Shapeshifter vs. Basilisk II?

Amiga1992 · 05 March 2013, 15:26

I am thinking of trying out emulation of a Mac on my Amiga for teh first time, and I was wondering what people thought here regarding which emulator would be best to run n my 68030@50 A1200.

All I want to run, I guess, it's a 7.1 or 7.5 system and try out some games and apps. It seems Basilisk II is newer, but might it be slower? What are people's experiences with these two programs and what would you think is best to try out first time? I would of course like to get the best performance out of this. I wouldn't even want to use 256 colors.

jeff b00toNic · 05 March 2013, 17:59

I've had shapeshifter on the same setup (no RTG) and it was just fine for OS (7.6.1) using 256 color screen and a bit of tweaking.
Could run some small games but I couldn't manage to run big ones like Warcraft (only title screen) or Blackthorne (doesn't run at all).

StingRay · 05 March 2013, 18:01

For an 68030 based machine Shapeshifter is definitely the better choice, it runs quite well on such config. Basilisk II is quite a bit slower!

DDNI · 05 March 2013, 18:11

IIRC Cammy is a bit of a Mac emulation wizard.
Send her a PM.

Also, there are some threads on this topic already.
http://eab.abime.net/showthread.php?...&highlight=Mac

roy bates · 05 March 2013, 18:49

shapeshifter,i havent used the other one so i cant really say.

Amiga1992 · 05 March 2013, 19:05

I'm surprised because I never, ever see Basilisk II mentioned, although I do see plenty of talk about Shapeshifter. Lots of thread and talk and whatnot, but all of them, for Shapeshifter.

This might have to do as it is the one performing the best on slower systems, as Stingray suggests.

amiman99 · 05 March 2013, 22:50

I have Shapeshifter running on my A1200 030/50MHz with MacOS 7.6. The system runs fine on it with many applications such as Photoshop v3.
I think it could run faster with MacOS v7.5 then v7.6.
Lats time I tried I could not get Basilisk to run, I'm not sure if it was human error or something else.

Retro1234 · 01 June 2013, 21:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeff b00toNic

I've had shapeshifter on the same setup (no RTG) and it was just fine for OS (7.6.1) using 256 color screen and a bit of tweaking.
Could run some small games but I couldn't manage to run big ones like Warcraft (only title screen) or Blackthorne (doesn't run at all).

Has anyone ever got Blackthorne running?

05 March 2013, 15:26	#1
Amiga1992 Registered User Join Date: May 2001 Location: ? Posts: 19,646	Shapeshifter vs. Basilisk II? I am thinking of trying out emulation of a Mac on my Amiga for teh first time, and I was wondering what people thought here regarding which emulator would be best to run n my 68030@50 A1200. All I want to run, I guess, it's a 7.1 or 7.5 system and try out some games and apps. It seems Basilisk II is newer, but might it be slower? What are people's experiences with these two programs and what would you think is best to try out first time? I would of course like to get the best performance out of this. I wouldn't even want to use 256 colors.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
ShapeShifter	Doc Mindie	support.Apps	23	21 March 2018 17:41
Shapeshifter help! (Again?)	watertonian	support.Apps	18	27 May 2010 18:03
Macos8 for shapeshifter	meckert	request.Apps	5	28 June 2009 23:54
ShapeShifter 3.10	Flashlab	request.Apps	0	11 June 2007 21:27
Shapeshifter	dkovacs	support.Apps	12	25 January 2006 01:25

05 March 2013, 17:59	#2
jeff b00toNic Registered User Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: Arnsberg Germany Age: 45 Posts: 195	I've had shapeshifter on the same setup (no RTG) and it was just fine for OS (7.6.1) using 256 color screen and a bit of tweaking. Could run some small games but I couldn't manage to run big ones like Warcraft (only title screen) or Blackthorne (doesn't run at all).

05 March 2013, 18:01	#3
StingRay move.l #$c0ff33,throat Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Berlin/Joymoney Posts: 6,863	For an 68030 based machine Shapeshifter is definitely the better choice, it runs quite well on such config. Basilisk II is quite a bit slower!

05 March 2013, 18:11	#4
DDNI Targ Explorer Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Northern Ireland Posts: 5,433	IIRC Cammy is a bit of a Mac emulation wizard. Send her a PM. Also, there are some threads on this topic already. http://eab.abime.net/showthread.php?...&highlight=Mac

05 March 2013, 18:49	#5
roy bates Registered User Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: birmingham Age: 55 Posts: 2,827	shapeshifter,i havent used the other one so i cant really say.

05 March 2013, 19:05	#6
Amiga1992 Registered User Join Date: May 2001 Location: ? Posts: 19,646	I'm surprised because I never, ever see Basilisk II mentioned, although I do see plenty of talk about Shapeshifter. Lots of thread and talk and whatnot, but all of them, for Shapeshifter. This might have to do as it is the one performing the best on slower systems, as Stingray suggests.

05 March 2013, 22:50	#7
amiman99 Registered User Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: San Antonio, TX USA Age: 50 Posts: 1,185	I have Shapeshifter running on my A1200 030/50MHz with MacOS 7.6. The system runs fine on it with many applications such as Photoshop v3. I think it could run faster with MacOS v7.5 then v7.6. Lats time I tried I could not get Basilisk to run, I'm not sure if it was human error or something else.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)