What about some more details? Which eMac? They ranged from 700 MHz to 1.42 GHz.

And what DOS ports? Native Mac games that also existed for DOS should all run fine. Stuff like Quake runs good on a G3 with >200 MHz already.

Note, however, that the later eMacs are made for running MacOS X only.

derSammler wrote:

What about some more details? Which eMac? They ranged from 700 MHz to 1.42 GHz.

And what DOS ports? Native Mac games that also existed for DOS should all run fine. Stuff like Quake runs good on a G3 with >200 MHz already.

Note, however, that the later eMacs are made for running MacOS X only.

it's the first revision with 700 MHz.

Actually, it depends for what processor architecture and Mac OS version the games were made.

Only OS X 10.5 can run both PowerPC and Intel CPU programs. 10.6 and later are Intel-only. I think older PowerPC versions of MacOS (not sure about OS X) should be capable of running 68k code, but there might be speed problems.

Edit: 700 MHz should be fine for PPC games and possibly 68k.

Violett'Blossom wrote:

it's the first revision with 700 MHz.

Ok, that one can even run MacOS 9 natively (that is, boot into it, not just running in the Classic environment).

You still did not say which games you want to run. Speed-wise, you should have no problems. Quite a few older games have trouble running on MacOS 9, however (e.g. those that are not 32-bit aware). Also, the 68k emulation is fast, very fast. I had a few games that crashed because of this, or were just running too fast to be playable.

yawetaG wrote:

Actually, it depends for what processor architecture and Mac OS version the games were made.

Only OS X 10.5 can run both PowerPC and Intel CPU programs. 10.6 and later are Intel-only. I think older PowerPC versions of MacOS (not sure about OS X) should be capable of running 68k code, but there might be speed problems.

Just to correct this: eMacs were all PPC. Also, "Only OS X 10.5 can run both PowerPC and Intel CPU programs" is not correct as you wrote it. OS X 10.5 exists for PPC and Intel platforms. On PPC, it can run PPC code only! On Intel, it can run PPC and x86 code. 68k was dropped with 10.5. That's probably how you meant it, but you wrote it as if 10.5 can run Intel code even on PPC, which it of course can not.

derSammler wrote:

yawetaG wrote:

Actually, it depends for what processor architecture and Mac OS version the games were made.

Only OS X 10.5 can run both PowerPC and Intel CPU programs. 10.6 and later are Intel-only. I think older PowerPC versions of MacOS (not sure about OS X) should be capable of running 68k code, but there might be speed problems.

Just to correct this: eMacs were all PPC. Also, "Only OS X 10.5 can run both PowerPC and Intel CPU programs" is not correct as you wrote it. OS X 10.5 exists for PPC and Intel platforms. On PPC, it can run PPC code only! On Intel, it can run PPC and x86 code. 68k was dropped with 10.5. That's probably how you meant it, but you wrote it as if 10.5 can run Intel code even on PPC, which it of course can not.

No, I didn't know there was a PPC version of 10.5... 😀

yawetaG wrote:

derSammler wrote:

yawetaG wrote:

Actually, it depends for what processor architecture and Mac OS version the games were made.

Only OS X 10.5 can run both PowerPC and Intel CPU programs. 10.6 and later are Intel-only. I think older PowerPC versions of MacOS (not sure about OS X) should be capable of running 68k code, but there might be speed problems.

Just to correct this: eMacs were all PPC. Also, "Only OS X 10.5 can run both PowerPC and Intel CPU programs" is not correct as you wrote it. OS X 10.5 exists for PPC and Intel platforms. On PPC, it can run PPC code only! On Intel, it can run PPC and x86 code. 68k was dropped with 10.5. That's probably how you meant it, but you wrote it as if 10.5 can run Intel code even on PPC, which it of course can not.

No, I didn't know there was a PPC version of 10.5... 😀

Both 10.4 (Tiger) and 10.5 (Leopard) came in x86 and PowerPC versions - I have a Tiger restore CD for a 2006 MacBook in my CD binder, and I beat up 10.4 to work for the most part (no ACPI suspend/sleep) on a Thinkpad T42 back in the early Hackintosh days. PowerPC builds can only run PowerPC binaries, while Intel versions run Intel native (usually through universal binaries) AND PowerPC via Rosetta PPC emulation services.

