6 Dec
2011
6 Dec
'11
7:43 p.m.
At 05:57 PM 12/6/2011, you wrote:
from something I dug up
"OpenOffice Writer can read WordPerfect 5.1 documents, as can Microsoft
Word"
My OpenOffice 3.3.0 doesn't explicitly say it
will, but I think I've done it in the past, so I
take your comment as confirming what I seem to recall.
see
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-software-2/reading-wordsatar-…
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 3:38 PM, Zane H. Healy <healyzh at aracnet.com> wrote:
> Out of curiosity, what is there in the way of modern software that can
> read Word Perfect 5.1 (probably some 5.2 as well) for DOS documents? The
> good news is that I retrieved all these files at some point in the past
> from the 3.5" floppy they were on. :-)
764 . [Stupidity] Only two things are infinite,
the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not
sure about the former. --Albert Einstein
NEW: a50mhzham at gmail.com ? N9QQB (amateur radio)
"HEY YOU" (loud shouting) ? Second Tops (Set Dancing) ? FIND ME ON FACEBOOK
43? 7' 17.2" N by 88? 6' 28.9" W ? Elevation 815' ? Grid Square
EN53wc
LAN/Telecom Analyst ? Open-source Dude ? Musician
? Registered Linux User 385531
6 Dec
6 Dec
10:41 p.m.
Modern versions of WordPerfect can read 5.x files quite nicely. I
remember doing a data conversion job a couple years ago that involved
taking ancient WordPerfect files and converting them into some more
neutral format like RTF (the formatting was simple, thankfully). Word
and OpenOffice failed miseably, but a quick download of the 30 day
trial of Word Perfect X-Whatever did the trick.
Mike
11:42 p.m.
Heck, I have a copy of WP 5.1 for dos sitting unused in a box. Perhaps
a copy of that will be easy to use for conversion? :)
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 10:41 PM, Michael Kerpan
<madcrow.maxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
Modern versions of WordPerfect can read 5.x files
quite nicely. I
remember doing a data conversion job a couple years ago that involved
taking ancient WordPerfect files and converting them into some more
neutral format like RTF (the formatting was simple, thankfully). Word
and OpenOffice failed miseably, but a quick download of the 30 day
trial of Word Perfect X-Whatever did the trick.
Mike
--
Gary G. Sparkes Jr.
KB3HAG
7 Dec
7 Dec
12:22 a.m.
At 11:42 PM -0500 12/6/11, Gary Sparkes wrote:
Heck, I have a copy of WP 5.1 for dos sitting unused in
a box. Perhaps
a copy of that will be easy to use for conversion? :)
If the disks are readable, I have WP 4.2, 5.1, and 5.2 for DOS. I
should also have a copy of WP for Windows 6.0, and WP for Mac around
here. I used to be big into WP before I moved to the Mac and moved
to Word (hated WP for Mac). The trick will be reviving a system,
hopefully one with a version on the HD still runs. Wasn't expecting
4.2 data, or it to be such a pain. :-(
Zane
--
| Zane H. Healy | UNIX Systems Administrator |
| healyzh at aracnet.com | OpenVMS Enthusiast |
| | Photographer |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------+
| My flickr Photostream |
| http://www.flickr.com/photos/33848088 at N03/ |
9 a.m.
On Dec 7, 2011, at 12:22 AM, Zane H. Healy wrote:
If the disks are readable, I have WP 4.2, 5.1, and 5.2
for DOS. I
should also have a copy of WP for Windows 6.0, and WP for Mac around
here. I used to be big into WP before I moved to the Mac and moved
to Word (hated WP for Mac). The trick will be reviving a system,
hopefully one with a version on the HD still runs. Wasn't expecting
4.2 data, or it to be such a pain. :-(
Man, I wish I could still run Word 5.1 for Mac on modern machines. It's easily the
best version they ever made, and possibly the best word processor for the Mac.
- Dave
9:26 a.m.
On 7 December 2011 14:00, David Riley <fraveydank at gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 7, 2011, at 12:22 AM, Zane H. Healy wrote:
Totally agree.
The closest you'll get, if you like the late-era MacOS experience, is
9.04 running under SheepShaver.
If you want the classic Classic, you could run 6.0.8 under Basilisk or
vMac or the like. My copy of Word 5.1 runs happily under both - but
host integration is fairly poor.
