Slow performance in Mountain Lion 10.8

[almeath]

When I was using Lion 10.7, I setup installations of MacOS 7.5.5. and 8.1 that both worked flawlessly.

I have upgraded to Mountain Lion, and now those same installations are extremely slow. They both boot up to the desktop and function "normally" except for extreme graphical lag.

For example, I'll click the Apple icon and then move the cursor up and down the menu, only for the cursor to move about 1 second out of sync. It takes an additional second for a menu item to highlight after the cursor has been moved over it. Same thing happens on all color depths and window sizes, full screen or windowed (in both 7.5.5 and 8.1), so something seems to be slowing down the graphical processing from within the emulator itself, not the emulated systems.

I am using the recommended settings (JIT compiler etc) but even playing around with disabling and enabling certain settings seems to have no effect.

Incidentally, the upgrade did not effect the performance of SheepShaver, just Basilisk II. I realize they are two different pieces of software, but I know they share some code, so perhaps that might shed some light on something.

Does anyone else have this problem with Basilisk II in Mountain Lion and is there a build for 10.8 in the works?

Adam

[Ronald P. Regensburg]

Yes, I noticed the slow graphics in vasi's BasiliskII build for 10.6 under Mountain Lion. The older 4 October 2009 UB build still runs fine in Mountain Lion. You can simply replace the BasiliskII application in your setup. (You will still need the newer BasiliskIIGUI application, the one included with the older BasiliskII build is PPC only.)

A newer build is only useful when improvements are made to the source code, but nothing is happening there. Moreover, the existing source does not allow compiling in Lion or later.

[almeath]

Thanks. It works now using the 2009 build.

[sentient06]

Do we have any sort of collection of different versions of Basilisk?

I was wondering if I can try to compile this UB from 04/10/2009 again, do we have the code used by then?

I have 3 different versions here, one of them works just fine, but the date created is 10/10/2011, so I'm not sure if it is the same with a changed date or is another version. Also, it seems to be intel only, so I suppose it is different.

The other ones are one UB and one intel I compiled myself. Both are quite slow on Mountain Lion.

Also, I have two sources for Basilisk. One is the cebix/macemu repository and the other is the tycho/basiliskii. My compilation is from the second one.
What are your opinions about both versions?

[Ronald P. Regensburg]

As the version number may not change for years, we usually use the build date to identify the different builds.

The cebix/macemu repository is the 'official' place for the BasiliskII and SheepShaver source code.

Tycho has been working on the code, trying to improve SheepShaver performance, but we have not heard from him for over year. He has posted in SheepShaver forum as Tycho.

Both 4 October 2009 and the 10 October 2011 builds are still available for download, see the sticky and locked topic in this forum.

The performance problem of the 10 October 2011 build has been reported with Mountain Lion only.

[09mai2013]

would this mean, that in the sense of this thread, I should use BasiliskII.app from the BasiliskII_UB_20091004.zip file, instead of the version 10.6 ?

(I'm offsite and can't tell right now whether Mac OS X 10.8.3 allows me to run that version at all, or has a Forbidden sign).

[Ronald P. Regensburg]

You can try both and see which version runs best for you. The 10.6 version runs fine in OSX 10.6 and probably in OSX 10.7, but it definitely has a performance probem in OSX 10.8. The older 2009 version does not have that problem.

[09mai2013]

BasiliskII 10.6 and BasiliskII from BasiliskII_UB_20091004.zip run the same for me, on a iMac i5, MacOS X 10.8.3. With both, my system 7.6.1, Rom Quadra610, restarts within 15 seconds. Further tests have not been done and it would be word processing anyway.

BasiliskII from BasiliskII_UB_20091004.zip shows a green tiger as its icon instead of 6/7 icon, and required lowering security, which Basilisk II 10.6 does not require.

Peter.

[Ronald P. Regensburg]

BasiliskII from BasiliskII_UB_20091004.zip shows a green tiger as its icon instead of 6/7 icon, and required lowering security, which Basilisk II 10.6 does not require.

It is a green basilisk (a legendary reptile).

You probably refer to the Gatekeeper security settings. If you have those set to the default middle setting, you do not need to change the setting to launch non-signed applications for the first time. You can get past Gatekeeper by control-click or right-click, use Open from the contextual menu, and confirm that you want to proceed.

Maybe BasiliskII-10.6 is signed by the developer who built it. I wouldn't know, I have Gatekeeper set to the lowest setting always. Of course 4 year old applications are never signed and none of my builds are signed.

[blastter]

I'm trying to run it, in a macbook pro 15" retina, and it's slow, and it doesn't refresh the emulator screen so you've to pass the mouse all over the screen, so you can see, also de the Mac Menu, for system 7.1, it's behind the window frame, so it's very difficult to use, the mouse is not showed and many other problems. is it a config problem or software problem?.
Thanks!.

[Ronald P. Regensburg]

I do not know if BasiliskII has special issues with a Retina display.

Which BasiliskII builds did you try? (note download name or date, not version number)

If Finder info on the application shows a "Open in Low Resolution" option, best enable that. Alternatively you can try to adjust the screen resolution in Display System Preferences to "Scaled" and "Larger Text".
See also: http://support.apple.com/kb/HT5266

As for your config settings, please paste the content here:
Launch Terminal (in /Applications/Utilities/) and type in Terminal window at the prompt:

Code: Select all

open .basilisk_ii_prefs

followed by a return.
The file will open in TextEdit. Select all, copy, and paste here.

[blastter]

Dear Ronald:
Thank you very much for your response, as I read on this forum, I'm using the version 20091004, with the laucher specified on the download seccition of the forum.
Thakn you, again.

Here is the configuration:
disk /Users/albineugentrotterecheverria/test1.image
disk /Users/albineugentrotterecheverria/Downloads/DiskTools_MacOS8.image
disk /Users/albineugentrotterecheverria/Downloads/partes os7
extfs /
screen win/1024/768
seriala /dev/cu.Bluetooth-Modem
serialb /dev/null
ether slirp
udptunnel false
udpport 6066
rom /Users/albineugentrotterecheverria/Downloads/BasiliskII UB 20091004/PERFORMA.ROM
bootdrive 0
bootdriver 0
ramsize 33554432
frameskip 0
modelid 14
cpu 4
fpu true
nocdrom false
nosound false
noclipconversion false
nogui false
jit true
jitfpu true
jitdebug false
jitcachesize 2048
jitlazyflush true
jitinline true
keyboardtype 5
keycodes true
keycodefile /Users/albineugentrotterecheverria/Downloads/BasiliskII UB 20091004/keycodes
mousewheelmode 1
mousewheellines 3
dsp /dev/dsp
mixer /dev/mixer
ignoresegv true
idlewait true

[Ronald P. Regensburg]

The settings look OK.

Have you tried changing display resolutions in OSX Display System Preferences?

[ReddestDream]

I'm having a similar problem with the 20091004 build of Basilisk II (System 7.5.5) on a Retina Macbook Pro (OSX 10.8.4).

I tried changing the display resolutions in OSX Display System Preferences, but that had no effect.

The 20111010 build works without graphical issues, but it does lag . . .

I tried checking the "Open in Low Resolution" box, but it had no effect on either build. The checkbox won't stay checked . . . first I've ever seen of this issue . . .

Frankly, I'm out of ideas . . . If anyone has any suggestions or other builds, I'd be more than happy to help test them. I can also provide screenshots and my preference settings.

[uyjulian]

Same here, however I only get slowness with full screen.

[Renegade]

Hi,

I just wanted to report that the slowness problem has gotten worse under OS X Mavericks (Dp1 & Dp2)

Even the 4th October 2009 build seems sluggish now...

Bye.

[uyjulian]

Hi,

I just wanted to report that the slowness problem has gotten worse under OS X Mavericks (Dp1 & Dp2)

Even the 4th October 2009 build seems sluggish now...

Bye.

Remember, that is only a dev version
Things could change.

[adespoton]

Hi,

I just wanted to report that the slowness problem has gotten worse under OS X Mavericks (Dp1 & Dp2)

Even the 4th October 2009 build seems sluggish now...

Bye.

Remember, that is only a dev version
Things could change.

Dev versions tend to have a bunch of trace flags turned on; they're almost alwAys slower than public builds.

[Renegade]

Remember, that is only a dev version
Things could change.

That's right.
This could be a graphic driver issue. If people complaining about slowness with ≥10.8 could tell which video chipset they use, this might give some clue...
My hackintosh is running a couple of ATi HD7950.
I remember when running 10.8 without QE/CI with my previous pair of graphic cards (HD6950), I hadn't any problem with B.II

[Renegade]

It has gotten even worse with Mavericks DP6 (well, somewhere between DP2 and DP5 actually).

I tested with SpaceWard Ho! 4, which is now totaly unplayable.

Edit 08/23/2013 : replaced DP5 by DP6

2nd edit : booted 10.9DP6 without extensions (-x parameter), doesn't change anything.

[axxo1]

Hi,

I just wanted to report that the slowness problem has gotten worse under OS X Mavericks (Dp1 & Dp2)

Even the 4th October 2009 build seems sluggish now...

Bye.

Remember, that is only a dev version
Things could change.

Dev versions tend to have a bunch of trace flags turned on; they're almost alwAys slower than public builds.

Just replaced my dev with a public.

I must admit the performance improvement is quite noticeable.

[Ronald P. Regensburg]

Just replaced my dev with a public.

Huh? Public version of Mavericks?

[Cat_7]

I would suggest we have to think about the possibility of spam here.

Cat_7

[Janichsan]

Whether axxo1 was spamming or not, he was right: Basilisk II is painfully slow under Mavericks, no matter which version.

I have tried all recent versions listed here (1 March 2014, March 2013, October 2011) and all the specific builds with AppleTalk support here, and none achieves more than a low single digit framerate, independently from the settings.

The October 2009 version is unusable on my Retina MacBook Pro, just like ReddestDream describes. The graphics are limited to the upper left quarter of the window, scaled wrong and don't update properly. (To my knowledge, this is a problem that older builds of the SDL library have on Retina Macs. Similar problems also occur with other applications and games that use SDL.)

In it's current state, Basilisk does not seem to be useable under Mavericks and/or Retina Macs.

[Ronald P. Regensburg]

Depends what is important to you. If you want to run some games without severe stuttering, best use the March 2013 build (combined with the October 2011 GUI). However, other things, like the Finder are very slow in that build.

If you do not need to run those specific games satisfactorily, better use the March 2014 build. It is more responsive in most other software.

Set Window refresh rate to: "Dynamic"

What did you choose for RAM Size, Mac Model ID, and CPU type?

Enable JIT compiler: on
Compile FPU instructions: off
Translation Cache Size (KB): 8192
Enable lazy invalidation of translation cache: on
Translate through constant jumps: on

What causes the large and inconsistent differences in performance between different builds is not known yet. We hope for vasi to look into this when he has time.