Comments on: WinDooM on SoftPC, on SheepShaver

By: neozeed

neozeed — Sun, 31 Dec 2017 20:36:39 +0000

In reply to Emulation Guy. Yep the more pointless, the better!

By: Emulation Guy

Emulation Guy — Sun, 31 Dec 2017 20:32:00 +0000

Seeing emulation inside emulation is always nice.

By: neozeed

neozeed — Sun, 02 Aug 2015 03:21:01 +0000

In reply to Peter Godwin. I've run SoftPC on a SE/30 which... was ran and felt like an XT. But it was barely enough to play BattleTech: The Crescent Hawk's Inception in CGA mode so I was happy enough. I last ran it on my old A/UX box, a Quadra 950 (what a beast!), where it happily ran on that old 68040 @ 33Mhz. But even on Basilisk II without any JIT it runs amazingly fast. SheepShaver is a bunch more stabler with old world 9500v1 ROMs, and with the older more 68000 friendly OS's. I did some QuickTime experiment which shows it works best in 7.5, 8.0, 8.1. Once 8.5 and beyond show up with their nanokernel it all goes down hill, and fast.

By: neozeed

neozeed — Sun, 02 Aug 2015 03:13:35 +0000

In reply to Peter Godwin. Yeah it is very crash happy, but you did catch the major change!

By: Peter Godwin

Peter Godwin — Sat, 01 Aug 2015 22:35:01 +0000

In reply to Peter Godwin. Ps. great to see your Windows hosted Apple Talk share on the desktop!

By: Peter Godwin

Peter Godwin — Sat, 01 Aug 2015 22:34:05 +0000

I have SoftPC on an old Quadra 605, but of course it’s only 286 emulation. Still it’s surprisingly usable, especially considering the host is only 25Mhz! I did run later SoftPC versions on a G4 iMac with Windows 2000 under 10.3; slow dark times! It was certainly barely usable, at least on my hardware.

On topic though, the PPC emulation there must be quite quick to be able to emulate the 486, video and sound shim to that level! SheepShaver isn’t particularly slow (though I didn’t think it was that quick!); just really crashy, even more so than the same MacOS version on real hardware.

I look forward to seeing what you’ve been tinkering with!