|
|
|
|
| Welcome, Guest | Home | Search | Login | Register | |
| Author | Mac OS 8.1,or 7.6.1? (Read 39029 times) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Adam The Mac
Guest |
on: June 30, 2011, 01:56
I'm having a problem deciding between 7.6.1 and 8.1 for my Sheepshaver emulator. I just don't know. Could you guys help me? P.S: The whole speed thing is redundant to me, considering i'm emulating the fastest pre-G3 processor, and with more than 1 GB of ram. [BTW that's more than my 2005 laptop w/ 512 mb!] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
dpaanlka
|
1024 MB  Posts: 1646 
Reply #1 on: June 30, 2011, 03:07
|
It doesn't matter which you choose, because either way SheepShaver will only provide you with frustration and tears.
|
24bit
|
64 MB Posts: 91
Reply #2 on: June 30, 2011, 13:19
|
Quite a drastic answer from Dan :-). Of course, SS is not perfect and not fully emulating a real PPC604 Mac. Some software on certain hosts will indeed not work at all, e.g. MS Office98 on OSX. (BTW, Office98 WILL work on GNU-Linux, OS7.6.) A lot of apps are working nicely though, emulators are free and won´t clutter your desk. Deciding for 7.6 or 8.1 is a matter of taste, I think. I am using boot volumes for 7.6, 8.6 and 9.0 occasionally, because not all programs will work with each emulated MacOS :-(. Darwin 10.8 is the fastest host system kernel I have seen so far, GNU-Linux probably the most compatible host, Windows7-64 possibly the hardest to set up. Anyway, it might be a good idea to backup your Macintosh files as un-compressed DiskCopy6 images and move it to a computer hosting SheepShaver, BasiliskII and MiniVMac. The day your vintage Mac fails, may be any day.
|
Adam The Mac
| Guest
Reply #3 on: June 30, 2011, 22:56
|
Quote from: "dpaanlka" It doesn't matter which you choose, because either way SheepShaver will only provide you with frustration and tears. Actually, I have been using it w/ 7.5.5 for about a year now, and I didn't have many problems.
|
Adam The Mac
| Guest
Reply #4 on: June 30, 2011, 23:02
|
Quote from: "24bit" Quite a drastic answer from Dan :-). Thanks, BTW I'm running Windows 7 64 bit. Switching to either OS would be simple, since I already have ISO images of both 7.6.1 and 8.1 [Unfortunately, SheepShaver doesn't have 64-bit CD-ROM support, so I have to make mages of all my CDs before I use them in the emulator.] and a 2 GB drive image, so I would just have to install the OS.
|
24bit
|
64 MB Posts: 91
Reply #5 on: June 30, 2011, 23:31
|
2Gb images? Thats just like I am moving things. With GNU-Linux or OSX, images for emulation can be created of any desired size, but moving them may be difficult. ImgBurn does a nice job creating images of HFS disks on a Windows box on the fly. Having been a Mac guy all the Classic years, I can admit voluntarily that a good job was done with 7-64 Ultimate. Most 32bit software will work - just imagine System7 apps would run with Snow Leo!
|
dpaanlka
|
1024 MB Posts: 1646
Reply #6 on: July 01, 2011, 00:17
|
Quote from: "Adam The Mac" Actually, I have been using it w/ 7.5.5 for about a year now, and I didn't have many problems. Excuse my frankness, but I'm confident enough in my experience with SheepShaver to boldly say I don't believe you. There's no reason anyone should feel compelled to make excuses for crappy software, which is exactly what SheepShaver is. Today, even late model 603s and 604s can be had for like $5 or $10. There's no reason whatsoever to put up with the hassle and reliability issues of SheepShaver. Use VirtualBox and then you'll know how virtualization environments should behave. SheepShaver is indefensibly bug-ridden beyond the point of uselessness. There may be a case to make for SheepShaver in the sense of exposing a new generation to System 7 (or 8 or 9), especially for those who do not have physical systems on hand or simply want to "try it out", but I think it's a very weak case, as it will not be "usable" for really anything. SheepShaver will sour the appetite of anyone hungering for a taste of Mac OS Classic experience, IMHO. I would never recommend it to anyone for anything under any circumstances.
|
Adam The Mac
| Guest
Reply #7 on: July 01, 2011, 01:08
|
Quote from: "dpaanlka"
Interesting. Where can you get these $5 Macs? Will they run 7.6.1/8.1? What about high res monitors? [I have a high res samsung 1080p monitor and I was wondering if that would work with something like a stock LC?
|
dpaanlka
|
1024 MB Posts: 1646
Reply #8 on: July 01, 2011, 02:35
|
Quote from: "Adam The Mac" Interesting. Where can you get these $5 Macs? The LEM Swaplist is a good start. Craigslist also has the cheapest deals. You can find all sorts of old Macs on eBay too, but you'll pay a little more there. Quote from: "Adam The Mac" Will they run 7.6.1/8.1? Yes, we're talking about old Macs here. Quote from: "Adam The Mac" What about high res monitors? [I have a high res samsung 1080p monitor and I was wondering if that would work with something like a stock LC? Well, you don't need anything so ancient as an LC. Later 603s and 604s run Mac OS 7.6.1 just fine. Power Mac 8600 and 9600 models are very popular choices. The 6400 and 6500 are popular too. The later models will also drive modern widescreen LCDs with appropriate video hardware, like this Radeon. See this list of things to watch for: http://forums.system7today.com/viewtopic.php?t=337 You can get less desirable models, like the 5200 and 6200 series, or early NuBus Power Macs for dirty cheap, or even free. Just takes a little lookin'
|
24bit
|
64 MB Posts: 91
Reply #9 on: July 01, 2011, 17:15
|
I am keeping my 7100 with OS7.6 as long as it may work, of course. Do I power it on often? NO. Look at these SystemInfo data from NU5 (1999) to know why: CPU: 1561 Monitor: 1419 Volume. 8907 FPU: 1009 (My 7100 would be rated 141 for the cpu.) The scores are for SheepShaver OS7.6 on a 10.6.7 host running a Intel E5700 cpu, performing roughly like a 900MHz PPC601 (600MHz FPU). Not too bad for Chris Bauer´s unsupported ten year old software.
|
dpaanlka
|
1024 MB Posts: 1646
Reply #10 on: July 01, 2011, 20:56
|
Quote from: "24bit" The scores are for SheepShaver OS7.6 on a 10.6.7 host running a Intel E5700 cpu, performing roughly like a 900MHz PPC601 (600MHz FPU). Nobody has any doubt that emulating 15 year old hardware on recent systems is going to result in breathtaking benchmark results. Nowhere did I say SheepShaver is undesirable because it's slow and unresponsive. The problem is stability. It doesn't even qualify as beta quality software in my book, perhaps more like alpha or dev quality. And it will never improve or get better in any way. Plus, having a physical classic Mac allows you to dive into the hardware of yore, which is always fun.
|
Dave
|
4 MB Posts: 5
Reply #11 on: July 02, 2011, 19:25
|
I totally agree with Sheepshaver being a bug ridden waste of time. Just about killed myself trying to get Classilla to work at all on my intel core duo mini. As Cameron Kaiser says its a neat hack, but its just a hack, no substitute for a real mac, or even classic in 10.4 for that matter. Buy a cheap ol mac, head over to macintosh garden and let the fun (and I mean serious fun) begin!
|
|
Pages: [1]
|
| ||||||||||||
|
© 2021 System7Today.com. |
