Windows 2000 vs Mac OS 9 LAPTOP BRAIN SWAP!

Thanks PCBWay.com - Today we're running Windows 2000 on top of Mac OS 9, and Mac OS 9 on top of Windows 2000. What software can rwe run? Which one will be worse? What in the sweet Spindler is wrong with me?
Let's find out together!
Try this madness yourself:
Virtual PC with Windows 2000 on Macintosh Garden: macintoshgarden.org/apps/virt...
══════════════════════════
💾 For more vintage Apple stuff, please subscribe: kzbin.info?s...
💾 Support these retro computing shenanigans on Patreon! / actionretro
══════════════════════════
Check out my Amazon page with links to my tools, adapters, soldering equipment, camera gear and more: www.amazon.com/shop/actionretro
══════════════════════════
💬 Come talk about old computers on the BitBang Social Mastodon! bitbang.social
══════════════════════════
#Windows2000 #Macintosh #VirtualPC

[@DistrosProjects]

I wonder if anyone will ever get Windows NT 4 PowerPC edition working on PowerMacs. It's theoretically possible with a custom bootloader that can load ntoskrnl from NTFS (as well as a lot of custom dlls and drivers for the open firmware framebuffer, adb and usb controller, hardware abstraction layer, etc).

[@magesnz]

It would be lots of work to do a project like that but I’m all for it :)

[@andrive]

Yeah

[@polypolyman]

NT4 for PPC was little-endian only - is it possible to get these macs into LE mode without seriously modifying the firmware?

[@DistrosProjects]

@@polypolyman huh, didn't know that. it probably isn't possible to then since it would require firmware mods for sure, probably major ones.

[@amdintelxsniperx]

@@polypolyman the g5s can run little endiun mode apparently

[@sonicunleashedfan124]

You had the opportunity to call it MacinToshiba and you missed it. But very informative video nonetheless

[@georgeh6856]

Back in the day when Apple was licensing Mac System OS to OEMs, I saw an IBM PowerPC-based tower which would natively triple boot into AIX (IBM's Unix), Mac System OS, or Windows NT for PowerPC. It was kind of cool, but I don't think it was ever sold to customers. I also don't know whether IBM was able to share files between the three OSes which would have been difficult given the three different filesystems.

[@a4e69636b]

This computer sounds neat. Do you have more information on it?

[@georgeh6856]

@@a4e69636b I only saw one very informal demo of one of these machines in a lab because a friend of mine was putting these machines together. As far as I know, they never shipped as finished products but may have been demoed to a few customers.

[@a4e69636b]

@@georgeh6856 Some people have all the luck. Wish I could have seen that.

[@Eyetrauma]

The 'Windows' version of DF runs under DOS, the setup program offering to let you create a boot disk and the text-mode installer are evidence of this. That's why you didn't have sound. I'm impressed (doubly so) that it worked as well as it did, first running a DOS game in an NT-based system and VirtualPC handling those graphics modes as well as it did. As a big fan of Ram Doubler and VGS back in the day those Connectix folks were legendary, no surprise MS bought them out.

[@robmcleod2876]

Win2k would have needed something like vdmsound installed to get sound in DF working. Dos out of the box in win2k was not a great experience without extra tools

[@CotyRiddle]

or it could be that the vm on the mac actually did not have the proper support to get sound out of win2k. Did not see the speaker icon in the task bar which useually indicates no sound hardware installed.

[@alexanderd.7818]

Don’t forget that with Dark Forces on windows it’s actually a double layered emulation because NTVDM is a virtual machine as well. Windows is emulating DOS while being run on emulated CPU.

[@doq]

I saw "BRAIN SWAP" and I thought we were switching boards but this is way more interesting.

[@eDoc2020]

The problems when you try to nest the VMs are probably due to them not fully emulating the CPUs, most likely the memory management units. I know SheepShaver doesn't properly emulate the PPC MMU so you can't enable virtual memory functionality in Mac OS. I would presume Virtual PC requires virtual memory to be enabled and this is likely why it doesn't work. The installer probably enabled virtual memory and this is why your Mac OS VM won't boot anymore. As for why SheepShaver won't run in the emulated PC, I don't know enough to say. It's probably a similar reason. If you want better luck you might want to try QEMU instead of SheepShaver.

