help! sheepshaver is soooooo slow in generic mode but jit won't work! it gets up to and just sits there. when i boot it with extensions disabler it looks like this: my config file is:
------------------------
nosound false
nogui false
noclipconversion false
ignoresegv true
idlewait true
seriala file
serialb file
nonet false
jit true
jit68k false
frameskip 5
ramsize 268435456
rom d:\sheepshaver\macos8.6.rom
windowmodes 7
screenmodes 63
gfxaccel true
disk d:\sheepshaver\machd.hfv
cdrom F:
nocdrom false
bootdrive 0
bootdriver 0
pollmedia true
enableextfs false
debugextfs false
extdrives CDE
keyboardtype 5
keycodes false
mousewheelmode 1
mousewheellines 3
------------------------
and my os is windows as you can see from the prefs file and the screenshots.
It seems nobody here knows what your problem is
But let me give it a try: from the config file I gather you are using a rom file from Mac OC 8.6? If so, you should try the rom file from the apple rom update 1.0. The rom itself is version 1.6
Yes, If I remember correctly, Sheepshaver has to have a certain instruction set to run correctly and that P4s have it. Oh and also you need a windows NT based os XP pro, XP home, or 2000. Sheepshaver is very very early in it's port to windows so dont cry. Just use linux if your so mad that it doesnt work right. Oh, and what processor speed are you running at TheBigB? Because no JIT on 3.0 GHz really is okay speed wise.
Got it. Good.
Ah, hmm, something worth to know about then. AltiVec emulation uses SSE if available, or MMX if available, or generic code. SSE and MMX implementations uses GCC intrinsics, i.e. gcc generated code from specific builtins, not inline direct assembly code.
GCC intrinsics for SSE or MMX used to be broken or operands not correctly ordered depending on gcc versions. Linux versions I use are right because I test them there and also because I maintain the compilation toolchain. I have no control over cygwin compiler and I don't intend to build it myself.
So, I will probably have to rewrite SSE and MMX parts in assembly instead of using elegant intrinsics (which come from ICC, by the way). A new JIT is also an option, since the current implementation is slow but easily portable.
i'll try to extract the rom on my pc using sheepshaver since my old performa 6116CD isn't up right now. if anyone wants to give me their extracted rom just contact me on aim (CyBrian1) thank you.
TheBigB wrote:i'll try to extract the rom on my pc using sheepshaver since my old performa 6116CD isn't up right now. if anyone wants to give me their extracted rom just contact me on aim (CyBrian1) thank you.
Neospy wrote:Yes, If I remember correctly, Sheepshaver has to have a certain instruction set to run correctly and that P4s have it.
SheepShaver uses the "CMOV" instruction which is available on every CPU since the Pentium-Pro (K6 in AMDs).
gb wrote:A new JIT is also an option, since the current implementation is slow but easily portable.
Why not borrow the PearPC JIT? It's quite fast and stable, fully windows compatible, and also has an MMU, so OSX will work on SheepShaver. That shouldn't be a legal problem if SheepShaver is GPL'd (BTW is it GPL'd?).
PPC_Digger wrote:Why not borrow the PearPC JIT? It's quite fast and stable, fully windows compatible, and also has an MMU, so OSX will work on SheepShaver.
Well, OSX would not work. With people using the mac os rom update, the rom is identified as a Power Mac 9500 series WGS 9650 series. With a MMU though, we could run 9.1 and 9.2, 9.2.1, and 9.2.2. The only catch with 9 is that we could run OS9forever's OS9helper like I did on my 5500/250.
>neospy 8)
I reached the rank of Moved-In! Yay for me!
P.S. I have a link to my site on pearpc.net they added me and I didn't even a sk! yay!
PearPC emulator could be interesting to debug NanoKernel replacements but (i) it's suboptimal too, (ii) likely to still contains bugs since nobody compiled a testsuite yet. Besides, I already have the necessary infrastructure for x86 and x86-64 code generation, better optimizations, etc. Time is simply lacking.
And BTW, having MMU emulation won't make SheepShaver automagically run OSX.