--
Liam Proven ? Info & profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/lproven
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/GoogleTalk/Orkut: lproven at gmail.com
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 ? Cell: +44 7939-087884 ? Fax: + 44 870-9151419
AIM/Yahoo/Skype: liamproven ? MSN: lproven at hotmail.com ? ICQ: 73187508
If the disks are readable, I have WP 4.2, 5.1,
and 5.2 for DOS. ?I
should also have a copy of WP for Windows 6.0, and WP for Mac around
here. ?I used to be big into WP before I moved to the Mac and moved
to Word (hated WP for Mac). ?The trick will be reviving a system,
hopefully one with a version on the HD still runs. ?Wasn't expecting
4.2 data, or it to be such a pain. :-(
Man, I wish I could still run Word 5.1 for Mac on modern machines. ?It's easily the
best version they ever made, and possibly the best word processor for the Mac.
9:50 a.m.
On Dec 7, 2011, at 9:26 AM, Liam Proven wrote:
On 7 December 2011 14:00, David Riley <fraveydank
at gmail.com> wrote:
Oh, I have plenty of perfectly functional classic Macs, too (and if you run Netatalk on a
server, you can talk to everything from a brand-new machine all the way down to an SE with
an Ethernet card). The real reason I haven't used it since long before 68k emulation
bit the dust is because file interchange is a huge pain. I remember hearing something
about a 5.1 plugin to save/read Word 97+ files, though...
- Dave
Man, I wish I could still run Word 5.1 for Mac on modern machines. It's easily the
best version they ever made, and possibly the best word processor for the Mac.
Totally agree.
The closest you'll get, if you like the late-era MacOS experience, is
9.04 running under SheepShaver.
If you want the classic Classic, you could run 6.0.8 under Basilisk or
vMac or the like. My copy of Word 5.1 runs happily under both - but
host integration is fairly poor.
10:24 a.m.
On 7 December 2011 14:50, David Riley <fraveydank at gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 7, 2011, at 9:26 AM, Liam Proven wrote:
Me too, & I keep meaning to fix my Classic II, which was a lovely
little distraction-free writing machine. I am also tempted to fix up a
Beige G3 and run 9.2.2 on it - Word 5.1 runs fine on that, IIRC. I
have an old Apple portrait monitor that works on the far-newer Beige
G3s, as well. :-)
File interchange? I am fairly sure that Word for Windows includes a
Word for Mac import filter - the gotcha is that it's an optional
install. It's not there by default. But add it in and it works, IIRC.
--
Liam Proven ? Info & profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/lproven
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/GoogleTalk/Orkut: lproven at gmail.com
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 ? Cell: +44 7939-087884 ? Fax: + 44 870-9151419
AIM/Yahoo/Skype: liamproven ? MSN: lproven at hotmail.com ? ICQ: 73187508
On 7 December 2011 14:00, David Riley
<fraveydank at gmail.com> wrote:
Oh, I have plenty of perfectly functional classic Macs, too (and if you run Netatalk on a
server, you can talk to everything from a brand-new machine all the way down to an SE with
an Ethernet card). ?The real reason I haven't used it since long before 68k emulation
bit the dust is because file interchange is a huge pain. ?I remember hearing something
about a 5.1 plugin to save/read Word 97+ files, though...
Man, I wish I could still run Word 5.1 for Mac on modern machines. ?It's easily the
best version they ever made, and possibly the best word processor for the Mac.
Totally agree.
The closest you'll get, if you like the late-era MacOS experience, is
9.04 running under SheepShaver.
If you want the classic Classic, you could run 6.0.8 under Basilisk or
vMac or the like. My copy of Word 5.1 runs happily under both - but
host integration is fairly poor.
11:03 a.m.
On Dec 7, 2011, at 10:24 AM, Liam Proven wrote:
Me too, & I keep meaning to fix my Classic II,
which was a lovely
little distraction-free writing machine. I am also tempted to fix up a
Beige G3 and run 9.2.2 on it - Word 5.1 runs fine on that, IIRC. I
have an old Apple portrait monitor that works on the far-newer Beige
G3s, as well. :-)
I have the SE, which also makes a lovely machine (also a nice serial terminal using ZTerm;
I keep meaning to fix up MacSSH now that I have the code, but again, spare time...). I
also have several LCs, but the SE takes up a lot less space.