[@DavisMakesGames]

Hackintosh AND reverse hackintosh in the same video! Perfect. Would be interesting to try something like this with my Windows 98 laptop.

[@yeahthatkornel]

Theyre not hackintosh to be honest. You would have to install mac os directly to the pc harddrive and boot from it. In the video they are emulated/virtualized.

[@MichaelAStanhope]

HAHA! I was wondering why you wanted that Toshiba Satellite. That is a pretty decent laptop for a PC. Its small, fairly quick, and fully kitted out with ports. At least its an active matrix screen. :)

[@RetroGameStream]

Only recently found your channel and it's quickly become one of my favs. Great job! Keep up the interesting videos!

[@CygnusTM]

This might be the most shenanigan-est of your shenanigans thus far. Great job!

[@RyanMartinez]

You know what you should do now? Do an "Upgrade From Version 1.0/Beta" Windows and macOS marathon! Which means you're going to have to start from old hardware, transition through HDD swap into newer hardware as you go (dd to SSDs?) or use upgrade/CPU cards, all in an effort to make it to the 2022 hardware finish-line. So, from 68k to PPC to Intel to Apple Silicon on the macOS side and from Intel 8088 to x86 to x64 to ARM (only if you want and if possible) on the PC/DOS/Windows side of things. I'm kind of curious what you'll end up with. What files are left on the drive. What hoops you had to jump through.

[@sbrazenor2]

There are some problems. Let's look at just the Apple side. Different OSes require different drive formats and won't usually run on legacy setups after a point, and have different partition limits, etc. Then you have the issue of the hardware, such as CPU types. There were a lot of differences from platform to platform, and while things like Rosetta and Rosetta II helped with application support in MacOS, the OS itself was limited in what it would cooperate with depending on version. Then, if we're talking about using the same drive, you have to realize that you're going from SCSI, to IDE, to SATA, to M.2 (non-PCIe), to PCI-e NVMe. Lots of bridges to cross and complications. Windows might be a bit more forgiving. You can technically still run MS-DOS on a modern computer. I just don't think that any newer version of Windows will run on an older format for the drive than NTFS. (Admittedly I haven't tried.) I think the only thing that would still be able to go from the bottom to the top in compatibility would be BSD. You can still run modern FreeBSD on a 386 compatible system, in theory, and the oldest version on modern hardware. (Likely there will be some issues, but it's said to be possible.) You can still also use something like UFS as a format, I think, but I'm not sure.

[@8BitRetroJournal]

I love that you tried to nest emulation. Would be pretty cool to see a Mac run an emulated Mac OS. I just got my first Mac in 20+ years and it works...a PowerBook 180.

[@chrisfraser-smith5799]

I tried that. Turns out you can run a higher os in emulation, than the Mac supports officially !

[@8BitRetroJournal]

@@chrisfraser-smith5799 for April 2023 I ended up doing a inception video of emulators. It had a QL emulated by an Amiga emulated by a Mac emulated by Amiga emulated by PC which itself was an iMac 2011, and it all sort of worked well

[@BrianJones-wk8cx]

You evil genius, you. These are the shenanigans that make KZbin worth watching. Good work outta you, as per usual!

[@MarcoGPUtuber]

Answering the questions I never knew I needed to know!

[@TheMalMeninga]

Pokemon battle? More like Digi-mon battle!

[@40percentyt]

Virtualization often requires a special processor instructionset, and this probably isn't passed down to the virtual machine. Perhaps this isn't the case with machines this old, but nested virtualization has always been a steep mountain to climb.

[@eDoc2020]

Modern virtualization CPU extensions only help if you are virtualizing the same type of CPU. An x86 can hardware virtualize x86 and ARM can hardware virtualize ARM. If the CPUs are different (or don't support hardware virtualization) the processor simulation needs to be done in software which ranges from slow to very slow to extremely slow.

