:
 > So far, I've lowered VPC allocation to 256 MB, dropped the VRAM to 4MB
 > and turned off USB, but I see absolutely no improvement. In fact, on
 > my first attempt to test out a web page, Explorer crashed and roughly
 > 3 minutes have passed since I pressed the "Close" button on the "Error
 > Reporting" window.

Seriously, there is something else wrong with your setup. VPC is not that
slow in a normal system.

Earlier posters have pointed out that VPC gives poor performance on a Mac if
the Mac has utilities installed (e.g. ones with floating windows) that
prevent VPC being the front-most window. Might this be the case with your
Mac? Can you try Quitting absolutely every Mac application and utility
except VPC?

Another thing for you to check, if your Windows system is misbehaving, is
whether it is infected with any Windows Spyware or virus.

Also, check that you have version 7.01 of the VM Additions installed in
Windows.

--
Robin Walker [MVP Networking]
rdhw RemoveThis @cam.ac.uk
 >> Stay informed about: Despite promises, VPC 7 is impossibly slow... 

pkazmercyk wrote:
 > pkazmercyk wrote:
 >
  >>I'm (barely) running VPC 7.01 on a new PowerBook 1.5 GHZ 17" with 1GB
  >>of RAM and 512 MB dedicated to VPC, which has XP Home installed.
 >
 >
 > Follow-up:
 > So far, I've lowered VPC allocation to 256 MB, dropped the VRAM to 4MB
 > and turned off USB, but I see absolutely no improvement. In fact, on my
 > first attempt to test out a web page, Explorer crashed and roughly 3
 > minutes have passed since I pressed the "Close" button on the "Error
 > Reporting" window.
 >

Hum...lets see, you're running Microsoft Explorer, and it
crashed. Duh!

Bill Crocker
 >> Stay informed about: Despite promises, VPC 7 is impossibly slow... 

pkazmercyk wrote:
 > I'm (barely) running VPC 7.01 on a new PowerBook 1.5 GHZ 17" with 1GB
 > of RAM and 512 MB dedicated to VPC, which has XP Home installed. Even
 > with minimum graphics effects enabled and other efforts to optimize
its
 > performance, Windows is just barely usable. I use it to test my web
 > site designs online with Explorer and Netscape. ..................
 > ........................
 >
 > I'm open to suggestions for performance improvements, but even a
search
 > of these forums indicates I'm far from alone and Microsoft's support
 > for this product appears nominal at best. So, before you purchase or
 > upgrade, be sure your expectations are set very low.
=====================================================

Hello: Some time ago on the Connectix forum, performance data were
posted.
It may be time for someone to post new data with G5/VPC 7...

pkazmercyk: Perhaps the following will help you narrow down the
slowwness:

Do what Kurt did... i.e., run ONLY VPC and XP (he used VPC 6 & W2K),
then run the comparison
tests using the "Performance Tester" program found at:

<a rel="nofollow" style='text-decoration: none;' href="http://www.passmark.com/products/pt.htm" target="_blank">http://www.passmark.com/products/pt.htm</a>

With a 30 day free trial you can install and compare PT on your XP
version against a sampling of benchmarks.

Then, PLEASE post them here for others to share.

Cheers, Jim b
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kurt L reported the following over a year ago:
............
Subject: Performance, for the curious
From: e1-qcpq-kt69-cbtm.TakeThisOut@emailias.com (Kurt L)
Newsgroups: microsoft.public.mac.virtualpc
Date: Wed, Nov 12, 2003 10:33 PM
Message-ID:

Here is the result of some testing using the Performance Test
application. The first number is from a real Pentium II-400 MHz
system, running Windows 2000. The second number is Virtual PC,
running on a 1 GHz G4, 1 MB of L3 cache, 133 MHz system bus, 768 MB
sys ram (192 MB given to Windows 2000).

Test PII-400 VPC 6.1/Win2k
----------------------- ------- ------------
Math - Addition 78.29 94.84
Math - Subtraction 77.04 95.83
Math - Multiplication 81.11 94.63
Math - Division 10.49 19.29
Math - Floating point addition 70.55 69.29
Math - Floating point subtraction 70.54 69.21
Math - Floating point multiplication 71.96 69.35
Math - Floating point division 11.92 20.69
Math - Maximum megaflops 96.98 102.07
Graphics 2D - Lines 14.70 2.81
Graphics - Rectangles 86.78 25.55
Graphics - Shapes 4.89 1.41
Memory - Allocate small block 200.71 379.57
Memory - Read cached 181.84 200.27
Memory - Read uncached 107.05 147.31
Memory - Write 133.16 157.31
Disk - Sequential read 24.38 19.92
Disk - Sequential write 17.42 3.28
Disk - Random seek + RW 6.73 1.36
MMX - Addition 122.57 139.11
MMX - Subtraction 122.36 143.36
MMX - Multiplication 119.02 93.69

Summary statistics
Math Mark 58.77 65.62
2D Graphics Mark 141.81 39.68
Memory Mark 60.72 86.23
Disk Mark 128.13 64.83
MMX Mark 61.75 63.82

Passmark rating 72.39 51.69

My interpretation: VPC holds its own in most places, except that it is
dog-slow on graphics and disk write. Think of it as a PII-400 with a
lousy graphics card and a slow disk. One has to be cautious about
generalizing from these numbers as well; likely the test code fits
entirely within cache on the G4, and thus tends to look better than
real-world. But for those looking to at least see whether Virtual PC
will accomplish what they have in mind, at least this is a stake in
the ground.

Kurt

(sorry about the columns, its more effort than I've got in me to make
them line up pretty tonight)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 >> Stay informed about: Despite promises, VPC 7 is impossibly slow... 

I think you have other problems. I run VPC 6 on a 1.5GHz PowerBook with 768
RAM. My VPC is Windows 2000 which has 192MB allocated (same as my previous
PC laptop had). I run MS Access, IIS (connecting to an Oracle database on
another machine), and IE 5.5 all day long without any problems. I do this
because a large portion of my job requires playing around with data in
Access, and developing ASP pages (using HomeSite). While its slower than my
old 800MHz PIII laptop, the difference is not so bad as to render it
unusable.

When I just do web browsing in IE to an external server, as long as there is
no client side stuff (like java applets, or flash) it runs as fast as if it
was on my old laptop.

Rob



On 1/21/05 2:51 PM, in article
1106337102.965472.83040 DeleteThis @z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com, "pkazmercyk"
wrote:

 >
 > pkazmercyk wrote:
  >> I'm (barely) running VPC 7.01 on a new PowerBook 1.5 GHZ 17" with 1GB
  >> of RAM and 512 MB dedicated to VPC, which has XP Home installed.
 >
 > Follow-up:
 > So far, I've lowered VPC allocation to 256 MB, dropped the VRAM to 4MB
 > and turned off USB, but I see absolutely no improvement. In fact, on my
 > first attempt to test out a web page, Explorer crashed and roughly 3
 > minutes have passed since I pressed the "Close" button on the "Error
 > Reporting" window.
 >
 >> Stay informed about: Despite promises, VPC 7 is impossibly slow... 

UPDATE: I found that V5 of Performance Test (PT) does not work in my
Ver 6.1.1/Windows2000 system. Contacting Passmark led me to an older
ver 3.5.
Tried that version and it installed/ran OK..

Don't know why V5 failed. Passmark does not test VPC. I urged them to
do so for the growing numbers of VPC 7 out there.

One of you VPC 7.0.1/G5 users might try PT V3.5 and report.
It is at: http://www.passmark.com/ftp/petst_old35.exe
 >> Stay informed about: Despite promises, VPC 7 is impossibly slow... 

I was intrigued by this post so I downloaded a copy of the Performance
Tester. It installed fine, but would not run. I installed it several times,
and downloaded a different copy. Still would not run. I guess it is not
compatible with VPC 7!


On 1/22/05 4:29 PM, in article
1106429371.018636.201800.RemoveThis@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com, " "
wrote:

 > pkazmercyk wrote:
  >> I'm (barely) running VPC 7.01 on a new PowerBook 1.5 GHZ 17" with 1GB
  >> of RAM and 512 MB dedicated to VPC, which has XP Home installed. Even
  >> with minimum graphics effects enabled and other efforts to optimize
 > its
  >> performance, Windows is just barely usable. I use it to test my web
  >> site designs online with Explorer and Netscape. ..................
  >> ........................
  >>
  >> I'm open to suggestions for performance improvements, but even a
 > search
  >> of these forums indicates I'm far from alone and Microsoft's support
  >> for this product appears nominal at best. So, before you purchase or
  >> upgrade, be sure your expectations are set very low.
 > =====================================================
 >
 > Hello: Some time ago on the Connectix forum, performance data were
 > posted.
 > It may be time for someone to post new data with G5/VPC 7...
 >
 > pkazmercyk: Perhaps the following will help you narrow down the
 > slowwness:
 >
 > Do what Kurt did... i.e., run ONLY VPC and XP (he used VPC 6 & W2K),
 > then run the comparison
 > tests using the "Performance Tester" program found at:
 >
<font color=purple> > <a rel="nofollow" style='text-decoration: none;' href="http://www.passmark.com/products/pt.htm</font" target="_blank">http://www.passmark.com/products/pt.htm</font</a>>
 >
 > With a 30 day free trial you can install and compare PT on your XP
 > version against a sampling of benchmarks.
 >
 > Then, PLEASE post them here for others to share.
 >
 > Cheers, Jim b
 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 > Kurt L reported the following over a year ago:
 > ...........
 >
 > Subject: Performance, for the curious

 > Newsgroups: microsoft.public.mac.virtualpc
 > Date: Wed, Nov 12, 2003 10:33 PM

 >
 > Here is the result of some testing using the Performance Test
 > application. The first number is from a real Pentium II-400 MHz
 > system, running Windows 2000. The second number is Virtual PC,
 > running on a 1 GHz G4, 1 MB of L3 cache, 133 MHz system bus, 768 MB
 > sys ram (192 MB given to Windows 2000).
 >
 > Test PII-400 VPC 6.1/Win2k
 > ----------------------- ------- ------------
 > Math - Addition 78.29 94.84
 > Math - Subtraction 77.04 95.83
 > Math - Multiplication 81.11 94.63
 > Math - Division 10.49 19.29
 > Math - Floating point addition 70.55 69.29
 > Math - Floating point subtraction 70.54 69.21
 > Math - Floating point multiplication 71.96 69.35
 > Math - Floating point division 11.92 20.69
 > Math - Maximum megaflops 96.98 102.07
 > Graphics 2D - Lines 14.70 2.81
 > Graphics - Rectangles 86.78 25.55
 > Graphics - Shapes 4.89 1.41
 > Memory - Allocate small block 200.71 379.57
 > Memory - Read cached 181.84 200.27
 > Memory - Read uncached 107.05 147.31
 > Memory - Write 133.16 157.31
 > Disk - Sequential read 24.38 19.92
 > Disk - Sequential write 17.42 3.28
 > Disk - Random seek + RW 6.73 1.36
 > MMX - Addition 122.57 139.11
 > MMX - Subtraction 122.36 143.36
 > MMX - Multiplication 119.02 93.69
 >
 > Summary statistics
 > Math Mark 58.77 65.62
 > 2D Graphics Mark 141.81 39.68
 > Memory Mark 60.72 86.23
 > Disk Mark 128.13 64.83
 > MMX Mark 61.75 63.82
 >
 > Passmark rating 72.39 51.69
 >
 > My interpretation: VPC holds its own in most places, except that it is
 > dog-slow on graphics and disk write. Think of it as a PII-400 with a
 > lousy graphics card and a slow disk. One has to be cautious about
 > generalizing from these numbers as well; likely the test code fits
 > entirely within cache on the G4, and thus tends to look better than
 > real-world. But for those looking to at least see whether Virtual PC
 > will accomplish what they have in mind, at least this is a stake in
 > the ground.
 >
 > Kurt
 >
 > (sorry about the columns, its more effort than I've got in me to make
 > them line up pretty tonight)
 >
 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 > ------
 >

Ken Gorelick
 >> Stay informed about: Despite promises, VPC 7 is impossibly slow... 

Please realize that even though the software is made by Microsoft, it's
running on a processor that is absolutely NOT designed for Windows. What
VPC is designed to do is translate the thousands of transactions that a Mac
processor does per clock cycle into the hundred or so a PC does. No matter
what you do, VPC isn't going to run like a physical XP machine. Look at it
this way: VMWare, which is designed to run any x86 based OS on the market
on an x86 based server, works wonderfully. How many emulators that work and
work just like a real Mac, are on the market for x86 machines...??

Sorry if this dashes your dreams. I am a Microsoft Windows-based network
architect. Trust me, I would love to see this more than anyone

Jim Knotts
jknotts.TakeThisOut@jckassoc.com


On 1/24/05 8:28 PM, in article BE1B0AD0.70A9%pulmon@comcast.net, "Kenneth
Gorelick" wrote:

 > I was intrigued by this post so I downloaded a copy of the Performance
 > Tester. It installed fine, but would not run. I installed it several times,
 > and downloaded a different copy. Still would not run. I guess it is not
 > compatible with VPC 7!
 >
 >
 > On 1/22/05 4:29 PM, in article


