|
|
|
|
| Welcome, Guest | Home | Search | Login | Register | |
| Author | Mendelson's Classic emulators. (Read 50 times) | ||||||||||||||
|
wove
1024 MB  Posts: 1363 
|
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: 362 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: 674 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: 1363
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.
|
|
Pages: [1]
|
| ||||
|
© 2021 System7Today.com. |