[@FluffyAnvil]

There is no virtualization going on here at all, but pure emulation. Sheepshaver is not that remarkable when it comes to emulation as it basically only does CPU emulation (and nothing special at that), sheepshaver did a lot of os patching though to allow it bypass emulating a lot of actual hardware (basillisk ii does the same thing). VirtualPC on the other hand did no such thing, it emulates actual hardware and this is why it was compatible with everything from DOS to Linux, it did have drivers for windows etc though to improve the experience a bit (similar to guest tool additions in vmware). VirtualPC used a lot of tricks to allow it to translate x86 code very efficiently, the absolutely hardest thing to emulate with speed is the MMU (Sheepshaver does not even attempt this) and obviously virtual pc did this pretty darn good, I believe the overall emulation speed was on average around 33% of native performance (PowerPC performance) which was not that bad at all, considering it was a software only solution- that cost about $200 if I recall correctly, compared that to OrangePC and similar extension cards that was basically PCs on a PCI card which cost 10-20 times that and still didn't offer a lot better performance (as they maxed out at 200Mhz Pentium MMX if I remember correctly) a performance level obtainable by VirtualPC on a 300-400Mhz G3/G4 machine. VirtualPC 2 even supported PCI passthrough so you could use a dedicated Voodoo card for graphics acceleration (cause unfortunately graphics was the area where VirtualPC never did shine).

[@kFY514]

Classic Mac OS relies heavily on routines in the Toolbox ROM, which makes it relatively easy to bypass hardware drivers, that's why classic Mac emulators could achieve so many features very early on, even back in the Amiga/Atari days. 68k and PPC are also much easier to virtualize than x86. I think even PPC OSX is relatively easy to virtualize, evident by the fact that projects like Mac-on-Linux got it running, and that never attempted to emulate all the hardware like x86 virtualization software does. Apple seems to be going a similar route again with Apple Silicon macOS VMs; the VirtualMac environment relies heavily on virtio devices instead of even attempting to simulate real M1 peripherals.

[@FluffyAnvil]

@@kFY514The Toolbox ROM has very little to do with drivers, especially on PowerPC hardware. MacOnLinux (which I'm one of the listed contributors of for that matter) was one of the first pieces of software that basically virtualised the PowerPC, that was the entire point of the project- it was originally implemented on Linux only where it required quite invasive patches to the Linux kernel; once the mac-on-linux kernel extension was loaded it took control of the MMU so it could "splitmode" it to allow Linux and the virtualised environment to have their own set of pagetables- so in many ways maconlinux was a hypervisor. In practice this meant that it emulated supervisor mode of the PowerPC, later versions of MacOnLinux was ported to run on kvm and MacOS X vmm framework (written by Connectix/Microsoft for VirtualPC) I believe. It did emulate some hardware, especially things required early in the boot process such as serial controller, pci bus etc, other things was smoke and mirrors (similar to virtio drivers) where a guest driver was installed in whatever guest system you were running (but most commonly MacOS 9 or X) and funneled the data received through the linux side then leveraged the linux capabilities to something with the data. PowerPC Mac OS never had any toolbox traps however, that was something that was used in the 68k environment- but since MacOS 7,8,9 at core was run by an emulator the "core" was always running in 68k mode, so when a 68k binary encountered a A-line instruction (ie an instruction starting with 0xAxxx) a real 68k trapped this and it was dispatched to the toolbox lookup, similarly the emulator would of course trap this and allow it to be dispatched through the registered handler, but this only applied to 68k software. PowerPC software did not use traps at all. Classic on Mac OS X was a kind of virtualisation as well, but it replaced the nano kernel SPIs, which of course is a much much cleaner solution but on the other hand only would work to virtualise macos 9, MacOnLinux virtualised the hardware and basically any system that could run on a blue and white g3 would run within maconlinux. I'm not sure where you got the idea that x86 virtualisation attempts to emulate all hardware, the entire point of virtualisation is that you do not emulate.

[@kFY514]

@@FluffyAnvil Wow, that's very interesting and insightful information, thank you! By "all hardware", I meant everything except the CPU. Prior to the introduction of virtio drivers and the like, I believe that's what x86 VM software were doing, emulating all kinds of stuff like interrupt controllers, video adapters, storage controllers etc. From MOL FAQ: > Q: Is MOL similar to VMWare on x86? > A: With the reservation that I have never tested VMWare, yes. MOL does not emulate hardware though (according to the rumors, VMWare does this (?)). That's where I got the idea of there being a fundamental difference and assumed that MOL works more like SheepShaver when it comes to all kinds of IO.

[@VicTheVicar]

Sheepshaver is great and all for doing crazy Mac stuff on your PC, but it's not the most stable emulator even on modern hardware.

[@GodSaveTheUnitedStates]

Love the content, even if you are an Apple guy! I love my mid 2012 macbook pro for general tasks like web browsing, KZbin, and other media related tasks, but for gaming I've always been a Windows PC shill. Keep up the great content!

[@sixteenbitify]

I’m so happy to finally see my former Kanga G3 in one of your videos at last.

[@NoobixCube]

You missed a great opportunity to name the Toshiba running Mac OS 9 the ToshinMac.

[@jasondailey9402]

Compare to now, when I can run Windows through Parallels on my M1 iMac, playing x86 Skyrim SE at 30-60 FPS at a little over 1080p, while running a bunch of mods.

[@HugoFaria-AZ]

been waiting for this since.. well.. yesterday when I saw it on Twitter xD

[@theretromillennial]

You are a madman and I love it.

[@monkeyman767]

God I forgot how much I liked the look of the OS9 disk, I think I still have the one that came with my G3 iMac (which I also still have), I never even thought of doing something like this, but now...I kinda have to try it out

[@andrive]

This is great man

[@WillOnSomething]

"The Macintosh Operating System.... Windows 2000... while watching them run at the same time isn't terribly special, watching them run from different computers, is."

[@alexis0a]

I like so much this kind of videos answering questions no one made, it's so cool, I'd like to emulate System 1.0 on my Apple Silicon Mac but can't fin any way to do it, I only can run Mac OS 9 and was fun, SheepShaver does't look to work :(

[@kFY514]

When emulating classic Macs, the go-to emulators are: Mini vMac - for classic-era (first-gen) 68k Macs; it specifically emulates a Mac Plus and thus supports System 1.0 through 7.6.1 Basilisk II - for 1990s 68k Macs; it can emulate either a IIci or a Quadra 900 and thus supports System 7.x, 8.0 and 8.1; it can also reportedly run System 6, but I couldn't get it to run SheepShaver - for high-level emulation of early PowerPC Macs; runs MacOS 7.5.2 through 9.0.4 QEMU/UTM - for low-level emulation of later G3 and G4 based Macs; runs MacOS 9.1, 9.2 and PPC OS X There's also Shoebill, which was a short-lived project tailor-fit to run A/UX. There's also Mark Cave-Ayland's fork of QEMU (hopefully will get upstreamed some time) which makes its emulation of Quadra 800 usable, and is also capable of emulating Mac OS 7.1 through 8.1 as well as A/UX. I've ran all of them just fine on Apple Silicon, although you may need to mess with the quarantine attributes, SheepShaver has no GUI that would run on modern Macs (so you'll need to modify the config file manually), the only official build of Shoebill runs through Rosetta, and that Quadra 800 build of QEMU has to be compiled from sources. But other than that, you definitely can run everything from System 1.0 to PPC OSX on Apple Silicon.

[@alexis0a]

@@kFY514 Thank you so much! Can I save your comment on my notes? And I'll look for mor information, for my is not the easiest thing in the world, to try LisaEmulator I've had to run Windows 10 ARM and then install the emulator there haha

[@carlosr1176]

Very informative video and fun to watch. I wish you would show the most modern and fastest pc running the oldest Mac OS it can all the way up to OS9. Can it run faster than the fastest OS9 machine? And what is the fastest Classic Mac OS machine? In emulation I mean. Has emulation taken the classic OS and made it faster than it can be on native hardware? Are we at that level yet?

[@lepidotos]

No, because there will always be latency to emulation so it will feel slower, and most of the speed increases we've seen have been due to 64-bit, multicore chips, the former of which Mac OS 9 doesn't have any support for and the latter of which doesn't help it; it technically can see and use the other core but unless a program has been written expressly for it, it's not going to be helpful at all. So there's really just emulating a G4 at higher clock speeds, but for every piece of software that supports Mac OS 9, the only one I can really see benefiting from more than a single 1.42/GeForce4 Ti combo is maybe Classilla. And even then, you can just get a 2GHz 7448 card.

[@baconfister]

I’m an old school sort of fellow, so I think that a great set of benchmarks would be: Quake I, Quake II, Unreal, Unreal Tournament, and Deus Ex for proper benchmarks.

[@TheBasementChannel]

Impressive nubbin navigation there Sean. You’ve twiddled before.

