Re: Turn your PC into a Mac to do stuff for ...Funny...Try Basilisk II FREE..Gemulator SUCKS

[blade@slice.you (Blade)]

On 15 Aug 1999 14:05:06 GMT, supertimer@aol.com (Supertimer) wrote:

That's funny, Have you tried it yet? I have the gem and Basilisk II.
And fusion. Again have you tried fusion 2? You need to look to what is
coming. Just try GEM and Fusion in Win 2000 and try Basilisk II you
get sound, internet, and network. OH its free. Don't get me wrong you
can just save ONE HUNDRED buy trying something FREE. Or buy a power
mac for that much just look this one is 100
http://www.ybc1.com/online/ and shipping is free.  
Basilisk II  http://www.uni-mainz.de/~bauec002/  The maker of
Basilisk...for Windows98,NT Linux, BeOS... 

>Well, considering how people commonly say they use
>Macs as peripherals to do things for their IIGS units,
>I thought some folks might be interested in the following
>link:
>
>http://www.emulators.com/
>
>This company makes absolutely the fastest, most
>complete and powerful Macintosh emulator.  Blows
>Fusion away.  Check out the web site and look at the
>screen shots of Mac OS 8.1 running on the Windows
>desktop!  See the emulated Mac run Macintosh
>Microsoft Office and other Mac applications.  The
>name of the emulator is Gemulator Pro and it does
>not even require that you provide the ROM files (they
>come as ROM chips on a card that you plug into
>your PC).  There is a software only version, should
>you want to use ROM files...it isn't any cheaper,
>though, so why bother?
>
>Gemulator Pro costs less than Fusion too.
>
>Finally, naturally a Windows PC running Gemulator
>Pro will be able to access IIGS formatted HFS Zip
>disks like a charm (and Mac ones too).
>
>On a typical high end PC system (as in an AMD
>K6-III 450 or a Pentium III 500), performance in
>running 68040 software is faster than on a G3 Mac!
>
>Lastly, click to full screen and you can pretend that
>the PC is a Mac and freak out all your Mac friends.
>
>Gemulator Pro's speed comes from the fact that it
>is written in assembly language.  That's quite a feat
>for an x86 based system (x86 assembly is supposed
>to be a real dog compared to 65C02 or 65C816
>assembly).