Video shows Apple Watch running Mac OS 7.5.5 via emulator
A developer was able to start up the nearly 20-year-old Mac OS 7.5.5 (n?e System 7) onto his Apple Watch running the latest WatchOS 2 update, exemplifying the extent to which computing has evolved over the past two decades.
Enlisting the help of Mini vMac, Developer Nick Lee was able to get Mac OS 7.5.5 up and running on his Apple Watch loaded with Apple's latest watchOS 2 software.
The impressive feat, first spotted by MacRumors, is accomplished entirely on Apple Watch with relatively snappy performance despite what is today considered a low-power system-in-package design.
Along with raw processing power, Apple's S1 integrated chip design packs in a full communications array including Wi-Fi and Bluetooth technology, NFC hardware, accelerometer, audio package, touch controller, wireless induction controller and more.
When it first launched in 1991, Mac OS 7 ran on certain Macintosh Quadra series or then-current PowerBook models. By the time version 7.5.5 debuted in 1996, the operating system required a Power Macintosh 5500 to function effectively, which is decidedly less portable than Apple Watch.
Enlisting the help of Mini vMac, Developer Nick Lee was able to get Mac OS 7.5.5 up and running on his Apple Watch loaded with Apple's latest watchOS 2 software.
The impressive feat, first spotted by MacRumors, is accomplished entirely on Apple Watch with relatively snappy performance despite what is today considered a low-power system-in-package design.
Along with raw processing power, Apple's S1 integrated chip design packs in a full communications array including Wi-Fi and Bluetooth technology, NFC hardware, accelerometer, audio package, touch controller, wireless induction controller and more.
When it first launched in 1991, Mac OS 7 ran on certain Macintosh Quadra series or then-current PowerBook models. By the time version 7.5.5 debuted in 1996, the operating system required a Power Macintosh 5500 to function effectively, which is decidedly less portable than Apple Watch.
Comments
It has to be said though that nearly 20 years have passed (effing time really does fly damn it...) since, one should expect such a computing feat. Had it been 10 years I 'd be marvelling at this too, but 20 is a very long time indeed.
How about letting us run any classic OS?
I'm waiting until someone writes an app for Apple Watch simulating the Eight Ball fortune teller.
7.0.1 or 7.1 runs peachy on my /30 and PB180.
I think what they were getting at was its speed relative to other Power Macs, actually. 7.5.x had a lot of 680x0 assembly code in it, which made it kind of a dog on the slower Power Macs, due to all the emulation it had to do. This got a lot better in 7.6.1 and especially 8.x, when more of the code was ported to the Power Macs, but with 7.5.x, a Power Mac 6100 could actually feel slower than an older 68040 machine.
7.1 was a dream. That thing could run on everything. You could run it on a Mac Plus, without even needing the "technically."
A Power Mac? What? I run 7.5.5 on my Quadra 700 without incident. A 68040 will run 8.1 fine if it has enough RAM.
They said to function "effectively", which is subjective. I agree, though, that's pretty ridiculous. One of my friends back in the 90s had a Performa 575 running some variant or other of 7.5.x, and it had no problems whatsoever. I think that 7.5.5 could even run on a Mac Plus, technically.
I think what they were getting at was its speed relative to other Power Macs, actually. 7.5.x had a lot of 680x0 assembly code in it, which made it kind of a dog on the slower Power Macs, due to all the emulation it had to do. This got a lot better in 7.6.1 and especially 8.x, when more of the code was ported to the Power Macs, but with 7.5.x, a Power Mac 6100 could actually feel slower than an older 68040 machine.
7.1 was a dream. That thing could run on everything. You could run it on a Mac Plus, without even needing the "technically."
7.1 was definitely the masterpiece of it's time.
They said to function "effectively", which is subjective. I agree, though, that's pretty ridiculous. One of my friends back in the 90s had a Performa 575 running some variant or other of 7.5.x, and it had no problems whatsoever. I think that 7.5.5 could even run on a Mac Plus, technically.
I think what they were getting at was its speed relative to other Power Macs, actually. 7.5.x had a lot of 680x0 assembly code in it, which made it kind of a dog on the slower Power Macs, due to all the emulation it had to do. This got a lot better in 7.6.1 and especially 8.x, when more of the code was ported to the Power Macs, but with 7.5.x, a Power Mac 6100 could actually feel slower than an older 68040 machine.
7.1 was a dream. That thing could run on everything. You could run it on a Mac Plus, without even needing the "technically."
cmon man! relax - its just a little playing around!!!! Smoke some weed! jeez
PowerMac 6100/60.
My very first Mac. July 1994. Was still rocking it until around May 2002.
And my beloved ClarisWorks on System 7 right up to Mac OS 8. I could do some crazy media-rich stuff with its draw/presentation module. Never failed to impress.
I'd buy a Watch if I could play Wizardry I on it.
They said to function "effectively", which is subjective. I agree, though, that's pretty ridiculous. One of my friends back in the 90s had a Performa 575 running some variant or other of 7.5.x, and it had no problems whatsoever. I think that 7.5.5 could even run on a Mac Plus, technically.
I think what they were getting at was its speed relative to other Power Macs, actually. 7.5.x had a lot of 680x0 assembly code in it, which made it kind of a dog on the slower Power Macs, due to all the emulation it had to do. This got a lot better in 7.6.1 and especially 8.x, when more of the code was ported to the Power Macs, but with 7.5.x, a Power Mac 6100 could actually feel slower than an older 68040 machine.
7.1 was a dream. That thing could run on everything. You could run it on a Mac Plus, without even needing the "technically."
I run 6.0.8 on my Plus(upgraded 512k), because I don't have an HD-20 or a Mac ROMinator or FloppyEmu yet, so I need something I can boot from a single 800k floppy and have it sit in RAM when I eject it. My 8100/110 runs 8.6, and all my G3 stuff runs 9.2.1, as well as the TiBook.
The "but but but you need at least 2GB of RAM" trolls would have you believe computers just weren't capable of running on anything less. How ever did Apple and NeXT manage to sell workstations and servers with only megabytes of RAM?
Because Steve was making the most advanced OS on the planet in both cases. People don't realize how good NeXTSTEP was.
I want a NeXTCube someday. Or even a slab. With a 21" MegaPixel Display.
I would prefer to see it running AmigaOS 2.0 which is from the same era as 7.1, both ran on 68k series processors but emulating AmigaOS would make better use of the on chip GPU and Sound and as far as multitasking, media prowess and even interprocess scripting with AREXX. AmigaOS though from a company even more beleaguered than Apple at that time packed a punch.
My god, you are tedious...
The computer that the person in the video is emulating probably had less RAM than Safari itself takes up in 2015. And that's relatively low end — as we speak, Activity Monitor reports that my copy of Xcode is using 1.15 GB. You can never have too much RAM.