Top stuff, thanks! So which 68k model Apple would you favour for gaming? I'd like to acquire a different Apple for each major chip evolution (so one for 6502, one for 68k, and one for PowerPC)...
- VCF South West - June 14 - 16, Davidson-Gundy Alumni Center at University of Texas at Dallas
- VCF West - Aug 2 - 3, Computer History Museum, Mountain View, CA
- VCF Midwest - Sept 7 - 8 2024, Schaumburg, IL
- VCF SoCal - Mid February 2025, Location TBD, Southern CA
- VCF East - April 2025, Infoage Museum, Wall NJ
-
Please review our updated Terms and Rules here
Advice on choosing vintage Apple computers?
- Thread starter gladders
- Start date
Top stuff, thanks! So which 68k model Apple would you favour for gaming? I'd like to acquire a different Apple for each major chip evolution (so one for 6502, one for 68k, and one for PowerPC)...
kyodai
Experienced Member
Some people do that with their mother-in-law, too...
Fact is that whether it's a 128K, SE, Classic or else - the design was "stuck" and when you google "apple macintosh" this is what comes up first for a reason.
What i really like about the Classic/Classic II was that they were the last compact monochrome desktop system you could buy in stores in 1993. Even back in 1993 it seemed to bea bit of an oddity to go to a shop and buy a "Balck & White screen computer". I sure love them.
Eudimorphodon
Veteran Member
Your post was written in such a way to suggest that the "some emulation method is provided" part was incumbent on the user to provide. (IE, that the user had to actively install something in order to run the older 68k-only binaries.) I'd characterize that as "potentially misleading" given how 68k emulation was *deeply* embedded into the system to the point that most of the OS depended on it until several years after the last 68k machine was long off the market.
Performance may be another question, I'll admit to not having enough experience with Mac gaming to comment on that. But in terms of strict "will it run at all?" functionality the emulation is actually astonishingly good and completely seamless. Given the chronological overlap between the 68040 Macs and the first PowerPCs it'd be my vague guess that anything that really *needs* more performance than a midrange 68030 (which was the target for the emulator in the 6100 series) probably *has* a fat binary version available, but I'm sure there's counterexamples out there.
ClassicHasClass
Veteran Member
Like anything, it depends on what you want to play. Most of the 3-D FPSes of the time really, really, really needed a 68040, and they didn't run all that great anyway; most of them have PowerPC native versions or fat binaries that perform substantially better. If you want to play earlier Mac games, the 68040 caches were sometimes problematic even if they were disabled, so an '030 or earlier might be a better choice.
GiGaByTe said:
With the original 68K emulator on the early Power Macs, yes. But later ones used a dynamic recompilation system which was substantially faster. By the 604 era, virtually any Power Mac would run 68K software faster than any 68K.
ClassicHasClass
Veteran Member
I can't really evaluate since no Power Mac ever emulated a 68060 (if you're talking about the Amiga's ability to emulate it, I have no information about how efficient the Amiga 68K emulation code is compared to the Mac's, and I doubt it has much in common with Apple's emulator). The 68K emulator is effectively a 68LC040, modeled on the Centris 610.
The 68060 won't work in a Mac because it's missing some '040-specific features required by the Apple ROM. Daystar planned to create an altered ROM for their prototype '060 accelerator board, but apparently the performance delta was not sufficient for them to believe it was a viable product; see http://www.applefritter.com/node/399 (and johnklos' dispute, though I tend to believe the first party story of someone who actually worked there). Apple never used the chip themselves.
The 68060 won't work in a Mac because it's missing some '040-specific features required by the Apple ROM. Daystar planned to create an altered ROM for their prototype '060 accelerator board, but apparently the performance delta was not sufficient for them to believe it was a viable product; see http://www.applefritter.com/node/399 (and johnklos' dispute, though I tend to believe the first party story of someone who actually worked there). Apple never used the chip themselves.
I've run MacOS on a 68060. But it wasn't a Mac. Neither was the machine with the 604e for comparison, which happened to be the same machine, without so much as rebooting. 
