# The decline of emulation... the loss of history



## Iritscen (Aug 28, 2008)

I realize that most people only needed to emulate the Classic OS from a newer Mac because the Classic environment wasn't fast enough or not compatible with some old Mac program.  Now that 97% of everyone is on OS X (warning: made-up statistic!), many of them on Intel Macs, I don't see much talk about emulation.  The last versions of the two big Classic Mac emulators, Basilisk II and SheepShaver, were last updated in 2006 (August and May, respectively), so they obviously haven't been tested for compatibility with the newer Macs and versions of OS X.

Now, I personally am running a PPC Classic OS machine and a PPC OS X machine in addition to my MBP (well, duh, you can see that in my sig).  So I get my "emulation" by directly using an older Mac.

But I have this concern that, seeing as those emulators were never really 100% stable (or, frankly, even close to 100% stable AFAIK), we're going to get to the point where the Classic Macs (by which I mean PPC, pre-OS X) gradually stop running or can't be maintained any longer.

What then?  After all, emulation is partly about preserving history; if no one thought that was important, we wouldn't have MAME.  So, if we get to the point where the original machines don't run, it will be hard to write/update emulation software for them, and if we need the ROM from our old Mac to emulate it, and it doesn't run anymore... see what I mean?  (I've already lost the opportunity to copy the ROM from my Performa 476, my first Mac... RIP.)

Am I the only one who doesn't want to lose the ability to emulate an older Mac on a newer Mac?  Granted, it won't adversely impact my life if we lose this connection to the past.  It's just that I don't see any talk about this recently, and that surprises me, since so many people have strong nostalgia for their System 7 days (or System 6, or Mac OS 8, it varies from person to person).  Who's with me on this?


----------



## ApeintheShell (Aug 31, 2008)

I think this was a much larger issue a couple of years ago when Mac OS 9 was critical to individuals and business. After they accepted that Mac OS X was here to stay Apple was able to convince developers to make software Mac OS X only. Emulation does not require the update of an operating system. For example, there are few developers that still make their software Mac OS X 10.2 compliant. Similarily, big businesses would be crazy to have a BeOS or MS Dos version of their software because all their customers have the capability to run their software which uses new graphics, etc.
Emulation is really for enthusiasts or people who need that one software application or game to work.  Eventually they become accustommed to the system and wonder how they ever did without The Dock or Expose.


----------



## fryke (Aug 31, 2008)

If anything, it should show you the importance of bringing files over to new systems and applications. If you're hanging on to files/apps that only run with the help of emulation, it's time to translate those into newer formats, because you very well *know* the next step is loss and grief. Sounds harsh, eh?


----------



## Iritscen (Aug 31, 2008)

Yeah, I know what you mean.  I still use some AppleWorks Database documents, and I keep waiting for the point when the latest OS no longer runs AppleWorks.  I just never found anything to replace that function of AppleWorks.

But I still find it odd that no one's working on emulation, even if it's not strictly necessary anymore.  I think that there would be some current projects out there if it were easier; again, look at MAME.

I have a feeling that the problem of emulation is just too complicated; anyone who's looked for a PS2 emulator knows that it's pretty hard for the dev teams to get them working solidly with any large selection of games, and I was told that the PS3 is probably out of the question as far as emulation goes; older systems like the NES are being emulated perfectly.  It seems that modern systems are getting too sophisticated for unpaid, hobby-types to spend all that time reverse-engineering.

But come on guys, you can't tell me you never got the urge to play Spectre VR again, or Descent, or F/A-18, or Lode Runner, or X-Wing, or Mortal Pongbat, or Chuck Yeager's Air Combat, or Bolo, or Apeiron, or Dirt Bike 2.0?  All those games are lost to us MacTel owners unless we fire up the old G4 or earlier machine.  I guess it really is mostly about gaming, but, hey, I just find the modern gaming scene on the Mac so uncompelling that I can't remember the last year I bought a game for OS X.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Aug 31, 2008)

fryke said:


> If anything, it should show you the importance of bringing files over to new systems and applications. If you're hanging on to files/apps that only run with the help of emulation, it's time to translate those into newer formats, because you very well *know* the next step is loss and grief. Sounds harsh, eh?



It also goes to show the disconnect between applications and operating systems -- if you continually update your operating system, but leave your applications lagging two, three and four versions behind and don't update them as well, you're going to run into problems and compatibility issues down the road.

If your current setup works for you, and you don't intend to upgrade your applications, then don't upgrade your operating system.  It's the same across the board in just about any industry -- BetaMax?  Don't buy a new VHS player!  Old, party-line telephones?  Hah!  Cassette tapes?  They don't even _fit_ into a CD player!  Oh, and not to mention the nationwide switch to digital TV broadcasts -- it would be silly (and downright stupid) to go out and buy an analog TV with rabbit ears!

