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

Difference between Basilisk II and SheepShaver

Expand Messages
  • somniferous1
    In John s post from the topic New version of SheepShaver install in progress - what needs to be added/fixed (January 12, 2009) he says: When I first did
    Message 1 of 4 , Jan 17, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      In John's post from the topic "New version of SheepShaver install in
      progress - what needs to be added/fixed" (January 12, 2009) he says:

      "When I first did this I compared SS and Basilisk, comparing not load
      times but speed times in intensive operation such as spell-checking.
      I found SS (using PowerPC WP) slightly faster than Basilisk with 68K
      WP, but nothing decisive. I remembered that the 68K version seemed
      to have a couple of bugs the PPC version didn't, including something
      with hyphenation. I also found it harder to set Basilisk to a large
      screen size, but I didn't take a close look there.

      What I think's best would be to keep an SS install available along with
      your fine WPApplianceFiles setup with Basilisk, as some users may have
      other reasons to choose one or the other, e.g. running another
      legacy app as well that needs either PPC or 68K.
      John R."

      My questions are:
      1. Does the Intel version of SS run on Unix with the Unix SS build or
      as the PPC or 68K verion?
      2. Will Basilisk also run on the Intel mac?
      3. Are there applications that run better with Basilisk or better with
      SS on Intel.
      4. Does the shared folder for either Basilisk or SS work better with
      the Intel Mac?

      I still haven't loaded either SS or Basilisk on my new Intel
      MacBookPro. I was considering waiting for John's New Version of SS
      install to make my life ever so much easier. That will be so?
    • Geoffrey S. Mendelson
      ... It depends. SS itself is written in C. You can find (or compile it yourself) a version compiled for PPC, which will run on PPC Macs, and slower on Intel
      Message 2 of 4 , Jan 17, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 05:18:55PM -0000, somniferous1 wrote:
        >In John's post from the topic "New version of SheepShaver install in
        >progress - what needs to be added/fixed" (January 12, 2009) he says:
        >
        >"When I first did this I compared SS and Basilisk, comparing not load
        >times but speed times in intensive operation such as spell-checking.
        >I found SS (using PowerPC WP) slightly faster than Basilisk with 68K
        >WP, but nothing decisive. I remembered that the 68K version seemed
        >to have a couple of bugs the PPC version didn't, including something
        >with hyphenation. I also found it harder to set Basilisk to a large
        >screen size, but I didn't take a close look there.
        >
        >What I think's best would be to keep an SS install available along with
        >your fine WPApplianceFiles setup with Basilisk, as some users may have
        >other reasons to choose one or the other, e.g. running another
        >legacy app as well that needs either PPC or 68K.
        >John R."
        >

        >1. Does the Intel version of SS run on Unix with the Unix SS build or
        >as the PPC or 68K verion?

        It depends. SS itself is written in C. You can find (or compile it
        yourself) a version compiled for PPC, which will run on PPC Macs, and
        slower on Intel ones using Rosetta, and you can find an Intel version
        which will only run on Intel computers (but faster than the PPC one).

        I believe the latest version of the SS/WP combination includes an Intel
        only version of SS.


        >2. Will Basilisk also run on the Intel mac?

        Yes. BII is also written in C, and can be compiled for either. See above.

        >3. Are there applications that run better with Basilisk or better with
        >SS on Intel.

        The answer to that question is yes. The real question is are there applications
        which run better on 680x0 or the PPC? It also depends upon the version of
        System/MacOS that you are running.

        Apple was unable to produce a working OS for the PPC in time, so they
        included a 68020 emulator in the system. Most of System 7.5 and 7.6 were
        emulated and parts of 8.1/8.1, 8.5 was the first totally PPC release. The
        emulator hung around until MacOS 8.6 for application programs.

        So if you are not careful, you can end up having your Mac emulating a
        PPC processor and MacOS running on it emulating a 68020. If that's
        the case, you should just use BII and emulate the 68020 directly.

        Apple was able to get away with it because a 66mHz first generation PPC
        chip emulated a 68020 faster than a real 68040 ran the same code. The 68060
        may have been faster, but too few (and AFAIK no Macs) were produced
        to find out.

