10 Jan
2006
10 Jan
'06
7:12 p.m.
Well, the Intel Mac has emerged and with that we can conclude that the end
of the Classic era is near, as Rosetta will officially not support Classic
applications.
This means a lot of legacy software is now suddenly worthless on the next
generation of Macintoshes. Worse, I'm hearing a rumour that 10.5 will strip
Classic out even for PPC Macs. Has anyone else heard this?
I still use a number of 68K apps I picked up for a song because they do the
job, they're fast, and they were cheap. I'm not giving that up so easily.
--
--------------------------------- personal: http://www.armory.com/~spectre/ ---
Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckaiser at floodgap.com
-- A kindness done today is the surest way to a brighter tomorrow. -- Anonymous
10 Jan
10 Jan
7:27 p.m.
In article <200601110012.QAA19776 at floodgap.com>,
Cameron Kaiser <spectre at floodgap.com> writes:
I still use a number of 68K apps I picked up for a
song because they do the
job, they're fast, and they were cheap. I'm not giving that up so easily.
Look on the bright side... as support for 68K based apps disappears,
all those appliations will start showing up dirt-cheap in the 2nd hand
market!
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline"-- code samples, sample chapter, FAQ:
<http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/>
Pilgrimage: Utah's annual demoparty
<http://pilgrimage.scene.org>
7:30 p.m.
I still use a
number of 68K apps I picked up for a song because they do the
job, they're fast, and they were cheap. I'm not giving that up so easily.
Look on the bright side... as support for 68K based apps disappears,
all those appliations will start showing up dirt-cheap in the 2nd hand
market! 
7:57 p.m.
Cameron Kaiser <spectre at floodgap.com>
writes:
That makes no sense whatsoever. The 68k based Mac's were last made over 10
years ago. The problem is that Rosetta will only run PPC apps that run native
on Mac OS X. That means there are also a fair number of PPC apps that won't
run on the Intel hardware either.
Zane
I still use a number of 68K apps I picked up for
a song because they do the
job, they're fast, and they were cheap. I'm not giving that up so easily.
Look on the bright side... as support for 68K based apps disappears,
all those appliations will start showing up dirt-cheap in the 2nd hand
market! 
8:03 p.m.
On 1/10/2006 at 5:27 PM Richard wrote:
Look on the bright side... as support for 68K based
apps disappears,
all those appliations will start showing up dirt-cheap in the 2nd hand
market!
OTOH, I suppose that if you had some PPC apps to run, you could port them
to the Xbox 360.... :)
8:29 p.m.
Chuck Guzis wrote:
On 1/10/2006 at 5:27 PM Richard wrote:
I'd much prefer running them on my RS/6K.
Peace... Sridhar
Look on the bright side... as support for 68K
based apps disappears,
all those appliations will start showing up dirt-cheap in the 2nd hand
market!
OTOH, I suppose that if you had some PPC apps to run, you could port them
to the Xbox 360.... :)
7:43 p.m.
Well, the Intel Mac has emerged and with that we can
conclude that the end
of the Classic era is near, as Rosetta will officially not support Classic
applications.
This has been known from the beginning of the switch to Intel.
This means a lot of legacy software is now suddenly
worthless on the next
generation of Macintoshes. Worse, I'm hearing a rumour that 10.5 will strip
Classic out even for PPC Macs. Has anyone else heard this?
No, I've not heard this, but it is disturbing. With 10.4 they removed the
support for Classic Appletalk that was added in either 10.1 or 10.2 (I
didn't switch till 10.2 in part becuase of this). Also, the simple fact
remains that most users don't need or care about classic support. This is
one of the reasons I'm still running 10.3.9.
I still use a number of 68K apps I picked up for a
song because they do the
job, they're fast, and they were cheap. I'm not giving that up so easily.
I still use ClarisDraw that I bought in 1995, it cost me a *LOT* and was
never updated. Up until the last year or so it wasn't even possible to get
software that could read my data files (now several basically unheard of
drawing apps do). I use it because it does 99.9% of what I need, and
becuase nothing else I've tried is as easy to use. I've paid for Adobe CS
Premium, so I have Illustrator CS, but for what I typically need, it's
overkill, and I don't have time to learn it.
I tend to suspect that there are enough of us that are stuck with apps that
can't be easily replaced, that there is a market for something along the
lines of VPC for running classic Mac OS on the new Intel-based Mac's.
Personally I really hope someone develops it, as I'll be looking for it when
I go to upgrade. Ideally it would be able to tranparently access the host
systems filesystem, run classic Appletalk, and run a range of OS versions.
I'd really like to be able to run System 7.5, 7.6, and 8.0, as I have
software that doesn't work right on newer versions (one app I wrote myself,
the rest are commercial apps).
