http://www.osnews.com/story/15567/Run_MacOS_9_on_an_Intel_Mac Exploring the Future of Computing en-us Copyright 2001-2009, David Adams adam+nospam@osnews.com Tue, 10 Nov 2009 07:18:24 GMT http://www.osnews.com/images/osnews.gif http://www.osnews.com http://osnews.com/thread?154421 http://osnews.com/thread?154421 The article implies full-speed emulation regardless of CPU type; this is misleading. From SheepHaver's website:
"If you are using a PowerPC-based system, applications will run at native speeds (i.e. without any emulation involved). On other systems, SheepShaver provides the first PowerPC G4 emulator, though without MMU, to enable the execution of MacOS Classic. Performance with the current CPU emulator using basic just-in-time (JIT) translation techniques is roughly 1/8-th of native speeds." Mon, 21 Aug 2006 14:56:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Fusion) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?154438 http://osnews.com/thread?154438 Is that 1/8th the native speed of a PPC Mac?

Or 1/8th the processor speed of the Intel Mac running it?

Because one would think on a dual core MacPro or MacBook, that one would see speed that would smoke a 233mhz - 400mhz G3 iMac.

It's a shame Sheepshaver couldn't tap into Rosetta. Mon, 21 Aug 2006 15:50:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Mage66) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?154445 http://osnews.com/thread?154445 Is that 1/8th the native speed of a PPC Mac? Or 1/8th the processor speed of the Intel Mac running it?

I'd have to assume 1/8th the Intel processor speed. The other way doesn't make sense, since 1/8 of a PPC Mac isn't defined since there's a range of processors.

And for the other post, "shockingly full" to me means it runs fast, but not necessarily 'full' speed. Maybe my reading was colored since I know that emulation can never be full speed so I didn't take it as such. Maybe the author meant 'full, as in as fast as period hardware'?Edited 2006-08-21 16:28 Mon, 21 Aug 2006 16:25:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (MattPie) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?154448 http://osnews.com/thread?154448 I still remember Sheepsaver from the PPC version of BeOS and the Amiga... and that brings up one question: Since when has sheepsaver worked on non-PPC/68K processors? Must have missed the memo on that one...

Given I've been using Basalisk II for testing legacy apps in the Wintel world, I'll have to see if Sheepsaver is any better/worse now that it's cross-processor. Mon, 21 Aug 2006 16:38:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (deathshadow) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?154455 http://osnews.com/thread?154455 I know that emulation can never be full speed

Linux emulation on NetBSD can be run at full speeds. I beleive that they have been documented faster on netbsd emulation than native linux. Obviously this isn't on all software though.

.adam. Mon, 21 Aug 2006 17:08:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (adapt) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?154460 http://osnews.com/thread?154460 Sheep Shaver is a full speed 'Classic' emulator

There are two problem with this sentence:

1) Functional:
"Classic" was not an emulator and hence ran at native speeds
2) Semantic:
Mac OS 9 is not "Classic". The first is an OS version, the second is a virtualization application/ambient provided by Apple with Mac OS X and previously with Rhapsody on PPC chips.

ndaEdited 2006-08-21 17:17 Mon, 21 Aug 2006 17:15:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (nicoladagostino) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?154464 http://osnews.com/thread?154464 True for FreeBSD also, some apps have been documented as running faster under FreeBSD than Linux. Mon, 21 Aug 2006 17:44:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (lopisaur) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?154465 http://osnews.com/thread?154465 I wish there was a solution for running OSX PPC under OSX Intel, for testing whether universal builds are really working universally, without the need for a separate PPC test rig... Mon, 21 Aug 2006 17:46:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (zetsurin) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?154471 http://osnews.com/thread?154471 I wish there was a solution for running OSX PPC under OSX Intel, for testing whether universal builds are really working universally, without the need for a separate PPC test rig...

Shouldn't PearPC be able to do this? Mon, 21 Aug 2006 17:52:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Thom_Holwerda) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?154477 http://osnews.com/thread?154477 Nice articles lately Thom. Pure news, no fooling around. Really glad to see. :-) Mon, 21 Aug 2006 18:13:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Governa) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?154481 http://osnews.com/thread?154481 i thought there was an option to force an app to run under rosetta? i could be wrong, dont have an intel mac in front of me Mon, 21 Aug 2006 18:25:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (godawful) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?154507 http://osnews.com/thread?154507 just some additional info... before you try it... it supports currently upto MacOS 9.0.4... Mon, 21 Aug 2006 19:19:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (pistooli) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?154526 http://osnews.com/thread?154526 Yes, emulating Linux/x86 on NetBSD or FreeBSD/x86 may make it faster. Try emulating Linux/PPC apps on NetBSD/x86. OS 9 PPC is both a different operating system AND a different processor architecture than OS X/x86, so your comparison is far from apt. Mon, 21 Aug 2006 19:49:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (rm6990) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?154527 http://osnews.com/thread?154527 Yes there is. You right click on the application, click "Get Info", and then enable "Run under Rosetta" or something like that. This is the same as Classic and Native apps under OS X. Appleworks, for instance, ran under OS 9 and OS X natively from the same .app file. I was able to explicitly tell it whether to open natively in OS X, or in Classic mode. It is the same thing. Mon, 21 Aug 2006 19:52:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (rm6990) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?154664 http://osnews.com/thread?154664 Back in the day Sheepshaver worked on BeOS/PPC only, but it did work on Linux/x86 apparently.

http://sheepshaver.cebix.net/ Tue, 22 Aug 2006 10:11:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Ronald Vos) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?154689 http://osnews.com/thread?154689 SheepShaver was ported to x86 Linux first around 2002 by Gwenole, and was later ported over to Mac OS X (PPC) then Windows. It was ported to Mac OS X for Intel earlier this year using remote compilation, as the developer didn't have a MacIntel.

Note that SheepShaver for x86 came out about a year before the PPC emulator PearPC showed up on the scene. But SheepShaver never reached the publicity that PearPC quickly had. Tue, 22 Aug 2006 13:03:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (OS Emu) Comments