Tiger is the last release that can boot MacOS classic (PPC and m68k) in both native and classic mode. Classic mode runs a sandbox copy of MacOS 9 services that allows classic apps to work while being within MacOS X, while native is pure MacOS 9...which can be an unstable, crashy piece of crap if you have too many extensions installed. Classic has 68k support all the way from 7.6 all the way to 9.2.2 for most well behaved apps.

As for MacOS classic hardware native/classic mode boot compatibility, there's a list on EveryMac.com here -> https://everymac.com/systems/by_capability/ma … -9-classic.html .

The general gist is that none of the hardware with native USB2 ports will do native boot. It might have to do with Apple not bothering to release system extensions to support the newer system controllers (The Intrepid series) on those hardware to support an OS that they'll kill off soon.

As for PowerPC not running on 10.6 (Snow Leopard) - that's partially correct - there are no PowerPC builds of 10.6, but it doesn't mean 10.6 on Intel can't run PowerPC code. Snow Leopard is the last version of OSX with Rosetta, so it could run non-universal binary OSX apps compiled for PowerPC - it was coincidentally the last version of MacOSX that allows you to do system migrations from a PowerPC source and port it over successfully to Intel Macs - it's also one of the first MacOS X Intel versions that can run in VMWare rather successfully . This actually saved my bacon a few times when I had to fire up Snow Leopard VMs to do a 2-stage migration for stubborn end users in my previous IT gigs - one stage from a PowerBook with Tiger to a VM, and then from that VM to a MacBook pro with Mountain Lion - it took a while, but it worked. In a way, Tiger and Snow Leopard are like the Win98/WinXP of the Mac world - both are kept around for longer-than-you-might-think to bridge the gap (MacOS 9 to 10, and 10 PPC to 10 x86) in large IT shops.

Violett'Blossom wrote:

I can get one of those in mit condition for a few € , on paper it seems quite capable.

Will it be capable of playing DOS ports in OS 9?

Thanks in advance 😀

Eh, you mean, the old-school stuff on MacintoshGarden.org (and not DOS apps inside DosBox)?

It'll do fine, but you'll need some accessories for playing ball with modern machines. Theres nothing wrong with the eMacs per-se as even the slowest one has a 700MHz PowerG4 and an nVidia Geforce 2MX, which is plenty enough for stuff like, say, Unreal Tournament 1999 PPC builds). Of course, getting the software loaded quickly to it from a modern machine is another thing altogether. The first 3 machines (700/800/1000MHz) are strictly USB1/oldschool Airport, and I don't remember the eMacs being partcularly easy to toss a SD-to-IDE card/adapter within. You'll need a firewire+USB2 external drive formatted to FAT32 if you want a quick way to transfer apps and stuff from a modern PC into it. The last 2 models are USB2 native and have Airport Extreme (54Mbps), but will have more headaches with oldschool MacOS Classic apps.

ragefury32 wrote:

You'll need a firewire+USB2 external drive formatted to FAT32 if you want a quick way to transfer apps and stuff from a modern PC into it.

Or simply use a USB stick.

Some of these macs are only USB 1.1, I think? So for doing large transfers, Firewire is there for the quick interface to the Mac. Then it can be plugged into a PC through USB 2.0.

Yes, it has USB 1.1. But unless you want to transfer gigabytes of data, it's fast enough. I have many systems with USB 1.1 only and even when copying ISO files over, it's not an issue. E.g. a 650 MB ISO image takes less than 10 minutes to copy with USB 1.1. That's not too bad.

derSammler wrote:

Yes, it has USB 1.1. But unless you want to transfer gigabytes of data, it's fast enough. I have many systems with USB 1.1 only and even when copying ISO files over, it's not an issue. E.g. a 650 MB ISO image takes less than 10 minutes to copy with USB 1.1. That's not too bad.

Quick reminder - Fireware 400 is 400MBps, USB2 is 480Mbps, and USB 1.1 is 12MBps. That's 33 to 40 times less bandwidth on hand. On a machine that can accept the full transfer rates, that's the difference between waiting 10 minutes for an ISO, and 15-20 seconds. For oldschool stuff like DOS or early PPC stuff that might be fine, but if you are dropping an entire archive of oldschool game ISOs, you'll definitely want USB2 on your side.

Note: USB2 is not natively supported in MacOS 9/classic, so either copy the files in Mac OSX, or boot into a PPCLinux live environment.

ragefury32 wrote:

For oldschool stuff like DOS or early PPC stuff that might be fine, but if you are dropping an entire archive of oldschool game ISOs, you'll definitely want USB2 on your side.

That's what I said. Well, apart from that I don't really agree with the last part. Even then, you don't need USB 2.0. What's the point in using retro hardware if you don't have the patience to accept the slow speed they offer? Also, the eMac has 10/100 Mb/s ethernet, so if USB 1.1 is too slow for him, he can just use that instead of messing with Firewire adapters and having to use OS X.

I got an eMac with PowerPC G4 1.25Ghz, 768 DDR RAM PC2700, DD 40 Go. The graphic card is an ATI 9200SE i think.
I don't know a lot about Mac Gaming.

Does someone has list of cool games like Monkey Island ?
Does this machine performs in 3D Gaming ? What game can use all its power ?

DataPro wrote:

I got an eMac with PowerPC G4 1.25Ghz, 768 DDR RAM PC2700, DD 40 Go. The graphic card is an ATI 9200SE i think. I don't know a l […]
Show full quote

I got an eMac with PowerPC G4 1.25Ghz, 768 DDR RAM PC2700, DD 40 Go. The graphic card is an ATI 9200SE i think.
I don't know a lot about Mac Gaming.

Does someone has list of cool games like Monkey Island ?
Does this machine performs in 3D Gaming ? What game can use all its power ?

For oldschool Mac games, look at the Macintosh Garden - mostly good stuff there.

It's around the same spec as the first Mac Mini, and in terms of graphical horsepower...eh, it's good...ish. It'll run great on Wipeout XL/Incoming/UT'99/Quake 3, and okay on Halo/Homeworld 2/UT2004SE (dial back the quality settings a bit). As for MacOS 9/classic stuff, you'll need Classic mode installed (since it's a USB2 based machine and it won't do MacOS9 native) - some of those old games (like SQ3) might not work.

derSammler wrote:

ragefury32 wrote:

For oldschool stuff like DOS or early PPC stuff that might be fine, but if you are dropping an entire archive of oldschool game ISOs, you'll definitely want USB2 on your side.

Even then, you don't need USB 2.0. What's the point in using retro hardware if you don't have the patience to accept the slow speed they offer? Also, the eMac has 10/100 Mb/s ethernet, so if USB 1.1 is too slow for him, he can just use that instead of messing with Firewire adapters and having to use OS X.

Seriously, do you also use the original hard drives, floppy disks and limited RAM count of those old machines for the sake of "authenticity"? I certainly don't. As much as I enjoy playing around on those oldschool machines, the first thing I do when I pick them up is max the RAM, swap out hard drives/floppies with SSDs/CFs/SDs/Goteks and find ways to make interacting with modern hardware as painlessly as possible. I didn't enjoy slow I/O back then, and I certainly don't like to put up with it now, especially when the solution isn't that expensive or difficult. Hell, a Firewire 400/800/USB2 HDD enclosure can be had for less than 20 USD and can store an entire library of games

ragefury32 wrote:

Seriously, do you also use the original hard drives, floppy disks and limited RAM count of those old machines for the sake of "authenticity"?

What are you talking about now? Actually yes, I mostly do, but this has nothing to do with the topic. We were talking about a way to transfer files to the system, something you even have to do only once per file. The eMac has USB 1.1, so use it. There's no point in spending additional cash.

ragefury32 wrote:

Hell, a Firewire 400/800/USB2 HDD enclosure can be had for less than 20 USD and can store an entire library of games

Wonderful. Then he'll need to add a Firewire card to his PC to get the downloaded games onto the Firewire drive...

Or he could just connect his eMac to the internet and download stuff directly.

Sure worked fine for me when I still had my eMac...(and so did the USB 1.1).

yawetaG wrote:

Wonderful. Then he'll need to add a Firewire card to his PC to get the downloaded games onto the Firewire drive... […]
Show full quote

ragefury32 wrote:

Hell, a Firewire 400/800/USB2 HDD enclosure can be had for less than 20 USD and can store an entire library of games

Wonderful. Then he'll need to add a Firewire card to his PC to get the downloaded games onto the Firewire drive...

Or he could just connect his eMac to the internet and download stuff directly.

Sure worked fine for me when I still had my eMac...(and so did the USB 1.1).

What, because somehow you need a firewire port to work on an enclosure that can work with both USB2 AND Firewire (just not at the same time)? How does that work, exactly?