File interchange? I am fairly sure that Word for
Windows includes a
Word for Mac import filter - the gotcha is that it's an optional
install. It's not there by default. But add it in and it works, IIRC.
Well, and that's the thing; I can convert files I *receive* with no problem. It's
sending documents to other people; people with Office 2010 aren't interested in
"well, this came from an old version of Word on the Mac, so can't you just
install the plugin?".
Which is why I generally use TeX for documents other people don't need to edit and the
loathsome Office 2008 for Mac (why would they remove the picture editing capabilities and
leave it in the Windows version? We use those a lot at work) or 2010 for Windows
otherwise.
- Dave
11:10 a.m.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Liam Proven" <lproven at gmail.com>
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2011 10:24 AM
Subject: Re: Word Perfect 5.1 Documents?
Me too, & I keep meaning to fix my Classic II,
which was a lovely
little distraction-free writing machine. I am also tempted to fix up a
Beige G3 and run 9.2.2 on it - Word 5.1 runs fine on that, IIRC. I
have an old Apple portrait monitor that works on the far-newer Beige
G3s, as well. :-)
I think the old word processors were made for old B&W displays. Recently got
my hands on a SE motherboard with a Radius 030/25 CPU upgrade and a Radius
FP display card attachment. If I ever get a spare SE and if I can find a
cheap FP monitor I will be word processing heaven (same with DTP). Apple had
quite a few interesting word processing apps in the 68K era.
9:52 a.m.
At 08:00 AM 12/7/2011, David Riley wrote:
Man, I wish I could still run Word 5.1 for Mac on
modern machines. It's easily the best version they ever made, and possibly the best
word processor for the Mac.
You tried running it in a DOS emulator, and it didn't work?
There must be a dozen ways to skin that cat. VMware Fusion?
DOS in a VMware Player?
- John
10:06 a.m.
John Foust wrote:
At 08:00 AM 12/7/2011, David Riley wrote:
How does one run old Macintosh software under VMware?
Peace... Sridhar
Man, I wish I could still run Word 5.1 for Mac on
modern machines. It's easily the best version they ever made, and possibly the best
word processor for the Mac.
You tried running it in a DOS emulator, and it didn't work?
There must be a dozen ways to skin that cat. VMware Fusion?
DOS in a VMware Player?
10:09 a.m.
At 09:06 AM 12/7/2011, Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
John Foust wrote:
Ah, I'm sorry... I missed the "for Mac" on that original post.
There are 680x0 emulators, right? But no good PowerPC emulators?
- John
At 08:00 AM 12/7/2011, David Riley wrote:
How does one run old Macintosh software under VMware? Man, I wish I could still run Word 5.1 for Mac on
modern machines. It's easily the best version they ever made, and possibly the best
word processor for the Mac.
You tried running it in a DOS emulator, and it didn't work?
There must be a dozen ways to skin that cat. VMware Fusion?
DOS in a VMware Player?
10:31 a.m.
On 7 December 2011 15:09, John Foust <jfoust at threedee.com> wrote:
At 09:06 AM 12/7/2011, Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
I answered that bit, too. :-)
There is a PPC emulator, SheepShaver, but it's not quite up-to-date
enough to run the final versions of MacOS 9, i.e., 9.1 (last version
for NuBus machines, IIRC) or 9.2.2 (last ever version, for
NewWorld-ROM PCI Macs of G3 or above only).
--
Liam Proven ? Info & profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/lproven
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/GoogleTalk/Orkut: lproven at gmail.com
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 ? Cell: +44 7939-087884 ? Fax: + 44 870-9151419
AIM/Yahoo/Skype: liamproven ? MSN: lproven at hotmail.com ? ICQ: 73187508
John Foust wrote:
Ah, I'm sorry... ?I missed the "for Mac" on that original post.
There are 680x0 emulators, right? ?But no good PowerPC emulators? At 08:00 AM 12/7/2011, David Riley wrote:
How does one run old Macintosh software under VMware? Man, I wish I could still run Word 5.1 for Mac on
modern machines. ?It's easily the best version they ever made, and possibly the best
word processor for the Mac.
You tried running it in a DOS emulator, and it didn't work?
There must be a dozen ways to skin that cat. ?VMware Fusion?
DOS in a VMware Player?
10:40 a.m.
On Dec 7, 2011, at 10:09 AM, John Foust wrote:
At 09:06 AM 12/7/2011, Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
There are plenty of both, I guess, but I'd rather have something that participated as
a citizen in its native environment. Fortunately, I have plenty of native environments
for Word 5.1; I just wish it worked nicely on my newer machines.
Hm. I wonder if it would be possible to make a VM for OS X to run old classic apps the
way WINE or the JVM does (but, ideally, better than WINE does). Probably not much of a
market for it, and I don't have that much spare time anymore.
- Dave
John Foust wrote:
Ah, I'm sorry... I missed the "for Mac" on that original post.
There are 680x0 emulators, right? But no good PowerPC emulators? At 08:00 AM 12/7/2011, David Riley wrote:
How does one run old Macintosh software under VMware? Man, I wish I could still run Word 5.1 for Mac on
modern machines. It's easily the best version they ever made, and possibly the best
word processor for the Mac.
You tried running it in a DOS emulator, and it didn't work?
There must be a dozen ways to skin that cat. VMware Fusion?
DOS in a VMware Player?
11:46 a.m.
At 10:40 AM -0500 12/7/11, David Riley wrote:
Hm. I wonder if it would be possible to make a VM for
OS X to run
old classic apps the way WINE or the JVM does (but, ideally, better
than WINE does). Probably not much of a market for it, and I don't
have that much spare time anymore.
- Dave
Possible, yes. Market, yes. Available, no. :-(
I *REALLY* wish someone would develop and sell this!
Zane
--
| Zane H. Healy | UNIX Systems Administrator |
| healyzh at aracnet.com | OpenVMS Enthusiast |
| | Photographer |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------+
| My flickr Photostream |
| http://www.flickr.com/photos/33848088 at N03/ |
11:27 a.m.
At 9:09 AM -0600 12/7/11, John Foust wrote:
At 09:06 AM 12/7/2011, Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
I'd question the existence of *GOOD* 68k Mac emulators. I need
something that will run on a current Mac. I've even gone so far as
to research what I can run under WinXP running under Parallels
Desktop on my Mac.
Reading Word Perfect 4.2 data files counts as a "nice to have", I can
always scrape the raw data out of the documents. Having access to
ClarisDraw (reading, editing, and printing) is far more important.
Zane
--
| Zane H. Healy | UNIX Systems Administrator |
| healyzh at aracnet.com | OpenVMS Enthusiast |
| | Photographer |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------+
| My flickr Photostream |
| http://www.flickr.com/photos/33848088 at N03/ |
John Foust wrote:
Ah, I'm sorry... I missed the "for Mac" on that original post.
There are 680x0 emulators, right? But no good PowerPC emulators?
- John At 08:00 AM 12/7/2011, David Riley wrote:
How does one run old Macintosh software under VMware? Man, I wish I could still run Word 5.1 for Mac on
modern
machines. It's easily the best version they ever made, and
possibly the best word processor for the Mac.
You tried running it in a DOS emulator, and it didn't work?
There must be a dozen ways to skin that cat. VMware Fusion?
DOS in a VMware Player? 
3:48 p.m.
New subject: The (non)state of Mac emulation was Re: Word Perfect 5.1 documents?
I'd question the existence of *GOOD* 68k Mac
emulators.
Mini vMac is coming along pretty well. They're starting to move to colour
support, such as the Mac IIx, and it runs on everything from Mac OS 9 (!)
to Windows 7, and, natch, Lion.
I prefer it to Basilisk, personally. It should run Word 5.1 very nicely.
I've never had good luck with SheepShaver, though. There is no good way
to run Classic Power Mac apps in anything but Classic.
--
------------------------------------ personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ --
Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckaiser at floodgap.com
-- BOND THEME NOW PLAYING: The James Bond Theme from "Dr. No" -----------------
6:13 p.m.
New subject: The (non)state of Mac emulation was Re: Word Perfect 5.1 documents?
I'd
question the existence of *GOOD* 68k Mac emulators.
Mini vMac is coming along pretty well. They're starting to move to colour
support, such as the Mac IIx, and it runs on everything from Mac OS 9 (!)
to Windows 7, and, natch, Lion.
I prefer it to Basilisk, personally. It should run Word 5.1 very nicely.
