Do you use an Intel-based Mac but still have a few essential Classic (pre-OS X) Mac applications you want to run? Recent universal compiles allow you to use (SS) or (B2) to run Classic software in emulation on Intel Macs under Mac OS X directly - or under Windows via dual-boot or virtualization. B2 emulates an old 68K Macintosh, while SS emulates a PowerPC Mac. What you need:. An old Mac OS (up to OS 8.1 for B2, or OS 7.5.2 through 9.0.4 for SS).
You can from Apple. E-Maculation has a downloadable OS 7.5.3 starter disk already prepared.
For B2, you must extract a ROM file from an old 68K Mac that you own. Use or for the extraction. For SheepShaver, use the, provided by Apple. None of the other Apple-distributed software-based ROMs, nor the ROMs I've extracted from my own Macs have worked. However, to use this ROM, I think you'll need at least System 8.5 (I couldn't get it to run on OS 8.1; maybe older systems don't support New World ROMs?).
A Software Update control panel for automatic download and installation of Apple system software updates. Mac OS 9 and the Classic Environment PowerPC versions. Released in December 2001, was the final version of Mac OS 9 and the 'classic' Mac OS. Learn more about how to build it for Windows, Mac OS X, and Linux: (Download.EXE) (Download sources) The easy upgrade from Windows XP to Windows 7 without re-installing: Travel back in time on YouTube to see these low budget Emulators.com classic demo videos: Gemulator promo video from 1992: Part 1 Part 2 Part 3.
Extract the ROM from the updater with. These extractors are themselves Classic apps, so you'll need access to a Mac capable of running Classic or older to get the ROMs. To run SS or B2 under Windows, you'll also need: (a) the Win32 Runtime Library of and (b) the Win32 Runtime Library. Just extract the contents of the downloaded files into the same directory as the SS and B2.exe files. Additional emulators exist, but I haven't tried them:.
Both run under Windows. Executor is commercial, but does not require a ROM.
Tips:. I'm running MacOS X 10.4.6 on a MacBook Pro 2.16 GHz w/ 2G RAM.
Basilisk runs for me using either System 7.5.3 or 8.1, but won't launch some of the software I want to run. So, I use SheepShaver running OS 9.04. But, that is not without difficulties. Using SS 2.3, build 0.20060121.1-OSX.i386, under OS X, I have to start up OS 9 with extensions off (hold down the shift key when launching SS), or else I get some sort of display problem after the OS 9 boot sequence. The display problem doesn't occur when running the Windows version of SS (under either Parallels Workstation or dual booting via Apple's Boot Camp).
![Classic Classic](/uploads/1/2/5/3/125351686/517718773.jpg)
So, ironically, I run SS in Windows (XP Home Eddition, Service Pack 2) in order to use my Classic Macintosh applications (Photoshop 4 and Matlab 5, because I'm cheap and they are still perfectly good versions!). To get a little feedback from B2 and SS running under OS X, run them from Terminal (view the application package contents and open the Unix Executable File in the MacOS folder). Both B2 and SS read a variety of disk image types, including dmg, cdr, img, smi, and hfv. DMG and CDR can be created with Disk Utility under OS X. If you get an.hfv disk image (created in Windows, such as the starter disk mentioned above), you can rename it with the.img extension for mounting under OS X. B2 and SS are capable of mounting CDs, but I use DMG images for everything. Older Mac systems (pre-8.1, I think?) cannot start up from disks formatted as 'MacOS Extended' file systems.
If that is a problem, you may have to create a disk image with Disk Utility then erase and reformat it (you can only specify the disk format when you erase the disk, not when you first create it). Startup disk images made outside of B2 and SS are not always recognized by B2 and SS as valid startup disks (the System folder doesn't have the Mac system icon badge on it).
Starting up with a different disk (eg, an installer CD or the starter disk image mentioned above), and mounting the problematic startup disk image in B2 or SS, then simply opening its System folder fixes this. Mounting the disk image on a Mac booted into Classic would probably also work. Both B2 and SS crash not infrequently (eg, when editing some folder names, using some command key combos, and during other seemingly innocuous activities). There is an option to mount a host-OS folder as a disk inside the emulator, to make file exchange easy. This feature is a bit buggy, too, so if you do this, don't make your root OS X user directory the shared folder. I use a disk image to transfer files (but mounting disk images in both the host OS and in the emulator simultaneously is risky, so don't do that either!).
You might also consider keeping your Classic applications on a separate disk image from the startup disk image. There are how-to's scattered on the Web for B2 and SS. Is a good place to start.
They also run for support questions. robg adds: The ROM downloads linked in this hint are all provided by Apple, they are not pirated versions. I have not tested this one. If you are going to do so, I recommend a good backup first, just in case.
Yeah, games are about all I ever run in Classic, too! I still run Civilization 2 (sue me, that's the version I like!), and I just get a hankerin' to run sometimes, which was a kick-butt game that never got the marketing it deserved.
It even came out for the Mac before the PC (in 1998!). Neither of these games, AFAIK, will ever be updated to OS X.
As long as I can play these games, I will, 'cause they're great games, so why all the hate about those of us who still keep a copy of Classic around? Virtual TimeClock 2.5. I know that there are dozens of Time-recording applications available for OS X, but they all require entry of clients, projects, tasks, or other endless information for which I have no need. Virtual TimeClock does one thing, simply-it works like a regular punchclock, allowing me to clock-in/clock-out for the day and for breaks, and totals my time entries and overtime. There is a Pro version for OS X, but it costs $129-the one I have cost me $29 years ago. Until someone comes up with a replacement, I'll keep using this one.
It is quite possible for software upgrades to total MORE than the cost of new hardware. Software can be VERY expensive. I got a font editor for less than a hundred bucks 20 years ago. Now it's several hundred, and doesn't even have all the features of the old software. I am planning to use vMac to run FONTastic Plus 2.0.2 and other System 6 software which to this day still have no OS X equivalent. Apple's killing of OS 9 does not magically make new and affordable software appear. Hey, I wish it did.
Lew, I could afford a new machine every year, the cost is trivial compared to the number of hours invested in writing software. It is a matter of the number of hours invested in writing software. I have spent 20 years programming hypercard stacks for various psychology research projects. The time involved learning new programming languages and compilers then redoing much of this work would take me about 5 - 6 years if I worked on it non stop. I have more important things to do with my time.
It is sad, I have gone from teaching in a university department buying about 30 macs a year to surrendering to use microsh.t platform for all but my individual research simply because the lack of backwards compatability and steves hubris in junking hypercard. The Gee wizz look what new macs can do focus has completely stuffed many in education and research. We do not have the time resources to cope with new platforms and are faced with a choice of hours wasted rewriting software or abandoning macs for windows because of the central support that is offered. That is why those of you in the academic departments should push for Intel mac development because the systems themselves can be put together for around 500$ a piece keyboard, mouse, and monitor plus a p4 with HT, 1gb of DDR ram, 80gb HD, and DVD/RW- at that price that is the best deal there is. I am sorry to say also all of the enthusiasm for this new operating system has made it one of the most well documented ones in my opinion of fixing computers for the last 12 years.
Unix outperforms Linux and Windows as a server OS- it always has and the mach kernel is a testament to that. The real problem is the government is forcing the university system to adopt 'active directory' as its networking standard. That alone has forced you into the situation that you are in. If there was some way for you to make agreements with the univeristy to allow you to use offsite computers in your research than the sky would be the limit as you would not be constrained to those requirements (or you can lie and say that you are following them). Who knows.I just think that in the future windows will be something that only children will use.