While it's possible to maintain a system that, for example, runs the newest version of Microsoft Office, but an extremely old version of Photoshop, it's not fun, and it's full of headaches and incompatibilities.

We can't maintain backward compatibility forever.  We've all seen what happens when we try to -- it's called Windows.  It's been almost 8 years since the advent of Mac OS X, and that's _plenty_ of time to upgrade/update things to the newest formats.

It's relatively inexpensive to purchase a computer that runs older versions of Mac OS with which to keep older applications running on.  PowerMac 7600s go for about $40, and the Beige G3s and Blue & White G3s (all compatible with Mac OS 9) go for less than $100.  That's less than the cost of the software the user intends to run on those systems.  I have an old Yikes! system and a G3-upgraded 7600 around for those very reasons (as well as tinkering).

A great place to look for low price, older systems is LowEndMac:
http://www.lowendmac.com


----------



## Iritscen (Aug 31, 2008)

You certainly make a valid point, EDCC, that even if someone's older Mac dies, they can buy another one if they need the Classic OS.  I'm also not complaining that modern Macs can't run the old software, that's how the cookie crumbles.

But my concern is that eventually working "Classic" Macs will be very rare.  At that point we either need a working old-Mac emulator that runs in OS X or we lose access to that era.  Retro-gamers haven't allowed that to happen with the classic consoles, so why should we allow it to happen to the Mac?  Or do we ultimately view Macs as just another piece of disposable technology, useless to us once it's outmoded?  (Not intended to sound confrontational, just a frank question for us to think about.)


----------



## Mikuro (Aug 31, 2008)

Nobody's mentioned it, but we've hit on one of the most practical reasons to support the free software movement. Why are we ever stuck with file formats that are incompatible with our OS? Because the file formats are closed and proprietary, and either the original software developer is no longer around, or decided it was a good "business decision" to give everyone who didn't buy their upgrades like a good little boy a slap in the face.

This is why I now stay away from proprietary software that has the potential to make me dependent on it (like ones that save files I'll want to use for years to come). As an example, I've been looking for a good program to index my data CDs for a long time. They're all shareware, and they all use closed formats. I'm not going down that road again, period. I already have a huge collection of indexes in a now-useless format from years ago. (TWO, actually; I didn't learn my lesson the first time.)

With shareware developers, the fear is that they'll disappear. With big companies, it's almost certain that they just won't give a damn.

As for the actual programs as opposed to their file formats, free software virtually negates the need for emulation. If you're free to view, modify, and redistribute the software, someone will get it running in a modern OS. And if the OS itself is free, so much the better.

I do think it's unfortunate that these emulators are not updated more, and also that they're so hard to use. I tried to get SheepShaver running a few years ago, and it was a real struggle. I never got it into a useful state.


----------



## nixgeek (Aug 31, 2008)

Mikuro said:


> Nobody's mentioned it, but we've hit on one of the most practical reasons to support the free software movement. Why are we ever stuck with file formats that are incompatible with our OS? Because the file formats are closed and proprietary, and either the original software developer is no longer around, or decided it was a good "business decision" to give everyone who didn't buy their upgrades like a good little boy a slap in the face.
> 
> This is why I now stay away from proprietary software that has the potential to make me dependent on it (like ones that save files I'll want to use for years to come). As an example, I've been looking for a good program to index my data CDs for a long time. They're all shareware, and they all use closed formats. I'm not going down that road again, period. I already have a huge collection of indexes in a now-useless format from years ago. (TWO, actually; I didn't learn my lesson the first time.)
> 
> ...



Mikuro, thank you.  I couldn't have said it better myself.


----------



## Kees Buijs (Sep 19, 2008)

nixgeek said:


> Mikuro, thank you.  I couldn't have said it better myself.



Another issue is with the users. Most of them are not willing to pay for the ability to keep on going and the developper looses interest in keeping it up to date as certainly he does not profit from it.


Good luck, Kees


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Sep 19, 2008)

Kees Buijs said:


> Most of them are not willing to pay for the ability to keep on going and the developper looses interest in keeping it up to date as certainly he does not profit from it.


Precisely the reason it's impossible to find gas stations that sell leaded gas (not to mention it's illegal now, but even if it weren't, no car produced today runs on leaded gas in the US).

It's forward-momentum -- either get on board or be left behind.  Technologies become dated after a while, and just because the thing on your desk in 1986 was called a "computer" and the brand-spankin' new Mac Pro on your desk 20 years later is also called a "computer" does not implicitly suggest any kind of compatibility between the two.


----------