I've never had good luck with SheepShaver, though. There is no good way
to run Classic Power Mac apps in anything but Classic. 
7:02 p.m.
New subject: The (non)state of Mac emulation was Re: Word Perfect 5.1 documents?
On 12/7/11 3:13 PM, healyzh at aracnet.com wrote:
>> I'd question the existence of *GOOD* 68k
Mac emulators.
>
MESS is currently the most accurate.
8:55 p.m.
New subject: The (non)state of Mac emulation was Re: Word Perfect 5.1 documents?
At 4:02 PM -0800 12/7/11, Al Kossow wrote:
On 12/7/11 3:13 PM, healyzh at aracnet.com wrote:
I didn't realize MESS was an option (though I've also never tried it out).
I managed to get SheepShaver running, with WP for Mac (it can sort of
convert the WP 4.2/DOS documents I have). Now I just need to find a
backup of one of my old systems with ClarisDraw and Master of Orion,
so I can try to get those running.
Zane
--
| Zane H. Healy | UNIX Systems Administrator |
| healyzh at aracnet.com | OpenVMS Enthusiast |
| | Photographer |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------+
| My flickr Photostream |
| http://www.flickr.com/photos/33848088 at N03/ |
>>I'd question the existence of *GOOD*
68k Mac emulators.
>
MESS is currently the most accurate.
10:50 a.m.
On Dec 7, 2011, at 10:17 AM, Jonathan Katz wrote:
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Sridhar Ayengar
<ploopster at gmail.com> wrote:
I don't actually recall when they got rid of 68k compatibility. My recollection is
that Classic (the OS 9 environment) did away with it right out of the gate. Classic
itself was deprecated in 10.5 (and never implemented for Intel, since it was just a VM and
not an emulator) and finally terminated in 10.6 (which did away with PPC native
compatibility altogether, as well as the capability to read/write HFS volumes, which was
quite vexing when I had to write to some floppies for older Macs). 10.7 did away with
Rosetta, which seemed a bit premature to me.
By the way, Rosetta Stone is a series of language education software; Rosetta is the
framework for PPC compatibility under Intel processors. Slight difference, but I
don't think any software is going to run under Rosetta Stone. :-)
- Dave
How does one run old Macintosh software under
VMware?
Peace... Sridhar
An earlier version of OSX/x86 with Rosetta Stone? But that would run
PPC/OSX binaries, not Mac OS 9 stuff, right?
11:51 a.m.
At 10:50 AM -0500 12/7/11, David Riley wrote:
I don't actually recall when they got rid of 68k
compatibility. My
recollection is that Classic (the OS 9 environment) did away with it
right out of the gate. Classic itself was deprecated in 10.5 (and
never implemented for Intel, since it was just a VM and not an
emulator) and finally terminated in 10.6 (which did away with PPC
native compatibility altogether, as well as the capability to
read/write HFS volumes, which was quite vexing when I had to write
to some floppies for older Macs). 10.7 did away with Rosetta, which
seemed a bit premature to me.
By the way, Rosetta Stone is a series of language education
software; Rosetta is the framework for PPC compatibility under Intel
processors. Slight difference, but I don't think any software is
going to run under Rosetta Stone. :-)
- Dave
68k & Classic compatibility was last available in 10.4.x, which is
why I stayed on that release as long as my dual 2Ghz G5 PowerMac was
running. The last version with Rosetta is 10.6.x, which is why the
Mac Pro that replaced the G5 is stuck at that version. I like
running Mac OS X, but I hate how every version takes away features I
depend upon.
Zane
--
| Zane H. Healy | UNIX Systems Administrator |
| healyzh at aracnet.com | OpenVMS Enthusiast |
| | Photographer |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------+
| My flickr Photostream |
| http://www.flickr.com/photos/33848088 at N03/ |
12:52 p.m.
On 7 December 2011 15:50, David Riley <fraveydank at gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 7, 2011, at 10:17 AM, Jonathan Katz wrote:
Nope. Classic *is* MacOS 9 running in a VM, so anything MacOS 9 can
do, it can - including running MC68K code. Well, OK, not everything -
you have no real native desktop and not all drivers work, or make
sense, in a VM. But most things do.
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Sridhar Ayengar
<ploopster at gmail.com> wrote:
I don't actually recall when they got rid of 68k compatibility. ?My recollection is
that Classic (the OS 9 environment) did away with it right out of the gate. How does one run old Macintosh software under
VMware?
Peace... ?Sridhar
An earlier version of OSX/x86 with Rosetta Stone? But that would run
PPC/OSX binaries, not Mac OS 9 stuff, right? ?Classic itself was deprecated in 10.5
Deprecated?
TTBOMK it was not present in Leopard at all.
By the way, Rosetta Stone is a series of language
education software; Rosetta is the framework for PPC compatibility under Intel processors.
?Slight difference, but I don't think any software is going to run under Rosetta
Stone. :-)
I did wonder about that!
--
Liam Proven ? Info & profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/lproven
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/GoogleTalk/Orkut: lproven at gmail.com
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 ? Cell: +44 7939-087884 ? Fax: + 44 870-9151419
AIM/Yahoo/Skype: liamproven ? MSN: lproven at hotmail.com ? ICQ: 73187508
1:12 p.m.
On Dec 7, 2011, at 12:52 PM, Liam Proven wrote:
Man, my memory must be going. I thought it was totally out; I must have imagined that.
Maybe I'm thinking of Tiger? I never went above 10.4 on my G4 (why bother?), so maybe
I'm thinking of that; my recollection was that it wasn't wasn't easy to
install unless you were upgrading. My memory has faded on this one, too.
I don't
actually recall when they got rid of 68k compatibility. My recollection is that Classic
(the OS 9 environment) did away with it right out of the gate.
Nope. Classic *is* MacOS 9 running in a VM, so anything MacOS 9 can
do, it can - including running MC68K code. Well, OK, not everything -
you have no real native desktop and not all drivers work, or make
sense, in a VM. But most things do. Classic
itself was deprecated in 10.5
Deprecated?
TTBOMK it was not present in Leopard at all.
1:58 p.m.
On 7 December 2011 18:12, David Riley <fraveydank at gmail.com> wrote:
Maybe I'm thinking of Tiger? ?I never went above 10.4 on my G4 (why bother?), so
maybe I'm thinking of that; my recollection was that it wasn't wasn't easy to
install unless you were upgrading. ?My memory has faded on this one, too.
Tiger has Classic, yes. Optional install, I think, too, but once
installed works just like any previous version.
--
Liam Proven ? Info & profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/lproven
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/GoogleTalk/Orkut: lproven at gmail.com
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 ? Cell: +44 7939-087884 ? Fax: + 44 870-9151419
AIM/Yahoo/Skype: liamproven ? MSN: lproven at hotmail.com ? ICQ: 73187508
On Dec 7, 2011, at 12:52 PM, Liam Proven wrote:
Man, my memory must be going. ?I thought it was totally out; I must have imagined that.
:-)
I
don't actually recall when they got rid of 68k compatibility. ?My recollection is that
Classic (the OS 9 environment) did away with it right out of the gate.
Nope. Classic *is* MacOS 9 running in a VM, so anything MacOS 9 can
do, it can - including running MC68K code. Well, OK, not everything -
you have no real native desktop and not all drivers work, or make
sense, in a VM. But most things do. ?Classic itself was deprecated in 10.5
Deprecated?
TTBOMK it was not present in Leopard at all.
3:30 p.m.
Maybe I'm thinking of Tiger? I never went above
10.4 on my G4 (why
bother?), so maybe I'm thinking of that; my recollection was that it
wasn't easy to install unless you were upgrading. My memory has faded on
this one, too.
Tiger was a curious dichotomy. Apple's retail boxed Tiger does not come
with the Classic support tools (at least not my boxed 10.4.6, which will
boot any Power Mac capable of 10.4), but the OS maintained support, and you
could install the Classic support files and a System Folder off any machine
restore disc set. When I installed 10.4.11 on my Luxo G4, I used the boxed
10.4.6 and the Combo update to 10.4.11, and then installed Classic from my
iBook G4's system restore discs.
In 10.5, there is no Classic. And SheepShaver, as impressive a hack as it is,
is no substitute for Classic. Many apps don't run and the VM has a tendency
to hang up randomly. I still have some Classic apps I use, so I'm Tiger
forever on my G5.
--
------------------------------------ personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ --
Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckaiser at floodgap.com
-- Success can eliminate as many options as failure. -- Tom Robbins -----------
10:26 a.m.
