|
|
|
|
| Welcome, Guest | Home | Search | Login | Register | |
| Author | Mendelson's Classic emulators. (Read 562 times) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
wove
1024 MB  Posts: 1367 |
on: February 27, 2026, 14:45
I have been using Mendelson's prepackaged emulations apps on OS X for a good while and they do an excellent job. Mendelson makes it clear that his packages do not work on Intel Macs that have been upgraded to unsupported newer versions using the OpenCore Legacy Patcher. I of course always try things that are not supposed to work, and I can confirm that indeed Mendelson's emulation packages do not work with OCLP. Prior to the OCLP project unsupported updates were possible using patches from DosDude1 (dosdude1 dot com). With the total failure of my 2011 MacBook Pro, I have gone back to using my 2010 MBP and I moved it from High Sierra up to Catalina using dosdude's patcher. I can report that Mendelson's emulations packages work just fine when running on systems using Dosdude1's patchers. Interestingly the SheepShaver based OS 9 emulating PPC hardware runs much faster than the Basilisk based OS8 and OS7.6 systems. So Intel hardware can emulated PPC hardware better than it can emulated 680x0 hardware? I would have thought the 68k processor would be easier to emulate than PPC hardware. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ShinobiKenobi
|
256 MB Posts: 378 System 7 fan 
Reply #1 on: February 28, 2026, 01:59
|
Quote from: wove I would have thought the 68k processor would be easier to emulate than PPC hardware. I would have thought so, too, since intel and the 68K are both CISC chips.
|
lauland
|
512 MB Posts: 676 Symtes 7 Mewconer!
Reply #2 on: February 28, 2026, 20:17
|
I haven't looked into those emulators, but it sounds like I really need to! I wonder what the problem with OCLP technically? And what exactly the patcher does that works around it? Maybe a missing library or different version or something? As far as CPU's go, unless you're talking about older 8 bit ones, anything 32 bit is complicated. In a perfect world RISC chips WOULD be easier to emulate, as the S stands for "Simplified"...CISC chips should have more Complex instructions (and more of them). But, PPC is pretty complex for a RISC chip! None of the various architectures are even close to each other, so emulating speed can be more factored on how well the CPU is known by coders, or if there are known tricks, or just time and experience. There's probably a lot newer PPC emulation code than m68k, which has probably stagnated. (Except in the Amiga PiStorm world where some amazing JIT exists...similar to the m68k on ppc JIT apple had in powermacs). That's strange that you're seeing SheepShaver beat Basilisk...that may be something to do with the binaries or how they were compiled (Optimized?). On my Apple Silicon Macs and Intel Linux, this is NOT the case. (But I'm using stock versions of the emulators).
|
wove
|
1024 MB Posts: 1367
Reply #3 on: February 28, 2026, 21:20
|
The problem with Mendelson's package and OCLP is due to input. When running a system updated using OCLP, neither the mouse nor keyboard is recognized. On Intel Macs, Apple was using USB 1.1 for keyboard and mouse, then at some point the deprecated USB 1.1 and started using USB 2. OCLP adds a patch allowing newer systems to still be able to use USB 1.1 connected keyboards and mice. I have very scarce knowledge on such things, but it would be my guess the problem with Mendelson's emulator packages on a system installed using OCLP is do to some fault/shortcoming in the USB patch from the OCLP install. There of course may be other issues at work, but it is hard (well impossible) to sort out what all might be non-working when you have no working input. I believe that DosDude1's patchers do not add any USB patchers to those installs, which allows Mendelson's emulator packages to still function correctly.
|
cballero
|
1024 MB Posts: 1189 System 7, today and forever
Reply #4 on: March 04, 2026, 22:27
|
That's some golden information using DosDude1's patching tools to update our OS X Macs!  I will definitely look into it to see if they help me keep older Macs running well with OS-specific software like web browsers and other utilities I use most often on these Macs! 
|
cballero
|
1024 MB Posts: 1189 System 7, today and forever
Reply #5 on: March 07, 2026, 01:38
|
Well Wove, that patch was the ticket to getting my 2011 Mac mini running Mojave, thank you so much for posting on it! I’m putting it through its paces right now and it’s running like a true champ! Now I can dual boot it and High Sierra, which was one of my goals with my mini server, thanks my friend! 
|
68040
|
512 MB Posts: 976 68k - thy kingdom come, thy will be done !
Reply #6 on: March 08, 2026, 19:15
|
Quote from: wove I would have thought the 68k processor would be easier to emulate than PPC hardware.Well, RISC literally means Reduced Instruction Set Computing. So a lot less CPU commands to emulate.
|
wove
|
1024 MB Posts: 1367
Reply #7 on: March 11, 2026, 16:49
|
Emulation is a strange thing. ARM RISC processors do a very nice job of emulating CISC processors. My Pi 3b+ does a fine job of emulation 68k, PPC and Intel. I can run Mac, Commodore 8bit, Amiga, CP/M and DOS without any issue. But my best Intel does an accurate but very very slow emulation of RISC machines. Emulating an Archimedies computer's RISC OS is painful. Although PPC is starting to lean toward a RISC processor, I do not believe it is considered a RISC processor.
|
68040
|
512 MB Posts: 976 68k - thy kingdom come, thy will be done !
Reply #8 on: March 12, 2026, 10:50
|
Quote from: wove Emulation is a strange thing. ARM RISC processors do a very nice job of emulating CISC processors.Well, I've been running my B-II 6840 emulation on an ARM RISC CPU for the better part of a decade by now. And it flies. PPC was originally meant to be IBM+Apple+<WhoeverElseFromTheIndustryDrankTheCoolAid>'s new CPU for the ages. Because there was a time when all the usual pundits had concluded that Intel would not be able to adhere to Moore's law any longer, with its CISC architecture. But Intel made a huge bet, stubbornly refusing to follow IBM and Motorola down the RISC pathway. They ended up integrating a RISC core into their CISC CPUs. And when they managed to dramatically decrease the transistor size on their chip dies, too, the bet paid off. Ever since Intel has been - just like Microsoft in the OS realm - viewed as the king of the playground you couldn't beat. But that was before energy efficiency and portability were topics to be considered in the construction of computer devices. Now portable, energy efficient devices rule the roost on the user end of things while the server side is dominated by NVDIA's line of RISC GPUs for AI computing. At one time Intel had snubbed the chance to buy NVIDIA, firmly convinced that their all powerful CISC CPUs would soon make separate graphic processors redundant. I wonder on what golf course the investors of Intel buried the management brass that made that fateful decision?
Last Edit: March 12, 2026, 10:52 by 68040
|
|
Pages: [1]
|
| |||||||||
|
© 2021 System7Today.com. |