Worst case I setup either my PowerMac 8500/180 or G4/450 running classic
Mac OS. Which is tempting in any case, as I have software that is locked to
the 8500, and hardware that will only work with one of those two systems.
My problem with this solution is a lack of room.
Zane
7:58 p.m.
Well, the
Intel Mac has emerged and with that we can conclude that the end
of the Classic era is near, as Rosetta will officially not support Classic
applications.
This has been known from the beginning of the switch to Intel. This means a
lot of legacy software is now suddenly worthless on the next
generation of Macintoshes. Worse, I'm hearing a rumour that 10.5 will strip
Classic out even for PPC Macs. Has anyone else heard this?
No, I've not heard this, but it is disturbing. With 10.4 they removed the
support for Classic Appletalk that was added in either 10.1 or 10.2 (I
didn't switch till 10.2 in part becuase of this). Also, the simple fact
remains that most users don't need or care about classic support. This is
one of the reasons I'm still running 10.3.9. I still use a
number of 68K apps I picked up for a song because they do the
job, they're fast, and they were cheap. I'm not giving that up so easily.
I still use ClarisDraw that I bought in 1995, it cost me a *LOT* and was
never updated. Up until the last year or so it wasn't even possible to get
software that could read my data files (now several basically unheard of
drawing apps do). I use it because it does 99.9% of what I need, and
becuase nothing else I've tried is as easy to use. I've paid for Adobe CS
Premium, so I have Illustrator CS, but for what I typically need, it's
overkill, and I don't have time to learn it. I tend to suspect that there are enough of us that are
stuck with apps that
can't be easily replaced, that there is a market for something along the
lines of VPC for running classic Mac OS on the new Intel-based Mac's.
Personally I really hope someone develops it, as I'll be looking for it when
I go to upgrade. Ideally it would be able to tranparently access the host
systems filesystem, run classic Appletalk, and run a range of OS versions.
I'd really like to be able to run System 7.5, 7.6, and 8.0, as I have
software that doesn't work right on newer versions (one app I wrote myself,
the rest are commercial apps).
Worst case I setup either my PowerMac 8500/180 or G4/450 running classic
Mac OS. Which is tempting in any case, as I have software that is locked to
the 8500, and hardware that will only work with one of those two systems.
My problem with this solution is a lack of room.
Well, my original plan was to replace this dual G4 with a quad G5 (running
whatever the latest OS is that still supports Classic), and turn the dual G4
into a pure OS 9 box, the last generation of dualies that still could boot
OS 9.2.x natively.
My worry is that OS 10.5, if it *does* rip Classic out, is going to come along
in the meantime and even if I do make an effort to get a PPC Mac to still run
my legacy apps, I'll still be unable to do so. Or, if I get the Mac in time
and 10.5 (or 10.6, or whatever) comes out without Classic, then I'll never be
able to update that Mac past whatever version I have on it.
There's stuff like BasiliskII, Sheepshaver (both of which I use occasionally)
and PearPC, but even though Classic is clunky, it integrates as well as can
be expected with the host operating system and most operations proceed
transparently. A "Mac in a window" application would have the limitations of
VPC, which works pretty well considering, but is still inconvenient for some
kinds of tasks from an interface and integration perspective.
What I was hoping Apple would do is keep support for Classic in future versions
of the OS that support the PPC, but Classic would either not be pre-installed
or just wouldn't work on Intels. When Apple drops the PPC from Mac OS, which
will happen one day in the future, then Classic support dies "naturally." This
seems a gentler way of leading Classic apps into obsolescence than simply
legislating their demise, as it were.
Apple's page on Rosetta and the Intel Macs is exceptionally unhelpful about
explaining the eventual software roadmap, but this is pretty typical for them.
--
--------------------------------- personal: http://www.armory.com/~spectre/ ---
Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckaiser at floodgap.com
-- The world is coming to an end. Log off now. --------------------------------
8:27 p.m.
remains that
most users don't need or care about classic support. This is
one of the reasons I'm still running 10.3.9.
EtherTalk was added back in 10.2, which is still the version of OS X I use
day-to-day (my file server runs 10.3 and my laptop runs 10.4, but 10.2 seems
to be the best compatibility conjunction for me). Myself, I still use an old 68K version of OmniPage
because it's sickeningly
fast on this dual G4, and there's a few games I like to play, and a dev
environment or two which I use to write stuff for the old Macs in the shop.
Also, some ostensibly Carbon apps seem happier in Classic (Palm's emulator
is one of these).
I have to be able to play the Mac version of the original "Master of Orion",
and I'd really like to be able to run "Warlords 2" as well (I forget which
version that quite working with, might be as far back as 8.0).
There's stuff like BasiliskII, Sheepshaver (both
of which I use occasionally)
and PearPC, but even though Classic is clunky, it integrates as well as can
be expected with the host operating system and most operations proceed
transparently. A "Mac in a window" application would have the limitations of
VPC, which works pretty well considering, but is still inconvenient for some
kinds of tasks from an interface and integration perspective.