[@slembcke]

(thonk) if you appreciate ActionRetro's shenanigans. :) Patreon is good too. :D

[@bibasik7]

You missed a perfect opportunity to call it a Hackintoshiba!

[@sirena7116]

Love seeing this n3rdy stuff!!

[@Rabbit_AF]

I used Parallels on 10.4, back in the day, to play Urban Assault on the B&W 1Ghz I used to have. It played normally, but to be fair it was a real old game.

[@iHusk]

You absolute maddest of lads

[@austinmerath9733]

Fun video! I have heard of an addon card (PCI?) that was for older macs that was basically A FULL PC on a pci card (processor and everything) that was specifically for running windows ON your mac and you could switch back and forth between Mac OS 9(?) and windows seamlessly because windows would run on that PCI card. Maybe you've heard of this? Maybe you could track such a unicorn down? Keep up the great content!

[@NdxtremePro]

You mean these guys? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibility_card

[@austinmerath9733]

@@NdxtremePro yes! I knew I wasn't dreaming!

[@brendanhoffmann8402]

sheepshaver is so cool. I have it, Basilisk II and mini vMac set up on my PC

[@paulwratt]

.. gets ups in the morning, "arhh I think I'll go an anoy that deadly spider" (said pointing away from the sea) ..

[@3lH4ck3rC0mf0r7]

Even a modern computer will get grumpy if you attempt to run a nested virtual machine.

[@nyk69]

qemu ppc (on any arch it supports) can run Classic on OS X. Not really a full vm, but there's that...

[@colddripgaming]

Modern computers are designed to do nested virtualisation, it’s only grumpy when you have some sort of conflict or bad configuration

[@3lH4ck3rC0mf0r7]

@@colddripgaming Actually, no. Hardware virtualization technologies like VT-x and AMD-V do not directly support nested virtualization. The hypervisor has to effectively emulate a significant part of the virtual machine's VT-x and AMD-V instruction sets in software, while leveraging as much of the host's hardware support as possible and relying on software hacks galore. Nested VMs actually run on the host hypervisor, which then has to redirect all hypervisor callbacks to the virtual machine hypervisor that requested the nested VM. In most hypervisors, nested VM emulation is optional and disabled by default, meaning nested VMs will not work out of the box, blaming either "virtualization support disabled in BIOS" or "CPU does not support virtualization" and at times, you can run into hypervisor bugs and weird behavior that can make the VMs crash.

[@colddripgaming]

@@3lH4ck3rC0mf0r7 can you provide evidence of this? I work with nested VMs every day due to my work and nothing you’ve said lines up with my knowledge or experience

[@3lH4ck3rC0mf0r7]

@@colddripgaming I've ran Windows 10's Hyper-V over KVM/Qemu on an Intel i7-6700k CPU running Arch Linux. With host-passthrough enabled (which makes KVM copy all the processor definitions from the host to the VM), enabling either Hyper-V or Virtualization-based Security on the guest caused Windows to bootloop itself before even getting to show the loading ring. I was also unable to run the Android Studio emulator on the same Windows 10 virtual machine using Intel HAXM. Both of these with KVM's nested virtualization support enabled (after all, with it disabled, Windows would boot with no VM support whatsoever). After some research, I found that, indeed, KVM's implementation of the virtualization extensions was buggy, and I would find that it'd work with other processor definitions, or with VirtualBox/VMWare as host hypervisors instead of KVM. For all I know, this particular jank I came across was probably specific to this CPU, and in any case, running nested VMs on my computer always caused significant slowdown due to the extra emulation and wasn't worth it.

[@nickwallette6201]

5:58 - No, it's MacinToshiba! haha :-D

[@WalnutSpice]

Screen on that Satellite looks so nice it looks green screened in, Larrge improvements from screens like my 4000CDS

[@zoomosis]

I remember back in the day comparing Basilisk II under NT 4.0 on an AMD K6-2 350 versus a Powerbook 190cs, benchmarking using ClarisWorks 4.0. Basilisk won by a large margin. Though it was kind of academic since there was already a native Windows version of ClarisWorks. It can still run under Windows 11.

[@graydenfisher5704]

If you can find RealPC there is a fast mode that performed most tasks a whole lot faster than VPC , but some things don’t run in that mode. Back in the day I was trying to play dark forces 2 (JediKnight 1) on it. I had a 266 beige g3. I’m way shocked that you got power PC emulation to work on that Toshiba, I was so desperate for a PPC emulator back in the day. Some real tragedies happened along the way for that development.

