Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Windows 2000 on VPC7
- Thread starter vddrnnr
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I've used it on VPC4, 5, 6 and 7 - expect performance around that of a Pentium 166. It will load software with higher system requirements but perform in slow motion.
Hi Drone,
Compared with running Win98 how does it go.
The only requirement I have Is to run the RDP 5.2 client to test a remote
connection. I found that 98 is also able to use it getting the exec from a
windows 2000 install.
Best regards,
voidRunner
Compared with running Win98 how does it go.
The only requirement I have Is to run the RDP 5.2 client to test a remote
connection. I found that 98 is also able to use it getting the exec from a
windows 2000 install.
Best regards,
voidRunner
Yes, I had both 2000 and XP on my DLSDs, and it performed much better than XP (as expected) but able to run similar programs 
Cheers
Hugh
Cheers
Hugh
I've found Win98 to be faster than 2000 when I've used it - generally my choices have been Win95 and 2000. It really does depend on the app your trying to use - I'd try on both.
It doesn't really work any better than XP tbh. As much as it pains me to say this, 98 SE is the sweet spot. Maybe ME, as it's essentially 98 SE with the features of XP home.
I totally disagree on this - the only chance you have with XP is MicroXP and then it's painfully slow, 2000 however isnt:
I've run both a thousand times on different G4s (and G3s), as well as actual PCs. Windows 2000 is literally XP minus some BS and eyecandy. After SP4, and anything useful installed it doesn't run much better than XP "tuned" to the same settings. Most people just put XP's theme to classic mode and assume they're good.
I actually have a lot more experience with Windows than Mac, though I prefer the latter I was raised on Windows.
If you want to run an XP-esque OS, Windows (server) 2003 is the way to go. There's a few settings to change to make it act like a workstation and not a server. But Win 2003 is hands down the best Windows OS ever, rivaled only by Windows 7. But 2003 will run on anything.
Can you divulge the secrets to getting XP up to speed? I've tried MicroXP, turned off every service not needed, removed all unused components etc and still never got anywhere near the speed of 2000.
Nope. 2003 won't run on a 486, neither will XP. But 2000 will. Just pulling your leg ?
Checked speed on my 15"PB-G4 DLSD today.
Booting-time ranking (as expected):
1. Win98SE; 2. Win2k; 3.WinXP-SP2-Fundamentals; 4.WinXP-SP3 (add about +5sec for each step forward)
Overall experience is more important, and ranking stays the same.
While Win98SE is a nightmare on intelMacs/Fusion, it's really snappy on PPC/VPC7. But it lacks an RDP-Client.
Win2k's overall experience is faster and smoother than WinXP (both on PPC/VPC7 and intelMacs/Fusion), but it's RDP-client is only v5x at maximum, while WinXP offers RDP-client v6x.
It all depends on your host's Windows-version, if Win2k/RDP5 or WinXP/RDP6 will be the better or even the only choice.
![VPC7-WinXPsp3.jpeg]( "VPC7-WinXPsp3.jpeg")
Booting-time ranking (as expected):
1. Win98SE; 2. Win2k; 3.WinXP-SP2-Fundamentals; 4.WinXP-SP3 (add about +5sec for each step forward)
Overall experience is more important, and ranking stays the same.
While Win98SE is a nightmare on intelMacs/Fusion, it's really snappy on PPC/VPC7. But it lacks an RDP-Client.
Win2k's overall experience is faster and smoother than WinXP (both on PPC/VPC7 and intelMacs/Fusion), but it's RDP-client is only v5x at maximum, while WinXP offers RDP-client v6x.
It all depends on your host's Windows-version, if Win2k/RDP5 or WinXP/RDP6 will be the better or even the only choice.
Last edited:
Hi all,
So I went ahead with windows 2000. It's working fine
and I'm satisfied with it's speed, it's seems quite speedy
especially since we're talking emulation and not virtualization.
Does anyone know a way to add wide display modes?
As anyone been able to use the network switch with the wireless network?
Best regards,
voidRunner
So I went ahead with windows 2000. It's working fine
and I'm satisfied with it's speed, it's seems quite speedy
especially since we're talking emulation and not virtualization.