I think it's been a *LONG* time since I looked at either of those. I didn't
even realize Sheepshaver ran on Linux, and I've never looked at PearPC. Are
there Mac OS X native versions of any of these? Sheepshaver looks close to
what I'm looking for.
Apple's page on Rosetta and the Intel Macs is
exceptionally unhelpful about
explaining the eventual software roadmap, but this is pretty typical for them.
Based on what little time I was able to spend earlier looking at the site
trying to get info on iLive '06 they seem to be seriously lacking on info on
their new products.
Zane
8:50 p.m.
EtherTalk was
added back in 10.2, which is still the version of OS X I use
day-to-day (my file server runs 10.3 and my laptop runs 10.4, but 10.2 seems
to be the best compatibility conjunction for me).
10.3 added a *must have* feature for me, and that's the fast user switching.
The only gain I see with 10.4 is better font support in X-Windows, and that
doesn't offset the loss of classic Appletalk support. I think it's been a *LONG* time since I looked at
either of those. I didn't
even realize Sheepshaver ran on Linux, and I've never looked at PearPC. Are
there Mac OS X native versions of any of these? Sheepshaver looks close to
what I'm looking for.
PearPC, dunno.
Sheepshaver, yes! There is an OS X version here (clunky but works):
http://www.gibix.net/projects/sheepshaver/
It runs under 10.2.8 and up. It's stable, just not very friendly.
Based on what little time I was able to spend earlier
looking at the site
trying to get info on iLive '06 they seem to be seriously lacking on info on
their new products.
I'll say.
--
--------------------------------- personal: http://www.armory.com/~spectre/ ---
Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckaiser at floodgap.com
-- I would like to achieve [immortality] by not dying. -- Woody Allen ---------
10:01 p.m.
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 17:50:12 -0800 (PST)
Cameron Kaiser <spectre at floodgap.com> wrote:
10.4 really didn't add much for me either, but I have a few apps that break
in 10.3, so I stay on 10.2.
This thread motivated me to give a try to PearPC, so I am
building it right now from the NetBSD pkgsrc collection. I'll
probably try to get MacOS 8 installed on it for the first
challange. I already have BOCHS running to emulate an 'x86
system. Maybe when I get PearPC all set up and running, I will
build it and bochs as well over on one of my Sparc machines, and
let the Windows and Mac virtual machines 'battle' it out on alien
territory (should be plenty slow on the grade of Sparc hardware I
have.) Years ago I ran Executor (a commercial 68k Mac emulator)
on a Linux system simultaneously with Wine (the Windows
emulator), and had both the Macintosh and Windows version of
'neko' (the little software cat who follows the mouse pointer
around) running running around simulatneously on the same desktop.
Hmm. PearPc built from source in the time it's taken to type
this message.
EtherTalk was added back in 10.2, which is still the
version of OS X I use
day-to-day (my file server runs 10.3 and my laptop runs 10.4, but 10.2 seems
to be the best compatibility conjunction for me).
10.3 added a *must have* feature for me, and that's the fast user switching.
The only gain I see with 10.4 is better font support in X-Windows, and that
doesn't offset the loss of classic Appletalk support. I think it's been a *LONG* time since I
looked at either of those. I didn't
even realize Sheepshaver ran on Linux, and I've never looked at PearPC. Are
there Mac OS X native versions of any of these? Sheepshaver looks close to
what I'm looking for.
PearPC, dunno. Sheepshaver, yes! There is an OS X version here
(clunky but works):
http://www.gibix.net/projects/sheepshaver/
It runs under 10.2.8 and up. It's stable, just not very friendly.
Based on what little time I was able to spend
earlier looking at the site
trying to get info on iLive '06 they seem to be seriously lacking on info on
their new products.
I'll say.
--
--------------------------------- personal: http://www.armory.com/~spectre/ ---
Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckaiser at floodgap.com
-- I would like to achieve [immortality] by not dying. -- Woody Allen ---------
11:13 p.m.
At 10:01 PM -0500 1/10/06, Scott Stevens wrote:
have.) Years ago I ran Executor (a commercial 68k Mac
emulator)
on a Linux system simultaneously with Wine (the Windows
I remember the demo version of Executor on Linux fondly, it made it
possible to take stuff I downloaded on my P90 laptop and put it on
Mac floppies so that I could read them on my PowerBook 520c.
Yes, there was a reason I had a Pentium 90 laptop and a PowerBook
520c, I was living onboard an Aircraft carrier, and didn't even have
room for them. I bought the P90 laptop just before I became
disillusioned with OS/2, and decided to switch to the Mac. The sad
thing is the no-name P90 laptop is still running, the display went
out on the 520c after just over a year.