And I did have the proper versions of MacOS. Still have em somewhere. I managed to buy them legally, which is very, very difficult to do without buying any hardware, which I didn't. Though, for all I know I paid for the hardware and someone else got that part of the deal.
And I did have the proper versions of MacOS. Still have em somewhere. I managed to buy them legally, which is very, very difficult to do without buying any hardware, which I didn't. Though, for all I know I paid for the hardware and someone else got that part of the deal.
billdeg
Technician
Your budget is too low to be picky. Search the local resale shops for whatever Apple that might fall to you by luck. Take it from there.
If I was to have just one Apple it would be a III with a Titan iie compatibility card installed. That covers a lot of bases.
If I was to have just one Apple it would be a III with a Titan iie compatibility card installed. That covers a lot of bases.
SomeGuy
Veteran Member
Not really. That was part of the problem with the III. Apple created another 6502-based machine that was totally incompatible and had no real advantage over the II but was marketed as a business machine. So you wound up with VisiCalc, PFS File, and that was about it.
Of course with a III or a Mac emulator you lose the ability to add Apple II add-on hardware.
Probably for a budget hobbyist a IIe would be the best bet, as they are fairly common. For someone with all of the money in the world, a loaded IIGS is the bees knees.
For those where space is an issue, a IIc or Vtech Laser 128 are options.
As much as II and II Pluses go for, there is much software that requires a IIe or later.
billdeg
Technician
I beg to differ, I have hundreds of Apple /// disks full of software, plus the Titan emulator cards essentially makes an Apple /// into an Apple ii+ or e, depending on the Titan card you use. But I may not be the average Apple user either. Just saying that for me, given that I have all of the hardware and software the Apple /// + pretty much covers all bases. I even have a 3.5 drive for my Apple ///....perhaps the most decked out Apple /// on the planet but...
anyway, yes, gen an apple iie IF you can find one for $100 or less.
Eudimorphodon
Veteran Member
By all means, if you want maximal software compatibility go for the IIe. The argument for the II+ is mostly that it's a still relatively affordable way to get the "Original" Apple II hardware experience. Also, going forward, it has the only semi-theoretical advantage that it's made out of generic TTL logic, which makes it more reparable at a component level than newer machines. (Granted some of its components are getting thin on the ground, particularly bits like the keyboard controller, while IIe's to steal IOU and MMU chips from are still relatively plentiful.)
glitch
Veteran Member
I'll add another possible advantage for the II+: it has notches for connector cables instead of punchouts in a panel. That's useful if you'd like to use something like Analog/Digital interfaces where you're expected to have a plain ribbon cable running out of the back of the machine. Of course, you can just leave the top off of a IIe and get the same effect.
The //e was certainly designed to accommodate ribbon cables without leaving the top off.
If you want compatibility, a plus can run everything an e will, but it's much more expensive to get to that point. If you want a language card and a real 80 column card you have to get a plus.
If you want compatibility, a plus can run everything an e will, but it's much more expensive to get to that point. If you want a language card and a real 80 column card you have to get a plus.
Eudimorphodon
Veteran Member
I've run MacOS on a 68060. But it wasn't a Mac. Neither was the machine with the 604e for comparison, which happened to be the same machine, without so much as rebooting.
Was the latter accomplished with SheepShaver, or are you comparing the results of that machine emulating 68k AmigaOS code on a PPC accelerator vs. native?
You don't happen to have, say, Speedometer 4.0 results for MacOS-on-68060, do you? Found this that claims 3x better than the baseline 25Mhz 68040, which is certainly leagues faster than the roughly 50% as fast that a 60mhz PowerPC 601 pulls off in emulation and about a tie for its native mode performance. But unfortunately the copy of Speedometer 4 I have doesn't have any results for PCI PowerMacs (which is when the emulation became much better) so I can't say how fast of a 604e you'd need to hit 3x a 25mhz '040 in emulation mode. This post claims a stock 7500 hits 2x. Notably it does that with a 601 clocked only 20mhz faster than the 8100/80, which only achieves 70% as fast, so the newer emulator makes a *big* difference.
Native mode PPC still schools the 68060 in FPU, though.
Last edited: