Virtual PC

Mitch Cain · Post by **Mitch Cain** » Thu, Jun 14 2007, 7:49AM

Seems that more and more people are running into issues buying PC's with Vista and trying to run eCabinets on them. There is a potential solution out there that can help, called Virtual PC.

Virtual PC is a free download from Microsoft that essentially allows you to create a virtual hard disk and a complete environment inside it that you can load another operating system on. You can configure how much disk capacity it uses, how much memory is available on it, etc.

I use virtual PC's a lot in my software activities, and have different environments around for testing code on various platforms without physically having a PC running windows 2000, XP and Vista.

I usually keep my virtual PC's on an external USB drive (you can get a Western Digital 60 GB USB drive for about $59) so I can plug them into whatever machine I am working on at the time - my desktop or my M90 laptop -

So even though you have Vista, you could create a virtual PC with Windows XP (you still need an XP disk) and load ecabinets on that. Then fire that up and run it when you use ecabinets and still have the benefit of Vista for the rest of the family...

The nice thing about it is that the environment can be kept wholly separate from the family machine, so you can set up your own \"rules\" for access to the internet, etc, and if the kiddies inadvertently get \"bugged\", it doesn't necessarily get into your virtual system. Load it up on the external hard drive and you can plug your ecab system into any hardware that supports it and run it. This is a great way for guys who have the system at home and at the shop to work on the same stuff without having to backup and copy files all over the place and keep the two systems in synch.

I know that you can use another virtual PC environment, called VMWare, on a Pentium based Mac to run Windows XP and ecabinets. Its pretty much the same principle, except you are running Windows XP from Vista.

Kirt F. Bowman · Post by **Kirt F. Bowman** » Thu, Jun 14 2007, 8:36AM

Cool idea wouldn't it be great to do that with Linux. Maybe you could if the main computer is running a intel processor and a souped up video card.

thanks for the post

Nemanja Vujkovic · Post by **Nemanja Vujkovic** » Thu, Jun 14 2007, 10:01AM

Virtual PC is fine, but it's better to have seperate hard drive and dual boot. It,s much faster like that!

Brent Brown · Post by **Brent Brown** » Sun, Jun 17 2007, 1:54PM

Please, stop chasing all the problems that come with EVERY version of Windows that MS has produced. Build eCabinets for a MAC and it will work for years to come without all these problems. Have you tried to buy a PC with Windows XP on it? It will be nearly impossible very soon even though VISTA is crap.
Please compile eCabs for a Mac!

Thank you,

Brent

Michael Yeargain · Post by **Michael Yeargain** » Sun, Jun 17 2007, 4:04PM

I'm not opposed to going MAC.

As I have so many friends that are \"MAC junkies\", and ridicule a PC to no end. They always claim that it runs without crashes and viruses and, you don't have to start it to stop.

Personaly I have a hard time believing it runs totaly without a crash. And, secondly why don't they get viruses? And, for the record I don't remember any crashes I've had on a PC in the past two to three years, except the softwares themselves. Not the OS.

As of late because of the hipe of the MACs I have been looking into the MAC mini. However, I have to know if the Mac mini or another MAC, can compair to a maxed out a Precision PWS490

Intel Xeon(TM) CPU 3.20GHz
3.19 GHz, 3.00 GB of RAM
NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500
20\" flat LCD monitor

Net out of pocket $4800 and some change

Is there a comp for a MAC and this type pf machine.

Post by **Dean Fehribach** » Sun, Jun 17 2007, 8:06PM

Michael Yeargain wrote:<snip>I have to know if the Mac mini or another MAC, can compair to a maxed out a Precision PWS490

Intel Xeon(TM) CPU 3.20GHz
3.19 GHz, 3.00 GB of RAM
NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500
20" flat LCD monitor

Net out of pocket $4800 and some change

Is there a comp for a MAC and this type pf machine.

Even tho Apple has gone Intel, it's still somewhat difficult to compare. Your machine is single core and Apple hasn't made a single-core workstation in a very, very long time. In fact, Apple's workstation class--the Mac Pro--doesn't even come with single, dual-core processors, but rather twin, dual-core processors for a total of four cores or even twin, quad-core processors for a total of eight cores.

But to answer your question, a Mac with twin dual-core 2.66GHz XEON Woodcrest processors, 2GB ECC PC2-5300 RAM, 250GB SATA HD, nVidia Quadro FX 4500, and 20" Apple Cinema Display will be right at $5,046. Not bad, considering the horsepower difference. Of course, Windows XP would be extra.

The Mac Pros are serious workstations and priced to boot.

