Well I believe 3.0.16 was the last 68K VM.

My notes say
A IIvx running a accelerator/cache card @ 50Mhz does:

432,900 bytecodes/sec and 15,722 sends/sec a 2.8c VM
669,334 bytecodes/sec and 18,807 sends/sec with offical 2.8VM &Image
692,041 bytecodes/sec and 19,350 sends/sec with 3.0.xVM

I'd suggest you try it.

In looking at the 1.2 VM C source (MacSqueak 1.2) I can see that it's  
very unoptimized.

For interest sake I'd be glad to shake out any bugs etc, I'll note that  
Dan gave me a 588K image and in the past
we build a Vm to work within a 1MB memory space (MMM I see that doesn't  
appear to have any sound support in it).

But I think doing basic sound on an 8mb is feasible.

On Friday, December 13, 2002, at 09:02  AM, Randy Bohn wrote:

> I currently have Squeak VM 1.2 on a PowerBook 170 (25 MHz 68030, 8MB
> RAM). I am building a morse code trainer on it. I wonder if I should be
> using a later VM. The sound output is acceptable as long as I padd it
> with silence (can't make sound and update the screen at the same time).
> I think I am using all of the 8MB RAM, need to spend some time
> shrinking the image.
> As this is a 'serious' retro-computing project I'm satisfied with the
> MVC UI--support for Morphic is not necessary. I don't plan to use the
> network either.
>
> Would I get better performance from a 2.x VM?
>
> Thanks,
> RSBohn
> (Using 20th century technology to learn 19th century technology)
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
> http://mailplus.yahoo.com
>
>
>
--
======================================================================== 
===
John M. McIntosh <johnmci at smalltalkconsulting.com> 1-800-477-2659
Corporate Smalltalk Consulting Ltd.  http://www.smalltalkconsulting.com
======================================================================== 
===