Yes, you would use a Macintosh emulator. Kind of the point to this subforum. 😉

Fusion for DOS should run fine on a Pentium I. So should Executor for DOS, but that has much lower compatibility, especially for System 7 software (as it does not use a Macintosh BIOS or any official Apple components). Basilisk II might run under Win9x, but probably not very quickly. System 6.x software is best run under Mini vMac, but that is relatively new and I'm not sure if it has a Win9x version.

Jorpho wrote on 2021-02-03, 21:03:

Yes, you would use a Macintosh emulator. Kind of the point to this subforum. 😉

Fusion for DOS should run fine on a Pentium I. So should Executor for DOS, but that has much lower compatibility, especially for System 7 software (as it does not use a Macintosh BIOS or any official Apple components). Basilisk II might run under Win9x, but probably not very quickly. System 6.x software is best run under Mini vMac, but that is relatively new and I'm not sure if it has a Win9x version.

100% new to this idea be easy on me 🤣 :p okay I'll check em out thanks!

There are a DOS Emulator emulating OS 7 pretty good, i don`t know its name anymore.. its years ago.

Maybe its in Simtelnet ?

matze79 wrote on 2021-02-11, 19:56:

There are a DOS Emulator emulating OS 7 pretty good, i don`t know its name anymore.. its years ago.

Maybe its in Simtelnet ?

Or maybe it's Fusion, which I mentioned in my post..? 😉

The only other emulator that might be worth mentioning is SoftMac, but it really doesn't have anything to offer that you won't get from Fusion or BasiliskII.

Hi! 🙂 Well, there's also an old copy of vMac that runs on Windows NT 3.51/4 and Win 95..
But it runs System 5.x, at best. 🙁
Re: Emulation on MS Windows 3.1x ?

System 7.0/7.1 was interesting, IMHO, because it was the arch rival of Windows 3.1x, so to say.
Things like TrueType, QuickTime and 3rd-party software (Mosaic browser) had their debuts on both System 7.x and Windows 3.1x.

I would even go so far that we could almost say that every release of each one had a twin on the other side.

System 6.x.. Windows /386
System 7.0.. Windows 3.0
System 7.1.. Windows 3.0 MME
System 7.5.. Windows 3.1
System 7.6.. WfW 3.11
System 8.x.. Win95 A/B/C
System 9.0.. Windows 98
System 9.1.. Windows 98SE
System 9.2.. Windows Me

Of course, that's just an idea and not meant to be taken seriously. 😉
On the other hand, there are certain parallels.

Jo22 wrote on 2021-02-20, 03:00:

Hi! 🙂 Well, there's also an old copy of vMac that runs on Windows NT 3.51/4 and Win 95.. But it runs System 5.x, at best. 🙁 Re: […]
Show full quote

Hi! 🙂 Well, there's also an old copy of vMac that runs on Windows NT 3.51/4 and Win 95..
But it runs System 5.x, at best. 🙁
Re: Emulation on MS Windows 3.1x ?

System 7.0/7.1 was interesting, IMHO, because it was the arch rival of Windows 3.1x, so to say.
Things like TrueType, QuickTime and 3rd-party software (Mosaic browser) had their debuts on both System 7.x and Windows 3.1x.

I would even go so far that we could almost say that every release of each one had a twin on the other side.

System 6.x.. Windows /386
System 7.0.. Windows 3.0
System 7.1.. Windows 3.0 MME
System 7.5.. Windows 3.1
System 7.6.. WfW 3.11
System 8.x.. Win95 A/B/C
System 9.0.. Windows 98
System 9.1.. Windows 98SE
System 9.2.. Windows Me

Of course, that's just an idea and not meant to be taken seriously. 😉
On the other hand, there are certain parallels.

I've been so distracted just trying to get my builds working I haven't even been able to look into this.
It really hads my interest though. It would be so cool to get os 9 working I saw some guy got it to work on youtube but my first ever OS was OS 7.1 so that one would be really nice to use. I looked into it a little, I guess I need a rom chip, dos, and some other stuff? I have a xt-ide I could use as a rom chip? maybe I could use the CF as a way to boot it? that would be cool to have it fully self contained on the xt-ide because maybe I could activate/deactivate it by enabling the rom at the jumper? but I get the feeling that probably wouldn't work for some reason 🤣

Sphere478 wrote on 2021-02-20, 06:22:

It really had my interest though it would be so cool to get os 9 working I saw som guy got it to work on youtube but my first ever OS was OS 7.1 so that one would be really nice to use. I looked into it a little I guess I need a rom chip, dos, and soem other stuff. I have a xt-ide I could use as a rom chip? maybe I could use the CF as a way to boot it? that would be cool to have it fully self contained on the xt-ide as I could enable it by enabling the rom at the jumper? but I get the feeling that probably wouldn't work for some reason 🤣

Yeah, none of that makes any sense. Have you ever used an emulator before?

