Hi everyone. I just tried installing Panther using QEMU and everything is all set up, but i'm having a huge problem with the graphics? Everything is unbearably slow, I can't find the right resolution, and there's no sound either. It's almost unusable which is really weird.
What should I do? I'm really stuck but if it helps, here's my qemu.command file.
There is nothing wrong with your command line. Qemu is not fast when emulating OSX. There is no graphic acceleration so things are bound to be slow. The only thing you can do is lower the color depth or resolution, but that will not help much.
To have sound support, you would need to run one of our experimental builds.
However, sound is only supported reasonably well with Mac OS 9.x guests, sound in OSX guest stutters.
oh alright. it's a huge same. i'm going to look for alternatives; i'm glad i could at least use SheepShaver for OS9. the guide here was really helpful.
wavyinterlude wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2020 10:04 pm
oh alright. it's a huge same. i'm going to look for alternatives; i'm glad i could at least use SheepShaver for OS9. the guide here was really helpful.
thank you.
Your only alternative is using PearPC, which doesn't have sound or graphics acceleration, and has known issues due to the shortcuts it takes to improve speed.
adespoton wrote: ↑Mon Oct 26, 2020 4:01 pm
Your only alternative is using PearPC, which doesn't have sound or graphics acceleration, and has known issues due to the shortcuts it takes to improve speed.
Just out of curiosity, do you know what these shortcuts are?
Another is vastly simplified floating point emulation. I believe there's also some instructions that always produce dummy results, but it's been years since I've looked at the source.
Does anyone have any numbers for comparison e.g. side-by-side benchmarks run in both QEMU and PearPC? If we can identify the bottlenecks then it may be possible to do something about them.
Some benchmarks from the Skidmarks test. Both PearPC and Qemu use the same 10.3 image, and as PearPC hangs when using the G4 cpu, both tests are with the G3. So no altivec scores. Memory 128Mb. Screen set to 1024x786x32. Screen redraw in PearPC seems faster, but the INT score is substantially lower compared to Qemu, while Qemu scores considerably lower on FPU performance. Changing the screen redraw in PearPC (from 10 to 80, whatever that means) did not change the actual INT and FPU performance.
mcayland wrote: ↑Sat Oct 31, 2020 11:54 am
That's not bad at all - obviously benchmarks can be a bit artificial, but there are only 2 tests where QEMU is slower than PearPC:
Against a build from the official code.
The fpu hardfloat patch is not by mcayland, but by zoltan balaton Soon it will no longer apply to the main code, I had to fix it once already.
Discussion on the qemu developer list suggested it will not be accepted into the main code as it introduces possibly inexact results. So why test it?
Some scores from xbench derived with the same settings as above.
I have no idea whether this tool does any scaling related to the different machines/bus speeds it appears to detect.
Pearpc scores on left, qemu scores on the right. The various memory, graphics and disk speed tests suggest qemu is lagging there.
Pearpc Qemu
Results 2.98 Results 3.88
System Info
Xbench Version 1.3 Xbench Version 1.3
System Version 10.3.9 (7W98) System Version 10.3.9 (7W98)
Physical RAM 128 MB Physical RAM 128 MB
Model PowerPC (PearPC 0.5) Model PowerMac3,1
Processor PowerPC G4 @ 2.36 GHz Processor PowerPC G3 @ 900 MHz
L1 Cache 32K (instruction), 32K (data) Version Arthur v3.1
Bus Frequency 40 MHz L1 Cache 32K (instruction), 32K (data)
Video Card PearPC,display Bus Frequency 100 MHz
Drive Type EIN GEBUESCH! Drive Type QEMU HARDDISK
CPU Test 0.56 0.87
GCD Loop 234.77 12.38 Mops/sec GCD Loop 166.57 8.78 Mops/sec
Floating Point Basic 2.06 49.06 Mflop/sec Floating Point Basic 1.8 42.87 Mflop/sec
vecLib FFT 0.15 5.00 Mflop/sec vecLib FFT 0.26 8.57 Mflop/sec
Floating Point Library 17.77 3.09 Mops/sec Floating Point Library 5.54 965.13 Kops/sec