What can we do in emulated win 95 or mac? Writting texts, playing solitaire?
And do they run in full speed?

Macintosh runs faster than a Mac II in some apps, and in most around comparable to a mac classic. So shitty, basically. And Windows 95 is slow as hell.

any chance of being able to play win 95 games
i want win 95 games aaaaaaaaaa

Short answer: No.

I heard Minesweeper and Solitaire are both incredibely playable with sound at FS1.

- Alex

If someone writes or finds and plugs in a decent ARM9-ASM 680x0 core into Basilisk in the place of the dreadfully-slow C cores already in it, there will be a very dramatic speed boost. Emulating a 68000-based Mac by plugging in Cyclone, and cranking up the emulated clockrate to 16 MHz, might get you decent performance (with some overclocking of the 920T to back it up.) But the kind of games you can run on a Mac with a 68000 is pretty limited-- most decent Mac games needed a 68030 or '040.

Windows 95? It was slow on the hardware of the day. It will never be fast on the GP2X. Also, it was designed for a processor (Pentium) with an FPU. At least Mac OS 7 and back were made for processors without FPUs (though they could work with one, too.)

w00t w00t w00t omfg omfg1111111



but wait... solitaire doesnt have sound

Sound effects? Shuffle, shuffle?

And the bouncing cards would be cool

writing text on mac is possible but difficult as you have to use keycaps. someone should write a virtual keyboard for BasiliskII and improve mouse
some interesting things you could try
jigsaw puzzle -you need tvout for this
simpletext-you can get the mac to read out text with this
msword, photoshop may also work
the 68k macs always had low cpu speeds as compared to windows pc but that means the os is written well and its easy to emulate.
you could rewrite the bios calls as native code rather than emulating them like what was done on executor.

Nah, 680x0 processors are just more powerful per clock tick, so an 8 MHz 68000 will outperform, say, a 286-8 MHz machine of that day. The OS is rather slow and bloated at times. I wouldn't ever expect Photoshop to run at any sort of acceptable performance level. The rest seems fine.. albeit not very useful.

Haha, Photoshop on a handheld? Designer on the go's dream, too bad saving files would probably be impossible.

- Alex

Porting The Gimp would be a better idea... but you'd need X, GTK ..

No it was more like they were made for processors with FPUs but could work without one .