For Hypercard 2.4.1 - Sheepshaver or Basilisk?

About SheepShaver, a PPC Mac emulator for Windows, MacOS X, and Linux that can run System 7.5.3 to MacOS 9.0.4.

Moderators: Cat_7, Ronald P. Regensburg, ClockWise

Post Reply
Chuck
Student Driver
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2011 1:08 pm

For Hypercard 2.4.1 - Sheepshaver or Basilisk?

Post by Chuck »

Greetings everyone.

I'm trying to find the best way of running Hypercard 2.4.1 (released 1998) on my Intel Mac Mini. I assumed Sheepshaver would be best, until I read this: http://www.inquirium.net/blog/entry_142.php

This site recommends Basilisk, not S'shaver for Hypercard. Can anyone here confirm this?

Many thanks in advance.
Silent Flamer
Master Emulator
Posts: 430
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 7:35 am

Post by Silent Flamer »

HyperCard 2.4.1 is compatible with both 68k and PowerPC , right?

Basilisk II currently has the most problems , mostly the black screen problem . It is probably a good idea to use SheepShaver instead .
User avatar
24bit
Forum All-Star
Posts: 1424
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 5:47 pm
Location: Germany

Post by 24bit »

Hi,
Hypercard 2.4.1 is fat binary. It will work with both 68k and PPC machines therefore.
Hypercard 2.1 is 68k only, but it works with SheepShaver too.
Personally, I would prefer the Shaver, but it always depends on what you want to do with the emulated Mac.
SheepShaver may be a bit more versatile thinking of different OS´s and more "modern" apps.
BasiliskII may be somewhat faster at booting and useful if you want to play with System7.1.
You should try both and decide yourself.
Best wishes!
Last edited by 24bit on Fri Apr 22, 2011 7:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
emendelson
Forum All-Star
Posts: 1706
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 12:12 am

Post by emendelson »

Since you're running OS X, either one will do, but Basilisk does boot far more quickly. It's easy enough to set up both.

The "black screen" problem doesn't apply to Basilisk running under OS X, only under Windows, so that's not an issue that should affect you.
Chuck
Student Driver
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2011 1:08 pm

Post by Chuck »

Thanks
Last edited by Chuck on Sat Aug 13, 2011 3:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
24bit
Forum All-Star
Posts: 1424
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 5:47 pm
Location: Germany

Post by 24bit »

Wow, a 18MB stack!
If you got a stack with a few MB for testing, I could tell you if it will perform nicer with BII or SS.
With MiniBench2 I am getting a score of 14 (one four) with BII, whereas SS will get 230 with the same E5700/10.6.7 host.
Of course benchmarks have little to do with real life performance.

For your very old work from the days of System6 you might also consider MiniVMac.
MiniVMac boots all old Systems up to 7.5, but coloured versions with sound are still under development.
If you just want to run your stack, MiniVMac might be a nice and small portable solution.

Best wishes!
emendelson
Forum All-Star
Posts: 1706
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 12:12 am

Post by emendelson »

Gunnermanz wrote:Thanks everyone for your comments. I really appreciate it. Trying both is indeed probably the practical solution. But I confess I find all this a bit intimidating and was hoping there might be a decisive choice between one or the other. I guess it would be possible to install both, wouldn't it? If Hypercard is fat binary, I suppose it might run at the same speed under either emulator?
A lot of us will be very grateful to hear your results. And yes, you can certainly install both. I have both installed on my Mac. They don't conflict in any way.
Post Reply