When I say current SheepShaver JIT is slow, that's because current slow down factor (vs. native code) is around 7.5, which makes it run at 13% of native speed. That's not really bad, but the plan is to get more than 40%
I have a mobile AMD Athlon-4 (a rare model between tb and xp) with an S3 ProSavage GPU, and SheepShaver with JIT works fine on both Windows 2000 and Linux.
Good to hear it works for you PPC_Digger. Maybe there is still hope then for getting it to work on Windows. (No time to fool around with Linux).
I also tried it on my brother's computer and JIT did not work. His at least booted into Mac OS 8.6, but the menu text was completely missing.
He has an Athlon XP (older Palomino core), 512MB, ATI video card, Windows XP.
Just one thing I forgot to ask. What ROM are you using? I'm using the Mac 8.6 ROM update (from apple site). Just wondering if you have the same or using something different. Maybe the cause.
Would like to narrow it down if possible to find out the cause.
But I also wanted to rule out CPU, Mac Rom version, Windows compiled version of Sheepshaver (& maybe the ATI video).
All 3 machines I tested on had ATI video - though this is highly unlikely to be the cause & would be the very last thing to check out.
PPC_Digger at least says his Athlon 4 runs in JIT in Windows 2000. So by taking him at his word I would believe the Athlon 4 works (& so should the later model Athlon-XP). His statement also proves that Sheepshaver (for Windows) supports JIT.
Once I have a chance I'll have to test it out with Linux to see if it works. But this will only prove that Athlon XP CPU works with JIT in Linux. Which could easily be answered if others would respond.(Save me the trouble of installing Linux to test it out).
Then if I could still not get it to work in Windows XP I would have to assume either it #1 does not work with Windows XP or #2 the windows version does not support JIT (which PPC_Digger said is not true). or #3 JIT does not work with Athlon-XP on Windows XP.
Anyone else have Sheepshaver JIT enabled in Windows (or Linux) on Athlon or Duron processor????
What mac rom? OS (Linux, NT, 2000 or XP)? What CPU? What video card?
well here is my setup and it does not run with jit on
WinXp with sp2
ATI AIW 9800PRO
Athlonxp Tbred-B 2100
macrom the same one as everybody else, by that i mean the one you get true the rom update link that was posted in a couple of post here in this forum
Guess I'll have to try it with Linux to see if JIT works on that OS.
Not sure when or if I'll do this because I don't want to install Linux just to compile & try out Sheepshaver. I also don't use the Mac emulator that much either so it wouldn't be too worthwhile.
I'll post my findings if I get around to trying this out.
This is what I did. I installed MS Virtual PC (lets you run other Operating Systems). Under Virtual PC I installed Linux (Redhat version 9). I downloaded the RPM binary version of Sheepshaver. Installed it. Then configured and ran it (still under Virtual PC w/ Redhat 9 OS).
Sheepshaver worked with JIT box checked and unchecked. Seems to run quicker in Linux than in Windows (would need benchmarks to confirm, but wouldn't be too accurtate since running under Virtual PC).
So, looks like the Windows version (XP at least) was either not ported over correctly or compiled properly. For now I'll assume the 1st. Just too bad, but on the bright side Windows users get to use a Power PC emulator.
This means that either will have to use Sheepshaver on Windows without JIT or Install Linux (dual boot) to run it with JIT.
I'm typing this message in Mozilla web browser under Redhat 9 OS in Microsoft Virtual PC which is running off of Windows XP.
Windows XP Desktop of 1024x768, Virtual PC 800x600 & SheepShaver 640x480.
Posting picture to show SheepShaver running in Redhat below.
Here is the picture (Sheepshaver off of Redhat 9 running in Virtual PC) with JIT on.
So, choices are to run with JIT off in Windows XP (not sure for NT or 2000) or get a Linux install (dual boot) to run in Linux with JIT on. Because the Athlon XP seems to support JIT in Linux.
no but thats for sure that the linux version is faster as it was worked on alot more then the newly ported win version also gb is more of a linux guy i think then a win guy
and just sits there. when i boot it with extensions disabler it looks like this: 
my config file is:
) well thanks anyway though
