Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [wpmac] WP RUNS ON INTEL!

Expand Messages
  • Kevin McCoy
    The time critical parts are all (translated, thanks to Microlytics 68K- PPC cross compiler) in PPC. The conversions and some other minor parts are in 68K. So,
    Message 1 of 20 , Oct 19, 2006
      The time critical parts are all (translated, thanks to Microlytics
      68K->PPC cross compiler) in PPC. The conversions and some other minor
      parts are in 68K. So, unless you are doing a lot of file opening/
      saving from other formats you probably wont see a difference in
      speed, unless the PPC emulator is slower than the 68K emulator. Or
      vice-versa.
      YMMV

      On Oct 19, 2006, at 7:23 AM, John Rethorst wrote:

      > I'll get to work on it. I want to try a setup with
      > Basilisk first, though, since one of the original
      > WP programmers (who's on this list) said that enough
      > of WP is 68K code that a 68K emulator, e.g. Basilisk,
      > might run faster than a PPC emulator like SheepShaver.
      > Interesting, since I'd thought that the speed-
      > critical parts of WP were all recoded in PPC for
      > that release.



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • kevin
      Do you know what cpu basilik emulates (68000-68060)? could make a big difference too. Why not seed an image on Bittorent? that would be great. John
      Message 2 of 20 , Oct 19, 2006
        Do you know what cpu basilik emulates (68000-68060)? could make a big difference too. Why not seed an image on Bittorent? that would be great.




        John Rethorst <jrethorst@...> wrote: I'll get to work on it. I want to try a setup with
        Basilisk first, though, since one of the original
        WP programmers (who's on this list) said that enough
        of WP is 68K code that a 68K emulator, e.g. Basilisk,
        might run faster than a PPC emulator like SheepShaver.
        Interesting, since I'd thought that the speed-
        critical parts of WP were all recoded in PPC for
        that release.

        What I really should do, for whichever emulator
        runs faster, is put all the parts on a CD image
        along with an Applescript installer. Would anyone
        like to host a 400mb image?

        John R.








        click here to visit my website www.myspace.com/kevin242



        This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential or proprietary information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please promptly contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.


        ---------------------------------
        All-new Yahoo! Mail - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster.

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • marco_merken
        Hello John, if you will send me the image, I can place it on my webpages for download. Regrads, Marco ... too. Why not seed an image on Bittorent? that would
        Message 3 of 20 , Oct 19, 2006
          Hello John,

          if you will send me the image, I can place it on my webpages for download.

          Regrads,
          Marco

          --- In wordperfectmac@yahoogroups.com, kevin <ksaunders242@...> wrote:
          >
          > Do you know what cpu basilik emulates (68000-68060)? could make a big difference
          too. Why not seed an image on Bittorent? that would be great.
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > John Rethorst <jrethorst@...> wrote: I'll get to work on it. I want to
          try a setup with
          > Basilisk first, though, since one of the original
          > WP programmers (who's on this list) said that enough
          > of WP is 68K code that a 68K emulator, e.g. Basilisk,
          > might run faster than a PPC emulator like SheepShaver.
          > Interesting, since I'd thought that the speed-
          > critical parts of WP were all recoded in PPC for
          > that release.
          >
          > What I really should do, for whichever emulator
          > runs faster, is put all the parts on a CD image
          > along with an Applescript installer. Would anyone
          > like to host a 400mb image?
          >
          > John R.
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > click here to visit my website www.myspace.com/kevin242
          >
          >
          >
          > This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended
          recipient(s) and may contain confidential or proprietary information. Any unauthorized
          review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient,
          please promptly contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original
          message.
          >
          >
          > ---------------------------------
          > All-new Yahoo! Mail - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster.
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
        • John Rethorst
          ... I installed Basilisk II today, using the well-written instructions at http://www.atpm.com/12.09/classic.shtml. Running it with OS 7.6 on the MacBook,
          Message 4 of 20 , Oct 28, 2006
            --- In wordperfectmac@yahoogroups.com, "John Rethorst" <jrethorst@...> wrote:
            >
            > And very nicely too!
            >
            > I'm using the free SheepShaver emulator, which is easy enough to install.
            > But I couldn't get it to boot from anything but an OS install CD, although
            > I had manually put a copy of OS 8.6 where it should be. So I tried
            > installing OS 8.6 from the CD, and SheepShaver now works fine, and
            > runs WordPerfect with no issues that I can see.
            >
            > This is on a MacBook Pro, 2 Ghz Intel Core Duo chip, 1 GB RAM. Comparing
            > speed with a 1.25 Ghz PPC G4 iMac with 1 GB RAM, I spell-checked a
            > 48,000 word WP document with footnotes. The iMac took 16 seconds; the
            > Intel took 20 seconds. In normal use, speed is indistinguishable between
            > the two machines.