Michael Yeargain · Post by **Michael Yeargain** » Mon, Jun 18 2007, 12:54AM

This computer is a dual core xeon processor 5060, 3.2 Ghz, 2X 2MB L2 cache 1066 Mhz. 4 GB, DDR2 ECC SDRAM memory 667 MHz, 8X512MB.

Still the same?

Although in the Task manager there are four CPU usage windows....?

Kerry Fullington · Post by **Kerry Fullington** » Mon, Jun 18 2007, 6:24AM

Dean,
It really doesn't matter if the Apple or Michael's machine use duo core or even quad core processors as far as eCabinets is concerned because it was my understanding that eCabinets doesn't take advantage of multiple processors. It would only help if you were multi-tasking while running eCabinets. Is this correct?
Kerry

Michael Yeargain · Post by **Michael Yeargain** » Mon, Jun 18 2007, 7:25AM

I think you are right Kerry.

Do you know if my computer is a quad? It says it is a Duo but there are four CPU windows.

Mitch Cain · Post by **Mitch Cain** » Mon, Jun 18 2007, 7:26AM

You probably have two core duo processors - each core duo processor looks like two processors to Task Manager...

Kerry Fullington · Post by **Kerry Fullington** » Mon, Jun 18 2007, 7:39AM

One question I have about Macs. Don't they hold their value much longer than a PC? PCs have built in obsolescence, they want you to buy new every two years. I have a friend that uses a Mac for commercial graphic design work. He has been using the same machine for at least six years and has no intention of changing. That alone would justify the price difference.
One other thing, I think if the world turns around and the majority of people and businesses started running Macs. Macs would soon be attacked by all of the viruses. You just can't get any \"Bang for your buck\" developing a Mac virus now.

Kerry

Mitch Cain · Post by **Mitch Cain** » Mon, Jun 18 2007, 7:49AM

You hit the nail on the head on the virus issue Kerry.

On the obsolescence, its not so much that the PC's run out of steam as it is the software outgrows the capabilities of the hardware. Apple doesn't bloat the OS nearly as much as Microsoft and doesn't come out with newer, bigger, better OS's nearly as often. They don't cram new features into their system nearly often, but then again, they don't need to either.

My father runs a PC he bought 3 years ago with Windows XP Home and only accesses the web with it and he's doing just fine. He won't outgrow that machine...Now, if he wants all the new wizbang stuff that's in Vista, he's gonna have to upgrade.

This isn't a knock on Microsoft, or Windows, and please don't anyone feel compelled to flame me on the OS's. I've been doing this for 25 years, I know the differences. Microsoft has a unique position as a swiss army knife of OS's. They have to serve, home system, business system, technical workstations, etc. That will bloat anyone's OS once you get to a certain point.

I posted this thread originally to show that there are alternatives - maybe not the \"best\" alternative, but an alternative nonetheless, to buying separate machines to run ecabs and other software using one of those OS features.

Post by **Dean Fehribach** » Mon, Jun 18 2007, 10:23AM

Michael Yeargain wrote:I think you are right Kerry.

Do you know if my computer is a quad? It says it is a Duo but there are four CPU windows.

You've got a single proc with dual cores. Windows views the Hyperthreading capability as a seperate processor, thus dual core processors will show up as four seperate processors in the Task Manager.

The Mac Pro I mentioned earlier would show up with eight processors in Task Manager. The high-end Mac Pro would show 16 processors.

Post by **Dean Fehribach** » Mon, Jun 18 2007, 10:32AM

Kerry Fullington wrote:One question I have about Macs. Don't they hold their value much longer than a PC? PCs have built in obsolescence, they want you to buy new every two years. I have a friend that uses a Mac for commercial graphic design work. He has been using the same machine for at least six years and has no intention of changing. That alone would justify the price difference.
One other thing, I think if the world turns around and the majority of people and businesses started running Macs. Macs would soon be attacked by all of the viruses. You just can't get any "Bang for your buck" developing a Mac virus now.

Kerry

Yes, Macintosh computers hold their value very well. A view of the systems selling on eBay will back this up.

Mac users don't feel compelled to upgrade nearly as often as Windows users. The O/S and applications are well-written for multiple processors. This is primarily due to the adoption of multiple processors (and cores) long before Windows users did, so there's a head-start there.

Windows will eventually reach this phase, and is well into it. When all applications are multi-threaded, the speed of the processor will become less important for all but the Enthusiasts and Video Production.

Nemanja Vujkovic · Post by **Nemanja Vujkovic** » Mon, Jun 18 2007, 11:40AM

mac's hold their value better only because the software does not change(upgrades, new versions...) as often as on PC
with the PC's the biggest problem is if you get every update that microsoft offers

Thermwood / eCabinet Systems

Virtual PC

Virtual PC

Great idea Mitch!!!!

Re:

Re:

Re: