Re: SheepShaver builds
> Does anyone think it could be worth while for us to start a database of ourI think this is a very good idea. While it's great that SheepShaver is under active development, its stage of development and the number of people working on it make it likely that some builds will be better than others, and for most of us here the point is not to beta-test SS but to get work done with WP.
> observations of how well WP works with the different versions of SS?
Tom, as a moderator you can create and modify tables in the Database section here. The table format is somewhat spreadsheet-like, if that would be helpful.
Thank you so much,
--- In email@example.com, "Thomas J. Rostafinski, Ph.D." <TJRostaf@...> wrote:
> Hi, Everyone.
> I have found that WP works more consistently for me with some
> SheepShaver builds than others. For example, I have had WP suddenly
> freeze in the newest builds, that is, the ones dated 24 October 2010 and
> 6 November 2010.
> The SheepShaver_UB_20091025.app build often works well for me with WP,
> though not as consistently as the older ones: with SheepShaver(H) UB
> 21-07-2008.app and SheepShaver(S) UB 21-07-2008.app, WP is rock-solid.
> The main drawback of these builds is that they tie up a lot of the CPU.
> I do not use any builds older than these; these were the first ones to
> fix the cursor-accuracy problem once and for all.
> There is also some improved OS functionality in the newer builds, for
> example with Popup Navigator, a control panel (actually an addition to
> FinderPop) that should allow a popup path menu to appear when you
> command-click on the title bar of a document window. This rarely works
> for me in WP, and then only in the later builds. It always worked in
> Classic and earlier.
> I should probably explain that though each build of the SS app gets the
> same name, I rename them according to version number or just the date I
> get them, which allows me to keep a number of them in the same folder,
> and pick and choose which to open at any particular time. Of course I
> have to be careful NEVER to double-click on one if another is already
> I am running guest Mac OS 8.6 in host Mac OS 10.4.11 on a MBP. Some of
> the issues with the different builds may well be specific to certain
> guest and/or host system configurations. I assume everyone is using WP
> 3.5ep, that is, the fully patched version.
> Emaculation already (loosely) maintains a list of apps according to
> their compatibility with SS. Does anyone think it could be worth while
> for us to start a database of our observations of how well WP works with
> the different versions of SS? I have started a pair of spreadsheets
> (one for each of the guest OS's that seem to be commonly used in SS, 8.6
> and 9.0.4), with columns for host OS's and rows for SS builds. If you
> share your observations with me -- I recommend using the listserv rather
> than back channel, because your observations are likely to be of wider
> interest -- I will compile them. Give your host and guest OS for any
> build for which you have observations. I have not heard anyone mention
> hardware differences, but if there are, we may need to incorporate them too.
> Thomas J. Rostafinski, Ph.D.
> Licensed Clinical Psychologist
> 1140 Lake Street, Suite 508
> Oak Park, IL 60301-1053
> (708) 848-1611
> fax (708) 848-1436