 >
  >> pkazmercyk wrote:
   >>> I'm (barely) running VPC 7.01 on a new PowerBook 1.5 GHZ 17" with 1GB
   >>> of RAM and 512 MB dedicated to VPC, which has XP Home installed. Even
   >>> with minimum graphics effects enabled and other efforts to optimize
  >> its
   >>> performance, Windows is just barely usable. I use it to test my web
   >>> site designs online with Explorer and Netscape. ..................
   >>> ........................
   >>>
   >>> I'm open to suggestions for performance improvements, but even a
  >> search
   >>> of these forums indicates I'm far from alone and Microsoft's support
   >>> for this product appears nominal at best. So, before you purchase or
   >>> upgrade, be sure your expectations are set very low.
  >> =====================================================
  >>
  >> Hello: Some time ago on the Connectix forum, performance data were
  >> posted.
  >> It may be time for someone to post new data with G5/VPC 7...
  >>
  >> pkazmercyk: Perhaps the following will help you narrow down the
  >> slowwness:
  >>
  >> Do what Kurt did... i.e., run ONLY VPC and XP (he used VPC 6 & W2K),
  >> then run the comparison
  >> tests using the "Performance Tester" program found at:
  >>
<font color=green>  >> <a rel="nofollow" style='text-decoration: none;' href="http://www.passmark.com/products/pt.htm</font" target="_blank">http://www.passmark.com/products/pt.htm</font</a>>
  >>
  >> With a 30 day free trial you can install and compare PT on your XP
  >> version against a sampling of benchmarks.
  >>
  >> Then, PLEASE post them here for others to share.
  >>
  >> Cheers, Jim b
  >>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------->>
-
  >> Kurt L reported the following over a year ago:
  >> ...........
  >>
  >> Subject: Performance, for the curious

  >> Newsgroups: microsoft.public.mac.virtualpc
  >> Date: Wed, Nov 12, 2003 10:33 PM

  >>
  >> Here is the result of some testing using the Performance Test
  >> application. The first number is from a real Pentium II-400 MHz
  >> system, running Windows 2000. The second number is Virtual PC,
  >> running on a 1 GHz G4, 1 MB of L3 cache, 133 MHz system bus, 768 MB
  >> sys ram (192 MB given to Windows 2000).
  >>
  >> Test PII-400 VPC 6.1/Win2k
  >> ----------------------- ------- ------------
  >> Math - Addition 78.29 94.84
  >> Math - Subtraction 77.04 95.83
  >> Math - Multiplication 81.11 94.63
  >> Math - Division 10.49 19.29
  >> Math - Floating point addition 70.55 69.29
  >> Math - Floating point subtraction 70.54 69.21
  >> Math - Floating point multiplication 71.96 69.35
  >> Math - Floating point division 11.92 20.69
  >> Math - Maximum megaflops 96.98 102.07
  >> Graphics 2D - Lines 14.70 2.81
  >> Graphics - Rectangles 86.78 25.55
  >> Graphics - Shapes 4.89 1.41
  >> Memory - Allocate small block 200.71 379.57
  >> Memory - Read cached 181.84 200.27
  >> Memory - Read uncached 107.05 147.31
  >> Memory - Write 133.16 157.31
  >> Disk - Sequential read 24.38 19.92
  >> Disk - Sequential write 17.42 3.28
  >> Disk - Random seek + RW 6.73 1.36
  >> MMX - Addition 122.57 139.11
  >> MMX - Subtraction 122.36 143.36
  >> MMX - Multiplication 119.02 93.69
  >>
  >> Summary statistics
  >> Math Mark 58.77 65.62
  >> 2D Graphics Mark 141.81 39.68
  >> Memory Mark 60.72 86.23
  >> Disk Mark 128.13 64.83
  >> MMX Mark 61.75 63.82
  >>
  >> Passmark rating 72.39 51.69
  >>
  >> My interpretation: VPC holds its own in most places, except that it is
  >> dog-slow on graphics and disk write. Think of it as a PII-400 with a
  >> lousy graphics card and a slow disk. One has to be cautious about
  >> generalizing from these numbers as well; likely the test code fits
  >> entirely within cache on the G4, and thus tends to look better than
  >> real-world. But for those looking to at least see whether Virtual PC
  >> will accomplish what they have in mind, at least this is a stake in
  >> the ground.
  >>
  >> Kurt
  >>
  >> (sorry about the columns, its more effort than I've got in me to make
  >> them line up pretty tonight)
  >>
  >>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------->>
-
  >> ------
  >>
 >
 > Ken Gorelick
 >
 >> Stay informed about: Despite promises, VPC 7 is impossibly slow...