On Dec 7, 2011, at 10:06 AM, Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
John Foust wrote:
Simple. You run Linux under VMWare player, then you run PearPC under Linux, then you run
Basilisk under PearPC.
- Dave
At 08:00 AM 12/7/2011, David Riley wrote:
How does one run old Macintosh software under VMware? Man, I wish I could still run Word 5.1 for Mac on
modern machines. It's easily the best version they ever made, and possibly the best
word processor for the Mac.
You tried running it in a DOS emulator, and it didn't work?
There must be a dozen ways to skin that cat. VMware Fusion?
DOS in a VMware Player?
11:03 a.m.
But you need more layers! .....
ESXi -> Win2k3 -> VMWare Workstation -> Windows XP -> VMWare
Workstation -> Linux -> PearPC -> Basilisk......
(This is VERY similar to a setup I had to beat around with after
imaging a production server, minus the linux and plus a few more
virtualization layers and parallel VMs...)
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 10:26 AM, David Riley <fraveydank at gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 7, 2011, at 10:06 AM, Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
--
Gary G. Sparkes Jr.
KB3HAG
John Foust wrote:
Simple. ?You run Linux under VMWare player, then you run PearPC under Linux, then you run
Basilisk under PearPC.
- Dave
At 08:00 AM 12/7/2011, David Riley wrote:
How does one run old Macintosh software under VMware? Man, I wish I could still run Word 5.1 for Mac on
modern machines. ?It's easily the best version they ever made, and possibly the best
word processor for the Mac.
You tried running it in a DOS emulator, and it didn't work?
There must be a dozen ways to skin that cat. ?VMware Fusion?
DOS in a VMware Player? 
10:08 a.m.
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 9:52 AM, John Foust <jfoust at threedee.com> wrote:
You tried running it in a DOS emulator, and it
didn't work?
There must be a dozen ways to skin that cat. ?VMware Fusion?
DOS in a VMware Player?
Does running "strings" against the document work?
I also thought that LibreOffice supported that format, but I could be wrong.
10:16 a.m.
On 7 December 2011 14:52, John Foust <jfoust at threedee.com> wrote:
At 08:00 AM 12/7/2011, David Riley wrote:
Word 5.1 is a classic Mac app for 68000-based Macs.
Word for DOS came in v5.0 and v5.5 and v6.0 but I am not aware of a version 5.1.
--
Liam Proven ? Info & profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/lproven
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/GoogleTalk/Orkut: lproven at gmail.com
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 ? Cell: +44 7939-087884 ? Fax: + 44 870-9151419
AIM/Yahoo/Skype: liamproven ? MSN: lproven at hotmail.com ? ICQ: 73187508
Man, I wish I could still run Word 5.1 for Mac on
modern machines. ?It's easily the best version they ever made, and possibly the best
word processor for the Mac.
You tried running it in a DOS emulator, and it didn't work?
There must be a dozen ways to skin that cat. ?VMware Fusion?
DOS in a VMware Player? 
10:46 a.m.
On 7 Dec 2011, at 15:16, Liam Proven <lproven at gmail.com> wrote:
On 7 December 2011 14:52, John Foust <jfoust at
threedee.com> wrote:
You could try Basilisk II. Pretty decent Mac 68k emulator last time I played with it -
cant say I've used it in years though.
--
Mark Benson
http://markbenson.org/blog
http://twitter.com/MDBenson
At 08:00 AM 12/7/2011, David Riley wrote:
Word 5.1 is a classic Mac app for 68000-based Macs. Man, I wish I could still run Word 5.1 for Mac on
modern machines. It's easily the best version they ever made, and possibly the best
word processor for the Mac.
You tried running it in a DOS emulator, and it didn't work?
There must be a dozen ways to skin that cat. VMware Fusion?
DOS in a VMware Player?
4611
days inactive
4612
days old
32 comments
13 participants
participants (13)
-
a50mhzham＠gmail.com -
aek＠bitsavers.org -
fraveydank＠gmail.com -
healyzh＠aracnet.com -
jfoust＠threedee.com -
jon＠jonworld.com -
lproven＠gmail.com -
madcrow.maxwell＠gmail.com -
md.benson＠gmail.com -
mokuba＠gmail.com -
ploopster＠gmail.com -
spectre＠floodgap.com -
teoz＠neo.rr.com