[@kbhasi]

(4:29) Early GTK 2 but on Windows… wow (Edit: it might even be GTK 1, because of the placement of that help menu bar item)

[@TeionM83]

I was hoping to see you install MacOS on the PC and Windows 2000 on the Mac, not virtualization. Cool video though.

[@gentuxable]

Nice Bashitosh you have

[@DavidStahlOLDHAPPyMACs]

Sean Let that be A lesson The Mac wants to be A Mac And The PC wanted to be A PC Loved the video great job as Always Sir

[@greggv8]

What I used to do circa 1998 was run Basilisk II with Mac OS 8.1 on a Pentium III running Windows 98 SE. I had a Macintosh IIci with 128 megs RAM and a 60Mhz DayStar PPC 601 card. I also had a Macintosh IIsi with maxed RAM and a dual PDS adapter with an 030 upgrade card and a 10 megabit Ethernet card. The IIci also had a 10 megabit Ethernet card. What did I do with the three? I pitted games of Bolo running on the real Macs and Basilisk II against each other. The emulator always won, even with a simple bot VS the Spielborg bot on the real Macs. The IIsi almost always finished in 3rd. With Bolo bots it's all about sheer processing power and speed. With a decent host PC the Basilisk II 68K emulation goes faster than the fastest 601 PPC Macs and far faster than any real 68K Mac. Another trick you could explore with Basilisk II is booting it off a real hard drive. I got it booting off a SCSI drive and an IDE drive pretending to be SCSI. One thing it could not do at all was partition a real hard drive. It would crash attempting to make a second partition. It worked best using a real SCSI drive. IDE drives required using the PC chipset manufacturer's drivers and I had the best luck with VIA chipsets. The standard IDE drivers included with Windows 98SE were not only slower they didn't provide whatever Basilisk II's faking of SCSI required. Using an Adaptec SCSI card required the Adaptec SCSI drivers. Same story with Window's own drivers not working or not working well with the emulator. A quick and no-hacking method to use any SCSI hard drive on an old Mac is to format it on a PC. If you're wanting it HFS on the Mac, format it FAT16. If you're wanting it HFS+ on the Mac format it FAT32. Connect it to the Mac *without* the PC/DOS support enabled. When you boot up it will ask if you want to erase the hard drive. Yes, you do. In a few seconds you'll have your drive without Apple firmware formatted for Mac, no ResEdit hacking of the Apple disk formatter required. Apparently the lower level filesystem structures of FAT16 and HFS, FAT32 and HFS+ are identical or close enough that a Mac can simply replace the PC's MBR, directory etc with its own system, and put the disk driver on it too. You just need a SCSI controller in your PC. Another use for a PC with a SCSI controller, with a BIOS and built in low level formatter, was doing a low level format to make a drive usable on a Mac after something fouled it up. FWB RAID toolkit could do some hinky stuff to a drive to where a Mac would refuse to use it - especially if the drive was in a striped array and you wanted to use it as a single drive. You can find a full copy of FWD Hard drive and CD-ROM toolkit in macintosh repository.org One thing FWB RAID Toolkit is very useful for is setting up a striped array for video capturing hardware like Media 100. I used to have a Radius clone tower and had to stripe an array across both SCSI buses in order to get a sustained write speed fast enough to capture at highest quality.

[@RichsRandomRetroReviews]

I did this YEARS ago with a Toshiba Satellite Pro 4600 from work, although it was only 68K emulation and for the PII (? Might have been a PIII), or wasn’t terribly fast. Still, having Mac OS on a PC was awesome. Oh and I had to use Virtual PC on my iMac DV to dial into work to pick up my emails from home. Our RAS servers only worked with Windows so I had to buy a copy of VPC 4.

[@flashfrozen64]

Excellent premise! Enjoying the creativity!

[@paincreatesfame]

"Today, it's the matchup that nobody's ever asked for, answering the question that no one's ever asked!" brb i'm already dying of laughter

[@RowanBird779]

7:12 Kinda like in VMWare, where it will also show an Intel i440FX board but also show whatever CPU is in the host.