Does anyone know a way to add wide display modes?
As anyone been able to use the network switch with the wireless network?
Best regards,
voidRunner
You'll have to install the "Additions".
Nope . the network-switch really sucks and even if I once got it working, I don't know why and how that did ever happken
You should try Windows 7. It's beyond unusable.
[automerge]1575453582[/automerge]
95 is significantly faster than 98, to the point of actually being quite nice in VPC. 3.1 is even faster but... yeah. NT4 is also nice and fast but takes ages to boot up.
Last edited:
Hi bobesch,
To get the virtual switch functioning I had to copy the binaries from the 7.0.2 version to
/Library/Extensions/VirtualPCNetworking1040.kext/Content/Macos ( both files ) and
then load the kext by hand:
sudo kextutil /Library/Extensions/VirtualPCNetworking1040.kext
After this it works if you select in VPC preferences the virtual swith to use the built-in instead of
default ( this users the wired interface ).
Best regards,
voidRunner
To get the virtual switch functioning I had to copy the binaries from the 7.0.2 version to
/Library/Extensions/VirtualPCNetworking1040.kext/Content/Macos ( both files ) and
then load the kext by hand:
sudo kextutil /Library/Extensions/VirtualPCNetworking1040.kext
After this it works if you select in VPC preferences the virtual swith to use the built-in instead of
default ( this users the wired interface ).
Best regards,
voidRunner
What problems are you facing? And there is an RDP v5.1/v5.2 client for Win95/98/ME/NT4/2000. It's on the XP (v5.1) or Server 2003 (v5.2) installation disc at \Support\Tools\MSRDPCLI.EXE. There's even an RDP v5.1 client for DOS. ?
Last edited:
You should try Windows 7. It's beyond unusable.
That might be a waste of a few minutes. Ha ha.
I guess since we’re on the topic of VPC7, I have it running on my G5 tower, which is equipped with 8GB RAM.
Is there a way to create a emulated PC machine with an onboard memory in excess of 512MB? I have never managed to go over that cap. It’s entirely possible I’ve missed something really obvious.
Is there a way to create a emulated PC machine with an onboard memory in excess of 512MB? I have never managed to go over that cap. It’s entirely possible I’ve missed something really obvious.
I never even got best results using all that memory - somewhere around 384 seemed to be best, I think @eyoungren found that to be true also?
I know it doesn't make sense on real Windows but seemed to be the case on VPC - maybe it's dependent on VPC and OSX version? You could also argue the less the Mac has to emulate the faster it works?
Oh, sorry, I should have done more research on RDP versions and their compatibility - instead I just searched my basic VPC7/Win98SE-installation for any RDP-client. Good to know, where to look at!
On my early-intel c2duo MBP when using Fusion/Win98SE it seemed to be much slower compared to Fusion/Win2k. And I wasn't able to run the old versions of C&C1 and C&C2-RA1, so I 've quit the whole preNT-DOS/Windows stuff.
Primary goal had been VPN/RDP to my Win2008-Server at the office, but certificate-handling (beyond the 2 service-accounts) requires RDP v6x, so I tried to get VPC7/WinXP2-Fundametals working, but failed again and again to get a working VPN-connection.
Since I have to migrate to WinServer2016 or 2019 sooner or later, the way of connecting via PPC/VPC7/WinXP/RDPv6 comes to an end anyway.
[automerge]1575493332[/automerge]
Thank you so much! Gonna try that and in combination with ShrewSoft VPN-client some time on a long winter evening.
Cheers,
Bob
Windows 2000... I remember running that on my home machine with a 21" CRT and later a 17" LCD. Was the most fun Windows I developed on and IMO one of the best releases.
I haven't tinkered with VPC much, far too slow for me. But Windows 2000 does perform a bit better than XP, things that will take eons on XP will take a while on 2000. Overall it's better, but go for 98 SE or 95, as much as Windows 9X is unstable crap.
I haven't tinkered with VPC much, far too slow for me. But Windows 2000 does perform a bit better than XP, things that will take eons on XP will take a while on 2000. Overall it's better, but go for 98 SE or 95, as much as Windows 9X is unstable crap.