            I installed Basilisk II today, using the well-written instructions at
            http://www.atpm.com/12.09/classic.shtml. Running it with OS 7.6 on the
            MacBook, WordPerfect spellchecked this document in 23 seconds. Again,
            everything works.

            More to come . . .

            John R.
          • John Rethorst
            In the Photos section here, you can see the screenshot I took (with my primitive cell phone camera) of WP on the MacBook Pro screen. Full screen height, as
            Message 5 of 20 , Oct 28, 2006
              In the Photos section here, you can see the screenshot I took (with my
              primitive cell phone camera) of WP on the MacBook Pro screen.

              Full screen height, as much width as I wanted (I left room for icons at
              the far right), full menu bar. In fact, that's the only difference I can
              see between emulation on Intel via SheepShaver and emulation on a
              PPC Mac via Classic - the former places a Classic menu bar immediately
              below the OSX menu bar.

              SheepShaver itself appears in the dock when running and, like any
              application, can be put there permanently, as well as being set as a
              startup item for your user account.

              I don't see a whole lot of difference between SS and Classic. As an
              earlier post notes, SS on a Macbook takes 20 seconds to spell-check
              48,000 words including footnotes, while Classic on a G4 takes 16.
              Intel chips are going to keep getting faster, of course.

              I don't want to wager whether it will be one year or two before
              WordPerfect runs faster than it ever has before.

              John R.
            • John Rethorst
              Oh yes - Gero Herrmann s Spotlight plug-in, which he wrote as a universal binary (so an Intel Mac will index WP documents whether SheepShaver, or anything
              Message 6 of 20 , Oct 28, 2006
                Oh yes - Gero Herrmann's Spotlight plug-in, which he wrote as a
                universal binary (so an Intel Mac will index WP documents whether
                SheepShaver, or anything else, is installed), works just fine too.

                John R.
              • hacky8sack
                John, OK, this all sounds fabulous, and should allow all of us to continue to use wp3.5e into the future. But one question: can you access the file structure
                Message 7 of 20 , Oct 29, 2006
                  John,
                  OK, this all sounds fabulous, and should allow all of us to continue
                  to use wp3.5e into the future. But one question: can you access the
                  file structure of OSX from within wp while running on SS? Can one
                  directly open and save files resident in the directory of OSX? If not,
                  what's the workaround?
                  Steve





                  --- In wordperfectmac@yahoogroups.com, "John Rethorst" <jrethorst@...>
                  wrote:
                  >
                  > Oh yes - Gero Herrmann's Spotlight plug-in, which he wrote as a
                  > universal binary (so an Intel Mac will index WP documents whether
                  > SheepShaver, or anything else, is installed), works just fine too.
                  >
                  > John R.
                  >
                • John Rethorst
                  ... It s close. Make a folder at some convenient place in OSX, and select it in SS prefs as a transfer folder. Put anything in that folder; it will show up in
                  Message 8 of 20 , Oct 29, 2006
                    --- In wordperfectmac@yahoogroups.com, "hacky8sack" <hacky8sack@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > can you access the
                    > file structure of OSX from within wp while running on SS? Can one
                    > directly open and save files resident in the directory of OSX?

                    It's close. Make a folder at some convenient place in OSX, and select
                    it in SS prefs as a transfer folder. Put anything in that folder; it will
                    show up in SS and vice versa.

                    John R.
                  • Bob Stern
                    ... Can SS access folders within folders within the transfer folder? If so, you could designate your OS X Documents folder or Home folder as the transfer
                    Message 9 of 20 , Oct 29, 2006
                      >John Rethorst wrote:
                      >
                      >Make a folder at some convenient place in OSX, and select it in SS
                      >prefs as a transfer folder. Put anything in that folder; it will
                      >show up in SS and vice versa.

                      Can SS access folders within folders within the transfer folder? If
                      so, you could designate your OS X Documents folder or Home folder as
                      the transfer folder.
                      --

                      Bob Stern
                    • John Rethorst
                      ... Yes. You also have complete control over folder contents: make subfolders, move files etc. from SS as well as from OSX. Something like two OSX windows of
                      Message 10 of 20 , Oct 29, 2006
                        --- In wordperfectmac@yahoogroups.com, Bob Stern <bob_stern@...> wrote:

                        > Can SS access folders within folders within the transfer folder?

                        Yes. You also have complete control over folder contents: make subfolders,
                        move files etc. from SS as well as from OSX. Something like two OSX windows
                        of the contents of one folder.

                        > If so, you could designate your OS X Documents folder or Home folder as
                        > the transfer folder.

                        Yes, but the ATPM article (at http://www.atpm.com/12.09/classic.shtml)
                        says:

                        > It is not recommended that this path be to the root level of your
                        > hard drive nor to your home folder.

                        No reason given, but the caution is also in the SS author's help pages
                        (at http://www.gibix.net/projects/sheepshaver/help/). It may be a
                        memory issue. My OSX documents folder is probably the one I'll end
                        up designating IAC.

                        John R.
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.