Zane
--
--
| Zane H. Healy | UNIX Systems Administrator |
| healyzh at aracnet.com (primary) | OpenVMS Enthusiast |
| MONK::HEALYZH (DECnet) | Classic Computer Collector |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Empire of the Petal Throne and Traveller Role Playing, |
| PDP-10 Emulation and Zane's Computer Museum. |
| http://www.aracnet.com/~healyzh/ |
11 Jan
11 Jan
10:20 p.m.
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 20:13:51 -0800
"Zane H. Healy" <healyzh at aracnet.com> wrote:
At 10:01 PM -0500 1/10/06, Scott Stevens wrote:
I have some results to report to anybody interested in this
emulation business.
I built the PearPC binary on this NetBSD system (a Pentium III
machine) but it only supports the 'new' mac stuff. It emulates a
PPC but I saw nothing about support for anything but Darwin, the
Free UNIXes, and OS X.
So I started investigating a 68K Mac emulator. BasiliskII is
what it's called. You have to own a 'real' Mac to use it,
because you need to extract the ROM image. I brought up my
Powerbook 165c (one of my favorite Macs, personally) and using a
mix-switch setup was able to get the ROM over to the NetBSD
system (a very roundabout process, bringing the ROM imaging
software into the Mac on a DOS floppy and the ROM image back off
the Mac on the same disk).
I don't have a real working floppy drive, I have discovered
(*sigh*) on the Pentium III machine running NetBSD so I dug
around in my Macintosh system CDS and found ONE that would boot
with the Powerbook165c ROM. It turns out to be a 'Power
Macintosh 5400 series' CD that will boot up on the emulator, but
then will NOT install on it. So I created an image file to be
the Mac hard drive, booted the CD, formatted the drive image,
then simply dragged the system folder over from the 5400 Series
boot CD. The drive image now boots!
So I used the dd command to make a copy of the Hard Drive image,
added it to the ~/.basilisk_ii_prefs file, and initialized it a
second 'drive' to install System 7.5 on. Dragged in
Shrinkwrapped images of system 7.5 install floppies off a CDROM,
mounted 'em and by clicking over to the Basilisk II window, I see
that the 'Installation was successful' dialogue has popped up.
This is a lot of fun, and I recommend it strongly to anybody
interested. There are binaries for Windows NT type systems, if
you don't run a Freenix.
It's just emulation, but you can't run BasiliskII if you don't
already have a Mac to pull the ROM image off of, so the
price-of-entry for non-pirates is to own a running classic Mac to
pull the ROM image from. Next, it might be time to fire up the
Quadra 650. It has a newer ROM and I can maybe install System
8.0 on image drives with that ROM image.
Next, it's time to make a BIG drive image so I can install
ClarisWorks and MS Office and all that stuff on my new Mac.
have.) Years ago I ran Executor (a commercial 68k
Mac emulator)
on a Linux system simultaneously with Wine (the Windows
I remember the demo version of Executor on Linux fondly, it made it
possible to take stuff I downloaded on my P90 laptop and put it on
Mac floppies so that I could read them on my PowerBook 520c.
Yes, there was a reason I had a Pentium 90 laptop and a PowerBook
520c, I was living onboard an Aircraft carrier, and didn't even have
room for them. I bought the P90 laptop just before I became
disillusioned with OS/2, and decided to switch to the Mac. The sad
thing is the no-name P90 laptop is still running, the display went
out on the 520c after just over a year.
Zane
--
--
| Zane H. Healy | UNIX Systems Administrator |
| healyzh at aracnet.com (primary) | OpenVMS Enthusiast |
| MONK::HEALYZH (DECnet) | Classic Computer Collector |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Empire of the Petal Throne and Traveller Role Playing, |
| PDP-10 Emulation and Zane's Computer Museum. |
| http://www.aracnet.com/~healyzh/ |
12 Jan
12 Jan
2:07 p.m.
Scott Stevens wrote:
It's just emulation, but you can't run
BasiliskII if you don't
already have a Mac to pull the ROM image off of, so the
price-of-entry for non-pirates is to own a running classic Mac to
pull the ROM image from.
Although I have 4 classic macs (original, 512, Classic, Se/30) I need to
keep them running because I have software I still like to run that is
copy-protected. Makes me wish the Mac platform was more successful so
that there were more pirates. I'm serious -- I have these original
disks that are nearly unobtanium and I wish I could make a backup copy.
--
Jim Leonard (trixter at oldskool.org) http://www.oldskool.org/
Want to help an ambitious games project? http://www.mobygames.com/
Or check out some trippy MindCandy at http://www.mindcandydvd.com/
10 Jan
10 Jan
10:32 p.m.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cameron Kaiser" <spectre at floodgap.com>
To: <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 7:12 PM
Subject: Not OT: Classic apps and the Intel Mac
Well, the Intel Mac has emerged and with that we can
conclude that the end
of the Classic era is near, as Rosetta will officially not support Classic
applications.