Emulators are programs that run on another OS. Period. If you want to emulate System 7.x on a Pentium 1, then you are going to be using an emulator written for DOS, Windows, or possibly Linux, and you will not be able to run that emulator without booting DOS/Windows/Linux.

You do not technically need a "ROM chip". You need a dump of a Macintosh BIOS ROM, which is a perfectly ordinary and relatively small file. These dumps are easy enough to find online, though if you want to keep things nice and legal then it is also easy to generate your own dump by running a small program on an old Macintosh. (The fellow who sold SoftMac used to sell special cards – I think they were ISA, but they might have been PCI - into which you could insert the actual ROM chips physically removed from an old Macintosh, but I doubt you could get one of those cards anymore, especially since they were hugely impractical and offered absolutely no advantage. That fellow had some opinions.)

And you need a hard disk image onto which you will install System 7.x. Again, with a little searching you will probably have no difficulty finding pre-configured hard disk images online. Apple also used to provide free, legal downloads of old versions of the System software, but I don't think you can get those direct from Apple anymore – though I'm sure there are plenty of people with backups of those downloads on the Internet.

As I noted above, Executor is special in that it does not require a BIOS image or any Apple system software, but you probably don't want to use Executor – unless you want to spend five minutes marveling at how cool it is to make your PC work kind of like a Macintosh, and then forget about it forever.

You may enjoy this useful guide:
https://www.emaculation.com/doku.php/basilisk_ii_setup

I understand that it's a emulator I meant dos, the emulator, and os 7.1 on the cf card I guess I should have spelled out What I was thinking. does that still not work?

I'll check out the link, thanks! 😀

edit: okay that actually looks pretty easy and it's a windows based version also! very nice! I'm definitely trying this out soon as I get the system running well! thanks! you rock!

The emulator for msdos i mean is

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executor_(software)

NOT fusion 🤭

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jrxIyxjPj2g

Also Windows versions avaible.

matze79 wrote on 2021-06-08, 00:13:

The emulator for msdos i mean is

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executor_(software)

NOT fusion 🤭

Thank you for bumping this thread after four months to identify the other emulator I mentioned in my first post. 😐 (I remember one person referring to it as the "Omega ROM", which confused me greatly.)

Executor is most certainly not "emulating OS 7 pretty good". It might be okay if you are running software for System 6.x, but in general one cannot expect the same level of accuracy as you would get from Fusion or Basilisk. But at least it's nice and legal and easy to set up.

Fusion blows Executor out of the park run on lowly Pentium hardware, Executor was largely useless in terms of compatibility.

Yeah Executor is not really a Emulator like Basilisk II, there big differences..
but actually back then when i had executor it did a good job and did not require copyrighted apple stuff.

Executor is a bit like WINE or TOS2WIN, I assume.
It's a high-level emulation approach (OS level emulation) rather than a plain hardware emulator.

So I guess it should be good enough for classic MacOS games such as "System's Twilight"..
In fact, it may have been even faster because of this originally.

Because, applications for MacOS (or System) used to be rather GUI and API based - they relied on features of the OS (System, Toolbox).
Unlike DOS or Amiga applications, which often literally worked against the OS; either by bypassing it altogether or by somehow interfering with it.

Hi,

my advice would be to seek out either Executor or Fusion where fusion would be the preferred one to use

(LOL, now i expect Jorpho here to literally explode 😁 No offence, but this is too funny actually 😉 )

... for anyone not reading the entire thread 😉

On a serious note. I did use Executor in the past. Its a nice "show off" but its not very compatible to most things. Thats my own experience with it.

For some bizarre reason, then Sheep-Shaver pops up in my mind.

Yes, Sheepshaver is another emulator. (Its name derives from Shapeshifter, one of the original Macintosh emulators for the Amiga; the mythological basilisk was also known as a shapeshifter.)

Sheepshaver is more specifically a PPC Macintosh emulator, meaning that it can't run anything older than specific versions of MacOS 7.5. If one's goal is to run older Macintosh software, then Basilisk II or mini vMac is generally the way to go.