[@livinMicro]

would have been neat to see a virtual box install for each to use an oranges to oranges comparison on java codebase running on diff hardware running the opposite OS - a bit more closer to hackNtosh comparison that way IMO - but this was fun for sure :)

[@AtomicGoober]

A timestamp when these ports first become available, would be cool for reference.

[@desmondwilson6118]

I love this show!

[@Slamz369]

i wonder if you could get it working by running it at top level, then clone the drive which is emulating one thing, then use that in an image, then if it works, keep taking images/snapshots and then using that as the next level?

[@travosk8668]

hey action, kinda unrelated question, where did you find your firewire hard drive enclosure? I have been looking all over the place for one but I just cant seem to find them

[@lepidotos]

OWC at least used to have them, not sure now. I think that's where he got his, though.

[@sbrazenor2]

I'm not surprised that you can't run some weird onion of operating systems. Memory allocation and processor core limits would be a serious issue on hardware this old. It's not like you can just give the VM a spare core to play with.

[@00Klingon]

I've noticed that SheepShaver sometimes corrupts the MacOS disk image when it crashes. I keep a backup copy handy for when this happens and just replace it.

[@grumps5940]

You sound ill, I hope you feel better soon.

[@ActionRetro]

Allergies 😂

[@Kyle-xv5kv]

This is crazy spooky, I posted about win2k on the community tab about emulation and BOOM! Video! :D Edit: Did you install the virtual PC addons disc on win2k? that speeds up the interface and graphics ALOT and fixes the floaty mouse.

[@rmcdudmk212]

Mac user says - Blasphemy ! Windows user says - Blasphemy ! Linux user says - Ha ha 🤣

[@hamzasafdari9360]

What?

[@nxx99]

Teacher: "the test isn't that confusing" the test:

[@jameschamplin1742]

I'm surprised Dark Forces ran. A DOS extender in an NT command prompt window? Very... interesting. Now I have to go put together a machine to run 2000 and try this myself.

[@aguiristante]

Watching this on intel Samsung galaxy tab 3 running lineage os. You've gone crazy😀

[@retr0bits545]

I have a PowerBook 1400 with windows 95 on it. If you want I’ll make a video, it’ll be crude due to me not having a proper video making software and camera.

[@MaxOakland]

I really do want to see that. I have a PowerBook 1400 and it seems like it would be too slow so I’m curious

[@retr0bits545]

@@MaxOakland I have some stuff to do first. But actually it runs very smooth. Nothing installed yet as I don’t have any games for it yet as I’m more focused on restoring my car at the moment. I’ll also find the cd the software came on.

[@parasquared]

No idea if anyone’s already said this, but Sheepshaver was probably super slow feeling because it was set to 1hz refresh rate.. because that’s the default, for some reason.

[@jacobmarzynski7719]

Should have named the drive MacinToshiba

[@newworldpuck]

OMG! I just had a vision of a retro PC card game! Someone make it please!

[@gallitagen5224]

Can you link the sheepshaver version used?

[@chrisfraser-smith5799]

We ran windows in Microsoft’s own “Soft Windows” for Mac. Before that we had an entire pc on a nubus card (DX2-66 with 4mb ram)

[@realswaglord]

Saw mueller do something like this on the discord!

[@stefandriesner5026]

such a gloriously geeky thing to do.

[@rootbeer666]

Virtual PC is a commercial product. SheepShaver is a hobby project.

[@MrRocketFX]

To answer why sheepshaver just gave up on the Toshiba it's because when sheepshaver crashes the memory doesn't end up being cleaned up and restart should get it working again

[@TheSulross]

I'm a PC; I'm a Mac - hey, let's swap brains! (don't think they ever ran that commercial)

[@Harmony_FM]

This is a mindfuck cyberpunk nightmare and I love it

[@idahofur]

Ah gold old Toshiba laptop's. Built like a tank. Also as a side note. Intel quickly had to come out with the PIII to cover against mac.

[@MSmith-Photography]

Aw man! You've crossed the streams! You've opened a gateway to Hell! We're all gonna die now! Gah! 😈😭

[@MegaManNeo]

That is the stuff I love.

