Streamlining windows/taking out the middle man ??

phazey · Post by **phazey** » Mon Jun 07, 2004 3:11 pm

Hi,

I remember years and years ago at some internet show in london there was an exhibitor who changed their shell from win95/98 to netscape.

With a minimaly installed XP setup (base, directx, networking and as little possible else running) would it be possible to get the components needed *only* launched to then spawn automatically PearPC and thus OSX ? Would this present much is any of an improvement ?

Cheers,

./P

kybernaut · Post by **kybernaut** » Mon Jun 07, 2004 4:43 pm

Yeah... I know that people used to replace Explorer with other shells. And you porbably also remember 98lite (which is available as XPlite in the meantime, see http://www.litepc.com/xplite.html ).

But frankly, I doubt that such measures make sense with todays computers (and you can't use a low end PC for PearPC anyway...) You will be able to save some RAM, though.

kybernaut

Slice · Post by **Slice** » Fri Jun 11, 2004 4:10 am

you can change the shell in Win9x from Explorer to any Windows application: simply change the SHELL setting in SYSTEM.INI.

You can also run the Win95 version of Explorer on Win98, which is many many times faster. This is, of course, one of the things that 98lite can do for you automatically.

You can still change the shell in Win2k/XP with a registry setting depending on whether you want to change it for one user or for all users of the system. Unfortunately I don't know off hand which key this is. kybernaut makes a good point though - maybe it would be better to build a minimal linux system containing only what you need to run PearPC. This way you would have much more control over the overhead added by the emulator's host OS than with Windows.

ya3 · Post by **ya3** » Sat Jun 12, 2004 12:10 am

oooohhh! that'd be cool :D

forgive my newbiness to *nix, but couldn't you just
install the Linux shell and get PPC running on that?
or does it require the X-Windows system?

or even better... just get onto eBay and buy one of
the many sub-$300 iMac G3s available.

Slice · Post by **Slice** » Sat Jun 12, 2004 1:03 am

You're asking the wrong person.

CaptainValor · Post by **CaptainValor** » Sat Jun 12, 2004 1:10 am

Eh, I'd rather spend $100 or less for some Panther or Jaguar install disks than 300+ on an iMac that would run slower than PearPC.

ya3 · Post by **ya3** » Sat Jun 12, 2004 6:52 am

CaptainValor wrote:Eh, I'd rather spend $100 or less for some Panther or Jaguar install disks than 300+ on an iMac that would run slower than PearPC.

wtf? You're kidding, right? PearPC runs faster than an iMac G3????

kybernaut · Post by **kybernaut** » Sat Jun 12, 2004 12:27 pm

ya3 wrote:
CaptainValor wrote:Eh, I'd rather spend $100 or less for some Panther or Jaguar install disks than 300+ on an iMac that would run slower than PearPC.
wtf? You're kidding, right? PearPC runs faster than an iMac G3????

He IS kidding...

CaptainValor · Post by **CaptainValor** » Sat Jun 12, 2004 4:47 pm

Didn't mean to throw you off there.

simonjhall · Post by **simonjhall** » Sat Jun 12, 2004 9:08 pm

In a couple of months time (hopefully) PPC *will* be faster than a crappy 233/450 MHz G3

What would be very cool is if Apple properly recognised PearPC and did some kinda driver thing for it - eg with VMware, most Linux distros come with the VMware X server. So you're installing OS X, and it sez '... your PearPC gfx card has been detected, installing drivers...."
Sweet

CaptainValor · Post by **CaptainValor** » Sat Jun 12, 2004 11:39 pm

Just one problem: Apple is NOT the open source community.