        >4. Does the shared folder for either Basilisk or SS work better with
        >the Intel Mac?

        AFAIK they are the same.

        >I still haven't loaded either SS or Basilisk on my new Intel
        >MacBookPro. I was considering waiting for John's New Version of SS
        >install to make my life ever so much easier. That will be so?

        I can't speak for John, or anyone else, but to me the current one was
        easy to install manually. If you are new to OSX and new to unpacking zip
        files and moving things to the correct folders, it will make your life
        a lot easier. If you are an "old hand" at them, it won't be much of
        a difference.

        Geoff.
        --
        Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm@... N3OWJ/4X1GM
      • somniferous1
        Thanks Geoff. Great answers. I am afraid I don t know the difference between PPC and 68K versions. How will I know and what will I use once I know? I am going
        Message 3 of 4 , Jan 21, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          Thanks Geoff. Great answers.

          I am afraid I don't know the difference between PPC and 68K versions.
          How will I know and what will I use once I know?

          I am going to be running OS 9.0.4. I will be using my Intel Mac.
          (otherwise known as "glarey sceen"). I ran all my OS9 applications on
          my G4 until now...still do since I am converting my business to the
          Intel at this time. I am trying to decide to whether to wait for John
          or just forge ahead courageously with the previous build. Just want
          to be sure I am making good choices for loading software and emulators.

          How involved is the Basilisk II install? How much room do these take
          (seeing how I read that some folks have both running.)

          In addition, when running a certain version of Sheepshaver do you have
          to do a complete removal and reinstall when a newer build comes out?
          I haven't had any luck installing more than one version of sheepshaver
          at a time.


          --- In wordperfectmac@yahoogroups.com, "Geoffrey S. Mendelson"
          <gsm@...> wrote:
          >
          > On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 05:18:55PM -0000, somniferous1 wrote:
          > >In John's post from the topic "New version of SheepShaver install in
          > >progress - what needs to be added/fixed" (January 12, 2009) he says:
          > >
          > >"When I first did this I compared SS and Basilisk, comparing not load
          > >times but speed times in intensive operation such as spell-checking.
          > >I found SS (using PowerPC WP) slightly faster than Basilisk with 68K
          > >WP, but nothing decisive. I remembered that the 68K version seemed
          > >to have a couple of bugs the PPC version didn't, including something
          > >with hyphenation. I also found it harder to set Basilisk to a large
          > >screen size, but I didn't take a close look there.
          > >
          > >What I think's best would be to keep an SS install available along with
          > >your fine WPApplianceFiles setup with Basilisk, as some users may have
          > >other reasons to choose one or the other, e.g. running another
          > >legacy app as well that needs either PPC or 68K.
          > >John R."
          > >
          >
          > >1. Does the Intel version of SS run on Unix with the Unix SS build or
          > >as the PPC or 68K verion?
          >
          > It depends. SS itself is written in C. You can find (or compile it
          > yourself) a version compiled for PPC, which will run on PPC Macs, and
          > slower on Intel ones using Rosetta, and you can find an Intel version
          > which will only run on Intel computers (but faster than the PPC one).
          >
          > I believe the latest version of the SS/WP combination includes an Intel
          > only version of SS.
          >
          >
          > >2. Will Basilisk also run on the Intel mac?
          >
          > Yes. BII is also written in C, and can be compiled for either. See
          above.
          >
          > >3. Are there applications that run better with Basilisk or better with
          > >SS on Intel.
          >
          > The answer to that question is yes. The real question is are there
          applications
          > which run better on 680x0 or the PPC? It also depends upon the
          version of
          > System/MacOS that you are running.
          >
          > Apple was unable to produce a working OS for the PPC in time, so they
          > included a 68020 emulator in the system. Most of System 7.5 and 7.6 were
          > emulated and parts of 8.1/8.1, 8.5 was the first totally PPC
          release. The
          > emulator hung around until MacOS 8.6 for application programs.
          >
          > So if you are not careful, you can end up having your Mac emulating a
          > PPC processor and MacOS running on it emulating a 68020. If that's
          > the case, you should just use BII and emulate the 68020 directly.
          >
          > Apple was able to get away with it because a 66mHz first generation PPC
          > chip emulated a 68020 faster than a real 68040 ran the same code.
          The 68060
          > may have been faster, but too few (and AFAIK no Macs) were produced
          > to find out.
          >
          > >4. Does the shared folder for either Basilisk or SS work better with
          > >the Intel Mac?
          >
          > AFAIK they are the same.
          >
          > >I still haven't loaded either SS or Basilisk on my new Intel
          > >MacBookPro. I was considering waiting for John's New Version of SS
          > >install to make my life ever so much easier. That will be so?
          >
          > I can't speak for John, or anyone else, but to me the current one was
          > easy to install manually. If you are new to OSX and new to unpacking zip
          > files and moving things to the correct folders, it will make your life
          > a lot easier. If you are an "old hand" at them, it won't be much of
          > a difference.
          >
          > Geoff.
          > --
          > Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm@... N3OWJ/4X1GM
          >
        • Geoffrey S. Mendelson
          ... You re welcome. ... That s been a really tough one for me to answer. The short answer is that if possible, always use a fat (both) or PPC version of an
          Message 4 of 4 , Jan 22, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 02:18:37PM -0000, somniferous1 wrote:
            >Thanks Geoff. Great answers.

            You're welcome.
            >I am afraid I don't know the difference between PPC and 68K versions.
            > How will I know and what will I use once I know?

            That's been a really tough one for me to answer. The short answer is that
            if possible, always use a "fat" (both) or PPC version of an application.
            It will run faster.

            The long answer is I can't tell you how to check easily. Being a programer,
            I could tell you to open the file with RESEDIT and look for CODE (680x0)
            resources and their PPC equivalent (which I've forgotten).

            But if you are not a programmer, it may be not worth the effort to learn.

            Is there a better way? Maybe someone else can answer that.

            The interesting part is I tried to run a 680x0 binary (WP 1 from Ed Mendelson's
            disk) and it opened under SheepShaver running MacOS 9.0.4. I did not
            try to test it beyond that.

            If it runs, it makes no difference what it is to the average user.

            This was running SS under MacOS 10.5.6 Intel.

            >I am going to be running OS 9.0.4. I will be using my Intel Mac.
            >(otherwise known as "glarey sceen"). I ran all my OS9 applications on
            >my G4 until now...still do since I am converting my business to the
            >Intel at this time. I am trying to decide to whether to wait for John
            >or just forge ahead courageously with the previous build. Just want
            >to be sure I am making good choices for loading software and emulators.

            It does not seem to me that you can at this time make a BAD choice. You make
            make a less than optimal one, but it will still work and be ok. YMMV.

            As long as the programs run without corrupting data, you should be fine. I have
            not heard of any data corruption, and I've been using BII for a long time.

            >How involved is the Basilisk II install? How much room do these take
            >(seeing how I read that some folks have both running.)

            Seemed to be pretty simple to me.

            >In addition, when running a certain version of Sheepshaver do you have
            >to do a complete removal and reinstall when a newer build comes out?
            >I haven't had any luck installing more than one version of sheepshaver
            >at a time.

            AFAIK No. SS is a complete program, if you have 5 versions on your computer,
            it runs the one you choose when you start it up. If you have only one, it
            runs it when you click on it.

            As for disk space, the amount used by BI or SS is trivial. What takes up space
            is the emualted disk images. If you want to emulate a 40m BII disk, then
            it takes up 40m. If you want to emulate a 1g SS drive to run 9.0.4, then
            it takes up a gigabyte. If you have a Beige G3 running OS 9 with 100g
            of disk space, it's going to take up 100g of disk space on your new Mac.

            I expect that most people don't have that much, a friend with a fairly
            well expanded Beige G3 had 2 4G drives on it (one internal IDE and one
            internal 4g wide SCSI bought as an option).

            Geoff.

            --
            Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm@... N3OWJ/4X1GM
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.