[@Mainyehc]

I would’ve named that drive Macintoshiba :P

[@ActionRetro]

Omg that's perfect

[@Mainyehc]

@@ActionRetro thanks! 🙃 I had that idea back in 2009, when my Rev.A iMac G5 was hit by the infamous counterfeit capacitor plague and had to finish my BFA with a Toshiba Satellite running Windows Vista… I was *this* close to making a “Macintoshiba” decal/sticker for it, and actually designed it in Illustrator and whatnot, but ended up skipping that because the 27’’ iMac, which I immediately bought, was launched not long after that and I just wasn’t using the PC that much anymore. :P

[@Simon-ml4lu]

Great to see it running dark forces one to one.

[@OverDriveOnline7921]

The reason the emulators would not work in an emulated is is due to the virtualised CPU’s not being real. The real CPU has different operating modes, sometimes known at CPU level as rings, emulators often need access to a layer known as ring zero to hit the hardware directly, which cannot be done on an emulated CPU. This is how modern hypervisors work on modern virtual systems. More modern systems can indeed run virtualised OS’s inside virtualised OS’s, however these are built for the same CPU (for example modern MacOS emulating windows emulating modern MacOS) so running PPC OS and trying to emulate Windows will still fail as the PPC is will construct a virtual cpu translation layer and will still fail to access ring zero as the emulation layer cannot access it. Hope that helps

[@foxdavani4091]

I'm such a nerd but I found this very entertaining

[@BluFlame3712]

I have a Powerbook Pismo I use to run Windows 95 in Virtual PC and it runs great. Kinda weird IK. 🙃

[@fnjesusfreak]

If that's (as it seems) an MS-DOS game, you'll prolly need VDMSOUND to get sound support on Win2K. (Been there, but it's been years.)

[@AtomicGoober]

My question is, will my junk NEC Intel Note light laptop can run windows 3 os in English, or run at all. Sendico sent me the wrong unit that... maybe with a working cf card and 7.2v battery.

[@AlbertoMontesSoto]

LOL... asking the real questions here!

[@MichaelAStanhope]

Oh... and this is wrong on so many levels!

[@MadITGeek]

OK, my a little more than 2c 1) sheepsaver is a unstable in my experience I've used it on MANY different OS win 10 win 7 XP and yes even OSX. its buggy it crashes its slow etc. It's not very good. IMO 2) the PC version of Dark forces is a MS-DOS game, so under win2k (or anything WinNT based) that's a emulation layer of sorts. and that's why no sound 3) not all PC laptops have crap LCDs ya know :) ..I have P2 233 Compaq Armada that has a far better display I say that as the Toshiba one looks bad to my eyes. Speaking of that. the Mac is 800X600 the PC is 1024X768...the PC has more pixels to draw kind of cheated unless you made them both 800X600 4)towards the end that was basically nested virtualization and yeah sheepsaver or any software of that era was not built for it. and the hardware wasn't either. think about it. PPC>X86>back to PPC again. only the instruction sets "needed" are emulated 6) PPC is hard to emulate. Period. its RISC VS CISC big vs little endian that and powerPC chips tend to have larger processor caches than their intel counterparts. I cant recall its name but there is a Classic mac Emulator that does 68K macs but it runs under pure MS-DOS (its not Basilisk II) that runs on 486-early pentium machines very quickly- 68K is easier to Emulate...hmm do this video but MS-DOS/win95 VS system 6/7?

[@Arivia1]

YES I AM ON YOUR SAME WAVELENGTH SEAN I WAS JUST TO SAY YOU SHOULD HAVE DONE THAT IN THE COMMENTS

[@JohnSmith-xq1pz]

I'm a PC guy: am I the PC or are you? And I'm a mac guy: I was about to ask you that

[@kirill9064]

Now run sheepshaver inside virtual pc running on macos. We need to go deeper.

[@AlfOfAllTrades]

Running Windows on a Mac. It's like giving Einstein a lobotomy... :D

[@cjsebes]

I wonder if the they borked because of not enough RAM? Hell of a lot of fun, though!

[@Jorcorand]

Jajajaja... this is like an "inception" computer test.

[@NickBouwhuis]

I don't know why but I am very amused by this

[@steelplasma256]

Pretty sure the windows DF is running faster should have broken out an FPS counter built in or a game that has it.

[@zacharyschwanke7160]

How well would windows xp on the power Mac?

[@kennysboat4432]

Both computers barely meet the minimum requirements for windows xp