This means a lot of legacy software is now suddenly worthless on the next
generation of Macintoshes. Worse, I'm hearing a rumour that 10.5 will
strip
Classic out even for PPC Macs. Has anyone else heard
this?
I still use a number of 68K apps I picked up for a song because they do
the
job, they're fast, and they were cheap. I'm
not giving that up so easily.
--
--------------------------------- personal:
http://www.armory.com/~spectre/ ---
Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com
*
ckaiser at floodgap.com
-- A kindness done today is the surest way to a
brighter tomorrow. --
Anonymous
I have a shelf full of boxed 68k/early PPC software in my collection, funny
how cheap this stuff has become lately.
11:02 p.m.
At 10:32 PM -0500 1/10/06, Teo Zenios wrote:
I have a shelf full of boxed 68k/early PPC software in
my collection, funny
how cheap this stuff has become lately.
Sometimes such stuff can be quite useful. I'm now running Adobe CS
Premium on my Mac thanks to a new copy of Photoshop 2.5 I picked up
years ago for something like $5-15. First I upgraded to V4, then
V5.5, V7, and finally Adobe CS Premium. Of course it also helps to
know what various companies upgrade policies are. Lately Filemaker
Pro seems to think you need to upgrade *every* version to be able to
keep upgrading (Connectix was about about this with VPC).
Zane
--
--
| Zane H. Healy | UNIX Systems Administrator |
| healyzh at aracnet.com (primary) | OpenVMS Enthusiast |
| MONK::HEALYZH (DECnet) | Classic Computer Collector |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Empire of the Petal Throne and Traveller Role Playing, |
| PDP-10 Emulation and Zane's Computer Museum. |
| http://www.aracnet.com/~healyzh/ |
11 Jan
11 Jan
12:20 a.m.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Zane H. Healy" <healyzh at aracnet.com>
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 11:02 PM
Subject: Re: Not OT: Classic apps and the Intel Mac
Well you can still use the older apps on older equipment. My only flatbed
scanner is an old Umax 1200S and it is connected to my Quadra 950 Mac
(68040 at 50Mhz with 128K Cache upgraded, 160MB RAM, 4.55GB OS 8.1 Drive, 4 x
9GB UWSCSI drives for storage, etc) and I use it for scanning along with
Photoshop 3.0, works just fine. Unless you use a program as a tool for work
and the new features save you time (and money) I don't see the need to
continually upgrade the same software packages (unless you have a platform
change or there is a major shift in that area).
At 10:32 PM -0500 1/10/06, Teo Zenios wrote:
>I have a shelf full of boxed 68k/early PPC software in my collection,
funny
how cheap this
stuff has become lately.
Sometimes such stuff can be quite useful. I'm now running Adobe CS
Premium on my Mac thanks to a new copy of Photoshop 2.5 I picked up
years ago for something like $5-15. First I upgraded to V4, then
V5.5, V7, and finally Adobe CS Premium. Of course it also helps to
know what various companies upgrade policies are. Lately Filemaker
Pro seems to think you need to upgrade *every* version to be able to
keep upgrading (Connectix was about about this with VPC).
Zane
--
2:08 a.m.
Cameron Kaiser wrote:
This means a lot of legacy software is now suddenly
worthless on the next
generation of Macintoshes.
Hardly. It means that emulators will now take over that function. In
fact, I've been waiting for a catalist like this for years -- mac
emulators have some catching up to do.
I know emulators aren't as good as the real thing, but hell, neither was
trying to get a classic app working on OS X. If I want to run a classic
app properly, the way it works best and was intended, I run it on
classic hardware. I don't think many here will disagree with me.
--
Jim Leonard (trixter at oldskool.org) http://www.oldskool.org/
Want to help an ambitious games project? http://www.mobygames.com/
Or check out some trippy MindCandy at http://www.mindcandydvd.com/
9:03 a.m.
This means a
lot of legacy software is now suddenly worthless on the next
generation of Macintoshes.
Hardly. It means that emulators will now take over that function. I know emulators aren't as good as the real thing,
but hell, neither was
trying to get a classic app working on OS X. If I want to run a classic
app properly, the way it works best and was intended, I run it on
classic hardware. I don't think many here will disagree with me.
... is true in idealistic theory, but Classic is better than emulation
because of its integration with the OS. If I want to run a "Mac in a box"
then I shouldn't even bother with an emulator, and it would probably be
less compatible anyway.
On the other hand, I use some of these apps for real work and the fact that
Classic transparently maps on the hardware, the file system and makes the app
windows part of the OS is important and handy. A "Mac in a window" just
doesn't cut it in the same way -- there are already emulators for 68K and
PPC Macs on OS X, but I use Classic regularly. It's already an integral part
of the OS, so I don't see why Apple would want to take this away from PPC
users where it already works. I can see why they don't want to expend the
extra work for Intel, but I think they should support Classic on PPC until
they don't support PPC anymore.
--
--------------------------------- personal: http://www.armory.com/~spectre/ ---
Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckaiser at floodgap.com
-- Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you.
-----------
11 a.m.
[...], but Classic is better than emulation because of
its
integration with the OS.
Um, Classic *is* emulation. Perhaps you're thinking that you can't
emulate except by emulating the entire machine? I did a VAX emulator
once that, to speak loosely, trapped to the emulator when doing a
syscall, rather than emulating the privileged side of the hardware as
well as the nonprivileged.
[...] the fact that Classic transparently maps on the
hardware, the
file system and makes the app windows part of the OS is important and
handy.
Right. It's an emulator that emulates certain aspects of classic MacOS
in more useful ways than the "Mac in a window" emulation of the whole
computer as an opaque (from outside the emulator) blob.
/~\ The ASCII der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse at rodents.montreal.qc.ca
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
12 Jan
12 Jan
1:33 a.m.
[...], but
Classic is better than emulation because of its
integration with the OS.
Um, Classic *is* emulation. 
1:47 p.m.
I still use a number of 68K apps I picked up for a song
because they do the
job, they're fast, and they were cheap. I'm not giving that up so easily.
I've had great luck with BasiliskII running on Windows. Even funky older
68K programs work (like my own "Wallpaper for the Mind", that compiles code
and jumps to it on the fly).
I found BasiliskII a few years ago when I wanted to set up a time-lapse
photography station, and use an old Mac as a camera controller. I didn't
want to drag the Mac back and forth to work to test the software, so I
developed it under BasiliskII running on a Windows laptop.
I just set up (and ran!) an appropriate vintage copy of Code Warrior under
BasiliskII and tested the camera controller with it, including the serial
port access. Later I found I could access my old Mac files by popping a
SlimSCSI card into my laptop, and using BasiliskII to access my old Mac
SCSI drives (including a Jaz). Need to get something off an old Mac
CD-ROM? No problem! It's like having 1992 in a window.
What's really funny is how much -faster- the old System 7.5 stuff runs
under this emulator on modern 1Ghz hardware. Mac OS boots in a second or
so; amazing to watch after all that time a dozen years ago waiting 30-40
seconds on the original Macs.
Although it requires a separate "disk" file (unlike Classic on Mac OS,
which shares the filesystem), I've found it to be a more complete 68K mac
emulator than running "Classic" on Mac OS X.
Some links:
- Basilisk II homepage: http://basilisk.cebix.net/
- Windows port: (download) http://www.oldos.org/howtos/mac68kemu.php
- Windows w/JIT compiler: http://www.gibix.net/projects/basilisk2/
- Nice documetation (shareware): http://os-emulation.net/basiliskii.html
Cheers,
jp
13 Jan
13 Jan
7:37 a.m.
On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 10:47:36 -0800
"J. Peterson" <pdp11 at saccade.com> wrote:
I've been having loads of fun with BasiliskII over the past
several days. It allows me to try all kinds of Mac stuff off the
actual Mac, which actually preserves the Mac hardware. Each hard
drive image file that you create can be it's own 'Mac'
environment, and you can duplicate an image before trying
anything risky in a particular environment. Next, I need to add
a SCSI interface to this machine so I can easily transport these
'environments' over to a portable Mac hard drive and thence to
the Macs themselves. The drive image files themselves can be
'frozen' and stored on CDR or DVD+R media. It all nicely
complements everything else that I've done recently to preserve
MacOS operating environments.
I will note that BasiliskII is a SERIOUS resource hog. I left it
run yesterday while I was at work and when I got home the Unix
'top' utility indicated it had consumed 19 HOURS of WCPU time!
It ties up 40-80% while running, which is unheard of for most
Unix user code.
I still use a number of 68K apps I picked up for a
song because they do the
job, they're fast, and they were cheap. I'm not giving that up so easily.
I've had great luck with BasiliskII running on Windows. Even funky older
68K programs work (like my own "Wallpaper for the Mind", that compiles code
and jumps to it on the fly).
I found BasiliskII a few years ago when I wanted to set up a time-lapse
photography station, and use an old Mac as a camera controller. I didn't
want to drag the Mac back and forth to work to test the software, so I
developed it under BasiliskII running on a Windows laptop.
I just set up (and ran!) an appropriate vintage copy of Code Warrior under
BasiliskII and tested the camera controller with it, including the serial
port access. Later I found I could access my old Mac files by popping a
SlimSCSI card into my laptop, and using BasiliskII to access my old Mac
SCSI drives (including a Jaz). Need to get something off an old Mac
CD-ROM? No problem! It's like having 1992 in a window.
What's really funny is how much -faster- the old System 7.5 stuff runs
under this emulator on modern 1Ghz hardware. Mac OS boots in a second or
so; amazing to watch after all that time a dozen years ago waiting 30-40
seconds on the original Macs.
Although it requires a separate "disk" file (unlike Classic on Mac OS,
which shares the filesystem), I've found it to be a more complete 68K mac
emulator than running "Classic" on Mac OS X.
Some links:
- Basilisk II homepage: http://basilisk.cebix.net/
- Windows port: (download) http://www.oldos.org/howtos/mac68kemu.php
- Windows w/JIT compiler: http://www.gibix.net/projects/basilisk2/
- Nice documetation (shareware): http://os-emulation.net/basiliskii.html
Cheers,
jp
10:01 a.m.
----- Original Message -----
From: "J. Peterson" <pdp11 at saccade.com>
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic Posts Only" <cctech at classiccmp.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 1:47 PM
Subject: Re: Not OT: Classic apps and the Intel Mac
What's really funny is how much -faster- the old
System 7.5 stuff runs
under this emulator on modern 1Ghz hardware. Mac OS boots in a second or
so; amazing to watch after all that time a dozen years ago waiting 30-40
seconds on the original Macs.
68K Mac machines take forever to boot because they test memory , and do it
slowly. The machines I have with 128MB of RAM or higher take quite a while
before they initialize video and start loading the OS (which is fast since I
use newer HD's and faster NUBUS scsi cards.
14 Jan
14 Jan
11:20 p.m.
J. Peterson wrote:
I've had great luck with BasiliskII running on Windows. Even funky
older 68K programs work (like my own "Wallpaper for the Mind", that
compiles code and jumps to it on the fly).
But how can we transfer copy-protected programs over to something the
emulator can load? I've got some music programs (Studio Session, Jam
Session) and games and other apps I'd love to introduce to the children,
but I don't want them handling the disks directly because the
copy-protected retail diskettes are the only ones I have.
--
Jim Leonard (trixter at oldskool.org) http://www.oldskool.org/
Want to help an ambitious games project? http://www.mobygames.com/
Or check out some trippy MindCandy at http://www.mindcandydvd.com/
15 Jan
15 Jan
12:35 a.m.
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 22:20:05 -0600
Jim Leonard <trixter at oldskool.org> wrote:
J. Peterson wrote:
The emulator can load and read floppy diskettes. Probably only
HD ones, but it uses the native drives on the machine. I
installed it on my machine (multiple times, on several drive
images) by having BasiliskII boot from a MacOS 7.5.3 install CD.
That doesn't solve your problem of copy protected original
diskettes, but it's no different than a real Mac in that regard.
You can virtualize the diskettes into images that it reads, and
might have better luck doing that than through any 'scheme' to
defeat the copy protection, (if imaging software would properly
image the diskette, copy protection and all.) You'd have to try
it, but the classic Unix 'dd' command method might work to copy
the diskettes to image files (if you're running a Unix version of
BasiliskII. I haven't tried that yet. I am running the emulator
on 'image' hard drives that I define in the config file. I
booted from CD, MacOS asked me to initialize the image files I
had declared (I have used 50 meg, and 1200 meg image files thus
far,) and then I installed MacOS on them as if they were real
hard drives.
I've had great luck with BasiliskII running on Windows. Even funky
older 68K programs work (like my own "Wallpaper for the Mind", that
compiles code and jumps to it on the fly).
But how can we transfer copy-protected programs over to something the
emulator can load? I've got some music programs (Studio Session, Jam
Session) and games and other apps I'd love to introduce to the children,
but I don't want them handling the disks directly because the
copy-protected retail diskettes are the only ones I have. --
Jim Leonard (trixter at oldskool.org) http://www.oldskool.org/
Want to help an ambitious games project? http://www.mobygames.com/
Or check out some trippy MindCandy at http://www.mindcandydvd.com/
12:47 a.m.
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 00:35:34 -0500
Scott Stevens <chenmel at earthlink.net> wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 22:20:05 -0600
Jim Leonard <trixter at oldskool.org> wrote:
I just verified that BasiliskII will run and access images of
floppy diskettes. I didn't use the Unix DD command to make the
image, I used the Winimage program on my Windows2000 machine to
image a MacOS formatted floppy and saved it to an IMA file, then
scp'd it over to NetBSD and added a line declaring the file as a
disk in .basilisk_ii_prefs and it mounted the image.
This proves something useful to me: the Winimage program (and dd
on Unix, which does the same thing) can make images of MacOS
floppies which can then easily be read into the Mac universe
through BasiliskII. I can probably run Shrinkwrap or Apples Disk
Copy utility to convert the 'images' to ShrinkWrap or DiskCopy
images any Mac can use. Note that if you make your images using
Winimage, it won't show a directory after making the image, since
Winimage only recognizes FAT directories. But the image file you
then 'blindly' save works on BasiliskII.
J. Peterson wrote:
The emulator can load and read floppy diskettes. Probably only
HD ones, but it uses the native drives on the machine. I
installed it on my machine (multiple times, on several drive
images) by having BasiliskII boot from a MacOS 7.5.3 install CD.
That doesn't solve your problem of copy protected original
diskettes, but it's no different than a real Mac in that regard.
You can virtualize the diskettes into images that it reads, and
might have better luck doing that than through any 'scheme' to
defeat the copy protection, (if imaging software would properly
image the diskette, copy protection and all.) You'd have to try
it, but the classic Unix 'dd' command method might work to copy
the diskettes to image files (if you're running a Unix version of
BasiliskII. I haven't tried that yet. I am running the emulator
on 'image' hard drives that I define in the config file. I
booted from CD, MacOS asked me to initialize the image files I
had declared (I have used 50 meg, and 1200 meg image files thus
far,) and then I installed MacOS on them as if they were real
hard drives.
I've had great luck with BasiliskII running on Windows. Even funky
older 68K programs work (like my own "Wallpaper for the Mind", that
compiles code and jumps to it on the fly).
But how can we transfer copy-protected programs over to something the
emulator can load? I've got some music programs (Studio Session, Jam
Session) and games and other apps I'd love to introduce to the children,
but I don't want them handling the disks directly because the
copy-protected retail diskettes are the only ones I have.
> --
> Jim Leonard (trixter at oldskool.org) http://www.oldskool.org/
> Want to help an ambitious games project? http://www.mobygames.com/
> Or check out some trippy MindCandy at http://www.mindcandydvd.com/
4:58 a.m.
Scott Stevens wrote:
image, I used the Winimage program on my Windows2000
machine to
When you get 400K and 800K disks to read, let me know ;-)
--
Jim Leonard (trixter at oldskool.org) http://www.oldskool.org/
Want to help an ambitious games project? http://www.mobygames.com/
Or check out some trippy MindCandy at http://www.mindcandydvd.com/
10:28 a.m.
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 03:58:34 -0600
Jim Leonard <trixter at oldskool.org> wrote:
Scott Stevens wrote:
I read 800K disks onto my Powerbook 165c, using Shrinkwrap. The
image file fits on a HD floppy with a copy of the Shrinkwrap
program, then I read the HD floppy with Winimage to archive it
and to move it over to BasiliskII as the HD image. No way to
directly read the 800K image except on a Mac. Then you mount the
HD image, and mount the 800K image on it using Shrinkwrap.
There is no barrier whatsoever to getting the data and programs
image, I used the Winimage program on my
Windows2000 machine to
When you get 400K and 800K disks to read, let me know ;-) from 800K disks to the emulator, so long as you have a
real Mac
somewhere. And no problem with 400K disks as long as you have a
drive on a real Mac that will read them and also write at least
800K disks. There's also no barrier to archiving them onto big
backup volumes as long as you have Shrinkwrap.
--
Jim Leonard (trixter at oldskool.org) http://www.oldskool.org/
Want to help an ambitious games project? http://www.mobygames.com/
Or check out some trippy MindCandy at http://www.mindcandydvd.com/
17 Jan
17 Jan
12:20 p.m.
Scott Stevens wrote:
I read 800K disks onto my Powerbook 165c, using Shrinkwrap. The
Missing my point: You were flippant about doing this from Windows2000,
which can't read 400K/800K.
image, I used the Winimage program on my Windows2000
machine to
When you get 400K and 800K disks to read, let me know ;-) There is no barrier whatsoever to getting the data and
programs
from 800K disks to the emulator, so long as you have a real Mac
Even if they're copy-protected? If so, let me know what program to use!
--
Jim Leonard (trixter at oldskool.org) http://www.oldskool.org/
Want to help an ambitious games project? http://www.mobygames.com/
Or check out some trippy MindCandy at http://www.mindcandydvd.com/
15 Jan
15 Jan
4:57 a.m.
Scott Stevens wrote:
The emulator can load and read floppy diskettes.
Not 800K ones, only 1.44MB.
--
Jim Leonard (trixter at oldskool.org) http://www.oldskool.org/
Want to help an ambitious games project? http://www.mobygames.com/
Or check out some trippy MindCandy at http://www.mindcandydvd.com/
6795
days inactive
6801
days old
31 comments
10 participants
participants (10)
-
cclist＠sydex.com -
chenmel＠earthlink.net -
healyzh＠aracnet.com -
legalize＠xmission.com -
mouse＠Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA -
pdp11＠saccade.com -
ploopster＠gmail.com -
spectre＠floodgap.com -
teoz＠neo.rr.com -
trixter＠oldskool.org